MULTI-MODAL STUDY

Document Sample
MULTI-MODAL STUDY Powered By Docstoc
					                       MULTI-MODAL STUDY


NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR
                     IN THE EAST MIDLANDS




                            FINAL REPORT




                               APRIL 2002
                                                                         MULTI-MODAL STUDY




                NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR
                                                                      IN THE EAST MIDLANDS




                                                                                   FINAL REPORT




                                                                                              APRIL 2002

                                                                            WS Atkins Consultants Limited
                                                          Television House, Mount Street Manchester M2 5NT
                                                                    Tel: 0161 839 3113 Fax: 0161 839 3137

                                                                          E-mail: m1mms@atkinsglobal.com




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc.Doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




                                                      Contents

1.          INTRODUCTION                                      1
            BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY                           1
            THE STUDY                                         2
            MANAGEMENT OF THE STUDY                           5
            THE STUDY AREA                                    6
            FORMAT OF REPORT                                  7
            CONSULTANT TEAM                                   7

2.          STUDY APPROACH                                    9
            OVERVIEW                                          9
            PHASE 1                                           9
            PHASE 2                                          10
            PHASE 3                                          13
            PHASE 4                                          13

3.          CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION                   15
            INTRODUCTION                                     15
            THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP                     15
            THE WIDER REFERENCE GROUP                        16
            ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS                             17
            ELECTED MEMBERS                                  18
            THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY                           18
            CONSULTATION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC             19
               Phase 1 Consultation                          19
               Phase 2 Public Consultation                   27
               Phase 3 Public Consultation                   27
            THE MEDIA                                        30

4.          STUDY OBJECTIVES                                 31
            INTRODUCTION                                     31
            DEFINING OBJECTIVES                              31
            LOCAL OBJECTIVES                                 32
               Environment                                   32
               Safety                                        32
               Economy                                       33
               Accessibility                                 33
               Integration                                   33
               Other Objectives                              34

5.          PROBLEMS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES               35
            INTRODUCTION                                     35
            PROBLEMS                                         35
            ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS                           35
            OPPORTUNITIES                                    37




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc     Contents
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




6.          DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGY OPTIONS                                     41
            INTRODUCTION                                                        41
            DECISION AREAS                                                      42
               Railways                                                         43
               Road Passenger transport                                         43
               Motorway                                                         44
               Strategic Road Network                                           44
               Strategic Park and Ride                                          44
               Transport Change                                                 45
            FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FREIGHT OPTIONS                        45
               Direct Measures Aimed at Social Costs                            47
               Direct Measures Aimed at Congestion                              48
               Measures Aimed at Influencing Mode Choice                        49
               Measures Connected with Economic Development and Land Use        51
               Measures Aimed at the Customer                                   51
               Measures Aimed at Co-ordination                                  52
            LAND USE / REGENERATION OPTIONS                                     52
            EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT                                               53
            OPTION DEFINITION PROCESS                                           54
            DO-MINIMUM SCHEMES                                                  54
               Motorways and Trunk Roads                                        54
               Local Authority Roads                                            55
               Heavy Rail                                                       56
               Road Passenger Transport                                         57
               Park and Ride                                                    57
               Freight                                                          57
            STRATEGY PACKAGES                                                   57
            STRATEGY TESTING AND ASSESSMENT                                     63
               The Environment of the Study Area                                67
               Environmental Assessment                                         69
            DEVELOPMENT OF COMPOSITE STRATEGY PACKAGES                          72
            SCHEMES REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION                          72
               Public transport options                                         73
               Motorway Options                                                 74
               Strategic Road Options                                           74
               Policy Options                                                   75
               Assessment of Highway Schemes                                    79
               Assessment of Public Transport Schemes                           79
            FORMULATION OF THE DRAFT PREFERRED STRAEGY                          80
               Land-Use Scenarios                                               80

7.          THE RECOMMENDED STRATEGY                                            85
            INTRODUCTION                                                        85
            SUMMARY OF STRATEGY BENEFITS                                        87
            STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS                                               88
            HEAVY RAIL                                                          89
               Train Service Improvements                                       90
               Inter-regional services                                          90
               Inter-Urban services                                             92
               Urban Triangle services                                          93
               Rail capacity problems                                           94
               Railway Infrastructure Improvements                              95

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                        Contents
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



               Railway Stations                                        97
            ROAD BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT                               102
               New Bus Services                                       102
               Bus Priority Measures                                  103
            STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE                                   103
            MOTORWAY                                                  104
               Junctions                                              104
               Mainline                                               106
               Form of Motorway Widening                              109
            STRATEGIC ROADS                                           110
            OTHER INTERVENTIONS CRITICAL TO SUCCESS                   112
               Policy Interventions                                   112
               Public Transport Co-ordination                         118
               Integrated Public Transport Ticketing                  118
               Value for Money Assessment of Rail Schemes             119
               Public Transport Fares/Charges                         119
               Motorway Capacity Management                           120
               Freight                                                121
               Road User Charging                                     123
               Enforcement                                            123
               Land-Use Policies                                      124
            WIDER ADVERSE IMPACTS                                     128
               Derby                                                  128
               Derbyshire                                             129
               Nottingham                                             129
               Nottinghamshire                                        129
               Leicester                                              130
               Leicestershire                                         130
               Impacts Beyond The Study Area                          131
            OTHER SCHEMES AND INTERVENTIONS TESTED                    132
               Road User Charging                                     132
               South Nottinghamshire Rail Schemes                     135
               Re-opening of the Melton Mowbray Line                  135
               Extending NET to Mansfield                             136
               The Central Railway Proposal                           137
               New East-West Strategic Highway                        137
               Affects of Different Land-Use Scenarios                139

8.          STRATEGY APPRAISAL                                        141
            INTRODUCTION                                              141
            APPRAISAL AGAINST THE LOCAL OBJECTIVES                    141
               Enhance the Environment                                141
               Improve Network Integrity and Safety                   145
               Meeting the Economic Ambitions of the Region           146
            APPRAISAL AGAINST THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES       163
               Methodology                                            163
               Assessment Scales                                      164
               Environmental Appraisal                                164
               Safety                                                 171
               Economy                                                171
               Accessibility                                          173
               Integration                                            174
            SUPPORTING ANALYSES                                       178

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc               Contents
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



               Distribution and Equity                           178
               Affordability and Financial Sustainability        178
               Practicality and Public Acceptability             180
            CONTRIBUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT‟S TEN YEAR PLAN       184
               Public Service Agreement                          184

9.          STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION                              186
            POLICY INTERVENTIONS                                 186
            RAIL                                                 186
            LIGHT RAIL                                           186
            BUS/COACH                                            187
            STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE                              187
            MOTORWAY                                             187
            STRATEGIC ROADS                                      187
            FREIGHT                                              188
            FUNDING SOURCES                                      188

10.         CONSULTATION ON THE RECOMMENDED STRATEGY             192
            INTRODUCTION                                         192
            CONSULTATION RESPONSE                                192
            WIDER REFERENCE GROUP FINAL CONSULTATION             193
            MEDIA BRIEFING                                       196
            FINAL STUDY NEWSLETTER                               196

11.         NEXT STEPS                                           197




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc          Contents
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



     TABLES
           Table ‎ .1 – Respondent Classification
                 3                                                                                    20
           Table ‎ .2 – Strength of Feeling – Weighted Average*
                 3                                                                                    22
           Table ‎ .3 – Measures to be Given Priority
                 3                                                                                    24
           Table ‎ .4 – Further Comments – Problems and Solutions
                 3                                                                                    25
           Table ‎ .1 – Summary of Main Problems
                 5                                                                                    36
           Table ‎ .2 – Summary of Possible Areas for Investigation
                 5                                                                                    39
           Table ‎ .1 – Initial Strategy Packages and Phasing
                 6                                                                                    59
           Table ‎ .2 – Summary of Initial Strategy Test Results (2021)
                 6                                                                                    64
           Table ‎ .3 – Simplified Strategy Assessment
                 6                                                                                    66
           Table ‎ .4 – Composite Strategy Packages and Phasing
                 6                                                                                    76
           Table ‎ .5 – Proposed Final Package with Tests and Alternatives
                 6                                                                                    81
           Table ‎ .1 – Summary Transport Statistics
                 7                                                                                    87
           Table ‎ .2 – Summary Economic Statistics
                 7                                                                                    88
           Table ‎ .3 – Summary of Recommended Station Improvements
                 7                                                                                   101
           Table ‎ .4 – List of Strategic Park and Ride sites
                 7                                                                                   103
           Table ‎ .5 – Freight Strategy
                 7                                                                                   122
           Table ‎ .6 – Summary of Recommended Strategy
                 7                                                                                   125
           Table ‎ .7 – Impact of AM peak 2021 Light Vehicle Mode Choice
                 7                                                                                   133
           Table ‎ .8 – Stress Levels
                 7                                                                                   134
           Table ‎ .9 – Stress Levels - % of Links
                 7                                                                                   140
           Table ‎ .1 – Environmental Assessment
                 8                                                                                   143
           Table ‎ .2 – Preferred Package Journey Times Relative to do Minimum for public
                 8
                          transport (rail)                                                           149
           Table ‎ .3 – Preferred Package Journey Times Relative to do Minimum for
                 8
                          Highway                                                                    149
           Table ‎ .4 – Highway Network and M1 AM Stress Levels (2001 and 2021)
                 8                                                                                   150
           Table ‎ .5 – M1 Journey Time Comparison, normalised to Base Year
                 8                                                                                   157
           Table ‎ .6 – Assessment of Integration (Local/Regional)
                 8                                                                                   160
           Table ‎ .7 – Local Appraisal Summary Table
                 8                                                                                   161
           Table ‎ .8 – Wider Impacts
                 8                                                                                   172
           Table ‎ .9 – Population with access to new Public Transport Facilities within a
                 8
                          250m Radius                                                                173
           Table ‎ .10 – Assessment of Integration (National)
                 8                                                                                   176
           Table ‎ .11 – Recommended Strategy: Central Government Appraisal Summary
                 8
                          Table                                                                      177
           Table ‎ .12 – Transport Economic Efficiency
                 8                                                                                   181
           Table ‎ .13 – Affordability and Financial Sustainability: Public Sector Investment
                 8                                                                                   182
           Table ‎ .14 – Affordability and Financial Sustainability: Private Sector Investment
                 8                                                                                   183
           Table ‎ .15 – Recommended Strategy and DTLR‟s Public Service Agreement
                 8                                                                                   185




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                              Contents
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



     FIGURES
           Figure ‎ .1 – Highway Schemes Currently on Hold.
                  1                                                                             3
           Figure ‎ .2 – M1MMS Study Area
                  1                                                                             8
           Figure ‎ .1 – Phase 1 Methodology
                  2                                                                            11
           Figure ‎ .2 – Coverage of Transportation Models
                  2                                                                            11
           Figure ‎ .3 – Phase 2 Methodology
                  2                                                                            11
           Figure ‎ .4 – Phase 3 Methodology
                  2                                                                            14
           Figure ‎ .5 – Phase 4 Methodology
                  2                                                                            14
           Figure ‎ .1 – Study Newsletter No. 1
                  3                                                                            21
           Figure ‎ .2 – Study Newsletter No. 2
                  3                                                                            26
           Figure ‎ .3 – Study Newsletter No. 3
                  3                                                                            29
           Figure ‎ .4 – Attitudes to Proposed Measures
                  3                                                                            29
           Figure ‎ .1 – Strategic Freight Framework
                  6                                                                            46
           Figure ‎ .2 – CO2 Emissions by Mode
                  6                                                                            49
           Figure ‎ .1 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: New Public Transport Services
                  7                                                                           127
           Figure ‎ .2 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: New Rail Infrastructure
                  7                                                                           127
           Figure ‎ .3 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: New Highway Infrastructure
                  7                                                                           127
           Figure ‎ .4 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: M1 Junction 23A – Junction 24A
                  7                                                                           127
           Figure ‎ .1 – Unemployment Rates
                  8                                                                           151
           Figure ‎ .2 – Deprivation Indicators
                  8                                                                           151
           Figure ‎ .3 – Zone Travel Times to East Midlands Airport – Do Min
                  8                                                                           151
           Figure ‎ .4 – Zone Travel Times to East Midlands Airport – Preferred Package
                  8                                                                           151
           Figure ‎ .1 – Implementation Programme
                  9                                                                           190
           Figure ‎ 0.1 – Summary of WRG Responses to the Recommended Strategy
                  1                                                                           193
           Figure ‎ 0.2 – Summary of Local Authority Responses to the Recommended
                  1
                          Strategy                                                            194
           Figure ‎ 0.3 – Final Study Newsletter
                  1                                                                           196




     APPENDICES
     Appendix A Study Bibliography
     Appendix B Steering Group and Management Group Membership
     Appendix C Wider Reference Group Membership




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                       Contents
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




1.          INTRODUCTION

            BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1         The Transport White Paper A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone published in
            July 1998 set out the Government‟s policy for improving the country‟s transport system in
            an integrated manner. The White Paper recognised that within an integrated framework,
            all modes of transport had a role to play. Furthermore, the White Paper recognised the
            relationship between land-use and the transport system and how planning policies could
            facilitate and support the development of an integrated transport system.

1.2         Alongside the White Paper the Government published in July 1998 the findings of its
            strategic review of the roads programme (A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England) it
            inherited from the previous administration. The report developed a Targeted Programme
            of Improvements (TPI) to the trunk road network to be taken forward by the Highways
            Agency over a period of seven years. In addition, the report proposed a series of studies
            to address problems on the strategic trunk road network not covered by measures in the
            short term Targeted Programme of Improvements.

1.3         The North/South Movements on the M1 Corridor in the East Midlands (M1MMS
            pronounced mimms) is one of a series of such studies established as a direct response to
            the recommendations of the trunk roads review. The immediate origin of M1MMS was the
            proposals for widening the motorway, including a bypass of Kegworth (Figure 1.1) that
            were placed on hold in the roads review.

1.4         The remit for M1MMS was to develop a long-term (20-year) transport strategy that
            addressed the problems in the study area. Within that context the study was to set out a
            plan pf specific interventions to address the most urgent problems. The study was also
            tasked with making recommendations about the motorway widening schemes that had
            been placed on hold.

1.5         A number of the trunk road schemes within the study area are proposed for de-trunking.
            Reflecting this, and the local authorities‟ existing transport functions, it was recognised that
            implementation of significant elements of the recommended plan may fall to the study area
            local authorities as part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. It was also recognised
            that the local transport plan authorities would need to work with transport operators and
            that there would be a significant role for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). The Highways
            Agency retains responsibility for the motorways in the study area as well as the remaining
            trunk road network. The Agency will be tasked with taking forward any recommendations
            made in relation to this part of the network.

1.6         The recommendations of the North/South Movements on the M1 study will be considered
            by the Regional Planning Body, the East Midlands Regional Local Government
            Association, which in turn will make its recommendations on the study to the Secretary of
            State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his consideration. This Final
            Report forms the study‟s recommendations to the East Midlands Regional Planning Body.
            In due course, the Secretary of State will announce the results of his consideration of the
            Regional Planning Body‟s recommendations.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      1
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



1.7         As the principle mechanism for implementing the non-trunk road elements of the
            recommended strategy will be the Local Transport Plan process, each of the local
            authorities is invited to support the study‟s recommended strategy relating to their area as
            set out in this report.

1.8         In July 2000, the Government published Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan, a report which
            established both the scale of expenditure on transport in the next ten years as well as the
            Government‟s priorities for that expenditure. The 10 Year Plan provides the resources to
            implement decisions arising from the multi-modal studies. To fund measures that will be
            pursued following the multi-modal study process, and which would otherwise not have
            been part of the anticipated LTP process, the 10 Year Plan allows for additional resources
            to those that would normally be anticipated to be made available to the LTP authorities.

            THE STUDY

1.9         The study brief identified ten separate study phases as follows:

                    Phase 1: Inception

                    Phase 2: Scoping

                    Phase 3: Transport Data Collection and Modelling

                    Phase 4: Strategy Development

                    Phase 5: Option Identification

                    Phase 6: Consultation

                    Phase 7: Option Appraisal

                    Phase 8: Implementation Plan

                    Phase 9: Study Management

                    Phase 10: Ad Hoc Requests

1.10        Whilst each of the above phases has been completed, they do not form a sequence of
            phases that have been completed one after the other. For example, consultation has been
            carried out throughout the study process not just after completion of Phase 5. Similarly,
            Option Appraisal has been undertaken at earlier stages of the study as a means of
            selecting or removing schemes from an initial long-list of options. In practice, the study
            was undertaken in four successive phases and these are described below.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  2
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



Figure 1.1 – Highway Schemes Currently on Hold.

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc          3
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



1.11        The principle activities undertaken in Phase 1 were:

                    Inception and Scoping – review of local plans and policies, establishing the process
                     for the main body of the study, and agreeing the data collection needs.

                    Identification of problems, issues and opportunities in the study area;

                    Objective Definition – detailed definition of study objectives and their relationship to
                     the Central Government (NATA) Objectives.

1.12        Phase two of the study included the following activities:

                    Data Collection – traffic, travel, environmental;

                    Consultation and participation;

                    Strategy Development;

                    Development of a long-list of potential schemes and interventions that could form
                     part of the long-term strategy; and

                    Development of transport models;

1.13        Tasks undertaken during Phase three were:

                    Development of four initial strategy packages from the long-list of interventions;

                    Testing and assessment of the initial strategy packages;

                    Extensive public consultation and participation;

                    Testing and assessment of two composite packages; and

                    Development of a draft preferred (core) package and test options.

1.14        Tasks undertaken during Phase four were:

                    Formal consultation and participation;

                    Testing of the draft preferred package and non-core options;

                    Development of final package;

                    Detailed appraisal of final package;

                    Continuation of the consultation and participation programme;

                    Distillation of options into a practical and sustainable transport strategy;

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       4
April 2002
    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                     FINAL REPORT



                    Development of advice on policy interventions for travel demand management and
                     behaviour change;

                    Development of advice on the affordability and deliverability of the proposed strategy;
                     and

                    Handover.

1.15        Consultation with professionals, elected members and the wider public and their
            participation in the study formed integral parts of the approach to each phase. The
            consultation and participation process provided input into the definition of the study‟s
            objectives and the identification of the study area‟s problems, issues and opportunities. It
            contributed to the derivation of the potential strategy components that were examined in
            detail in phases 3 and 4. Consultation and participation played a central role in phase 3,
            informing the development of a recommended strategy from the options identified,
            modelled and assessed. It also provided an assessment of the degree of support for the
            recommended strategy.

1.16        The overall study methodology was developed following due consideration of the
            Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR)1 produced Guidance
            on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS).

            MANAGEMENT OF THE STUDY

1.17        The Government established a process for the local management of multi-modal studies.
            The day-to-day management of M1MMS was undertaken by the Government Office for the
            East Midlands (GOEM), which was also responsible for budgetary control of the study.

1.18        The Government has ensured maximum participation in the multi-modal studies since local
            knowledge, advice and expertise was considered essential to further understanding
            transport problems within the study areas. It also recognised that local ownership of the
            solutions to these problems is essential if they are to be delivered successfully. A Project
            Management Group was established for the study and was made up of key partners within
            the study area, including local authorities, government agencies, transport operators,
            regional bodies and representatives from user and interest groups. The Project
            Management Group met on a monthly basis with other meetings as necessary.

1.19        The role of the Project Management Group was to provide advice and guidance to the
            consultant team and GOEM‟s study managers, and to provide a source of knowledge,
            experience and information from which the consultants could draw. The Project
            Management Group also had an important role in monitoring the findings emerging from
            the study. The group provided a focus through which wider views were fed into the study
            process.

1.20        Members of the Project Management Group brought the views and experience of their
            respective organisation to the Management Group, but did not officially represent its
            interest. The Project Management Group will pass on to the Regional Planning Body (East


1
  As a result of the reorganisation of Government departments that took place in June 2001, the responsibility for
transport passed from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to a new
department, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). For clarity, DTLR is used
throughout this report, even when referring to the pre-June 2001 department.
File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                            5
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



            Midlands Regional Local Government Association) its view on the findings of the study.
            Management Group members‟ organisations are not bound by the recommendations of the
            study. However, each study area local authority has been formally consulted on the draft
            strategy.

1.21        The Management Group has made a valued and constructive contribution to the conduct
            of the study and the formulation of its recommendations. The contribution of the Group is,
            in part, reflected in the study‟s recommendations for a continued inter-authority liaison
            group to oversee the implementation of the recommended strategy. The consultant team
            would like to acknowledge the contribution made by each Project Management Group
            member and thank them for their input.

1.22        As M1MMS is one of a number of multi-modal studies being undertaken within the East
            Midlands, a second group, the Regional Steering Group was established to co-ordinate
            and oversee the overall direction and progress of all studies within the region. This Group
            met on a bi-monthly basis. Some members were common to the Project Management
            Group but others were specifically selected for their wider regional perspective. The
            Regional Steering Group members also made a valued and constructive contribution to the
            study and the consultant team would like to acknowledge the contribution made by each
            Regional Steering Group member and thank them for their input.

            THE STUDY AREA

1.23        The study terms of reference defined the study area as shown in Figure 1.2. It extends
            from The M1 Junction with the M69 (Junction 21) in the south to M1 Junction 30 north of
            Chesterfield. A separate Tranche one multi-modal study for the A453 between the M1 and
            Nottingham has also been in progress at the same time as M1MMS. The study area for
            the A453 study lies wholly within the M1MMS area as shown in Figure 1.2. A number of
            other studies also interface with M1MMS including:

                    South and West Yorkshire MMS (SWYMMS) to the north;

                    London to South Midlands MMS (LSM) to the south;

                    West to East Midlands MMS (W2E) to the west; and

                    A38 Derby Road Based Study

1.24        Liaison has been maintained with each of the above studies during the course of M1MMS
            as required.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 6
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




            FORMAT OF REPORT

1.25        The structure of this report is as follows:

                    The study brief requires this report to provide an overview of the phase
                     methodologies and this is presented in Chapter 2;

                    Given its central role in the study‟s methodology, a summary of the consultation and
                     participation programme is given in chapter 3;

                    Chapter 4 describes the objectives for the transport strategy;

                    Chapter 5 provides an overview of the problems, issues and opportunities facing the
                     study area;

                    The process of developing potential strategy options is described in Chapter 6;

                    Chapter 7 details the study‟s recommended strategy;

                    The appraisal of the recommended strategy and a proposed implementation plan is
                     described in chapter 8;

                    Chapter 9 details the issues relating to the implementation of the strategy;

                    The results on consultation on the draft recommended strategy are described in
                     chapter 10; and

                    Chapter 11 discusses the study‟s handover process and how the strategy
                     implementation will progress.

1.26        This report has three appendices:

                    Appendix A is a bibliography of reports produced during the course of the study;

                    Appendix B provides lists of the Project Management and Regional Steering Group
                     membership; and

                    Appendix C lists the membership of the Wider Reference Group

            CONSULTANT TEAM

1.27        The North/South Movements on the M1 in the East Midlands study was undertaken by a
            consortium comprising of WS Atkins and Steer Davies Gleave with specialist advice
            provided by MDS Transmodal (Freight), Llewelyn Davies (Land-Use) and Ecotec Research
            and Consulting (Economy/Regeneration).

1.28        The consortium was appointed following a competitive tendering process, itself undertaken
            in accordance with Government regulations and best practice.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     7
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



Figure 1.2 – M1MMS Study Area

Click here for image.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc          8
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




2.          STUDY APPROACH

            OVERVIEW

2.1         The study was undertaken in four phases and an overview of the approach to each of
            these phases is provided in this chapter. Given the central role of wider participation and
            consultation to the study process, this aspect is described in greater detail in Chapter 3.

            PHASE 1

2.2         The overall structure of phase one of the study is shown in Figure 2.1.

2.3         The initial task of the study team was to complete an Inception Report setting out details of
            all policy documents relevant to the study and confirmation of the staffing proposals. This
            was followed by the three month scoping study which included a review of local plans and
            policies, an assessment of problems, issues and opportunities and confirmation of data
            collection needs.

2.4         The definition of objectives for the transport strategy is central to the study process. This
            was an interactive process and included a full day facilitated workshop with the Project
            Management Group. During this day, the key transport issues were discussed and the
            specific areas of intervention that needed to be investigated were agreed. An outcome
            from the day was an agreed set of local study objectives. The local objectives provided an
            assessment framework against which early assessment of strategies and scheme options
            could be tested. A full description of the local study objectives is provided in Chapter 4.

2.5         The identification of problems, issues and opportunities provided a greater understanding
            of the issues that would need to be addressed and therefore formed the starting point for
            the development of the long term transport strategy. This process was informed by a
            number of parallel tasks. As part of the programme of participation and consultation, a
            series of focus groups were held with members of the Wider Reference Group as well as
            the general public.

2.6         Some 30,000 copies of the first edition of the study Newsletter (News Update) were issued
            in Spring 2000 which included a questionnaire about transport problems and asked for
            suggested solutions. A detailed analysis of the responses formed part of the identification
            of Problems, Issues and Opportunities.

2.7         The assessment of problems, issued and opportunities was informed by a review of study
            area development plans and available data on land use and the economy. The document
            review covered National policy documents, the emerging Draft RPG (including the draft
            Regional Transport Strategy), the Regional Economic Strategy, Local Plans and Local
            Transport Plans.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   9
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



2.8         In order to confirm data collection needs, all available data was collated and reviewed.
            The detailed methodology and scope of the transport models was confirmed following
            discussions with the study Project Management Group and this enabled the traffic and
            travel data collection needs to be confirmed. It was agreed with the Project Management
            Group that the transport models needed to cover a geographic area sufficient to assess
            wide area re-routing that may occur as a result of the schemes and policies developed for
            the study. The agreed model area thus extended from the M6/A14 in the south to the
            M18/A1 junction to the north. It included the A1 in the east and the A38 to the west. The
            area of focus was to be modelled with detailed junction simulation (core area) whilst the
            outer area would be modelled in less detail (buffer area). The network area for the
            transport models is shown in Figure 2.2.

            PHASE 2

2.9         The Phase two methodology is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

2.10        The initial tasks during Phase two were the completion of the major programme of data
            collection that had been agreed in the first phase of the study. The following provides a
            summary of the traffic and travel data collected for the study. Other previously available
            data were also used for the study.

                    Approximately 30,000 highway origin-destination questionnaires were completed
                     from 28 separate locations including four motorway service areas. The surveys
                     included specifically designed freight questionnaires. Volumetric counts classified by
                     vehicle type also completed at each location.

                    Over 12,000 questionnaires were distributed to rail travellers, with over 3,000
                     completed questionnaires returned.

                    Rail ticket data was obtained from Train Operators for use in model development.

                    About 4,000 questionnaires were distributed to bus and coach travellers.

                    Junction turning counts at all motorway junctions and key adjacent junctions.

                    Motorway through traffic surveys.

                    Video surveys of goods vehicles

                    Journey time surveys along the motorway and identified other key routes.

2.11        In parallel with the traffic and travel data collection, the highway, public transport and mode
            choice models were begun to be developed. A separate national freight model was
            updated using locally collected data for use in the study.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     10
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



Figure 2.1 – Phase 1 Methodology

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).

Figure 2.2 – Coverage of Transportation Models

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).


Figure 2.3 – Phase 2 Methodology

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc         11
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



2.12        It was aimed from the outset to ensure that environmental considerations were taken fully
            into account in developing options for the study. As a means to ensuring this, a
            comprehensive environmental constraints mapping exercise was undertaken by collating
            all relevant data of interest within the study area. Requests for data were made to local
            authorities, government departments, statutory bodies and other environmental
            organisations.

2.13        Consultation and participation continued through phase two of the study and details are
            included in Chapter 3.

2.14        A detailed analysis of the collected highway travel data was undertaken to identify a
            number of characteristics as described below, the key aim being to identify movements
            that may be catered for by improving public transport provision.

                    Significant movements between key centres

                    Short distance motorway trips

                    Longer distance dog-leg movements using relatively short sections of motorway

2.15        In parallel, a detailed analysis of the public transport data was undertaken to derive the
            current AM peak and average off-peak flows by rail and express coach/bus services. This
            was used to enable calibration and validation of the detailed modelling, as well as to
            identify the services where rail/coach were performing well or poorly.

2.16        Following identification of problems, issues and opportunities and completion of the
            detailed travel data analysis, an initial long-list of potential schemes and interventions was
            developed that could form part of the long-term strategy. The results of the transport data
            analysis and the emerging long-list of options were presented to a conference of the Wider
            Reference Group at the University of Leicester on 30 November 2000.

2.17        Following the Wider Reference Group conference, a report outlining draft strategy
            packages was issued inviting comment on the proposed approach and the schemes
            included in the long list of options. Further details are provided in Chapter 3.

2.18        During this phase of the study, the detailed highway and public transport models were
            developed.

2.19        A final element of work in this phase related to the development of a range of future land
            use scenarios that would be used to test impacts of different land use policies upon
            transport needs, as well as how different transport interventions may affect future land use
            policy. These are described in detail in Chapter 6.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   12
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




            PHASE 3

2.20        The Phase 3 process is illustrated in Figure 2.4.

2.21        In compliance with the Project Management Group‟s wish to test a strategy that included
            no new highway construction, but a very high level of public transport investment coupled
            with stringent travel restraint and demand management measures, four initial strategy
            packages were developed from the long-list of interventions and these are described in
            detail in Chapter Six.

2.22        Transport and environmental assessments were completed for each strategy. Following
            this, a number of schemes were discounted from further consideration. This process is
            documented in the Option Identification Report. A second round of two strategy packages
            was developed with the schemes and interventions that remained under consideration and
            the outputs were subject to the same level of assessment as the first round strategies.

2.23        Schemes included within the composite strategies were presented during an extensive
            public consultation and participation exercise and this is described in Chapter Three

2.24        This phase saw the detailed consideration of developing wider policy interventions that
            would form part of the final strategy.

            PHASE 4

2.25        The Phase 4 methodology is illustrated in Figure 2.5.

2.26        A further process refinement was undertaken following completion of the assessment of
            the composite strategies resulting in the development of a draft preferred package. Even
            at this stage a number of schemes were not fully resolved and these were therefore
            retained as options for further testing prior to confirming whether or not they should form
            part of the recommended strategy.

2.27        The draft preferred package was documented and reports issued to local authorities,
            elected representatives and Wider Reference Group Members for comment prior to
            finalising the preferred strategy. Details of this consultation are given in Chapter 10.

2.28        A major task through this phase was the further testing of the draft preferred package and
            the various non-core options. This process enabled a firm view to be taken of the
            schemes and intervention that were to be taken forward as the final strategy.

2.29        The detailed appraisal of final package in accordance with GOMMMS was completed in
            this final phase of the study. The elements of the final strategy have been distilled into
            solutions forming a practical and sustainable transport strategy.

2.30        The final technical aspect of the study was the development of an Implementation Plan
            giving advice on the affordability and deliverability of the proposed strategy.

2.31        Continuing the process of consultation and participation, the final study recommendations
            (a draft study report) were presented to the Project Management Group on 13 March 2002
            and to the Wider Reference Group on 21 March 2002.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                13
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



Figure 2.4 – Phase 3 Methodology

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).


Figure 2.5 – Phase 4 Methodology

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc         14
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


3.          CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION

            INTRODUCTION

3.1         Wide ranging consultation and participation with professionals, elected representatives and
            members of the public was, as indicated in the introduction to this report, a key feature of
            the whole study. Consultation thus engendered a sense of ownership and helped to
            reduce positions of entrenchment, facilitating future implementation.

3.2         As a means to providing access to study documents for the wider public, a study web site
            www.east-midlands-multi-modal-study.org.uk was developed early in the project and this
            was regularly updated with study reports and newsletters. The web site was supported by
            a study e-mail address m1mms@wsatkins.co.uk that could be used to raise queries and
            provide comment. In addition, a Freephone number was set up and advertised for people
            to ring with requests for information, and a Freepost address encouraged consultation
            responses.

3.3         There were several separate categories in the consultation and participation process:

                    the Project Management Group (PMG);

                    the Wider Reference Group (WRG);

                    elected members;

                    environmental interest group;

                    the business community; and

                    the general public.

3.4         The remainder of this chapter describes briefly the activities undertaken in each phase of
            the study with respect to each category of consultee.

            THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP

3.5         The objective of the consultation with the Project Management Group (PMG) could be
            stated as being to ensure full endorsement of the study methodology, and the process by
            which the study conclusions have been reached through providing an understanding of all
            the alternatives considered and their impacts or contributions towards achieving the study
            objectives. The PMG was thus involved in full, in the distillation of the initial long-list of
            scheme options that eventually led to the recommended strategy as presented in this
            report.

3.6         As part of the Scoping Phase of the project, a workshop was held with PMG members.
            This was successful in introducing some of the critical issues for the project, and identifying
            areas for further work in developing the strategy.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

3.7         At the subsequent monthly meetings of the Group, held at GOEM‟s offices in Nottingham
            and chaired by the GOEM study manager, the study team presented current progress and
            held detailed discussion with Group members. Additional meetings were held as
            appropriate. The organisations represented on the Project Management Group are listed
            in Appendix B.

3.8         Formal consultation presentations were also made to the Regional Steering Group on a bi-
            monthly basis. The Group as a whole was able to bring a wider regional perspective to the
            study. The organisations represented are also listed in Appendix B. Whilst several
            organisations were included in both Groups, and indeed also in the Wider Reference
            Group, individual representation was generally focused on just one Group.

            THE WIDER REFERENCE GROUP

3.9         The Wider Reference Group comprised more than 100 organisations, representing the full
            range of relevant interests across the study area. Member organisations included
            transport operators, transport user groups, resident and community associations and other
            local groups. A full list of WRG member organisations is given in Appendix C. The
            objective of consultation with this group was to ensure that all interested parties were
            informed of the study and its progress and had the opportunity to ensure that their interests
            were taken into account in the development of the strategy and elements of it.

3.10        At the start of the study, each WRG member was contacted and invited to one of four
            workshops spread across the study area. The output of these sessions provided the
            consultants with a better understanding of the role of the corridor, the current problems,
            emerging problems and issues, and possible solutions.

3.11        Each member of the WRG was subsequently invited to an all day planning conference at
            the University of Leicester on 30 November 2000. More than half the members attended
            the event. On this occasion, the consultants presented the results of the initial consultation
            process and of the traffic and passenger transport surveys, and introduced the concept of
            strategy options. A series of eight workshops then considered specific aspects in more
            detail – policy interventions, development and regeneration, freight, passenger transport,
            and four different parts of the study area. A number of useful points were made which
            served to aid the derivation of the consultants‟ “long-list” of possible interventions, and the
            draft strategy itself.

3.12        Following the Planning Conference, a Draft Strategy Development Consultation Report
            was prepared towards the end of December 2000 and circulated to members of the WRG
            for comment. The six week consultation period allowed organisations to discuss the report
            at their committee meetings before responding. A total of 44 responses were received,
            some taking the opportunity to consider the balance of the differing strategies or their
            potential impact, others choosing to reiterate their views.

3.13        From the wide range of views expressed, it was clear that, while some room for agreement
            existed, it was unlikely to be comprehensive. It was acknowledged that there were no
            easy solutions to the transport problems faced in the region. The recommendations
            resulting from the study had to be seen to be multi-modal and consider the effects of
            proposed interventions.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

3.14        The second WRG Conference was held in the Derby Assembly Rooms on 28 th September
            2001. The conference was convened to give member organisations the opportunity to
            consider the emerging findings of the study. The consultants presented the key outputs
            from the analyses of the highways and public transport modelling, and described the
            careful consideration that had been given to environmental issues throughout the study.

3.15        The 45 attendees discussed these findings before breaking into three separate workshops
            to consider the three areas the overall study – north, central and south. A number of
            detailed comments were made regarding the potential strategy components, their
            desirability, feasibility and likely impacts.

3.16        At the end of December 2001, a document inviting comment on the draft preferred
            package was issued to members of the WRG. The report detailed the schemes and
            measures included in the final draft package and all the options that had been considered
            during the study. Consultees were invited to comment by the end of January 2002, so that
            their views could be taken into account by the consultants and PMG in finalising their
            advice.

3.17        In response to this invitation, some 60 submissions were received. The majority offered
            broad support to the strategy, though there were some reservations with respect to local
            issues and specific elements of the proposals.

            ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

3.18        From the outset of the study, representatives of the major environmental groups in the
            study area made known their feelings regarding the importance of environmental
            evaluation in considering the potential solutions to transport problems in the corridor. As
            the study progressed towards formulation of strategies, significant concern was expressed
            by those groups who believed that the study had lost sight of the environmental
            requirements of the brief. In addition to the WRG conferences, therefore, a number of
            meetings were held with representatives of environmental interest groups.

3.19        The first meeting held on 28 July 2001 was arranged in a seminar format with
            presentations from study team members followed by a question and answer session and
            general discussion. A second meeting was held at the request of environmental interest
            groups during the major public consultation period in November 2001.

3.20        Regional and National representatives from the four Statutory Environmental bodies were
            invited to a meeting in December 2001. Regional representatives from English Nature,
            English Heritage and the Countryside Agency attended.             At this meeting, the
            environmental assessment process adopted for the major schemes was discussed and
            agreed.

3.21        Finally, in January 2002, a further meeting was held with the East Midlands Transport
            Activists Roundtable (EMTAR) to discuss issues related to the study team‟s policy
            intervention proposals with particular respect to those enabling behavioural change.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            ELECTED MEMBERS

3.22        Where elected members were concerned, the objective of consultation was to ensure that
            all relevant members were informed of the study, its methods and progress, so they had
            the opportunity to ensure that their interests were taken into account in the development of
            the strategy and elements of it.

3.23        During the first two phases of the study, each of the MPs and MEPs was sent a copy of the
            two newsletter Updates and invited to comment. On 25th January 2001, a briefing event
            was held for elected representatives at the offices of GOEM in Nottingham. The event was
            aimed at eliciting views for the study team to consider in the subsequent stages of the
            process. The event was attended by 31 representatives - including two Members of
            Parliament, local elected members and local authority officers. GOEM officers and
            consultants from both the M1 and the A453 studies facilitated the proceedings.

3.24        The wide-ranging discussion, which followed the study teams‟ presentations, included
            consideration of option identification and evaluation. Road-based options were thought
            unlikely to provide a full solution to the problems and, if any were adopted, they would
            need to be accompanied by complementary measures to address issues of modal choice.

3.25        Just prior to the commencement of the main period of public consultation, a second
            briefing was held for all elected members. This took place at the Citilodge Hotel,
            Nottingham, on 12th September 2001, and again was facilitated by consultants from both
            the M1 and the A453 studies.

3.26        Some 49 elected members accepted the invitation to attend the briefing, including seven
            Members of Parliament and one Member of the European Parliament, or their appointed
            representatives. Attendees were given a full briefing with respect to the study‟s progress,
            and the nature of the likely strategy components. They were invited to test an interactive
            flash mapping facility demonstrating the strategies, and advised of the ensuing full
            consultation programme. The occasion also offered the opportunity for members to ask
            questions regarding the study.

3.27        In addition to the meetings outlined above, many consultation meetings have been held
            with individual local authorities including members and officers. Presentations have also
            been made to the East Midlands Regional Assembly‟s Transport Task Group, the Regional
            Local Government Association‟s Planning Forum Steering Group and the Planning Forum.

            THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

3.28        Whilst major interests in the region‟s business community were included in the Wider
            Reference Group, it was noticeable that the WRG events were not well attended by the
            business community. In a bid to overcome this, meetings were held with representatives
            of the Greater Nottingham Business Alliance under the auspices of the Nottinghamshire
            Chambers of Commerce. Meetings were offered to the Chambers of Commerce in
            Leicester and Derby but these offers were not taken up.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

3.29        The study team was particularly concerned to engage the major interests in the road and
            rail freight industry. A meeting was held with some twenty representatives of road haulage
            and rail freight operators, arranged with the assistance of the Freight Transport
            Association, during the summer of 2000. Whilst the results of consultation with the public
            had highlighted the perceived need to reduce lorry movements on the motorway, the
            operators made clear that there may not be significant scope for a change to rail freight.

3.30        A second meeting, held in December 2000 discussed more results from the freight surveys
            and explored options that could be considered as part of the study strategy.

3.31        Finally, a meeting with the East Midlands Development Agency was held in December
            2001 to describe the major elements of the draft proposed strategy.

            CONSULTATION WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC

            Phase 1 Consultation

3.32        Consultation with members of the general public was intended to inform them of the
            existence and progress of the study and to elicit their views regarding issues, problems
            and then the nature of the elements that could go into the final strategy. A number of
            different approaches were made during the study.

3.33        At the outset, a series of six group discussions was held with car users and with those who
            normally travelled by public transport, in Leicester, Nottingham and Chesterfield. The aim
            was to determine views on travel in the corridor by all modes, the problems and possible
            solutions.

3.34        Congestion in the M1 was generally acknowledged, with some avoiding using the
            motorway in anticipation of difficult journeys. Congestion was attributed to roadworks,
            accidents, speeding, poor standards of driving and the sheer volume of traffic, especially
            heavy goods vehicles. Widening the M1 was not, however, a popular solution.

3.35        Rail travel was generally well considered, if sometimes overcrowded, involving poor
            connections, and expensive. Long distance coach travel, if somewhat cramped, was
            relatively fast and cheaper than trains. Local buses were held in low regard. Pre-
            requisites to encouraging mode shift from car were high quality public transport services
            that engendered confidence – at a lower cost compared with current fare levels.

3.36        Interviews with rail and long distance coach passengers showed that most were travelling
            to see friends and relatives or for leisure purposes. Train users made more frequent
            journeys, up to once a month, and were more likely to have chosen to leave their car
            behind, in response to the speed of the train journey. Car availability was generally very
            low among the coach passengers.

3.37        Both rail and coach passengers were generally satisfied with the quality of their journey.
            While the low cost was a primary reason for choosing to travel by coach, more than a third
            of rail passengers thought the fare they had paid was too high. Most passengers thought
            they would be likely to repeat the journey experience. Increasing the frequency of their
            journeys was less likely and, for rail passengers at least, would depend upon a reduction in
            fares.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

3.38        As mentioned in Chapter 2, some 30,000 copies of the first study newsletter were Update
            (Figure 3.1) circulated widely during the late Spring/early Summer of 2000. This
            represented the first opportunity to obtain the views of the public at large, and recipients
            were invited to contribute their thoughts regarding the East Midlands area and its transport
            problems. A freepost questionnaire with each copy of the newsletter facilitated response.

3.39        Some 530 completed questionnaires and many written submissions were received, giving
            a response rate in the region of 2% - about the average for this type of approach.
            Response was fairly evenly spread across the study area.

3.40        The geographical spread of responses across the three postcode sectors (Table 3.1)
            within the study area was fairly even. Some 10% of all respondents came from
            households which do not have a car, and a similar proportion were from households with
            three or more cars. Multiple car ownership within the study area was highest in
            Leicestershire and lowest in Nottinghamshire.

                                             Table 3.1 – Respondent Classification

                                                                   HOME POSTCODE SECTOR                        Total

                                                      DE           LE            NG    Elsewhere          NA     %
       Cars in household:
                                                      %            %             %         %              %

       - None                                         12           11            11           6           17     10

       - One                                          35           29            44          36           50     36

       - Two                                          46           45            40          46           33     44

       - Three or more                                 7           15             5          12           -      10

       Total respondents                              136          133           134         112          6     521




                                                                         CARS IN HOUSEHOLD                     Total

       Home postcode sector                                 None          One          Two         Three or     %
                                                             %             %            %          more %

       - DE                                                  31            25          27            20         26
       - LE                                                  26            21          26            39         26

       - NG                                                  28            31          23            14         26
       - Elsewhere                                           13            21          22            27         21
       - NA                                                  2              2           1             -         1
       Total respondents                                     54            188         228           51        521




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

           Strength of Feeling

3.41        People were invited first to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a number of
            transport related statements. Five choices were offered from „Strongly Agree‟ to „Strongly
            Disagree‟. As is standard research practice, the results were coded from 1 to 5 for each
            statement, totalled, and divided by the number of respondents to provide a weighted
            average score. Thus the lower the score the more people were in agreement with the
            statement. A high score indicates disagreement.



Figure 3.1 – Study Newsletter No. 1

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

3.42        Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show that overall highest levels of agreement were expressed with the
            statements that there are too many vehicles on the road, train fares are too expensive, and
            the M1 is congested.

3.43        People were more likely than not to agree that long distance car travel is stressful and that
            train travel is best for long journeys. Whilst opinions varied little between those living in
            different parts of the study area, or beyond, the views of those from households without a
            car tended to differ from those likely to have a car available for some if not all their
            journeys. Those without a car were, for example, much more likely to be supportive of
            train travel, and more negative in their attitudes towards roads and car travel, than other
            respondents.

                                 Table 3.2 – Strength of Feeling – Weighted Average*

                                                                CARS IN HOUSEHOLD                Total

    To what extent do you agree that:                    None       One       Two       Three
                                                                                       or More

    Car is best for long journeys                         4.2        3.1       2.8       2.4       3.0

    Long distance car travel is stressful                 1.6        2.1       2.4       2.7       2.2

    There are too many vehicles on the road               1.1        1.7       1.8       2.1       1.7

    The M1 is convenient for my journeys                  3.7        2.5       2.2       2.1       2.4

    The M1 is congested                                   1.8        1.9       1.9       1.8       1.9

    Train travel is best for long journeys                1.4        2.0       2.4       2.5       2.1

    Trains are too expensive                              2.1        1.8       1.7       1.7       1.8

    Trains are too slow                                   3.6        3.4       3.2       2.9       3.3

    Trains are too infrequent                             2.9        2.6       2.5       2.4       2.5

    Coach travel is best for long journeys                3.5        3.6       3.8       4.1       3.7

    Coaches are too slow                                  2.6        2.5       2.6       2.3       2.5

    Coaches are too cramped                               2.2        2.3       2.4       2.0       2.3

    Total respondents                                     54         187       228       51       520
            * 1 = Agree strongly; 5 = Disagree strongly

3.44        Of the public transport options, train travel clearly had a better image than coach travel.
            Coaches generally were considered to be cramped and slow and, even amongst those
            without a car available, not the best mode for long journeys.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

           Measures for Priority

3.45        Respondents were given the opportunity to nominate three measures, from a list of 13, to
            be given the greatest priority. Most though not all chose to make all three nominations.

3.46        More than half the respondents thought priority should be given to offering cheaper train
            fares, and to providing better/more train services. Residents in the Nottingham postcode
            sector were particularly keen to see the latter, compared with those in Leicester and Derby.

3.47        It is interesting to note that those from non-car owning households, who might thus be
            expected to travel by train more frequently than those with a car, were less concerned
            about the level of rail fares than others, and more concerned about the quality/frequency of
            train services. This in keeping with their responses to the first question, and may reflect
            the fact that, as more frequent travellers, they have personal experience of the train
            operating companies‟ reduced fares policies.

3.48        The top five measures in Leicester and Derby, and the top four measures elsewhere,
            related essentially to public transport. Better access to stations, considered particularly
            important in Derby, and the provision of more park and ride facilities that would be likely to
            encourage mode shift from the car, had support among those from car-owning households.

3.49        Whilst, overall, just less than one in five respondents considered widening the M1 to be
            worthy of priority, there was support for the measure from a third of those from households
            owning three of more cars. Perhaps surprisingly, there was almost as much support for
            congestion charging as for widening the M1.

3.50        The building of more roads was supported by 12% of all respondents. As might be
            expected, this average encompassed a wide range of views. Non-car owners did not
            agree with more road building at all whilst some 22% of those from households with three
            or more cars thought it should be given priority.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

                                          Table 3.3 – Measures to be Given Priority

                                                                CARS IN HOUSEHOLD %                Total

    Give greatest priority to:                          None        One        Two    Three or       %
                                                                                       More

    Cheaper train fares                                   43         51         60       71          56

    Better/more train services                            61         52         50       45          51

    Better/more bus services                              32         38         27       18          30

    Better access to stations                             30         31         29       22          29

    More park and ride facilities                         4          23         26       22          22

    Expanding M1 to four lanes                            -          14         24       33          19

    Congestion charging                                   32         13         18       22          18

    Better PT information                                 35         15         15       16          17

    Cheaper coach/bus fares                               11         15         14        6          13

    Building more roads                                   -          8          15       22          12

    Workplace charging                                    24         17          5        4          11

    Better/more coach services                            9          10          5        4          7

    Total respondents                                     54        187         228      51         520

           Suggested Problems and Solutions

3.51        Some two-thirds of respondents took the opportunity to add further comments and
            suggestions on their questionnaires. These responses were divided into problems –
            frequently repetition of what had already been covered in the questionnaire to emphasise
            the severity of a particular problem – and possible solutions. Again many of the
            suggestions shown in Table 3.4 repeated the measures included in Question 2.

3.52        The primary problem noted was that of poor public transport integration, particularly with
            respect to bus feeder services at railway stations. As Table 3.4 illustrates, those most
            likely to be using public transport were the least likely to complain. This could be due
            either to the possibility that experience of public transport is better than perception, or that
            they come to accept lower standards of service than those which current car users would
            expect/demand.

3.53        Mention was made of the fact that cross-country journeys in the East Midlands were
            frequently difficult/lengthy/expensive. Some respondents indicated that the Study
            appeared to be placing too much emphasis on north-south movements and effectively
            ignoring other travel needs.

3.54        Most frequently mentioned solutions related to improving public transport services,
            primarily train services. Again those most likely to be reliant on public transport were more
            interested in service improvements than in fares reductions. There was some support




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            across the area for building more roads, the least from residents of the Nottingham area.
            Perhaps not surprisingly, mention of road building was correlated very strongly with
            household car ownership.

3.55        The concept of road pricing was mentioned by one in ten of those making comments –split
            between 6% who did not support it and 4% who thought it should be introduced. Whilst
            favouring more road building, those from households with three or more cars were also
            most likely to support road pricing, though the total number of respondents in this category
            was relatively small.

                             Table 3.4 – Further Comments – Problems and Solutions

                                                              CARS IN HOUSEHOLD %                Total

    Major problems identified:                         None       One       Two       Three       %
                                                                                     or More

    Poor PT integration/station access                   6        16         21         23        18

    Cross country journeys difficult                     9         7          6          7         7

    Train travel too expensive                           -         4          8         13         6

    Not enough trains                                    9         4          6          7         6

    Noise, pollution/environmental hazards               3         3          6          3         4

    Station parking – not enough/expensive               -         2          6         10         4

    Poor PT image                                        3         3          4         10         4

    Fuel tax/taxes too high                              -         3          4          7         3

    Most frequently suggested solutions:

    Improve PT services                                 39        35         30         33        33

    Reduce PT fares                                     18        17         11         23        15

    Build more/improve roads                             6        11         17         23        14

    Encourage use of other modes                        12        13         12         13        12

    Improve safety for cyclists/pedestrians             21        13          6          7        10

    Get HGVs off roads                                   -         9         11         13         9

    Improve rail/open disused lines                      6        11          5          3         7

    Do not widen M1                                      9         4          9          7         7

    No road pricing                                      -         6          8          7         6

    Introduce road pricing                               3         1          6          7         4

    Total respondents                                   33        114        142        30       319




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

Figure 3.2 – Study Newsletter No. 2

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            Phase 2 Public Consultation

3.56        The second of the study‟s newsletter Update (Figure 3.2), was issued during the Autumn
            2000. To avoid unnecessary printing costs, the availability of the newsletter was widely
            advertised and those interested in receiving a copy were invited to telephone the study‟s
            freephone hotline or to write to a freepost address.

3.57        A second round of group discussions was held, in Loughborough, Derby and Mansfield.
            Responses were essentially the same as in the initial round of groups. None of the study‟s
            objectives was viewed as less important than the others. Mode change would require
            cheaper, more efficient, more reliable, and more frequent public transport, and even then
            would be difficult to achieve without extensive education from a very young age.

3.58        Widening the M1 to four lanes did have some proponents, but in general it was not a
            favoured option. Whilst likely to relieve congestion at a specific location, providing
            additional road space would only “push the problem elsewhere”. The 4-lane section of
            motorway around Junction 24 was acknowledged to have caused problems.

            Phase 3 Public Consultation

3.59        The study‟s major consultation exercise was carried out towards the end of 2001. The
            public consultation was launched at a national conference, organised by the University of
            Nottingham held on 14 September 2001. This conference was preceded by a press
            briefing in the morning.

3.60        A study newsletter Update 3 (Figure 3.3), was prepared for wide distribution. The
            newsletter described the study objectives, findings to date and the transport and policy
            proposals under consideration. A questionnaire was included for people to use in
            providing their views as to the type and level of intervention that was considered
            appropriate and acceptable. This third edition of the newsletter was widely circulated and
            made available, and the freephone/freepost facilities were both in operation.

3.61        The most extensive phase of public consultation covered an eight week period, 26 th
            September to 15th November 2001. This comprised eight two-day manned exhibitions in
            Derby, Chesterfield, Nottingham, Mansfield, Leicester, Loughborough, Kegworth and East
            Midlands Airport, with one day “mini exhibitions” and surveys at the three rail and long
            distance coach stations, and the motorway service areas within the study area.

3.62        The exhibitions were well publicised in advance and were attended by a total of over 1,800
            members of the public. In particular, the venues at the three cities and Kegworth were well
            attended. However, attendance varied as was to be expected, in relation to the area, the
            specific venue and, it would appear, the perceived relevance of the study to local
            residents. Interest at the railway stations was modest at around 130 in total. At the
            motorway service areas interest was more limited, totalling less than 100 overall.

3.63        The proposals were described in detail to the attendees and they were all offered a copy of
            the study newsletter and encouraged to complete and return the reply paid questionnaire.
            In addition, a number of detailed information sheets were prepared explaining proposals in
            more detail and these were on display for members of the public to take away.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

3.64        In addition to the above, a household survey was carried out in the same areas on the first
            seven exhibitions listed above, and in Alfreton. The primary purpose of the household
            survey was to gather the views and opinions of a random sample of the residents of the
            study area, rather than rely on those of the self-selecting sample who chose to return a
            postal questionnaire. The target was 500 interviews in each area. Wards were selected to
            give a good geographical and socio-economic representation. Within each ward, quotas
            were set regarding gender and age, in accordance with the most recent census data
            available.

           Key Findings

3.65        The views of people in the study area varied widely, though the proportion that had
            strongly held extreme views was quite small. Thus there was a broad consensus on a
            number of issue(s):

                    congestion is a serious problem which needs to be tackled, doing nothing is not an
                     option;

                    public transport needs to be improved (though there was disagreement was on how
                     effective this would be on its own);

                    most people accept that a combination of measures is required which includes some
                     mix of:

                        road improvement

                        public transport improvements

                        behaviour change / travel awareness

3.66        The exceptions were the small car-centric segment (7%) who saw road improvements as
            largely sufficient, and the Green segment (5%) who were opposed to road building. All
            respondents indicated a need for better public transport. Overall, 95% were in favour
            motorway capacity increase with 60% in favour of high or maximum capacity increase.
            Similarly, all respondents were in favour of improvements to other road with 95% in favour
            of a high or very high level of improvement.

3.67        The largest split in opinion was on the issue of road user charging. However, what the
            research does indicate is that while most people are opposed to the idea of road user
            charging as an infringement of their freedom and yet another tax on car drivers, a large
            group of people (around 60%) seem to be prepared to accept road user charging in
            exchange for reduced congestion levels. The responses are illustrated in Figure 3.4.

3.68        The grouping of the different segments appeared to be driven largely by behaviour and
            location of residence, with factors such as age or income having relatively little impact.
            This is another pointer to the fact that attitudes are changeable and are modified by
            experience and need. Thus as congestion worsens the attractiveness of road user
            charging as a part of a possible solution can be expected to become more acceptable.

3.69        Another comment often made was that delivery of infrastructure schemes took too long in
            the UK, much longer than in many western European countries – notably France.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

Figure 3.3 – Study Newsletter No. 3

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).



Figure 3.4 – Attitudes to Proposed Measures

Click here for image.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            THE MEDIA

3.70        At the time of first WRG conference in November 2000, the East Midlands Central Office of
            Information (COI) issued a press release. This generated a substantial media interest
            which was maintained through the rest of the study. In general, the media interest was
            helpful to publicise the study findings and emerging options. Study team members have
            also provided interviews to television, radio and the regional and local press.

3.71        Specific media briefings facilitated by the COI were held twice as follows:

                    14 September 2001 – prior to the conference at the University of Nottingham

                    21 March 2002 – prior to the final WRG meeting

3.72        During the phase 3 consultation period, the media was most helpful in advertising the
            exhibition venues and timings and this was supported by a number of detailed articles and
            editorials in the local press.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                30
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


4.          STUDY OBJECTIVES

            INTRODUCTION

4.1         The over-riding objective of this study is to find a sustainable solution for the development
            of the M1 corridor that would be consistent with other strategies affecting the area,
            especially the A453 Multi-Modal Study. The study brief sets out the main aims and
            objectives to be consideration of the problems and potential solutions affecting all modes
            of travel and development of recommendations for the present and for the future to the
            year 2021. The detailed recommendations are to include:

                    A long term strategy to address strategic transport problems;

                    A plan to address the most urgent transport problems across all modes, seeking
                     opportunities for modal transfer whilst ensuring consistency with the long term
                     strategy; and

                    A range of detailed measures required to implement the strategy, showing the
                     potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of each option.

            DEFINING OBJECTIVES

4.2         In developing a long term strategy the following issues must be specifically addressed by
            each of the multi-modal studies:

                    The opportunities for changing travel behaviour through the implementation of a
                     coherent and integrated series of strategic and/or local initiatives aimed at achieving
                     a modal transfer from car and road freight and thus reducing traffic volumes;

                    The role of “hearts and minds” measures in order to promote sustainable travel
                     behaviour;

                    Opportunities to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the transport
                     networks;

                    The potential role of public transport, including mass rapid transit systems, in
                     improving accessibility in the major terms and cities;

                    The potential role of rail service improvements in meeting regional transport
                     objectives;

                    The interaction between land use development options and the transport system; and

                    The need for improvements to maintain network integrity and safety.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     31
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            LOCAL OBJECTIVES

4.3         In the Scoping Report, published in June 2000 and available on the study website, it was
            recommended that the study team should develop “local” regional objectives independently
            of the Government‟s overarching national New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) objectives,
            although subsequently assessing the suitability of their fit with these.

4.4         In accepting the recommendation to adopt a regional policy perspective in the study the
            PMG agreed to use the following approach to define the study objectives:

                    use the vision of and objectives of the Draft East Midlands Integrated Regional
                     Strategy as a starting point;

                    make particular reference to the problems, issues and opportunities work which
                     define study area specific objectives; and

                    allocate the objectives to NATA headings.

4.5         The study objectives so derived are as described below under the five NATA headings so
            as to enable a direct comparison between the core study objectives and the Central
            Government transport objectives:

            Environment

                  Enhance overall environmental condition.

                    Protect and enhance environmental condition at regional/strategic level.

                    At local level, control air quality, noise and other environmental impacts through
                     conduct of EIAs for all schemes, under the aegis of a strategic overview.

            Safety

                  Improve network integrity and safety.

                    Improve perceptions and reality of personal security and safety in travel, especially
                     by public transport

                    Improve safety conditions on the transport network, especially at points on the
                     motorway and strategic road network where accidents are most prevalent today.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   32
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            Economy

                  Identify transport system improvements to contribute to meeting economic
                  ambitions of the region.

                    Ensure a transport system that will help to engender a positive climate for investment
                     and skills development, and assist in the regeneration of the urban areas and the
                     coalfields areas.

                    Ensure freight and distribution patterns today and future needs are understood and
                     catered for in study.

                    Explore and conclude whether it is desirable or not to add significantly to the capacity
                     of the motorway and associated junctions, given the requirement to manage demand.

                    Explore and conclude on the extent to which it is appropriate to improve the network,
                     quality and level of service of public transport, and improve the infrastructure, given
                     the likely use of the facility.

            Accessibility

                  Improve accessibility by public transport, in sympathy with sustainable
                  development policy and regeneration needs.

                    Improvement of accessibility by public transport and slow modes to key locations for
                     jobs, services and higher education, particularly the urban centres and sub-centres,
                     business locations and East Midlands Airport.

                    Use of information and communications technologies in local transport system - i.e.
                     Transport - to inform travel choice before and during travel, and in increasing
                     transport awareness and transport change.

                    Ensure brownfield, and other proposed / existing development / redevelopment
                     locations are accessible to public transport and slow modes as well as motorised
                     modes.

            Integration

                  Identify demand and supply-side interventions to increase travel choice
                  through public transport network development and/or to reduce the need for
                  travel

                    Favour/highlight development/redevelopment locations that offer the opportunity
                     further to enhance and add-value to the transport system, the service infrastructure
                     and integration that already exists.

                    Explore and conclude on the extent to which the potential for a shift from road to rail
                     or to water is important.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      33
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

                    Exploit the potential for demand management interventions and promotion,
                     enablement of behavioural change in order to impact on future of travel in the
                     corridor and to improve travel choice.

                    Identify potential for exploiting new technology in informing travel choices before and
                     during travel, for ticketing and marketing initiatives in public transport, and for
                     improving travel awareness and encouraging behavioural change in travel.

            Other Objectives

                  Propose measures to reduce the need to travel.

                    Ensure consistency with other strategies affecting the area, especially those of the
                     other multi-modal studies of significance to M1 corridor movements.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     34
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



5.          PROBLEMS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

            INTRODUCTION

5.1         The process of identification of problems, issues and opportunities was completed during
            the Scoping stage of the study. In addition to the consultation, and policy document
            review, a full day workshop was held with the Project Management Group to crystallise
            findings to date.

            PROBLEMS

5.2         The M1 in the study area currently carries between 90,000 and 130,000 vehicles per day.
            The largest flows occur on the two 4-lane sections of the motorway but also on the 3-lane
            section to the south of Junction 25. Most of the motorway carries over 100,000 vehicles
            per day. This compares to a typical „design capacity‟ of 97,000 and 130,000 vehicles per
            day for 3-lane and 4-lane sections of motorway respectively.

5.3         On average 20% of the motorway flow is made up of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).
            Uphill gradients are incurred on a number of sections of the motorway causing slow-
            moving HGVs which reduce the effective capacity of the motorway and add further to
            congestion during busy periods.

5.4         Relatively small volumes of north-south through traffic were found to be using the
            motorway network in the study area. South to North on the M1 just 7% of traffic was
            found to be through traffic. Just 13% of traffic on M69 travelling north was through traffic.

5.5         Public transport carries less than 10% of trips across a screen line in the corridor. The
            public transport network is capacity constrained. Consultation responses suggest that
            the public transport network has an inadequate level of infrastructure and service and is
            perceived to be expensive and to have a down market image at present.

5.6         The rail network has several pinch points at present: notably at Nottingham and Leicester
            rail stations and the Trent Junction. Rail carries less than 10% of freight in the corridor.

5.7         The lack of choice in travel in the corridor is a general concern. It is also the case that for
            many trip destinations – especially new work locations at sites developed near to the
            motorway network - there is no opportunity to use an alternative to the car since they do
            not exist. East Midlands Airport is currently not adequately served by public transport.

            ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS

5.8         The congestion „problem‟ in the corridor is caused not so much by a surfeit of longer
            distance north south movements, but rather by a large number of east west movements,
            many of which use part of the motorway for parts of their trips. The roadside interview
            surveys show considerable proportions of traffic to be inherently short distance and
            travelling in an east west (or vice versa) direction, using the motorway for relatively short
            distances. Traffic making such east/west movements mixes with north/south traffic on
            the motorway - adding to weaving problems and junction congestion.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     35
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


5.9         A summary of the main issues is provided in Table 5.1. This indicates the range of
            perceptions that exist about the problems being experienced in the corridor today and
            those that may be expected in future.

                                           Table 5.1 – Summary of Main Problems

                           Local Issues                                    Strategic Issues
 Environment               Congestion on M1 & access roads                 Business parks are car-dependent,
                           Diversion onto local roads occurs               especially in vicinity of M1
                           Bypasses for some towns and villages to         Air/noise pollution a concern
                           improve environment/conditions                  National Air Quality targets
 Accessibility             Buses are delayed in congestion leading to      Access to airport by public transport is
                           unpredictable journey times                     restricted
                           Few inter-urban bus services available          Social exclusion results from poor public
                           Access by bus from rural areas into cities is   transport access to jobs at business parks
                           difficult                                       Rail/bus fares are considered too high
                           Perception that “too many vehicles the cause
                           of congestion problems”
                           Transport system remains inadequate for
                           many people with mobility impairments
 Integration               Capacity at railway stations and the network    Inter-operability of public transport ticketing
                           is inadequate                                   is lacking
                           Bus/rail interchanges are poor
 Economy                   Road freight delayed in congestion              Need to provide access to markets, in
                           Limited access to rail/water-freight services   order to make East Midlands attractive to
                                                                           investors.
                           Road system inadequate in places, e.g.
                           business view of need for improvement of        Need to direct or facilitate freight to rail.
                           access to East Midlands Airport (also a         Need to integrate road network with other
                           national issue)                                 modes, to increase choice for freight
                                                                           generators.
                                                                           Potential for greater demarcation of
                                                                           approved freight corridors.
 Safety                    Low enforcement of traffic regulations          Road Casualty Reduction Targets.
                           Security on public transport.



5.10        The current operating conditions and capacity of several parts of the system are
            inadequate during peak times. This is particularly so for the road and rail networks. The
            east/west movements are not well served by rail and through east/west movements are
            also poorly served by private transport within the study corridor.

5.11        Congestion on the motorway already spreads to the side roads at several locations,
            including particularly, junctions 24 and 25 and despite recent motorway widening and
            junction alterations at / in the vicinity of Junction 24. Conversely, congestion on side
            roads spreads to the motorway leading to safety problems caused through standing
            traffic on the motorway. This is particularly the case at junction 21 and 26.

5.12        Overall within the study area, the Government‟s forecasts indicate an increase in traffic
            volumes of 23% in the next twenty years. Without any motorway capacity increase, flows
            on the M1 within the study area are likely to increase by an average of 35%, varying
            between 20% along the northern section of the M1 and almost 50% on the least busy

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                        36
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            section south of Junction 22. Within this increased volume, the number of HGVs would
            increase at a greater rate than other traffic. Thus at the year 2021, the current motorway
            could be carrying over 175,000 vehicles per day on the busiest section.

5.13        Poor perceptions of personal security, the generally run down image of the public
            transport alternative and safety considerations all militate against use of the bus and rail
            service alternatives. There are major barriers to entry to and use of the public transport
            system for many people. This in turn implies a perceived near total lack of choice today,
            from the point of view/perspective of potential users.

5.14        Current enforcement practice in relation to traffic management and control (illegal car
            parking, bus lane infringement etc) does not work.

5.15        Serious problems are predicted in future, given the current trends.

5.16        The study area includes the three cities – Derby, Leicester and Nottingham – a range of
            smaller urban areas and settlements and an extensive rural hinterland. It faces a number
            of important problems in the socio-economic context:

                    Levels of GDP per capita in the area generally are below the UK average and
                     showed evidence of relative decline over the 1990s, no doubt at least in part
                     associated with the rapid rundown of the coal mining industry and its wider local
                     impacts;

                    Whilst levels of employment have been growing in most areas in recent years,
                     despite the under representation of key growth sectors, such as financial and
                     business services, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire still have unemployment rates
                     above the national average;

5.17        The northern coalfield area and some parts of the cities have particular problems of
            unemployment, as well as concentrations of more general economic, social and
            environmental deprivation.

            OPPORTUNITIES

5.18        The identified principal opportunities for influencing movement in the corridor or for
            making progressive change through policy or scheme intervention are outlined in Table
            5.2 – or at least, those deriving from a preliminary examination of the consultation
            responses and the review of current planning strategies in the study area. These were
            examined more closely in the later stages of the project as the strategy development
            process proceeded. It was clear that it would be necessary to consider each in turn in
            some detail, to understand the likely contribution each might make individually to the
            resolution or amelioration of problems, and to consider the obvious linkages between
            some of them that might inspire strategies consisting of different bundles of them
            designed to meet the objectives for the strategy.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  37
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



5.19        In socio-economic terms there are a number of significant positive trends and potential
            opportunities:

                    The southern rural districts have seen particularly strong employment growth and
                     unemployment in Leicestershire as a whole is well below the national average;

                    The area has seen significant inward investment, particularly in distribution related
                     activity;

                    East Midlands Airport has expanded, particularly in terms of freight business and is
                     developing as a growth pole;

                    Significant progress is being made in relation to the regeneration of parts of the
                     former coalfield area. Some of the major new employment sites, such as
                     Holmewood, have been very successful in attracting new investment and other
                     major sites are coming forward. Particular mention needs to be made of the
                     opportunities associated with the new Markham Employment Growth Zone.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    38
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                            Table 5.2 – Summary of Possible Areas for Investigation
    Infrastructure & Service Provision                   Other Policy Areas
    General:                                             Economic:
    Substantial improvements to public transport         Integrated transport in urban areas with high quality
    infrastructure and services                          interchange opportunity between modes
    Improvements to the road network                     Rail investment within/beyond the region
    Improvement to entire transport network for          Selective road improvements for east-west
    mobility impaired people                             movements, especially for regeneration
    Travel demand management measures                    Suitable road and public transport access to major
    Travel education                                     strategic sites

    Information and communications technology            Support for regional airports, transfer of traffic from
                                                         SE airports
    Improve accessibility between employment,
    homes and services                                   Support for tourism and culture as growth sector
                                                         Maximise brownfield site use for development
                                                         purposes
                                                         Develop sustainable communities
                                                         Opportunity for high-tech development foci for
                                                         business and learning e.g. Loughborough
    Rail:                                                Environmental and Social:
    Improvements to rail system capacity                 Recognise/respect distinctive characteristics of
    Several railway stations need expansion while        different parts of the Region
    new stations need to be built e.g. Corby &           Conserve and enhance the diverse and attractive
    Loughborough                                         natural and built environment – enhance
    Access to railway stations by all modes              environmental quality

    Rail services e.g. the Leicester to Burton service   Enable the creation/extension of communities that
                                                         empower people – access to life-long learning,
    Better public transport information                  housing needs met, community safety, social
    A simplified fare structure & lower prices Ticket    inclusion, healthy lifestyle, cultural contribution
    interoperability (with buses/coaches)                Cost of public transport
    An airport Parkway station                           Inter-urban tolling
    Improvements to integrated public transport
    access to the airport
    Promote the use of rail-freight including
    developing more freight terminals and expanding
    existing ones
    Central Railways




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                39
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


    Bus/(Coach):                                           Land-use Planning:
    More effective bus priorities to improve reliability   Integration with transport planning
    e.g. speeding up bus lane provision & introducing      Location and spatial distribution of activity to follow
    all-day operation of bus lanes                         sustainable development principles
    Integrated ticketing to improve integration            Higher density housing developments in towns
    Improved bus/coach interchanges with rail and          possibly on brownfield sites
    bus to bus connections                                 Office developments in town centres
    Improve comfort levels on inter-urban/ long            Use S106 agreements to promote public transport
    distance journeys                                      provision
                                                           Discourage speculative developments around airport


    Road:                                                  Travel Plans:
    Measures to reduce congestion at key points in         Changing travel behaviour by “hearts and minds”
    the network especially motorway junctions              campaigns etc.
    More effective management of traffic in the            Behavioural changes could arise from changes in
    corridor, combined perhaps in association with the     recruitment & working practices
    A1                                                     A Travel Plan for the airport and other areas
    Motorway tolling could reduce traffic levels on the    Promote Travel Wise in the region
    M1 but might generate diversion
                                                           Change the relative costs of public & private
    M1 crawler lanes or bus/lorry or HOV lanes on the      transport
    M1 could give priority to higher value vehicles
                                                           Develop use of Internet shopping & home deliveries
    Ramp metering & restricted access onto M1 might
    aid freight movements
    The adoption of “quiet” road surfaces
    More effective enforcement of traffic regulations,
    e.g. speed limits
    Traffic management measures to reduce impact
    of noise and air pollution
    Selective road improvements e.g. bypasses and
    around airport
    Waterways:
    Allowing 44 tonne HGVs to access waterway
    terminals for freight movement might reduce HGV
    traffic

5.20        In addition to the above opportunities, consultation responses revealed a willingness to
            change mode in a significant proportion of the respondees providing that a credible
            alternative existed.

5.21        A further opportunity arises through the close working of the Three Cities in connection
            with travel restraint and demand management issues as well as wider co-ordination of
            transport matters.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                  40
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



6.          DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGY OPTIONS

            INTRODUCTION

6.1         The study objectives were established in Phase 1 (Chapter 4) and the Problems, Issues
            and Opportunities (Chapter 5) identified in Phase 2 formed the basis for the development
            of strategy options for this study. The principle underpinning the objective setting for the
            study was that the study should not focus simply upon reducing congestion but address a
            range of problems associated with perceived poor public transport provision and service,
            poor accessibility for particular areas as well as land-use and regeneration related
            issues.

6.2         As a consequence of the defined objectives, it was clear early in the study process that
            the adopted strategy would have to be multi-dimensional: a strategy that focussed only
            on congestion problems would address only some of the transport related problems
            experienced at some locations within the study area. The strategy had to contain
            elements that seek to tackle transport-related problems over the whole study area and
            also to address the need for regeneration of particular areas. In particular, the objectives
            requiring the pursuit of travel demand management and the enablement of travel
            behaviour change were recognised to be very significant issues to be considered.

6.3         A further consequence of the wide ranging objectives when considered in association
            with the wide-ranging problems was that the number of potential strategy options was
            large and the interaction between different strategy elements complex. Recognising this
            complexity, to help to develop the strategy options that were developed during the Phase
            3 process, the study team adopted a tool for structured decision making known as
            strategic choice. This offered a framework within which complex and inter-related
            planning decisions could be disentangled and simplified, yet without becoming too
            simplistic as to be meaningless. It also offered a method for participation of the study‟s
            Project Management Group at key stages in the process and provided a mechanism to
            develop consensus on particular issues and, importantly, highlight areas where there was
            not consensus and technical work was required to inform the process.

6.4         It was recognised that if it were to be successful, the recommended strategy must
            encompass all modes of transport and needs to address policy and management
            interventions as well as the development of new infrastructure and services. The study
            had a specific remit to consider the role of the motorway (M1) widening proposals
            including the proposal for an A6 bypass of Kegworth, which had been removed from the
            Highways Agency‟s programme and placed on hold. It was therefore necessary for the
            strategy testing to consider explicitly the contribution to a balanced strategy of the
            remitted road proposals, as well as how variants might form part of a strategy.

6.5         The East Midlands Regional Planning Body (EMRLGA) as part of the Regional Planning
            Guidance (RPG) has established a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS). The strategy for
            this study should complement that strategy and inform its future review and development.

6.6         Throughout the strategy development process the need was to remain focussed on the
            strategic issues. Also, for each element of the recommended strategy there was the
            requirement that there was confidence with its feasibility and the projection of any
            associated capital or on-going expenditure. To meet this requirement however, it was
            not necessary to define every scheme in detail, but only sufficient to develop outline

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  41
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            capital cost estimates and revenues. For the recommended measures this will be a task
            for the implementing authorities, be it the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, the Highways
            Agency, public transport operators or the local transport authorities. These implementing
            authorities will need to undertake scheme development including progressing through the
            statutory procedures, obtaining funding and undertaking public consultation. In order to
            complete the above, further detailed assessment and outline engineering design will be
            required.

6.7         It is also recognised that this is one of a number of studies within the East Midlands and
            that there are other studies on-going in adjacent regions. The Regional Planning Body
            will need to take a view across these other studies in forming its recommendations on the
            study outcomes.

            DECISION AREAS

6.8         The development of a strategy required that a number of complex and inter-related
            decisions be taken. In order to facilitate this, the concept of decision areas was
            developed to distil the whole array of possible decisions into a number of discrete
            headings. The following decision areas were agreed with the Project Management
            Group. These areas for decision are the responsibility of several different interests – the
            local authorities, the government office, the regional bodies, the Highways Agency, the
            SRA, Railtrack, the public transport operators etc. – all of which are represented as
            stakeholders in the study. The various interventions would offer different responses to
            today‟s problems. Some either singly, or collectively in different combinations, might be
            expected to help towards meeting the objectives of the study.

                    the railways;

                    the road based public transport network (LRT, coach, bus);

                    the motorway;

                    the strategic road network; and

                    strategic park and ride.

                    transport change

6.9         In addition to the above there were a number of other issues that needed specific
            consideration:

                    land-use and development planning;

                    freight and distribution;

                    East Midlands Airport; and

                    regeneration requirements in the cities and in the north Derbyshire and
                     Nottinghamshire coalfields.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   42
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


6.10        In seeking to rationalise the most appropriate ways of exploring the many potential
            different combinations of measures and policy interventions possible the consultants
            examined, with the project management group, the compatibilities of different
            combinations. These are illustrated by reference to the different sets of options falling
            within each discrete area of decision. At the most strategic level these are as follows:

            Railways

6.11        It should be noted that the study demands a freight option to be considered in each of the
            strategy test packages in addition to rail.

                    Improve services within existing network and capacity constraints;

                    Increase line operating capacity and services;

                    Provide new lines, more line operating capacity and new services, especially 15min
                     frequency turn up and go services for the wider East Midlands area;

                    Provide new lines: Matlock-Buxton – Manchester; Market Harborough –
                     Northampton; and Derby - Mansfield, re-open to passenger services the
                     Nottingham – Melton Mowbray line, more line operating capacity in the north-south
                     corridor and on east-west services, and new services including a direct Nottingham
                     - Birmingham service – major investment to upgrade MML including, possibly,
                     electrification.

                    Provide new lines, particularly a new north south HST line and the Central Railways
                     line, and in addition the East Midlands turn up and go services.

6.12        In testing rail options it appeared to the consultants that the first two options above are
            not sufficient in terms of their capacity to help resolve the scale of problems identified in
            the corridor. Therefore it was proposed to test only the last three options. One would
            involve major improvements to local East Midlands services, providing alternatives for
            short and medium distance travel. One would test improvement of services in the North-
            South and East-West directions in the study area for local and for through traffic. A final
            one would test the possibility of very major rail investment (of national significance).

            Road Passenger transport

                    Develop inter-urban network and urban bus networks especially where they
                     complement intra-regional movements by rail. – The current inter-urban network
                     exists by and large to serve movements into and out of the cities and towns along
                     their route, there is minimal through movement on the bus network but some on the
                     coach network which is largely designed around movements through and beyond
                     the study area. Bus operators have demonstrated the scope for increasing
                     patronage on their services and to secure some mode shift. Coach operators do
                     not see potential to enhance inter-urban movements within the East Midlands. By
                     improving the key corridors to enhance the ability of operators to provide reliable
                     services and guaranteed journey times, and by improving connectivity in the main
                     centres, it will be possible to make local bus services better able to provide
                     connecting services into the coach/ rail networks for intra-regional trips to central


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    43
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                     areas of major towns and cities. The likelihood is that these services would have to
                     be limited stop in nature in order to develop longer distance traffic.

                    Do as above and improve interchange in towns and cities, perhaps through moving
                     some bus/coach interchange points and/ or providing more fixed links such as NET
                     or guided/segregated bus ways. Develop network of services to take in “new”
                     interchange opportunities (East Midlands Airport, key park and ride sites, East
                     Midlands Parkway) in order enhance the geographic coverage of passenger
                     transport network.

                    In addition to above explore more ambitious LRT/segregated bus/coach options in
                     and between cities. (Leicester LRT, Derby Bus way(s) etc.)

            Motorway

                    No capacity increase, only safety related junction alteration

                    Some minor capacity increase / better freight arrangements

                    Widening in part/better freight arrangements / more grade-separation / additional
                     entry/exit points.

                    Widen throughout and create more free-flow movements at key junctions and
                     additional grade separation.

            Strategic Road Network

                    Localised minor capacity improvements at congestion „hot-spots‟

                    Some minor change to assist north-south movements in the corridor/ capacity
                     increases;

                    Some change to assist segregated operation of PT and capacity increases for
                     important East Midlands movements;

                    Major change in order to increase capacity for important internal East Midlands
                     movements and longer distance east-west movements.

            Strategic Park and Ride

                    Develop strategic overview of value of existing and proposed park and ride as it
                     affects the problems of movement in the corridor;

                    Develop a scheme offering park and ride to people that would otherwise use the
                     motorway – employing frequent high quality coach services between different sites
                     on or near the motorway and town/city centre destinations.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   44
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Transport Change

                    The Transport Change decision area has a wide definition and encapsulates a
                     range of policy interventions and measures that seek to reduce travel demand
                     and/or influence travel behaviour and travel patterns. The measures included
                     under this heading are informed by the policy stance of the Three Cities with regard
                     to travel demand management issues and policies. Nottingham City expects to
                     implement the Workplace Parking Levy in the near future and both Derby and
                     Leicester are agreed in principle to its implementation. At present, none of the
                     unitary authorities is considering congestion charging. Travel Plans are already
                     implemented by many medium to large sized employers in Nottingham with
                     success reportedly of up to a 15% reduction in travel to work by car.

                    Other policy interventions explored include travel plans, reduced car use for school
                     trips (safe routes to school, school buses etc) and the encouragement of flexi-time,
                     tele-working and tele-conferencing.

                    There are many possible policy interventions that together could contribute to
                     influence travel demand and behaviour, many of which could not adequately be
                     modelled in the strategy tests. It was therefore decided that since such a package
                     of interventions would need closely to relate to the final preferred package, its
                     detailed development should be undertaken in the final phase of the study.

            FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FREIGHT OPTIONS

6.13        The study team chose to treat the subject of freight transport as a policy decision area in
            its own right, requiring separate market research and analysis, and the use of a
            dedicated freight transport model. This reflects the high priority attached to freight in
            terms of its contribution to the economy, and its impact in terms of demand for transport
            infrastructure.

6.14        The process of developing freight options started by analysing the M1 corridor,
            examining the market shares of the different transport modes and the demand according
            to origin, destination and commodity. This was supported by primary data collection, a
            freight seminar, and a series of interviews with companies identified as key stakeholders.

6.15        Based upon this database of current information concerning the demand for transport
            infrastructure, a strategic freight framework was adopted, aiming to set out a balanced list
            of measures capable of addressing the main concerns, and putting them into context, as
            a related package of interventions.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   45
April 2002
   NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                    FINAL REPORT



6.16           The strategic approach can be visualised as a flow-chart shown in Figure 6.1.


                                            Figure 6.1 – Strategic Freight Framework


                           Consumer                                  +ve: Economic Vitality

                            Demand


                            Economic Growth:                                   +ve: Jobs
                             Commercial and
                             Industrial Activity


                       Demand for Freight                              +ve: Jobs
                           Services


                                                            +ve: Deliveries Arrive
                       Freight Tonne
                       Kms by Mode
                                                            -ve: Congestion



                        Safety and Environmental
                               Disbenefits

                                                  -ve: Social Cost




                                                         Public Perceptions


   6.17        In this model it is suggested that the problem is essentially an environmental and political
               dilemma, driven by public perceptions. The key perception is that freight transport
               generates negative benefits in the form of congestion and social costs such as air
               pollution and road fatalities. However, demand for freight services is being driven by
               economic growth, which has a positive public perception.




   File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  46
   April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



6.18        By working within this framework it was possible to take a hierarchical approach, tackling
            the negatives without destroying the positives. This approach also reflects the Central
            Government and local study objectives, and satisfies the need to respect efficient
            markets. Based on the above approach, interventions were developed under each of the
            area identified in Figure 6.1 as detailed below.

            Direct Measures Aimed at Social Costs

6.19        These measures deal with the direct social costs of freight transport. It is acknowledged
            that all acceptable medium term futures are going to preserve significant levels of heavy
            road goods vehicles on the M1 corridor. This is directly related to changes in the
            economy with a greater emphasis on national and international scale logistics, European
            scale production and consumption.

6.20        Measures to reduce the level of social cost per HGV kilometre will have an immediate
            and direct benefit.

6.21        It should be noted that many of these are already being implemented voluntarily by
            leaders in the freight industry, and promoted by the FTA2* so they can be considered to
            be an encouragement of existing best practice. These include:

                    F1-1: Use of advanced fuels such as LPG and ULSD. The Treasury has granted
                     fiscal incentives to use alternative energy sources, but they need to be widely
                     available, and supported by engine manufacturers.

                    F1-2: Improvement of fuel economy, by replacing older vehicles with less efficient
                     engines and less aerodynamic construction.            More frequent maintenance
                     (particularly engines and tyres) also helps. Lighter trailers allow greater payloads
                     within the maximum weight restrictions.

                    F1-3: Improvement in fuel consumption per tonne kilometre by improvements to
                     logistics systems. This may be achieved by the adoption of scheduling/ routeing
                     software, and by partnerships between companies and their suppliers. Smaller
                     companies may require financial incentives, training and support to adopt new IT
                     systems.

                    F1-4: Industry led logistics efficiency needs to be backed up by Central and
                     European Government regulations on haulage costs – particularly fuels - and
                     drivers‟ rosters. This requires a Europe-wide level playing field, clarity and
                     flexibility.

                    F1-5: Reduction in vehicle noise, again through vehicle design, such as air-brake
                     silencers, silent fridge units and better maintenance.

                    F1-6: Improvement in safety through driver training and elimination of dangerous
                     practices such as overloaded vehicles and tachograph offences, i.e. enforcement of
                     existing legislation.



2
    Environmental Best Practice Guide, Freight Transport Association, 1997

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   47
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    F1-7: Recognition and reward of good practice. Consumers value suppliers who
                     minimize external costs – this could be certified (equivalent to Organic food
                     standards) so that operators could advertise their achievements.

            Direct Measures Aimed at Congestion

6.22        Freight transport contributes approximately 1000 vehicles per hour per direction onto the
            M1. In its self this is not likely to cause severe congestion, but combined with higher and
            more variable car volumes sharing the road, it is a contributory factor. This is
            compounded by the speed differential between freight and passenger vehicles.

6.23        The following measures tackle the symptoms of congestion:

                    F2-1: Crawler lanes on uphill sections of motorway – allowing other vehicles to
                     maintain their speed in the outer lanes.

                    F2-2: No car lanes in urban areas, allowing deliveries to take place without adding
                     freight vehicles to the congested commuter networks.

                    F2-3: Designated freight routes and improved signing to key destinations such as
                     freight interchanges, factories or warehousing to minimise disturbance and length
                     of haul.

                    F2-4: Open 24hr access to city centres, allowing deliveries to take place out of peak
                     traffic hours. This can be backed up by freight quality partnerships to ensure that
                     local requirements are observed.

                    F2-5: Management of vehicle speeds on motorway sections, and greater
                     enforcement of existing speed limits to reduce speed differentials between cars and
                     freight vehicles. Variable speed limits can be used to manage peak volumes.

                    F2-6: Distance based road pricing is not currently part of National policy. However,
                     the M1 experience indicates that the current system cannot ration demand between
                     long distance, heavy, North-South traffic that “needs” to use the M1 and short
                     distance, lighter, East-West traffic that is using the motorway for convenience. This
                     suggests that a charging scheme with a flat rate applied at East Midlands junctions
                     at peak time may be effective.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    48
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Measures Aimed at Influencing Mode Choice

6.24        For a given volume of freight demand, the negative impacts can be addressed by
            influencing mode choice.

6.25        The issue of mode choice is often simplified to a road versus rail debate, but it is first
            necessary to question this. Increasing rail transport is not an end in itself, particularly if it
            imposes severe costs on industry.

6.26        The object of achieving a change in mode choice is the delivery of downstream benefits
            such as safety and emissions, and the aim should be to use mode choice to improve
            transport efficiency. To this end it is necessary to identify which modes matter. This is
            summarised below:

                                             Figure 6.2 – CO2 Emissions by Mode

                                                      Click here for image.

     Source: DTLR, TSGB 1999

6.27        The analysis of carbon dioxide emissions per freight tonne kilometre helps to clarify the
            mode choice debate. It is clear that, while rail freight is approximately half as polluting as
            the best road freight alternative, there is a wide range of performance within the road
            freight sector. Airfreight and LGV freight are the least efficient options.

6.28        Maritime and inland waterway traffic were not included in the research, but the results are
            influenced primarily by the ratio of tonnes lifted to the number of engines providing
            traction, and secondly by the speed.

6.29        On this basis, inland waterway transport (20-30 units per load like rail but slower speed),
            short sea maritime transport (80-100 units per load, moderate speed), and deep sea
            maritime transport (3,000 to 4,000 units per load, moderate speed) would probably
            occupy the first three (with lowest emissions) positions.

6.30        Policy measures need therefore to exchange modes at the less efficient end of the
            ranking with those higher up. In this context, even the replacement of petrol LGVs with
            diesel LGVs would count as a positive mode shift.

                    F3-1: Monitor growth of LGV sector, and promote the same practices as found in
                     the HGV sector. Encourage small businesses to use common carriers for
                     deliveries, supported by road pricing (F2-6), and restricting urban access privileges
                     (F2-2 and F2-4) to HGVs.

                    F3-2: Improve rail competitiveness by developing rail freight access. The study
                     region does not have an intermodal railhead at present, but projects have been
                     proposed. Castle Donington has a brown-field location, in the Logistics Golden
                     Triangle, with sufficient space for rail-side development. Toton is convenient for
                     Nottingham, but lacks space. Markham is a good location for economic re-
                     generation but is not ideal for national distribution. The terminals would be
                     developed to handle road to rail transfers, and as new locations for production and
                     distribution.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       49
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    F3-3: Improve loading gauge on routes into proposed rail terminals, linking them to
                     Freightliner and RfD networks via WCML and ECML.

                    F3-4: Develop a new rail freight corridor on the route proposed by Central Railway,
                     i.e. Liverpool-East-Midlands. This would be Liverpool-Manchester, re-instated
                     Woodhead cross-Pennine route between Hadfield and Sheffield then improved
                     capacity and higher loading gauge on Midland Mainline.

                    At Trent Junction the route would provide access to Toton and Castle Donington via
                     Sheet Stores Junction and thence to WCML. The route would continue as far as
                     Syston Junction, North of Leicester Station, connecting to the proposed Felixstowe-
                     Midlands port traffic route.

                    The Liverpool-Manchester could connect to the WCML providing a link to Scotland.
                     The choice of the Woodhead route would relieve overcrowded Hope Valley route
                     and to provide a more suitable loading gauge for intermodal trains. The Midlands
                     Mainline section would provide the main North-South spine and connect the
                     terminals proposed in F3-2. This route would then benefit from proposed Railtrack
                     schemes linking to Felixstowe, Southampton and the Channel Tunnel.

                    F3-5: Develop rail freight links from East Midlands terminals to Humber Ports,
                     strengthening the demand for maritime services to the Continent.

                    F3.6: Develop domestic intermodal rail freight services, targeting the FMCG sector,
                     supported by rail-side commercial development.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   50
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                    F3.7: Investigate potential for inland port with freight village at Nottingham, possibly
                     at Colwick (on A52), to encourage waterborne services connecting to Humberside
                     ferry services. This would inevitably be on a small scale, and require financial
                     assistance.

                    F3.8: If F3-7 appears viable, the next step would be to examine the benefits of
                     enhancements to the Trent waterway to allow larger vessels to pass through
                     Gainsborough and Newark.

            Measures Connected with Economic Development and Land Use

6.31        Increased economic activity is a positive outcome of the strategy development process,
            but it is qualitative as well as quantitative. If the transport industry is required to be
            responsible for downstream disbenefits then the economic development process that
            drives the demand for transport needs to consider its downstream effects.

6.32        The particular issues identified by this study are location and function.

                    F4-1: Rail or Port side development. The opportunities for realising social benefits
                     through wider mode choice are significantly influenced by the presence of a direct
                     connection to those modes. In this context, planning for new commercial
                     development needs to be directed towards brown field sites with rail sidings or
                     access to waterways. In turn these developments can provide the critical mass of
                     demand to support new services using these modes.

                    F4-2: The function of a new investment is equally important. The key targets for
                     rail-side location are National Distribution Centres (NDC) since the most readily
                     convertible flows in the supply chain are port-NDC, factory-NDC, and NDC-RDC
                     (Regional Distribution Centres). If the National Distribution Centres are not rail
                     connected, rail is unlikely to be used.

            Measures Aimed at the Customer

6.33        Ultimately, the freight transport network is supporting the final consumer. Maximum
            choice and low prices in stores result in global product sourcing, and a need for large
            distribution centres. If sustainability can be “sold” to the consumer, with this value
            reflected in the sale price, there is a good reason for companies to adopt systems that
            reduce external costs.

                    F5-1: A customer led strategy can only work if they have reliable information about
                     the source of a product. This suggests the need for a voluntary certification
                     scheme that would allow people to identify goods manufactured locally or
                     transported using environmentally friendly vehicles. This could be a version of the
                     AOC system used in France for certifying a product‟s origin and quality.

                    F5-2: Greater support could be given to local producers in terms of access to
                     markets. Some towns have set up farmers‟ markets in supermarket car parks or
                     city centres. Alternatively, supermarkets could be encouraged to devote a given
                     amount of shelf space to local suppliers as part of the planning process.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       51
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


6.34        Neither of these measures provides a guarantee of transport benefits, as some of the
            consequences may be ambiguous. However, the opportunity of engaging the customer
            more actively in a supply chain strategy is likely to provide long-term benefits and
            encourage best practice within the distribution sector.

            Measures Aimed at Co-ordination

6.35        This strategy development process has highlighted the fact that leadership is required to
            co-ordinate (in most cases) a wide range of decisions that ultimately have to be made in
            the private sector for sound economic reasons. This multi-modal strategy reflects the
            range of organisations with a stake in these decisions, and also indicates that there is a
            regional responsibility for this co-ordination process. To this end:

                    F6-1: A regional freight co-ordinator would be necessary to steer the strategy and
                     to gain the maximum benefit for the region from National policy initiatives.

                    F6-2: One of the most tangible benefits of the consultation process has been the
                     FTA freight seminar, bringing industry representatives into contact with consultants
                     and policy makers. A continuing dialogue should be maintained during the strategy
                     implementation phases.

            LAND USE / REGENERATION OPTIONS

6.36        In parallel with the development of transport options, four separate future land-use
            development scenarios were developed to assess the impact of changes in development
            patterns upon transport demand and thus implications for different transport solutions. It
            was agreed with the project management group that two of the four scenarios should be
            tested during the first round assessment. One scenario was the trend based pattern of
            development derived from the TEMPRO forecasts whilst the other was based on a
            greater level of urban concentration

           Scenario 1: Business-As-Usual

6.37        In this scenario, the new population is distributed across the districts in the study area.
            This base scenario consists of the unaltered TEMPRO data (supplied by the DTLR),
            which is basically a trend-based level and distribution of development. This essentially
            represents a continuing suburbanisation of jobs and housing, with only limited and weak
            efforts at urban concentration.

           Scenario 2: Urban Concentration

6.38        This scenario includes the same level of development as scenario 1, but with a higher
            concentration in urban areas (Nottingham, Leicester and Derby). Concentrating housing
            development in urban areas and standard/low employment growth around the EMA. This
            scenario is broadly consistent with the current RPG. Higher residential densities
            (perhaps up to 300 persons per hectare) would be required than at present in the urban
            areas, together with an enhancement of public transport infrastructure. This included the
            following assumptions:




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   52
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                    Concentrate 50% of all jobs in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester by 2021;

                    Concentrate 50% of new households in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester by 2021;

                    10,000 additional jobs at EMA by 2021;

                    No change before 2006 (i.e. data for 1998 and 2001 same as base scenario).

6.39        Whilst these were simplifying assumptions, they are distinct enough to be worth
            modelling, without engaging in micro-level forecasting of the variables (and capacity) for
            every settlement in the three counties; and they are in aggregate of the sort of order and
            location that we wanted to test.

           Scenario 3: Low Growth

6.40        This was a lower growth reflection of scenario 2 with RPG spatial distribution but with
            more realistic levels of growth.

           Scenario 4: High Growth

6.41        A higher level of development (housing and commercial), with concentration of
            development in urban areas (Nottingham, Leicester and Derby) and proposing high
            employment growth at EMA and in the Northern Coalfields. Components on the same
            basis as for Scenario 2:

                    Concentrate 55% of all jobs in Nottingham, Derby, Leicester by 2021;

                    Concentrate 60% of new households in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester by 2021;

                    25,000 additional jobs at EMA by 2021;

                    40,000 additional jobs in the Northern Coalfield area (centred around Chesterfield,
                     Mansfield & Worksop) by 2021;

                    12,000 additional households in Northern Coalfield area by 2021;

                    No change before 2006;

            EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT

6.42        The decision areas included a specific need to consider the future transport needs of the
            East Midlands Airport. The provision of a direct fixed link to the airport was considered
            early in the study and this was supported by an analysis of the existing trip making
            pattern to the Airport for both employees and passengers as well as an examination of
            the Airport‟s passenger growth forecasts.

6.43        Due to the dispersed employee and passenger catchment and the horizon for developing
            to a passenger throughput sufficient to support a rail link. It was concluded that it was
            not appropriate to further consider the development of proposals for a direct rail link that

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   53
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            could be delivered sufficiently early within the study period to have a meaningful impact
            in making a contribution to the study objectives. Other non-direct rail services and
            bus/coach based services to/from the Airport have been considered through the study.

            OPTION DEFINITION PROCESS

6.44        Clearly a strategy made up of any mix of options selected from the decision areas might
            form a package that would help to ameliorate the problems identified. The initial task
            however was to identify a few focused sets of strategy options that would be illuminating
            when they were tested. This would allow different extremes of policy and scheme to be
            explored and their scope and impact elucidated in public consultation before firming up
            on the proposals to be recommended.

6.45        The Project Management Group was clear that it wanted to see a package tested that
            adopted very high levels of public transport improvement and travel demand restraint but
            with little or no highway capacity increase. To address this wish, it was necessary to
            develop initial packages that would not necessarily be seen as fully multi-modal or
            offering a realistic final package, but would provide important information about the likely
            maximum contribution of different types of intervention that would facilitate the
            development of a final strategy.

            DO-MINIMUM SCHEMES

6.46        Any future year tests needed to be carried out against not the current network but one
            that included any schemes that were committed and were not dependant upon the
            outcomes of this study. It was therefore necessary to confirm the „do-minimum‟ schemes
            that needed to be included in the base package against which the various strategy
            packages should be tested.

6.47        The do-minimum schemes were considered under the five decision areas previously
            identified for this study: Motorways and Trunk Roads; Local Authority Roads; Heavy Rail;
            Road Passenger Transport; Park & Ride and Freight. As trunk roads are the
            responsibility of the Highways Agency they are included alongside the motorway rather
            than with the heading of Strategic Roads

            Motorways and Trunk Roads

6.48        The major schemes are included in the Agency‟s Targeted Programme of Improvements
            (TPI) and the others have been agreed with the Highways Agency.

                    A46 dualling between Newark and Widmerpool

                    Grade-separation of the A1 junctions within the East Midlands including an
                     improvement to the existing grade-separated junction with the A46/A17.

                    A46 Newark – Lincoln Improvement (dualling) – scheduled start 2001/2002.

                    A6 Rothwell – Desborough Bypass – scheduled start 2001/2002

                    A6 Rushden & Higham Ferrers Bypass – scheduled start 2001/2002

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  54
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    A6 Great Glen Bypass

                    A6 Alvaston

                    Capacity improvements at :

                        A46 Hobby Horse/A607 Roundabout – 2002/2003

                        A52 Nottingham Knight Roundabout – 2002/2003

                        A52 Wheatcrofts Roundabout – 2003/2004

            Local Authority Roads

6.49        The schemes identified under this heading were established from the Local Transport
            Plan documents and the LTP settlement letters issued by GOEM in December 2000 as
            well as from responses to the draft do-minimum schemes report.

6.50        Only some of the schemes listed below will have an impact upon the study network.
            Others are either outside of the study area or likely to have little impact on wider travel
            patterns in terms of this study.

                    Rainworth Bypass – opened to traffic in June 2000.

                    A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement – complete

                    Nuthall Roundabout Phase 3 improvement (Further improvements planned in
                     connection with the Nottingham Business Park)

                    Derby Integrated Transport Scheme – expected completion in 2005/2006.

                    A511 Ashby Bypass (stage 2) – expected completion in 2002/2003

                    A15/A16 Market Deeping Bypass – open to traffic

6.51        In addition to the firm commitments set out above the following have been provisionally
            accepted by the DTLR for funding following the successful completion of statutory
            procedures and/or securing developer contributions. All schemes have anticipated
            opening dates before 2006:

                    A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route

                    Earl Shilton Bypass

                    A607 Rearsby Bypass

                    M1 New Junction 29A

                    Oakham Bypass

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 55
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Heavy Rail

6.52        Our understanding of proposed railway improvements is based on published material but
            also discussions/correspondence with Midland Mainline, Railtrack, Strategic Rail
            Authority and Central Trains. All improvements listed below are expected to be in place
            by 2006.

                    New Cross Country Train services

                        Change in seating capacity per train

                        Improved service frequency

                        Improved journey times

                        Revised stopping patterns/routes

                    New Midland Mainline services

                        Improved AM Peak service frequency

                        Improved journey times

                        Revised stopping patterns/routes (hourly to Leeds)

                        New fast train stock (plus change in seating capacity per train)

                    Extended East Coast franchise

                        Improved service frequency (half hourly to Leeds all day)

                        Improved journey times

                        Revised stopping patterns

                    Railtrack

                        Improved line speeds on Midland Mainline

                        Improved line capacity at Trent Junction

                    New stations

                        East Midlands Parkway – served by Midland Mainline and Central Trains services




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 56
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                    WCML Pug 1 upgrade

                        Virgin upgrade to 125mph

                        New tilting trains with revised seating capacities

                        Improved frequencies

            Road Passenger Transport

6.53        This decision area includes Light Rail as well as road based public transport. The
            committed light rail scheme is the NET Line 1 currently under construction and expected
            to be operational in 2003.

6.54        There are a number of bus priority proposals but these have not been specifically
            identified for inclusion as do-minimum schemes.

            Park and Ride

6.55        A Park & Ride site at Gamston on the A52 is committed with an expected completion by
            2005/2006.

            Freight

6.56        Improvements proposed through the SRA‟s Freight Strategy are included within the do-
            minimum.

            STRATEGY PACKAGES

6.57        Four initial strategy packages were developed in order to test the maximum contribution
            different modes and other interventions could play in achieving the study objectives. At
            the time of developing these initial packages it was clear that no one package would
            produce a final strategy in its own right. These initial packages were intended to inform
            judgements about schemes and other measures that could be combined into one or two
            multi-modal strategy packages for subsequent testing.

6.58        The schemes included within each of the initial four strategy packages are listed in Table
            6.1 along with indicative implementation dates. The detailed justification for the inclusion
            of each scheme is documented in the study report „Proposed Strategy Packages for
            Testing‟

                    Package A – Maximum public transport improvement, maximum travel restraint and
                     minimum highway capacity increase.

                    Package B – High public transport improvement, high travel restraint and moderate
                     highway capacity increase




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  57
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                    Package C – Moderate public transport improvement, moderate travel restraint and
                     high road capacity increase

                    Package D – Moderate public transport improvement, moderate travel restraint and
                     maximum road capacity increase




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                58
April 2002
   NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                    FINAL REPORT


                                     Table 6.1 – Initial Strategy Packages and Phasing

Mode /         Option                                                                                  Strategy Package
                               Description
Policy         Ref                                                                                 A       B          C    D

               IR1             South Coast/SW-Birmingham-Leics-Nott-Sheffield-W Yorkshire*
               IR2             South Coast/ SW-Birmingham-Derby-Nott-Sheffield-W Yorkshire*
               IR3             S Coast/ SW-Birmingham-Castle Don-N‟ham-Sheffield-W Yorks*
               IR4             South Coast/SW-Birmingham-Leics-Nott-Doncaster-W Yorkshire*
               IR5             North West / Merseyside-Derby-Leicester
               IR6             North West-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Nottingham/Leicester
               IR7             Nottingham-Melton Mowbray-Corby-London St Pancras
               IU1             Birmingham-Burton-Castle Donington-Nottingham-Trowell
                               Parkway-Mansfield-Bolsover-Staveley-Chesterfield
               IU2             Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell
                               Parkway-Alfreton-Chesterfield-Sheffield
               IU3             Leicester-Coalville-Ashby de la Zouch-Burton-Derby-South
                               Wingfield-Chesterfield-Staveley-Clowne-Mansfield
               IU4             Manchester Airport-Stoke on Trent-Derby-Nottingham-Trowell
                               Parkway-Alfreton-Mansfield
               US1             Matlock-Derby-Trowell-Alfreton-Chesterfield
               US2             Derby – Loughborough – Leicester – Coalville – Ashby de la
                               Zouch – Burton – Derby
               US3             Burton – Coalville – Shepshed – Loughborough – Nottingham
   RAIL




               US4             Worksop – Mansfield – Trowell – Nottingham -Melton Mowbray
               NR1             Reopening Knighton Junc to Burton + chord at Knighton Junc
               NR2             New Shepshed Route
               NR3             Loughborough to Nottingham Great Central line
               NR4             Reopening line into Nottingham from Melton Mowbray
               NR5             Clowne Branch Reopening
               NR6             Pye Bridge to Kirkby Summit Junction reopening
               NR7             Bolsover Reopening
               NR8             Castle Donington Line
               NR9             Reopening of Chaddesden Loop Line
               NR10            Barrow Hill Line Reopening
               NR11            Central Railway Proposal
               NR12            Matlock-Buxton Reopening
               NR13            Newark Chord
               NR14            Rail network speed and capacity improvements
               NR15            Accessibility to rail stations
               HSL1            North-South High Speed Line
               HSL2            Birmingham-Nottingham High Speed Line
   * Alternate hourly frequency providing a half-hourly service.


   Year of Implementation:                               2006         2011                  2016               2021



   File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                    59
   April 2002
   NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                    FINAL REPORT


Mode /                          Option                                                                            Strategy Package
                                         Description
Policy                          Ref                                                                           A       B     C        D

                                FR1      Intermodal Rail Terminal
     RAIL




                                FR2      Loading Gauge Improvements
                                FR3      Rail Freight Links to Humber Ports
                                LR1      Current NET Extension Proposals
                                LR2      Nottingham NET Extension to Mansfield
     ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT




                                LR3      NET to Ilkeston North
                                LR4      NET Replacement of South Notts. Rail Schemes
                                LR5      Leicester LRT Network
                                LR6      Reduced Leicester LRT Network
                                BC1      Bus Priority on Major Routes.
                                BC2      Shuttle Services
                                BC3      Dedicated Busway to EMA
                                BC4      Derby – Alfreton – Mansfield – Bolsover – Chesterfield.
                                BC5      Derby – Melbourne – EM Airport – Shepshed-Loughborough
                                BC6      Leicester – Coalville – Shepshed – Loughborough.
                                BC7      Dronfield - Chesterfield-Clay Cross – Alfreton – Ripley – Heanor –
                                         Ilkeston – Trowell - East Midlands Airport (via M1).
                                PR1      Gamston P&R
 STRATEGIC PARK &




                                PR2      Leicester West Transport
                                PR3      M1 Junction 26/Trowell
       RIDE




                                PR4      Leicester Forest East
                                PR5      MEGZ
                                PR6      East Midlands Parkway Station
                                PR7      M1 Junction 28
                                PR8      M1 Junction 23
                                IH1      Birmingham North
                                IH2      Leicester South
     INTERCHANGE HUBS




                                IH3      Leicester North
                                IH4      Shepshed
                                IH5      Ashby
                                IH6      Derby South
                                IH7      Derby East Parkway
                                IH8      Trowell Parkway
                                IH9      MEGZ/Staveley
                                IH10     South Nottingham Parkway


   Year of Implementation:                                  2006              2011              2016          2021




   File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                          60
   April 2002
 NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                  FINAL REPORT


Mode /               Option                                                                               Strategy Package
                              Description
Policy               Ref                                                                              A       B     C        D

                     MW1      Junction 21 – Lane reallocation + roundabout widening
                     MW2      Junction 26 – Widened northbound exit slip road
                     MW3      Junction 28 – segregated left turning lanes + A38 (w) approach
                     MW4      Climbing Lane south of Junction 28
                     MW5      New Junction 29A
                     MW6      Climbing Lanes: J28-29, J27-28, J26-27, J25-26
                     MW6a     Climbing Lane: J23-22
   MOTORWAY




                     MW7      North-facing Slip Roads Leicester Forest East MSA
                     MW8      Free-Flow Link Roads between M1 north and M69
                     MW9      The Highways Agency Scheme for Junction 28
                     MW10     Link Roads between M1 North and A610
                     MW11     Junction 23A to 25 Intermediate Scheme
                     MW12     M1 widening between Junctions 27/28 and Junctions 28/29
                     MW13     The Highways Agency Scheme for Junction 23A to Junction 25
                     MW14     Other Elements of the Highways Agency‟s widening scheme
                     MW15     Widen to Dual 4-Lane: J21A–J23A, J29-J30
                     MW16     Widen to Dual 5-Lane: J 21-21A, 24-25, and 25-26
                     SR1      Local Authority Proposals (2006)
                     SR2      Other Local Authority Proposals (2011)
                     SR3      A453 Crusader Junction
   STRATEGIC ROADS




                     SR4      Short Link between A453 and A50
                     SR5      A6 Kegworth Bypass
                     SR6      A453 flyover at M1 Junction 24
                     SR7      Improvement of the A453 with G/S at Crusader roundabout
                     SR8      A610 Flyover at Nuthall Roundabout
                     SR9      A50 to East Midlands Airport
                     SR10     New link between the A453 and the B5324
                     SR11     A453: M1 to A52 Dualling (omit from one test)
                     SR12     Fourth Trent Crossing


  Year of Implementation:                              2006             2011                   2016               2021




 File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                     61
 April 2002
 NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                  FINAL REPORT



Mode /                Option                                                                          Strategy Package
                               Description
Policy                Ref                                                                         A      B      C        D

                      SR13     New Link – A50 to A46
 STRATEGIC




                      SR14     A52 Nottingham to Grantham Dualling
   ROADS




                      SR15     A61: A38 to Chesterfield Dualling
                      SR16     Completion of the A563 Leicester Eastern District Distributor
                      SR17     New M1-A1 Link Road
                      TC1      Car Parking Controls
   TRANSPORT CHANGE




                      TC2      Congestion Charging – 3 Cities
                      TC2a     Congestion Charging - Towns
                      TC3      Travel Plans
                      TC4      Ramp Metering
                      TC5      Inter-urban Tolling
                      TC6      Variable Speed Limits
                      TC7      Water Freight
                      TC8      Other Measures


  Year of Implementation:                              2006                2011                2016            2021




 File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                     62
 April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



6.59        The freight interventions described earlier are included within a number of options in
            Table 6.1. In terms of the individual strategy packages, the developed freight options
            were included as follows:

                    Package A: contained all the policy measures aimed at reducing the external cost
                     of freight transport, three of the measures aimed at reducing congestion, and all of
                     the measures aimed at encouraging mode choice, coordination with economic
                     development and land use planning, and measures aimed at the final consumer.
                     The only exemptions are crawler lanes, no car lanes in cities, and designated
                     freight routes, which require higher levels of road capacity improvement.

                    Package B: was similar in concept to package A, but contained fewer measures to
                     reduce the overall cost. It could be considered as a preliminary stage to package
                     A, as most of the changes relate to the longer term policies. The key differences
                     are: no road pricing, no rail services to the Humber, no measures connected with
                     inland waterways, no land use policies, and no consumer oriented policies.

                    Package C: contrasted with A and B. It concentrated on improving the supply side
                     of the road network, so it has been interpreted as a do-minimum in terms of active
                     freight demand management. The only policy measure in C is to establish
                     designated freight routes. It therefore relies upon the changes to the road network
                     to alleviate congestion.       These include changes to motorway junctions,
                     improvements to strategic roads, but not motorway widening.

                    Package D: was similar to package C, but it contained active measures to increase
                     capacity for freight on the road network, including motorway crawler lanes, and no-
                     car lanes in cities. It relied upon further levels of investment in roads, including
                     substantial motorway widening measures.

            STRATEGY TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

6.60        Transport Simulation computer models were developed for both highway and public
            transport modes as well as having use of a national freight model in which to test the
            impact of different freight interventions. Schemes included in the four initial packages
            were tested using these various transport models. Each infrastructure scheme included
            on the initial long-list was subject to a strategic environmental assessment to assist the
            process of scheme refinement and selection as well as scheme rejection.

6.61        The four strategy packages were subjected to detailed assessment using the transport
            models and a strategic environmental assessment was completed for each scheme
            included in the packages.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   63
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



6.62        A summary of the results of the four initial strategy packages is shown in Table 6.2 below
            for the year 2021.

                          Table 6.2 – Summary of Initial Strategy Test Results (2021)

                                             Transfer      Congestion       Average M1    Accident
                   Scenario                                          1
                                            from Road      Reduction        Speed (kph)   Reduction

                   Do-Minimum                    1.8%           -               89            -
                                   3                   4                4            4            4
                   Strategy A                   7.4%       0% (100% )        90 (107 )     -1,700
                                   3                   3
                   Strategy B                   4.4%           0%               90          7,000

                   Strategy C                    2.3%         35%               91          7,100
                                                                    5
                   Strategy D                    1.9%         60%               95          5,300
                   1
                     Based on the proportion of M1 vehicle kms travelled at or above capacity
                   2
                     Compared to current levels
                   3
                     Test with urban congestion charging
                   4
                     Test with motorway tolling
                   5
                     Similar to current conditions
6.63        The results indicated that with a very high level of public transport investment and strong
            travel restraint measures including motorway tolling and urban road pricing, overall only
            7% of the road traffic predicted for 2021 would switch to using public transport. It should
            be noted that this converts to a near 50% overall increase in the level of public transport
            use compared to the situation without the implementation of the proposed schemes and
            measures.

6.64        Without the inclusion of motorway tolling, the shift from road to rail had no material effect
            upon motorway traffic volumes or congestion levels. The testing of motorway tolling
            indicated that a substantial proportion of traffic would divert off the motorway, mostly onto
            the rest of the road network. The tests indicated that this would result in very significant
            increase in traffic congestion on the wider road network and a substantial increase in
            road traffic accidents.

6.65        The tests also indicated that if the motorway were to be widened by adding an additional
            lane in each direction throughout the study area, then congestion in 2021 could be at a
            similar level to conditions in 2000.

6.66        The freight options were tested through a two stage process. The MDS-Transmodal
            freight model was used to forecast unconstrained freight traffic growth, mode and route
            choice for the given packages. This was carried out at a strategic level, including all
            national and UK-international freight flows, to produce a trip-end matrix of freight flows by
            year and by policy package.

6.67        The highway models were then used to combine the unconstrained demand for freight
            and passenger traffic onto the road network, calculating the impact of supply side
            improvements and the congestion effects. This way, local detail is improved, and the
            interaction between freight and passenger traffic could be assessed.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   64
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


6.68        In all cases, the forecasts included the measures proposed by the SRA in its Freight
            Strategy, within the “medium” scenario. This includes a wide range of measures to
            improve rail efficiency, and is estimated to increase rail freight tonne kilometres by 80%
            nationally. The equivalent reduction in road freight tonne kilometres is approximately 6%.

6.69        Whilst Table 6.2 shows the overall results from the four initial strategy package tests, the
            freight test results were examined in more detail and can be summarised as follows:

                    Package A: produced the largest decrease in total HGV vehicle kilometres (9.3%).
                     Motorway volumes declined by 9.2%, and A road volumes decreased by 9.5%. This
                     represented the impact of applying long-term demand management measures.

                    Package B: The decrease in HGV vehicle kilometres was 2.8%, and this was
                     shared equally by the motorway and strategic road networks.

                    Package C: The total volume of HGV traffic within the study area increased by
                     1.7%, and the share of motorway traffic decreased from 39.6% in the do-minimum
                     to 38.5%. This reflected the effect of alleviating congestion.

                    Package D: The total volume of HGV traffic within the study area increased by
                     0.9%, but the share of motorway traffic increased to 41%, higher than any other
                     package.

6.70        The initial tests carried out against the two land-use scenarios showed that whilst these
            resulted in different trip patterns and different levels of mode shift within the urban areas,
            the level of impact was not sufficient within the 20-year time horizon of this study to have
            a material impact upon the choice of transport options. For this reason it was decided
            not to undertake extensive testing of different transport strategies against each
            alternative land-use scenario.

6.71        The preliminary appraisal of the four initial strategy packages identified that a strategy
            concentrating on very high public transport intervention was not likely to achieve the
            study objectives. It was evident that any strategy would need to include a package of
            significant highway measures if congestion problems were not to become worse during
            the study period as traffic growth and car use continues to increase.

6.72        The detailed assessment framework enabled a more simplified assessment of the four
            packages to be undertaken against the agreed study objectives as well as the national
            NATA criteria using a 10 point (+/-5) scale. This simplified assessment shown in Table
            6.3, uses a subjective scoring to provide a broad indication of the performance of the
            different types of schemes against the study objectives and against deliverability
            constraints. This assessment was not intended as a mechanism to include or discount
            individual schemes from further consideration but to provide an indication of the likely
            contribution of different types of intervention to achieving the overall study objectives and
            also the degree of certainty that could be allocated to different types of option.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    65
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                                       Table 6.3 – Simplified Strategy Assessment

                                Strategy Package:        A            B             C    D

     NATA Criteria:

     Environment                                         -2           -1            3    2

     Safety                                               1           2             3    4

     Economy                                             -3           -1            2    3
     Accessibility                                        4           3             2    2

     Integration                                          2           2             3    3

     Local Objectives:

     Integration between Modes                            5           4             3    2

     M1 National Role                                     0           1             3    4

     Concentrating Traffic on Most                        0           1             2    3
     Suitable Routes
     Supporting Regional Economy                          2           2             2    2

     Self-Start Regeneration                              2           1             2    3

     Sustainable Communities                              3           2             1    1

     Assessment Score                                    14          16             26   29



     Constraints:

     Affordability                                       -3           3             4    3

     Deliverability                                      -5           -3            3    2
     Timeliness                                          -5           -3            3    2

     Consistency with Maintaining Safety                 -2           1             3    2

     Constraint Score                                    -15          -2            13   9
     Overall Result                                      -1          14             39   38

6.73        The exact score allotted to each category for the different packages is not overly
            important. The relative scores across the assessment criteria are considered to be
            broadly appropriate and this is what will determine the overall comparison between the
            packages.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                             66
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



6.74        The broad assessment in Table 6.3 indicates that the overall ranking of the packages in
            terms of the Assessment Score is in the order: D, C, B and A. The two highway based
            packages emerge with scores significantly greater than the scores for the two public
            transport packages. In terms of just the local objectives all four packages have a broadly
            similar score (A=12, B=11, C=13, D=15) with a ranking order of D, C, A, B – being similar
            to the assessment ranking.

6.75        As well as comparing the packages against the various assessment criteria, Table 6.3
            provides a broad assessment of the constraints that could militate against successful
            delivery of the packages. It can seen that Strategy A is indicated as having a negative
            score in each category, Strategy B has negative scores in two of the four categories
            whilst Strategies C and D both have positive scores throughout.

6.76        The scores have been combined to provide an overall indication of the merits of the four
            strategy packages. The scores for the two public transport based strategies reduce
            whilst they increase for the two highway based strategies. The overall negative score for
            Strategy A indicates that this package fails to meet the overall study objectives. Overall,
            Strategy C emerges just ahead of Strategy D.

6.77        This simple assessment leads to the conclusion that public transport schemes would
            score well against the criteria of improving accessibility and integration between modes,
            but that major, high cost schemes are not likely to make a substantial contribution to an
            overall strategy package and also may lead to difficulty in terms of deliverability. It is
            clear from the assessment that any package, to satisfy the assessment criteria, will need
            to include a very significant element of highway based solutions.

            The Environment of the Study Area

6.78        The large extent of the study area means that it encompasses a wide range of
            landscapes and habitats. Environmental conditions also vary widely depending on the
            degree of urbanisation and concentrations of activity. A summary of the environmental
            resources identified during the course of the study is provided below.

           Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

6.79        A total of 95 SSSIs are located within the study area. Although there are SSSIs
            scattered around the whole of the study area, the main concentration of SSSIs is located
            on both sides of the M1 near Groby, to the north of Leicester. This concentration
            stretches to the north-west and ends north of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. Additionally, outside
            the study area, a further two sets of SSSIs are located to the south of Worksop to the
            west of the A614 and within the eastern part of the Peak District National Park.

6.80        Special Areas of Conservation were identified to the north of Mansfield, west of Ollerton,
            and within the eastern part of the Peak District National Park. No Ramsar Sites or
            Special Protection Areas were identified within the study area.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 67
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



           National Nature Reserves (NNRs)

6.81        There were no NNRs identified in the study area.

           Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)

6.82        Information obtained from English Nature‟s database identified 50 LNRs in the East
            Midlands crossing all five counties.

           Ancient Woodlands

6.83        A total of 222 Ancient Woodland sites are scattered throughout the study area. There
            are significant areas to the north of Nottingham and in the area between Mansfield and
            Worksop. There is an additional concentration in the south stretching from the north of
            Leicester to the north of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

           National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)

6.84        There were no National Parks or AONBs identified within the core study area. However,
            the Peak District National Park is located to the west of Sheffield and one of the schemes
            passes through the Peak District National Park.

           National Forest

6.85        The part of the study area between Leicester and Coalville is included in a National
            Forest that is located between, and including, the Charnwood and Needwood Forests.

           Tranquil Areas

6.86        The majority of tranquil areas in the East Midlands lie to the east and south of the M1
            corridor in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, the exception being the Peak District in
            Derbyshire. The majority of the study area is classed as either an „Urban Area‟ or a
            „Semi-tranquil Area‟. The major „Tranquil Areas‟ are located to the west of Leicester and
            between Loughborough and Nottingham.

           Agricultural Land classification

6.87        There is no Grade1 agricultural land in the study area. The majority of the land has a
            classification of Grades 2 to 4. The main concentrations of Grade 2 land, in or adjacent
            to, the study area are:

                    To the east of the M1 and Bolsover, north of the edge of Mansfield/Sutton in
                     Ashfield and extending north and west of Worksop; and

                    On the edge of Hucknall and between the edge of Nottingham and Nuthall.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                68
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



           Water Features

6.88        Flooding is an issue in many low lying parts of the study area. The M1 corridor between
            Junction 24 and 25 runs through the floodplain of the River Trent. This is one of the most
            vulnerable locations for flooding. Other vulnerable flooding locations are to be found in
            those transport corridors within close proximity of the Rivers Soar and Derwent.

           Historic Monuments

6.89        There are approximately 370 Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the East Midlands,
            half of them in Derbyshire to the north west of the M1. There are 48 Ancient Monuments
            scattered throughout the study area.

           Conservation Areas

6.90        Significant concentrations of Conservation Areas are located within:

                    Built up areas of Nottingham and Derby;

                    Settlements along the River Trent between Nottingham and Burton Upon Trent;

                    Settlements between the west of Mansfield (Alterton) and Worksop

6.91        A World Heritage Site has recently been designated in the Derwent Valley to the north of
            Derby and just beyond the western edge of the study area.

           Air Quality

6.92        A ten kilometre wide buffer of the M1 corridor identified 22 local authorities in the East
            Midlands area and of these only 7 authorities had completed air quality assessments for
            their areas. Air Quality Management Areas were identified at several locations alongside
            the M1.

           Noise

6.93        The existing noise levels along the M1 corridor are generally high, typical of an urban
            environment within the cities of Leicester, Nottingham and Derby. Noise sources include
            road and rail traffic, industrial and commercial uses. The predominant noise source is
            road traffic from local roads, trunk roads and motorways.

            Environmental Assessment

6.94        From the outset of this study, it was considered that environmental constraints and
            issues should be considered in conjunction with traffic and other issues. Therefore,
            environmental appraisal was incorporated into all stages of the process, from the initial
            identification of constraints and opportunities, through option testing to the development
            of strategies and their final evaluation.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                69
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



6.95        The environmental assessment process for this stage of the study involved the:

                    development of Environmental Objectives;

                    identification Environmental Constraints in the Study Area;

                    assessment of Potential Corridors and Options for Highway Schemes;

                    assessment of Scheme Options – „long list‟;

6.96        An initial report Review „Environmental Constraints and Objectives‟ (March 2001)
            identified a wide range of environmental objectives which are being promoted by different
            strategic planning authorities in the study area. The report proposed that a set of „local‟
            environmental objectives be derived for the study, against which the performance of
            scheme options and packages could be measured.

6.97        The first task undertaken in terms of environmental assessment involved a desk-based
            study of environmental constraints. Environmental designations were extracted from the
            relevant Development Plans in the M1 Corridor. These designations were transferred
            from Proposals Maps onto base plans, which depicted the extent of the study area.
            Where possible, within the area of search, the above environmental constraints identified
            were plotted and mapped into a Geographical Information System (GIS) using MapInfo
            and an inventory of environmental constraints was compiled into a database.

6.98        Following the initial assessment of the environmental constraints associated with the
            study area, a sieve analysis was carried out to highlight those parts of the study area
            which were protected to varying degrees by statutory designations or planning policies.

6.99        A first tranche of broad corridors for potential highway schemes/improvements was
            subjected to a preliminary environmental appraisal. These corridors were being
            investigated as potential solutions to the perceived need to accommodate east-west
            movements which currently use the M1. An overview of the environmental constraints
            associated with these corridors was carried out to assist the process of determining
            whether any of them should be taken forward to the list of potential schemes. This stage
            of the process provided a good basis to begin the iterative process of option development
            and environmental assessment.

6.100 Following the environmental appraisal of the potential corridors for new highway
      schemes, four scheme options were identified within the selected corridors for further
      investigation. The investigation into these four potential routes comprised, as well a desk
      study of environmental constraints, a preliminary site survey of each of the identified
      routes to determine key constraints.          However, the potential highway schemes
      represented only a small number of the potential options which could form part of the
      eventual study.

6.101 In order to ensure consistency in the treatment of all options, whether they were highway
      schemes, public transport and freight proposals or management/service improvement
      options, an initial assessment was carried out of a „long list‟ of scheme options. The
      initial assessment was based on a desk study of environmental constraints and a
      preliminary site visit. Each option was assessed against five key environmental
      objectives. The initial review identified schemes under the following broad headings:

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 70
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    No significant impacts

                    Some minor impacts – mitigation possible

                    Some major impacts – mitigation possible

                    Significant Environmental Impact – Requires careful justification and route selection

                    Some minor impacts – may not be acceptable

6.102 The schemes considered falling under the significant or major impact categories are
      listed below.

           Some Major Impacts – May Not be Acceptable

                    MW16a                      M1 dual 5 lane widening (J24-J26)

                    NR2a                       Shepshed southern option

                    NR3                        Loughborough – Nottingham

                    NR4                        Melton – Nottingham

                    NR7                        Bolsover reopening

                    PR3                        Trowell Park and Ride

                    SR10                       A453 – B5324 Link

                    SR16                       Leicester Eastern District Distributor Road

           Some Major Impacts – Mitigation Possible

                    LR2                        NET extension to Mansfield

                    LR3                        NET extension to Ilkeston North

                    LR5/6                      Leicester LRT

                    MW10                       M1 North / A610 link roads

                    MW15                       M1 dual 4 lane widening

                    NR2b                       Shepshed northern option

                    NR12                       Buxton – Matlock Rail Line Re-opening

                    NR13                       Newark chord


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     71
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    SR7                        A453 Grade separation at Crusader roundabout

                    SR8                        A610 flyover

           Significant Environmental Impact – Require Careful Justification and Route
           Selection

                    HSL1                       North – South High Speed Line

                    HSL2                       Birmingham – Nottingham High Speed Line

                    SR9                        A50 – East Midlands Airport

                    SR13                       A50 – A46 Link Road

                    SR17                       M1 – A1 Link Road

6.103 Outputs from the initial strategy and scheme testing were discussed in detail with the
      Project Management Group prior to proceeding to the next stage.

            DEVELOPMENT OF COMPOSITE STRATEGY PACKAGES

6.104 The initial round of testing was designed to inform judgements about the schemes and
      measures that have impact in terms of the study objectives. The rationale behind the
      development of the four initial strategy packages was to aid this process as the packages
      were not designed for any one of them to be a final package in its own right. It was the
      intention from the outset that the preferred strategy would be a combination of schemes
      from the different initial packages.

            SCHEMES REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION

6.105 Having completed the initial assessments, a number of schemes were recommended for
      omission from the next stage of consideration. The schemes, listed below were dropped
      on the basis of one or more of the following criteria:

                    Scheme does not make a meaningful contribution to the transport objectives of the
                     study

                    Scheme has an unacceptable environmental impact

                    A better alternative option is available

                    Passed to other studies for consideration




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 72
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Public transport options

6.106 The following public transport scheme options were recommended for omission from
      further consideration:

                    NR2: New Shepshed Rail Route – This option would involve a significant new rail
                     route through environmentally sensitive areas. Also, the transport assessment did
                     not indicate a good case for retaining this scheme with an estimated cost in excess
                     of £150m.

                    NR7: Bolsover Reopening – This would involve rebuilding the former route and
                     making good of the former tunnel through Bolsover. The initial environmental
                     assessment identified major impacts indicating that such a scheme may not be
                     acceptable on environmental grounds. This option was therefore recommended for
                     exclusion in preference for the alternative scheme NR5: Clowne Branch re-opening.

                    HSL1: North/South High Speed Rail Line – This is the most costly scheme
                     considered in the study. Such a scheme would be of national significance and the
                     study could not justify such a proposal, as it would involve wider choices and
                     decisions. Such a scheme, if proposed, may not even pass through the East
                     Midlands. The SRA has recently let a feasibility study for such a scheme and it was
                     recommended that this study passes relevant data to the SRA national study. This
                     scheme option was therefore not recommended for further consideration.

                    HSL2: Birmingham/Nottingham High Speed Rail Line – As with option HSL1, this
                     study would not be able to make a full case for the justification of such a scheme as
                     not all data is available for the West Midlands end of the journeys that would use
                     such a scheme. The DTLR has commissioned the Tranche Two „West to East
                     Midlands MMS‟ and it is recommended that this study passes relevant data to the
                     Tranche Two study. This scheme option was therefore not recommended for
                     further consideration.

                    LR4: Leicester LRT (Part Only) – Analysis of the initial results indicates little
                     patronage would be attracted to some of the lines proposed under this heading.
                     Whilst the schemes may provide a worthwhile option for the urban/suburban areas,
                     most do not make a material contribution to strategic traffic movement. Three of
                     the lines considered are proposed for dropping at this stage: Coalville, Leicester
                     Forest East and Birstall. The first line (Coalville) would cost over £300 million but
                     was not shown to attract any significant patronage. The second line (Leicester
                     Forest East) was proposed in conjunction with HSL1 which has been
                     recommended for exclusion. Sufficient data is not available to model with any
                     accuracy the line to Birstall and hence this was dropped following the initial round of
                     testing.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      73
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Motorway Options

6.107 Only one motorway option was recommended to be dropped at this stage.

                    MW7: North facing slip roads at Leicester Forest East – This scheme caters for
                     traffic to/from the M1 and south Leicester. It was recommended that this option be
                     dropped in favour of MW8: M1 north to M69 Link Roads on the basis that MW8
                     would better cater for strategic motorway traffic whilst also removing a major
                     proportion of the traffic from the roundabout at M1 Junction 21.

            Strategic Road Options

6.108 A number of Strategic Road options were recommended for exclusion from further
      consideration as follows:

                    SR9: A50 to East Midlands Airport Link Road – The purpose of this option was to
                     provide a direct route for traffic between the A50 (south of Derby) and East
                     Midlands Airport, avoiding the congested M1 Junction 24. The model results
                     indicated that if Junction 24 is significantly improved then the need for such a
                     scheme is removed. The environmental assessment indicated that it would be
                     difficult to identify an environmentally acceptable route for such a road. It was
                     therefore recommended to remove this option on the basis that a major
                     improvement at Junction 24 would most likely be required.

                    SR10: New Link between the A453 and the B5324 – The initial environmental
                     assessment indicated that this scheme would have a substantial impact. The
                     scheme was proposed as a supplement to SR9 to overcome problems of traffic
                     using unsuitable local roads to travel to/from SR9. With the exclusion of SR9 form
                     further consideration there is no justification for maintaining this option.

                    SR14: A52 Nottingham to Grantham Dualling – The Government has indicated that
                     this route would be the subject of a Tranche Three multi-modal study. As such it
                     was recommended that this study passes relevant data to the Tranche Three study
                     and that this scheme option is excluded from further consideration.

                    SR15: Dualling of the A61 between the A38 and Chesterfield – The test results
                     show that an improved A61 would attract traffic off the M1 between junctions 28
                     and 29. On the basis that it is not appropriate to undertake substantial
                     improvement of an all-purpose road that would attract motorway traffic, it was
                     recommended that this option be excluded from further consideration.

                    SR16: Completion of the Leicester Eastern District Distributor Road – This option
                     was included in order to test whether by providing a complete outer ring road of
                     Leicester, there would be less traffic using the M1 between Junctions 21 and 21A
                     as a local relief road. The model results indicated no material impact upon
                     motorway traffic. The environmental assessment indicated that such a route may
                     not be acceptable on environmental grounds. This option was deemed not to
                     contribute towards the study objectives and thus recommended for exclusion from
                     further consideration.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  74
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Policy Options

                    Motorway Tolling – This results in large scale diversion of motorway traffic onto less
                     suitable roads, leading to large increases in congestion, environmental pollution
                     and road accidents. As such, this measure was not considered to contribute to the
                     study objectives. It was proposed that the final strategy be tested against an area
                     wide charging scenario.

6.109 In order to assist further the refinement process, a further round of testing was
      undertaken by combining the remaining schemes into two multi-modal packages, one
      designed to explore issues relating to movements beyond the study area boundaries and
      the other issues relating to movements within the area. The two packages were
      designed not to be alternatives but to assist in identifying the impacts of different scheme
      combinations. The schemes included in the two composite strategy packages are shown
      in Table 6.4.

6.110 Strategy E was based on providing for the longer distance strategic movements whilst
      the focus of Strategy F was to improve conditions and provision for regional and local
      movements.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     75
April 2002
   NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                    FINAL REPORT



                                 Table 6.4 – Composite Strategy Packages and Phasing

 Mode /          Option                                                                                    Package
                            Description
 Policy          Ref                                                                                       E    F

                 IR1        South Coast/SW-Birmingham-Leicester-Nottingham-Sheffield-W Yorkshire
                 IR2        South Coast/ SW-Birmingham-Derby-Nottingham-Sheffield-W Yorkshire
                 IR3        South Coast/ SW- Birmingham -C Don.-Nott-W Yorks (via Newark Chord)
                 IR5        North West / Merseyside-Derby-Leicester
                 IR6        North West-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Nottingham
                 IR7        Nottingham-Melton Mowbray-Corby-London St Pancras
                 IR8        Sheffield-Chesterfield-Trowell-EMP-Leicester-London (off-peak only)
                 IU1        Birmingham-Burton-Castle Donington-Nottingham-Trowell-Mansfield-Bolsover-
                            Staveley.-Chesterfield
                 IU2        Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton-Chesterfield-
                            Sheffield
                 IU3        Leics-Coalville-Ashby-Burton-Derby-Chesterfield-Staveley-Clowne-Mansfield
                 IU4        Manchester Airport-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham-Trowell Parkway-Alfreton-Mansfield
                 US4        Worksop – Mansfield – Trowell – Nottingham South –Melton Mowbray
                 US5        Matlock-Derby-Nottingham
    HEAVY RAIL




                 US6        Ivanhoe–Leicester–Loughborough–N‟ham (via GCR-N)–Trowell–Mansfield
                 NR1        Reopening Knighton Junction to Burton + chord at Knighton Junction
                 NR3        Loughborough to Nottingham Great Central line (via Tollerton)
                 NR4        Reopening line into Nottingham from Melton Mowbray
                 NR5        Clowne Branch Reopening
                 NR6        Pye Bridge to Kirkby Summit Junction reopening
                 NR8        Castle Donington Line
                 NR9        Reopening of Chaddesden Loop Line
                 NR10       Barrow Hill Line Reopening
                 NR12       Matlock-Buxton Reopening
                 NR13       Newark Chord
                 NR14       Rail network speed and capacity improvements
                 NR15       Accessibility to rail stations
                 FR1        Intermodal Rail Freight Terminal
                 FR2        Loading Gauge Improvements
                 FR3        Rail Freight Links to Humber Ports
                 FR4        Central Railway Freight Route Proposal


Year of Implementation:                                  2006              2011                   2016




   File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                         76
   April 2002
       NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                        FINAL REPORT



Mode /                          Option                                                                                   Package
                                         Description
Policy                          Ref                                                                                      E    F

                                LR1      Current NET Extension Proposals (Beeston, Clifton, West Bridgford)
                                LR2      NET Line 1 extension to Mansfield (re-route Robin Hood Services)
                                LR3      NET to Ilkeston North
     ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT




                                LR4a     NET to Gamston
                                LR4b     NET to Gedling
                                LR4c     NET to Cotgrave
                                LR5a     Leicester LRT to M1 Junction 22
                                LR5b     Leicester North LRT (Syston/East Goscote)
                                LR5c     Leicester South LRT (Blaby or Narborough)
                                BC1      Bus Priority on Major Routes.
                                BC2      Shuttle Services
                                BC3      Dedicated Busway to EMA
                                BC4      Derby – Alfreton – Mansfield – Bolsover – Chesterfield.
                                BC5      Derby – Melbourne – East Midlands Airport – Shepshed-Loughborough
                                BC6      Leicester – Coalville – Shepshed – Loughborough.
                                BC7      Dronfield-Chesterfield-Clay Cross–Alfreton–Ripley–Heanor–Ilkeston–Trowell-EMA
                                PR3a     Trowell
  PARK & RIDE
   STRATEGIC




                                PR3b     M1 Junction 26
                                PR3c     M1 Junction 25
                                PR5      MEGZ
                                PR9      M1 Junction 22
                                TC1      Car Parking Controls
                                TC2      Congestion Charging – 3 Cities
  TRANSPORT
   CHANGE




                                TC3      Travel Plans
                                TC5      Inter-urban Tolling (as a test only)
                                TC7      Water Freight
                                TC8      Other Measures
                                TC9      Reduced PT Fares (as a test only)




Year of Implementation:                                            2006                 2011                  2016




     File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                     77
     April 2002
         NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                          FINAL REPORT




Mode /               Option                                                                                  Package
                                  Description
Policy               Ref                                                                                     E    F

                     MW1          Junction 21 – Lane reallocation + roundabout widening
                     MW2          Junction 26 – Widened northbound exit slip road
                     MW3          Junction 28 – segregated left turning lanes + A38 (w) approach
                     MW3a         Junction 29 – A617 Flyover
                     MW4          Climbing Lane south of Junction 28
                     MW5          New Junction 29A
                     MW6          Climbing Lanes: J28-29, J27-28, J26-27, J25-26
                     MW6a         Climbing Lane: J23-22
   MOTORWAY




                     MW8          Free-Flow Link Roads between M1 north and M69 (including D5)
                     MW9          The Highways Agency Scheme for Junction 28
                     MW10         Link Roads between M1 North and A610
                     MW11         Junction 23A to 25 Intermediate Scheme
                     MW12         M1 widening between Junctions 27/28 and Junctions 28/29
                     MW13         The Highways Agency Scheme for Junction 23A to Junction 25
                     MW14         Other Elements of the HA‟s scheme (J25-J27 widening inc. J25 & J26 imps)
                     MW15a        Widen to Dual 4-Lane: J21A-J23A
                     MW15b        Widen to Dual 4-Lane: J29-J30
                     MW16a        Widen to Dual 5-Lane: J21 to J21A (or J21A and MW8)
                     MW16b        Widen to Dual 5-Lane: J24-26
                     MW17         Further M1 Widening
                     SR1          Local Authority Proposals (2006)
                     SR2          Other Local Authority Proposals (2011)
   STRATEGIC ROADS




                     SR4          Short Link between A453 and A50
                     SR5          A6 Kegworth Bypass
                     SR6          A453 flyover at M1 Junction 24
                     SR7a         Improvement of the A453 between Crusader roundabout and University
                     SR12         Fourth Trent Crossing
                     SR13         New Link – A50 to A46
                     SR17a        New M1-A1 Link Road (via A46 dog-leg)


Year of Implementation:                                       2006              2011                 2011




        File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      78
        April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Assessment of Highway Schemes

6.111 The assessment of the two composite strategies enabled a further view to be taken on
      the merits of each strategy as well as the impacts of individual scheme elements and
      their combinations. The main points to note are as follows:

                    Motorway widening was shown to provide significant relief to the M1 both in terms
                     of levels of congestion, journey time improvements and subsequent relief to other
                     areas on the non motorway network, including accident benefits;

                    Widening of the M1 in Package E however, had some detrimental impact on the
                     approach roads to some of the motorway junctions in terms of increased levels of
                     flow and congestion;

                    Within Package F, the focus on transport improvements to aid regional movements
                     helped to improve the levels of stress and travel times on the non-motorway
                     network, particularly through the inclusion of the fourth Trent crossing, M1 north link
                     to A610 and the new A50– A46 link.

6.112 The assessment of strategies E and F showed that some schemes had minor strategic
      benefits to the corridor, whilst other schemes in purely transport terms provided
      significant benefits. The assessment helped to identify the schemes that combine well to
      create a preferred strategy of transport investment.

            Assessment of Public Transport Schemes

6.113 The further tests showed that the longer distance inter-regional and inter-urban services
      generated more revenue and patronage than was the case for the shorter distance
      services. The longer distance services mostly operate on a commercial basis. The inter-
      urban service group showed that IU2 performs well as a service linking the key urban
      centres, whilst the two services routed via Mansfield, Clowne and Chesterfield (IU1 and
      IU3) indicated poor operating ratios whilst needing high levels of infrastructure
      investment.

6.114 The urban services (US4, 5 and 6) all performed poorly. Of the three, US5 requires no
      additional investment in the infrastructure, and provides for a local stopping service
      between Derby and Nottingham. Neither US4 nor US6 appear to offer value for money,
      both requiring large scale capital expenditure as well as heavy ongoing revenue subsidy
      support.

6.115 The proposed Parkways/hubs located at: Trowell; Derby South; MEGZ; and Leicester
      North and South (Syston and Blaby respectively) continued to show success. The East
      Midlands Parkway station indicated a decline in usage under Packages E and F, this
      being due to the users of this new station instead diverting to a more local Parkway at
      Derby South or Trowell.

6.116 Of the Light Rail routes in Leicester only the Blaby line, with a healthy operating ratio,
      was shown as being worthy of pursuance to the final stage of testing,. This was mainly
      derived from the key role of Blaby/Leicester South as Park and Ride site and interchange
      hub. In the absence of a full set of short distance car and bus movements, the two other
      routes in Leicester did not appear worthy of continuation. However, it was proposed to

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      79
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            retain the East Goscote/Syston through to the final stage of testing to allow full benefits to
            be realised from the north of Leicester hub station proposals.

6.117 In Nottingham Light Rail appeared to perform well on all routes, with the results
      enhanced by the cross-city linkages and enhanced accessibility as compared to the first
      round of testing. In all cases a large amount of capital expenditure would be involved.
      More detailed analysis showed that the main revenue generated is from the western
      ends of the NET routes, with the Gedling, Gamston and Cotgrave usage appearing weak.
      This was due in the main to the absence of demand data from the east and south of
      Nottingham.

6.118 Results from the two composite strategies showed increased demand for existing
      bus/coach services and significant demand for the proposed services. The more urban
      focussed investment contained within Package F gave a greater level of bus/coach
      usage on the current services, with the greater emphasis on solving the urban problems
      in this package F showing greater usage on the more urban centred new services (BC5,
      BC6 and BC7).

            FORMULATION OF THE DRAFT PREFERRED STRAEGY

6.119 The two rounds of model tests and the further individual scheme tests enabled the
      development of a draft preferred package. It was clear from the results of the many tests
      undertaken that even a very substantial improvement in public transport will not remove
      the need for a substantial road based solution to be required to address the study brief
      and the more specific objectives set by the study‟s Project Management Group.

6.120 The schemes and interventions proposed in the draft final package are listed in Table
      6.5. Within this draft final package, a number of schemes were included as tests or
      alternatives with further modelling tests to be undertaken to confirm the best combination
      of schemes to be taken forward to detailed appraisal.

            Land-Use Scenarios

6.121 Early tests using the two alternative future land-use scenarios indicated that whilst these
      resulted in different trip patterns and different levels of mode shift within the urban areas,
      there was not a significant variation on the strategic routes away from the urban centres.
      The level of impact was shown not to be sufficient, within the 20-year time horizon of this
      study, to have a material impact upon the choice of transport options. For this reason it
      is proposed not to undertake extensive testing of different transport strategies against
      alternative land-use scenarios.

6.122 The final package was proposed for testing against the range of land-use development
      scenarios to ensure its robustness for changes in land-use development.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    80
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                      Table 6.5 – Proposed Final Package with Tests and Alternatives


Mode /       Option
Policy       Ref            Description
                                                                                                   Core   Test

                            South Coast/ SW-Birmingham- Derby-Nottingham-Sheffield-W
             IR2
                            Yorkshire – IR3 at 2011
                            South Coast/ SW-Birmingham-Castle Donington-Nottingham-W Yorks
             IR3
                            (via Newark Chord – NR13)

             IR5            North West / Merseyside-Derby-Leicester

                            North West-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Nottingham. Requires new
             IR6
                            infrastructure NR12
                            Nottingham-Melton Mowbray-Corby-London St Pancras (Regeneration
             IR7
                            scheme)

             IR8            Sheffield-Chesterfield-Trowell-EM Parkway-Leicester-London

                            Birmingham-Burton-Castle Donington-Nottingham-Trowell-Mansfield-
             IU1
                            Staveley-Chesterfield (Requires new infrastructure NR5)

                            Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton-
             IU2
                            Chesterfield-Sheffield (Test via GCR N)
                            Manchester Airport-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham-Trowell Parkway-
             IU4
   RAIL




                            Mansfield

             UT1            Belper-Derby-Nottingham

                            Coalville-Leicester-GC(N)-Nottingham-Beeston-Leicester-Coalville.
             UT2
                            (Requires new infrastructure NR1 and NR3)
                            Rotherham-Sheffield-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham (Requires new
             UT3
                            infrastructure NR5).
                            Matlock-Derby-East Mids Parkway-Leicester-Ashby de la Zouch.
             UT4
                            (Requires new infrastructure NR1).
                            Worksop-Mansfield-Nottingham-GC n-Leicester. (Requires new
             UT5
                            infrastructure NR3).

             UT6            Alfreton-Nottingham-Bingham


             NR1            Reopening of Knighton Junction to Ashby + chord at Knighton Junction

                            Loughborough to Nottingham Great Central line (via Tollerton) –
             NR3
                            Including New rail bridge across River Trent
                            Reopening line into Nottingham from Melton Mowbray– Including New
             NR4
                            rail bridge across River Trent

* Costs of service operation not shown but to be included in scheme appraisal.
 Year of Implementation:                                2006                  2011                 2016




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                         81
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


Mode /                       Option
                             Ref
                                      Description                                                                 Core   Test
Policy
                             NR5      Clowne Branch Reopening (Regeneration scheme)
                             NR6      Pye Bridge to Kirkby Summit Junction reopening
                                      Castle Donington Line upgrade to passenger standard + New station at
                             NR8
                                      Castle Donington
                             NR12     Matlock-Buxton Reopening
                             NR13     Newark Chord
  RAIL




                             NR14     Rail network speed and capacity improvements
                             NR15     Improved accessibility to rail stations (notional cost indicated)
                             FR0      SRA Freight Strategy Improvements (do-minimum improvements)
                             FR1      Intermodal Rail Freight Terminal (location non-specific)
                             FR2      Loading Gauge Improvements – Including cost of FR3
                             FR3      Rail Freight Links to Humber Ports (Cost included in FR2)
                             FR4      Central Railway Proposal (Cost for Leicester to Sheffield section)

                                      Current NET Extension Proposals: Beeston (with extension to M1 Jcn 25),
                             LR1
                                      Clifton, West Bridgford (with extension to Nottingham South Parkway)

                             LR2      NET Line 1 extension to Mansfield
  ROAD PASSENGER TRANSPORT




                             LR3      NET to Trowell Parkway / Ilkeston North / Cotmanhay
                             LR4a     NET to Gamston (Alternative Heavy Rail)
                             LR4b     NET to Gedling (Alternative Heavy Rail)
                             LR4c     NET to Cotgrave (Alternative Heavy Rail)
                             LR5b     Leicester North LRT (Syston/East Goscote)
                             LR5c     Leicester South LRT (Blaby)
                             BC1      Bus Priority on Major Routes.
                             BC4      Derby – Alfreton – Mansfield – Bolsover – Chesterfield.
                             BC5      Derby – Melbourne – East Midlands Airport – Shepshed-Loughborough
                             BC6      Leicester – Coalville – Shepshed – Loughborough.
                                      Dronfield-Chesterfield-Clay Cross–Alfreton–Ripley–Heanor–Ilkeston–
                             BC7
                                      Trowell-EMA (via M1).

                                      Derby Shuttle Bus linking Derby South Parkway through Sinfin to Derby
                             BC8
                                      Station, City Centre and Spondon Station

* Costs of service operation not shown but will be included in scheme appraisal.
 Year of Implementation:                                            2006                    2011                2016




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                       82
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT




Mode /           Option    Description                                                                 Core   Test
Policy            Ref

                           Trowell Parkway (served by NET into Nottingham and to Ilkeston – requires
STRATEGIC PARK




                 PR3a
                           a new Road Link from M1 Service Area including M1 over-bridge)

                           M1 Junction 26 (Nuthall) – Served by an extension of NET: Replace
    & RIDE




                 PR3b
                           Phoenix Park P&R.

                 PR3c      M1 Junction 25 (served by NET)

                           MEGZ (Regeneration Scheme – served by Heavy Rail via the re-opened
                 PR5
                           Clowne Branch)

                 MW1       Junction 21 – Lane reallocation + roundabout widening

                           Junction 28 – roundabout and approach road widening (A38 4-lane
                 MW3
                           approach)

                 MW3a      Junction 29 – A617 Flyover and roundabout capacity improvement

                 MW5       New Junction 29A (Approved scheme – funds committed)

                           Free-Flow Link Roads between M1 north and M69 (including D5 between
                 MW8
                           link roads and J21A)
   MOTORWAY




                 MW9       The Highways Agency Scheme for free-flow links at Junction 28

                 MW10      Link Roads between M1 North and A610

                           Junction 23A to 25 Intermediate Scheme with 5 lanes between J24A and
                 MW11
                           J25 incorporating SR4 (MW13 as an alternative)

                           M1 widening to 5 lanes J25-J27 (including J25 and J26 improvements) with
                 MW12a
                           4 lanes between J26 and J26A and through junctions

                           The Highways Agency Scheme for Junction 23A to Junction 25 including
                 MW13
                           dual 5-lane section between J24A and J25 (with MW12a)

                           Widen to Dual 4-Lane: J21A – J23A – Junction 22 and 23 capacity
                 MW15a
                           improvements (SR13/SR17b/SR19 possible alternative)

                 MW15b     Widen to Dual 4-Lane: J27 - J30 with climbing lanes between J27-J28-J29


  Year of Implementation:                             2006                   2011                    2016




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                            83
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



Mode /               Option   Description                                                            Core   Test
Policy               Ref

                     SR1      Local Authority LTP Proposals for 2006 (not committed)

                     SR2      Local Authority Longer Term Proposals (Pleasley Bypass Extension)

                     SR4      Short Link between A453 west and A50
  STRATEGIC ROADS




                     SR5      A6 Kegworth Bypass (included within MW13)

                     SR7a     Minor improvement of the A453: Crusader Junction to University.

                     SR7b     A453 Dualling Subject to A453 study proposals (Omit SR13 and SR17b)
                     SR12     New Trent Crossing in Nottingham and associated link roads

                     SR13     New Link – A50 to A46

                              SR13 Complementary Measures: Upgrade A606 and Bypasses of
                     SR17b
                              Melton Mowbray/Oakham

                     SR18     A617 Glapwell Bypass Dual 2-lane carriageway

                              A1 Upgrading to D3 Motorway – Peterborough to Blyth (Possible
                     SR19
                              alternative to MW15a)

                     TC1      Stringent Car Parking Controls/Workplace Charging
  TRANSPORT CHANGE




                     TC3      Widespread Adoption of Travel Plans

                     TC5a     Area Wide Road Pricing (Exclude widening M1 to 5-lanes)

                     TC7      Water Freight: Inland Port at Colwick

                     TC8      Behaviour Change Strategy

                     TC9      Integrated (through) PT ticketing

                     TC9a     Reduced PT Fares


 Year of Implementation:                                 2006                 2011                  2016




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                           84
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



7.          THE RECOMMENDED STRATEGY

            INTRODUCTION

7.1         The recommended strategy has been developed to address the study brief and the
            specific local objectives agreed by the study‟s Project Management Group. The
            philosophy underpinning the recommended strategy can be summarised as:

                    addressing the immediate problems on the road network affecting traffic,
                     congestion and safety problems;

                    identifying easy to implement „quick wins‟ in terms of early public transport
                     improvements;

                    putting in place a detailed strategy of policy interventions that begin to tackle issues
                     of travel demand management and travel behaviour change which combined with
                     the early public transport improvements will begin to achieve increasing mode shift
                     from car to public transport;

                    providing sufficient capacity on the M1 motorway to cater for expected traffic growth
                     (that will materialise despite all other best efforts – with the possible exception of
                     widespread road pricing) until such time as the recommended public transport
                     schemes are all in place and the „transport change‟ strategy has had sufficient time
                     to make a significant impact upon road traffic growth.

7.2         Whilst the recommended strategy includes substantial motorway widening, the package
            of public transport improvements and policy interventions comprise 67% of the
            overall £1.8 billion cost. Furthermore, although a significant element of new strategic
            roads have been assessed these are not included in the final recommended strategy.

7.3         As the recommendations relating to road capacity increase are likely to be the most
            controversial, it is worth noting some of the local objectives and how the recommended
            strategy addresses these objectives.

                    Economy: Identify transport system improvements to contribute to meeting
                     economic ambitions of the region.

                        Ensure a transport system that will help to engender a positive climate for
                        investment and skills development, and assist in the regeneration of the urban
                        areas and the coalfields areas.

                        Explore and conclude whether it is desirable or not to add significantly to the
                        capacity of the motorway and associated junctions, given the requirement to
                        manage demand.

7.4         Through the extensive testing of different strategies including policy interventions we
            have concluded that it is desirable to add to road capacity (particularly the M1 and
            its Junctions) as not to do so would be a real abrogation of responsibility in that
            more serious congestion and deterioration of road safety would result without it,
            despite the considerable recommended expenditure on public transport. This is

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       85
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            because road traffic is growing and it will increase still further over the study horizon. A
            key objective of the study is to reduce road congestion with all its associated disbenefits.
            The recommended strategy is forecast to save some 8,000 road traffic accidents
            involving almost 13,000 casualties over a thirty year period. Much of this improvement in
            road safety is due to the recommended motorway improvements without which, these
            safety benefits could not be realised.

                        Explore and conclude on the extent to which it is appropriate to improve the
                        network, quality and level of service of public transport, and improve the
                        infrastructure, given the likely use of the facility.

7.5         We have taken the view that improvements to public transport infrastructure, services
            and general quality are needed to provide the basis for a longer term sustainable
            transport strategy. The overall contribution of public transport, within the study horizon, is
            small compared to the proportional study recommended investment. In addressing the
            above local objective therefore, it can be concluded that the Value for Money of the
            combined total public transport elements of the strategy is poor. But as stated above,
            the recommended public transport improvements are considered vital to securing
            the targeted change in travel demand and travel patterns to reduce future road
            traffic growth and avoid the scenario of further substantial road capacity increase in the
            longer term.

                    Integration: Identify demand and supply-side interventions to increase travel choice
                     through public transport network development and/or to reduce the need for travel

                        Exploit the potential for demand management interventions and promotion,
                        enablement of behavioural change in order to impact on future of travel in the
                        corridor and to improve travel choice.

                        Identify potential for exploiting new technology in informing travel choices before
                        and during travel, for ticketing and marketing initiatives in public transport, and for
                        improving travel awareness and encouraging behavioural change in travel.

        Other Objectives: Propose measures to reduce the need to travel

                        Ensure consistency with other strategies affecting the area, especially those of
                        the other multi-modal studies of significance to M1 corridor movements.

7.6         In addressing the above local objectives, we have developed and embedded a set of
            policy interventions as six separate work streams in the strategy amounting to a £30
            million package of proposals designed to effect travel demand reduction and enable
            behaviour change, within the first five years of the strategy.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                         86
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            SUMMARY OF STRATEGY BENEFITS

7.7         A summary of the change brought about through the recommended strategy is presented
            in Table 7.1 below.

                                         Table 7.1 – Summary Transport Statistics

                        Measure                                           Change

                        Access to New Rail Stations                    +2060 people

                        Access to LRT                                 +118,000 people

                        Use of Public Transport                 +100% peak (+200% off-peak)

                        Accidents                                  -5% (-8,000 accidents)

                        Vehicle kilometres                            -3% (HGV -14%)
                        Vehicle Hours                                 -6% (HGV -15%)

                        M1 Journey Times                            -15% (-9% base year)

                        Total Traffic                                 -1% (HGV -4%)
                        Stress on M1                               -65% (-35% base year)

                        Stress on other roads                      -25% (+12% base year)

7.8         The recommended strategy improves options for use of public transport. Over 120,000
            people live within a 250m distance (3 minute walk time) of a new heavy rail station or a
            new light rail line. At 2021, there would be a doubling of peak hour public transport use
            and a three fold increase in the off-peak period compared to the situation without the
            recommended strategy.

7.9         Very significant road safety benefits are afforded by the recommended strategy, resulting
            in a saving of almost 8,000 road traffic accidents over a thirty year period.

7.10        The shift to public transport combined with the policy interventions are expected to lead
            to a slight reduction in total highway traffic. There are more significant reductions in
            overall vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours travelled on the road network.

7.11        Travel conditions on the M1 would be substantially improved, with a 15% reduction in
            2021 journey times compared to the situation without the improvements and a 9%
            improvement on current journey times. The recommended strategy will lead to a 65%
            reduction in „stress‟ on the motorway and a 35% improvement compared to current
            conditions. Considering the wider road network within the study area, the recommended
            strategy will lead to a 25% reduction highway stress, although the increasing traffic
            volumes would result in a worsening compared to current conditions.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                               87
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



7.12        A summary of the economic assessment of the recommended strategy is shown in Table
            7.2 below.

                                         Table 7.2 – Summary Economic Statistics

                   Measure                                                   Benefit

                   Accidents                                                 £194m
                   Travel Time                                              £3,613 m

                   Present Value of Cost                                    £1,585 m
                   Net Present Value                                        £3,256 m

                   Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR)                                    3.0

                   Value/Cost to Government Ratio (VCGR)                       4.6

7.13        The monetary values in Table 7.2 are all in 1998 prices discounted to 1998. It can be
            seen that the recommended strategy provides a very good return on the investment with
            a benefit to cost ratio of 3.0.

            STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

7.14        A key feature of the study recommendations is the focus on low-cost, easily delivered
            improvements in the early years of the plan. These schemes have been developed
            specifically to deliver significant early benefits.

7.15        The strategy is recommended in full with each element making a valuable
            contribution to achieving the overall study objectives. It is recognised that different
            planning processes and delivery constraints will result in different timescales for the
            implementation of different schemes. It is nevertheless emphasised that each element of
            the recommended strategy is considered to be an important part of the package. Whilst a
            detailed exclusion analysis of individual schemes has not been completed, on the basis
            of previous detailed analyses it can be stated that other than the motorway
            improvements, the omission of no other single element will render the strategy in-
            effective in terms of the Government’s national transport objectives as assessed
            through the Central Government Appraisal Summary Table.

7.16        The strategy elements are described under the following „decision area‟ headings:

                    Heavy Rail;

                    Freight;

                    Road Based Passenger Transport;

                    Strategic Park and Ride;

                    Motorway;

                    Strategic Roads; and

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                             88
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    Policy Interventions

7.17        The strategy is described in detail below and a summary is presented in Table 7.5. The
            recommended new bus and rail services are illustrated in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.2 shows
            the recommended new public transport infrastructure and the highway recommendations
            are shown in Figure 7.3.

            HEAVY RAIL

7.18        There are a significant number of relatively short distance journeys within the study area.
            Many people commute daily between the three cities and other urban areas. Thus in
            order to have the maximum impact on mode shift, there is a need to target the commuter
            traffic.

7.19        A number of new rail services are proposed some of which do not satisfy the recognised
            Value for Money criteria. However, we have taken the view that it should be recognised
            that there is a cost associated with delivery of the Government‟s sustainable transport
            agenda that is over and above that of implementing schemes that deliver good value for
            money. That is to say that, the assessment criteria for rail schemes remains the same
            today as it was before the 1998 Transport White Paper. Thus schemes that are good
            value for money today would also have represented an equally robust commercial case
            in the past. The recommended strategy has been developed to facilitate achievement of
            the Government‟s aim of increasing mode shift from car to public transport, and develop
            a longer term trend where people make decisions about the location of their work places
            and homes, based on a much improved public transport network. This will necessarily
            mean that some of the public transport schemes need to be provided not to cater entirely
            for currently measurable demand, but to sow the seeds for the longer term changes in
            development locations and peoples‟ travel choices. It is recommended that the identified
            capital cost and on-going revenue support that is not covered by revenue receipts is
            treated as part of the overall investment cost for the delivery of the improved public
            transport network and indeed delivery of the Government‟s sustainable transport policy.

7.20        Proposals for improvements to the railways include train service improvements, railway
            line/capacity improvements and railway station facility improvements. The focus has
            been to target improvements that will, in the first instance, deliver early results and in the
            longer term (20-30 years) achieve a much increased mode shift from car to rail. Also, we
            have taken a view on the minimum standard of quality and facilities that should be
            provided at railway stations.

7.21        In developing the recommended schemes and services, we have held detailed
            discussions with the SRA, Railtrack and Train Operating Companies.

7.22        All improvements recommended for implementation before 2011 are considered to be of
            relatively low cost. Many are simply service enhancements but others involve new
            capital investment. Where capital investment is needed within the SRA’s Strategic
            Plan period, it is recommended that these schemes should be incorporated within
            the SRA’s Strategic Plan at its next review.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    89
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Train Service Improvements

7.23        The early analysis of the highway movements and feedback from the consultation
            process showed there to be a need for three particular levels of rail service provision:

                    Long distance linkages into the study area, with a particular focus upon the three
                     large conurbations of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby (Inter-Regional services);

                    Medium distance links between the key urban centres in the area, as well as
                     Birmingham and Sheffield of a limited stop nature (Inter-Urban services); and

                    Short distance stopping train services of a dedicated East Midlands nature
                     removing the need for a combined inter-urban/urban train service as is the case
                     today (Urban Triangle services).

7.24        Each new rail service is described below, grouped into the three different service types.

            Inter-regional services

7.25        Thames Valley – Birmingham - Derby South – Nottingham – Newark - Leeds (IR2/3)
            – This service would provide a direct cross-country style train linking Nottingham into the
            longer distance non-London focussed rail network. It would run on an hourly basis and
            would hold as a target a journey time of less than an hour between Birmingham New
            Street and Nottingham, achieved by routing via the Castle Donington line. In order to
            tap into the South of Derby and the A50 highway corridor movements a new station at
            Derby South would be served, and this along with the reopening of the Castle
            Donington line plus a new connecting chord at Newark would be required before full
            implementation of the service. As an interim measure, the service should be introduced
            from 2006 running via Nottingham and hence up the Erewash Valley to Sheffield and
            onto Leeds.

7.26        Problems in providing this service are known to exist in obtaining a train path between
            Birmingham New Street and Derby, and on the East Coast Main Line particularly
            between Doncaster-Wakefield and Leeds. Solutions identified included providing
            Voyager performance rolling stock with a 125mph maximum speed capability, and in
            routing the train into Leeds running via Hambleton Junction. It is recognised that
            Railtrack/SRA are addressing certain of these issues via their East Midlands Project
            Development Group (PDG), input to which has been provided by WS Atkins with respect
            to M1 proposals.

7.27        Manchester-Stoke-Uttoxeter-Derby-Leicester (IR5) – this service would provide one of
            two new North West to East Midlands services, and could be implemented with a
            minimum of improvements. It would provide for a direct link between Manchester and
            Derby and Leicester, and would serve the increasingly busy A50 trunk road corridor,
            running on a limited stop basis. High quality Voyager style rolling stock running as a 3-car
            length train would operate this service, running to an hourly service pattern, and
            providing a step change in both quality of vehicle and of train performance characteristics




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     90
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



7.28        In introducing this service there is a known problem in obtaining train paths through the
            south Manchester area, but the ability to link a service directly into the north-west
            conurbation is seen to be key component of the final strategy to effectively compete
            against the high quality A50 alternative. A call at the new Derby South station would be
            envisaged, as well as the present city centre station, and the service would also tap into
            the new East Midlands Parkway station.

7.29        Manchester-Buxton-Matlock-Derby-Nottingham (IR6) – the second of the two North
            West to East Midlands services, this would use the planned to be reopened Matlock-
            Buxton route. It would provide a quicker route between Manchester and Derby than
            service IR5, but would be dependant upon the high costs of infrastructure associated with
            the reopening of the former Midland Railway route through the Peak District. It is
            acknowledged that such a service would provide for many journeys far beyond the study
            area and remit of the M1 Multi-Modal Study, and as such the Matlock-Buxton route
            should be seen as a strategic proposal with value for passenger and freight movements
            both within the north-south axis as well as for the Peak National Park. Further detailed
            analysis is currently being undertaken to test for these much wider benefits, with the
            scheme not forming the cornerstone of the M1 MMS rail strategy, but a very useful
            additional route and service if implemented.

7.30        The service would run on an hourly basis, using Voyager style trains, and would be
            limited stop in nature. It would run onto Nottingham, and would open up many new
            journey opportunities including Buxton and Matlock-Nottingham, helping to relieve the
            stretch of the M1 up to Junction 29.

7.31        Sheffield-Erewash Valley-Leicester-St Pancras (IR8) – this service would provide a
            second direct Sheffield to London St Pancras service every off-peak hour, but running via
            Alfreton and Trowell. It would re-establish the role of Alfreton station as a Parkway
            station, and would also provide one of the key services to call at the proposed Trowell
            Parkway station.

7.32        The service would be operated in the off-peak period only and would use Voyager style
            trains, capable of 125mph speed operation. It would utilise the proposed improvements
            along the Erewash Valley route, including line-speed upgrades, as well as grade
            separation at Trent Junction along the north-south alignment.

7.33        Known problems in running this service includes line capacity problems south of Bedford,
            and in particular at St Pancras station where only 4 platforms will be available after the
            opening of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link stage 2.

                    It is of key importance that the SRA continues to address the issue of the lack of
                     platform capacity at St Pancras station to avoid restricting the options for extra off-
                     peak Midland Main Line services either from this study or other studies covering
                     this corridor.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      91
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Inter-Urban services

7.34        Three different service patterns are proposed as part of this group of services, all being
            of a limited stop nature and running at hourly intervals.

7.35        Cardiff-Birmingham-Derby South-Nottingham (IU1) – this service is based upon the
            present Central Trains‟ Cardiff to Nottingham service running via Derby with reversal. In
            order to gain a ‘quick win’ the service is proposed to be diverted to run via the
            Castle Donington line with a headline journey time between Birmingham and
            Nottingham of one hour. Combined with service IR2/3 this would provide for a half-
            hourly fast service between the two cities, providing a step change in service provision
            and quality from that provided today. Rolling stock would be formed of 125mph Voyager
            style trains, using the Virgin Cross Country line speed improvements between
            Birmingham and Derby to the full. Service IU1 would call at Tamworth and Burton, along
            with Derby South, and would hold the option of calling at a new Castle Donington (for
            East Midlands Airport) station when demand for rail-air travel had built up sufficiently,
            probably beyond the timescale of this study.

7.36        By making this service a diversion of the present Cardiff-Nottingham service no extra
            train paths are required, and so this service may be seen as a simple and easily
            implemented recommendation. However, the present day frequency of service between
            Birmingham and Derby would be preserved, by the planned provision of a second Virgin
            Cross-Country service along this route from 2003, giving three trains an hour between
            the two cities as today (2002).

7.37        Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Alfreton-Sheffield (IU2) – an
            hourly service providing a direct link between the Erewash Valley stations, Leicester,
            Birmingham and Sheffield. In addition, this service would provide for a second fast train
            each hour between Nottingham and Sheffield. The service would call at the new Trowell
            Parkway, as well as East Midlands Parkway, along with the major stations passed
            through en-route. It would fulfil the observed desire lines of highway movements from
            north of Nottingham to Leicester and Birmingham, as well as providing for much
            enhanced services at Alfreton.

7.38        The service would run using high specification roiling stock of a Voyager style, and would
            be additional to the present two trains an hour service between Birmingham, Leicester
            and Nottingham. As such it would involve an additional hourly train path in each direction
            crossing the West Coast main Line at Nuneaton, which is likely to prove problematic
            without a flyover provided. Such a structure is planned as part of the Passenger Upgrade
            for the West Coast Main Line.

7.39        Manchester Airport-Stoke-Derby-Nottingham-Trowell-Mansfield (IU4) – this service
            is a simple extension of the present Manchester Airport to Nottingham service, run by
            Central Trains. The replacement service would provide for a new link between Derby and
            Mansfield via Nottingham, and would involve higher quality rolling stock than that
            provided by Central Trains at present. In order to avoid line capacity problems along the
            present Robin Hood line via Hucknall, the service would be routed via Pye Bridge and
            Kirkby Summit to access Mansfield, and thereby provide useful Mansfield to
            Erewash Valley stations links. Such a service could be quickly implemented, being
            dependant upon the upgrade of the Pye Bridge route.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 92
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Urban Triangle services

7.40        The final group of services seeks to provide a locally resourced PTE style service, with
            the aim of giving a minimum of 2 trains per hour stopping on each leg of the triangle
            linking Derby, Nottingham and Leicester, with Mansfield providing a fourth linkage point.
            This would move away from the current service provision, where these local movements
            are part of much longer operations, with, for example, the linkage between Derby and
            Leicester provided by long distance Midland Main Line services, and with no regular
            direct local service between Spondon and Long Eaton towards Loughborough and
            Leicester.

7.41        In order to minimise the demand for new train paths through the pinch points at Trent
            Junction and at Derby, Nottingham and Leicester stations most of these new services
            have been formed by extensions or re-routing of current services. Each of the services
            would be run on an hourly basis, and would be formed of higher quality rolling stock than
            at present, generally of the Turbostar variety. The services involved are described below.

7.42        Belper–Derby-Nottingham (UT1) – an additional all station stopping service linking
            Derby and Nottingham. The service would be timed to turn around at Belper to avoid
            using up platform capacity at Derby, as well as to provide for a half hourly service from
            the urban areas at Duffield and Belper when combined with service UT4.

7.43        Rotherham–Sheffield–Staveley–Clowne–Mansfield–Hucknall-Nottingham (UT3) -
            an additional Robin Hood line service using the present Hucknall route. The service
            would provide for a much stronger destination point for Robin Hood movements than is
            the case of Worksop, and would provide a direct link into the Markham Employment
            Growth Zone site at Markham/Staveley. As such the service would be dependant upon
            the reopening of the current mothballed Clowne Branch between Creswell and
            Seymour Junction/Staveley.

7.44        Service UT3 would in fact act as an extension of the planned second train each hour on
            the Robin Hood line, which has recently been allocated Rail Passenger Partnership
            (RPP) funding and would run between Nottingham and Mansfield Woodhouse. As such
            the costs of operation of the service should only be ascribed for the stretch of route
            between Mansfield Woodhouse and Rotherham, so the financial and economic appraisal
            of this service would in fact be better than is the case in the M1 Study.

7.45        Matlock–Derby–East Midlands Parkway–Leicester (UT4) – an extension of the
            present Matlock to Derby service, linking to the present Ivanhoe Loughborough to
            Leicester service. This service would provide for a standard hourly service from Matlock
            as opposed to the present service running every 90 minutes, and would provide for a
            direct link to Leicester.

7.46        Worksop–Mansfield–Hucknall-Nottingham–Loughborough-Leicester(UT5) – an
            extension of the current Robin Hood line service southwards to Leicester, thereby
            doubling the frequency of the Ivanhoe line service, as well as extending it to Nottingham.

7.47        Chesterfield-Clowne-Mansfield-Trowell-Nottingham-Bingham (UT7) – this service
            would provide a second train every hour through the proposed Markham Employment
            Growth Zone site onwards to Nottingham, and would be routed via the Kirkby Summit-
            Pye Bridge line to avoid Robin Hood line capacity problems. Adopting this route would
            enable a second train each hour to serve the Erewash valley stations, and the service

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                93
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            would be routed via Toton to serve the employment sites at Beeston. Beyond Nottingham
            it would run onto Bingham to provide for cross-city movements, and also to avoid turning
            the train around in Nottingham station, freeing up valuable platform capacity.

            Rail capacity problems

7.48        As a result of the additional services imposed upon the current rail network a number of
            rail capacity problems are recognised to exist, potentially involving more costs beyond
            that assigned to the rail proposals. These problems are listed below, along with some
            potential solutions.

           Robin Hood via Hucknall

7.49        There are known line capacity problems between Kirkby Summit and Nottingham
            (Radford Junction) where the route has been made single track by the introduction of
            NET, though the award of RPP funding for the new Nottingham-Mansfield Woodhouse
            service shows that two trains per hour in each direction along this section is operationally
            feasible. The routing of services IU4 and UT7 via the Pye Bridge-Kirkby Summit route
            seeks to reduce the pressures upon this stretch of line.

           Beeston-Trent Junction

7.50        There are line capacity problems between Trent Junction and Beeston where the
            existence of two stations (Attenborough and Beeston), and three level crossings
            (Meadow Lane, Barton Lane and Attenborough) severely limits the line capacity. Dense
            housing along the route restricts options for widening the route to four tracks. In order to
            remove these constraints options include replacement of the level crossings by bridges,
            as well as upgrading of the current goods lines between Beeston and Lenton Junction
            (Nottingham) to passenger standards. The latter work could be carried out as part of the
            Trent Signal Box re-signalling scheme. An alternative solution would be to construct a
            new spur at Trowell junction running east to south, which would enable freight services
            running from east of Nottingham to Toton yard to take the Radford Junction to Trowell
            route rather than run via Beeston. Costs for these two options have not been estimated
            as part of this study, as the need for such major infrastructure improvements is
            dependant upon the introduction of the full range of services proposed in this study, with
            diversion of freight services via other routes leading to the potential for avoiding these
            changes.

                    We recommend that a detailed appraisal of the means to improve line capacity
                     between Trent and Beeston is undertaken, building upon the work already being
                     undertaken as part of the Railtrack/SRA East Midlands PDG. In addition, a detailed
                     costing and assessment should be carried out into the feasibility of a new spur at
                     Trowell.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  94
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



           Nottingham station capacity

7.51        Station capacity problems at Nottingham exist, with more trains required to turn back at
            the western end of the station, and more Mansfield line to Nottingham station
            movements. Track layout changes, with additional bay platforms at the western end of
            the station formed by removal of the two through „middle‟ roads would enable this, as
            would pairing of lines by direction west of the station rather than by speed as of now.

                    We recommend that as part of the Trent Junction re-signalling scheme a redesign
                     of the platform arrangement and western station throat at Nottingham is undertaken
                     by Railtrack/SRA as part of the ongoing East Midlands PDG and the planned
                     redevelopment of Nottingham station itself.

           Train stabling problems

7.52        The additional trains required to operate primarily the local train services would require
            additional depot and stabling facilities, beyond that which Nottingham Eastcroft or Derby
            Etches Park could currently absorb. Costs for extra standing for trains have not been
            included in the economic appraisal of the final strategy, as the exact locations of such
            stabling, nor of the actual limits upon existing capacity, have been made known to WS
            Atkins.

                    We recommend that additional train stabling in the Nottingham, Leicester, and
                     Derby area is identified in advance of the provision of the proposed new rail
                     services.

            Railway Infrastructure Improvements

7.53        In order to facilitate the new service patterns proposed a number of rail infrastructure
            schemes/improvements need to be undertaken.

7.54        Clowne Branch Reopening (NR5) - Reinstatement of this route to allow for Mansfield to
            Chesterfield/Sheffield services. Services UT3 and UT7 would require this route to be
            reopened, along with the (re)opening of stations at Clowne, MEGZ and Staveley.

7.55        Pye Bridge to Kirkby Summit Junction reopening (NR6) - The reopening of this
            current freight-only line would enable a direct link to be made between the Mansfield line
            and the Erewash Valley, and also allow the possibility of conversion of the present Robin
            Hood line to Light Rail operation. The present line is double track but of low speed.
            Upgrading of the line to passenger standards would be relatively simple, as would raising
            the line speed limit which is constrained more by the current condition of the track and
            the signalling system rather than the route geometry. Services IU4 and UT7 would use
            this route.

7.56        Castle Donington Line (NR8) - The current freight only Stenson Junction to Sheet
            Stores line is double track and used for freight but with the capability for occasional
            passenger usage. Reopening of this line for regular passenger usage would provide for
            enhanced journey times between Birmingham and Nottingham, and would also allow for
            a new (future) station at Castle Donington to serve the airport via a dedicated link
            continuing onwards to East Midlands Parkway station. Minor works would be required in
            removing temporary speed restrictions, but in order to meet a journey time of under an

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 95
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            hour from Birmingham to Nottingham more major improvements would be required at
            Stenson Junction, the costs for which are included in the economic assessment. Services
            IR2/IR3 and IU1 would use this route.

7.57        Barrow Hill Line Reopening (NR10) - Reopening of the currently freight-only
            Chesterfield to Rotherham/Sheffield would provide for access to the proposed Clowne
            branch and Bolsover line options. As this line is currently used as a passenger
            diversionary route and is maintained to passenger standards implementation of this
            option could be immediate.

7.58        Matlock-Buxton Reinstatement (NR12) - This option would see the former Midland
            Mainline between Matlock and Buxton reopened/reinstated, absorbing the present Peak
            Rail operation between Matlock Riverside and Rowsley South. The total distance
            involved would be just less than 20 miles, of which 12 miles would need full
            reinstatement. For the purposes of this study it would be assumed that two new stations
            are provided at Darley Dale or Rowsley and Bakewell. Service IR6 would use this line.

7.59        As has already been mentioned, the case for this line reopening is beyond the remit of
            this study, with only a limited knowledge available of the movements able to use this
            route. It has been included within the final package as it meets the desire for North-West
            to East Midlands A6/A50 journeys, were the planned reopening of the line to go ahead.
            This study cannot in itself justify the economic case for such a route.

7.60        Newark Chord (NR13) - The provision of an entirely new chord line between the
            Nottingham-Newark Castle-Lincoln line and the northbound East Coast Main line would
            enable long distance trains passing through Nottingham to obtain a faster route to West
            Yorkshire and the North East. The provision of this chord is inter-related with the
            proposed new underpass at Newark as part of the East Coast Main Line upgrade being
            progressed by the SR. The new long distance service IR3 would use this link.

                    It is recommended that in the immediate future the design for a new north-
                     west chord at Newark should be included within the Transport and Works Act
                     application for Newark underpass, along with parallel design work such that
                     this proposed service routing is not precluded.

7.61        Capacity Improvements (NR14) - The rail service and network improvements described
            above will require a number of other improvements to existing infrastructure and these
            are included within all strategy packages. These improvements would include capacity
            enhancements on the approaches to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield rail stations as
            well as improvements to Trent Junction. Major line speed improvements on the main
            Midland Main Line and Cross Country Central Trains/Virgin Trains routes would also be
            included. The key schemes included are listed below:

                    Improvements in line speed along Midland Main Line to permit 5 minute time
                     reductions north and south of Leicester (i.e. 10 minutes time saving in total for a
                     London to Sheffield journey) – a Midland Main Line franchise extension scheme.

                    Extra line capacity between Leicester and Syston, with the reinstatement of the
                     fourth track, as well an additional platform at Syston.

                    Improved line speeds on the slow lines between Leicester and Trent Junction,
                     including additional slow line platforms at Loughborough.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  96
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    Improvements to line capacity between Trent Junction and Nottingham, with the
                     use of the goods lines between Beeston and Mansfield Junction for passenger
                     services, and the pairing of four tracks by direction rather than speed.

                    Improvements in line speed between Birmingham and Derby-Sheffield – part of
                     Virgin Cross Country upgrade.

                    Reduction in journey time for services between Derby and Nottingham (5 minutes
                     less for an all stations service) due to improved pathing through Trent Junction –
                     IOS scheme in SRA Strategic Plan. Involves use of current fright only high level
                     lines for passenger services, and parallel moves along the Derby-Nottingham axis.

                    No additional time penalties at Nottingham, Derby and Leicester stations caused by
                     the extra services passing through or reversing at the station, achieved through
                     redesigned track layouts and re-signalling.

                    Extra bay platforms at the west end of Nottingham station                for train
                     termination/reversal using space from removal of „middle‟ roads.

                    Improved line speeds on Stoke to North Stafford Junction line via Uttoxeter (5
                     minutes time reduction for stopping train Stoke to Derby, 6 minutes reduction for
                     semi-fast service, with extra stop at Derby South included) – scheme partly
                     proposed in SRA Strategic Plan.

7.62        An additional option not costed within our final strategy would be for the construction of a
            new east to south chord at Trowell junction to permit freight traffic from east of
            Nottingham to access Toton yard by running via Radford Junction to Trowell line, thereby
            freeing up capacity on the Beeston line.

            Railway Stations

7.63        Three levels of railway station development are proposed within the final strategy:

                    Entirely new or reopened stations;

                    Redeveloped stations to perform an enhanced or entirely new role (hub stations);
                     and

                    Improvements at remaining study area stations to bring them to a minimum
                     standard of facilities and information provision.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  97
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



           New Railway Stations

7.64        Derby South Parkway – a station located close to the site of the former Willington power
            station with new road links to the adjacent A50 trunk road. This station would be served
            by all passing Central Trains services, as well as the following new rail services:

                    IR2/3:        Birmingham-Castle   Donington-Nottingham-Sheffield/Newark-Doncaster-
                     Leeds;

                    IR5: Manchester-Uttoxeter-Derby-Nottingham-Mansfield;

                    IU1: Cardiff-Birmingham-Castle Donington-Nottingham; and

                    IU4: Manchester Airport-Uttoxeter-Derby-Nottingham-Mansfield.

7.65        Implementation of this station would require a new road link to be constructed
            between the adjacent A50/A38 junction and the station, along with a minimum 250
            space car park. Space for such station exists between Stenson and North Staffordshire
            Junctions.

7.66        Trowell Parkway – this station would be located immediately north of Trowell Junction
            on the Erewash valley line, and would have a dedicated road link from the M1 at
            Trowell services, as well as act as an interchange hub for the new NET route to Ilkeston
            and Cotmanhay. It would be served by the present and proposed Midland Mainline
            services along the Erewash Valley and the Central Trains North West to East Anglia
            service, as well as the following new services:

                    IR8: St Pancras-East Midlands Airport-Alfreton-Chesterfield-Sheffield (off-peak
                     only)

                    IU2:Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton-
                     Chesterfield-Sheffield;

                    IU4: Manchester Airport-Uttoxeter-Derby-Nottingham-Mansfield; and

                    UT7: Chesterfield-Mansfield-Trowell-Nottingham-Bingham.

7.67        A car park able to accommodate 500 cars would be required adjacent to the station.

7.68        MEGZ Parkway – this station would be located on the reopened Creswell to
            Staveley/Chesterfield line, and would be placed approximately at the site of Seymour
            Junction. It would act as a Park and Ride site fed from the new M1 Junction 29A as well
            as serving the development (Markham Employment Growth Zone) site itself. It would be
            served by the following services:

                    UT3: Rotherham-Sheffield-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham; and

                    UT7: Chesterfield-Mansfield-Trowell-Nottingham-Bingham.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  98
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.69        A car park able to accommodate 250 cars would be linked to the station, with highway
            access provided easily from the projected new roads to serve the MEGZ development.
            Bus links would be able to be provided to the town of Bolsover as well as the different
            elements of the MEGZ development as part of their Green Travel Plan.

7.70        Blaby (Leicester South) – this new station would be located between South Wigston
            and Narborough and would provide for a new Park and Ride site to both heavy rail and
            Light Rail, as well as an interchange point between heavy and light rail modes. A car park
            would be provided catering for 250 cars at the outset. All current Central Trains‟ services
            passing over this stretch of line would be expected to call, as would the new service IU2.

7.71        Other more local stations are proposed to be constructed at:

                    Ilkeston North on the Erewash Valley line – this would be located between Trowell
                     Parkway and Langley Mill and served by services IU4 and UT7.

                    Clowne and Staveley stations on the reopened Clowne branch (NR5) – these
                     would be served by the two Clowne line services UT3 and UT7l.

                    Castle Donington on the reopened Castle Donington line (NR8) - this would have
                     both a local and an airport feeder role, with the latter provided by a link bus to the
                     airport and East Midlands Parkway station. Only service IU1 (Cardiff-Nottingham)
                     would call here, but were passengers at the airport to grow to a sufficient level
                     (beyond the timescale of this study) service IR3 could also call.

           Redeveloped Stations

7.72        Syston (Leicester North) – this station would perform a similar role to Blaby (Leicester
            South) with interchange between car, rail, light rail and bus. An enlarged car park to 250
            spaces would be provided, as well a second platform as part of the four tracking at this
            point, along with major station facility improvements in line with the new role.

7.73        All passing Central Trains services are assumed to call at them, as well as the following
            new services:

                    IU2:Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton-
                     Chesterfield-Sheffield;

                    UT4:Matlock-Leicester; and

                    UT5:Worksop-Nottingham-Leicester.

7.74        Derby East (Spondon) – this station would be developed as a new out of town pick-up
            point for long distance travel from the east of Derby, taking over the role of Long Eaton
            in this respect. To fulfil this role the station would be rebuilt, have 250 car park spaces
            provided and a new link road provided to the adjacent A52 via the A6005/A5111
            junction. All passing trains of a inter-urban or urban nature, as well as the semi-fast
            Midland main Line service, would be planned to call here thereby avoiding the need to
            drive into the city centre station from this side of Derby.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     99
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.75        Alfreton station – the former Alfreton and Mansfield Parkway would re-assume its role
            as a key Erewash Valley access point to rail, with direct services to London, Sheffield,
            Birmingham and Nottingham, as well the present Central Trains‟ table 49 Liverpool-
            Norwich services:

                    IR8: St Pancras-East Midlands Airport-Alfreton-Chesterfield-Sheffield (off-peak
                     only); and

                    IU2:Birmingham-Leicester-Loughborough-Nottingham-Trowell-Alfreton-
                     Chesterfield-Sheffield;

7.76        Langley Mill – this station would have a substantially improved service and role in the
            study area, gaining 3 trains an hour provided by the longer distance IU2 service along
            with a half-hourly local rail service from lines IU4 and UT7. The present pattern of
            stopping alternate Liverpool-Norwich services at the station would cease.

7.77        Dronfield – this station would gain a regular interval service by virtue of stopping the
            passing IU2 Birmingham to Sheffield service at the station.

           Station improvements

7.78        The remaining stations in the study area would be brought up to a minimum standard of
            facilities to be expected for a modern „PTE‟ style rail operation. Such a minimum would
            include the provision of the following features:

                    Provision of well signed, safe walking routes to the station;

                    Provision of CCTV and passenger help-points;

                    Provision of high quality information, via long-line or real time information systems;

                    Provision of secure cycle parking facilities;

                    Provision of secure car parking facilities with sufficient capacity to meet demand;

                    Provision of secure platform shelter on each platform with seating; and

                    High quality lighting on platforms and access routes.

7.79        The study Technical Note AST 6 outlines in detail the proposals for each of the stations,
            with a summary presented in Table 7.3 below.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                        100
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                       Table 7.3 – Summary of Recommended Station Improvements

             Name of Station                     Study recommendations

             Alfreton                            Improve parking, links with bus services, cycling facilities, new station buildings
             Attenborough                        Improve station, improve links with bus services
             Barrow upon Soar                    Improve station, improve links with bus services
             Beeston                             Develop district hub (rail/bus/NET), improve pedestrian links
             Belper                              Improve bus links, improve accessibility, extend car park
             Bulwell                             Develop district hub (rail/bus/NET), enhanced pedestrian links
             Chesterfield                        Develop district hub (rail/bus), improve cycle facilities and bus links
             Creswell                            Improve highway links and bus links
             Derby                               Improve bus access, provide lifts to all platforms
             Duffield                            Improve bus links, improve accessibility, extend car park
             Hucknall                            Develop local hub (rail/bus/NET), extend car park
             Kirkby in Ashfield                  Improve bus links, improve accessibility, extend car park
             Langley Mill                        Improve pedestrian links, improve accessibility
             Leicester                           Develop multi-modal interchange (rail/bus/LRT)
             Long Eaton                          Develop local hub, extend car park, improve links
             Loughborough                        Develop district hub (rail/bus), improve cycle facilities and bus links
             Mansfield                           Develop district hub (rail/bus), improve cycle facilities and bus links
             Mansfield Woodhouse                 Station in the process of upgrading
             Newstead                            Improve car park, pedestrian links, consider bus links
             Nottingham                          Plans for new multi-modal interchange (rail/bus/NET) being developed
             Shirebrook                          Improve bus links
             Sileby                              Improve highway links, bus links and cycle facilities
             South Wigston                       Develop local hub, improve links to District Centre
                                                 Develop as new fully accessible Derby East hub station, with rebuilt station,
             Spondon
                                                 new access road, car parking, bus links
             Sutton Parkway                      Improve bus links, accessibility
                                                 Develop as new fully accessible Leicester North hub station, with rebuilt
             Syston
                                                 station, new access road, car parking, bus/LRT links
             Whaley Thorns                       Improve bus links
             Whitwell                            Improve bus links




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                          101
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            ROAD BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT

7.80        In order to provide for a more locally based high quality transport system, two light rail
            networks are recommended in the final strategy in addition to the currently planned
            extensions of NET to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford. These new routes would be:

                    extend NET beyond West Bridgford to Nottingham South/Tollerton;

                    extend NET beyond Beeston to M1 J25;

                    extend NET from Phoenix park to Nuthall;

                    construct a new spur from the Beeston route to Ilkeston/Cotmanhay; and

                    Two completely new routes in Leicester, running north from the city centre and the
                     railway station to Syston and East Goscote; and southwards through the university
                     to Blaby (it is also considered that it may be possible to develop a spur from the
                     Blaby line to the Fosse Park retail Park close to M1 Junction 21).

7.81        Throughout the appraisal of the light rail systems the lack of short distance urban flow
            data has limited the ability to obtain a robust justification for the new routes, with
            particular problems encountered in assessing new routes to the east of Nottingham or
            the west of Leicester. Despite this, the above routes all perform a valuable role in terms
            of reducing congestion along the M1 corridor, with Park and Ride and interchange with
            heavy rail featuring on most routes.

            New Bus Services

7.82        Where heavy rail was not able to provide an attractive enough route or journey time but
            there was strong highway movement new express coach services were defined to meet
            the demand. Four such routes have been included in the final strategy, as described
            below.

7.83        Derby-Alfreton-Mansfield-Bolsover-Chesterfield (BC4) – this service running hourly
            would link together urban centres along the A38 corridor, and then provide for a Bolsover
            connection into the national rail network at Chesterfield and Mansfield.

7.84        Derby-Melbourne-East Midlands Airport-Shepshed-Loughborough (BC5) – both this
            route and that of BC7 provide for high quality links into East Midlands Airport, with
            service BC5 linking the airport to both Derby and Loughborough, passing through the
            township of Shepshed which has no rail linkages.

7.85        Leicester–Coalville–Shepshed–Loughborough (BC6) – this service would
            interconnect with route BC5 at Shepshed, and would provide for a quality link from
            Coalville towards the airport and Nottingham.

7.86        Dronfield–Chesterfield-Clay Cross–Alfreton–Heanor–Ilkeston–Trowell–E Midlands
            Airport (BC7) – the final service would provide a direct Erewash Valley settlement
            service to the Airport, connecting into the interchange station at Trowell Parkway en-
            route.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                102
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Bus Priority Measures

7.87        As part of this strategic study, it has not been possible to consider in detail specific
            locations for additional bus lanes. The exception being the provision of bus lanes along
            the proposed new bridge across the River Trent and on the existing Trent Bridge. The
            recommended strategy reduces road congestion overall and this will help improve bus
            journey times on those routes. It is recommended that local highway authorities review
            the provision of greater bus priority in light of the recommendations of this study.

            STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE

7.88        A number of strategic Park and Ride sites are proposed within the final strategy. Many of
            these have already been described in the foregoing heavy rail, light rail and bus route
            descriptions, but are listed below for completeness.

                                    Table 7.4 – List of Strategic Park and Ride sites

                             Site name                                    Served by

                             Leicester South (Blaby)                 Heavy rail, Light rail

                             Leicester North (Syston)                Heavy rail, Light rail

                             Nottingham South (Tollerton)                  Light rail

                             M1 J25                                        Light rail

                             Clifton                                       Light rail

                             Trowell Parkway                         Heavy rail, Light rail

                             Nuthall                                       Light rail

                             Hucknall                                Heavy rail, Light rail

                             Derby East (Spondon)                         Heavy rail

                             Derby South (Willington)                     Heavy rail

                             Markham Employment Growth Zone               Heavy rail

7.89        In all cases high quality rail station provision and associated car park and access roads
            would be required to enable Park and Ride to fulfil its role fully.

7.90        For the Nuthall Park and Ride site we have worked on the basis of a site located to the
            west of the Nuthall Island between the B600 Nottingham Road and the proposed M1 link
            roads. However, the recommendation is for a Park and Ride site serving M1 to
            Nottingham traffic via an extension to the NET line currently planned to Phoenix Park.
            We are aware of the potential commercial development at Watnall that may be accessed
            via the M1 to A610 link roads. It is possible that if a Park and Ride site were located to
            the west of the M1 motorway, then developer contributions may be forthcoming. Such a
            location is preferred by Broxtowe Borough Council and the NET line would then also
            serve the residents of Kimberley. Car access from the M1 could still be via a junction
            along the Link Roads.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                               103
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    It is recommended that the NET Consortium undertakes more detailed assessment
                     and consultation to determine the most feasible location for this park and ride site.

            MOTORWAY

7.91        The schemes under this decision area are sub-divided into junction and mainline
            improvements.

            Junctions

7.92        The main cause of congestion on the motorway at present is due to capacity constraints
            at a number of junctions. The recommended strategy therefore focuses on early
            solutions to the key problem junctions. Each recommended proposal is described below.

7.93        M1 Junction 21 (MW1) – This is the scene of regular congestion for southbound traffic in
            both the morning and evening peak periods with traffic stationary on the motorway
            carriageway upstream of the junction. Approximately half the southbound traffic flow
            exits the motorway at this location and only half continues along the motorway. The level
            of exiting flow is significantly in excess of that which can be accommodated on the single
            exit lane. The Highways Agency has a proposal to re-allocate lanes on the main
            carriageway upstream of the exit slip road to better apportion carriageway space in
            favour of the movement to exit the motorway.

                    It is recommended that as an interim measure the Highways Agency reviews
                     its proposal and allocates two of the four southbound lanes for traffic exiting
                     at Junction 21 and leaves two lanes for traffic travelling through the junction.
                     This would reduce the conflict between stationary traffic wishing to leave the
                     motorway and the through traffic thus improving safety. New overhead advance
                     direction signing would need to be provided to inform drivers of the revised
                     carriageway allocation.

                    In order to capitalise from this improved capacity of the exit slip road and to ensure
                     that traffic queues on the roundabout carriageway do not negate this improvement,
                     it is recommended that the roundabout circulatory carriageway be widened to
                     provide an additional lane to cater for the right turn manoeuvre between the
                     M1 north and the M69.

                    These recommendations require relatively minor works without affecting existing
                     structures that would bring immediate benefit and should therefore be completed
                     by the Highways Agency as a Local Network Management Scheme without
                     undue delay.

                    The longer term recommendation for Junction 21 is given under the heading of the
                     mainline improvement between junction 21 and 21A.

7.94        M1 Junction 24 – Interim measures to improve conditions at this junction are discussed
            under the heading of Strategic Roads below.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    104
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



7.95        M1 Junction 26 (MW10) – Whilst the roundabout at Junction 26 is itself subject to traffic
            congestion, it is regularly affected by traffic queues blocking back from the adjacent
            Nuthall Island situated approximately 1km east of the motorway roundabout providing an
            intersection with the Nottingham Outer Ring Road. The roundabout is already under
            traffic signal control to improve capacity and traffic flow management. The motorway
            improvement proposals currently on hold include the provision of Link Roads between
            the M1 north (New Junction 26A) and the A610 east of the Nuthall roundabout. These
            link roads would bypass both the motorway roundabout at Junction 26 and the Nuthall
            Island and thus remove Nottingham bound traffic from both congested nodes and bring
            significant traffic and safety benefits. The link roads would also provide an access to the
            proposed strategic Park & Ride site at Nuthall.

                    It is therefore recommended that the Link Roads be implemented in advance
                     of the motorway widening works unless these could be delivered in a similarly
                     short timescale. It is considered that such a scheme could be implemented without
                     the need for significant reconstruction at the time the motorway widening were to be
                     undertaken.

7.96        M1 Junction 28 (MW3) – This junction carries large volumes of traffic between the M1
            and the A38 trunk road and traffic is regulated through the use of signal control. Our
            analyses indicate that there is substantial latent traffic demand for the A38 that is
            currently using other less suitable routes. Significant development pressures also exist
            around this location. A number of roundabout improvement measures have been
            proposed by developers and the Highways Agency has been assessing options for
            capacity improvement. Within the previous motorway widening proposals the Highways
            Agency suggested the development of a major free-flow interchange at this location.
            Due to the nature of those proposals, involving a tunnel and loop roads, it is not
            considered that such a scheme could economically be constructed in advance of the
            motorway widening.

                    It is therefore recommended that as an interim measure, the roundabout
                     carriageway be widened between the motorway over bridges and the
                     approaches from the A38 both east and west also be widened at the approach
                     to the roundabout. The Highways Agency is currently in discussion with
                     developers to bring forward such junction capacity improvements with private
                     sector contributions.

7.97        M1 Junction 29 (MW3a) – There is regular evening peak hour queuing along the
            northbound off-slip and onto the main motorway carriageway. This not only causes
            disruption to the mainline flow but also poses a significant safety hazard.

                    As an immediate action it is proposed that the northbound exit slip road be
                     widened to provide three lanes at the entry to the roundabout and the
                     circulatory carriageway be widened between the slip road and the A617 west
                     (Chesterfield).

                    As the single largest flow at the roundabout is through traffic along the A617
                     between Chesterfield and Mansfield, it is recommended that an A617 flyover be
                     constructed to remove this traffic from the roundabout and free up capacity for
                     motorway traffic.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  105
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.98        It is recognised that the timing of some of the junction improvements ahead of the
            motorway widening would lead to a degree of reconstruction at the time of motorway
            widening a few years later. However, whilst this should be considered in more detail by
            the Highways Agency in developing detailed designs, it is considered that such an
            approach should be adopted to maximise early benefits of the junction improvement
            schemes.

            Mainline

7.99        Once the immediate problems have been addressed and the above recommended
            junction improvements are in place, the focus of the strategy shifts to the main motorway
            carriageway and widening is proposed for the entire length of the motorway within the
            study area (Junction 21 to Junction 30).

7.100 It is emphasised that the motorway widening proposals do not extend to ‘predict
      and provide’ but reflect a standard that is needed to achieve the study objectives
      and to meet the targets set out in the Government’s Ten Year Transport Plan. The
      proposed motorway standards are based on traffic flow projections for the year 2021,
      being ten years after the anticipated completion of the works. Traditionally however, the
      Highways Agency would assess the standard of a new or improved highway based on
      traffic forecasts fifteen years after opening.        The view is taken that if the
      recommendations are implemented at pace, then the motorway improvement could be
      complete by the year 2011. This means that the recommended standards are on the
      basis of a 10 year growth projection rather than the 15 year projection that would
      normally be used by the Highways Agency. Clearly, if national road user charges
      become a realistic prospect within the next ten years then the full standard of motorway
      widening recommended may not be needed. This aspect is discussed in more detail
      under the policy heading later in this chapter.

7.101 The recommended mainline standards have been developed on the basis of the traffic
      forecasts derived using the Tempro growth projections. This reflects a „Central Case‟
      forecast that does not extend to the more ambitious level of economic growth that is a
      regional aspiration. A greater level of economic activity would lead to increased traffic
      growth beyond that incorporated in the recommended strategy through the use of the
      Tempro forecasts. Nevertheless, the recommended strategy is considered to be robust
      against a range of economic (and traffic) growth.

7.102 Junction 21 to 21A (MW8) – This section of the M1 is one of its busiest links within the
      study area and it is currently four lanes wide in each direction.

                    It is recommended to provide new link roads between the M1 and M69 that
                     would join this section of the M1 motorway. As these link roads would remove
                     a significant proportion of traffic from the mainline between the start of the link
                     roads and the current Junction 21 slip roads, it is not proposed to further improve
                     this section of motorway.

                    North of the link roads however, there is a need to provide additional carriageway
                     width both to cater for the forecast increase in traffic but also to provide a greater
                     capacity for safe weaving of traffic between lanes. It is therefore recommended
                     that an additional lane is provided in each direction between the existing A46
                     slip roads at Junction 21A and the proposed M69 link roads. The additional


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    106
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                     width would enable the A46 to M69 traffic to remain in the inside lane and not mix
                     with other traffic between M1 north and Junction 21.

7.103 This section of motorway also houses the Leicester Forest East motorway service area
      (MSA). As the previous motorway widening (from 3 to 4 lanes) took up any spare land
      between the motorway and the service area, it would not be possible to provide on-line,
      the recommended additional lane without affecting the MSA.

                    The exact alignment of the link roads has not been determined and it is
                     recommended that the Highways Agency undertakes further detailed assessment
                     of the most appropriate means of providing the new link roads.

7.104 For the purpose of the cost estimate, it has been assumed that the MSA remains intact
      and that the new link roads diverge north of the MSA and pass around the service area.
      This way the current MSA layout would not be affected. It is recognised however, that
      there may be greater environmental impact with such as option but it is considered that
      this would be preferable to a significant impact upon the MSA that could add a
      substantial additional cost to the scheme and indeed jeopardise delivery of the
      recommendation.

7.105 Junction 21A to 23A (MW15a) – These are currently the least trafficked section of
      motorway within the study area but will be subject to some of the largest percentage
      increases in traffic over the study period.

                    It is recommended that these sections of motorway be widened to four lanes in
                     each direction.

                    It is also recommended that the widening be undertaken by the construction of an
                     additional lane between junctions without any widening through junctions 22 and
                     23.

                    In the longer term, it is expected that four lanes would be needed through the
                     junctions and that these should be provided by reduced width lanes and a
                     discontinuous hard shoulder without affecting existing structures.

                    Due to the long southbound incline, it is recommended that a crawler lane be
                     provided north of J22.

                    In the longer term, it is expected that junction capacity improvements may be
                     needed at both Junction 22 and 23. These improvements are not included in the
                     recommendations but the Highways Agency should consider the need for
                     improvement during the more detailed assessment.

7.106 As the motorway traffic volume is significantly less south of Junction 21, no improvement
      is considered necessary along that section of motorway.

7.107 Junction 23A to 25 (MW11) – The Highways Agency‟s previous proposals for motorway
      improvement included a major junction upgrade at Junction 24. The proposed layout
      completely removed the roundabout at Junction 24 and involved the construction of new
      parallel link roads each side of the motorway. The removal of the roundabout would
      sever the existing A6 and thus necessitate the construction of a bypass of Kegworth.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                107
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            This proposal has been tested but also, a reduced alternative has also been tested that
            provides new free-flow connections between the A50 and M1 south.

                    The recommendation is for the reduced level scheme to be constructed on the
                     basis that it separates the A42 to Nottingham flow from the M1 south to A50 traffic.

                    Because of the new link roads, both south facing motorway slip roads and the north
                     bound on-slip become redundant and should be removed.

7.108 The proposed scheme is illustrated in Figure 7.4. The above recommendation is on the
      basis of the current standard of the A453 between the M1 and Nottingham. Should the
      A453 study recommend a dualling of the A453 that would be expected to attract a
      significantly greater volume of traffic to the A50-A453 corridor. Therefore the exact form
      of the arrangement between the A50 and the A453 would need to be determined
      following receipt of the A453 MMS recommendation.

7.109 Retention of the roundabout island at Junction 24 with this proposal enables the A6
      (Kegworth) to retain a connection with the roundabout and thus continue to be used as a
      route for traffic between Kegworth and Nottingham/the north. Many Kegworth residents
      fear that there would be significant rat-running traffic to/from Nottingham using the
      country lanes north of Kegworth as a result of the A6 being severed at Junction 24. The
      retention of the roundabout would ensure that such fears do not materialise.

7.110 The need for use of the motorway is removed for the major flow travelling between the
      A42 and Nottingham along the A453 by the provision of new uni-directional flyovers at
      the Donington roundabout and the Junction 24 roundabout. As this weaving flow is
      removed from the motorway, it is proposed that the northbound motorway carriageway
      remain at the current 4-lane width between Junction 23A and Junction 24.

                    It is recommended that the northbound carriageway be widened to provide
                     four lanes through Junction 24 and up to Junction 24A, with a fifth lane
                     provided from Junction 24A to Junction 25. The fifth lane should be provided as
                     a dedicated lane between the two junctions with it being „dropped‟ at the Junction
                     25 south facing slip roads.

                    It is recommended that the southbound carriageway be widened by the
                     construction of two additional lanes between Junction 25 and Junction 24A to
                     provide the additional capacity required for safe manoeuvring with the new
                     connections to the mainline. Four lanes should be provided through Junction 24A
                     and Junction 24, but with widening to five lanes between Junction 24 and Junction
                     23A.

7.111 Junction 25 to 27 (MW12a) – These sections of motorway will be amongst the busiest
      within the study area and therefore significant widening proposals are included in the
      recommended strategy.

                    It is recommended that these sections of motorway be widened to five lanes
                     in both directions. This again would be achieved through widening to four lanes
                     with reduced width lanes and discontinuous hard shoulder through junctions, and
                     the provision of a fifth lane between junctions. North of Junction 26, the four lanes
                     would continue to the new Junction 26A, where the link roads to the A610 join the
                     motorway. The fifth lane would be provided as a dedicated lane between the

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   108
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                     recommended new link roads at Junction 26A and the Junction 27 south facing slip
                     roads.

                    The scheme includes an improved Junction 25 and an east-west A610 flyover
                     across Junction 26 as previously proposed by the Highways Agency.

7.112 Junction 27 to 30 (MW15b) – Forecast indicate significant increases in traffic volumes
      along these northern sections of the M1 motorway within the study area.

                    The recommendation is for these sections of motorway to be widened to four
                     lanes in each direction, again with the new lanes being provided between
                     junctions and reduced width lanes with discontinuous hard shoulder adopted
                     through junctions.

                    The scheme includes the major free-flow interchange at Junction 28 (MW9) as
                     previously proposed by the Highways Agency.

7.113 There are a number of long inclines along this stretch of motorway which results in slow
      moving heavy goods vehicles reducing the effective motorway capacity and thus leading
      to congestion and a very high accident rate.

                    It is therefore recommended that additional crawler lanes be provided
                     between junctions 28 and 29 to ensure the efficient use of available motorway
                     capacity.

7.114 It is assumed that the proposed new Junction 29A is built although this does not have a
      material bearing on the standards proposed.

7.115 No motorway capacity improvement is considered necessary along the section
      immediately to the north of Junction 30.

            Form of Motorway Widening

7.116 The exact form of widening is not specified in this report and it is recommended that this
      should be subject to more detailed assessment by the Highways Agency. However, on
      the basis that the recommended strategy for the motorway is considered to be sufficient
      beyond the study horizon of 2021, it is recommended that widening should be designed
      to minimise any additional land-take in order to limit the environmental impact of the
      widened motorway. This should not however, override the need for additional land-take
      that may be necessary to ensure adequate environmental mitigation and landscape
      design to current standards.

7.117 It is also recommended that as a general rule, advanced direction signs be provided on
      overhead gantries along the widened motorway in order to improve drivers‟ view of the
      signs.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                              109
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            STRATEGIC ROADS

7.118 A number of recommendations are made in respect of improved or new strategic
      highway links and these are described below.

7.119 M1 Junction 24: A453 to A50 Left Turning Lane (SR4) – This is a minor improvement
      that would have an immediate impact upon improving congestion at the M1 Junction 24
      roundabout. The proposal involves the construction of a short length of road providing
      for northbound movements between the A453 west and the A50 without passing through
      the roundabout. As this is a minor measure, it is recommended that this is
      implemented by the Highways Agency as a Local Network Management scheme
      without delay.

7.120 A6 Kegworth Bypass (SR5) – The study brief included a specific requirement to make a
      recommendation on the previously proposed bypass of Kegworth that had been removed
      from the National Roads Programme and placed on hold. Surveys have revealed that
      over 60% of the traffic travelling along the A6 at Kegworth does not have either journey
      end within the village but is traffic passing through Kegworth to/from M1 Junction 24.
      The Highways Agency‟s previous proposals that are on hold, included removal of the
      Junction 24 roundabout and therefore a new route needed to be provided for Kegworth.
      The proposal included an east-west bypass to the south of the village linking the A6 to
      the A453 at the Donington Motorway Service Area roundabout. Concern has been
      expressed by the local community about the loss of a connection to the M1 Junction 24
      roundabout as this will result in traffic between Kegworth and Nottingham travelling along
      the country lanes leading to congestion, safety and environmental pollution problems for
      the communities in Ratcliffe on Soar, Kingston on Soar and Gotham.

7.121 This study has not carried out a detailed assessment of alternative bypass alignments for
      a number of reasons. Firstly, the Highways Agency‟s proposed route is in the public
      domain. Secondly, it achieves the objectives of a Kegworth Bypass and finally, it is
      adjudged to have only limited environmental impact. Whilst no opposition to the east-
      west bypass route has been detected from within Kegworth, some environmental groups
      have expressed concern that such a route would lead to pressures for infill development
      between the new road and the village. This issue is addressed with a recommendation
      under the policy heading later in this chapter.

                    It is recommended that a bypass of Kegworth is built to provide much needed
                     relief from traffic passing through the village.

                    It is further recommended that the A6 connection to the M1 Junction 24 roundabout
                     is retained after the construction of the bypass.

                    It is considered that the Kegworth bypass could be provided in advance of the
                     motorway improvement with relatively little re-construction required at that time.
                     It is therefore recommended that the A6 Kegworth bypass be built within the first
                     five year period following acceptance of the study recommendations.

                    It is recommended that the bypassed section of the A6 through Kegworth should
                     subsequently be the subject of traffic calming measures to reduce its attractiveness
                     as a through route and to provide a safer environment for the community. Road
                     space should be reallocated to provide better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    110
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.122 A617 Glapwell Bypass and Pleasley Bypass Extension – The North Nottinghamshire
      LTP includes construction of the Pleasley Bypass Extension as a priority major scheme
      for the next LTP period. The completion of this scheme will mean that the road through
      Glapwell will be the only remaining section of single carriageway between the M1 and
      Mansfield.

                    It is recommended that the Glapwell Bypass be constructed in order to
                     complete a dual carriageway route between the M1 and Mansfield. The schemes
                     would provide safety and travel time benefits as well as remove traffic from local
                     communities. In addition, the schemes would facilitate further regeneration of the
                     deprived northern coalfield areas. It is assumed that the Pleasley Bypass
                     Extension will be completed as currently proposed by Nottinghamshire County
                     Council.

                    It is recommended that the bypassed sections of road should be the subject of
                     traffic calming measures. Road space should be reallocated to provide better
                     facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Such measures will add to enabling a safer
                     environment for the communities.

7.123 No specific route alignment has been assessed or indeed recommended although we are
      aware that a northern route appears to provide greater regeneration opportunities and
      would potentially have greater support.

7.124 New Crossing of the River Trent in Nottingham – A proposal for a new river crossing
      was developed by the County Council in the early 1990‟s and a route corridor is
      protected within the Structure Plan. Since that time however, Nottingham City has
      become a Unitary authority and the City Council is opposed to this scheme on the basis
      that it would introduce additional traffic into the city centre and undermine its efforts to
      reduce traffic. It must be emphasised that whilst the previous County Council proposal
      was for a six lane highway, the proposal here is for a four lane bridge, with one-lane in
      each direction reserved for buses only. The bridge would therefore only provide one
      traffic lane in each direction. This would be balanced by the proposal to remove one lane
      in each direction from general traffic use and restrict it for buses only. Overall therefore,
      the bridge as proposed would not increase general traffic capacity into the City but
      greatly improve cross-river accessibility for buses.

7.125 It is recognised that unless the City Council can be persuaded of the benefits of a bridge
      as proposed, the Council‟s position places uncertainty over the delivery of the scheme
      that would bring wider transport benefits. It is also acknowledged that there is a major
      brownfield redevelopment proposal for a site immediately to the west of the proposed
      bridge alignment and that it may be affected by this proposal.

7.126 A new River Crossing is included as a recommendation in principle, on the basis
      that firstly, it provides an improved alternative (and shorter) route between Leicester and
      Nottingham avoiding the M1 (or the Gunthorpe Bridge on the A6097) and thus reducing
      vehicle kilometres; secondly, by completing the „missing link‟ around the east side of
      Nottingham City it enables better routing of strategic traffic around the city centre rather
      than through the centre. Furthermore, the provision of another river crossing opens up
      significant opportunities for much improved public transport (bus) services between
      Rushcliffe and Nottingham and would thus contribute to reducing reliance upon the
      private car.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 111
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.127 The above recommendation is on the basis of a bridge along the route currently
      protected within the Structure Plan with no detailed assessment having been undertaken
      of alternative locations for a river crossing. It is considered that the bridge facilitates the
      aims of the City Council by removing unnecessary traffic from travelling through the city
      centre whilst improving access for the traffic that needs to go to the centre. Also, the City
      Council through demand management policies such as to car parking controls and urban
      congestion charging coupled with traffic management measures could influence any
      localised adverse impacts.

7.128 It is acknowledged that a study into cross-river capacity is likely to be carried out as part
      of the forthcoming Tranche 3 A52 Nottingham to Bingham MMS including an assessment
      of potential alternative bridge locations. Notwithstanding this however, it is considered
      that a bridge further to the east may not fulfil the roles identified above and may therefore
      not enable the same level of benefit to be achieved for north-south movements.

                    It is recommended that both Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City
                     Council be involved in the further consideration of the most feasible location for a
                     new river crossing and assessment of wider impacts.

            OTHER INTERVENTIONS CRITICAL TO SUCCESS

7.129 Through the study process it has become clear that there is a need to consider
      interventions that go beyond earlier responses to transport problems. In this section we
      provide details of several critical areas of attention deriving from the study findings.

            Policy Interventions

7.130 As the Executive Summary to the Consultation on the Draft Preferred Package Report of
      December 2001 indicated, even with significant investment in public transport use,
      increases in highway capacity will be necessary if traffic conditions are not to get worse.
      In this context, “significant behaviour change is needed to reduce reliance on the car,
      increase public transport use and thus reduce the growth in traffic”. The longer term
      M1MMS strategy depends on travel demand management and behaviour change.

7.131 For this to be successful, people need to understand today‟s transport problems, and
      their implications for the future, and the part they can play in helping to resolve the
      situation through travel behaviour change. There is also the need to identify practical
      ways by which the partners in the East Midlands can act to facilitate behaviour change,
      incorporating it as a distinct component of all the recommended activity streams, and
      also pursuing it as an area of activity in its own right.

7.132 It is clear that success will require the political willingness to become engaged at
      national, regional and local levels – a willingness which is not yet generally apparent.
      Some of the pioneering work already undertaken in the East Midlands could, however,
      form the basis of efforts to make the region a recognised centre for excellence in the field
      of travel demand management. Clearly Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional
      Transport Strategy are central to the definition of how to take things forward.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  112
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.133 As indicated in a recent Soft Factors Report produced for the DTLR3, individual measures
      are likely to have little impact, but a coherent, integrated set of policy interventions may
      be more effective. The policy interventions and measures identified in that report as
      offering significant change should be given due prominence in the M1MMS behaviour
      strategy. These are:

                    tele-working;

                    video-conferencing;

                    workplace travel plans;

                    public transport fares and ticketing;

                    individual marketing campaigns; and

                    bus quality partnerships.

7.134 A number of other policy interventions and measures will also be critical components of a
      behaviour change strategy for the M1MMS. These include:

                    urban charging – congestion/road user or workplace;

                    parking strategy and its application;

                    development control policy and its implementation;

                    school curriculum contributions;

                    household and community behavioural change approaches;

                    improved interchange; and

                    freight transport.

7.135 Given that the two basic aims of the policy interventions are to educate, and facilitate
      travel behaviour change, the framework of interventions by which the aims might be
      achieved should incorporate actions to:

                    ensure the next generation(s) are better informed and more discerning in their
                     travel behaviour;

                    ensure a consistent application of travel demand management policy interventions
                     such as parking supply and management, charging (road user and/or workplace)
                     development control etc;




3
    Multi-Modal Studies: Soft Factors Likely To Affect Travel Demand Final Report – Halcrow Group Ltd

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     113
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    ensure that investment in infrastructure and service improvements is matched by
                     action to maximise their utility;

                    create a deliberate and open monitoring programme early in the plan programme,
                     to assess in a robust manner the programme outcomes;

                    demonstrate success in the first five years; and

                    promote an ambition for regional excellence and a pre-eminence in the subject that
                     will help achieve the plan and benefit local employment.

7.136 Six areas of intervention are identified which could be taken forward as discrete
      programmes of activity. These are set out below, together with an indication of some of
      the tasks which each could entail. Clearly the study cannot be prescriptive. The
      suggested components are illustrative and not a blueprint. Further details of the strategy
      are set out in the study report: „Policy Interventions: The Programme of Measures‟.

           Strategy Programme

7.137 The programme of activity recommended by the study includes infrastructure measures,
      public transport service improvements and policy interventions concerned with travel
      demand management and behaviour change. The success of the third element will
      determine what is needed in future years with respect to infrastructure and service
      development.

7.138 In developing the strategy programme, it is assumed that an oversight role – East
      Midlands Partnership for Transport Policy Interventions (EMPfTPI) – would be
      appropriate. This could be chaired by GOEM, but operate through, and in close
      partnership with, the local authorities that have the responsibility for much in terms of
      local transport as well as with the proposed Public Transport Co-ordinating Body (or
      Executive).

7.139 The strategy programme tasks might entail:

                    championing the strategy, and communicating the successes;

                    leading/co-ordinating the implementation programme for infrastructure and service
                     improvements; advising on prioritising of expenditure on infrastructure, services and
                     policy interventions;

                    developing area-wide policy responses and seeing their implementation progresses
                     satisfactorily and consistently in accordance with the objectives set;

                    providing region-wide local authority officer training, with respect to various areas of
                     policy application – parking supply and management, freight transport, interchange,
                     development control etc;

                    developing and representing the centre of excellence in the policy area of travel
                     demand management and behaviour change;



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                      114
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    leading the work of regionally significant interventions, such as a regional freight
                     transport strategy, transport assessments and facilitation of measures at major
                     business parks alongside the M1 or in the corridor; and

                    monitoring and reviewing the strategy.

           Workplace Travel Plans

7.140 The workplace travel plan is a policy intervention that is central to ambitions for travel
      demand management and behaviour change. Significant change for the better has
      already been demonstrated in the monitoring of some existing plans. Employers‟
      initiatives in Nottingham have been regarded as good practice exemplars for some years,
      as has the partnership sponsored by the City Council.

7.141 The strategy proposes that the EMPfTPI would provide a regional dimension to the
      promotion of these initiatives. Specific tasks might entail:

                    extending the work of local authorities that is already underway;

                    facilitating measures at major business parks along the route of the motorway;

                    providing a regional scheme of assistance in measuring and monitoring progress;
                     and

                    promoting a programme of development of tele-working/teleconferencing.

           Transport Quality Partnership Scheme

7.142 Quality partnerships provide the means by which transport operators and local authorities
      can find ways to develop best practice solutions in service supply. Successful
      partnerships have been shown to make a major difference, to the benefit of users. The
      concept has recently been extended to freight transport in connection with distribution
      strategies for Local Transport Plans. Whilst local partnerships already exist, many of the
      public transport improvements suggested in the strategy would benefit from area wide
      co-ordination and “branding”.

7.143 This aspect of activity would be led by the proposed Public Transport Co-ordinating Body
      and involve establishing study area or regional partnerships with a view to achieving
      improvements in transport operations and operating practice. It might thus entail:

                    communicating and promoting change and system improvement over time;

                    taking forward an East Midlands passenger transport ticketing initiative – through
                     tickets on different modes/services, electronic ticketing/smartcard initiatives etc;

                    taking forward initiatives relating to freight transport policy, such as fuel initiatives
                     and improved co-ordination;

                    introducing system-wide information improvements;



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       115
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    branding and communicating the East Midlands passenger transport network; and

                    actively marketing and promoting (not just informing of the existence of) the East
                     Midlands network of passenger transport services.

           Awareness Raising Programme

7.144 Whilst there have been awareness raising campaigns under the auspices of DTLR and
      local Travelwise initiatives, the strategy requires more direct promotion of the local
      interventions. The introduction of climbing lanes or narrower lanes on the motorway, for
      example, could make it appropriate to try to influence driving standards through an
      advertising campaign.

7.145 This strand of activity would entail such elements as:

                    communicating the plan and programme over time; and

                    providing information designed to dispel the “perception gaps”, particularly with
                     respect to public transport, identified in the study.

           Educational Programme

7.146 While a number of education authorities, in connection with their Local Transport Plans,
      are taking forward initiatives aimed at devoting parts of the curriculum in primary and
      secondary schools to transport and related issues, this area of intervention will be
      particularly important in ensuring that the next generation(s) are better informed and
      more discerning about their travel behaviour. It will be targeted at both schools and
      universities/colleges, and involve:

                    assessing the extent of schools‟ travel plans implementation;

                    researching the scope for introducing travel behaviour training into the curriculum,
                     given that a new “Education for Sustainable Development” approach to the whole
                     national curriculum is due to be introduced in 2002;

                    researching the possibilities of introducing more university/college travel behaviour
                     related courses and research programmes; and

                    exploring the scope for these institutions to become involved in monitoring
                     progress.

           Community Programme

7.147 Individualised marketing and personalised journey planning initiatives have demonstrated
      that people do make changes to their travel behaviour, if it can be shown that there are
      benefits to be gained by so doing. Cost savings are important, but some respond well to
      environmental improvements, health improvements and so on.

7.148 This area of intervention might thus involve:



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   116
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                    identifying the range and nature of current community activity;

                    identifying the scope and scale of a possible programme of community intervention
                     designed to influence travel behaviour, in conjunction with or in addition to current
                     activity including Agenda 21 programmes; and

                    one or two demonstration projects per year, to demonstrate individuals‟ /
                     organisations‟ ability to change their travel behaviour, to the overall benefit of
                     others.

           Key Partners

7.149 In addition to GOEM and the Regional Planning Authority, a wide range of organisations
      would be needed to participate in and to support the activities required. These would
      include:

                    Regional Assembly;

                    LGA and local authorities;

                    East Midlands Development Agency;

                    Highways Agency;

                    Railtrack;

                    Strategic Rail Authority;

                    Transport trade bodies including CPT and FTA;

                    East Midlands Airport;

                    Public transport operators;

                    Employers‟ representatives and chambers of commerce;

                    Environmental and community interest groups;

                    User groups;

                    Health sector;

                    DfES; and

                    Retailing representatives.

7.150 This programme of policy interventions has been costed at £30 million for the first five
      years within the overall cost of the recommended strategy.



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   117
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Public Transport Co-ordination

7.151 The close proximity of the three cities and the many towns within the study area result in
      the transport characteristics of a larger conurbation. There is already good co-operation
      and co-ordination on transport policy matters between the three cities. Also under the
      auspices of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, there is good liaison between the
      various bus operators. Despite this, there are differences in the level and quality of
      transport provision in the different local authority areas. In order to improve delivery of
      public transport within the study area and to establish a more coherent public network for
      the East Midlands, it is recommended that a body be set up with the specific remit of co-
      ordination of public transport. Whilst a firm recommendation is not made as to the
      geographic area of coverage of such a body, it is proposed that its remit should extend
      throughout the study area to include the northern towns of Mansfield and Chesterfield.

7.152 Its role should be similar to that of existing Passenger Transport Executives (PTE)
      including the delivery of regional public transport policy, managing and providing funding
      for public transport and the development of the network. However, it is recognised that to
      set up a full PTE would require a Parliamentary Bill and it is also recognised that a such
      an organisation would not be welcomed by the regional bus industry. It is therefore
      recommended that consultation be undertaken with a view to the establishment of a body
      for co-ordination of public transport whilst not encompassing all the responsibilities of
      PTEs.

7.153 This body would also be tasked with improving the availability of public transport
      information through measures such as:

                    a regional public transport information web site providing information on services,
                     fares, connections etc.;

                    the provision of real-time information at bus stops along key routes;

                    Improving and standardising the quality of bus stops/shelters; and

                    Standardising fare structures.

            Integrated Public Transport Ticketing

7.154 At present a number of different operators provide public transport services within the
      study area. The operators include Midland Mainline, Central Trains, and Virgin Cross
      Country for heavy rail services, Trent Buses, Nottingham City Transport, Stagecoach
      East Midlands, and Arriva for local bus services and shortly, Nottingham Express Transit
      for Light Rail within Nottingham. Where a public transport journey involves a trip covering
      more than a single operator, separate tickets have to be purchased by the passenger.
      This is seen as a significant barrier to travel by public transport. In today‟s deregulated
      passenger transport environment and in particular the impact of competition laws makes
      it difficult to enable integration of public transport tickets on a regional basis. However,
      such integrated public transport ticketing is critical to the realisation of increased mode
      shift to public transport and hence to the success of the wider public transport strategy.
      The Government must be an active partner to bring this about.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 118
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Value for Money Assessment of Rail Schemes

7.155 We have already stated above our view in relation to delivery of rail schemes that are
      assessed as not satisfying the SRA‟s Value for Money criteria. It is our view that a
      substantial improvement of the rail network in the study area is needed to deliver a
      significant shift from car based travel to public transport.

7.156 Whilst some schemes have been recommended that do not satisfy the assessment
      criteria, others have been assessed but not recommended. The basis for our
      recommendations is that the schemes perform a good transport function and hence
      contribute towards the Government‟s sustainable transport strategy. During the course
      of the study other schemes have been assessed that were considered to make a
      significant contribution to achieving mode shift. A prime example of a scheme that made
      a significant contribution to achieving increased rail share but did not demonstrate good
      value for money was a proposal to extend (the currently under construction) Line One of
      the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) Light Rail from Nuthall to Mansfield.

7.157 From the study findings and our traffic forecasts we have come to the conclusion that
      there is need to create a more favourable atmosphere for public transport schemes that
      would encourage greater investment and greater public usage. It is therefore suggested
      that the Government may wish to consider reviewing the current framework for assessing
      Value for Money of Railway schemes. It is suggested that the assessment should add
      greater weight of the contribution of public transport schemes to achieving policy
      objectives relating to sustainable travel and not just to the more tangible financial
      performance and congestion relief benefits. Without significantly increased rail network
      provision, the longer term land-use development patterns will not be as successful as
      they should to encouraging more sustainable travel and reduced reliance upon the
      private car.

            Public Transport Fares/Charges

7.158 Throughout the consultation process associated with this study, members of the public
      have stated that more of them would use trains if the fares were more affordable.
      Clearly, whilst reduced fares may attract greater patronage, there is a need to assess
      commercial impacts and viability of existing services. Notwithstanding this, it is
      recommended that there is a need to make rail travel more affordable for a greater
      number of people. Because of this, the final strategy has been appraised on the basis of
      a ten per cent reduction in coach, rail and light rail fares from 2016 onwards. The
      recommended Public Transport Co-ordination body would be tasked with enabling this to
      be achieved. Clearly this may have implications for revenue support, if the revenue
      reduction could not be compensated in full by increased patronage.

7.159 When considering the cost of rail travel, car drivers also take account of the cost of
      parking their car at the railway station. For some commuting journeys, cost of car
      parking at the local railway station can be a significant additional cost to that of a train
      ticket. Self evidently, the cost of car parking at railway stations deters many commuters
      from using a train for their daily journey. It is considered that greater patronage would be
      attracted to rail services if adequate free or cheaper car parking were available to
      passengers at the stations. There is a need to balance additional car traffic to stations
      against environmental disbenefits in their immediate vicinity. City centre railway stations
      should not become origins for greater numbers of car borne passengers but rather, the


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                           119
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            destination point. The major originating flow from these major stations must be delivered
            to the stations by improved local public transport services with through ticketing.

7.160 The same does not apply to the out of town stations that have a significant rural
      hinterland. Here, much of the passenger demand would be arriving by car as these
      stations can not expect to be served by the same extensive network of local bus services
      as is available to the main central stations. Such stations should have good highway
      accessibility and increased car parking provision. Also, at a minimum level, unless the
      car parks can otherwise be filled, free car parking should be made available to multiple
      journey (weekly, monthly, and annual) ticket holders (commuters) to maximise usage by
      car travellers. The free car parking could be managed through the issue of display car
      discs with each season ticket exempting vehicles from car park charges.

            Motorway Capacity Management

7.161 The study recommendations include proposals for substantial motorway widening. In
      order to maximise the benefit of a widened motorway there is a need to better manage
      available capacity. At present traffic congestion on the motorway is exacerbated through
      the disproportionately large occupation of carriageway space by heavy goods vehicles
      (HGVs). Often, large goods vehicles take up the bulk of the inside two lanes with the
      majority of the „light vehicle‟ traffic competing to use the one outside lane. With a
      widened motorway, under current legislation heavy goods vehicles would be able to use
      three of the four lanes (or four of the five lanes). This would potentially result in much
      traffic still wishing to use the outside lane to overtake slower moving lorries.

7.162 Heavy goods vehicles (over 12 tonne GVW) are restricted to a speed of 56 mph whereas
      the 70 mph limit applies to other traffic with coaches restricted to a speed of 60 mph.
      Because of this speed differential, slower moving lorries cause disruption to other
      vehicles and not only on inclines.

                    It is recommended therefore that consideration be given to introduce
                     legislation to limit the speed restricted heavy goods vehicles (over 12 tonne
                     gross weight) from using the two outside lanes on wide (4 or more lane)
                     motorways. It is recommended that such restriction should apply to „day time‟
                     periods (possibly 06.00 hours to 21.00 hours). The much reduced total traffic
                     volume and greater proportion of HGV traffic over-night may be reason to not apply
                     the restrictions outside of the suggested period. A related recommendation is
                     made in connection with Goods Vehicles below 12 tonne gross weight under the
                     heading of Freight.

7.163 Having two lanes on the motorway free of slow-moving goods vehicles will improve
      motorway capacity and improve visibility for car drivers. This would increase car drivers‟
      ability to react to changing conditions and should provide safety benefits.

7.164 Passenger coaches are currently barred from using the outside lane on motorways,
      which on 3-lane sections means that they are restricted by slower moving HGVs. The
      restrictions recommended for HGVs should not apply to coaches and they should
      continue as at present. The recommended restrictions for HGVs would mean that with
      the improved motorway, coach journeys will be improved as they would have access to a
      third lane that is free from the slower moving HGVs.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                120
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            Freight

7.165 Individual elements of the recommended freight strategy are presented in Table 7.5
      below. In view of the need to produce an implementation plan, the interventions are
      arranged into groups. It is also recognised that one of main barriers to success is
      deliverability, so a mechanism for co-ordinating freight policy is included as a pre-
      condition for implementing the strategy. The interventions are included as needing either
      immediate action or longer term implementation which in many cases relies upon actions
      being taken outside of the study area e.g. at the Humber ports.

7.166 The recommendations include the setting up of a body to co-ordinate the regional freight
      strategy as a number of the recommendations would need a champion. The
      recommendations include measures to improve freight distribution but also measures to
      reduce the impact of goods vehicles. The measures to reduce impact should be seen as
      complementary to existing initiatives developed by the Freight Transport Association.4

7.167 As discussed earlier in this report, the HGV sector is competitive and already tightly
      regulated. Because of these two factors it has achieved efficient operational standards,
      resulting in lower externalities per tonne of freight moved. However, at the margin, the
      HGV sector (specifically 2 axle rigid lorries between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes GVW, accounting
      for around 40% of the total stock of HGVs) competes with operators using LGVs, and it
      appears counter-productive to widen any existing cost differential as the aim of the
      motorway widening scheme is to improve traffic flow, increase motorway use relative to
      other roads, and not to regulate or to influence competition in the freight industry.

7.168 It is also recognised however, that many LGVs, particularly service vehicles and car-
      based vans, can mix easily with car traffic and maintain similar speeds, and that allowing
      the LGV traffic to move out of the two HGV lanes will reduce congestion for the remaining
      HGV traffic. However, in order to encourage more efficient use of vehicle sizes and
      minimise environmental impact, the speed differential between HGVs and LGVs should
      be reduced. This being achieved not by an increase in the HGV speed limit, but through
      limiting the ability of LGVs to travel at the speed of the traffic in the outer most lane.

                    It is therefore recommended that on widened motorways where the larger
                     Goods Vehicles are recommended for restriction from using the two outside
                     lanes, the smaller Goods Vehicles should be barred from using the outer-
                     most lane.

7.169 With this proposal the number of lanes permitted for Goods Vehicles would vary
      depending upon carriageway standard. This could be managed through the use of new
      roadside signs indicating the vehicles allowable in each lane where the motorway
      standard changes between standard carriageway and wide carriageway.

7.170 Keeping goods vehicles out of the outside lane of the motorway would improve visibility
      for car drivers, increase their ability to react to changing conditions and thus improve
      road safety.




4
    Urban Friendly Deliveries, Freight Transport Association, February 1999.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                         121
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                                                      Table 7.5 – Freight Strategy
              Theme                                                              Immediate     Longer-
                                                                                   Action    term Action
              Coordination
                          Coordination of Freight Strategy                           
              Road Infrastructure
                          Enforcement of Speed Limits                                
                          Motorway Crawler Lanes                                     
              Road Behavioural Change
                          Scheduling                                                 
                          Advanced Fuels                                             
                          Training                                                   
                          Best Practice                                              
                          Aero Dynamics                                                          
                          Fuel Economy                                                           
              Rail
                          Rail Freight Terminals                                     
                          Loading Gauge                                              
                          Humber Rail Link                                                       
                          FMCG Services                                                          
              Waterways
                          Inland Port                                                
              Urban Freight
                          Local authorities / PTE Co-ordination body to              
                          consider allowing HGVs to use Bus Lanes
                          24 Hour City Access                                        
                          Designated Freight Routes                                  
              Land Use and Economic Development
                          Rail Side Activity                                         
                          Local Sourcing                                             
                          Product Origin Information                                 
                          Targeting Inward Investors                                 
              Lobbying National Policy
                          Achieving LGV to HGV Shift                                 




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                        122
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Road User Charging

7.171 The study has undertaken significant testing of the impacts of Road User Charging. This
      has identified that road pricing could potentially have a very significant impact upon driver
      behaviour and to a lesser degree upon mode choice. The tests have shown that unless
      all major roads are subject to similar charges, there would be a substantial re-routing of
      traffic with diversion off tolled roads onto non-tolled roads. This would lead to
      undesirable impacts in terms of overall network congestion and increased road traffic
      accidents.

7.172 In order to maximise the potential for mode shift from car to public transport, there is a
      need for substantial improvements to the level of public transport provision to afford more
      drivers the opportunity to consider an alternative mode of travel. The package of
      measures recommended would provide such a substantial improvement in public
      transport provision but, as identified, none of the major schemes could be expected to be
      in place before 2011 and indeed it would be 2016 at the earliest before all public
      transport schemes would be delivered. Only then, would the full potential of the longer
      term land-use development policies and travel behaviour change begin to take effect.

7.173 On this basis, it is considered that road pricing should not be a serious option before the
      full recommended strategy is in place. Even then, it should only be seen as a measure to
      encourage greater mode shift from road to rail and a driver for influencing peoples‟
      choice of residential and work locations.

7.174 To date, as there is no real experience of road pricing in the UK, the wider impacts in
      terms of time shift of journeys from charged periods to adjacent periods, it is not possible
      to fully conclude the impact of road user charging. Peak period charging for example,
      could lead to a shift of traffic and thus significant traffic increases in adjacent-to-peak
      periods. This intervention option is further discussed later in this chapter.

            Enforcement

7.175 A whole range of external factors affect the performance of the transport network. It is
      necessary to ensure that the impact of these factors are minimised through better
      enforcement and co-ordination. Specific areas for enforcement include:

                    Illegal car parking: significant capacity reduction occurs due to parked vehicles at
                     inappropriate locations. During peak periods this reduction in capacity leads to
                     substantial disruption to traffic flow affecting public transport as well as private
                     vehicles and creating a safety hazard. It is recommended that local authorities
                     review on-street car parking along key routes both as a means to improve traffic
                     flow but importantly also to limit parking duration during the out of peak periods as a
                     traffic restraint measure.

                    Bus lane infringement: Bus lanes exist on a number of radial routes into the City
                     Centres. Infringement of these results in delay to buses which in turn reduces their
                     attractiveness against car travellers. It is recommended that greater enforcement
                     of bus lanes be undertaken and that this be well publicised.

                    Speed limits: Greater enforcement of speed limits should be undertaken on all
                     roads. Disregard for speed limits provides those drivers breaking the law with a

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     123
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                     journey time advantage that is not available to public transport users. Furthermore,
                     it is recognised that speeds inappropriate to the road standard are a cause of
                     increased road traffic accidents. Apart from the obvious human cost, delays
                     caused by accidents impose the same cost on other road users as delays caused
                     due to traffic congestion.

7.176 Carriageway capacity restriction due to roadworks causes the same delay as illegally
      parked vehicles and exacerbates existing traffic congestion. An often recurring comment
      during the various public consultation exercises has been the apparent continuous
      presence of „roadworks‟ along one section or other of road. Whilst this may partly be an
      erroneous perception, more could be done to improve co-ordination of roadworks and
      indeed improve the perception of this co-ordination.

7.177 Specific areas for improved co-ordination include:

                    Works by statutory undertakers:

                    Major Highway maintenance works on the motorway and other roads

            Land-Use Policies

7.178 Through this study we have assessed the impacts of different land-use policies on
      transport demand and modes of transport. Further details are provided later in this
      chapter.

                    It is recommended that as a general rule there should be a presumption against
                     development adjacent to recommended bypasses that would involve a direct
                     access to the bypass. This is because their intended function would be
                     compromised by additional traffic having direct access onto the new roads. In
                     considering development adjacent to recommended bypasses planning authorities
                     should take account of whether such developments could be served by good public
                     transport links and not therefore encourage greater use of the less sustainable
                     mode of travel by private car.

7.179 Table 7.6 lists the strategy elements along with the expected delivery agency and
      implementation timetable. All schemes indicated for completion within the first five years
      (up to 2007) are considered as „quick wins‟ and are highlighted in the table.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  124
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                                   Table 7.6 – Summary of Recommended Strategy

Scheme / Intervention                                             Agency                              Cost    Timescale

Heavy Rail
NR14/NR15: Station Access/Facility Improvements                   SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £13m    2005-2006
New Rail Services
IR2: South Coast-Birmingham-Nott-West Yorkshire                   SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
IR5: Manchester-Stoke-Derby-Leicester                             SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
IR8: Sheffield-Alfreton-Leicester-St Pancras                      SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
IU1: Cardiff-Birmingham-Nottingham                                SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
IU2: Birmingham-Leicester-Nottingham-Alfreton-Sheffield           SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
IU4: Manchester Airport-Nott-Mansfield                            SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack                2003-2006
UT1: Belper-Derby-Nottingham                                      SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
UT3a: Mansfield-Nottingham 2nd train per hour                     SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
UT4: Matlock-Derby-Leicester                                      SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
UT5: Worksop-Nottingham-Leicester                                 SRA/Rail operators                          2003-2006
IR3: South Coast-Birmingham-Nottingham-W Yorks                    SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack                2006-2011
IR6: Manchester-Buxton-Derby-Nottingham                           SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack                2006-2011
UT3b: Rotherham-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham                     SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack                2006-2011
UT7: Chesterfield-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham                   SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack                2006-2011
Rail Infrastructure (including stations)
NR5: Clowne Branch reopening                                      SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £29m    2003-2006
NR6: Pye Bridge-Kirkby Summit reopening                           SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £5m     2003-2006
NR8: Castle Donington line reopening                              SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £9m     2003-2006
NR12: Matlock-Buxton reinstatement                                SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £76m    2003-2011
NR13: Newark Chord                                                SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £10m    2006-2011
NR14: Network capacity improvements                               SRA/Railtrack                       £69m    2003-2006
New stations at Trowell, Derby South, Blaby                       SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities     £29m    2003-2006
Freight
FR1: Intermodal Railfreight Terminal                              SRA/Railtrack                       £10m    2009-2011
FR2: Loading Gauge Improvements                                   SRA/Railtrack                       £30m    2011-2016
FR3: Humber Rail Link                                             SRA/Railtrack                       £10m    2012-2015
TC7: Inland Port at Colwick                                       BWB/Humber Barges/Developer         £10m    2006-2007
Road Based Public Transport
LR1: NET extensions to Clifton, M1 J25/Beeston, Nuthall           City and County Councils            £296m   2003-2006
LR3: Additional NET routes to Nottingham South, Ilkeston          City and County Councils            £254m   2006-2011
LR5b/c: New LRT East Goscote-Leicester-Blaby                      City and County Councils            £296m   2006-2011
New express coach services BC4, BC5, BC6, BC7                     Local Authorities/Coach operators     -     2003-2006
Strategic Park & Ride
PR3a: Trowell Parkway (served by NET) including a new             Railtrack/Highways Agency/          £10m    2008-2011
Road Link from the M1 Service Area with an M1 over-bridge         Nottinghamshire County Council
PR3b: M1 Junction 26 (Nuthall) – Served by an ext‟n of NET        Nottinghamshire County Council      £19m    2004-2005
PR3c: M1 Junction 25 – served by NET via Beeston                  Nottinghamshire County Council        *     2008-2011
PR5: MEGZ (served by Heavy Rail via the re-opened Clowne          Derbyshire County Council             *     2015-2016
Branch)

* Costs included elsewhere                            Quick win




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                125
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



Scheme / Intervention                                             Agency                                     Cost    Timescale

Motorway
MW1: M1 Junction 21 roundabout carriageway widening
                                                                  Highways Agency                          £0.5m          2003
and lane re-allocation/re-signing
MW3a: M1 Junction 29 northbound off-slip and roundabout
                                                                  Highways Agency                          £0.5m          2003
carriageway widening
MW3: M1 Junction 28 roundabout carriageway and A38
                                                                  Highways Agency                            £2m      2004-2005
approach widening
MW10: M1 north to A610 Link Roads                                 Highways Agency                            £7m      2006-2007
MW3b: M1 Junction 29 – A617 Flyover                               Highways Agency                            £7m      2006-2007
MW11: M1 Junction 23A to 25 Improvement                           Highways Agency                            £64m     2009-2011
MW8: M1 to M69 Link Roads and widening to M1 Junction
                                                                  Highways Agency                            £24m     2009-2011
21A
MW12a: M1 widening to five lanes Junction 25 to 27 with
                                                                  Highways Agency                          £176m      2009-2011
A610 flyover at Junction 26 and Junction 25 improvement

MW15b: M1 widening Junction 27 to 30 with crawler lanes
                                                                  Highways Agency                          £185m      2009-2011
between junctions 27 and 29.

MW15a: M1 widening Junction 21A to 23A with crawler
                                                                  Highways Agency                            £98m     2009-2011
lane on southbound approach to Junction 22

Strategic Roads
SR4: M1 Junction 24: A453 to A50 left turning lane                Highways Agency                          £0.2m          2003
SR7a: Minor improvement of the A453: Crusader Junction
                                                                  Highways Agency                            £1m          2003
to University.
                                                                  Highways Agency (or Leicestershire
SR5: Kegworth Bypass                                                                                         £7m      2005-2006
                                                                  County Council if A6 de-trunked)
SR18: A617 Pleasley Bypass Extension                              Nottinghamshire County Council             £5m      2006-2007
SR18: A617 Glapwell Bypass                                        Derbyshire County Council                  £11m     2006-2007
SR12: New Bridge across River Trent east of Nottingham
                                                                  Local Authorities                          £23m     2009-2011
City Centre^
Policy Interventions
Policy Intervention Programme                                     GOEM/EMRLGA lead                           £30m     2003-2007
Strategy Implementation and Monitoring Body                       GOEM/Local Authorities                      -       2002-2021
Public Transport Co-ordinating Body                               Central Government/EMRLGA                   -           2006
Integrated Ticketing                                              Central Government/TOCs                     -           2006
Goods Vehicle Restriction on motorways                            Central Government                          -           2011


^ Subject to further assessment                       Quick win

Note: The Table excludes on-going operating costs
incurred by private sector operators. It also excludes
annual maintenance and operating costs associated with
major infrastructure.
                                                                  Total                            £1,816m
                                                                  Public Transport / Freight       £1,175m          65%
                                                                  Highways                         £611m            33%
                                                                  Policy                            £30m            2%




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                         126
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



Figure 7.1 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: New Public Transport Services

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).



Figure 7.2 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: New Rail Infrastructure

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).



Figure 7.3 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: New Highway Infrastructure

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).



Figure 7.4 – M1MMS Recommended Strategy: M1 Junction 23A – Junction 24A

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                       127
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            WIDER ADVERSE IMPACTS

7.180 Whilst the recommended strategy has been developed to address the study brief, there
      are adverse impacts in some locations that results from the package of measures.
      These impacts relate largely to increased traffic volumes on the highway network in the
      vicinity of the motorway. Whilst attracting traffic off other roads and onto the motorway
      improves overall network conditions and road safety, the local impacts are highlighted to
      identify a potential need for further investment through the Local Transport Plan process.

7.181 One particular aspect that has been highlighted by the local police forces is the need for
      improved diversion routes for use during emergencies on the motorway that require
      significant or complete closure of the motorway. This issue has not been considered
      through this study but is one that needs to be considered by the Highways Agency and
      the local highway authorities.

7.182 The significant impacts are discussed below by individual local authority area. The
      analysis was undertaken on both the AM and PM peaks of the 2021 assignments. Traffic
      flow increases are based on the total time period of one hour.

            Derby

7.183 There are significant increases in traffic on the A52 and the A50 were they approach the
      M1. However, large increases in traffic flow are restricted to the above roads and are
      outside central Derby. In addition improvements to Junctions 24 and 25 have reduced
      delays at these junctions so that there are no major delays on the A50 or A52. The major
      increases in traffic are as follows:

                    In the AM peak on the A50 by Lockington there is an increase of 800 vehicles
                     (60%) heading eastbound and 1000 vehicles (50%) heading westbound.

                    In the PM peak the increases in flow are, westbound, 900 vehicles (75%) and
                     eastbound 1200 vehicles (100%).

                    On the A52 by Risley in the AM peak the increase in traffic flow is approximately
                     300 vehicles (25%), in both directions. There is little difference in the PM peak.

7.184 All the above links are good standard dual carriageway roads and it is not expected that
      any improvements would be needed to these as a result of the recommended strategy.

7.185 During the consultation on the draft strategy, Derby City Council expressed concerns that
      Derby would lose some of it rail services under the MMS proposals. Analysis of the three
      levels of rail service shows that Derby would in fact gain with considerably enhanced
      links to the North West, Nottingham, Matlock and Leicester. In no case would the current
      2002 level of rail service be reduced in the final recommended strategy. As such these
      concerns are unfounded.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                128
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Derbyshire

7.186 The major increases in traffic are as follows:

                    On the A38, west of Junction 28 there are large increases in traffic flows of
                     approximately 1000 vehicles in both directions and in both peaks, a 100% increase.
                     However, the segregated left turning lane at Junction 28 means that there is no
                     major congestion on this approach. The forecast flows are within the capacity of
                     the existing carriageway standard.

                    There is an increase of approximately 200 vehicles (15%) on the A617 westbound,
                     west of Junction 29 in the AM peak. However, the presence of the Junction 29
                     flyover means there are no major delays.

                    There are also significant increases on the A617 east of Junction 29. There is an
                     increase of almost 250 vehicles (35%) on the A617 eastbound east of Junction 29.
                     In the PM peak the increase is a more modest 150 vehicles. Again the Junction 29
                     flyover here means that according to the model there are no major delays on this
                     approach. The recommended Glapwell Bypass will remove this traffic from the
                     village.

                    There are significant increases on the B6053 north of Staveley as some traffic uses
                     this route to access the proposed Junction 29A. Traffic flow increases are
                     approximately 200 vehicles in both directions, around 30%. Similar patterns are
                     observed in the PM peak. However there appears to be no serious congestion
                     caused as a result of this increase in traffic.

            Nottingham

7.187 Some roads experience increases whilst other experience decreases in traffic flow
      compared to the do-minimum. The main impacts relate to the proposed new bridge
      resulting in more traffic along adjoining routes but decreases on parallel roads.

            Nottinghamshire

7.188 The recommended strategy generally leads to reduced traffic flows along non-motorway
      roads. Traffic volumes are reduced along most roads in Mansfield. The main increases
      are described below.

                    There are an extra 150 vehicles (20%) on the A610 approaching Junction 26 in the
                     AM peak. In the PM peak there is no increase. Although there is still, on average,
                     delays of 5 minutes in the AM peak this is half the time of the average delays in the
                     do minimum situation as the link roads to the M1 from the A610 reduce the amount
                     of turning traffic at Junction 26.

                    There are large increases on the A610 east of the Nuthall roundabout of about 800
                     vehicles westbound and 1000 vehicles eastbound, an increase of 100%. This is in
                     part due to re-routing of vehicles approaching the Nuthall roundabout from the
                     A6002 instead of the A610. In the PM peak an extra 900 vehicles route westbound
                     towards the Nuthall roundabout and 500 vehicles in the opposite direction. Despite

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   129
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


                     the increases in traffic here the majority of traffic accesses the M1 via the link road
                     thus avoiding the Nuthall roundabout. Consequently delays here have been more
                     than halved to 5 minutes when compared with the do minimum situation.

                    There is an increase of 900 vehicles per hour (200%) along the A608 westbound
                     approaching Junction 27 in the AM peak. Similar increases occur in the PM peak.
                     Despite the large increase, traffic is not delayed at the upstream junction as there is
                     a relatively small amount of turning traffic (200 vehicles which has been observed in
                     the base year) on the gyratory which it has to give way to.

                    East of Junction 28 on the A38 there are increases of 500 vehicles (30%) in both
                     directions in the AM peak. In the PM peak the increases are around 1000 vehicles
                     (100%) in both directions. According to the model there are no major delays in the
                     AM peak. In the PM peak the average delay here is just over a minute.

            Leicester

7.189 The recommended strategy leads to traffic reductions on most main roads in the City.
      The adverse impacts are detailed below.

                    There is an increase in the PM peak along the southern section of the outer ring
                     road (A563) around Leicester travelling westbound towards Junction 21 of around
                     150 vehicles (9%). On the roads just east of Junction 21 the increase in flow is
                     approximately 500 vehicles (25%). There are slight increases in delays along the
                     ring road due to the extra volume of traffic but the delays at Junction 21 are
                     reduced.

            Leicestershire

7.190 The major increases in traffic are as follows:

                    In the PM peak there is an increase of almost 600 vehicles (50%) on the A46
                     exiting Junction 21A. However the only significant delays is caused to traffic
                     accessing the A46 from the B5380 roundabout were average delays are around 3
                     minutes. Again the route is of a good standard and it is not expected that any
                     capacity improvements would be necessary.

                    In the PM peak there is an increase of almost 300 vehicles (50%) on the A512
                     approaching Junction 23. In the AM peak the increase is less than 100 vehicles.
                     According to the model average delays in the PM peak are 14 minutes, which is an
                     improvement compared to the do minimum. The need for potential improvements
                     to this junction has been highlighted in the recommendations.

                    Along the A6, just south of Loughborough to the A46 there is an increase of around
                     200 vehicles (10%) in both directions and in both peaks. It is noted however that
                     there are no serious delays




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     130
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Impacts Beyond The Study Area

7.191 In assessing a number of rail schemes we have become aware of some fundamental
      problems both in terms of the capacity of the current rail network and of the structure of
      the rail industry to deliver the improvements being demanded of it. These problems are
      highlighted below.

           St Pancras Station Platform Capacity

7.192 Under the agreement of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Midland Main Line services will be
      limited to only 4 platforms and 4 train paths an hour in each direction in the off-peak
      south of Bedford. The M1MMS proposals would involve an extra train each off-peak hour
      running into and out of St Pancras, breaching this limit. This issue needs addressing
      immediately in order to avoid the capacity limits at St Pancras precluding any
      further services running up the Midland Main Line.

           Birmingham Capacity

7.193 The Derby-Birmingham line has a capacity limit of 5 passenger trains paths per hour into
      New Street station. Similar problems exist on the Nuneaton to Birmingham route. The
      final strategy has sought to minimise the additional demands placed upon these routes,
      but at least two extra train per hour (services IR2/3 and IU2) would need to access New
      Street station.

7.194 A potential solution to this problem is the option of reinstatement of the former Lichfield
      City to Walsall route enabling a second route into Birmingham from Derby to be provided.
      A second option may be to build a new chord line connecting the Derby line to the Snow
      Hill route such that trains from Leicester/Derby may run through Snow Hill station rather
      than New Street. The issue of rail capacity into Birmingham needs to be examined
      immediately in order to provide for additional train paths into the city.

           Manchester Area Capacity

7.195 Two new rail services are proposed to run into/through the south Manchester area:
      services IR5 and IR6. Even with the re-signalling of Stockport station train paths will be at
      a premium in the area, and yet the Manchester/Cheshire/North West market has been
      shown to have considerable potential from the East Midlands.

7.196 Train service paths into Manchester from the south need urgent attention during
      the re-signalling stage so as not to preclude any additional services from the East
      Midlands running in the future.

           New Service Deliverability

7.197 Many of the services being proposed would have an obvious lead operator based upon
      the current franchise map in the area. However, with the Central Train‟s franchise due to
      expire in 2004 (though subject to a 2 year extension at the time of writing), and that of
      Midland Main Line running until 2008 following on from extension, there are problems
      with any of the new services proving to be economic in the remaining years of the terms.
      Virgin Trains hold the longest franchise (until 2012) and as such may be the most willing
      to undertake extra service enhancements in the M1MMS area.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                            131
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.198 Midland Main Line potentially could look wider than its north-south operation, with the use
      of Voyager style trains on the new IR and IU services providing commonality of
      operations. In order to foster a joint public-private investment in the M1 study area there
      is need to pay immediate attention to the potential for re-letting the Central Trains
      franchise, as well as allowing for renegotiation on the Midland Main Line franchise.

7.199 We therefore recommend that immediate attention is placed upon the formation of
      a stable and long term franchise map for the East Midlands area, with franchise re-
      letting/renegotiation addressed to enable the full benefits of the Multi-Modal Study
      recommended strategy to be realised.

            OTHER SCHEMES AND INTERVENTIONS TESTED

7.200 We have undertaken a sensitivity assessment of a number of schemes and interventions
      that are not included in the recommended package but could have a material bearing
      upon future transport and land-use development if they were to take place at some future
      date.

            Road User Charging

7.201        The results of early tests of motorway tolling and urban road pricing have been
            described above. As part of the appraisal of the final package, we have undertaken an
            assessment of the impacts of area wide road pricing. It is clear from earlier assessment
            that motorway tolling in isolation will lead to undesirable impacts upon the wider network
            as a result of large volumes of traffic diverting onto the non-tolled roads. Our testing has
            shown that if traffic is diverted onto lower standard roads then this would lead to a very
            significant increase in road traffic accidents. It is considered that once the recommended
            strategy is delivered and all proposed public transport improvements are in place, then
            some form of road user charging should be considered as a means to achieve greater
            modal shift towards the end of the study horizon if by then there has not been a
            significant switch from car to public transport and if there has not been a meaningful
            slowing of the rate of growth of car traffic. The view of the study is that without a
            substantial improvement in public transport provision as proposed through the
            recommended strategy, there is no real alternative for very many car journeys taking
            place today.

7.202 The effects of applying tolls to all roads have been tested with the recommended
      strategy. The area wide road pricing sensitivity test has considered the impact of tolls
      applied on both the motorway and non motorway networks. The key assumptions
      adopted are as follows:

                    Area charging will be introduced in 2021;

                    M1 Widening to 4 lanes between junctions 21a and 30;

                    Distance related charges will be applied;

                    Motorway charges equivalent to 6p/km at 1998 prices; and

                    Other road charges equivalent to 3p/km at 1998 prices.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 132
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.203 For comparative purposes, a test was also undertaken with a 4-lane M1 without widening
      to determine the impact of the road charges. The key indicators are discussed below.

           Mode Shift Changes

7.204 The impact of road charging on mode shift is summarised in Table 7.6. This shows that
      the impact of area charging on the overall light vehicle matrix is an additional reduction of
      1.3%. This equates to an increase in mode shift of 69% compared to the non charging
      test and hence highlights the potential positive effect on public transport use.

                       Table 7.7 – Impact of AM peak 2021 Light Vehicle Mode Choice

                              Light Vehicle           No Charging       Area Charging
                              Matrix Totals

                        Pre Mode Choice                 161569             152738

                        Post Mode Choice                158941             148305

                        Difference                       2628                4433

                        % Change                         -1.6%              -2.9%


           Vehicle Kilometres / Hrs

7.205 The changes in vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours have identified the following:

                    9.8% reduction in vehicle hours compared to the non-toll test; and

                    7.4% reduction in vehicle kilometres compared to the non-toll test.

7.206 This reduction is predominately due to the higher levels of suppression and mode switch
      resulting from the introduction of tolls on the network. Road charges lead to an overall
      5% reduction in the total trip demand and a smaller 1.5% increase in the mode shift from
      car to public transport.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                            133
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



           Reliability

7.207 An assessment of the changes in stress levels on the highway network for both scenarios
      on the M1 and all highway links has identified the following:

                                                      Table 7.8 – Stress Levels

                        2021 Level of Service                                     % of Links

                                                                      No Tolls                 With Tolls

                                          Below                         61%                      69%

                                          Approaching                   20%                      16%
                   All Links
                                          At                            6%                        4%
                                          Above                         13%                      11%

                                          Below                         30%                      56%

                                          Approaching                   54%                      36%
                   M1 Links
                                          At                            14%                       7%

                                          Above                         1%                        0%


7.208 This shows that the introduction of area wide road pricing will reduce the levels of stress
      on both the M1 and all links, with over 55% of the M1 within the study area operating
      below capacity in 2021. It is noted, however, that as charges are applied on all routes the
      distribution of trips will be similar to that of the no tolling assignment, with a slight
      reduction on the M1 due to the higher costs associated with its use.

7.209 In addition to reduced stress on the motorway, slight improvements are also identified on
      the non motorway network on both strategic routes (A5, A47 etc) and around the main
      centres (Leicester, Nottingham, Chesterfield).

7.210 On the basis of the above test results it can be said that if area wide road user charges
      were to become a reality then there would be an overall reduction in total traffic and an
      increase in the use of public transport. The recommended full level of motorway
      widening would not necessarily be required under such a scenario.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                         134
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            South Nottinghamshire Rail Schemes

7.211 We are aware that the local authorities are progressing proposals for a number of new
      Heavy Rail routes to the south and east of Nottingham. From the very outset of the
      study, following from consultation with rail operators and the network provider Railtrack,
      we included these lines as Light Rail schemes in order to ease capacity problems upon
      the heavy rail network. In addition such a policy would provide for much greater
      penetration into urban areas, more frequent stops, greater frequency and cross city travel
      without the need to interchange trains at Nottingham Station, features which could not be
      replicated with heavy rail.

7.212 The proposed South Notts‟ Rail scheme (Light or Heavy rail) serves a more local
      transport function and is not within the direct remit of this study. The programme of travel
      data collection for this study was therefore not designed with a view to assess these
      proposals. As data on travel movements from the east of Nottingham are not available,
      this study is not able to make a firm recommendation in respect of these schemes.

7.213 It is recognised however, that the recommended strategy would result in a significant
      increase in the number of trains serving Nottingham Station. It is considered that there
      would not be spare capacity for the additional trains, as proposed in the South Notts
      proposals, to pass through the station, running alongside the proposed new heavy rail
      services resulting from the M1MMS strategy. The South Nottinghamshire heavy rail
      proposals as currently being developed by the local authorities would therefore be
      in conflict with the recommended strategy.

7.214 The Regional Planning Body would therefore need to take a view on priorities.

            Re-opening of the Melton Mowbray Line

7.215 One of the major heavy rail schemes considered in the study was the re-opening of the
      line between Nottingham, Melton Mowbray, Corby and Kettering providing an alternative
      fast route between Nottingham and London, using an extension of the current Alstom test
      track between Melton Mowbray and Edwalton. The key reasons behind the development
      of this option were to:

                    assist in the regeneration aspirations of Corby (and to a lesser degree Melton
                     Mowbray);

                    create a second route to the south of Nottingham providing a substantial increase in
                     rail capacity avoiding Trent Junction and the double track section between
                     Attenborough and Beeston; and

                    to provide a new access point to the rail network to the south of Nottingham at as
                     new Nottingham South Parkway station.

7.216 As the previous alignment of the former Midland Railway route into Nottingham is now
      lost to housing development, as well as the Lady Bay Bridge now adopted for road use, a
      new route would be required. This would need a new bridge across the River Trent on a
      similar alignment to that considered within the recommended strategy for the Road
      Bridge, using the reserved alignment for the highway scheme. South of this point, a new


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  135
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            alignment would be provided running parallel to the A52 ring road until meeting the
            present Alstom test track west of Tollerton.

7.217 As the Nottingham to London market is well catered for by rail, in terms of the proportion
      of trips travelling by car to London from Nottingham of the total market for this movement,
      there is limited potential to increase rail usage. However, a new Nottingham South station
      would provide a new access point to the rail network south of the city, and would avoid
      the need to drive into Nottingham, or alternatively to Loughborough or the new East
      Midlands Parkway station. As such these changes in trip making is simply a diversion of
      trip destination, with little extra and in some cases a reduced level of revenue accruing to
      rail, as well as a marginal affect upon the highway network, so such a new parkway
      station could not be justified (it should be noted that the majority of rail commuter trips to
      a city station are made before the main morning peak congestion period, thereby
      reducing the traffic effects of car-borne rail commuting trips).

7.218 At a more local level, travel data for Melton Mowbray into Nottingham has not been
      collected as part of this study and therefore a full assessment could not be completed of
      the benefits of the reopening of this route for a role other than Nottingham to London.

7.219 Overall, the limited assessment of this scheme has indicated that this scheme would
      mostly abstract passengers from existing services, and not grow the overall rail market,
      with a result that the operating costs for both the current and the new rail services would
      be carried by only a slightly increased level of passengers and hence revenue.

7.220 In the longer term, such a scheme supported by sympathetic land use
      development policies, may encourage greater travel by train and also provide
      regeneration benefits for the towns that would become connected to the north-
      south rail network.

            Extending NET to Mansfield

7.221 The current proposals for NET line 1 involve light rail running parallel to the Robin Hood
      line as far as Hucknall. Analysis of the highway movements along the M1/A611/A60
      corridor showed a strong demand for travel between Mansfield, Sutton-in-Ashfield,
      Kirkby-in-Ashfield and „Greater‟ Nottingham. At an early stage in the multi-modal study
      process the extension of NET to Mansfield, taking over the present Robin Hood route to
      Kirkby, with then on-road alignments beyond there to better serve Sutton and Mansfield
      was proposed. A 15 minute frequency service was proposed, linking into NET routes to
      the south and east of Nottingham to facilitate cross-city movements.

7.222 The current Robin Hood line services would have been diverted to run via the freight only
      Kirkby Summit to Pye bridge route, with only slightly extended rail journey time compared
      to the present route. This alternative routing was adopted to avoid shared heavy rail/light
      rail working which has already posed problems on the line 1 route (though Sunderland to
      Gateshead in Tyneside will shortly be introducing such a shared usage shortly). By
      serving Mansfield in this way the service frequency from Mansfield to Nottingham would
      increase from a present maximum of 2 trains per hour to 2 trains via Pye Bridge and 4
      trams via Hucknall.

7.223 Detailed analysis of the resulting public transport usage along this corridor showed that
      the overall public transport share increased, particularly so for the off-peak period, but
      that the additional revenue from the enhanced level of service did not cover the

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                             136
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


            increased operating costs for such a step change in service provision. Also the level of
            decongestion benefits was considered to be small due to the only small increase in peak
            period public transport usage. For this reason the option of extending NET to Mansfield
            was not pursued.

7.224 Extending NET to Mansfield would however offer the scope for a major
      regeneration of the southern Robin Hood corridor, with development opportunities
      which are observed to result from light rail schemes elsewhere in the UK. As such
      we recommend that the option of extending NET to Mansfield is considered in a
      wider framework, beyond simple economic viability, with a view to provide a high
      quality transport corridor between Mansfield and Nottingham.

            The Central Railway Proposal

7.225 There is a private sector proposal by Central Railway for a new Rail Freight route
      between Liverpool and Lille via the Channel Tunnel. This service, which will carry
      unaccompanied road trailers on railway wagons is planned to be operational by the end
      of the decade.

7.226 We have undertaken a broad assessment of the impact upon road freight within the study
      area should this proposal come to fruition. The assessment is based on the removal of
      heavy goods vehicles from the M1 as forecast by Central Railway. The forecasts by
      Central Railway indicate the removal of approximately 1,500 HGVs per day (in 2010)
      from the M1 in each direction. This equates to approximately 100 fewer HGVs in each
      direction during the peak hours representing about 10 per cent of the forecast peak hour
      HGV flow but being less than 2 per cent of the total hourly traffic volume.

7.227 This level of HGV traffic reduction, although highly significant in the context of the
      international freight market and competing rail freight and sea freight options, will not
      have any material impact upon the recommended strategy for the motorway in terms of
      the number of lanes on the different sections.

7.228 Moreover, the urgent need to improve domestic rail freight services is not conditional on
      the outcome of the Central Railway scheme.

            New East-West Strategic Highway

7.229 The study brief recognised the issue of east-west traffic using the M1 in the study area in
      that it stated “east-west movements on the A14 may be a significant feeder to north-
      south movements in the M1 corridor”. There was however, no specific requirement to
      identify measures to address this longer distance east-west traffic.

7.230 Early in the study process it was established that a significant proportion of the motorway
      traffic consisted of longer distance east-west journeys that used the motorway within the
      study area for relatively short distances. The largest such movement is between the A50
      at Junction 24 and the A14 at Junction 19 although other routes east of the M1 also feed
      such movements to the motorway. In order to remove this traffic from the motorway,
      proposals were developed to provide a new strategic highway link between the M1 and
      the A1. The proposals consisted of a new highway between Junction 24A of the M1 and
      the A1. Traffic model tests indicated that the western section of this route (between the
      M1 and the A46) was very heavily used attracting a large volume of traffic from a wide
      geographic area. East of the A46, the link attracted a smaller volume of traffic.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                             137
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT


7.231 In developing such a proposal, it was recognised that there would be substantial
      environmental constraints to finding an acceptable alignment for such a road. An early
      environmental assessment was therefore undertaken which confirmed that a route east
      of the A46 is unlikely to be acceptable on grounds of environmental impact and therefore
      the scheme was not considered further.

7.232 A number of consultees suggested that as there was a significant identified east-west
      flow there was a need for a new strategic highway catering for such movements.
      Because of this, and the fact the a new road between the M1 and the A46 attracted large
      traffic volumes relieving other roads, a truncated route to the A46 was included for further
      assessment.

7.233 The further analysis continued to indicate that the new route would attract very significant
      volumes of traffic. It would encourage greater use of the A46 which is currently a good
      standard dual carriageway road between Leicester and Nottingham that is only lightly
      trafficked. The further environmental assessment indicated that whilst there were
      constraints these were not such that could not, in many cases, be overcome by
      appropriate mitigation measures. The scheme, raised objections by environmental
      groups in particular, but also concerns by others including some local authorities.

7.234 As the identification of a new east-west route was not included within the study brief and
      due to the likely large environmental impact, despite the apparent wider traffic benefits,
      the scheme was not included within the draft core package but included as an option to
      be further tested to assess its contribution to the overall strategy. Further assessment
      revealed that whilst the scheme would reduce traffic along the motorway between
      junctions 19 and 24 as well as lead to significant traffic reductions on a number of other
      roads, the level of reduction was not sufficient to reduce the level of motorway widening
      expected to be recommended. Also, the recommendations of the A453 study are not
      known at present and there would be implications for these.

7.235 Whilst the scheme would contribute to the study objectives by providing traffic,
      safety and economic benefits it is not included within the recommended strategy
      on the basis of the expected significant environmental impact.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                           138
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



            Affects of Different Land-Use Scenarios

7.236 The „Proposed Land Use/Regeneration Scenarios‟ report, issued in April 2001, outlines
      the four levels of potential trip growth assessed within this study. These relate to the
      following:

                    Scenario 1: TEMPRO – this represents high growth in employment and
                     households, with continued suburbanisation of development;

                    Scenario 2: TEMPRO growth with RPG spatial distribution – again high growth, but
                     adopting an RPG-type concentration of development in the major urban areas;

                    Scenario 3: Low growth with RPG distribution – more realistic levels of growth,
                     distributed according to RPG-type concentration of development; and

                    Scenario 4: Ambitious growth with RPG distribution, with extra concentration of jobs
                     and households – this represents the real “go for it” option: very high levels of
                     growth, with high concentration in the urban areas, East Midland Airport (EMA) and
                     the coalfields (i.e. the districts of Bassetlaw, Bolsover, and Mansfield).

7.237 In scenario 4, further concentration takes place around EMA and in the districts of
      Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Mansfield, in the last five years of the forecast – between 2016
      and 2021. That change only occurs after 2016 reflects the fact that the RPG for the East
      Midlands runs till that date. Major increases in jobs around the EMA are unlikely to take
      place within the next fifteen years because the RPG no longer supports development
      there. Moreover, it was felt that significant changes in job and household structure in the
      northern coalfields would, realistically, take ten to fifteen years to achieve.

7.238 The growth levels for scenario 4 reflect emda‟s target for the East Midlands to become
      one of the top twenty regions in Europe in terms of GDP per head by 2010. Business
      Strategies Ltd. suggests that the region would need to grow by 4% per annum for the
      next ten years to achieve this goal. This rate has therefore adopted and taken forward to
      2021 for the high growth scenario. This level of GDP growth implies a growth in
      employment of 0.8% per annum (on top of the forecast productivity growth), which is
      roughly double the current trend rate of employment growth in the region. Scenario 4 is
      therefore to be considered as very optimistic.

7.239 The tests indicated that the „Tempro‟ scenario represented a central range for the total
      vehicle hours and vehicle kilometres. Scenario 4, with its greater growth, indicates a 6%
      increase in vehicle hours and a 9% increase in vehicle kilometres. However, due to
      increasing highway congestion with scenario 4 this also shows the greatest mode shift of
      5% compared to 3% for the central case (Tempro).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  139
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



7.240 A comparison of highway stress levels is shown in Table 7.9 below.

                                            Table 7.9 – Stress Levels - % of Links

                   2021 Level of Service                Tempro      Low Growth       TEMPRO     High
                                                                      + RPG           +RPG    Growth +
                                                                                                RPG

                                      Below               63%           66%           63%       60%

                                      Approaching         19%           15%           16%       16%
                  All Links
                                      At                  6%             5%            6%       7%

                                      Above               12%           13%           14%       17%
                                      Below               37%           48%           42%       32%

                                      Approaching         50%           40%           45%       41%
                 M1 Links
                                      At                  13%           13%           13%       16%

                                      Above               0%             0%            0%       11%


7.241 This table shows that the levels of stress are, in general, the same for each scenario with
      the exception of the High Growth + RPG which increases due to the additional trips within
      the matrices.

7.242 The above results confirm that the TEMPRO growth scenario provides the optimum case
      for the definition of the preferred strategy. On the basis of the above comparisons it is
      concluded that the recommended strategy is robust against the full range of land-use
      scenarios.

7.243 A strategy with greater urban concentration, as represented by the TEMPRO + RPG
      scenario, would lead to reduced traffic on the M1 with a 10% reduction in the number of
      links approaching capacity. Whilst the above table shows a worsening of conditions on
      the wider road network with this scenario, this is on the basis of the recommended
      strategy that focuses on the more strategic movements rather than the local trips. Such
      a concentration of future development could, more easily, be catered for by improved
      local bus services and thus the actual impact on road traffic would be less than is
      indicated by the above test results.

7.244 The test results confirm that a more concentrated pattern of development as included in
      the RPG will be more sustainable in transport terms.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   140
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



8.          STRATEGY APPRAISAL

            INTRODUCTION

8.1         This chapter details the results of the appraisal of the recommended strategy. The
            appraisal has been carried out in accordance with GOMMMS, the Guidance on the
            Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies. The detailed appraisal and accompanying
            worksheets are documented in a separate Appraisal Report.

8.2         The recommended strategy has been appraised at two levels:

                    Against the study‟s local objectives, culminating in the production of the Local
                     Appraisal Summary Table (LAST); and

                    Against the Government‟s over-arching transport objectives culminating in the
                     production of the Central Government Appraisal Summary Table (CGAST).

8.3         There is a significant overlap between the appraisal of the recommended strategy
            against the two sets of objectives.

            APPRAISAL AGAINST THE LOCAL OBJECTIVES

8.4         This section of the report presents the appraisal of the preferred strategy against the
            local objectives:

                    Enhance the overall environmental quality;

                    Improve network integrity and safety;

                    Meeting the economic ambitions of the region;

                    Improve accessibility within and beyond the region; and

                    Improve integration within the region

8.5         Each of the above are covered in detail below.

            Enhance the Environment

8.6         The GOMMMS methodology has formed the basis for the environmental assessment of
            the strategy package. In the development of the strategy the testing of options has also
            utilised the key themes in the GOMMMS approach which are equally applicable to
            schemes elsewhere in England and Wales. However it was realised at the outset of the
            study that it would be important to evaluate the strategy package against a set of
            environmental objectives which were relevant to the sub-regional level appropriate to the
            study area.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                              141
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT



8.7         The Local Objective relating to the environment was defined as :

                        “to enhance overall environmental quality”.

8.8         This was divided into two Local Sub Objectives :

                        “to protect and enhance environmental conditions at regional/strategic level”; and

                        “at local level to control air quality, noise and other environmental impacts.”

8.9         A further breakdown of the Sub Objectives was devised in order to allow the performance
            of the strategy to be measured. The first stage of the environmental appraisal process
            involved a consideration of the strategies and policies of the strategic planning authorities
            covering the study area. This revealed a number of common strands which were
            developed into objectives as set out in the table below. For each objective, an indicator
            was devised which was used to measure performance. Given the strategic nature of the
            proposals, the assessment will necessarily be qualitative.

8.10        Many of these objectives are similar to those which underpin the GOMMMS approach,
            though there are others which are specific to the sub-region.

8.11        An indication of the significance of the impact on local objectives is indicated on the
            assessment table, together with a qualitative comment highlighting the pertinent issues.

8.12        For each objective, an indicator has been devised to enable the performance of the
            strategy to be measured. Given the strategic nature of the proposals, the assessment is
            necessarily qualitative.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       142
April 2002
                                                                           NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                            FINAL REPORT

                                                                                 Table 8.1 – Environmental Assessment

      LOCAL OBJECTIVE                                  INDICATOR                        COMMENTARY                                                                               ASSESSMENT

    Noise

1   Reduce the level of emissions                      Estimated population annoyed     Overall about 7,000 (0.3%) more people may be annoyed by noise with the strategy         Neutral
                                                       by noise                         compared to the do-minimum.

    Air quality

2   Reduce the level of emissions                      Level of CO2 emissions           The strategy would result in a decrease in emissions of 5% in 2006 and no change in      Neutral
                                                                                        2021 compared with the Do-Minimum in the same year.

    Landscape

3   Protect woodlands, particularly in                 Extent     of    development     Martinshaw Wood, Grey Lodge Wood, Oakley Wood and Piper Wood are adjacent to             Moderate adverse
    areas     of   woodland     initiatives,           affecting woodland               the M1 widening and impacts on these woodlands should be minimised. There would be
    including the National Forest                                                       no impact on the National Forest.

4   Protect    landscapes  which    are                Extent of development in, or     The Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening passes through the Peak District National Park but     Moderate adverse
    sensitive or designated locally as                 adjacent   to,   locally   or    impact would be limited. Motorway widening and the Fourth Trent Crossing could affect
    being of high quality                              nationally         designated    locally designated landscapes. Most schemes follow existing route corridors and
                                                       landscapes                       landscape impacts would be minimised.

5   Protection of the character of key                 Extent of development in         Fourth Trent Crossing and Motorway Widening lie within or adjacent to several Green      Moderate adverse
    “green” corridors/wedges                           areas designated as Green        Belt areas but none of these areas should be affected to an extent that its purpose or
                                                       Belt or Green Wedge              character would be compromised.

    Biodiversity

6   Maintain and enhance biodiversity                  Extent of development in, or     Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening would affect SAC and extensive SSSI. Oakley Wood           Moderate adverse
    and give appropriate protection to                 adjacent     to,   locally  or   SSSI is adjacent to M1 widening. There are a small number of locally designated sites
    habitats and species of importance for             nationally designated sites      in Nottingham which may be potentially affected by NET extensions and the Fourth
    nature conservation, including sites of                                             Trent Crossing. A small number of Geological and Biological Sites of Significance are
    geological significance                                                             adjacent to the M1 widening but impacts are expected to be limited.




             File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                     143
             April 2002
                                                                                NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                                 FINAL REPORT

       LOCAL OBJECTIVE                                    INDICATOR                         COMMENTARY                                                                                ASSESSMENT

     Heritage

7    Preserve and enhance historic areas,                 Extent of development in, or      There could be potential impacts on eight conservation areas (Stanton Gate, Strelley,     Moderate adverse
             buildings and archaeological                          adjacent to,                     Ilkeston, Newark and four villages in the Peak District National Park). One
             remains                                               conservation areas,              SAM may be affected by the A453/A50 link. Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening
                                                                   listed buildings                 could affect Grade 1 listed building and historic park at Haddon Hall
                                                                   (Grade I/II*) or areas
                                                                   of identified
                                                                   archaeological
                                                                   importance

     Water

8    Protect and improve water quality by                 Number of significant             Several schemes cross the River Trent, Erewash, Wreak and Soar and hence                  Moderate adverse
              restricting development likely                     watercourses                        protection would be required during construction of the schemes.
              to cause pollution of                              affected by the
              watercourses                                       development

9    Avoid flood risk                                     Extent of development in flood    NET extensions and the Newark Chord rail link may affect washland areas though            Moderate adverse
                                                                   plain                            design should reduce impact on washland capacity.

     Agricultural land

10   Conserve high grade agricultural land                Extent of development on          There should be no impact on either Grade 1, 2 or 3a Agricultural Land.                   Neutral
                                                                   Grade1,2,3a land

     Previously used land

11   Make productive use of derelict and                  Extent of development        on   Several rail schemes involve bringing previous, now derelict, rail alignments back into   Slight beneficial
     previously used land                                 previously used land              use.

     Mineral reserves

12   Safeguard minerals reserves                          Extent       of     development   There should be no significant impact on mineral reserves.                                Neutral
                                                          affecting   identified minerals
                                                          reserves




                File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                        144
                April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT

8.13        Taking this into account enables a broad assessment of the impact of the strategy on
            Local Sub Objectives to be made as follows:

8.14        At a regional/strategic level, the strategy is expected to make little difference to either air
            quality or overall noise levels compared to the “do-minimum”. In general, the impact of
            the infrastructure proposals on other environmental conditions at this level is also unlikely
            to be significant. Only one element of the package (Matlock to Buxton rail reopening)
            may have a significant impact on environmental resources of at least regional
            importance. With this exception, the performance against the first of the environmental
            Local Sub Objectives may be assessed as neutral.

8.15        At local level, the assessment shows that there will be benefits in terms of both local air
            quality and noise in many parts of the study area, particularly where the strategy results
            in the removal of through traffic from settlements and/or its transfer to more suitable
            routes where capacity improvements result in free flowing traffic. The strategy also offers
            benefits in terms of improved journey ambience, reduced severance and the promotion of
            physical fitness. Against this, few significant local environmental costs were identified.
            Many of these were considered to be capable of mitigation at the project design level.
            The performance against the second of the environmental Local Sub Objectives may
            therefore be assessed as beneficial

            Improve Network Integrity and Safety

8.16        This objective was divided into two sub-objectives:

                        “to improve perceptions and reality of personal security”; and

                        “improve safety conditions on the transport network.”

           Security

8.17        The strategy includes recommendations for upgrading facilities at railway stations to
            bring them to a minimum standard of acceptability (as defined by this study) for their level
            of usage. These proposals include measures to improve security and the perception of
            security through the provision of CCTV monitoring and Help Points. Improved provision
            for cycle lockers will also add to the overall improved security. The performance of the
            strategy against the first sub-objective may therefore be assessed as moderate
            beneficial.

           Safety

8.18        The safety appraisal indicated very significant improvement brought about through the
            recommended strategy. The appraisal shows that over a thirty year assessment period
            (2006-2035) there will be nearly 8,000 (5%) fewer road traffic accidents with the strategy
            in place. Over the thirty year period, this represents a saving of 130 fatalities and nearly
            1,200 serious injury accidents. The performance of the strategy against the first sub-
            objective may therefore be assessed as large beneficial.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  145
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT

            Meeting the Economic Ambitions of the Region

8.19        The Regional Economic Strategy and other policy documents identify a range of socio-
            economic objectives. For the purposes of the appraisal five key interlinked local sub-
            objectives have been identified as the foci for the appraisal:

8.20        Enhancing the economic performance of the region. This can be considered as
            Improving the overall rate of growth of the region‟s GDP per capita. Currently around
            96% of the EU average, the RES sets an objective of raising the region‟s GDP into the
            top 20 performing EU regions by 2010. The transport system clearly affects economic
            performance in a variety of ways – influencing, for example, the region‟s capacity to
            attract new investment, the performance and market penetration of established firms and
            the attraction of tourists. To a substantial extent the overall performance of the strategy
            on the TUBA appraisal will provide a measure of its impacts on the region‟s economic
            performance. However, its effects on a range of aspects of strategic accessibility – and
            in particular how far it alleviates key constraints - are also important, especially in relation
            to efforts to attract new investment.

8.21        Ensuring freight and distribution patterns today and future needs are understood
            and catered for. Clearly the capacity of the transport system to meet the specific needs
            of the freight sector is one of the key aspects of its influence on overall economic
            performance. It is important both to the generality of the region‟s businesses and to the
            attraction of the distribution investment which has been important to a number of the local
            economies along the motorway corridor. Clearly the effects on journey times by road to
            major external employment centres and their reliability are crucial in this context.

8.22        Assisting the economic regeneration of the urban and coalfield areas. As shown in
            Figure 8.1, unemployment rates in the cities and the coalfield remain well above average.
            Securing new investment and regeneration in these areas is an established policy
            objective. A range of aspects of accessibility are relevant here. From the viewpoint of
            attracting new investment, the key issue for the coalfield communities is journey times by
            road to the motorway corridor and journey times and reliability along the motorway.
            These aspects are also important for the urban centres but in this case accessibility by
            public transport is also a major issue and the quality of strategic rail links, particularly to
            London, may also be important to the generation of, for example, „back-office‟
            employment.

8.23        Assisting the social regeneration of the urban and coalfield areas and combating
            social exclusion more generally. As shown in Figure 8.2, deprivation more generally is
            also heavily concentrated within the urban and coalfield areas. Access to local
            employment centres – in particular by public transport in the urban areas but more
            generally in the coalfield – has an important role in ensuring that residents of deprived
            areas can secure and hold down the jobs that are created. Social regeneration will also
            be promoted by improvements in public transport links more generally.

8.24        By no means all deprivation is spatially concentrated. The quality of local public transport
            has a key role in helping to address problems of social exclusion more generally.

8.25        Helping to maintain the vitality of rural communities. The region‟s rural communities
            are heavily car dependent and rely to a large extent on employment and/or services in
            the towns and cities. The quality of road access to these centres – and perhaps where
            necessary the opportunity to interchange to public transport within the cities – are clearly
            important. For the minority without access to a car, the maintenance of a measure of
            public transport provision is a major issue.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  146
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT

8.26        Each of the above sub-objectives is addressed below.

           Enhance the Economic Performance of the Region

           Overall Performance of the Preferred Package

8.27        In overall terms the highway aspects of the package show a strong performance on the
            TUBA analysis with a net present value of over £2.4 billion (including some decongestion
            benefits attributable to the public transport elements) and a benefit/cost ratio of greater
            than 5.0. Much of the benefits will clearly accrue to the residents of the region and
            businesses located within it.

           Effects on Key Journey Times – Public Transport

8.28        The preferred final package gives rise to reduction in the public transport journey times
            between key centres within the study area, where the journey time is summed with the
            waiting times involved. These results are shown in Table 8.2, where a comparison is
            made between the Am peak 2021 do-minimum journey times with those forecasts for the
            2021 do-something scenario, where the times are all taken relative to a base of 100 for
            the do-minimum. Hence, for example, the times between Mansfield and Sheffield are
            given an index of 82, meaning that the final strategy has the effect of reducing the overall
            journey time between these two locations to 82% of that applying in the do-minimum, a
            reduction of 18%.

8.29        The changes presented in Table 8.2 may be explained in terms of faster rail services,
            increased service frequency, the provision of direct services (e.g. Mansfield to Sheffield)
            and the linking together of locations not previously possible (e.g. Mansfield to
            Chesterfield). It shows quite clearly the improved connectivity to locations such as
            Mansfield, and with much improved linkages between the key cities in the study area to
            the North West and the West Midlands.

           Effects on Key Journey Times and Reliability - Highway

8.30        The preferred package generates reductions in journey time by road from the main
            centres to business centres within and beyond the study area relative to do minimum
            (Table 8.3). Journey times will also generally be lower than at present. Equally or more
            significantly, the package largely resolves the issue of motorway links which are at or
            above capacity (Table 8.4) and this should greatly improve journey time reliability on the
            motorway. Similarly, the numbers of links on the road system as a whole which are at or
            above capacity is reduced somewhat relative to both the current and do minimum levels.

8.31        In general terms:

                    The preferred package clearly preserves and enhances the key strategic role of the
                     motorway corridor and its attractions as a focus for investment which flows into the
                     region;

                    Increases in stress levels on some other parts of the system as a result of
                     background traffic growth may enhance the premium attaching to locations in the
                     vicinity of motorway junctions;

                    The main improvements in journey times reliability are focused between junctions
                     23a and 28. Given that the major markets for businesses tend to be in the South,
                     the package will tend to increase the relative attractiveness of locations in the North


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   147
April 2002
NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                 FINAL REPORT

                     of the study area, in effect through reducing the incremental costs of more northerly
                     locations. This is clearly most important to distribution-focused businesses or
                     manufacturers who need to meet just-in-time delivery requirements. The effect is
                     illustrated graphically in Figures 8.3 and 8.4 which show journey times to East
                     Midlands Airport;

                    The strategy includes significant public transport investments which will be
                     important at a local level. However, the heavy rail improvements largely relate to
                     local, regional and cross-country links. Improvements in links to London – the
                     major issue for service-related business – will be limited, at a time when major
                     investment in going into the West Coast Main Line. The other elements of the
                     package may thus have only limited effects on efforts to attract investment in back
                     office or other types of sectors such as business and financial services with strong
                     functional links to the capital.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 148
April 2002
                                                                                          NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                                           FINAL REPORT


                                              Table 8.2 – Preferred Package Journey Times Relative to do Minimum for public transport (rail)


            Location               Sheffield          Chesterfield   Mansfield     Nottingham     Derby     Leicester   Manchester   London   Birmingham   Peterborough   EMA
 Sheffield                             -                 100            82             100         100        100          100        100         100          100        100
 Chesterfield                        100                   -            60              98         100        100          100        100         100          100        100
 Mansfield                            82                  60             -              94         100        100           76         88          89          100        100
 Nottingham                          100                  98            94               -          94        100           66        100          80          100        100
 Derby                               100                 100           100              94           -        100           69        100         100          100        100
 Leicester                           100                 100           100             100         100          -           91        100          85          100         98
 Manchester                          100                 100            76              66          69         91            -        100          81          100         61
 London                              100                 100            88             100         100        100          100          -         100          100         96
 Birmingham                          100                 100            89              80         100         85           81        100           -          100         96
 Peterborough                        100                 100           100             100         100        100          100        100         100            -        100
 East Midlands Airport                  100                 100           100            100          100       98          61        100        100            100            -




                                                        Table 8.3 – Preferred Package Journey Times Relative to do Minimum for Highway
        Location               Sheffield        Chesterfield Mansfield           Nottingham     Derby       Leicester   Manchester   London   Birmingham   Peterborough   EMA
Sheffield                           -                  98            98             95           93            93          100         98        94            99         86
Chesterfield                       98                   -            94             89           90            91          99          97        93            99         80
Mansfield                          96                  92            -              94           91            91          97          98        94            96         81
Nottingham                         92                  84            86              -           90            91          94          97        90            90         81
Derby                              94                  95            82             98            -            87          96          96        98            93         73
Leicester                          93                  87            98             91           89             -          94         100        100           99         93
Manchester                        100                  99            99             95           94            94           -          97        94            99         90
London                             97                  95            97             97           97           100          97          -         99            100        99
Birmingham                         96                  93            93             97           99           100          97          99         -            97         98
Peterborough                       99                  99            95             97           95            99          99         100        98             -         98
East Mid Airport                   89                  80            80             84           87            97          92         100        98            95          -




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                                149
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



                  Table 8.4 – Highway Network and M1 AM Stress Levels (2001 and 2021)


                                                      % of Links at 2001      % of Links at 2021
                                                                           Do Min          Preferred
       All Links                Below                       60%             60%              62%
                                Approaching                 17%             17%              19%
                                At                           9%              9%               6%
                                Above                       14%             15%              13%
       M1 Links                 At                          20%             33%              13%
                                Above                        0%             17%               0%


8.32        Key Schemes: Clearly the key schemes in overall regional development terms are the
            motorway widening and junction improvements.

8.33        Outstanding Issues: Two (albeit in strategic terms lesser) and in part related problems
            will remain to some extent unresolved:

                    Some build up of congestion on parts of the non-motorway network;

                    The weaknesses of East-West communication links.

8.34        As argued, in strategic terms this may to re-enforce the role of the immediate motorway
            corridor as a focus of the region‟s growth.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    150
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


Figure 8.1 – Unemployment Rates

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).



Figure 8.2 – Deprivation Indicators

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).


Figure 8.3 – Zone Travel Times to East Midlands Airport – Do Min

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).



Figure 8.4 – Zone Travel Times to East Midlands Airport – Preferred Package

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                           151
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


           Freight Distribution

8.35        The improvements in journey times and reliability along the M1 will clearly be much the
            most important aspect of the package from the viewpoint of the freight/distribution sector.
            It is noteworthy that nearly 30% of the estimated user benefits of the highway elements of
            the package accrue to goods vehicles.

8.36        The wider freight strategy will benefit the sector itself but its major rationale relates to
            providing or preserving options to transfer freight to other modes to support objectives in
            relation to mode split. Key elements here - which link to the SRA‟s freight strategy – are :

                    The development of intermodal facilities – details of which are deferred to a separate
                     study;

                    The investments in gauge improvements which will allow 9‟6” containers to be carried
                     on standard flat bed wagons on a wider range of routes, increasing the destinations
                     which could be served from East Midlands terminals;

                    The proposed rail freight links to the Humber Ports and the North-West via the
                     reopened Woodhead tunnel;

                    Land use policies to encourage the development of warehousing around rail served
                     sites.

8.37        The study has highlighted the inter-dependence between economic development in the
            region and the freight and distribution sector. It not only provides employment directly but
            helps to attract industrial and commercial development to the East Midlands. The specific
            attraction of the region as a base for national distribution offers opportunities, but these
            competitive advantages need to be protected.

8.38        Distribution companies need:

                    Predictable journey times by road.

                    Land for depots and warehousing, located near the strategic transport network, and
                     the major urban centres.

                    Improved road access to urban centres.

                    Reliable, cost-effective rail alternatives.

                    Access to air, and sea freight services.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   152
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


           Road Stress

8.39        The assessment of Preferred Package focuses on the balance of demand and supply for
            the M1 motorway corridor. One of the principal elements is the proposed increase in
            motorway capacity which will reduce the number of M1 links operating at or above a level
            in excess of their capacity.

8.40        The proportion of M1 links in the study area within this stress definition has been modelled,
            and is forecast to fall, as a result of the Preferred Strategy, from 25% in 2006, to, 7% in
            2016, rising to 13% in 2021 as long term traffic growth builds up again. Without the
            measures proposed in the Preferred Package, M1 stress levels are forecast to rise from
            25% of links at or above capacity in 2006 to 50% by 2021.

8.41        The proportion of all road links at or above capacity is forecast to remain constant with the
            strategy from 19% in 2006 to 18% in 2001 compared to 16% in 2000. However, this
            package performs significantly better than the Do Minimum which is forecast to increase
            from 18% to 24% over the same period. It does however indicate that a greater share of
            the benefit will accrue to motorway users.

           Journey Times

8.42        The impact of the strategy has been used to analyse the change in journey times. The
            impacts are complex, but the outcome is clear. The recommended strategy reduces
            overall journey times but also reduces the variance between peak and inter-peak journey
            times. For longer distance journeys such as Sheffield-London, journey times increase over
            the period 2006-2021, but the daily variance decreases. The main benefit provided by the
            strategy is the reduction in the rate of growth of the journey time for both the AM peak and
            inter peak.

8.43        Large differences in journey time between AM peak and inter peak periods remain despite
            the improvements in the road network. They underline the need to encourage more
            flexibility in scheduling, flexible working hours and 24 hour access to delivery points, so
            that a higher proportion of trips can be carried out at off-peak periods.

           Other Road Related Benefits

8.44        The motorway improvements also encourage separation between vehicle types, including
            crawler lanes for HGVs. On the four-lane sections, two lanes would be available for HGVs
            and three for LGVs. Passenger vehicles would be encouraged to move out of the inside
            lanes, leaving more capacity than at present and safer conditions for the goods traffic.

8.45        Specific measures are included to provide better access to urban areas, including the
            ability to make night-time deliveries, and the replacement of bus-lanes with “no-car” lanes.

           Economic Benefits of Multi-Modal Approach

8.46        While these benefits in road journey time and congestion help to reverse recent
            deterioration in logistics efficiency, there is also a requirement to reduce the dependence
            of goods movement on the performance of the road network and the growth of car traffic.
            The multi-modal approach to this study provides businesses with an option to use non-
            road networks where appropriate, i.e. for long distance trips, trips to ports, and
            international trips.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 153
April 2002
    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                     FINAL REPORT

8.47        Beyond the road network, it is clear that effective alternatives to road do not exist within the
            study area today for the bulk of freight journeys. The strategy seeks to create the pre-
            conditions for change by establishing networks of distribution facilities located at rail or
            waterways connected sites. This approach can bring economic benefits from private
            sector investment in warehousing and terminal facilities, and public sector investment via
            SRA/DTLR grant schemes.

8.48        It identifies the need to bring National Distribution Centres (NDCs) to these locations, and it
            provides the necessary track upgrades to attach East Midlands terminals to the main
            national freight routes. It also provides the basis for new routes to the North of the study
            area, including Manchester via Woodhead, and the Humber Ports.

8.49        The freight elements together will deliver a 2.5% mode shift from road at 2011 compared to
            the situation without the recommended strategy. As the do-minimum includes the
            improvements of the SRA‟s Freight Strategy, this coupled with the M1MMS strategy will
            result in a 6% shift from road compared to 2000 levels.

           Assisting Economic Regeneration

           Urban Areas

8.50        This is a strategic study, designed to improve regional transport links and therefore it has
            not focussed on individual urban areas. Nevertheless, strategy elements will affect local
            areas. A variety of conflicting issues arise here:

                    The investment in LRT in Nottingham and Leicester and the public transport priority
                     measures will re-enforce aspects of the attractiveness and economic functions of the
                     major urban centres;

                    The measures to constrain demand should also be generally helpful, although, of
                     course, they potentially involve some costs to businesses. However, research
                     elsewhere5 suggests that workplace parking or urban road pricing would actually
                     have relatively limited impacts on most city centre businesses.

8.51        The potential concerns relate to:

                    The possible effects of more difficult access by private car on the retail sector, with
                     risks that this may add to pressures for decentralisation of activity and enhance
                     leakage to competing centres elsewhere, most notably Meadowhall;

                    The impacts on non-centrally located businesses in urban areas, especially
                     manufacturing firms in the inner-city which by their nature tend to be road dependent
                     and often at best relatively marginal.




5
    For example, by ECOTEC Research and Consulting Limited – for the West Midlands Charging Partnership
File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       154
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


           The Coalfields

8.52        The benefits to the coalfield area are more clear-cut. The area will benefit in particular
            from the motorway improvements. These interact in particular with the proposed new
            junction (Junction 29A) to serve the Markham Employment Growth Zone. The package
            will particularly re-enforce the success of developments in the vicinity of motorway
            junctions in attracting distribution investment.

8.53        The coalfield areas will also benefit from a number of the regional rail schemes. However,
            these are mainly relevant in the context of social regeneration through their role in
            enhancing access to the types of service sector jobs which are available in the major urban
            centres such at Nottingham.

8.54        The package will, however, have only limited benefits in addressing the constraints on
            development potential associated with the poor access to the motorway of some locations
            within the coalfield – such as the former Avenue Coking Works site south of Chesterfield
            and former mining villages to the East of Mansfield.

           Social Regeneration and Combating Social Exclusion

8.55        The broad thrust of the package emphasises development of the role of public transport
            and this is clearly supportive of policies of improving access to employment opportunities
            from areas of deprivation and overcoming social exclusion more generally – although, of
            course, other barriers such as skill match may be as or more important than transport as
            constraints on the take-up of jobs. Nevertheless, particular mention can be made of the
            improved access to central area jobs provided by the urban rail, light rail and bus corridors‟
            investments.

8.56        However, the package clearly has limitations associated with:

                    The difficulties of public transport in catering for non-radial movements in urban
                     areas. These are particularly important in relation to jobs within the wider inner city
                     and access to these may become more difficult for many people under the proposals
                     to constrain car use;

                    The inevitably patchy nature of the rail investments, particularly within the coalfield
                     area where the more diffuse settlement patterns tend to create a dependence on bus
                     (or car). Detailed bus service pattern improvements will need to be developed at a
                     more local level;

8.57        In the most deprived areas/amongst the most deprived groups, the costs of public
            transport is often the crucial issue. The recommended strategy includes a reduction in
            public transport fares that will assist in combating this.

           Maintaining the Vitality of Rural Communities

8.58        Perhaps inevitably the impacts here will again be patchy:

                    Some areas will benefit from the heavy and light rail schemes. In other cases
                     improved bus services and priority measures will provide enhanced access to urban
                     centres;


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    155
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

                    For other areas – where public transport serving the rural community may be limited
                     or non-existent – policies of demand management in the urban areas and public
                     transport priority measures will make access to employment and facilities more
                     difficult. Growing car ownership has been a key driver of the decentralisation of
                     population to rural areas and making car use more difficult raises particular issues for
                     rural communities;

                    Residents of some areas will be able to take advantage of the contribution of park-
                     and-ride and light rail, or other public transport connections included in the
                     recommended strategy.

           Improve accessibility within and beyond the region

8.59        This objective is split into three sub-objectives:

                        Improvement of accessibility by public transport and slow modes to key locations

                        Improvement of accessibility by motorised modes to key locations.

                        Use of information and communications technologies in local transport system

8.60        Each of these three sub-objectives is addressed below.

           Improvement of accessibility by public transport and slow modes to key locations

8.61        An assessment has been carried out examining the headline journey times by public
            transport between the key centres in the study area, with the results shown in Table 8.2.
            This shows there to be increased connectivity both within the study area, Mansfield gaining
            particularly, as well as much improved overall journey times between the key study area
            cities and the North West and west Midlands. From the evidence presented it is considered
            that the preferred package will have a beneficial Impact on this sub objective.

           Improvement of accessibility by motorised modes to key locations

8.62        The assessment of highway accessibility across the region has been undertaken between
            eleven key locations (Table 8.3). This assessment shows that the introduction of the
            strategy measures has improved the overall journey times between each location. This
            result is reinforced when considering change to the population access, identified in the
            „Assist in the regeneration of the urban, brownfield and coalfields areas‟ sub objective
            identified above. Overall it is considered that the preferred package will have a beneficial
            Impact on this sub objective.

           Use of information and communications technologies in local transport system

8.63        The strategy includes recommendations for improving the provision of public transport
            information through the use of appropriate web sites and the provision of real time
            information. The assessment of this objective is considered to be beneficial.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     156
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


           Facilitating the national role of the M1 motorway

8.64        This objective has considered the improvements to the strategic movements on the M1
            and has been based on the changes in Stress Levels (V/C) on the motorway network in
            the AM peak, 2021. The results show that the introduction of the preferred strategy results
            in the 2021 stress levels (from approaching capacity to above capacity) reducing by 11%
            compared to the base year (2000) and by 22% compared to the 2021 Do Minimum.

8.65        The preferred package also provides significant improvements to journey times on the M1,
            when compared both to the base year and the do minimum. Table 8.5 summarises the
            journey times for the base year and the 2021 AM peak do Minimum and preferred strategy.
            The do minimum is similar to the base year between J23A-J26 because of the Highways
            Agency TPI scheme for dualling the A46 north of Widmerpool.

                    Table 8.5 – M1 Journey Time Comparison, normalised to Base Year

                                                      Click here for image.



8.66        Overall the improvement of stress levels and travel times on the M1 will ensure that its role
            as a strategic route will be maintained. Overall it is considered that the impact will be Large
            Beneficial.

           Improve Integration within the Region

8.67        The four sub-objectives under this heading are:

                        Improve the overall integration between modes

                        Identify the level of modal change between road and rail or water

                        Improve the potential for policy interventions to improve travel choice

                        Integration with local policies




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   157
April 2002
    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                     FINAL REPORT


           Improve the overall integration between modes

8.68        A fundamental part of the recommended strategy relates to improving the integration
            between transport modes. This will be achieved through individual schemes included in
            the strategy as well as through the many policy recommendations. It is considered that the
            recommended strategy receives a beneficial score against this sub-objective.

           Identify the level of modal change between road and rail or water

8.69        The strategy will result in a switch of 3% (passengers) from road to rail at 2011. In terms
            of freight the strategy will reduce road freight by 2.5% compared to the do-minimum.

           Improve the potential for policy interventions to improve travel choice

8.70        A comprehensive strategy of policy interventions is proposed6 as an integral part of the
            recommended strategy.

           Integration with local policies

8.71        This section assesses the extent to which the preferred package is integrated and
            consistent with land use policies at the regional and local level. The appraisal uses a three
            point scoring scale (neutral, beneficial and adverse) and a qualitative comment wherever
            possible.

8.72        Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands7 was published in 2001. This
            includes a number of policy statements, including:

                    “Measures in development plans and LTPs to reduce growth and impact of traffic
                     should include: making more efficient use of road space, ensuring a compact urban
                     form with an appropriate mix of land uses to reduce the number of trips necessary,
                     promoting the provision of housing, local services and employment, including mixed
                     use development, in the most accessible locations in rural areas.” (Policy 73, page
                     82)

                    “For new development maximum amounts of vehicle parking will be specified and
                     applied throughout the region, taking account of type of location and land use.”
                     (Policy 76, page 84)

                    “Improvement of regional rail services including completing the CTRL and linking in
                     stations such as Corby.” (Policy 89, page 94)

                    “Development plans and LTPs should include policies that safeguard disused railway
                     lines and adjacent land from development if there is the possibility of future transport
                     use. (Policy 92, page 96)

8.73        Local policy is provided by Structure Plans, Local Transport Plans and Local Plans. A
            number of documents are available and contain relevant policy statements:




6
Policy Interventions: The Programme of Measures, M1MMS Study Report, March 2002
7
GOEM (2001) Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands: Proposed Changes
File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     158
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


8.74        Derby & Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan (Adopted Written Statement, January 2001)

                    “New development will minimise the need to travel by being adequately located for
                     public transport links and will have good provision of internal and external links.”
                     Transport Policy 4: Land Use and Transport (page 23)

                    To allow for a greater proportion of journeys to be made by foot - pedestrian priority
                     areas are required in new developments and town centres. Transport Policy 9:
                     Pedestrians (page 25)

                    Developments should allow for the future re-establishment of disused rail/canal
                     routes. Transport Policy 16: Disused Transport Routes (page 29)

8.75        Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review, Explanatory Memorandum, November 1996

                    Land will be protected, especially in the South-Nottinghamshire sub-area for public
                     transport measures and road improvement measures. Policy 5/1

                    Provision to be made for new transport infrastructure to improve accessibility
                     between key employment, development, regeneration areas. Policy 5/2

                    Proposals for distribution and warehouse development likely to produce substantial
                     traffic movement should, where possible, be accessible onto the main road network.
                     Policy 5/14

8.76        Nottingham Local Plan Review - First Deposit Draft: September 2001

                    Planning permission for development which would generate significant travel demand
                     will be granted if in the city/district centres. Edge of centre locations will be
                     considered if they are accessible by public transport and they do not have a
                     detrimental affect on car volume. T1

                    Planning permission for development will not be granted where parking levels exceed
                     the maximum parking levels. Lower parking provision will be pursued. T3

8.77        Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland Structure Plan 1991-2011: Deposit Draft, March 2000

                    Bypasses and other new roads will only be constructed where the environmental and
                     road safety benefits to the locality bypassed exceed the environmental disbenefits of
                     construction. Accessibility & Transport Policy 10: Road Improvements and
                     Management of Traffic

                    Land reserved for routes for walking, cycling, buses, railways, light rapid transit or
                     highways will be identified and safeguarded from other development. Development is
                     unacceptable if it is likely to impair routes that have the potential for re-use.
                     Accessibility & Transport Policy 11: Transport Routes.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   159
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


8.78        The following table appraises how these policy principles have been incorporated into the
            M1MMS strategy.

                               Table 8.6 – Assessment of Integration (Local/Regional)

    Local                Local Sub-              Score      Comment
    Objective            Objective
    Integration          Integration           beneficial   A generally positive score, with benefits outweighing
                         with local                         any adverse impacts:
                         policies                             Concentration of development in the urban areas
                                                                 of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, as suggested
                                                                 in land use scenarios 2, 3 and 4 will help provide
                                                                 more compact land use patterns in the study area;
                                                                 in accordance with the guidance in PPG1, PPG13,
                                                                 PPG6 and the Transport White Paper.
                                                              The proposed public transport specifically improve
                                                                 access to the urban areas of Nottingham, Leicester
                                                                 and Derby
                                                              Transport change initiatives – such as parking
                                                                 controls, workplace charging and behavioural
                                                                 change – seek to improve transport choice in the
                                                                 urban areas
                                                              Some of the motorway widening schemes may
                                                                 allow a more dispersed settlement pattern to be
                                                                 served by car. Others improve accessibility to the
                                                                 urban areas



8.79        The results of Appraisal against the Local Objectives is summarised in the Appraisal
            Summary Table (AST) included at Table 8.7.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                              160
April 2002
                                                                                    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                                     FINAL REPORT

                                                                                         Table 8.7 – Local Appraisal Summary Table


Local           Local Sub Objective                                    Qualitative Measure                                                                        Quantitative Measure                                            Assessment
Objective                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Score
Enhance         Protect and enhance environmental condition at         The strategy brings environmental benefits on the while but impacts associated mainly      N/A                                                             Neutral
Overall         regional/strategic level.                              with Matlock-Buxton reopening bring adverse impacts
Environmental
                At local level, control air quality, noise and other   The strategy would result in improved Air Quality in the study area but would lead to an   7,000 more people annoyed by noise with strategy                Slight beneficial
                environmental impacts                                  increase of 0.3% in the number people annoyed by noise                                     NOx – 720 tonnes/yr reduction PM10 – 14 tn/yr reduction

Improve                                                                The strategy includes proposals for improved personal security and security of             N/A                                                             Moderate
                Improve perceptions and reality of personal
network                                                                belongings through the provision of CCTV monitoring, Help Points and Cycle lockers.                                                                        beneficial
                security.
integrity and
safety.         Improve safety conditions on the transport             Introduction of motorway widening will attract vehicles on to these higher standard        Accident Reduction over 30 year period = 7879                   Large beneficial
                network.                                               routes and hence away from those with higher accident rates.                               Casualty Reduction 131 Fatal, 1195 Serious, 10491 Slight
                                                                                                                                                                  Increase in Population Highway Accessibility to key
Meeting         Assist in the regeneration of the urban /              PT and Highway measures that will aid with this regeneration include M1 J29A, M1                                                                           Moderate
                                                                                                                                                                  regeneration areas within 60 mins compared to DM
economic        brownfield areas and the coalfields areas.             widening and junction improvements, 4th Trent Crossing, MEGZ P&R, Staveley and                                                                             beneficial
                                                                                                                                                                  including: Nottingham = + 16%, Derby = +20%, Leicester =
ambitions of                                                           Clowne reopenings, new extensions to the Robin Hood line services towards
                                                                                                                                                                  +10%, Mansfield = +8%
                                                                       Chesterfield, Sheffield, Meadowhall, and southern links to Leicester.
the region
                                                                                                                                                                  30 Year economic Assessment Results:
                Enhancing the economic performance of the              The strategy will reduce transport costs and reduce travel times                                                                                           Moderate
                                                                                                                                                                  Overall Journey Time cost savings = £3,600 million
                region                                                                                                                                                                                                            beneficial
                                                                                                                                                                  total strategy costs = £1,585 million

                                                                       The public transport proposals will improve access to urban centres and the highway        N/A                                                             Slight beneficial
                Securing the Vitality of Rural Communities
                                                                       schemes will reduce journey times from rural areas to the urban centres.

                                                                       Improvements in public transport will improve access to jobs in the urban centres.         N/A                                                             Slight beneficial
                Assisting Social Regeneration
                                                                       Reduced public transport fares will improve opportunities for travel.

                Ensure freight and distribution patterns today         A number of specific proposals to improve freight transport and encourage greater use      30% of the highway economic benefit accrues to HGVs.            Moderate
                and future needs are understood and catered for        of more sustainable modes.                                                                                                                                 beneficial
                in study.




                File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                                                         161
                April 2002
                                                                                   NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                                    FINAL REPORT




Local           Local Sub Objective                                   Qualitative Measure                                                                         Quantitative Measure                                             Assessment
Objective                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Score
Improve         Improvement of accessibility by public transport      New rail services, rail stations and light rail schemes will significantly improve public   120,000 people within a 3 minute walk time of a new rail         Moderate
accessibility   and slow modes to key locations                       transport access to the key centres.                                                        station or a new LRT line.                                       beneficial
in region                                                                                                                                                         Increase in Population Accessibility within 60 mins
                Improvement of accessibility by motorised             Level of highway investment providing improved access for both local and strategic                                                                           Moderate
                                                                                                                     th                                           compared to DM including: Nottingham = + 16%, Derby =
                modes to key locations.                               trips; M1 junction improvements, M1 widening; 4 Trent Crossing etc.                                                                                          beneficial
                                                                                                                                                                  +20%, Leicester = +10%, Mansfield = +8%
                                                                                                                                                                  Travel Times between centres reduce by around 5%
                                                                                                                                                                  compared to DM.

                Use of information and communications                 Recommendations include the provision of better public transport information through        N/A                                                              Slight beneficial
                                                                      use of information technology.
                technologies in local transport system


                                                                                                                                                                  2021 M1 Stress level changes between DM and Preferred
                Facilitating the national role of the M1 motorway     Improvements to the M1 include junction enhancements (eg. J23a – J24a) and                                                                                   Large beneficial
                                                                                                                                                                  within study area: DM = 50% at or above capacity; Preferred
                                                                      motorway widening. These aid in reducing the overall stress levels on the M1 hence
                                                                                                                                                                  = 13% at or above capacity
                                                                      improve reliability for strategic movements.

                Improve the overall Integration between modes.        The strategy improves integration between modes and provides improved opportunities         N/A                                                              Large beneficial
Improve                                                               for interchange. Integrated ticketing will further facilitate this.
integration
within the      Identify the level of modal change between road       Opportunities for mode change are improved for both passengers and freight                  Rail Passengers +100% Peak, +200% off-peak                       Slight beneficial
region          and rail or water                                                                                                                                 Rail Freight + 2.5% shift from road

                Improve the potential for policy interventions to     Policy interventions form an integral part of the recommended strategy.                     N/A                                                              Beneficial
                improve travel choice

                Integration with Local Policies                       The strategy is generally consistent with local policies.                                   N/A                                                              Beneficial




                File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                                                          162
                April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            APPRAISAL AGAINST THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES

            Methodology

8.80        The strategy has been appraised against the national criteria as set out in GOMMMS. This
            requires an appraisal under the following five criteria:

                    To protect and enhance the natural and built environment;

                    To improve safety for all travellers;

                    To contribute to an efficient economy;

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

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

8.81        The above criteria are sub-divided into further sub-objectives as follows:

                            Objective                 Sub-Objective

                            ENVIRONMENT               Noise
                                                      Local Air Quality
                                                      Greenhouse Gases
                                                      Landscape
                                                      Townscape
                                                      Heritage of Historic Resources
                                                      Biodiversity
                                                      Water Environment
                                                      Physical Fitness
                                                      Journey Ambience

                            SAFETY                    Accidents
                                                      Security

                            ECONOMY                   Economic Efficiency
                                                      Reliability

                            ACCESSIBILITY             Option Values
                                                      Severance
                                                      Access to the Transport System

                            INTEGRATION               Transport Interchange
                                                      Land-use Policy
                                                      Other Government Policies




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     163
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            Assessment Scales

8.82        The following seven point scale, given in GOMMMS has been used to indicate the
            assessment result for each sub-objective:

                    Large beneficial;

                    Moderate beneficial;

                    Slight beneficial;

                    Neutral;

                    Slight adverse;

                    Moderate adverse; and

                    Large adverse.

            Environmental Appraisal

8.83        This section highlights the environmental implications of the recommended strategy. The
            level of impact in relation to each of the environmental topics assessed is summarised
            below under headings which relate to the worksheets and the Appraisal Summary Table
            (AST). This represents a strategic assessment of environment impact consistent with the
            GOMMMS methodology. A comprehensive view of the environmental impacts will only be
            possible to achieve following detailed design of individual elements of the packages.

           Noise

8.84        The noise assessment was conducted on a cordon basis, using light and heavy annual
            vehicle kilometres and their average speeds. These data have been used to calculate the
            total vehicle kilometres, % of heavy vehicle kilometres and the overall traffic speed. These
            parameters are assumed to be proportional to the total vehicular flow (corrected to a daily
            basis), % of HGVs and average speed used in the CRTN algorithms. As no data was
            available relating to specific road proposals and key roads in each zone, the Basic Noise
            Levels at 10 metres from the edge of notional roads in each zone were then calculated
            using these figures, and used to characterise the noise emission in each zone. These
            calculations were performed for the Do-Minimum situations in 2000 and 2021, and for the
            Strategy situation in 2021.

8.85        The Strategy Level of analysis, unlike the Plan Level, is based upon changes in the
            population annoyed, not upon absolute numbers of people. However, the DTLR Guidance
            (Volume 2, para. 4.3.32, Strategy Methodology, March 2000) advises estimating numbers
            of people for entry into the Quantitative Column in the AST – this data is not generated for
            Worksheet 4.2. Additional calculations have therefore been performed in order to derive
            the changes in population annoyed for the Do-Minimum situation between 2000 and 2021.

8.86        The assessment showed that in 2021, five of the twelve cordons would show an increase
            in the numbers annoyed by noise (20,382 people) comparing the strategy to the future do-
            minimum option, while in six of the cordons the numbers annoyed by noise would

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                164
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            decrease (13,090 people). In total it was estimated that 7,292 more people would be
            annoyed by noise if the strategy were to be implemented. The main increases were
            expected to occur in the cordons based on the Mansfield/Ashfield and Loughborough
            areas, while the main decreases were to be found in the area to the east of Nottingham,
            around Coalville and within Leicester. Changes in the assignment of HGVs on the network
            were considered to be the main determining factor.

8.87        In overall terms the increase in the number of people who may be annoyed by noise would
            represent a very small percentage (<0.3%) of the population exposed to noise in 2021.
            This is considered to be neutral in terms of impact.

8.88        The assessment has not taken into account the likely impact of mitigation measures and
            as such represents a pessimistic scenario. The detailed location and/or alignment of new
            infrastructure schemes can, and should, be selected to minimise environmental impacts.
            Where impacts would still occur, other measures can be incorporated into schemes to
            mitigate these impacts. This could include habitat creation measures, landscape
            proposals, low noise road surfaces etc.

           Air Quality

8.89        All local authorities are required by the Environment Act 1995 Part IV to carry out a review
            and assessment of air quality. This involves examining current pollution concentrations,
            estimating future concentrations ands comparing the future concentrations with the
            objectives in the Air Quality Strategy. Where they are not likely to be achieved in any
            relevant locations, the authority must designate these areas as Air Quality Management
            Areas (AQMAs) by order. Relevant locations include areas outside buildings or man-made
            structures above or below ground level and where members of the public are regularly
            present, that is, where they are likely to be exposed over the averaging time of the
            objective. Where an AQMA is declared, the local authority is required to prepare an action
            plan to try to improve air quality. Of the fifteen authorities in the East Midlands Region,
            seven have AQMAs. AQMAs that are likely to be directly affected by the proposals are
            those adjacent to proposed M1 widening around Junction 21, between junctions 21a and
            23a, around junctions 24 and 25, in the vicinity of Kegworth and near Junction 28.
            Reductions in congestion and the removal of through traffic from Kegworth are likely to
            result in improvements in air quality in these AQMAs though further assessment at project
            level would be needed to confirm this.

8.90        A strategic assessment was carried out for the strategy package according to the
            Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies, volume 2. Worksheets for local air
            quality NO2 and PM10 in 2006 and 2021 were produced. GOMMMS requires the
            worksheets to be compiled for 2005 or the opening year if it is after 2005 as the most
            stringent objectives in the Air Quality Strategy are to be achieved by this date. However,
            worksheets were also prepared for 2021 as traffic flows will change in the future.

8.91        In 2006, there is expected to be an overall reduction in NOx and PM10 emissions of 2006
            and 39 tonnes/year respectively with the proposals compared with the Do-Minimum.
            Eleven of the twelve cordons would have a reduction in reduction in NOx emissions , the
            only cordon with a deterioration would be cordon 6 with a small deterioration. This is the
            cordon based on Nottingham. Two areas are expected to have an increase in PM10
            emissions, cordon 6 and 10 (the Mansfield/Ashfield area), the remaining ten would have an
            improvement.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                165
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


8.92        In 2021, three areas are expected to have a deterioration in air quality, cordons 5
            (Loughborough), 6 (Nottingham) and 10 (Mansfield/Ashfield). However, air quality is
            expected to improve in the other nine areas. Overall, there would be a reduction in NOx
            and PM10 emissions of 720 and 14 tonnes/year respectively compared with the Do-
            Minimum in the same year.

8.93        An assessment was also made of greenhouse gas emissions for 2006 and 2021. The
            proposed strategy would result in a decrease in emissions of 5% in 2006 and no change in
            2021 compared with the Do-Minimum in the same year.

8.94        Overall, the proposed schemes are expected to lead to an improvement in local air quality
            but a plan level assessment should be carried out for each of the schemes to ensure that
            the scheme is not having a deleterious effect in an AQMA. The proposals are not
            expected to lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The Air Quality impact is
            therefore considered to be slight beneficial.

           Landscape

8.95        Many of the road proposals follow various sections of the M1 and other existing routes.
            This is also the case for rail proposals, which often follow existing railway lines or disused
            railway lines for a large proportion of their route. Hence, the impact of elements of the
            package on the landscape would be limited.

           National Landscape Designations

8.96        Only one element of the package affects an area of landscape designated as of national
            importance. This is the Matlock to Buxton rail reopening which passes through the Peak
            District National Park. However, the impact on the landscape of the National Park
            would be limited, as much of the rail alignment and structures still exists. The scheme
            could bring wider benefits to the National Park in terms of contributing to a sustainable
            transport strategy for the Park.

           Local Landscape Designations

8.97        Local landscape designations, as defined in Local Plans, include the following: Green
            Belt/Green Wedge Areas; Protected Open Areas; Areas of Particularly Attractive
            Countryside; and Areas of Local and Great Landscape Value. The impact that any of
            scheme options may have on these designations is described below.

           Green Belt/Green Wedge

8.98        Four of the schemes within the final package pass through or lie adjacent to designated
            Green Wedge or Green Belt areas. For example, the Fourth Trent Crossing scheme
            (SR12) is largely within a Green Belt area that is located to the south of the River Trent. A
            Green Belt area runs alongside the west of the M1 near the settlement of Long Eaton
            where it is proposed for the M1 to be widened between Junction 23a and 25 (MW11).
            There are also areas of Green Belt that lie adjacent to the M1 between Junction 25 and 28
            (MW12) and another which lies adjacent to the M1 to the north of Junction 23 (MW15a).
            However, none of the schemes would affect the designated area to such an extent that the
            purpose or character of the Green Belt/Wedge would be compromised.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  166
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


           Protected Open Areas

8.99        A number of the schemes may affect areas designated in Local Plans as being Protected
            Open Areas. The proposed NET extension to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford (LR1)
            runs directly through three designated Protected Open Space Areas. Additionally, the
            Leicester North LRT to Syston and East Goscote would run adjacent to four Protected
            Open Space areas.

           Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside

8.100 There are two designated Areas of Particularly Attractive Countryside which may be
      affected as a result of the final package of scheme options. One lies to the NW of Junction
      24 adjacent to the Intermediate Scheme from Junction 23a to 25 (MW11). The M1 runs
      through another such area to the north of Junction 22 (MW15a). Both of these areas could
      be affected to a limited extent as a result of the proposed widening of the M1.

           Areas of Local Landscape Value

8.101 There is only one scheme, involving the widening of the M1 (MW12) in the final package,
      which may affect designated Areas of Local Landscape Value. To the south of Junction
      26, three such areas lie immediately adjacent to the M1 in Broxtowe District. One of these
      could be affected by the Trowell parkway proposal. The M1 also passes directly through
      an Area of Local Landscape Value between Junction 26 and 27 to the west of Hucknall.
      Additionally, there is a „Local Landscape Improvement Area‟ situated adjacent to the M1
      and A511 near Junction 22, where it proposed for the M1 to be widened (MW15a).

           Areas of Great Landscape Value

8.102 There are two schemes within the final package which may affect Areas of Great
      Landscape Value. An Area of Great Landscape Value lies adjacent to the west of the M1
      near Junction 27 and another lies to the east of the M1 near Kirkby in Ashfield, where it is
      proposed to be widened (MW12). The Fourth Trent Crossing (SR12) lies adjacent to such
      an area to the south of the River Trent.

           Landscape Features

8.103 Following site inspections of the relevant scheme options, it became evident that various
      landscape features could be affected as a result of individual schemes. None of these
      were considered to be significant. A number of the schemes run through arable farmland
      and through areas containing scattered trees, hedgerows and vegetation. There are also
      several schemes which may impact on woodland areas. Martinshaw Wood and Grey
      Lodge Wood lie directly adjacent to the M1 near the settlement of Groby to the north of
      Junction 21a; and Oakley Wood and Piper Wood both lie adjacent to the M1 between
      Junction 23 and 23a (MW15a). These woodlands lie adjacent to a section of the M1 which
      is proposed to be widened. Hence, the edge of these woodland areas could potentially be
      affected by the widening of the M1.

8.104 The overall impact of the package on the landscape is assessed as being moderate
      adverse on the grounds that a small number of the schemes would be in conflict with local
      and/or national policies which aim to protect various landscape designations. Several of
      the schemes are likely to be visually intrusive to some extent and could have an adverse
      impact on the landscape. However, as mentioned above, many schemes follow existing


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                          167
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            routes and railway lines, which should minimise the impact of the final package on the
            landscape.

8.105 These landscape designations and features identified above are potential environmental
      constraints to the development of the proposed package and give some indication as to
      the environmental implications which would need to be considered in greater detail prior to
      such schemes proceeding. Particular care will need to be taken over design in areas
      where the landscape is locally or nationally designated as being of particular quality.

           Townscape

8.106 The impact on townscape can relate to changes in terms of townscape quality. This could
      involve changes to a village or the historic core of a township or built-up area, through a
      reduction in traffic or the introduction of new features. For example, there will be a
      decrease in traffic in the town of Kegworth with the introduction of the Kegworth Bypass
      (SR5) and similarly in Glapwell with the introduction of the Glapwell Bypass (SR18). This
      would improve the ambience of these settlements and facilitate townscape improvement
      strategies.

8.107 In terms of the introduction of new features, the light rail proposals would involve new
      infrastructure being inserted into various settlements. This would alter the townscape
      quality of these settlements to varying degrees. For example, Option LR1 runs through the
      built-up areas of Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford and Option LR3 runs through the
      areas of Trowell, Ilkeston North and Cotmanhay. There may be significant impacts on
      these settlements in terms of townscape, especially on Ilkeston Town Centre, as it is a
      designated Conservation Area. In addition, Option LR5b runs through Syston and East
      Goscote and Option LR5c runs from the centre of Leicester through built-up areas to
      Blaby. Experience suggests that careful route selection and design could satisfactorily
      mitigate such impacts.

8.108 The proposed bypasses would be slightly beneficial in terms of enhancing townscape
      quality, as the bypasses will enable the character of Kegworth and Glapwell to be restored
      to some extent, given the reduction in traffic. However, there may be a moderate adverse
      impact in terms of light rail proposals, as they are likely to be visually intrusive in built-up
      areas and may impact upon the townscape quality to varying degrees. Hence, it is
      considered that overall, there would be a slight adverse impact on townscape quality in
      terms of the final package of scheme options.

           Heritage of Historic Resources

8.109 The majority of schemes will not impact upon historic resources. The Matlock-Buxton rail
      reopening passes very close to Haddon Hall which is a Grade 1 listed building set in an
      Historic Park. The impact on this resource could be significant. With this exception, there
      will no impact on Historic Landscape Areas or Grade 1 or 11* Listed Buildings. However,
      there are a number of designated Conservation Areas and one Scheduled Ancient
      Monument which could potentially be affected.

           Conservation Areas

8.110 Stanton Gate Conservation Area (to the north of Sandiacre and of Junction 25) and
      Strelley Conservation Area (to the south of Junction 26), both lie immediately adjacent to
      the M1 where it is proposed to be widened (MW12). The proposed NET line (LR3) runs
      directly through Ilkeston Conservation Area and the Newark Chord (NR13) runs through


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                              168
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            the northern tip of Newark‟s Historic Core. The Matlock – Buxton rail reopening will pass
            close to four conservation areas in the Peak District National Park. New rail services
            between Matlock and Derby will pass through the Derwent Valley World Heritage Site but
            no new infrastructure is planned and there should be no appreciable impact on the
            resource.

           Scheduled Ancient Monuments

8.111 There is only one Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM), located directly to the north of the
      proposed link between the A453 and the A50 (SR4), which may be affected as a result of
      the final package.

8.112 Several other schemes also run in close proximity to Conservation Areas or Scheduled
      Ancient Monuments. However, it is not considered that these designations would be
      affected as a result of these schemes.

8.113 The overall impact of the package on the heritage of historic resources is assessed as
      moderate adverse on the grounds that several of the schemes are in conflict with local or
      regional policies for the protection of heritage resources. Whilst one SAM and three
      Conservation Areas may be affected as a result of four of the schemes, the majority of the
      schemes in the final package will not impact upon heritage resources. Even where
      potential impacts are identified, it is considered that detailed scheme design should be
      capable of mitigating impacts to a significant degree.

           Biodiversity

8.114 A number of designations were identified in relation to biodiversity elements that are
      situated in close proximity to several of the schemes. These consist of: Local Nature
      Reserves; Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); Sites of Geological Interest; and
      locally designated Sites of Biological Interest.

           Special Areas of Conservation

8.115 The Matlock to Buxton rail reopening would be adjacent to a candidate SAC, one of two in
      the Peak District National Park. Internationally designated sites are of high importance
      and rarity with limited potential for substitution, hence even moderate impacts could be
      rated as potentially serious using the GOMMMS definitions. The extent of any potential
      impact on the SAC could only be determined following more detailed studies.

           Sites of Special Scientific Interest

8.116 The Matlock to Buxton rail reopening would affect a 7km stretch of SSSI in the Wye Valley.
      Only one other scheme within the final package may impact upon a SSSI. Oakley Wood is
      located to the south of Long Whatton, and adjacent to the M1, where it is proposed to be
      widened (MW15a). SSSIs are of high importance using the GOMMMS definitions.

           Local Nature Reserves

8.117 There are three Local Nature Reserves which could be affected by the final package. Two
      are adjacent to the M1 at Junction 22 where it is proposed to be widened (MW15a). The
      third is the Nottingham Canal at Trowell which could be affected by a possible link road
      between Trowell Parkway (PR3a) and Trowell Services.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                             169
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

           Sites of Geological Interest

8.118 There are two schemes that may affect Sites of Geological Interest. One site is located
      adjacent to the western side of the M1, between Junction 24a and Long Eaton, where the
      M1 is proposed to be widened (MW11). Another site is located adjacent to the M1 near
      the settlement of Nanbantan where the M1 is proposed to be widened (MW15a).

           Sites of Biological Interest

8.119 There are 3 schemes which may affect locally designated Sites of Biological Interest. The
      NET extension to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford (LR1) runs through such a site
      between Nottingham Town and Beeston and adjacent to another towards the centre of
      Nottingham. There is another such site adjacent to the NET proposal to Trowell, Ilkeston
      North and Cotmanhay (LR3) in Radford near central Nottingham. The Racecourse to the
      north of the Fourth Trent Crossing (SR12) is also a Site of Biological Interest.

8.120 The overall impact of the package on Biodiversity is assessed as moderate adverse on
      the grounds that a number of the schemes could be in conflict with policies that aim to
      protect various biodiversity designations. Detailed design of individual schemes could
      allow adverse impacts to be mitigated to a large extent. Particular attention will need to be
      paid to the impacts of the Matlock-Buxton rail reopening on the adjacent internationally
      important Special Area of Conservation and on the SSSI which includes the route of the
      railway.

           Water Environment

8.121 A number of the schemes run through or adjacent to designated washland areas. For
      example, the NET extension to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford (LR1) runs through a
      designated washland area which lies adjacent to the River Trent. The Newark Chord
      scheme (NR13) also runs through a washland area. Additionally, a number of the
      schemes pass over various major watercourses, which include the River Trent, the River
      Erewash, the River Wreake and the River Soar.

8.122 The overall impact of the package on the water environment is assessed as moderate
      adverse as the final package of schemes could potentially impact on a number of
      designated washland areas which are of national importance. There is potential for
      impacts on a number of important watercourses, particularly during the construction phase.

           Physical Fitness

8.123 Most of the road schemes are unlikely to either encourage or discourage physical fitness
      opportunities. However, Kegworth Bypass (SR5) is likely to result in improved conditions
      for walking and cycling through Kegworth, as traffic travelling directly through the centre
      would be reduced with the introduction of a bypass. Additionally, the Fourth Trent
      Crossing (SR12) would provide for new recreation, such as walking and cycling
      opportunities, within the Trent Valley. In addition it could result in slight improvements to
      conditions for walking and cycling in Nottingham City Centre as less traffic would need to
      pass directly through the City Centre when travelling between the A612 and the A52.

8.124 There may be slight improvements to physical fitness as a result of the rail schemes, which
      may encourage a slight increase in people walking or cycling to stations, in order to use
      the improved public transport system. Also, there could be slight improvements from the



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                           170
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            removal of traffic from local roads, which would lead to better conditions for walkers and
            cyclists.

8.125 The overall impact of the package on physical fitness is assessed as slight beneficial
      given that for the road schemes there is unlikely to be any change in relation to physical
      fitness opportunities and for the rail schemes there is likely to be slight improvement. The
      final package of schemes would not discourage any physical fitness opportunities.

           Journey Ambience

8.126 It is considered that new infrastructure and quality/accessibility improvements for the
      proposed rail schemes could potentially lead to improved journey ambience for those using
      public transport. For the road schemes, it was considered that there could be a possible
      slight reduction in stress for travellers, in many cases due to reduced congestion. For
      example, widening of the motorway in Scheme MW12 would reduce congestion on the M1,
      which would lead to a reduction in traveller stress. It is considered that there would be no
      change in relation to views or other potential improvements for most of the schemes.

8.127 The overall impact of the package on journey ambience is assessed as slight beneficial
      given that there is likely to be improved journey ambience as a result of the majority of
      schemes, due to either reduced traffic congestion or potential improvements for public
      transport users.

            Safety

           Accidents

8.128 The recommended strategy will result in a significant improvement in road safety by
      avoiding nearly 8,000 personal injury accidents over a thirty year period and saving 130
      fatalities and about 1,200 serious casualties. This has been assessed as large beneficial.

           Security

8.129 The public transport elements of the strategy include measures to increase the personal
      security of travellers as an integral part of the recommendations. This is assessed as
      moderate beneficial.

            Economy

           Economic Efficiency

8.130 The assessment of the economic efficiency has been undertaken using TUBA for a 30
      year appraisal period between 2006 and 2035. The recommended strategy will result in a
      significant return on the investment. The Strategy provides a Net Present Value of £3,256
      million on a Present Value of Cost of £1,585 million giving a Benefit to Cost Ratio of 3.0.

8.131 Further details of the economic appraisal are given in the Transport Economic Efficiency
      table (Table 8.12) below.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                              171
April 2002
    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                     FINAL REPORT

                      Reliability

8.132 The assessment of reliability has considered the changes in route stress (congestion) in
      the 2021 AM peak hour as this identifies the period of greatest congestion. This indicator
      has already been outlined for the M1 in the „Facilitating the national role of the M1
      motorway‟ local sub objective. In addition to this, however, an assessment of all routes has
      been undertaken to provide an overall assessment of the strategy on highway stress
      levels. The strategy provides significant improvements to reliability when compared to the
      do-minimum.

                      Wider Impacts

8.133 This criterion has considered the following:

                              Does the scheme/improvement serve designated regeneration areas?; and

                              Does the development depend on the scheme?

8.134 This assessment is similar to the „Assist in the regeneration of the urban /brownfield areas
      and the coalfields areas‟ local sub objective, however has also considered the highway
      schemes introduced within the package.

8.135 The scoring system for this should refer to the two statements outlined above, namely:

                              Yes and Yes; Yes and No; or No

                                                      Table 8.8 – Wider Impacts
                                                                       Regeneration Area

                              Scheme          EMA      MEGZ    Derby     Leic     Nott     Cstrfld   Mansf   Overall

                    Motorway Widening         Y&N      Y&N     Y&N      Y&N       Y&N      Y&N       Y&N     Y&N

                    M1 Junction                N       Y&N       N      Y&N       Y&N      Y&N       Y&N     Y&N
                    Improvements
  Motorway




                    New J29A                   N       Y&Y       N        N        N         N        N      Y&N

                    New J26A                   N        N        N        N       Y&N        N        N        N

                    Interim Scheme J23A       Y&N       N       Y &N      N       Y&N        N        N      Y&N
                    – J25
                     th
                    4 Trent Crossing          Y&N       N        N      Y&N        N         N        N      Y&N

                    Local Authority            N       Y&N     Y&N        N        N         N       Y&N     Y&N
  Strategic Roads




                    Schemes

                    Short Link between        Y &N      N      Y&N        N       Y&N        N        N      Y&N
                    A453 west and A50

                    A6 Kegworth Bypass        Y&N       N        N        N        N         N        N        N

                    Minor improvement of       N        N        N        N       Y &N       N        N        N
                    the A453: Crusader
                    Junction to University.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                             172
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

8.136 Overall this table identifies that the preferred highway schemes will serve the regeneration
      areas within the study area and hence provide a Moderate Beneficial impact.

            Accessibility

           Option Values

8.137 The introduction of the Preferred Package has already been shown, in the „Improvement of
      accessibility by modes to key locations‟ Local sub objective, to improve the overall travel
      times between key areas within the study area. In addition to this the „Assist in the
      regeneration of the urban, brownfield and coalfields‟ local sub objectives, has identified
      the overall changes in population with access to key areas within an hour.

8.138 Closer consideration of the package show that the introduction of the following public
      transport schemes has provided additional options to residents living within a 250 metre
      boundary of the key access points. These additional options and the level of population
      lying within a 250m radius of these are identified in Table 8.9 below.

             Table 8.9 – Population with access to new Public Transport Facilities within a 250m
                                                   Radius

                                 Scheme               Population within 250 m
                  New Stations

                  Ilkeston North                               510

                  Trowell Parkway                              510

                  Pinxton                                      130

                  Staveley                                     310

                  MEGZ                                         310

                  Clowne                                        70

                  Derby South Parkway                           40

                  Castle Donington                              30

                  Blaby                                        150
                  Light Rail

                  NET Facility                                87,000

                  Leicester LRT                               31,000

8.139 This table shows that, for the public transport schemes identified above, a total of 120,000
      people increase their options of travel.

8.140 Overall it is considered that the preferred package will have a Medium Beneficial Impact.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                          173
April 2002
    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                     FINAL REPORT


           Severance

8.141 Most of the rail and road infrastructure proposals involve the re-use or widening of existing
      transport corridors and as such the impact on severance is likely to be slight. Exceptions
      could include the re-use of former rail alignments (such as Buxton-Matlock) which have
      developed as recreation routes and localised severance of existing land uses associated
      with the introduction of road and rail schemes into the urban fabric. This could apply to the
      Newark Chord (NR13) and to the LRT proposals, though the latter impacts are easier to
      mitigate. Some schemes bring opportunities to reduce severance - for example, the
      Fourth Trent Crossing (SR12) will improve links between the north and south of the river
      and the bypasses of Kegworth (SR5) and Glapwell (SR18) will reduce the current
      severance effect which existing levels of through traffic have on these communities.
      Overall the impact is assessed as slight beneficial.

           Access to Transport

8.142 The recommended strategy provides a substantial improvement in public transport
      throughout the study area. Many new local rail stations are included in the strategy that
      will significantly increase opportunity for people to access the public transport network.

8.143 The assessment of these criteria has considered the provision of wholly new access to
      public transport for the non car available population living within a 250m radius of the
      facility. A review of the package schemes identifies that the new rail stations will provide
      this improvement.

8.144 The size of the study area and the existing provision of public transport results in an overall
      impact of the preferred package on the change in access to be Neutral.

            Integration

           Interchange

8.145 Promotion of public transport integration is a key element of the recommended strategy. A
      number of hub stations are proposed that provide interchange between light and heavy rail
      services as well as providing opportunities for interchange with bus. The study
      recommendations for new and improved interchange are thus assessed as slight
      beneficial.

           Land Use and Other Policies

8.146 The Urban White Paper8 and the report of the Urban Task Force9 set out a vision for urban
      areas which seeks to develop the unique qualities of urban living – accessibility, sociability,
      community, security and opportunity. Many of the recommendations and proposals focus
      on the re-use of urban land and the promotion of the centres of towns and cities as places
      where all types of activities will choose to locate. These ambitions build directly on
      planning policy established at national level; through the Transport White Paper10,




8
  DTLR (2000) Our Towns and Cities: the Future. Delivering an Urban Renaissance
9
  Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance
10
   DTLR (1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                             174
April 2002
     NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                      FINAL REPORT

            PPG1311 and PPG612 and PPG113. Overall, the strategy is assessed as slight beneficial
            against the criteria of integration with land-use and other policies.

8.147 In particular, PPG1 seeks to:

                    “Concentrate development for uses which generate a large number of trips in places
                     well-served by public transport, especially town centres, rather than in out-of-centre
                     locations and develop land within urban areas, particularly on previously developed
                     sites, provided this creates or maintains a good living environment, before
                     considering the development of greenfield sites”. (Paragraph 7)

8.148 And, PPG13 seeks to:

                    “promote more sustainable transport choices for people and the movement of freight;

                    promote accessibility to jobs, shops, leisure facilities and services by public transport,
                     walking and cycling;

                    reduce the need to travel, especially by car”. (Paragraph 4)

                    “In order to deliver the objectives of the guidance, when preparing development plans
                     and considering planning applications, local authorities should:

                        actively manage the pattern of urban growth to fully utilise public transport, and
                        focus major generators of travel demand in city, town and district centres and near
                        to major public transport interchanges;

                        locate day to day facilities which need to be near their clients in local centres so
                        that they are accessible by walking and cycling;

                        accommodate housing principally within existing urban areas, planning for
                        increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations
                        which are highly accessible by non-car transport;

                        ensure that development comprising jobs, leisure, shopping and services offers a
                        realistic choice of access by non-car transport recognising that this may be less
                        achievable in rural areas;

                        in rural areas, locate most development for housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and
                        services in local service centres which are designated in the development plan to
                        act as focal points for housing, transport and other services and encourage better
                        transport provision in the countryside;

                        use parking policies, alongside other transport and planning measures, to promote
                        sustainable transport choices and reduce car reliance”. (Paragraph 6)




11
   DTLR (2000) PPG13: Transport
12
   DTLR (1996) PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments
13
   DTLR (1997) PPG1: General Policy and Principles

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                       175
April 2002
     NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                      FINAL REPORT


8.149 The following table appraises how these principles have been incorporated into the MMS
      transport package.

                                   Table 8.10 – Assessment of Integration (National)

Objective           Sub-                  Score       Comment
                    Objective
Integration         Land use           beneficial     A generally positive score, with benefits outweighing any
                                                      adverse impacts:
                                                       Concentration of development in the urban areas of
                                                          Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, as suggested in land use
                                                                               14
                                                          scenarios 2, 3 and 4 will help provide more compact land
                                                          use patterns in the study area; in accordance with the
                                                          guidance in PPG1, PPG13, PPG6 and the Transport White
                                                          Paper.
                                                       The proposed public transport specifically improve access
                                                          to the urban areas of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby
                                                       Transport change initiatives – such as parking controls,
                                                          workplace charging and behavioural change – seek to
                                                          improve transport choice in the urban areas
                                                       Some of the motorway widening schemes may allow a
                                                          more dispersed settlement pattern to be served by car.
                                                          Others improve accessibility to the urban areas

                    Other                neutral      No direct impacts, but the package is broadly consistent with
                    policies                          wider Government policies, as below:
                                                       Welfare to work – Public transport schemes will assist in
                                                          improving access to the key workplace areas of
                                                          Nottingham, Leicester and Derby. The proposed schemes
                                                          in the northern part of the study area will improve
                                                          accessibility into regeneration areas.
                                                       Access to education - Public transport schemes will improve
                                                          access to the key education centres of Nottingham,
                                                          Leicester and Derby
                                                       Access to health care - Public transport schemes will
                                                          improve access to the key health care centres of
                                                          Nottingham, Leicester and Derby




14
   The study has developed 4 land use and economic growth scenarios, which aim to demonstrate the impact of different urban
forms on travel behaviour. These are:

Scenario 1: TEMPRO base
        High growth in employment and households (2.5% GDP growth p.a.) with continued suburbanisation or weak
         concentration of development

Scenario 2: TEMPRO growth with RPG spatial distribution
        High growth (2.5% p.a.) and concentration of development in urban areas

Scenario 3: Realistic growth with RPG spatial distribution
        2.3% growth p.a. and concentration of development in urban areas

Scenario 4: Ambitious growth with RPG spatial distribution
        High levels of growth (4%p.a.) to meet EMDA regional growth targets
        High spatial concentration in urban areas, and around EMA and northern coalfields

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                  176
April 2002
                                                                                                 NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                                                  FINAL REPORT
                                                           Table 8.11 – Recommended Strategy: Central Government Appraisal Summary Table
Problems: Congested motorway corridor with poor regional public transport.                                                                                                                                              PVC Cost: £1,526 million
Objective       Sub-Objective      Qualitative Impact                                                                                                                            Quantitative Measure                   Assessment
ENVIRONMENT                                                                                                                                                                      7,000 more people annoyed
                     Noise                  In 2021 five of the twelve cordons show increases in the population annoyed by noise while six show decreases.                                                              Neutral
                                                                                                                                                                                 (+0.3%)
                                            In 2021 three of the twelve cordons are expected to show a deterioration in air quality while nine will show an improvement.         NOx : –720 (tonnes/year/pop)
                     Local Air Quality                                                                                                                                                                                  Sight beneficial
                                            Overall there would be a reduction in both NOx and PM10 compared with the do-minimum in the same year.                               PM10 : –14 (tonnes/year/pop) 2021
                     Greenhouse             The proposed schemes would result in a decrease in emissions of 5% in 2006 and no change in 2021 compared to the do-
                                                                                                                                                                                 CO2 : +46 tonnes/year 2021             Neutral
                     Gases                  minimum.
                                            Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening passes through the Peak District National Park but impact would be limited. Motorway
                     Landscape              widening and the Fourth Trent Crossing could affect locally designated landscapes. Most schemes follow existing route                Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                                            corridors and landscape impacts would be minimised.
                                            Introduction of light rail in urban areas could affect townscape quality, particularly Ilkeston Conservation Area. Elsewhere,
                     Townscape                                                                                                                                                   Not applicable                         Neutral
                                            notably Kegworth and Glapwell, reductions in through traffic may facilitate townscape improvements.
                                            There could be potential impacts on eight conservation areas (Stanton Gate, Strelley, Ilkeston, Newark and four villages in
                     Heritage of Historic
                                            the Peak District National Park). One SAM may be affected by the A453/A50 link. Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening could                  Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                     Resources
                                            affect Grade 1 listed building and historic park at Haddon Hall
                                            Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening would affect SAC and extensive SSSI. Oakley Wood SSSI is adjacent to M1 widening.
                     Biodiversity           There are a small number of locally designated sites in Nottingham which may be potentially affected by NET extensions the           Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                                            Fourth Trent Crossing and Trowell Parkway.
                                            NET extensions and the Newark Chord rail link may affect washland areas. Several schemes cross the River Trent,
                     Water Environment                                                                                                                                           Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                                            Erewash, Wreake and Soar and protection measures would be required.
                                            Public transport schemes would encourage walking and cycling. The Fourth Trent Crossing creates recreation opportunities.
                     Physical Fitness       There would be a reduction in traffic in town centres due to the proposed bypasses and public transport schemes would                Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                                            encourage walking.
                                            There would be reduced stress on M1 users due to a reduction in congestion. New public transport schemes should result
                     Journey Ambience                                                                                                                                            Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                                            in improved journey ambience for users.
Safety               Accidents              30 year saving of: 7,900 Casualties, 1,300 fatal and serious casualties                                                              PVB £194m                              Large beneficial
                     Security               Substantial new public transport interventions incorporating security improvements                                                   Not applicable                         Moderate beneficial
Economy              Economic               The strategy provides a substantial return on the investment. The Strategy provides a Net Present Value of £3,256 million            Net Present Value £3,256 million       Benefit/Cost Ratio: 3.0
                     Efficiency             on a Present Value of Cost of £1,585 million.
                     Reliability            Introduction of the M1 widening and junction improvements will reduce stress levels hence improve reliability across the             Reduction in „at‟ and „above‟ stress   Large beneficial
                                            study area compared to the Do Minimum.                                                                                               levels on the M1 of 37%.
                                                                                                                                                                                 Reduction on all links of 6%
                     Wider Impacts          Overall the preferred package will serve all key regeneration areas within the study area with significant improvements in           Not applicable                         Moderate Beneficial
                                            access to East Midlands Airport and the Markham Employment Growth Zone.
Accessibility        Option Values          The New Stations and Light Rail provide another transport option for 120,000 people living within 250m.                              Not Applicable                         Moderate beneficial
                     Severance              Motorway widening schemes would not increase severance significantly. Bypass schemes and Fourth Trent crossing could
                                                                                                                                                                                 Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                                            resolve existing severance problems. Most localised impacts on land use are capable of mitigation.
                     Access to              The high level of existing access to public transport within the study area results in a negligible change in accessibility index,   Overall change in accessibility        Neutral
                     Transport              however new facilities show a slight beneficial impact at Ilkeston North, Trowell and MEGZ.                                          index: 0.1 %
Integration          Interchange            The strategy will improve interchange between modes.                                                                                 Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                     Land Use Policy        The strategy is consistent with land-use policies                                                                                    Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                     Other Policies         The strategy is broadly consistent with regional and national policies                                                               Not applicable                         Neutral



     File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                                                                                      177
     April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            SUPPORTING ANALYSES

8.150 The Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS) identifies three
      supporting analyses that should be presented in addition to the Central Government
      Appraisal Summary Table. These three analyses cover:

                    distribution and equity;

                    affordability and financial sustainability; and

                    practicality and public acceptability.

            Distribution and Equity

8.151 The recommended strategy has been developed through the detailed strategy and option
      development process to meet the study objectives and address the identified problems and
      issues. The appraisal of the performance of the recommended strategy against the study
      objectives is summarised in the Local objectives Appraisal Summary Table (Table 8.1). As
      required by GOMMMS the LAST includes an assessment of the distributional
      consequences of the strategy.

8.152 From this appraisal it can be seen that the recommended strategy brings benefits across
      the study area. Analysis has shown that the number of people adversely affected by the
      strategy (e.g. by increased traffic noise due to motorway widening) is small and is greatly
      outweighed by those who benefit.

8.153 The issue of equity is covered in the Transport Economic Efficiency table (Table 8.4). The
      TEE table illustrates the breakdown of the strategy‟s economic net present value by
      different recipients of costs and benefits.

            Affordability and Financial Sustainability

8.154 Whilst the prime economic assessment criteria for the recommended strategy is the overall
      value for money as expressed in the CGAST, the Government wishes also to understand
      the overall financial performance. The Affordability and Financial Sustainability summary
      as shown in Table 8.13 provides an overall assessment of the likely public expenditure
      required to deliver the strategy. The private sector investment profile is shown in Table
      8.14.

8.155 The profile of public sector expenditure is shown in Table 8.13. This assumes that 25% of
      public transport investment of the strategy is provided by the public sector in accordance
      with the funding assumptions made in the SRA‟s Strategic Plan. Of the £944 million total
      public sector expenditure, £180 million (20%) is identified as being required over the next
      four years, with the bulk of the remaining expenditure being occurred between 2007 and
      2011. This assumes that all the motorway improvements are implemented by 2011.

8.156 As no public transport revenue is accrued to the public sector, Table 8.13 shows a
      negative net impact in each year.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                         178
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


8.157 The private sector investment phasing is shown in Table 8.14. Forty per cent of the
      investment of £849 million is identified as being required within the next four years with
      56% to be invested between 2007 and 2011. Of the total public transport investment, 75%
      (£634 million) is recommended for the new light rail lines in Nottingham and Leicester.
      Recommendations about the delivery of these schemes in relation to the SRA‟s Strategic
      Plan are included in the next chapter.

8.158 Whilst some of the individual rail services require financial support (see Appraisal Report),
      Table 8.14 shows that overall, the improved rail network as recommended, would provide
      a net surplus over the operating costs. For the Light Rail schemes, only the more strategic
      movements are included in the transport models and hence only this aspect of revenue is
      captured in Table 8.14. A substantial proportion of the likely patronage (and revenue) is
      expected to come from the shorter distance, suburb to centre, movements that are not fully
      included within the M1MMS model. The financial return on the Light Rail schemes can
      therefore be expected to be significantly greater than that indicated in Table 8.14 and
      included in the TEE Table in Table 8.12.

8.159 The strategy includes a number of new bus routes and these are all shown to attract new
      passengers to bus. Overall, however, due to the much improved light and heavy rail
      network and services, there is abstraction of passengers from bus to rail. This results in
      the assessment showing a reduction in bus revenue even though more services are
      recommended. The step change in revenue in 2016 is due to the modelling of a 10% fares
      reduction on rail leading to a greater abstraction from bus. It must be remembered
      however, that as this is a strategic study, local bus services are not included in the public
      transport models. Nevertheless, it is expected that there would be an increase in bus
      patronage that is not measurable through this study. This would relate to increased bus
      use as a feeder to the improved light and heavy rail network.

8.160 The improvement in highway journey times and recommendations for increased bus
      priority would also lead to a direct benefit for bus operators and this can be expected to
      lead to further increases in patronage in the local bus services. Thus, the overall impact
      on bus operators would be less adverse than is indicated by Table 8.14. Nevertheless, it
      is recognised that there may be need for additional public sector investment in the
      form of subsidy to bus operators to maintain the integrity of a quality bus network in
      the region.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                           179
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


8.161 A summary of the overall financial performance of the public transport schemes is shown
      below. This shows that the surplus significantly outweighs the level of required subsidy in
      each of the assessment years. This increases over time from a value of just over £5
      million in 2006 to over £36 million in 2021.


                   Year                               Subsidy   Surplus   Difference

                   2006                               £8.5m     £13.8m     +£5.3m
                   2011                               £7.5m     £16.4m     +£8.9m

                   2016                               £15.2m    £37.2m    +£22.0m

                   2021                                £13.7    £50.2m    +£36.5m



            Practicality and Public Acceptability

8.162 The practicality of each of the strategy elements has been assessed in broad terms as part
      of this study. However, further feasibility and development work would need to be
      completed before schemes are implemented.

8.163 The public acceptability of the strategy is discussed in Chapter Ten.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                         180
April 2002
                                                                    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                     FINAL REPORT

                                                                     Table 8.12 – Transport Economic Efficiency
Impact                                                           TOTAL Present Value
User Benefits                                            1998 prices and values (£000s)
   Personal travel                                                                                              Car                    Private (Goods)   Bus and Coach            Rail             Other
      Travel Time                                                             3613362                                       2293633            818151                    10564            491014
      Vehicle operating costs                                                  223040                                          63505           159535
      User charges                                                             623967                                                                                    71389            552578
      NET IMPACT                                                              4460369     (1)                               2357138            977686                    81953           1043592           0

Private Sector Provider Impacts                                                                                                                          Bus and Coach            Rail             Other
    Revenue                                                                    676415                                                                                    -75449           751864
    Operating costs                                                           -432366     (a)                                                                            -23400          -408967
    Investment costs                                                          -514276     (b)                                                                                            -514276
    Grant/subsidy                                                                   0
    NET IMPACTS                                                               -270227     (2)                                                                            -98849          -171378           0

Public Sector Provider Impacts                                                                                  Road Infrastructure                      Bus and Coach            Rail             Other
   Revenue                                                                          0
   Operating costs                                                            -144122     ( c)                                                                            -7800          -136322
   Investment costs                                                           -494011     (d)                                -322586                                                     -171425
   NET IMPACTS                                                                -638133     (3)                                -322586                                      -7800          -307747           0

Other Government Impacts                                                                                        Road Infrastructure    Private (Goods)   Bus and Coach            Rail             Other
   Grant/Subsidy payments                                                           0     (e)

   Indirect tax revenues                                                      -295297                                         -10636           -322129                   42231             -4763
   NET IMPACTS                                                                -295297     (4)                                 -10636           -322129                   42231             -4763           0

TOTAL
Net Present Value, NPV                                                     £3,256,712     (6)=(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)
                                                                                          (7)=(a)+(b)+(
Present Value of Costs, PVC                                               -£1,584,775     c)+(d)

Present Value of Cost to Government                                         -£638,133     (8)=(3)+(e)

Benefit/Cost Ratio, BCR                                                         3.055     (9)=((6)-(7))/-(7)

Value/Cost to Government Ratio, VCGR                                            5.103     (10)=(6)/-(8)

   File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                                       181
   April 2002
                                                                      NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                       FINAL REPORT

                                                Table 8.13 – Affordability and Financial Sustainability: Public Sector Investment


                                                                                            Cost Breakdown by Measure (£million, 2001 prices)
                                                           Total                       Strategic
Investment Cost                                                         Motorway                          Rail                                  Transport
                                                       Undiscounted                    Highway                         Freight     Light Rail               Bus/Coach
                                                                      Improvements                   Improvements                                Change
                                                                                     Improvements
2002-2006                                                 £180.2          15.0           11.4             40.0            0.0         73.9        40.0         0.0
2007-2011                                                 £753.6         560.6           33.9             19.0            2.5        137.6         0.0         0.0
2012-2016                                                  £10.0           0.0            0.0              0.0           10.0          0.0         0.0         0.0
Total                                                     £943.8         575.6           45.3             59.0           12.5        211.5        40.0         0.0
Private Sector Contributions                                £0.0           0.0            0.0              0.0            0.0          0.0         0.0         0.0

Investment net of contributions                           £943.8         575.6           45.3             59.0           12.5        211.5        40.0         0.0
Public Sector Operations
2006
Change in Operator Costs                                   £10.2          0.0            0.0               9.2           0.0           0.2         0.0         0.9
Change in Operator Revenues                                 £0.0          0.0            0.0               0.0           0.0           0.0         0.0
Net IMPACT                                                -£10.2          0.0            0.0              -9.2           0.0          -0.2         0.0         -0.9

2011
Change in Operator Costs                                   £13.4          0.0            0.0              11.1           0.0           1.5         0.0         0.9
Change in Operator Revenues                                 £0.0          0.0            0.0               0.0           0.0           0.0         0.0         0.0
Net IMPACT                                                -£13.4          0.0            0.0             -11.1           0.0          -1.5         0.0         -0.9

2016
Change in Operator Costs                                   £13.4          0.0            0.0              11.1           0.0           1.5         0.0         0.9
Change in Operator Revenues                                 £0.0          0.0            0.0               0.0           0.0           0.0         0.0
Net IMPACT                                                -£13.4          0.0            0.0             -11.1           0.0          -1.5         0.0         -0.9

2021
Change in Operator Costs                                   £13.4          0.0            0.0              11.1           0.0           1.5         0.0         0.9
Change in Operator Revenues                                 £0.0          0.0            0.0               0.0           0.0           0.0         0.0         0.0
Net IMPACT                                                -£13.4          0.0            0.0             -11.1           0.0          -1.5         0.0         -0.9




 File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                            182
 April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

         Table 8.14 – Affordability and Financial Sustainability: Private Sector Investment


                                                                 Cost breakdown by measure (£million, 2001 prices)
                                                  Total
Investment Cost                                                    Rail
                                              Undiscounted                     Freight      Light Rail    Bus/Coach
                                                              Improvements

2002-2006                                             341.6      119.9            0.0         221.6           0.0
2007-2011                                             477.2       57.0            7.5         412.7           0.0
2012-2016                                              30.0        0.0           30.0          0.0            0.0
Total                                                 848.8      176.9           37.5         634.4           0.0
Capital Grants                                          0.0        0.0            0.0          0.0            0.0
Private Sector Operators
2006
Change in Operator Costs                              40.4        34.5           0.0           3.3           2.6
Change in Operator Revenues                           45.7        46.2           0.0           5.5           -5.9
Net IMPACT                                             5.3        11.7           0.0           2.1           -8.5
Subsidy                                                8.5         0.0           0.0           0.0           8.5

2011
Change in Operator Costs                              48.9        40.2           0.0           6.1           2.6
Change in Operator Revenues                           57.8        53.2           0.0           9.6           -4.9
Net IMPACT                                             8.9        13.0           0.0           3.4           -7.5
Subsidy                                                7.5         0.0           0.0           0.0           7.5

2016
Change in Operator Costs                              48.9        40.2           0.0            6.1           2.6
Change in Operator Revenues                           70.9        73.3           0.0           10.3          -12.6
Net IMPACT                                            22.0        33.1           0.0            4.1          -15.2
Subsidy                                               15.2         0.0           0.0            0.0          15.2

2021
Change in Operator Costs                              48.9        40.2           0.0            6.1           2.6
Change in Operator Revenues                           85.4        85.5           0.0           11.0          -11.1
Net IMPACT                                            36.5        45.3           0.0            4.9          -13.7
Subsidy                                               13.7         0.0           0.0            0.0          13.7

Private Sector NET IMPACT
Investment net of capital grant                       848.8      176.9           37.5         634.4           0.0

Operations net of subsidy
2006                                                  13.8        11.7           0.0           2.1            0.0
2011                                                  16.4        13.0           0.0           3.4            0.0
2016                                                  37.2        33.1           0.0           4.1            0.0
2021                                                  50.2        45.3           0.0           4.9            0.0




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                             183
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            CONTRIBUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S TEN YEAR PLAN

8.164 The Government‟s Ten Year Plan, published in July 2000, established national priorities for
      the transport system along with an allocation of funding that was assessed as needed to
      meet those priorities. The Plan also set out a number of transport-related targets and
      indicators. The measures within the Plan have been developed to contribute to their
      achievement.

8.165 In this section, the degree to which the recommended strategy contributes to meeting the
      targets and indicators of the Ten Year Plan are described.

            Public Service Agreement

8.166 The DTLR‟s expenditure on transport (both revenue and capital), as set out in the Ten
      Year Plan, seeks to deliver (or contribute) to the attainment of a number of targets. The
      targets were established by the DTLR‟s public service agreement. The contribution of the
      M1MMS strategy to the DTLR‟s public service agreement is summarised in Table 8.15.

8.167 The Ten Year Plan highlights a number of other relevant targets and indicators. With
      respect to these the following is noted:

                    The development of the study area‟s rail network and interchanges both in the short
                     and medium term will improve passenger satisfaction;

                    The creation of a Passenger Transport Co-ordinating body will improve the
                     development of services across local authority boundaries and further add to the
                     attractiveness of public transport;

                    The recommendations for restriction of HGVs on the motorway should further reduce
                     congestion and improve road safety.

                    The freight recommendations included in the strategy will facilitate greater use of rail
                     freight and encourage water borne freight.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                     184
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


             Table 8.15 – Recommended Strategy and DTLR’s Public Service Agreement
DTLR’s Public Service Agreement                            M1MMS Recommended Strategy Contribution
To reduce road congestion on the inter-urban network       The motorway widening, junction improvements, new
and in large urban areas in England to below current       link roads and new local bypasses will result in a
levels by 2010 by promoting integrated transport           reduction in congestion in the most of the seriously
solutions and investing in public transport and the road   congested locations in the study area. At 2011 the
network.                                                   preferred strategy will reduce AM peak hour motorway
                                                           stress to 7% from 20% in the base year – a reduction of
                                                           65%.


To increase rail use in Great Britain (measured in         The recommended strategy is forecast to increase rail
passenger kilometres) from 2000 levels by 50% by           use for trips in and to/from the study area by 48% in the
2010, with investment in infrastructure and capacity,      peak and 107% in the off-peak (including light rail).
while at the same time securing improvements in            Most schemes can be implemented by 2010 or soon
punctuality and reliability.                               after this.
To increase bus use in England (measured by the            Notwithstanding the significant increase in rail usage,
number of passenger journeys) from 2000 levels by          bus use will increase by 28% in the peak with a small
10% by 2010, while at the same time securing               decrease in the off-peak. The wider improvement of
improvements in punctuality and reliability                bus services between the major urban areas and
                                                           to/from rail interchanges will add to this increase.
To double light rail use in England (measured by the       The strategy recommends a total of six New Light Rail
number of passenger journeys) by 2010 from 2000            lines. This will provide a very substantial increase in
levels.                                                    light rail use within the study area compared to the
                                                           situation with just the NET Line 1 that is due to be
                                                           operational by 2003. This excludes that significantly
                                                           larger patronage that can be expected to be attracted to
                                                           light rail from within the urban areas but that has not
                                                           been assessed as part of this strategic study.
To cut journey times on London Underground                 Not applicable.
services by increasing capacity and reducing delays.
To improve air quality by meeting DTLR‟s National Air      At 2021 the strategy will reduce emissions as follows:
Quality Strategy targets for carbon monoxide, lead,                         NOx – 663(tonnes/year)
nitrogen dioxide, particles, sulphur dioxide, benzene                       PM10 – 13 (tonnes/year)
and 1-3 butadine.
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% from           The recommended strategy will result in a 5% reduction
1990 levels, and move towards a 20% reduction in           in greenhouse gas emissions at 2006 but no change at
carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.                          2021.
                                                           Congestion reduction brought about through the
                                                           recommended strategy will reduce carbon dioxide
                                                           emissions. Many of the schemes can be implemented
                                                           by 2010.
To reduce the number of people killed or seriously         The recommended strategy will result in a reduction of
injured in Great Britain in road accidents by 40% by       nearly 8,000 road traffic casualties over the 30 year
2010 and the number of children killed or seriously        assessment period saving 1,300 fatal or serious
injured by 50%, compared with the average for 1994-98      injuries.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                            185
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


9.          STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
9.1         The study brief required the development of an implementation plan that takes account of
            the following and identifies funding requirement and funding sources:

                    Planning/implementation lead times;

                    The interaction between elements of the programme; and

                    The practical constraints of transport providers in delivering solutions.

9.2         The implementation of the study recommendation will require many organisations to play a
            role and the setting up of new bodies to facilitate and oversee the strategy delivery. The
            expected implementation dates are provided in Table 9.1 and illustrated in Figure 9.1.

9.3         The implementation details are provided under each of the separate decision area
            headings.

            POLICY INTERVENTIONS

9.4         The policy interventions aimed at encouraging and facilitating short and long term travel
            behaviour change, transport improvement and demand management form an integral part
            of the M1MMS recommended strategy. Outline proposals under the policy decision area
            have been covered in chapter seven and greater detail is provided in the study report:
            Policy Interventions: The Programme of Measures‟

            RAIL

9.5         It is recommended above that the rail recommendations are incorporated into the
            SRA’s Strategic Plan at its next review to commit the required funding for the
            schemes to make early progress. Railtrack clearly has a key role to play here and it
            should develop proposals to progress the recommendations through consultation, design
            and implementation.

            LIGHT RAIL

9.6         A number of light rail lines are recommended although demand data is not available to
            determine the likely full usage of such proposals. It is recommended that the
            appropriate local authorities undertake more detailed feasibility studies into the
            proposed schemes to determine the full financial, commercial and transport case for
            these schemes. The philosophy of the recommended strategy of providing interchange
            between light and heavy rail should be maintained.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                              186
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            BUS/COACH

9.7         Local authorities in partnership with local transport operators should seek to develop the
            recommended services. The proposed Passenger Transport Co-ordination body (or
            Executive) would have a key role to play here and this body should therefore be
            established as a matter of priority.

            STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE

9.8         The Strategic Park and Ride schemes all rely upon associated heavy or light rail schemes
            and thus the delivery of these schemes is tied to the delivery of infrastructure for the rail
            schemes. It is possible that where schemes could be linked to private developments that
            private sector monies could be forthcoming for schemes such as the proposed site at
            Nuthall.

            MOTORWAY

9.9         The Highways Agency has appointed a „shadowing consultant‟ to this study. It is
            recommended that the Highways Agency undertakes further feasibility and
            engineering assessment to determine the most appropriate method and phasing of
            the motorway widening. It is also recommended that the Highways Agency develops
            detailed proposals for the fast-track implementation of the recommended schemes so that
            there is no undue delay to the delivery of these schemes once the Secretary of State has
            made known his decisions. Further consultation will need to play a key role in the scheme
            development process.

9.10        In particular, a number of generally small scale measures have been recommended to
            relieve congestion at key motorway junctions. These schemes should be included within
            the Highways Agency‟s Local Network Management programme for immediate
            implementation.

            STRATEGIC ROADS

9.11        The bypasses included within the strategy recommendations do not rely upon wider
            considerations of infrastructure. It is expected that all three proposed schemes would have
            strong support at the local level both in terms of the public and the local authorities. These
            should be progressed by the Highways Agency and local highway authorities without delay
            once funding is approved.

9.12        The proposed new bridge across the River Trent would need the approval of Nottingham
            City Council, with the County Council in support of the scheme. Whilst the scheme will
            bring wider transport benefits, the City Council‟s concerns relate to the possibility of
            significantly increased traffic into the city through the provision of this bridge. The City
            Council‟s concerns are not borne out by the analyses undertaken for this study. It is
            suggested that the City Council reviews its stance on the basis of the findings of this study
            and, jointly with the County Council, undertake a more detailed traffic assessment using
            available data from this study. This is not withstanding that this issue is expected to be
            addressed by the A52 MMS also.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  187
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            FREIGHT

9.13        The freight components of the M1 corridor strategy require careful management and the
            involvement of a large number of organisations. It is clear that local and regional transport
            planning can only provide partial solutions to freight issues. Many freight operators using
            the corridor are part of national or even global networks, and a significant proportion of
            freight trips within the corridor are influenced by events external to the region.

9.14        Beyond the road networks, the national context is even more important. In the rail
            industry, for example, services are provided by competing, national traction companies on
            a national network, influenced by a national rail freight strategy. Single regions or counties
            can participate most successfully in this sector if their decisions are co-ordinated with
            neighbouring regions.

9.15        It is also clear that freight transport may become the „poor relation‟ to passenger transport
            in a number of areas if the achievement of a successful freight strategy is not a priority in
            its own right. The importance attached to freight by the public and by the business
            community appears to exceed the capacity of the regional administrative structures to
            manage it.

9.16        The first priority is therefore to establish responsibilities for the success of the freight
            proposals. Ideally this would operate at a regional level, possibly within a regional Quality
            Partnership, involving the freight industry and its representatives, local authorities, the
            regional development agency (emda), and representatives for road (HA), rail (SRA) and
            waterways (BWB).

9.17        The interventions listed in the recommended strategy package are itemised into two
            categories: „immediate and „longer-term‟, with the „immediate‟ options seen as the
            immediate priorities for the first phase of implementation, and the „defer‟ options
            conditional on the success on that phase.

9.18        Specific matters requiring urgent attention are:

                    The forthcoming regional freight study, which will examine the key problem of rail
                     freight terminals in the region.

                    The SRA‟s programme of regional freight studies.

            FUNDING SOURCES

9.19        The majority of the funding for the strategy is expected to be provided by the Central
            Government through the Ten Year Transport Plan and the SRA‟s Strategic Plans for
            Freight and Passenger Transport. Recommendations have been made for the inclusion of
            the recommended rail schemes within the SRA‟s Strategic Plan at the next review.

9.20        The major element of cost associated with the public transport recommendations relates to
            the proposed additional light rail lines in Nottingham and the introduction of light rail in
            Leicester. The economic assessment indicates that all of these schemes (with the
            exception of the line to Syston, Leicester) have a good commercial case. This is
            despite the fact that much of the patronage that would be attracted to these
            schemes would be of a more local nature (suburb to centre) and data for this has
            not been available to the study and thus no financial benefit has been accrued. It is
            expected that significant private sector investment could be attracted for the delivery of
File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  188
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

            these schemes, with such mechanisms as Design Build Finance and Operate as used for
            Greater Manchester‟s Metrolink.

9.21        It is expected that private sector developer funding could be secured as a contribution
            towards a number of the public transport schemes through the development planning
            process. Local Authorities should explore opportunities to lever private sector finance
            where possible.

9.22        It is also expected that the Highways Agency may be able to secure private sector
            developer contributions towards the implementation of some of the early improvements
            schemes at motorway junctions. In particular, it may be possible to secure contributions
            towards the cost of the interim Junction 28 improvements as well as the Link Roads at
            Junction 26.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                            189
April 2002
                                                                       NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                        FINAL REPORT

                                                                         Figure 9.1 – Implementation Programme
                                                                                                                                                                                 2017-
Decision Area           Scheme                                                 2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016
                                                                                                                                                                                 2021
                                                                                         QUICK WINS
Heavy Rail              Station Access/Facility Improvements
Rail services           IR2, IR5, IR8
                        IU1, IU2, IU4
                        UT1, UT3a, UT4, UT5
                        IR3, IR6
                        UT3b, UT7
Rail                    Clowne Branch, Pye Bridge, Castle Donington
infrastructure
                        Matlock-Buxton reinstatement
                        Newark Chord
                        Network capacity improvements
                        New stations at Trowell, Derby South, Blaby
Freight                 Intermodal Railfreight Terminal
                        Loading Gauge Improvements
                        Humber Rail Link
Road Based              NET extensions to Clifton, M1 J25/Beeston, Nuthall
Public Transport
                        Additional NET routes to Nottingham South, Ilkeston
                        New LRT East Goscote-Leicester-Blaby
                        New express coach services BC4, BC5, BC6, BC7
Strategic Park &        Trowell Parkway (served by NET) + new Road Link
Ride                    from the M1 Service Area with an M1 over-bridge
                        M1 Junction 26 (Nuthall) – Served by an extension of
                        NET
                        M1 Junction 25 – served by NET via Beeston
                        MEGZ (served by Heavy Rail via the re-opened
                        Clowne Branch)




    File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                      190
    April 2002
                                                                      NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                       FINAL REPORT

                                                                                                                                                                                        2017-
Decision Area           Scheme                                              2003   2004    2005     2006   2007   2008    2009    2010       2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016
                                                                                                                                                                                        2021
Motorway                M1 Junction 21 roundabout carriageway widening
                        and lane re-allocation/re-signing
                        M1 Junction 29 northbound off-slip and
                        roundabout carriageway widening
                        M1 Junction 28 roundabout carriageway and A38
                        approach widening
                        M1 north to A610 Link Roads
                        M1 Junction 29 – A617 Flyover
                        M1 Junction 23A to 25 Improvement
                        M1 to M69 Link Roads and widening to M1
                        Junction 21A
                        M1 widening to 5 lanes Junction 25 to 27 with
                        A610 flyover at Junction 26 and Junction 25 imp‟t
                        M1 widening Junction 27 to 30 with crawler lanes
                        between junctions 27 and 29.
                        M1 widening Junction 21A to 23A with junction
                        capacity improvements at junctions 22 and 23
Strategic Roads         M1 Junction 24: A453 to A50 left turning lane
                        Minor improvement of the A453: Crusader
                        Junction to University.
                        Kegworth Bypass
                        A617 Pleasley Bypass Extension
                        A617 Glapwell Bypass
                        New Bridge across River Trent east of Nottingham
                        City Centre
                        Policy Intervention Programme
Policy
Interventions           Strategy Implementation and Monitoring Body
                        Public Transport Co-ordinating Body
                        Integrated Ticketing
                        Goods Vehicle Restriction on motorways


              Central Government                              Local Authorities                                   Strategic Rail Authority

              Highways Agency                                 Railtrack/Train Operating Companies                 Other


   File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                                                                                                 191
   April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


10.         CONSULTATION ON THE RECOMMENDED STRATEGY

            INTRODUCTION

10.1        A formal consultation was undertaken on the Draft Preferred Strategy, prior to completing
            the selection of the recommended strategy. The purpose of this consultation was to
            provide all local authorities, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament
            and Wider Reference Group members the opportunity to comment on the emerging
            preferred strategy and thus gauge the level of support and any remaining key issues or
            concerns. Some 275 reports were issued and over 70 written responses were received.

10.2        In support of the consultation report, a number of presentations were made by the
            consultant project manager and various meetings attended by other study team members.

            CONSULTATION RESPONSE

10.3        A summary of the responses is documented in a study report: „Summary of Responses to
            the Formal Consultation on the Draft Preferred Package – March 2002‟. Overall, most
            respondents indicated general support for the draft preferred strategy. A few queries were
            raised regarding the cost of implementing the public transport strategy that will require
            more than the 70% of the entire strategy budget.

10.4        Many see that the widening of the M1 as a possible short term solution, but would prefer to
            have alternatives to the car in place with rewards to those who convert. Along with the
            road charging and work place parking levy for those who do not.

10.5        There is fear of social exclusion, for those who live within the rural communities, where it is
            not always viable to provide a public transport system.

10.6        There is a fear that a reliable, frequent and attractive public transport system will not be in
            place before certain measures of road user charging are enforced. There is a need to
            have an alternative to the car ready to use before car users will be willing to leave the car
            at home. Information regarding ticketing, pricing and interchange facilities needs to be
            readily available.

10.7        There is positive feedback from the consultees, and real desire to encourage a modal shift
            with land use planning along with public transport measures and possibly charging
            schemes. They feel that is can be achieved over the time period stated.

10.8        Many of the objections related to the then proposed new strategic highway between the
            M1 (at the A50) and the A46. This scheme is not included in the recommended strategy
            and therefore the level of support for the strategy can be taken to be greater than that
            indicated in response to the draft preferred strategy.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                   192
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


            WIDER REFERENCE GROUP FINAL CONSULTATION

10.9        The recommended strategy was presented to a meeting of the Wider Reference Group
            (WRG) on 21 March 2002. A brief questionnaire was distributed to all attendees and they
            were asked to indicate their level of support against a number of decision areas. The
            questionnaires were collected at the end of the day for analysis.

10.10 In total, over 80 individuals representing 76 different organisations attended the meeting.
      Of those attending the meeting, 32% submitted a completed questionnaire. Not everyone
      responded to all categories in the questionnaire. The results of an analysis of the
      responses is summarised in Figure 10.1 below.

              Figure 10.1 – Summary of WRG Responses to the Recommended Strategy

                                                      Click here for image.



10.11 It can be seen from the above graph that responses of „agree‟ or „strongly agree‟ make up
      the bulk of the returns in each category. These range from a low of 68% support each for
      the Motorway and Strategic Road proposals, through to 90% support for both the Heavy
      Rail and Road Based Public Transport recommendations. Over 90% of the returned
      questionnaires included a response to the question of support for the overall strategy.
      Even though there may be disagreement with certain individual elements within the
      strategy, 100% of those answering this question indicated support for the overall
      strategy as recommended (81% agree, 19% strongly agree).

10.12 In total, representatives from 8 local „authorities‟ (1 County, 6 District, 1 Parish) returned
      completed questionnaires. A summary of these responses is presented in Figure 10.2
      below.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                            193
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


      Figure 10.2 – Summary of Local Authority Responses to the Recommended Strategy

                                                      Click here for image.

10.13 The above graph shows that there has been an even greater level of support for the
      recommendations from the responding local authority representatives. Of the provided
      responses against each category, the following level of support (agree or strongly agree)
      was shown:

                    100% - Overall Strategy, Freight, Motorway and Strategic Roads

                    86% - Policy, Road Based Public Transport and Strategic Park & Ride

                    83% - Heavy Rail

10.14 None of the local authority respondents indicated any disagreement to the recommended
      overall strategy. The representative from the District of Bolsover indicated strong
      agreement to all categories stating that: „Overall the proposals are spot on, they hit the
      right balance between public transport and road improvements. They will have a major
      regeneration benefit for the North Derbyshire Coalfield‟.

10.15 A brief discussion of the responses against each category is provided below.

                    POLICY – representatives from organisations (Confederation of Passenger
                     Transport and Trent Buses) indicated strong disagreement to the proposal for the
                     creation of a Passenger Transport Executive (PTE). Their view was that „a PTE
                     would not achieve for the East Midlands what cannot already be achieved in the
                     current legislative framework embracing competition policy‟. They also questioned
                     the wisdom of allowing Heavy Goods Vehicles the use of bus lanes stating that this
                     was „likely to be intimidating for intending bus passengers at bus stops, will probably
                     slow buses down and paradoxically increase car speeds‟. Two bodies (Ashfield
                     District Council and Central Railway) indicated a neutral response and the remaining
                     organisations other than East Midlands Friends of the Earth, showed support.

                    HEAVY RAIL – representatives from the majority of organisations agreed with the
                     recommendations with two showing their position as neutral (Ashfield District Council
                     and British Waterways). GNER stated that experience suggests that rail costs are
                     seriously underestimated and that it had a concern that the levels of service increase
                     proposed will have serious effects on national rail capacity and performance which
                     may not be fully understood.

                    ROAD BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT – the majority of respondents agreed with the
                     strategy, only Central Railway indicated a neutral response. GNER gave no
                     viewpoint. The Friends of the Earth said that there was a fear that investment in
                     public transport will not be forthcoming and that the predicted modal shift will not
                     happen.

                    STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE – representatives from six organisations (British
                     Horse Society, Pedestrian Association, Central Railway, East Midlands Friends of
                     the Earth, Transport 2000 Leicestershire and Derbyshire County Council) remained
                     neutral, with the rest in agreement. The Friends of the Earth stating that there is
                     need to be careful not to promote commuting journeys through the countryside.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                    194
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT

                    FREIGHT – there were two organisations (Cyclists Touring Club and East Midlands
                     Friends of the Earth) in disagreement and five (British Horse Society, Pedestrian
                     Association, CPT, Trent Buses and Transport 2000 Leicestershire) remained neutral
                     with the rest in support. The Friends of the Earth opposed the predict and provide
                     approach to road freight. British Waterways welcomed that inland waterways were
                     included and that marketing was included in the strategy.

                    MOTORWAY – three organisations (Pedestrian Association, East Midlands Friends
                     of the Earth and Transport 2000 Leicestershire) strongly disagree with the proposals
                     and another three (British Horse Society, Central Railway and GNER) remain
                     neutral. The remainder are in support including the Nottingham Chambers of
                     Commerce, some local authorities and Derbyshire and Leicestershire Constabularies
                     all showing strong agreement. The police forces have stated that there is an urgent
                     need to review the availability of diversion routes during motorway emergencies.

                    STRATEGIC ROADS – The East Midlands Friends of the Earth strongly disagrees
                     with the recommendations. Two organisations (Pedestrian Association and Peak
                     District National Park Authority) disagree with the recommendations, with four
                     remaining neutral (British Horse Society, Central Railway, Derbyshire Constabulary
                     and GNER) and the rest are in agreement.

                    OVERALL STRATEGY – All organisations responding to this question indicated
                     support for the strategy. Three of the respondents (Pedestrian Association, East
                     Midlands Friends of the Earth and Castle Donington Parish Council) did not respond
                     to this question. The Peak District National Park Authority indicated support on the
                     basis that the strategy is implemented as a whole and preferring to see the public
                     transport improvements implemented first. The Pedestrians Association also state
                     that it is important to provide the public transport improvements before the motorway
                     improvements.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                  195
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT


10.16 Whilst the above analysis of responses from the Wider Reference Group cannot be said to
      represent the likely wider level of support for the recommended strategy, it indicates a very
      high level of support for the recommended strategy from a representative sample of
      opinion across the range of interests represented on the WRG.

            MEDIA BRIEFING

10.17 A media briefing was carried out immediately prior to the WRG Seminar on 21 March
      2002. This was attended by representatives from Television, Radio and the Press. This
      was followed over the next few days by several interviews with individual media
      organisations.

            FINAL STUDY NEWSLETTER

10.18 A final issue of News Update (No. 4) was produced setting out the recommended strategy.
      Copies of the Newsletter were distributed to local authorities and other organisations.



Figure 10.3 – Final Study Newsletter

Click here for large image (best for print).
Click here for small image (best for web).




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                           196
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




11.         NEXT STEPS
11.1        The M1 East Midlands Multi-Modal Study is one of a number of such studies established
            by the DTLR following the publications of the Government‟s Transport White Paper and its
            Roads Review in 1998. The study was set up to develop a twenty year integrated
            transport strategy for the study area and a detailed Implementation Plan. The study was
            tasked with making recommendations about the proposed motorway widening schemes
            and a Bypass for Kegworth that were put on hold through the Roads Review.

11.2        Early consultation and assessment identified that whilst road congestion was the single
            largest transport problem in the study area a number of other problems existed. These
            include:

                    quality and extent of public transport;

                    poor public transport integration and conflict between local and regional services;

                    high public transport fares;

                    accessibility to railway stations;

                    development pressure around the East Midlands Airport; and

                    need for economic regeneration.

11.3        The range of transport problems that needed addressing required a fully multi-modal study
            to investigate the problems, perceptions and issues, and to develop an integrated strategy.
            It was clear that a public transport dominated package would do little to address the key
            concern of motorway and strategic road congestion. A roads based package would
            address the congestion problems but would not begin to counter the longer term growth in
            road traffic and do little to change attitudes to car travel. It was evident from an early stage
            therefore that a balanced strategy was needed.

11.4        The recommended strategy focuses on improving public transport integration and quality
            as well as extensive service enhancements. A number of former lines are recommended
            for re-opening to passenger services to facilitate a step change in provision. Strategic park
            and ride sites develop interchange hubs mostly with light or heavy rail connections to the
            urban centres. The strategy recognises that improved public transport will only make a
            small impact on reducing car journeys and in order to address existing and expected
            worsening congestion on the motorway, substantial investment is included.

11.5        Specific recommendations are included to tackle behaviour towards travel and transport as
            well as wider policy measures designed to improve sustainable transport and encourage
            greater mode shift from car to public transport. These policy measures are a key focus of
            the first five years of the strategy.

11.6        The strategy recognises that a separate multi-modal study is underway for the A453 and
            that the recommendations from that study will need to be viewed together with the M1
            recommendations before firm decisions could be made about the infrastructure
            recommendations that impact on the A453 corridor.

File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                        197
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



11.7        This report will be passed by the Project Management Group to the East Midlands
            Regional Local Government Association (the Regional Planning Body) for it to provide the
            regional view of transport priorities and make recommendations to ministers.

11.8        Consultation on the final recommendations with the Wider Reference Group identified
            overwhelming support for the strategy. However, there is a degree of scepticism about the
            implementation of the public transport proposals and the recommended timescales in
            general. Much of this scepticism is based on previous knowledge of and experience with
            the delivery of large transport infrastructure projects. The view of the consultant study
            team is that the strategy is deliverable and practicable, but the onus is on the implementing
            authorities to deliver the strategy, and the Government to meet its Ten Year Plan funding
            commitments.

11.9        Through the Ten Year Transport Plan the Government has committed to make available
            the resources required to implement approved recommendations from the multi-modal
            study process. Whilst full details of the funding mechanisms are yet to be confirmed,
            implementation of the strategy can start in the current (2002/03) financial year. A number
            of the recommendations are specifically identified as „quick wins‟ and would deliver visible
            evidence within the next few years. The more significant proposals will require more time
            to develop and progress through the statutory processes and are thus likely to begin
            delivery within the second five year study period. A number of the proposals will require
            additional revenue expenditure by the implementing authorities to take them through the
            design stages and the statutory processes. The provision of such revenue funding is an
            integral requirement of the funding package for the strategy.

11.10 It is important that the momentum of the strategy‟s implementation is maintained. The
      Steering Group is in discussion about the setting up of a Delivery Implementation Group
      (DIG). The establishment of this group is recognised as a key requirement to act as a
      driver for the implementation of the strategy. The DIG, drawn from the study‟s Project
      Management Group will ensure that the strategy is implemented in a co-ordinated and
      timely manner and that the shared inter-authority purpose evident throughout this study is
      maintained. The group will also be responsible for monitoring the success of the strategy
      and as circumstances develop over time, its evolution to meet new challenges. The
      Strategy includes recommendations for the setting up of a second group to develop and
      implement policy interventions aimed at improving sustainable transport in the study area.

11.11 Finally, it is again stressed that the strategy is recommended for implementation in full.
      The public transport schemes will be needed to improve transport choice, reduce reliance
      upon the private car and open new public transport corridors that will facilitate the
      pursuance of a more sustainable land-use policy in the study area. This, in turn, will
      reduce the rate of future traffic growth. The full benefits of the recommended strategy will
      only be seen when the strategy is implemented in full. With the continued commitment of
      the local authorities and the funding support of the Government, combined with the
      widespread support for the strategy indicated by the Wider Reference Group, an
      environment has been established for the successful implementation of this study‟s
      recommendations.




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 198
April 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




APPENDIX A: STUDY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Study Reports

 Inception Report                                                       March 2000
 Group Discussions 1                                                    April 2000
 Scoping Report                                                         July 2000
 Report on News Update 1                                                July 2000
 Freight Data Collection Report                                         February 2001

 Traffic Data Collection and Analysis Report                            February 2001
 Review of Environmental Constraints and Objectives                     March 2001
 Proceedings of the Wider Reference Group Conference                    December 2000
 Public Transport Surveys and Data Collection                           February 2001
 Strategy Development Consultation                                      December 2000
 Local Model Validation Report                                          May 2001
 Response to Strategy Development Report                                March 2001

 Do-Minimum Schemes                                                     April 2001
 Environmental Constraints Report                                       April 2001
 Summary of Responses to the Strategy Development Consultation Report   April 2001
 Strategy Development Report                                            May 2001
 Proposed Strategy Options Packages for Testing                         October 2001

 Consultation of the Draft Preferred Package                            December 2001
 Final Report on Public Consultation                                    February 2002
 Option Identification Report                                           March 2002
 Policy Interventions: The Programme of Measures                        April 2002
 Summary of Responses to Consultation on the Draft Preferred Package.   April 2002
 Public Transport Model Calibration and Validation Report               April 2002
 Forecasting Report                                                     April 2002
 Economic and Land Use Technical Report                                 April 2002
 Appraisal Report                                                       April 2002




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                     Appendix
March 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




Working Papers and Technical Notes

 Working Paper: Freight                                                            June 2000

 Working Paper: Land Use                                                           June 2000

 Working Paper: Economy                                                            June 2000

 Working Paper: Transport Decision Areas                                           July 2000

 Note on Methodology for Environmental Study                                       July 2000

 Working Paper - Strategy Objectives                                               September 2000

 Working Paper - Report on PMG Workshop                                            September 2000

 Strategy Development Technical Note SD 1 - Possibly Policy and Scheme Options     October 2000

 Strategy Development Technical Note SD2 – Study Objectives                        October 2000

 Model Development Technical Note MD1 - LMVR Supplementary Report                  April 2001

 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 1 - Highway Model Interrogation          April 2001

 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 2 - Assessment of Highway Stress         May 2001
 Levels
 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 3 - Freight Analysis                     April 2001

 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 4 - Proposed Land-Use / Regeneration
                                                                                   April 2001
 Scenarios

 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 5 - Initial Highway Scheme Tests         May 2001

 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 6 - Environmental Overview of Initial
                                                                                   April 2001
 Highway Schemes

 Option Identification Technical Note OPT 7 - Development of Pubic Transport       May 2001
 Scheme Options
 Option Assessment Technical Note AST 1 - Results of Preliminary Motorway          October 2001
 Tolling Tests
 Option Assessment Technical Note AST 2 - Environmental Assessment of Initial
                                                                                   November 2001
 Strategy Options
 Option Assessment Technical Note AST 3 - Assessment of Initial Highway            January 2002
 Options
 Option Assessment Technical Note AST 4 – Assessment of Initial Public Transport   February 2002
 Options

 Option Assessment Technical Note AST 5 - Assessment of Initial Freight Options    January 2002

 Option Assessment Technical Note AST 6 – Audit of Rail Stations and
                                                                                   April 2002
 Recommendations for Improvement



File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                       Appendix
March 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




APPENDIX B: REGIONAL STEERING GROUP PROJECT
MANAGEMENT GROUP MEMBERSHIP

Chair:                          Government Office for the East Midlands
RSG Members:                    Confederation of British Industry
                                Confederation of Passenger Transport
                                Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions
                                Derbyshire County Council
                                East Midlands Airport
                                East Midlands Development Agency
                                East Midlands Regional Local Government Association
                                East Midlands Transport Activists Roundtable (and Transport 2000)
                                Freight Transport Association
                                Highways Agency
                                Midland Mainline
                                Nottinghamshire Coalition of Disabled People
                                Nottinghamshire County Council
                                Railtrack
                                Strategic Rail Authority
PMG Members:                    Broxtowe Borough Council
                                Confederation of Passenger Transport
                                Council for the Protection on Rural England
                                Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions
                                Derbyshire County Council
                                East Midlands Airport
                                East Midlands Development Agency
                                East Midlands Regional Local Government Association
                                East Midlands Transport Activists Roundtable (and Transport 2000)
                                Freight Transport Association
                                Highways Agency
                                Leicestershire County Council
                                Midland Mainline
                                Nottinghamshire County Council
                                Railtrack
                                Strategic Rail Authority
                                Three Cities Representative




File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc                                                 Appendix
March 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT




APPENDIX C: WIDER REFERENCE GROUP MEMBERSHIP

Amber Valley Borough Council
Arriva Fox County Ltd
Arriva Passenger Services
Ashfield District Council
Automobile Association
Bassetlaw District Council
Beeston Residents Against Vandalism of the Environment
Blaby District Council
Bolsover District Council
Breaston Parish Council
British Horse Society
British Gas Transco
British Roads Federation
British Telecommunications PLC
British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association
British Waterways
Broxtowe Borough Council
Castle Donington Parish Council
Central Railway
Central Trains Ltd
Charnwood Borough Council
Chesterfield Borough Council
Confederation of Passenger Transport
Corby Borough Council
Countryside Agency
CPRE
CPRE East Midlands
CPRE Leicestershire Branch
CPRE Leicestershire Branch
Derby City Council
Derby Friends of the Earth & Bus Station Action Group
Derbyshire Constabulary
Derbyshire County Council
Derbyshire Dales District Council
Derbyshire Fire Authority
Donington Park Estates Ltd
East Midlands Airport
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc      Appendix
March 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



East Midlands Chambers of Commerce
East Midlands Environment Link
East Midlands Group CPRE
East Midlands Voluntary Sector Forum (Engage Nottingham)
English Heritage - East Midlands Region
English Nature - East Midlands Team
English Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd
Environment Agency
Erewash Borough Council
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth East Midlands Office
Friends of the Earth Leicestershire
Gedling Borough Council
GNER
Government Office for the East of England
Great Central Railway (Nottingham) Ltd
Great Central Railway plc
Hands Off Hilcote Campaign
High Peak Borough Council
Highways Agency
Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council
Kegworth Parish Council
Kimberley Town Council
Lacey Agencies
Leicester City Council
Leicestershire and Rutland Cyclists Touring Club
Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Leicestershire Constabulary
Leicestershire County Council
Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service
Leicestershire & Northants Rail Action Committee
Leicestershire & Rutland Association of Parish & Local Councils
Lincolnshire County Council
Mansfield District Council
Melton Borough Council
Midland Mainline
National Express Ltd
National Federation of Bus Users
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
Newark & Sherwood District Council
NHS Executive - Trent Regional Office
File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc               Appendix
March 2002
  NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                   FINAL REPORT



North West Leicestershire District Council
Northamptonshire County Council
Nottingham City Council
Nottingham City Transport Ltd
Nottingham Development Enterprise
Nottingham Health Authority
Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce
Nottinghamshire County Council
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service
Nottinghamshire Police
Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust
Oadby & Wigston Borough Council
Oil and Pipeline Agency
Peak District National Park Authority
Pedestrian's Association
Powergen PLC
RAC Trafficmaster Telematics Ltd
Rail Passengers Council
Rail Staff Journal
Railtrack Midlands
Railway Development Society (East Midlands)
Railway Development Society (North Midlands)
Road Haulage Association Ltd
Rushcliffe Borough Council
Rutland County Council
Rutland County Council
Severn Trent Water Ltd
Shirebrook Town Council
South Derbyshire District Council
Strategic Rail Authority
Sustrans
The Cyclists' Touring Club
The National Forest Company
The Railway Forum
The Ramblers' Association
Trades Union Congress
Transport 2000 Derby
Transport 2000 Leicestershire
Transport and General Workers Union
Viridor Waste Management Ltd.


File Name: d4c95f08-5119-41f6-9690-ef42449ea0d1.doc      Appendix
March 2002

				
DOCUMENT INFO