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

                     IN THE EAST MIDLANDS


                              MARCH 2002
                                                                             MULTI-MODAL STUDY

                                                                          IN THE EAST MIDLANDS

                                                                  STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                                                                MARCH 2002

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

Job Number                    Prepared by                 Approved by       Status          Date
BV1076                        Study Team                  Nasar Malik       Draft           March 2002

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc.Doc
December 2001
                                       STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


1.         INTRODUCTION                                            1

2.         THE RECOMMENDED STRATEGY                                2
           INTRODUCTION                                            2
           SUMMARY OF STRATEGY BENEFITS                            4
           STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS                                   5
           HEAVY RAIL                                              6
              Train Service Improvements                           7
              Inter-regional services                              7
              Inter-Urban services                                 8
              Urban Triangle services                              9
              Rail capacity problems                              10
              Railway Infrastructure Improvements                 12
              Railway Stations                                    14
           ROAD BASED PUBLIC TRANSPORT                            18
              New Bus Services                                    18
              Bus Priority Measures                               19
           STRATEGIC PARK AND RIDE                                20
           MOTORWAY                                               21
              Junctions                                           21
              Mainline                                            23
              Form of Motorway Widening                           26
           STRATEGIC ROADS                                        26
              Policy Interventions                                29
              Public Transport Co-ordination                      33
              Integrated Public Transport Ticketing               33
              Value for Money Assessment of Rail Schemes          34
              Public Transport Fares/Charges                      34
              Motorway Capacity Management                        35
              Freight                                             36
              Road User Charging                                  38
              Enforcement                                         38
              Land-Use Policies                                   39
           WIDER ADVERSE IMPACTS                                  42
              Derby                                               42
              Derbyshire                                          42
              Nottingham                                          43
              Nottinghamshire                                     43
              Leicester                                           44
              Leicestershire                                      44
              Impacts Beyond The Study Area                       44
           OTHER SCHEMES AND INTERVENTIONS TESTED                 46
              Road User Charging                                  46
              South Nottinghamshire Rail Schemes                  48
              Re-opening of the Melton Mowbray Line               48
              Extending NET to Mansfield                          49
              The Central Railway Proposal                        50
              New East-West Strategic Highway                     50

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc          Contents
March 2002
                                       STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              Affects of Different Land-Use Scenarios                                      52
           STRATEGY APPRAISAL                                                              54

           Table ‎ .1 – Summary Transport Statistics
                 2                                                                          4
           Table ‎ .2 – Summary Economic Statistics
                 2                                                                          5
           Table ‎ .3 – List of Strategic Park and Ride sites
                 2                                                                         20
           Table ‎ .4 – Freight Strategy
                 2                                                                         37
           Table ‎ .5 – Summary of Recommended Strategy
                 2                                                                         40
           Table ‎ .6 – Impact of AM peak 2021 Light Vehicle Mode Choice
                 2                                                                         47
           Table ‎ .7 – Stress Levels
                 2                                                                         47
           Table ‎ .6 – Stress Levels - % of Links
                 2                                                                         52
           Table ‎ .7 – Environmental Assessment
                 2                                                                         55
           Table ‎ .8 – Local Appraisal Summary Table
                 2                                                                         57
           Table ‎ .9 – Recommended Strategy: Central Government Appraisal Summary Table
                 2                                                                         59
           Table ‎ .10 – Transport Economic Efficiency
                 2                                                                         60

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                 Contents
March 2002
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1        This report is an extract of the final study report providing details of the study
           recommendations and a brief summary of the results of appraisal of the recommended

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                 1
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS



2.1        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

              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.

2.2        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.

2.3        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.

2.4        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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                           2
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           more serious congestion and deterioration of safety would result without it,
           despite the considerable recommended expenditure on public transport. This is
           because 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 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.

2.5        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.

2.6        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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                                  3
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.7        A summary of the change brought about through the recommended strategy is presented
           in Table 2.1 below.

                                        Table 2.1 – 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)

2.8        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.

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

2.10       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.

2.11       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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        4
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.12       A summary of the economic assessment of the recommended strategy is shown in Table
           2.2 below.

                                       Table 2.2 – Summary Economic Statistics

                  Measure                                                  Benefit

                  Accidents                                                £194m

                  Travel Time                                             £3,613 m

                  Present Value of Cost                                   £1,526 m

                  Net Present Value                                       £3,024 m

                  Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR)                                   3.0
                  Value/Cost to Government Ratio (VCGR)                      4.8

2.13       The monetary values in above Table 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.


2.14       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.

2.15       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.

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

              Heavy Rail;

              Freight;

              Road Based Passenger Transport;

              Strategic Park and Ride;

              Motorway;

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                      5
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              Strategic Roads; and

              Policy Interventions

           HEAVY RAIL

2.17       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

2.18       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.

2.19       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.

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

2.21       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 should be incorporated within the SRA’s
           Strategic Plan at its next review.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                             6
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           Train Service Improvements

2.22       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).

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

           Inter-regional services

2.24       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.

2.25       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.

2.26       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 would operate
           this service, running to an hourly service pattern.

2.27       In introducing this service there is a known problem in obtaining train paths through the
           south Manchester area, but the advantages in providing such a direct link would
           outweigh this timetabling/signalling problem. 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.
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                             7
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.28   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 from the
       reopening of the former Midland Railway route through the Peak District.

2.29   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.

2.30   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.

2.31   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.

2.32   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

       Inter-Urban services

2.33   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.

2.34   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.

2.35         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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                       8
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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).

2.36       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.

2.37       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.

              We recommend that the planned provision of a grade separated crossing at
               Nuneaton is progressed by the SRA as part of the West Coast main Line upgrade
               and the Nuneaton-Felixstowe freight route.

2.38       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.

           Urban Triangle services

2.39       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

2.40       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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                         9
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.41       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.

2.42       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.

2.43       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.

2.44       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 mins, and would provide for a direct
           link to Leicester.

2.45       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.

2.46       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
           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

2.47       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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        10
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           Robin Hood via Hucknall

2.48       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

2.49       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 resignalling 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

              We recommend that a detailed appraisal of the means to improve line capacity
               between Trent and Beeston is undertaken, along with the examination of the
               feasibility and costs involved in a new spur at Trowell.

           Nottingham station capacity

2.50       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 resignalling scheme a redesign of
               the platform arrangement and western station throat at Nottingham is included and
               implemented as an IOS scheme.

           Train stabling problems

2.51       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 has not been
           included in the economic appraisal of the final strategy.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          11
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              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

           Railway Infrastructure Improvements

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

2.53       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.

2.54       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.

2.55       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
           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.

2.56       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.

2.57       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 under 20 miles, of which 12 miles would need full reinstatement.
           For the purposes of this study it would be assumed that two new station are provided at
           Darley Dale or Rowsley and Bakewell. Service IR6 would use this line.

2.58       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

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        12
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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.

2.59       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.

              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 resignalling.

              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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                       13
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.60       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

2.61       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);

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

           New Railway Stations

2.62       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-

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

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

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

2.63       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

2.64       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-

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          14
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

2.66    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.

2.67    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.

2.68    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.

2.69    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

2.70    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.

2.71         All passing Central Trains services are assumed to call at them, as well as the following
             new services:
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          15
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

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

              UT4:Matlock-Leicester; and

              UT5:Worksop-Nottingham-Leicester.

2.72       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.

2.73       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);

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

2.74       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.

2.75       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

2.76       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;
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                              16
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

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

              High quality lighting on platforms and access routes.

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

             Name of Station                      Study recommendations

                                                  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
             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
                                                  Develop district hub (rail/bus), improve cycle facilities and bus

             Mansfield                            Develop district hub (rail/bus), improve cycle facilities and bus
             Mansfield Woodhouse                  Station in the process of upgrading
             Newstead                             Improve car park, pedestrian links, consider bus links
                                                  Plans for new multi-modal interchange (rail/bus/NET) being
             Shirebrook                           Improve bus links
             Sileby                               Improve highway links, bus links and cycle facilities
             South Wigston                        Develop local hub, improve links to District Centre
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                                            17
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                  Develop as new fully accessible Derby East hub station, with
                                                  rebuilt station, new access road, car parking, bus links
             Sutton Parkway                       Improve bus links, accessibility

                                                  Develop as new fully accessible Leicester North hub station, with
                                                  rebuilt station, new access road, car parking, bus/LRT links

             Whaley Thorns                        Improve bus links
             Whitwell                             Improve bus links


2.78       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 Bridgeford 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).

2.79       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

2.80       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

2.81       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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                                        18
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.82       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.

2.83       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.

2.84       Dronfield–Chesterfield-Clay      Cross–Alfreton–Heanor–Ilkeston–Trowell–E        Mids
           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-

           Bus Priority Measures

2.85       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 autorities review
           the provision of greater bus priority in light of the recommendations of this study.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                      19
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.86       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 2.3 – 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

2.87       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.

2.88       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.

              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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        20
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.89       The schemes under this decision area are sub-divided into junction and mainline


2.90       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.

2.91       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

              The longer term recommendation for Junction 21 is given under the heading of the
                mainline improvement between junction 21 and 21A.

2.92       M1 Junction 24 – Interim measures to improve conditions at this junction are discussed
           under the heading of Strategic Roads below.

2.93       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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          21
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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

2.94       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.

2.95       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.

2.96       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

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                         22
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.97       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).

2.98       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 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.

2.99       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

              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 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.

2.100 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.

2.101 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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        23
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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

2.102 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

              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

2.103 As the motorway traffic volume is significantly less south of Junction 21, no improvement
      is considered necessary along that section of motorway.

2.104 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.
      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.

2.105 The proposed schemes 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                      24
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.106 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.

2.107 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 245, 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 a further two
                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 but with widening to five lanes between
                Junction 24A and Junction 23A.

2.108 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
                recommended new link roads at Junction 26A and the Junction 27 south facing slip

              The scheme includes an improved Junction 25 and an east-west A610 flyover across
                Junction 26 as previously proposed by the Highways Agency.

2.109 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        25
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.110 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.

2.111 It is assumed that the proposed new Junction 29A is built although this does not have a
      material bearing on the standards proposed.

2.112 No motorway capacity improvement is considered necessary along the section
      immediately to the north of Junction 30.

           Form of Motorway Widening

2.113 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.


2.114 A number of recommendations are made in respect of improved or new strategic
      highway links and these are described below.

2.115 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.

2.116 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.
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                   26
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.117 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.

2.118 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

          It is recommended that the Glapwell Bypass is 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.

2.119 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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                            27
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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 routes for buses.

2.120 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.

2.121 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.

2.122 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.

2.123 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 the assessment of wider impacts.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                           28
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.124 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

2.125 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.

2.126 For this to be successful, people need to understand today‟s transport problems, and
      their implications, and the part they can play in helping to resolve them. 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 pursuing it as an area of activity in its own right.

2.127 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.

2.128 As indicated in a recent Soft Factors Report produced for the DTLR, 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 should
      be given due prominence in the M1MMS behaviour strategy. These are:

              teleworking;

              video-conferencing;

              workplace travel plans;

              public transport fares and ticketing;

              individual marketing campaigns; and

              bus quality partnerships.

2.129 A number of other policy interventions and measures will also be critical components of a
      behaviour change strategy for the M1MMS. These include:

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                     29
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              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.

2.130 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.

           Strategy Programme

2.131 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

2.132 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

2.133 The strategy programme tasks might entail:

              championing the strategy, and communicating the successes;

              leading/co-ordinating the implementation programme; advising on prioritising of

              developing area-wide policy responses and implementation;

              providing region-wide officer training, with respect to parking, freight transport,
                interchange, development control etc;

              developing and representing the centre of excellence in the policy area of travel
                demand management;

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                     30
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              leading the work of regionally significant interventions; and

              monitoring and reviewing the strategy.

           Workplace Travel Plans

2.134 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;

              promoting a programme of development of teleworking/teleconferencing.

           Transport Quality Partnership Scheme

2.135 This aspect of activity would be led by the proposed Public Transport Co-ordinating Body
      (or Executive) and involve establishing study area or regional partnerships with a view to
      achieving improvements in transport operations and operating practice. It might thus

              communicating and promoting change and system improvement over time;

              taking forward an East Midlands passenger transport ticketing initiative;

              taking forward initiatives relating to freight transport policy, such as fuel initiatives
                and improved co-ordination;

              introducing system-wide information improvements;

              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

2.136 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” identified in the study.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                           31
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           Educational Programme

2.137 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;

              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

2.138 This area of intervention might involve:

              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;

              one or two demonstration projects per year, to demonstrate individuals‟ /
                organisations‟ ability to change their travel behaviour, to the overall benefit of

           Key Partners

2.139 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

              Regional Assembly;

              LGA and local authorities;

              East Midlands Development Agency;

              Highways Agency;

              Railtrack;

              Strategic Rail Authority;

              Transport trade bodies including CPT and FTA;

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                            32
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

          East Midlands Airport;

          Public transport operators;

          Employers‟ representatives and chambers of commerce;

          Environmental and community interest groups;

          User groups;

          Health sector;

          DfES;

          Retailing representatives.

2.140 This programme of policy interventions has been costed at £30 million for the first five
      years within the overall cost of the recommended strategy.

       Public Transport Co-ordination

2.141 The close proximity of the three cities and the significant 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. 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.

2.142 Its role should be similar to that of Existing Passenger Transport Executives including the
      delivery of regional public transport policy, managing and providing funding for public
      transport and the development of the network.

2.143 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.; and

          the provision of real time information at bus stops along key routes.

       Integrated Public Transport Ticketing

2.144 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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                     33
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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.

           Value for Money Assessment of Rail Schemes

2.145 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.

2.146 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.

2.147 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

2.148 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          34
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.149 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
      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.

2.150 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

2.151 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.

2.152 Heavy goods vehicles 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) to the inside two through lanes on motorways. On the proposed
                five lane sections, with the inner most lane being a dedicated lane between
                junctions, this lane is not considered a through traffic lane. As such, the dedicated
                lane is in addition to the two lanes to avoid through HGV traffic having to weave in
                and out of the dedicated lane. Thus the two outside lanes would be barred to HGVs
                over 12 tonne gross weight. 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

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        35
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                   made in connection with Goods Vehicles below 12 tonne gross weight under the
                   heading of Freight.

2.153 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.

2.154 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 HGVs.


2.155 Individual elements of the recommended freight strategy are presented in Table 2.4
      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.

2.156 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. 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.

              It is therefore recommended that on widened motorways where the larger
                Goods Vehicles are recommended for restriction to two lanes, the smaller
                Goods Vehicles should be barred from using the outer most lane.

2.157 With this proposal the number of lanes permitted for the smaller 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.

2.158 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                    36
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                      Table 2.4 – Freight Strategy
              Theme                                                              Immediate     Longer-
                                                                                   Action    term Action
                          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 Freight Terminals                                     
                          Loading Gauge                                              
                          Humber Rail Link                                                       
                          FMCG Services                                                          
                          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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                                 37
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           Road User Charging

2.159 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

2.160 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.

2.161 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.

2.162 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.


2.163 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          38
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              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 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

2.164 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.

2.165 Specific areas for improved co-ordination include:

              Works by statutory undertakers:

              Major Highway maintenance works on the motorway and other roads

           Land-Use Policies

2.166 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

              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.

2.167 Table 2.5 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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                       39
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                  Table 2.5 – 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
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           Nottinghamshire County Council      £296m   2003-2006
LR3: Additional NET routes to Nottingham South, Ilkeston          Nottinghamshire County Council      £254m   2006-2011
LR5b/c: New LRT East Goscote-Leicester-Blaby                      Leicestershire County Council       £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

* Costs included elsewhere                            Quick win

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                                          40
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

Scheme / Intervention                                             Agency                                     Cost    Timescale

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
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     2006-2011
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

                                                                  Total                            £1,816m
                                                                  Public Transport / Freight       £1,175m          65%
                                                                  Highways                         £611m            33%
                                                                  Policy                            £30m            2%

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                                                   41
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.168 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.
      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.


2.169 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.

2.170 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.

2.171 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.


2.172 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                       42
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              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

              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.


2.173 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.


2.174 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 are 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
                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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          43
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

          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.


2.175 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


2.176 The major increases in traffic are as follows (see Figure 7.4):

          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 have 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

       Impacts Beyond The Study Area

2.177 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

2.178 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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        44
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           immediately in order to avoid the capacity limits at St Pancras precluding any
           further services running up the Midland Main Line.

           Birmingham Capacity

2.179 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.

2.180 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

2.181 Two new rail services are proposed to run into/through the south Manchester area:
      services IR5 and IR6. Even with the resignalling 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.

2.182 Train service paths into Manchester from the south need urgent attention during
      the resignalling stage so as not to preclude any additional services from the East
      Midlands running in the future.

           New Service Deliverability

2.183 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.

2.184 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.

2.185 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                     45
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.186 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

           Road User Charging

2.187 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.

2.188 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.

2.189 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

2.190 The impact of road charging on mode shift is summarised in Table 2.6. 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.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                      46
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                Table 2.6 – 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

2.191 The changes in vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours has 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.

2.192 This reduction is predominately due to the higher levels of suppression and mode switch
      resulting from the introduction of tolls on the network.


2.193 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 2.7 – 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%

2.194 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
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                            47
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           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.

2.195 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).

2.196 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.

           South Nottinghamshire Rail Schemes

2.197 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.

2.198 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.

2.199 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.

2.200 The Regional Planning Body would therefore need to take a view on priorities.

           Re-opening of the Melton Mowbray Line

2.201 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

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                       48
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

          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.

2.202 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
      alignment would be provided running parallel to the A52 ring road until meeting the
      present Alstom test track west of Tollerton.

2.203 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).

2.204 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.

2.205 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.

2.206 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

2.207 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.
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                        49
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

2.208 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.

2.209 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
      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.

2.210 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

2.211 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.

2.212 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.

2.213 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.

2.214 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

2.215 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-
File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                    50
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           south movements in the M1 corridor”. There was however, no specific requirement to
           identify measures to address this longer distance east-west traffic.

2.216 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.

2.217 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.

2.218 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

2.219 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.

2.220 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.

2.221 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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                     51
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

           Affects of Different Land-Use Scenarios

2.222 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

              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).

2.223 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.

2.224 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 be considered as very optimistic.

2.225 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).

2.226 A comparison of highway stress levels is shown in Table 2.6 below.

                                           Table 2.8 – Stress Levels - % of Links

                  2021 Level of Service                Tempro      Low Growth       TEMPRO     High
                                                                     + RPG           +RPG    Growth +

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                          52
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                     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%

2.227 This table shows that the levels of stress is, 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.

2.228 Overall it is considered 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

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                                   53
                                     STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS


2.229 Results of the Environmental assessment of the recommended strategy against the local
      study objectives is presented in Table 2.7 and a complete Local Appraisal Summary
      Table is given in Table 2.8. The results of Appraisal against the Central Government
      Criteria is presented in the Appraisal Summary Table in Table 2.9.

2.230 The results of the economic appraisal are summarised in the Transport Economic
      Efficiency Table in Table 2.10.

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc
March 2002                                                                              54
                                                                            NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                 STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                                                  Table 2.9 – Environmental Assessment

      LOCAL OBJECTIVE                                   INDICATOR                        COMMENTARY                                                                               ASSESSMENT


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.


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.


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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                                                                                      55
               March 2002
                                                                             NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                  STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

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 remains              adjacent to, conservation          Ilkeston, Newark and four villages in the Peak District National Park). One SAM may be
                                                       areas, listed buildings (Grade     affected by the A453/A50 link. Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening could affect Grade 1
                                                       I/II*) or areas of identified      listed building and historic park at Haddon Hall
                                                       archaeological importance


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 to cause           watercourses affected by the       protection would be required during construction of the schemes.
     pollution of 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

              File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                                                                                         56
              March 2002
                                                                                    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                         STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                                                        Table 2.10 – 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
                At local level, control air quality, noise and other   The strategy would result in improved Air Quality in the study area but lead to an      7,000 net properties (0.3%) experience a noise increase        Slight beneficial
                environmental impacts                                  increase of 0.3% in the number properties affected 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
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 =
                region                                                                                                                                                                                                        beneficial
                                                                                                                                                               total strategy costs =
                                                                                                                                                               operating costs =

                Securing the Vitality of Rural Communities                                                                                                                                                                    Slight beneficial

                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.                                                                                                                             beneficical
                in study.

Improve         Improvement of accessibility by public transport
accessibility   and slow modes to key locations
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
                                                                                                                                                               compared to DM including: Nottingham = + 16%, Derby =
                modes to key locations.                                trips; M1 junction improvements, M1 widening; 4th 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.

                File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                                                                                                                      57
                March 2002
                                                                                 NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                      STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

              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.
within the    Identify the level of modal change between road       Opportunities for mode change are improved for both passengers and freight            Rail Passengers +1.7% peak, 3.6% off-peak        Slight beneficial
region        and rail or water                                                                                                                           Rail Freight + 2.5%

              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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                                                                                                     58
              March 2002
                                                                              NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                                   STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

                                                Table 2.11 – 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 net properties (+0.3%)
                               Noise                  In 2021 five of the twelve cordons show increases in the population annoyed by noise while six show decreases.                                                Neutral
                                                                                                                                                                             NOx : –720 (tonnes/year)
                                                      In 2021 three of the twelve cordons are expected to show a deterioration in air quality. Overall there would be a
                               Local Air Quality                                                                                                                                           PM10 : –14               Sight beneficial
                                                      reduction in both NOx and PM10 compared with the do-minimum in the same year.
                                                                                                                                                                             (tonnes/year) at 2021
                                                      The proposed schemes would result in a decrease in emissions of 5% in 2006.                                            CO2 : +46 tonnes/year 2021             Neutral
                                                      Matlock-Buxton Rail reopening passes through the Peak District National Park but impact would be limited.
                               Landscape              Motorway widening and the Fourth Trent Crossing could affect locally designated landscapes. Most schemes follow        Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                                                      existing route corridors and landscape impacts would be minimised.
                                                      Introduction of light rail in urban areas could affect townscape quality, particularly Ilkeston Conservation Area.
                               Townscape                                                                                                                                     Not applicable                         Neutral
                                                      Elsewhere, notably Kegworth and Glapwell, reductions in through traffic may facilitate townscape improvements.
                               Heritage of            There could be potential impacts on eight conservation areas (Stanton Gate, Strelley, Ilkeston, Newark and four
                               Historic               villages in the Peak District National Park). One SAM may be affected by the A453/A50 link. Matlock-Buxton Rail        Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                               Resources              reopening could 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
                               Biodiversity           widening. There are a small number of locally designated sites in Nottingham which may be potentially affected by      Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                                                      NET extensions the Fourth Trent Crossing and Trowell Parkway.
                               Water                  NET extensions and the Newark Chord rail link may affect washland areas. Several schemes cross the River Trent,
                                                                                                                                                                             Not applicable                         Moderate adverse
                               Environment            Erewash, Wreake and Soar and protection measures would be required.
                                                      Public transport schemes would encourage walking and cycling. The Fourth Trent Crossing creates recreation
                               Physical Fitness       opportunities. There would be a reduction in traffic in town centres due to the proposed bypasses and public           Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                                                      transport schemes would encourage walking.
                                                      There would be reduced stress on M1 users due to a reduction in congestion. New public transport schemes should
                               Journey Ambience                                                                                                                              Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                                                      result in improved journey ambience for users.
SAFETY                         Accidents              30 year saving of: 7,900 accidents, 1,300 fatal and serious casualties                                                 PVB £194m                              Large beneficial
                               Security               Substantial new public transport interventions incorporating security improvements                                                                            Moderate beneficial
ECONOMY                        Economic               The strategy provides a substantial return on the investment. The Strategy provides a Net Present Value of £3,122      Net Present Value £3,122               Benefit/Cost Ratio: 3.0
                               Efficiency             million on a Present Value of Cost of £1,526 million.
                               Reliability            Introduction of the M1 widening and junction improvements will reduce stress levels hence improve reliability across   Reduction in „at‟ and „above‟          Large beneficial
                                                      the study area compared to the Do Minimum.                                                                             stress 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             Not applicable                         Moderate Beneficial
                                                      improvements in 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
                                                                                                                                                                             Not applicable                         Slight beneficial
                                                      crossing could 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          Overall change in accessibility        Neutral
                               Transport              accessibility index, 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: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                                                                                                                        59
    March 2002
                                                                    NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                                         STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
                                                                     Table 2.12 – 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                                                             635646                                                                             71389           564257
      NET IMPACT                                                              4472048     (1)                               2357138              977686           81953          1055271            0

Private Sector Provider Impacts                                                                                                                           Bus and Coach   Rail              Other
   Revenue                                                                      49733                                                                           -244295           294028
   Operating costs                                                            -344859     (a)                                                                    -23400          -321459
   Investment costs                                                           -514276     (b)                                                                                    -514276
   Grant/subsidy                                                                    0
   NET IMPACTS                                                                -809401     (2)                                                                   -267695          -541706            0

Public Sector Provider Impacts                                                                                  Road Infrastructure                       Bus and Coach   Rail              Other
   Revenue                                                                          0
   Operating costs                                                            -114953     ( c)                                                                    -7800          -107153
   Investment costs                                                           -515053     (d)                               -441365                                              -171425
   NET IMPACTS                                                                -629996     (3)                               -441365                               -7800          -278578            0

Other Government Impacts                                                                                        Road Infrastructure   Private (Goods)     Bus and Coach   Rail              Other
   Grant/Subsidy payments                                                           0     (e)

   Indirect tax revenues                                                        89405                                        -10636             -322129          422231               -61
   NET IMPACTS                                                                  89405     (4)                                -10636             -322129          422231               -61           0

Net Present Value, NPV                                                     £3,024,308     (6)=(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)
Present Value of Costs, PVC                                               -£1,526,325     c)+(d)

Present Value of Cost to Government                                         -£629,996     (8)=(3)+(e)

Benefit/Cost Ratio, BCR                                                         3.020     (9)=((6)-(7))/-(7)

Value/Cost to Government Ratio, VCGR                                            4.800     (10)=(6)/-(8)

   File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                                                                                           60
   March 2002
                                                      NORTH/SOUTH MOVEMENTS ON THE M1 CORRIDOR IN THE EAST MIDLANDS
                                                                                           STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

File Name: 434b702c-432c-4a30-8835-5e3a22c54d90.doc                                                        61
March 2002

Shared By: