THIS IS THE FULL REPORT ON THE M60JETTS STUDY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT GROUP OF THE NORTH WEST REGIONAL ASSEMBLY ON 29th NOVEMBER 2006
NWRA Regional Transport Group
29th November 2006
|
Item No.7 Dave Colbert, Regional Transport Advisor, NWRA |
M60 JETTS (JUNCTION 18 TO 12 TRANSPORT STUDY)
TARGETED PROGRAMME OF IMPROVEMENTS PRE ENTRY PREPARATION
Contact for further information: Dave Colbert
Job Title: Regional Transport Advisor
Tel: 01942 776721
E-mail: david.colbert@nwra.gov.uk
Background Information
The M60 Manchester Outer Ring Road between Junction 12 at Eccles and Junction 18 at Simister is shown on the attached location plan. It is part of the Trans-European Road Network and an integral part of the main east-west transport spine in the North West, linking Merseyside and Greater Manchester with Yorkshire and Humberside. The motorway carries a large volume of traffic with a diverse range of origins and destinations and fulfils two distinct roles, providing for national and inter-regional Trans-Pennine traffic using the M62 together with regional and sub-regional orbital traffic using the M60 around Greater Manchester. The M62 is of strategic importance route for the movement of freight, hence journey time reliability on this critical section is a key issue.
With an average weekday traffic flow in excess of 185,000 vpd, including over 25,000 heavy goods vehicles, the M60 between Junctions 12 and 13 at Worsley is the most heavily trafficked section of motorway in the North West and one of the busiest in the UK. Over 150,000 vpd use the route between Junctions 15 (the M61 Interchange) and 18, including around 25,000 heavy goods vehicles. The whole length between Junctions 12 and 18 is now under considerable stress and experiences significant congestion during peak periods which are extending in duration; congestion can also occur outside of peak periods. Close spacing of junctions combined with the large volume of traffic using the motorway for short distances results in a considerable amount of lane changing, often causing significant disruption to traffic flow; steep gradients on either side of the Irwell Valley between Junctions 15 and 17 compound the problem. Delays arise particularly between Junctions 12 and 13 and on the approaches to Junction 15, where morning peak period congestion on the anti-clockwise carriageway of the M60 results in long queues of standing traffic on the southbound carriageway of the M61. Congestion is also having an impact on the local road network as traffic is unable to access the motorway. This has an adverse effect on pedestrians, cyclists, local residents and buses passing through the motorway junctions. Some sections of the M60 between Junctions 12 and 18 also have a poor safety record compared with motorways nationally. In general, there are more crashes in the anti-clockwise direction, reflecting the greater severity of queuing and associated greater risk of vehicles colliding with stationary traffic.
A number of small-scale improvements have been made over recent years, including an increase in lane provision and free-flow lanes at junctions. Lane provision is now a combination of two, three and four lanes of standard and sub-standard width. New direction signs, MIDAS (Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling) and electronic variable message signs have been put in place as part of the M60 Roadside Driver Information System. At Junction 18 (Simister), enhancements have been made to the motorway to motorway links and to the mid-level roundabout to improve road safety and provide more reliable journey times.
The M60 JETTS Multi-Modal Study arose as a result of the 1998 Transport White Paper “A New Deal for Transport: Better For Everyone” and its associated Trunk Road Review “A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England”. The overall aims of the Study were to assess transport pressures in the Junctions 12 to 18 Corridor, to identify solutions to keep traffic flowing and to recommend a plan of specific interventions to address the most urgent strategic transport problems, including consideration of opportunities for managing travel demand and promoting modal shift. The Study reported in January 2003 and recommended segregation of M62 through traffic from local M60 traffic. Traffic would be actively managed to allow priority to be given to long distance trips. The strategy also included area-wide road user charging to manage traffic growth provided it is part of a national strategy. In accepting the general conclusions of the Study, the Secretary of State announced in July 2003 that he would be instructing the HA to undertake further work on the feasibility of a scheme, delivered largely within the existing highway boundary, for bypass slip roads of Junction 12 and the separation of local and longer distance traffic using Active Traffic Management rather than physical segregation. He also instructed the HA to take forward preparatory work on the fourth lane anti-clockwise between Junctions 15 and 13.
The Highways Agency’s Preferred Option
The work initiated by the Secretary of State has now been completed and the Highways Agency gave a presentation to the Regional Transport Advisory Group (RTAG) meeting on 20th November 2006. The initial assessment of how to achieve segregation using Active Traffic Management considered use of the hard shoulder as an extra traffic lane during peak periods; this is currently being trialled in the West Midlands on the M42 between Junctions 3a and 7. The analysis has however indicated that the traffic profile on the M60 would require use of the hard shoulder throughout much of the day. Furthermore, the assessment of whether effective segregation of M62 traffic from M60 traffic is achievable has indicated a number of possible problems, including enforcement and the potential effects of differential speed limits.
The Highways Agency is now proposing that five traffic lanes be provided between Junctions 12 and 18 in each direction, apart from between Junctions 14 and 15 where there would be a two lane drop / gain to avoid the need to rebuild a number of large structures, together with various elements from the Active Traffic Management toolkit, including variable speed limits and access control. The intention is to accommodate the five lanes within a similar paved width to the existing four lane motorway by reducing the widths of individual lanes. The hard shoulder would also disappear, to be replaced by a 1 metre hard strip and 1.6 metre hard verge; this is likely to be of concern to the emergency services.
The proposed scheme includes a bypass of Junction 12 for M62 traffic and, in order to accommodate the additional lane, Junction 17 at Whitefield would require reconstruction, although the Metrolink bridge would be unaffected. Any scheme will be funded from the Highways Agency’s national allocation, not the Regional Funding Allocation, although as a result of existing commitments, work on the scheme would not start until 2014/15. The addition of a fourth lane anti-clockwise between Junctions 15 and 13 as recommended by the JETTS Study has also been assessed, although its feasibility is being reviewed in relation to delivery of the wider scheme. The preferred option is for the additional lane to extend from Junction 15 to Junction 12.
Provision of 5 lanes could be argued to represent a departure from the recommendations of the original Multi-Modal Study; in fact, this level of highway capacity appears to have been explicitly rejected. In considering an option to widen the M60 to dual 5 lanes between Junctions 12 and 18, the Executive Summary of the Study Final Report states:
‘J12 Bypass slip roads with dual 5 lanes would increase capacity for both local and long distance motorway traffic. This would generate significant time savings for all users of the motorway, discourage use of public transport for local trips and would encourage local traffic to travel in the peaks. It would therefore encourage a faster rate of growth for local car traffic than otherwise, and increased capacity would benefit local more than long distance traffic. It would be an inefficient use of road space. Additional traffic would be attracted into the corridor and the overall economic benefits would be somewhat reduced by increased trip lengths as shorter distance trips reroute to make use of the increased capacity. It would contradict the study objectives, regional objectives relating to protecting the strategic function of the route, and the Government’s 10 Year Plan objectives. It is not recommended.’
However, the recommended highway option in the Preferred Strategy is more ambiguous, stating that whilst two lanes would be provided in each direction for traffic movements on the M62, the exact number of lanes to be provided for traffic joining or leaving the motorway at the intermediate junctions (ie Junctions 13 to 17) would depend on the demand or the space available, particularly through existing structures.
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges states that Dual 4-lane Motorway remains the maximum standard of provision in the UK, although in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to provide wider carriageways to link closely spaced junctions in order to provide reasonable lane continuity and sufficient capacity[1]. Current traffic flows on the M60 between Junctions 12 and 18 range from 150,000 to upwards of 185,000 vehicles per day, well in excess of the maximum recommended opening year economic flow (90,000 AADT) [2] for a new Dual 4-lane Motorway [3].
The Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) of a link is an estimate of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow at which the carriageway is likely to be ‘congested’ in the peak periods on an average day, where congestion is defined as the situation where the hourly traffic demand exceeds the maximum sustainable hourly throughput of the link. At this point the effect on traffic is likely to be one or more of the following: flow breaks down with speeds varying considerably, average speeds drop significantly, the sustainable throughput is reduced and queues are likely to form. This critical flow level can vary significantly from day to day and from site to site and must be considered as an average. The CRF is, however, a measure of the performance of a road link between junctions; the effect of junctions must be considered separately. An illustrative Congestion Reference Flow for a dual 4 lane motorway is 130,000 vehicles[4].
A key element of the Multi-Modal Study strategy is demand management; in fact the Study concluded that some form of road user charging would be essential to manage demand sufficiently so as to reduce congestion on the M60 in the long term. The Greater Manchester authorities have been successful in attracting ‘pump priming’ resources from the Government’s Transport Innovation Fund to develop packages of schemes that combine ‘hard’ demand management measures such as road pricing with better public transport. This will assist delivery of the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy (GMITS), and work is underway to develop a demand management toolkit involving definition of the circumstances in which increasingly harder-edged measures will need to be deployed to achieve the behavioural change necessary to support sustainable economic growth. In November 2006, the Secretary of State announced that Greater Manchester had been successful in the second TIF ‘pump priming’ round. A full TIF bid will now be submitted to the Department for Transport in July 2007.
Members should be aware that the development of the Highways Agency’s preferred option for improving the M60 between Junctions 12 and 18 has taken place in isolation from the work currently being undertaken by the Greater Manchester authorities. It is not therefore possible to determine the potential impact of each on the other, ie what might be the implications for the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy of the provision of five traffic lanes and equally, what might be the impact of GMITS on traffic flows on the M60. However, given the current traffic flows, any strategy to effectively manage demand in the JETTS corridor could potentially need to remove a minimum of 20,000 vehicles per day from the M60 in order to deliver a significant improvement to the operation of the motorway.
Concern was expressed at the Regional Transport Advisory Group meeting about delivery of the non highway elements of the Multi-Modal Study. The M60 JETTS Quality Bus Corridor scheme is included in the Regional Funding Allocation programme, although funding is only allocated from 2012/13 onwards. The rail investment recommended by the Study now falls within the remit of the Department for Transport’s Regional Planning Assessment and Network Rail’s Route Utilisation Strategies.
ANNEX 1: NWRA POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT OF 21 MARCH 2003
NWRA RESPONSE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Item No.
Report to NWRA Policy Committee
Report from Tim Hill, Director Planning, Transport & Sustainability
Date 21 March 2003
Subject M60 JUNCTION EIGHTEEN TO TWELVE (JETTS) MULTI MODAL STUDY
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The Assembly has now received from the Government Office for the North West (GONW) the Final Report of the M60 JETTS Transport Study for consideration. At their meeting of 14 November 2002, Members received a presentation by the Study Consultants, Faber Maunsell. The purpose of this report is to assist Members in determining the KPG’s formal response in terms of a recommendation to Policy Committee. Copies of Newsletter 4 outlining the recommended strategy were circulated to Members at the last KPG Meeting held on 16 January 2003. The Executive Summary has been placed on the ‘Extranet’ and paper copies circulated for information.
2. BACKGROUND
The Study was tasked with developing solutions to keep traffic moving on this critical section of the North West’s motorway network without adversely affecting the local road network, local communities or the surrounding environment. Major off-line highway works, such as the former M62 Relief Road, were excluded as an option. One of the Study’s key findings has confirmed that whilst public transport schemes would attract patronage and may therefore be worthwhile in their own right, no individual scheme nor package of public transport measures alone would relieve the pressure of demand on the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12 sufficiently to solve or significantly reduce the problems experienced on the motorway. The assessment of strategy options indicated that the public transport package considered would not be cost effective in relation to reducing the problems experienced on the M60, and would require heavy investment in infrastructure and annual operating subsidy which would be disproportionate to the benefits. A substantial proportion of the benefits and costs would affect services beyond the M60 JETTS Corridor, with little direct impact on the motorway. A more practical and cost effective package was therefore identified by a process of optimisation, resulting in one that retains broadly the same level of traffic reductions on the M60 and the same change in mode split in the Corridor, whilst substantially reducing the costs. Nevertheless, the Consultants advocate implementation of the recommendations of the Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study to provide a general uplift in public transport provision across the conurbation and beyond.
The Study recognises the importance of land-use and development control measures, together with parking policies, for managing future demand; however, on their own, these measures would be insufficient to meet the objectives of the Study. With respect to freight, improvements would be required at the national level, although in the study area these could comprise a network of freight terminals and enhancements to gauge and capacity. Achieving modal shift of freight using the M60 is, however, likely to prove a challenge, as the proportion of long distance freight is relatively small. The Consultants recommend that the Government through the Strategic Rail Authority should implement a national rail freight strategy as a framework for more regional and local freight initiatives.
The greatest scope for reducing traffic demand on the M60 (and other roads) would be through some form of road user charging, but charging for use of the motorway in isolation would increase traffic on the local road network. Hence a more appropriate system would entail area-wide charging across the Greater Manchester conurbation. No other measure has been identified which would manage demand sufficiently to reduce congestion on this section of the M60 in the long term, and the substantial amount of revenue raised could be hypothecated to improvements in other modes, particularly public transport. However, an assessment of the full impacts of road user charging and the wider benefits and dis-benefits was beyond the scope of the Study. The Consultants have therefore recommended that the Assembly, the Development Agency and AGMA anticipate the introduction of a national charging scheme in their respective reviews of Regional Planning Guidance, the Regional (Economic) Strategy and the Greater Manchester LTP. To address the short to medium term problems on the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12, the Consultants have concluded that some highway improvements will be necessary.
Investment in improvements to the capacity of the existing motorway through small scale improvements to slip roads and the introduction of Active Traffic Management (ATM) would help to improve the flow of traffic, and help to reduce delays during maintenance operations or during incidents. On their own, however, these would also be insufficient to meet the Study objectives. A key feature of the recommended strategy is the management of traffic to make best use of the existing capacity and the segregation of long distance and short distance traffic. This would be achieved through the introduction of segregated lanes for M62 and M60 traffic between Junctions 18 and 12, together with the provision of new slip roads to bypass Junction 12. Segregation would be supported by ATM to ensure safety and to manage capacity effectively.
Whilst the strategy would provide a significant improvement over the ‘Do Minimum’ situation in the absence of area-wide road user charging, continuing traffic growth would eventually result in congestion on the M60 reverting to present day levels. For the segregated long distance traffic, this would occur about 10 to 20 years after the scheme opening, but for local motorway traffic it would occur earlier, within 10 years of scheme opening. An option involving the widening of the M60 to a dual five lane motorway between Junctions 18 and 12 has been ruled out as it would contradict the Study objectives, draft Regional Planning Guidance objectives and the Government’s 10 Year Plan objectives.
STAFFING PROPOSALS
None.
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
The schemes identified in this package of measures total to £267.6 million, comprising:
· £226.7 million for Highway Works on the M60, to be delivered by the Highways Agency and funded by central government;
· £39.6 million for public transport works to be delivered through the Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan, funded by central government;
· £1.3 million for other measures to be delivered through the Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan, funded by central government
RECOMMENDATIONS
At its meeting on 13 March 2003, the Planning Environment and Transport Key Priority Group agreed to advise Policy Committee to endorse the following recommendations:
The Secretary of State for Transport be informed of the North West Regional Assembly’s support for the principles of the recommended strategy as set out in the M60 JETTS (Junction 18 to 12) Transport Study Final Report, subject to
1. The Secretary of State be asked to give high priority to delivery of the public transport and behavioural elements the Strategy,
2. Funding also needs to be provided for the implementation of the recommendations of the Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study as advocated by the Study Consultants;
3. Wherever possible, implementation of the segregated lanes should be achieved without increasing capacity for short distance movements;
4. With the exception of the new slip roads at Junction 12, there should be a presumption against works requiring land-take outwith the existing highway boundary;
5. In addition to capital expenditure, the Government needs to make provision to fund those measures requiring revenue support; and
6. All of the public transport and softer measures identified within the Study need to be delivered, together with a significant step-change in public transport investment in the study area and across the sub-region as a whole by 2011, as a precursor to any introduction of area-wide congestion charging post 2011.
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL
For the strategy to work, all components need to be funded and delivered. If this is not achieved then the motorway is likely to experience similar levels of congestion as those currently being experienced within ten to twenty years. In particular, a critical component of the strategy is for the provision of area wide charging post 2011.
OTHER IMPLICATIONS :-
a) financial
There are no financial implications for the Assembly
b) legal
There are no known legal implications for the Assembly.
c) personnel
There are no personnel implications for the Assembly
d) asset management
There are no asset management issues for the Assembly, though there are issues of potential increased maintenance costs for the Highways Agency, for example maintenance of new electronic enforcement equipment.
e) effects on existing Assembly Corporate Plan
The completion of this study successfully concludes Activity 3.2.5 and contributes towards the implementation of RPG/RTS policies and proposals.
f) effects on other Assembly activities
The adopted strategy will feed into the proposed review of the Regional Transport Strategy within Regional Planning Guidance.
Appendix 1: Detailed Background Information
The section of M60 between Junctions 18 and 12 forms part of the Trans-European Road Network (TERN) and carries a large volume of traffic with a diverse range of origins and destinations. The motorway fulfils two distinct roles: it caters for long distance Trans-Pennine traffic using the M62, and for more local, orbital movements around Greater Manchester. Long distance traffic comprises a greater proportion of commercial and business trips. The highest traffic flow of around 185,000 vpd (Annual Average Weekday Flow) occurs between Junctions 12 and 13. Close spacing of junctions combined with a large volume of traffic using the motorway for short distances results in a considerable amount of lane changing, which causes significant disruption to traffic flow. Delays occur along the whole length, but particularly between Junctions 12 and 13, and congestion is having an impact on the local road network as traffic is unable to access the M60. This has an adverse effect on pedestrians, cyclists, local residents and buses passing through the motorway junctions.
The Recommended Strategy
The Study has concluded that, although road pricing is recommended for managing demand in the long term, some highway measures are necessary to address immediate problems on the route, given that the Government has indicated that it would not implement road user charging at least on the trunk road network before 2010. These measures are aimed at managing traffic with only limited additional highway capacity, so as not to generate additional traffic demand nor stimulate faster growth of road traffic. However, they are not seen as a solution to the long-term problem on the M60. The only option identified that would provide a solution is road user charging.
The recommended strategy combines cost-effective measures aimed at encouraging as many users of the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12 as possible to use public transport instead of the car, through public transport improvements that will build on the existing programme of investment within Greater Manchester. Long term traffic growth should be managed through road user charging and other measures, with highway measures providing segregated lanes to improve conditions for long distance traffic on the M60 and to reduce lane changing, thereby improving safety and journey time reliability. The urgency of the problem dictates that the strategy should be implemented as early as possible.
For Implementation by 2008
Public Transport:
· Additional Quality Bus Corridors in the north of Greater Manchester;
· Improved interchange, focusing on the provision of real time information and enhancements to bus stops and stations across Greater Manchester and in the City Centre;
· Improved through ticketing to enable cheaper cross city trips between modes;
· Expansion of Park and Ride facilities at Horwich Parkway, involving longer trains, and exploitation of other opportunities to improve Park and Ride facilities where this can offer an attractive alternative to use of the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12; and
· Higher frequency bus services.
Highway Improvements:
· Provision of a fourth lane anti-clockwise on the M60 between Junctions 15 and 13, contained within the existing highway boundary;
· Elements of Active Traffic Management such as mandatory variable speed limits and rapid response teams;
· Improvements to pedestrian and cycles routes across the motorway; and
· Improvements to noise barriers and road surfacing to reduce traffic noise.
Other Measures:
· Travel Plan co-ordinator to facilitate initiatives which would reduce traffic on the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12, including local Freight Quality Partnerships;
· Strengthening of long-stay public parking policies in order to discourage commuting by car;
· Development control and land-use policies, incorporating the introduction of a scoring system for the assessment of major developments;
· Roadside emissions testing;
· Establishment of an Integrated Passenger Information System to enable travellers to make informed decisions about their journey and improve reliability of travel; and
· Rail freight terminals at Parkside, Carrington, Agecroft and Heywood as part of a future national rail freight strategy.
For Implementation by 2011
· Segregated lanes on the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12 incorporating new slip roads to bypass Junction 12; and
· Completion of the introduction of Active Traffic Management, including use of the hard shoulder during peak periods, maintenance or incidents.
Post 2011
· Area-wide road user charging within Greater Manchester, complemented by charging on motorways nationally; and
· Up-grading of Trans-Pennine rail routes for freight.
The strategy would achieve immediate short-term relief for traffic using the congested anti-clockwise carriageway between Junctions 15 and 13 through the provision of a fourth lane, with improved conditions for long distance traffic using the M62 following the introduction of the segregated lanes. Safety would be improved for all users of the M60 between Junctions 18 and 12 as a result of the introduction of enhanced monitoring and control of traffic, particularly during incidents. Journey times, reliability and conditions for public transport users will improve as a result of the extended network of Quality Bus Corridors, enhanced interchange facilities and improved passenger information systems. Conditions for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the M60 will also be improved, encouraging people to walk or cycle, rather than drive, for short journeys.
The total cost (at 2002 prices) of implementing the strategy would be £267.6 million, of which £226.7 million would be for highway works. There would be additional costs associated with the introduction of area-wide charging. The strategy offers significant value for money, with a benefit to cost ratio greater than one. Subject to the provision of adequate resources, including revenue support, the strategy is largely capable of delivery over the next 10 to 15 years.
Analysis
The M60/M62 is one of two routes identified in regional Planning Guidance for the North West as being under the greatest stress, this being of particular concern to the Region given the need to maintain its strategic function in the face of continued traffic growth. The recommended strategy is intended to be consistent with Draft Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional Transport Strategy, and to support the objectives of the Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan. It acknowledges the importance attached to this route in terms of supporting the safe, efficient and effective operation of the M60/M62, which forms part of the Region’s Network of Long-Distance Strategic Routes. The strategy focuses on the management of traffic to make best use of the existing capacity and thereby improve journey time reliability for longer distance traffic, which includes a high proportion of business and commercial trips, whilst at the same time, encouraging greater use of public transport for shorter distance, local traffic movements. However, one key issue that will need to be addressed at the design stage is how much capacity to provide for shorter distance traffic. This will need to reflect that widening the motorway beyond its current dual four lane standard to accommodate segregation could conflict with policies in the Regional Transport Strategy aimed at reducing the need to travel in the first instance and to reduce journey distances when travel is necessary.
It will also be importance to ensure that development control and land-use policies in RPG and local development plans do not undermine the implementation of the recommended strategy such that its benefits are quickly eroded. This may require that specific land-use policies relating to the M60 be included in future revisions of Regional Planning Guidance and/or the Regional Transport Strategy. In the absence of a national strategy on motorway tolling and road user charging, effective management of the route in both the short and longer term will be essential to ensure that it continues to operate as an effective transport artery for the North West. The Assembly is currently developing draft guidance for demand management as part of the update of the Regional Transport Strategy. This work will be presented to Members at a future PETKPG meeting.
Consultation
The Steering Group has accepted the overall recommendations of the Study, although some members expressed concern regarding possible limited adverse incursion of construction outside of the existing highway boundary on landscape, biodiversity and green belt. Every measure in the strategy presented to the public had both its supporters and opponents. Public transport improvements were supported overwhelmingly, whilst expanding the motorway infrastructure was generally opposed. The point was continually made during consultation that if car drivers are to change behaviour, they have to have an alternative. Concern also focused on a perceived lack of integration between land-use and transport planning, particularly in respect of major developments such as the Trafford Centre. The formal views of the NWDA, AGMA and its constituent authorities have been sought and if available will be reported verbally to the meeting. A letter has been received from the Freight Transport Association urging the Assembly to support the recommended strategy.
The M60 JETTS Final Report was considered by the Regional Transport Advisory Group (RTAG) at its meeting of 13th March 2003. The discussion concentrated on issues related to the delivery of certain aspects of the strategy, in particular, the need for major investment in public transport across the conurbation before any road user charging scheme could be introduced. The lack of a longer term vision was considered to be a major omission by the Greater Manchester representatives, given the strategy in effect offers a ‘stop-gap’ solution.
Contact Officer:
Dave Colbert
Transport Strategy Engineer
Tel 01772 264601
Fax 01772 263937
Email: david.colbert@env.lancscc.gov.uk
North West Regional Assembly, North West Assembly House, Coops Building, Dorning Street, Wigan WN1 1HJ Tel 01942 737916
Councillor Azhar Ali, Chair; Councillor Derek Boden, Leader; Steve Machin, Chief Executive
Contact Officer: Dave Colbert Tel 01772 264601 Fax 01772 263937 Email david.colbert@env.lancscc.gov.uk
The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Eland House
Bressenden Place
LONDON
SW1E 5DU
Our Reference: 28(h)/M60JETTS
Your Reference:
2 April 2003
Dear Secretary of State
M60 JETTS (JUNCTION 18 TO 12 TRANSPORT STUDY)
I am writing following receipt of the Final Report for the M60 JETTS (Junction 18 to 12 Transport Study) from the Government Office for the North West, together with a request for views and recommendations of the Assembly as Regional Planning Body. The Study was considered by the Policy Committee of the North West Regional Assembly at its meeting on 21 March 2003. Copies of the relevant papers are attached for your information. This letter represents the formal response of the Assembly to the outcome of this strategically important study.
The Assembly supports the principles of the recommended strategy contained within the M60 JETTS Final Report, subject to the following:
1. A high priority be given to delivery of the public transport and behavioural elements of the Strategy,
2. Funding be provided for the implementation of the recommendations of the Greater Manchester Strategic Rail Study as advocated by the Study Consultants;
3. Wherever possible, implementation of the segregated lanes should be achieved without increasing capacity for short distance movements;
4. With the exception of the new slip roads at Junction 12, there should be a presumption against works requiring land-take outwith the existing highway boundary;
5. In addition to capital expenditure, the Government needs to make provision to fund those measures requiring revenue support; and
6. All of the public transport and softer measures identified within the Study need to be delivered, together with a significant step-change in public transport investment in the study area and across the sub-region as a whole by 2011, as a precursor to any introduction of area-wide congestion charging post 2011.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Derek Boden
Leader, North West Regional Assembly
[1] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 6 Section 1 Part 2 TD27/05 Cross-sections and Headrooms Paragraph 4.9.1.
[2] AADT is the total traffic flow in one year divided by 365.
[3] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 5 Section1 Part 3 TA46/97 Economic Assessment and Recommended Flow Ranges for New Rural Road Links
[4] Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 5 Section 1 Part 3 TA46/97 Economic Assessment and Recommended Flow Ranges for New Rural Road Links Annex D.