Highways Agency

• Executive summary
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Route description
• 3 Policy objectives
• 4 Route functions and performance
• 5 Route problems and issues
• 6 Route outcomes
• 7 Strategy impact statement

M3 London to Southampton Route Management Strategy

3 Policy Objectives

3.1 Introduction

In the initial phase Mott MacDonald was asked to only approach key stakeholders identified by theHighways Agency. The key stakeholders identified were the Government Office for the South East,the various Multi-Modal Studies and the Highways Agency's Managing Agents for the M3. In laterstages of the RMS a wider audience was invited to comment on the future strategy for the M3. Theinitial consultation was to ensure that there was consistency of approach with regard to the Multi-Modal Studies, and also to avoid consultation overload with various organisations.

Based upon problems identified elsewhere in this report and the initial attempt at drafting the routefunctions, a number of Route Objectives have been developed. These provide specific objectives forthe M3, which the strategy will seek to achieve, where appropriate, through a number of actions.These objectives are grouped below under the five assessment criteria of environment, safety,economy, accessibility and integration, as listed in the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-ModalStudies (GOMMMS). The Government's strategic objective for each of the GOMMMS criteria is alsogiven. GOMMMS has now been superseded by the Transport Analysis Guidance Website (WebTAG).

3.2 Policy Areas

The following Policy Areas impact upon and are impacted by the route of the M3:

• Supranational and National
• Regional: Greater London Authority Region, South East England Region, Surrey County, Hampshire County, Southampton City and the London Borough of Hounslow
• Local: Spelthorne Borough, Surrey Heath Borough, Runnymede Borough, Rushmoor Borough, Hart District, Basingstoke and Dean Borough, Winchester City, Eastleigh Borough and Test Valley Borough

A plan showing the locations of the relevant Policy Areas is shown in Figure 3-1 below.

XXX image not supplied XXX

Figure 3-1 Policy Areas - South East Region

3.3 Policy Documents Reviewed

Policy Documents reviewed for the identification of national, regional and local policy objectives andtargets for this Route Management Study for the M3 have included the following:

• Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPG7: The Countryside, PPG11: Regional Planning, PPG13: Transport)
• Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9: Regional Planning for the South East)
• Circular 04/2001 - Control of Development Affecting Trunk Roads and Agreements with Developers under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
• Draft and Final Regional Transport Strategy for South East England and for the Greater London Authority
• Regional Economic Strategy for South East England (2002 - 2012)
• Transport Policy Documents (A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England, Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan)
• Highways Agency Strategic Plans (Maintenance, Operating the Network, Improving the Network, Safety, Environment, Economy, Accessibility, Integration
• Multi-Modal Studies (Transport Studies Around London (Orbit), South West and South Wales (SWARMMS), Thames Valley (TVMMS), M27 Integrated Transport Study, South Coast Corridor (SoCoMMS))
• Other Strategic Studies (SERAS, SEAPLAG, A34 RMS)
• County Plans (Structure Plans, Local Transport Plans, Waste Local Plans, Minerals Local Plans)
• Local Plans (Spelthorne Borough, Runnymede Borough, Surrey Heath Borough, Rushmoor Borough, Hart District, Basingstoke and Dean Borough, Winchester City, Eastleigh Borough, Test Valley Borough, Southampton City, Fareham Borough, New Forest District, Bournemouth Borough, Poole Borough, Gosport Borough and Portsmouth City)

A full list of Policy Documents reviewed is included in Appendix D.

3.4 Policy Objectives

The Policy Documents have been reviewed, and policy objectives have been abstracted from them.The findings from the national, regional and local policies have been collated to establish commonPolicy Objectives under each of the five key strategic objectives. These have been selected to set theframework for the management of the M3 Motorway.

Targets for the strategic and local transport authorities have been aligned to the respective policystatements they influence. All targets were set by the DETR in the publication "Transport 2010: TheTen Year Plan", unless otherwise stated in the tables.

The Policy Objectives established for the M3 Motorway are listed below. Full tables of the PolicyObjectives, including quoted objectives and their sources together with targets where appropriate areincluded in Appendix E.

3.4.1 Safety

Government Objective:

To improve safety for all travellers

Route Policy Objectives:

• S1 - Improving the safety of motorised users
• S2 - Improving the safety of non-motorised users
• S3 - Reducing the severity and occurrence of road accidents (Killed or Seriously Injured - KSI)
• S4 - Improved M3 road user safety through design or alteration.
• S5 - Using enforcement and education to maintain road user safety

3.4.2 Environment

Government Objective:

To protect and enhance the built and natural environment

Route Objectives:

• En1 - Reducing noise pollution and helping to improve Air Quality Management Areas in south west London, Surrey and Hampshire
• En2 - Supporting the protection and enhancement of the Hampshire Downs, the London Metropolitan Green Belt and other environmentally designated sites
• En3 - Supporting the protection of other landscapes and townscapes, including heritage parks and structures
• En4 - Protect and enhance species and habitat interests

3.4.3 Economy

Government Objective:

To contribute to an efficient economy, and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriatelocations

Route Objectives:

• Ec1 - Reducing congestion and improving journey time reliability between London and South Hampshire
• Ec2 - Supporting sustainable economic regeneration in the Blackwater Valley and in the south Hampshire towns
• Ec3 - Encouraging sustainable employment development, especially in urban centres
• Ec4 - Encouraging sustainable mixed-use and other development
• Ec5 - Achieving Best Value in construction and maintenance of M3 improvement schemes

3.4.4 Accessibility

Government Objective:

To promote accessibility to everyday facilities for all, especially those without a car

Route Objectives:

• A1 - Reducing community severance caused by the M3
• A2 - Supporting the provision of and greater choice of public transport between communities along the M3
• A3 - Promoting facilities and access for non-vehicle users (Pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists and mobility impaired)

3.4.5 Integration

Government Objective:

To promote the integration of all forms of transport and land use planning, leading to a better, moreefficient transport system.

Route Objectives:

• In1 - Encouraging sustainable transport alternatives on the M3 for people (Modal Shift)
• In2 - Encouraging sustainable transport alternatives for goods and freight (Modal Shift)
• In3 - Encouraging sustainable transport interchanges
• In4 - Integrating the future role of the M3 with the land use and development control of South West London, Surrey and Hampshire

3.5 Managing Agents

The M3 is currently managed by two Managing Agents; Mouchel Consulting Limited and MottMacDonald Limited. The Managing Agents are responsible for carrying out design and constructionsupervision of maintenance and improvement schemes on the trunk road network, on behalf of theHighways Agency. Refer to Appendix G for further details of the Managing Agents.

3.6 Multi-Modal and other Strategic Studies

3.6.1 London Orbit Multi-Modal Study (Orbit)

The London Orbit Multi-Modal Study (Orbit) was commissioned by the Government Office for theSouth East and made its final report in November 2002. The intention of the study was to identifycauses of congestion along and approaching the M25, as shown in Figure 3-2, and recommend apreferred strategy of possible solutions to alleviate the impact of congestion on the M25.

Figure 3-2 The Orbit Multi-Modal Study Area

The final Orbit study report recommended strategic measures to alleviate medium to long-termcongestion problems. The report identified a number of sections and junctions that will need wideningor improvements to increase capacity for future growth. In table 12.1 of the Orbit study, the reportidentified that the M25 approaches to the M3 Junction are operating at or near to capacity.

Widening of the M25 between Junctions 12 and 14 to D5 standard and between Junctions 14 and 15 toD6 standard, as proposed by the Orbit study, has begun and is anticipated to be completed by 2006.

The Orbit report recommended further implementation of demand management measures includingIntegral Demand Management (IDM). Through IDM, the report proposed increased use of CCTV,speed control and more variable speed limits. The study put forward the case for greater use of rampmetering and flow metering to increase vehicle movements and hence journey time reliability. Thereport also suggested that if ramp metering was successful, then introducing priority lanes for use bypublic transport should begin, on the widened sections of the motorway.

The Orbit study report supports further noise mitigation measures, including low noise resurfacing onmuch of the M25.

The Secretary of State has considered these recommendations and supported widening schemesrecommended by the study. The Secretary of State is also asking the Highways Agency to work upmore detailed proposals for improving the management of the M25 including better detection andmanagement of incidents, a major cause of delays on the motorway network, and, subject to theoutcome of the current pilot, the extension of variable speed limits.

The Orbit study and a number of other Multi-Modal Studies have recommended that increases in thecapacity of the strategic road network should be combined with the introduction of demandmanagement. The Secretary of State welcomes the contribution of the Multi-Modal Studies to thedebate on road user charging. The decisions to increase capacity on the strategic network are takenwith a parallel commitment to consider what is necessary to ensure that effective measures are in placeto lock in the benefits. The Secretary of State therefore asked the Highways Agency to consider thesematters further as it continues to develop proposals for capacity increases. At present there is littleevidence of how physical demand measures such as ramp metering might work in the UK and it wouldbe necessary to consider very carefully the impact on safety and traffic flows across the road network.

The Government has also decided to undertake a detailed feasibility study of road pricing. Decisionson whether to implement such a regime are for the future.

The Secretary of State also accepted that there is a good case for the further development of coachservices and encourages the development of strategic partnerships between local authorities, theHighways Agency, coach and other transport operators including BAA plc to promote a widernetwork of coach services. The Secretary of State would expect to see this building on existingservice patterns and to focus on the most promising routes.

The Orbit study made no specific key recommendations for the M3 pertinent for this RMS.

3.6.2 South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS)

The South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS) was commissioned by theGovernment Office of the South West and made its final report in May 2002. The SWARMMS studyarea, as seen in Figure 3-3, focussed on the M3 between Junctions 2 to 8 and onto the A303(T) to thesouth west England. The study area also included the M4 and M5 Motorways to south west England.

SWARMMS identified four transport themes; reducing the growth in travel demand, tourism, ruralaccess and inter-modal freight. These were the primary contributors to transport problems and issueson the strategic transport corridors to south Wales and the south west of England. The report split thestudy area into four route sections; the section pertinent to this M3 RMS is the London to Exetercorridor.

Figure 3-3 SWARMMS Study Area

The SWARMMS report rejected calls for large-scale infrastructure schemes including:

• Tolling of trunk roads and motorways
• Wholesale motorway widening and new motorway construction
• New high speed rail line

The report acknowledged problems regarding peak time congestion on the M3 approaches to the M25,resulting in unreliable journey times. The report also remarked that the bus and coach network islimited on this trunk route and there is limited potential for freight transfer from road to rail. However,due to the overlap of the SWARMMS and Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study (TVMMS),SWARMMS did not report detailed recommendations for the M3 route in north Hampshire andSurrey.

The recommendations offered in the report for consideration in this RMS were increased bus andcoach patronage on the motorway.

In the report's overview of the SWARMMS strategy, it stated that, "the M3 should be operating withincapacity although speeds will be lower than currently". SWARMMS identified this as an issue for theTVMMS to deal with.

3.6.3 Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study (TVMMS)

This study was initially known as the London to Reading Multi-Modal Study, however it was laterexpanded to include the wider transport needs of the fast growing Thames Valley sub-region.Commissioned by the Government Office for the South East, TVMMS made its final report in January2003.

Figure 3-4 The Thames Valley Multi-Modal Study Area.

The aim of the study was to formulate a coherent strategy, mutually supporting Orbit andSWARMMS. The study addressed the importance of transport in the region and its influenceregarding land use with special regard to protecting the environment, providing for social needs andmaintaining economic growth.

The report did not make specific recommendations; instead it presented broad strategic measures that,if introduced, would achieve in part the aspirations of the social, business and environmentalcommunities.

In these broader measures, the TVMMS did not favour widening of the M3, preferring to increase themanagement of the existing infrastructure. TVMMS recommended greater use of CCTV, variablespeed limits and incident detection. The report understands that these methods of traffic flowmanagement will not substantially increase capacity; however they can increase journey timereliability. This is more important regarding the M3, which the report has recognised as a corridorneeding better management.

The TVMMS recommended giving priority access to public transport, high occupancy vehicles andfreight traffic. The TVMMS report did not make any specific recommendation measures for the M3approaches to the M25. The report suggested a park and ride facility near to the M25, to alleviatetraffic congestion approaching London's Heathrow airport.

The TVMMS made known that any measures on the strategic trunk road network need identifying,designing and appraising through the RMS framework mechanism.

Finally, despite giving priority to freight traffic on the trunk road network, the TVMMS supported thetransfer of freight traffic from road to rail, and called for transfer sites in the Thames Valley region tobe brought forward. The report highlighted three Strategic Rail Authority schemes; Southampton toWest Midlands (2006), north east to south west (2010) and the Great Western Main Line gaugeclearance to Bristol and Cardiff (2010). These schemes are likely to be delivered within the timescaleof both the Multi-Modal Study and this RMS. The TVMMS report anticipated that these schemes willgo some way in providing a feasible alternative to the carriage of freight on the road.

The Secretary of State considered these recommendations. He supported the conclusion that generalmotorway widening is not required in the study area before 2016 and he asked the Highways Agency(HA):

• to identify and develop smaller scale improvements on the trunk road network to address localised congestion problems in key corridors and to submit proposals in due course;
• to develop appropriate management measures for the trunk road and motorway network in the Blackwater Valley and north west Surrey, including better detection and management of incidents, and to submit proposals in due course which take account, inter alia, of the opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 in 2008;
• to continue to monitor the performance and journey time reliability of the motorway and trunk road network as these measures are taken forward.

The Secretary of State also asked the HA to consider the case for priority measures on appropriateparts of the motorway and trunk road network which would support the development of bus and coachservices.

3.6.4 M27 Integrated Transport Study (M27 ITS)

The M27 Integrated Transport Study was commissioned to identify local low-cost improvementschemes, primarily on the M27, and to propose more strategic schemes that would be fed in to theSouth Coast Corridor Multi-Modal Study that was scheduled to begin in 2001.

The M3 and M27 Motorways work in combination to serve the Solent towns, covering an area fromSouthampton to Portsmouth. The M27 is a key feeder route for M3 and coast bound traffic across thesub-region and vice-versa to feed north and London bound traffic into the M3. Therefore the point oftheir convergence, the M27 Junction 4 and the M3 Junction 14 interchange is one of the most heavilyused junctions on the strategic road network in the Solent sub-region.

The aims and objectives of the M27 ITS were:

• Determine the role of the M27
• Establish the economic and environmental costs of congestion
• Determine the scope for alternatives to the private car
• Identify the extent to which rail freight can be encouraged
• Ensure there is consistency with local authority transport objectives

Figure 3-5 The M27 Integrated Transport Study Area.

The M27 ITS study area, as seen above, stretches from Junction 1 of the M27 at Cadnam to the A27just east of Havant and includes the A3(M), M3 to Junction 12 and the cities and towns ofSouthampton, Portsmouth, Gosport, Eastleigh, Fareham, Havant and Waterlooville.

The impact of the M27 integrated transport study on the M3 is low. The study did not recommend anymajor schemes for the M3, although it does propose improvements to the M27 Junction 4 interchangewith the M3. The M27 ITS report proposed the following strategic improvement schemes for the M27:

• M27 Junction 3 to 4 widening
• M27 Junction 4 west to M3 north widening
• M27 Junction 4 widening
• M27 Junction 4 to 5 widening
• Variable speed limits

The report identified these strategies for further development:

• Park and ride facilities
• Motorway tolls
• Travel information systems

These proposals were taken forward to the South Coast Multi-Modal Study for further appraisal andcomment and possible inclusion for approval by the Secretary of State for Transport.

The Secretary of State's response is noted under the South Coast Corridor Multi-Modal Study section.

3.6.5 South Coast Multi-Modal Study (SoCoMMS)

The Government Office for the South East (GOSE) commissioned the South Coast CorridorMulti-Modal Study (SoCoMMS) for the Department for Transport in response to the New Deal forTransport: Better for Everyone White Paper. The study made its final report in August 2002.

The SoCoMMS report follows up the M27 Integrated Transport Study (M27 ITS). SoCoMMSevaluated the proposals made by the M27 ITS and produced an umbrella strategy for the whole of thesouth coast corridor route, from Southampton to Thanet, which included all of the M27 motorway.

The aim of the SoCoMMS study was to investigate the reliability, safety, access and environmentalproblems experienced on all modes of transport along the Southampton to Thanet corridor as shown inthe figure below. The study would then propose potential solutions or improvements mitigating thefuture impact of these problems and encouraging regeneration and greater economic activity in theregion. The study was also asked to develop an over-arching strategy for transport development in theregion.

Figure 3-6 The SoCoMMS Study Area.

The SoCoMMS Study Area includes Southampton, but focuses mainly on east-west links. In thereport's final recommendations, there were no proposed improvements impacting directly onto theM3. However the report recommends the following improvement schemes:

• M27 Junction 3 to 4 widening
• M27 Junction 5 improvements
• M27 other junction improvements
• Additional variable message signs along the M27

These proposals are likely to result in an increased reliability of traffic movement to, around andbetween Southampton and the other Solent towns.

On the 9 July 2003 the Secretary of State for Transport gave his response to the SoCoMMS proposals.The Secretary of State recommended bringing forward M27 technology improvements, includingincreased CCTV and variable message signs to tackle congestion and response to incidents.

The Secretary of State confirmed his support for M27 widening between Junctions 3 and 4. TheSecretary has asked the Highways Agency to bring forward proposals for this scheme's entry in to theTargeted Programme for Improvements. In particular he is asking the HA to ensure that detaileddesign work is carried out to high environmental standards in order to minimise any adverseenvironmental impacts. The Secretary expects, subject to successful completion of necessary planningand statutory procedures, the delivery of the scheme within the next decade.

3.6.6 A34 North of Southampton Corridor Transport Study

The Ten Year Plan for transport included the "A34 North of Southampton" study in its list of tranche 3Multi-Modal Studies. In early 2004, a scoping study was commissioned, managed jointly by theGovernment Office for the South East and the South East England Regional Assembly. The overallaim of the study was to, to review of the broad scale of problems and key issues, and reassess the needfor a further study or studies. A number of conclusions emerged from the consultants report:

• Assuming the proposed scale of development takes place, then the northern and southern ends of the corridor (Oxfordshire and South Hampshire) will exceed capacity before 2026;
• The central section of the route is unlikely to suffer such problems but without intervention will continue to suffer from issues such as slow moving HGV's and under-designed junctions;
• Given the scale of the issues identified the consultants conclusion was that no further study is not an option

On this basis, the report identified four broad options:

1. No Further Study
   
   This would leave a number of significant issues unresolved, notably the relationship between the capacity of the road and pressure for further development (housing and economic) along the study corridor (especially in Oxfordshire and Hampshire).
   
   
2. Localised and/or Focused Studies in Oxfordshire and south Hampshire
   
   The main purpose would be to take account of future land use patterns and assess their implications for a transport infrastructure which is already at capacity.
   
   
3. Whole Corridor Study
   
   Whilst this may provide benefits in terms of considering land use and/or transport interaction along the entire corridor, the costs and practicalities of such a study, coupled with the fact that in terms of national priority, conditions on the A34 are unlikely to warrant sufficient priority to mean schemes could be delivered within the next 10 to 15 year period, a whole corridor study at this stage seems unlikely.
   
   
4. Hybrid of Options 2 and 3
   
   Carrying out local studies covering Oxfordshire and south Hampshire, but set in the context of the whole corridor, to take account of the impact of strategic and /or long distance trips.

Ministers have now considered the outcome of the study and options for further study. They havesuggested that regional partners should consider how the A34 corridor's potential needs rate againstother projects that people are hoping will find a place in the regional transport infrastructureprogramme over the next few years. This might then provide a timescale and funding limit for theoutputs from any studies and avoid the risk of wasteful and possibly premature speculation andargument over options that are unlikely to be progressed in the foreseeable future.

3.6.7 South East Regional Airport Strategy (SERAS) Second Edition

The SERAS Second Edition document made its final report in June 2003. Commissioned by the SouthEast England Regional Assembly, its aim is to comment and appraise commercial air service schemesat the major airports in the south east region. The report is to bring the appraisal into the context of theregion's policy objectives concerning the region's airports, as well as major airports on the outskirtsthe region.

SERAS concentrated predominantly on the major airports, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton.Southampton's airport was not considered as a location offering the capacity or infrastructure forsignificant expansion. However, this second edition considered in depth the expansion details andappraisal of Gatwick. London's Heathrow airport, which is more pertinent to this RMS for the M3, isnot considered as SEERA's preferential location for further expansion in air service provision. This is,as the report suggests, despite the larger airlines preferring Heathrow to Gatwick or Stansted, toremain as the hub airport for London. The forth-coming Terminal 5 at Heathrow was not mentioned inthis report.

If Gatwick was to be the airport receiving significant extra runway and passenger capacity in the southeast, for Gatwick users living or travelling from central and western Hampshire, the M3/M25/M23 islikely to be the preferred road route to the airport. Therefore increases in air services at Heathrow orGatwick have the potential to significantly increase demand on the M3.

The Highways Agency will continue to monitor airport expansion in the South East region.

3.6.8 South East England, London and East of England Regional Ports Study (SEAPORTS)

The South East and Anglian Ports Local Authority Group (SEAPLAG), in June 2001, commissioned astudy to be undertaken to develop a regional framework that provides strategic planning and transportguidance for the sustainable development of ports and related infrastructure in the East of England,South East and London. SEAPLAG covers ports from King's Lynn in the Wash to Poole in Dorset.

The report acknowledges that port activity is set to increase in the UK, although the type of freightmay change, the volume of freight will continue to rise. The SEAPORTS study's principal function isto develop a framework that identifies which ports are planning new infrastructure as well as locationsthat have the potential to meet the demand for extra capacity in the interim period to 2016. The reporthas made an initial assessment as to the suitability of the potential locations for increased port activityand the likely impact that will have on the social, economic, environmental and transportation needs inthe port's direct vicinity and in its hinterland.

Concluding the report, the consultants and not SEAPLAG, have suggested that the most feasible andsustainable framework that could be delivered is to increase capacity development at Shellhaven,Felixstowe, Dover, the Channel Tunnel and Great Yarmouth. This does not mean that there will be noport related development on the south coast and within south Hampshire. Port activity in this area isset to continue, but may not be able to offer the capacity to fulfil the demand that is anticipated in theframework's period.

The Dibden Bay proposal on the west side of Southampton Water did not receive positive feedback inits assessment, however the study mentioned that this proposal has progressed much further in theplanning system than the other alternative identified locations. With limited expansion at Felixstoweand even with the delivery of Dibden Bay, capacity would still reach a shortfall in comparison to theprojected demand for container handling in the East and South East of England.

Further to this study report, Dibden Bay was refused planning permission by the Secretary of State forTransport in April 2004.

The Highways Agency will continue to monitor seaport expansion in the south east and especially inthe south Hampshire ports that could have a material impact on the operation of the M3 motorway.

3.6.9 Area 3 Area Wide Directional Signing Strategy

In January 2005, the Highways Agency's appointed Maintenance Agent for Area 3, Mott MacDonald,reviewed the directional signing strategy along all of the trunk routes within Area 3. The report madeonly a few recommendations to change the signing along the M3 route. Of those recommendations,the most significant was to remove Newbury directional signing from the detrunked A339 route atJunction 6. Directional signing for Newbury would instead be added at Junction 8 and 9 respectively,directing traffic to utilise the A303 and/or A34 trunk routes.

All of the recommended changes to the directional signing in Area 3 will be actioned withinmaintenance schemes and programmes planned for the affected sections of the routes including theM3 Motorway. Therefore there will not be a specific scheme for alterations to the directional signing.

3.6.10 Other Studies

This RMS is aware of a study concerning the Highways Agency (HA) and the Chief Police OfficersAssociation in the changing roles and responsibilities on the motorway and trunk road network. Thereport released in June 2003 recommends significant changes, including increased network patrols andgreater HA involvement in both major and minor incident management.

This RMS supports the development of these recommendations towards their implementation.Subsequent reviews of this RMS will identify how the adopted recommendations alter or strengthenthe route management strategy for the M3.

The implementation of these new Traffic Officers in Area 3, which includes the M3 Motorway, is dueto begin in 2005.