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

1 Introduction

1.1 Brief Description of the Route

The M3 Motorway forms the radial route from south-west London to Southampton on the south coast.It covers approximately 93.5 km (59 miles), starting from Junction 1 at Sunbury and finishing at theChilworth Roundabout (A33) just north of Southampton. At the Junction 14 interchange, the M3 linkswith the M27 south coast motorway towards Bournemouth and Portsmouth. This RMS also includesthe first 500m of the A316(T) to the east of Junction 1 of the M3.

Within this document, the carriageways will be taken as running westbound and eastbound,notwithstanding that some of the sections run more north/south. The study area is shown in Figure1.1. The M3 serves a catchment area between the A3(T) and A3(M) London to Portsmouth TrunkRoads, up to 25 km (16 miles) to the east, the M4 Motorway London to south Wales, 10 to 25 km (6 to16 miles) to the north and approximately bounded to the west from Salisbury Plain to the south coast.

Figure 1.1: The M3 Motorway and Study Area

The M3 is generally a standard 3-lane dual carriageway motorway throughout its length. FromJunction 8 to Junction 9 the M3 is 2-lane dual carriageway motorway, and for approximately 2kilometres from Junction 9, on the eastbound carriageway, there is an additional climbing lane. AtJunction 14, the M3 divides into three directions: west to the M27 and Bournemouth; east to the M27and Portsmouth; and south to the A33 and Southampton. All of the junctions are grade separated forthrough traffic on the M3, but only Junction 2 at the M25 and Junction 14 at the M27/A33 are fullyfree-flowing for all movements. Junction 8 at the A303 is free flowing, but it remains a restrictedmovement junction.

The route predominantly passes through areas of Special Landscape with varying environmentalclassifications. The route passes through or near to many urban areas as well as bypassing majortowns in north Surrey and north east, central and south Hampshire. It serves the population centres ofsouth west London (Hounslow and Richmond-upon-Thames), north-west Surrey (Woking andCamberley), south and east Berkshire (Bracknell) and north-east, central and south Hampshire(Farnborough, Basingstoke, Winchester, Eastleigh and Southampton), as well as numerous smallerand more diffuse residential areas in between.

1.2 Overview of Route Management Strategies

The Highways Agency has issued a document titled "Route Management Strategy Guidance", whichsets out the framework under which this Route Management Strategy has been prepared. The currentVersion 2 of the Guidance is dated November 2003. The following section 1.2.1 of this report isextracted from the Guidance, and gives an overview of Route Management Strategies in general, andon the principles behind this one.

1.2.1 What is a Route Management Strategy?

Route Management Strategies '…is a technique being developed by the Highways Agency to providea framework for managing individual trunk routes as part of wider transport networks. RouteManagement Strategies will interlock with local transport strategies (set out in Local Transport Plans)within the context established by Regional Planning Guidance'. (Reference Para 3.1.34 'A New Dealfor Transport: Better for Everyone').

The Route Management Strategy (RMS) process has been developed to:

• Assist the Highways Agency (HA) in planning and optimising investment in the trunk road/motorway network (across different budget headings), and in the delivery of HA strategic plans and ten year transport strategy.
• Provide consistency, transparency, openness and integration, particularly with other transport related strategies, including local and regional transport plans.
• Enable the HA to provide an input into these strategies and plans.
• Maximise customer focus.
• Improve forward planning over a 10-year horizon.

The development of RMSs assists the HA to achieve its objective which is:

• To deliver a high quality service to all our customers by:
  1. Improving road safety
  2. Making journeys more reliable through better network management and information
  3. Respecting the environment.

The development of an RMS will be administered and delivered by the HA, with the assistance ofconsultants, through undertaking a Route Management Strategy Study.

It should be noted that whilst a RMS will be focused upon a particular route, the impact which otherroutes may have upon it and the impact that the route may have on others should be considered withinthe study. This would be particularly applicable where an issue on one route can be resolved throughan outcome on another.

An RMS comprises the following elements:

Policy Objectives are wider planning, economic and transport objectives that are pertinent to the route.

Route Functions and Performance describe the current roles of the route, those it is intended to serve in the future and assesses how well the route performs these.

The Land Use and Development Control Statement outlines the HA's approach to future land use and development issues which materially affect the route.

Route Problems and Issues are matters of concern to the HA, stakeholders or the public that may prevent the Policy Objectives being met or hinder the performance of Route Functions.

Route Outcomes set out what the HA will seek to achieve for the route over the 10 year period of the RMS. They should contribute to Policy Objectives, improve the performance of the route consistent with its future Functions and seek to address Route Problems and Issues. Some of the Outcomes may point towards individual projects and investigations which will subsequently be developed by the HA as a Route Management Plan.

The overall impact of the Route Outcomes on the Policy Objectives, Route Functions and Problems, iscontained within a Strategy Impact Statement. This statement can also be used to identify potentialactions which may contribute to delivering the Route Outcomes.

The figure below illustrates the relationships between the strategy elements and shows the key role ofthe Route Outcomes. The figure shows that each element is influenced by other elements and that thedevelopment of the Route Outcome is an iterative process.

Figure 1.2: Route Management Strategy Element Relationships

1.3 Author

This report has been prepared by Mott MacDonald on behalf of the HA, in accordance with RouteManagement Strategy Guidance issued by the HA (Version 2 dated November 2003).

1.4 RMS Study Programme

The RMS study followed the timetable outlined below:

Start of Project (8 March 2002)

Consultation letters were sent to the Managing Agents and the Multi-Modal Studies concerned. It wasagreed to hold back from consulting local authorities and interested parties until the initial RMS wasready. A list of those consulted during this initial phase of the project is attached to Appendix B.

Draft Route Management Strategy Internal Workshop (13 May 2002)

Our initial view of the route functions, route objectives and problems and the draft strategy were setout at a workshop attended by the Managing Agents the NS Project Owner and the OD ProjectSponsor in order to develop an initial Draft RMS.

Break

There has been a break in the RMS process whilst the findings of the Multi-Modal Studies werefinalised and the published initial strategy was amended to reflect the outcomes from the relevantMMSs.

Public Consultation (October 2004 to January 2005)

A public consultation was carried out over a 14-week period to publicise the proposed RouteManagement Strategy and to encourage comments from members of the public.

Route Management Strategy Seminar (12 November 2004)

Representatives from key stakeholders and other organisations were invited to a Route ManagementStrategy Seminar. At the seminar, the RMS Study was introduced and a list of possible problems andsolutions were identified by the attendees.

Publication of Final Route Management Strategy (Spring 2005)

After taking into account comments received during public consultation, a ten-year RouteManagement Strategy has been published.

1.5 Current Situation

This RMS falls within the area of four Multi-Modal Studies:

• Orbit - M25 around London including M3 Junctions 1 - 8
• London to South West and South Wales (SWARMMS) - M3 Junctions 1-8
• Thames Valley (TVMMS) - M3 Junctions 1-8
• South Coast (SoCoMMS) - M27 at Junction 4 (M3 at Junction 14)

These four studies overlapped the M3 RMS and this gave opportunities to share consultation. It wasoriginally intended that RMSs would focus on lower level local issues, with strategic issues beingcovered by the MMSs. However, from comments received from consultees on other RMS studies ithas become evident that it is not possible to divorce local from strategic issues, particularly in relationto the outcomes identified in the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport.

The Highways Agency therefore decided to carry out data gathering for the RMS and to produce adraft initial Route Management Strategy prior to the Secretary of State's decision on the MMSs. TheRMS process would then resume following the Secretary of State's announcement.

The Multi-Modal Studies reported their recommendations, and further details of these can be found insection 3.6 of this document. Following the reporting of the MMSs, the Secretary of State reviewedthe recommendations and made his announcement, on 9th July 2003, commenting on items to be takenforward. Details of these recommended items are outlined in section 1.8.

There is also an RMS underway for the A34 between the M3 and M40. The M3 RMS will take intoaccount the problems and issues where the two routes converge.

This RMS is also aware that a scoping study looking at strategic issues for the A34 corridor north ofSouthampton was started in the last quarter of 2003. Details of and the current situation regarding thisstudy can be found in section 3.6.6 of this document.

1.6 Consultation

This Route Management Strategy (RMS) for the M3 has been developed through initial consultation inMay 2002 with the following stakeholders:

• HA Network Strategy and HA Route Managers for the M3
• HA Managing Agent for Area 5: Mouchel Consulting Engineers
• HA Managing Agent for Area 3: Mott MacDonald Limited
• Government Office for the South East (GOSE)
• Halcrow Group (authors of SWARMMS and SoCoMMS)
• Halliburton Brown and Root (authors of Orbit)

A second round of consultation was carried out in December 2003 to January 2004. Potentiallyinterested stakeholders were identified and the details of these consultees can be seen in Table B-2 ofAppendix B in Volume 2 of this document.

1.7 M3 RMS Public Consultation

The Public Consultation period began on 11 October 2004 and finished on 14 January 2005. Thestandard length of a Public Consultation period is 12 weeks, however the HA extended this period forthe M3 RMS due to the consultation falling over Christmas and New Year period.

The consultation period gave members of the public and other stakeholders the opportunity to givetheir views on the Draft Route Management Strategy and how the Highways Agency (HA) shouldmanage and operate the M3 over the next 10 years. Comments received from the Public Consultation(PC) would be given careful consideration before the M3 RMS was finalised.

The views expressed by those who responded to the Public Consultation are not necessarily endorsedby the HA. Whilst serious consideration will be given to all suggested ideas, additions or changes tothe Draft RMS document these would not automatically be taken forward into the Final RMSdocument.

The M3 RMS Public Consultation reached a wide and varied audience, with 946 responses receivedfrom across the South East of England region and beyond including: Dorset, Somerset,Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and London.

The M3 Motorway, as well as its national functions continues to serve population areas immediatelyadjacent to the motorway and through the wider trunk road network, serves communities along theA303 and M27/A31 as far as Salisbury and Poole.

Of the identified problems three stood out with the greatest support for action. These were:

• Congestion through the Twyford Down Cutting caused by the gradient of the cutting
• Congestion, inappropriate traffic weaving and accidents between Junction 13 and the M27
• Peak time queuing on the approaches to Junction 2

Environmental issues of noise and air quality generally along the whole route were among additionalcomments made by respondents. These comments also included driver and driving behaviour andgreater enforcement as well as improving the operation of Junction 9.

The full Public Consultation report can be found in Appendix P of Volume 2 of this RMS document.

1.8 Secretary of State's Announcement

Of the Multi-Modal Studies that the Secretary of State for Transport has responded to, the ThamesValley MMS has the most direct impact on this Route Management Strategy.

A Key conclusion of the MMS is that under the recommended strategy a satisfactory level ofperformance can be maintained on the motorway network in the study area without the need forgeneral motorway widening.

The Secretary of State has considered these recommendations in the light of the advice he has receivedfrom the Regional Assembly, the Highways Agency and other interested organisations. He supportsthe conclusion that general motorway widening is not required in the study area before 2016 and he isasking the Highways Agency:

• 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 Thames Valley, including better detection and management of incidents; and
• 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 noted the recommendations for mass transit in the Blackwater Valley area. Hedid not believe that further development work is economically justified, and encouraged theBlackwater Valley authorities to consider lower cost bus based alternatives.

The Secretary of State is also asking the Highways Agency to consider the case for priority measureson appropriate parts of the motorway and trunk road network which would support the development ofbus and coach services.

The Secretary of State also supported the recommendation from a number of studies on the need forclose integration between land use and transport policies. He looks to local planning authorities tolocate major generators of personal travel in areas best served by public transport.