Better information for your journey
The National Traffic Control Centre collects real-time information on road conditions.
How We Manage Our Roads
In this section you can find out more about how we manage and maintain these roads and plan for the future
The Project Control Framework
On 1st April 2008 we launched the Project Control Framework. The Framework sets out how we, together with the Department for Transport, manage and deliver major improvement projects.
Traffic news on your desktop
Helpful ways to access the latest traffic information when you need it.
2.2.1 Syndicate Group 1 - Safety & Maintenance
Leeds Stakeholder Workshop
2.2.1 Syndicate Group 1 - Safety & Maintenance
| Job Title | Organisation |
|---|---|
| Area Watchman | Carillion WSP |
| OD Assistant Project Sponsor | Highways Agency |
| Development Control | Highways Agency |
| Transportation Consultant | Hyder Consulting Limited |
| Representative | Transport Activists Round Table |
Group findings were as follows:
Route Functions:
Matrix as proposed by Hyder was approved although it was felt that a grading of the functions may be useful e.g. % applicable to either local, regional or strategic. The RMS Guidance may require review to adopt this approach
Distribution of commuter workplace destinations is widespread within the Leeds conurbation; destination is key which is relevant to LU/DCS and lack of use of public transport
Safety
- The initial list of issues are all of importance and should be given priority in the RMS
- M621 Closely spaced junctions. Accidents reduced during maintenance when a 30mph rather than 50mph speed limit was imposed.
- Is there a correlation between time of day and accidents? Would variable speed limits help?
- Incident delay and accident costs need to be quantified
- Access management on M621 should be considered especially for Leeds/Leeds trips- Is it technically/politically possible and who would benefit?
- On M621 should congestion/safety be maintained on route rather than off route?
- Issue S4 relating to safety of vulnerable users should relate to junctions
Economy
- Memorandum of Understanding - is it successful in dealing with Objective 1 issues e.g. are consents coming out? How can we decide on objectives C2/C3 relating to Land Use & Development Policy /Objective 1 without knowing the answers to the aforementioned questions. Further, is it sufficiently transparent?
Environment
- Climate Change - SWYMMS indicated a 25-30% increase in emissions. Area wide charging for reduction in emissions preventing trip length increases.
Access/Integration
- Issues listed are acceptable.
- Is Park and Ride always beneficial?
Operating the Network
- O4 - Reduce congestion: are small increases not significant?
Improving the Network
- N3 - standing traffic reduction is favoured
Maintenance
- Can TPI/ATM works be programmed to run with major maintenance?
- Co-ordination with local authorities? And also adjacent areas? NRSWA co-ordination required.
- Formal identification of start of tapers is being developed (M1)
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OS1 |
Rest areas off existing junctions |
Provide relief for drivers fatigue |
Additional land required If facilities are required, need investment from external developers If no facilities, it will be less used by drivers Need routine maintenance for facilities |
2 |
|
OS2 |
Emergency refuge areas Incident Support Units |
Limited land required Allow emergency pull in when hard shoulder is used Safer for stopped vehicles than stopping on continuous hard shoulder |
Discontinuous relief May be hazardous to pull out of refuge May be hazardous if used by others at the same time |
1 |
|
OS3 |
Anti-swoop (diamond) road markings prior to diverges |
Discourage unnecessary lane changing |
Limits weaving areas |
2 |
|
OS4 |
Emergency access routes off the main carriageway Central Reserve crossovers are preferable combined with lane control |
Enable access for emergency vehicles during incidents |
Additional land required Would be used during non-emergencies if not properly protected Need maintenance (overgrowth) |
3 |
|
OS5 |
Speed enforcement systems (egg cameras) |
Improves speed compliance No land required Provide alternative additional funding |
Effective only at location of enforcement systems Require police enforcement |
1 |
|
OS6 |
Queue management systems/variable speed limits |
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OC1 |
Implement land use and development control policy to protect the operation of the motorways |
Maintains the operation of the route, helping to make sure that developments are directed away from already problematic locations Help to identify capacities for development and other land use Supports RPG and other processes |
May conflict with economic aspirations of authorities May not be concurrent with plans of developers |
1* |
|
OC2 |
Provide improved information on congestion and incidents |
Enable better planning of journeys |
The majority of drivers do not plan their journeys. When they do plan their journeys, it is not done immediately before the journey, when latest information is available |
1 |
| Option No. | Option Description | Some Advantages | Some Disadvantages | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OM1 |
Eliminate day time maintenance works |
Will improve flow during day times. |
Will increase cost and duration of work Some restriction or lane closure may still be required during day time Alternative hazards due to night time working would exist |
2 |
|
OM2 |
Investment in replacement infrastructure (lighting/ safety barriers) with lower maintenance requirements |
Over a period of time this will reduce maintenance costs |
Benefits will not be immediate |
1 |
|
OM3 |
When required use ARMCO wire where wider reserve permits |
Doesn't catch snow - less build up |
1 | |
|
OM4 |
Cast concrete central barriers |
Can tolerate reduced central reserve width More robust - hence less maintenance |
2 |
