mksm transport strategy executve summary

8/14/2019 Mksm Transport Strategy Executve Summary

1/18

July 200

TRANSPORTTRAFFICDEVELOPMENT

mksm TransportStrategy

mksm Partnership

Connecting the mksmsub-region


2/18

mksm Inter-Urban Transport StrategyConnecting the mksm sub-region

Project No: 16096

July 2009

10 Eastbourne Terrace,

London,

W2 6LG

Telephone: 020 7053 1300

Fax: 020 7053 1301

Email : [email protected]

Prepared by: Approved by:

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________

Atholl Noon/David Quarmby David Quarmby

Status: Final Issue no: 5 Date: 14 July 2009

16096-01-1 mksm final report v12 290709 .doc

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by ColinBuchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which itwas originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care anddiligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expresslystated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited hasbeen made


3/18

1


Executive Summary

Introduction

Milton Keynes/South Midlands mksm will see a 25% growth in population to 2 million by 2021 and200,000 more jobs. Sitting astride the M1, A14 and two strategic rail corridors, mksm has strongconnectivity with London and other cities, and with ports and airports, which have helped to fuel itsgrowth and will continue to do so.

But mksm faces challenges: it depends heavily on the national networks (road and rail) for movementwithin the sub-region as well as to and from it, and any congestion and overcrowding, and measurestaken to prioritise the needs of longer-distance movement will be to mksms disadvantage. Second,mksm sits at the intersection of three administrative regions, which complicates the strategic planning,funding and advocacy processes. So mksm a clutch of major towns and their hinterlands linked by acommon destiny of growth need to develop their own views of what is required in transport terms toenable and sustain their growth. The task is to ensure that the ambitious growth agenda is matched by

action to support its successful delivery

The Scope and Nature of this Report an inter-urban strategy

Colin Buchanan was appointed by the mksm partnership of local authorities and regional agencies todevelop an inter-urban transport strategy for the mksm sub-region that is, an integrated strategyfor the networks connecting the towns to each other, to their rural catchments and to the rest of thecountry.

The study does not explicitly consider transport or traffic issues within the towns; these are thesubject of local transport plans. We are aware, of course, that the levels of congestion and ease ofmovement within the towns can affect their desirability and attractiveness for development, alongsidetheir connectivity to other towns, cities, ports and industrial centres.

In addition, ease of movement into and out of the towns does have an effect on the whole interurbanjourney, whether by bus, car, van or freight vehicle. Our analysis of interurban networks, includinglevels of congestion and journey speeds, therefore does take account of the urban radial roadsleading to the regional and national networks.

We also emphasise that this report is not a transport plan it is not a set of schemes or specificpolicy proposals. Developing those is the responsibility of local authorities, regional and nationalagencies. This study, commissioned by the mksm partnership, provides a strategic framework forcapturing, analysing and prioritising the key issues for transport those that are special to mksm as adesignated area of very substantial growth.

So this report informs the formal processes (LTP3, RFA, DaSTS regional and national planningprocesses for highways and rail, etc). It presents analysis, insights, concerns, issues andrecommendations which enrich these processes, helping to ensure that the particular needs andconcerns of the mksm area and its local and regional partners are taken on board.

And it also makes recommendations for action which we believe the mksm partnership itself canfacilitate and progress such as for the interurban bus network..

The planning context

The mksm transport strategy is about enabling successful delivery of the growth agenda. Its focus ison inter-urban movement of people and goods, and on the inter-urban networks road, rail and bus -


4/18

2


which link the towns and settlements to each other, to the important nearby destinations, and toLondon, other major business centres and international gateways.

The strategy informs and provides context for the local transport plans of the individual towns and

counties; the strategy also seeks to influence the processes of regional transport planning, and ofnational network planning by the DfT (Department for Transport) and its agencies and partners.

The governments recently announced framework for transport planning DaSTS (Delivering aSustainable Transport System) sets a clear timetable, context and process for the national andregional bodies to prepare their proposals for the 2012 Transport Plan (which will determine plans,priorities and funding for 2014-2019 and indicatively beyond that); in particular there is an invitation tothe regions and national bodies to bid by June for programmes of studies which will support theplanning process towards 2012. mksm has no direct locus of its own in this process, and pursuit ofthe integrated transport strategy requires advocacy supported by evidence to the relevantstakeholders.

The DaSTS paper also sets out the governments five goals to which the whole basket of national,regional and local transport plans will aspire. It is a critical requirement of this study to consider howwell the emerging strategy fulfils these goals.

The strategy also aims to interface with the regional transport planning agenda by:

Recognising any current committed regional schemes as part of the strategy Providing analysis supporting plans for longer term growth in housing and

employment in the sub-region Showing how the three regions interface in the mksm area, and highlighting key

corridors and priority issues for future work Highlighting the priorities for supporting the growth agenda in the sub-region


5/18

3


Figure S.1: mksm sub-region showing growth points

mksm: an overview

The mksm Business Plan sets out clearly by area and timing the plans for population and employmentgrowth across the sub-region. It highlights the key interventions critical to achieving sustainablegrowth at a local level, together with those strategic interventions across mksm as a whole. It already

identifies issues of connectivity which provide a starting point for our work.

The sub-region has benefitted from considerable recent investment in the transport networks (roadand rail), and more has recently been committed by government. Some significant issues of capacityand congestion still remain.

What is also clear is that the travel patterns show that the constituent parts of the mksm sub-regionare highly inter-related some 70% of all mksm morning peak travel is within the sub-region as awhole, and more than 80% of the employed residents work within the sub-region. It is also important tonote that the travel that does take place outside the sub-region is highly significant for businesses,


6/18

4


with a very high proportion (more than 55%) of this being heavy goods vehicles and business-relatedtravel. Good connectivity to and through the regional and national networks is therefore critical forcompetiveness and business success.

The approach of this study

Our primary concern in this study is the successful delivery of the growth agenda and the role oftransport at a sub-regional and regional level in enabling that. While the performance of the localnetworks is taken account of in our analysis, we are not explicitly considering the road or bus networksthemselves within towns or within local areas.

We also review how well the current plans and the further transport interventions identified in thisreport meet the five goals clearly set out in the DfTs DaSTS planning process.

We have focused in particular in this study on the links between employment and transport and thegrowth agenda.

Our proposition is that businesses will only come and invest and grow if they have good access to

labour, good access to business centres and markets, and (depending on their sector) good freightaccess to ports, terminals and logistics centres. And that housing development will only be successfulif there is good access to jobs.

It is important to distinguish between employment that is essentially local, in that it serves the localresidential population; and employment that is regional, which is in businesses which serve otherbusinesses, or wider regional, national or international markets, or in government or other publicbodies which serve much wider areas. The key point is that regional employment growth ispotentially footloose it is not tied to any particular location, and the location decisions will beinfluenced, among other things, by accessibil ity. Local employment growth, on the other hand,largely follows population growth.

One of the issues for sustainability is the relative location of population and employment growth, andparticularly the location of the regional employment which by its nature generates more inter-urbanbusiness-related movement of people and goods.

With the focus on inter-urban movement, we have therefore addressed the following questions:

What is the planned pattern of local and regional employment growth and does itsupport a sustainability agenda?

How accessible are the different employment growth areas to labour, businesscentres and markets?

How accessible are the different housing growth areas to jobs? How are these measures of accessibility influenced by the performance of the

various networks they depend on? In which corridors are there particular pressures and costs due to congestion and

poor service levels? What network issues road and rail - therefore require further consideration to

sustain accessibility and support the growth agenda What further contribution can public transport investment and improvement make

not only to the growth agenda, but to other transport objectives as reflected in theDaSTS goals?

So what are the priorities for networks and modes, what it is the emerging visionand transport strategy, and how well does the emerging strategy score against theDaSTS goals?


7/18

5


Local and Regional employment

We have explained above the concepts of local and regional employment. Regional organisationsand businesses have greater need of access to strategic networks, and generate more traffic and

travel on inter-urban and strategic networks.

Our analysis has identified that in the mksm Business Plan regional employment and its plannedgrowth is indeed concentrated in the main towns Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable, andto a lesser extent Bedford, Aylesbury and Daventry. This is an important finding because with thebetter availability of local bus services in these towns, the access to good walking and cyclingnetworks and the better access to the rail network for commuting and business travel, means that thetransport consequences of this pattern of growth are more sustainable than if the jobs growth weredistributed differently.

Accessibility and the growth of homes and jobs

This study explores the extent to which different growth areas within mksm face different levels ofaccessibility (or connectivity), and how this affects their likely success in a) attracting investors and

new jobs, and b) attracting housing developers to build houses. For each of the growth areas in mksmwe have estimated the accessibility that businesses in those locations would face to labour and tobusiness centres, by mode of travel. Account is taken, as relevant, of access to freight nodes andgateways. This is calculated from the levels of service offered by the road and rail networks at 2021,taking account of congestion or crowding on those transport networks at that time (from the EERM(East of England Regional Model) model). This measure is then set against the target for jobs growth,and the different areas in mksm are then compared. Similarly, the accessibility to jobs for areas ofhousing growth is estimated, and this is set against the target for growth.

While the performance of the local networks is taken account of in the analysis, we are not explicitlyconsidering the road or bus networks themselves within towns or local areas. Our focus is on theaccessibility offered by the inter-urban road, rail and limited-stop bus networks to new and existingbusinesses, and to housing developers.

Accessibility to labour, to business centres and to freight nodes does vary significantly between areaswithin mksm, and between modes. In areas of lower accessibility, jobs growth may take longer orsome may not happen at all. And growth is more likely if the economic sectors targeted for growtharea by area are those most suited to the particular pattern of accessibility in that area.

We consider the corridors of movement where there are issues of congestion and overcrowding, andpossible transport interventions in the networks indicated by this. While our analysis is unlikely to sayanything new about the hotspots themselves, it demonstrates the impact they have on accessibilityand on the ability to deliver the growth agenda in the different areas within mksm.

Broadly our findings are that

Northampton has an ambitious target for regional jobs growth, and is reliant onstrong commuting flows in from Daventry, Wellingborough, Kettering and to a lessextent Corby. The A43/A45 corridor linking these towns and the M1 is increasinglycongested particularly at the key junctions - and this is likely to be a factor limiting

Northamptons accessibility scores, in spite of its good accessibility to the M1 andto regional services on the West Coast Main Line. This may affect theachievement of the jobs growth target or at least its timing.

Milton Keynes plan for regional jobs growth is well in line with its accessibility,with its proximity to M1 and access to the West Coast Main Line which offers(somewhat compromised) Virgins long distances services as well as the LondonMidland regional services. However analysis shows the M1 is under considerablepressure from longer-distance traffic, and measures adopted by the Highways


8/18

6


Agency to address this are likely to affect travel to and from Milton Keynes - over25% of its inter-urban journeys use the M1.

The Luton/Dunstable urban area offers high inter-urban accessibility both for

business and for residents, by road and by rail; we recognise, however, thatcongestion within the urban area is a continuing problem for businesses andresidents alike. But inter-urban transport is not a factor affecting Lutons futuregrowth; the 2021 accessibility indices reflect the completion and use of the A5-M1link and the Luton-Dunstable busway. However, the M1 and other corridors eastand south-east of Luton demonstrate the same growing pressure as further north.

Bedford demonstrates high accessibility by rail for businesses and for residents.While the completion of the A421 to the M1 will significantly improve Bedfordsaccessibility on the inter-urban road network, the sustained and widespread trafficcongestion within the town will continue to affect overall accessibility especiallythe perception of it by prospective investors. East-West links between MiltonKeynes and to Cambridgeshire are regarded as vital by stakeholders.

Accessibility to jobs by road for prospective housing developers in the NorthNorthants towns of Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby is commensurate with thescale of growth. Rail accessibility for business and for commuters dependent onthe intercity Midland Main Line may be compromised if the service patterndevelops to favour the larger towns to the north. The prospect of electrificationnorth of Bedford and projection of Thameslink services considered in NetworkRails latest draft RUS (Rail Utilisation Strategy) could be particularly beneficial.Generally, Corbys more compromised accessibility to main business centres isoffset by its closeness to the A14 and the availability of rail freight facilities. Itsprospective employment growth will be most successful with a strong focus on thelogistics sector.

Aylesbury shows lower accessibility than the larger towns, although its growthtarget is lower. The issue is the low road speed and limited capacity offered by the

existing modest road networks, rather than heavy traffic congestion characteristicof other mksm towns. This is particularly felt in the critical north-south corridor toHigh Wycombe and the Thames Valley and - to a lesser extent since thecompletion of the bypass of Leighton Linslade - to Milton Keynes and the M1.Given the sensitive environment, there is currently no appetite for significant roadschemes; accessibility improvements will depend on other measures, such asEast-West Rail and inter-urban bus developments, but it is not clear that these willbe sufficient to enable the growth to occur.

The findings also suggest that to support the sustainability goal - distribution of further growthbeyond 2021 should reflect the different levels of accessibility, and opportunities to make good use ofpublic transport in and between the sub-region and the rest of Britain. Towns recommended for thehigher levels of growth beyond 2021 therefore include Luton/Dunstable, Milton Keynes and Bedford.

Problem corridors

Given our understanding of the generally adequate forward capacity and service levels offered by themain rail networks, our gathering of evidence about problem corridors has focussed on origin-destination movements by road (which constitute 90%+ of total inter-urban movements). Weidentified those corridors with high flows, and in particular those showing a significant deterioration intravel time by 2021 compared with the base date. Based on the combination of these two factors, themain problem corridors identified are:


9/18

7


The M1 Corridor defined as the M1 itself over the section J10-J16 (Luton-MiltonKeynes-Northampton), together with the parallel local/regional roads, especiallyA5/A43/A508/A4146/A505

The Northampton Arc the A43/A45 corridor linking Daventry and Towcesterwith Northampton/Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby andWellingborough/Rushden/A14-Thrapston

The North-South corridor around Aylesbury to Milton Keynes and M1 in thenorth and High Wycombe and Thames Valley in the south, and the links toLeighton Linslade and on to Luton/Dunstable

The Luton / Dunstable Gateway - between Dunstable, Luton and south and eastof Luton, on towards the A1 towns, St Albans, and Hemel Hempstead

The links between Bedford, via the A421/A1/A428 and further east.

Network issues Road

The M1 is a critical sub-regional link for mksm as well as a national link. The improvements proposedfor the M1, which is one of two main highway arteries of mksm, are welcome. Nevertheless theHighways Agency's projected speed levels on the M1 in the sub-region in 2025 compared to 2003show that even with programmed improvements - speeds are expected to drop significantly.

The planned managed motorway regime is likely to involve ramp-metering to control the entry oftraffic to maintain smoother and undisrupted flows on the motorway itself, as part of an IntegratedDemand Management (IDM) strategy. However, we understand from discussions with the HA(Highways Agency) that they are contemplating the use of more aggressive forms of ramp-metering -imposing delays of up to 5 minutes or more on joining traffic to discourage short distance hopstravelling two or three junctions, giving priority to longer-distance journeys.

This is likely to incentivise some traffic to divert to parallel local/regional roads such as A5, A43, A508,A4146, A505 and further south, the A5183 and A1081, but the extent of diversion and the scale of theproblem needs to be modelled in order to be assessed, and the implications evaluated for thoseroads, for other traffic and for the communities they serve.

Because of the critical role of the M1 in mksm, we are recommending that the M1 Corridor (that is theM1 together with the network of parallel local and regional roads) be the subject of joint studiesbetween the Highways Agency and the relevant local authorities in mksm; Colin Buchanan hasalready submitted a paper to mksm partnership outlining the rationale and possible scope of suchstudies for consideration in the package of DaSTS studies by the end of June (See Appendix G).

Improvements are also planned for the A14, which runs east/west along the north of the mksm area,including widening around Kettering, an improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton andtraffic management measures along the route. The traffic management regime is consideringtraditional ramp-metering. We recommend that the mksm partners also review the use of thosetechniques with the HA on this strategic route and understand that discussions are underway

between the HA, DfT and the County Council. The implementation of these improvements is critical tothe delivery of the growth agenda around Kettering and for the sub-regions wider links.

The Northampton Arc - the A45/A43 linking Towcester and Daventry with the M1 through toNorthampton-Wellingborough-Kettering and from Wellingborough-Rushden-Thrapston (A14) - showssignificant pressures, especially around Northampton, and at the major junctions. This is largely dueto the combined pressure of substantial local, regional and national traffic movements, alreadyreaching nearly 100,000 vehs/day on some sections. The A43 is the key route linking the north of theCounty with the M1, and reducing congestion on this road would strengthen the inward investmentpotential of Northampton, Kettering and Corby. The recent Highways Agency decision about M1 J19


10/18

8


(joining A14 and M6) removes any southeast movement between the A14 and the M1, and putsmore pressure on the A43/A45 corridor for longer-distance traffic (especially LGVs (Light GoodsVehicles)) going from the A1/A14 to the M1, the A34 and the South Coast and the West Country. Onour advice, mksm submitted in February 2009 a response to the DaSTS consultation recommending

that the A43/A45 corridor from M40 J10 M1 J15/15A A14/Thrapston be classified at part of thestrategic national network; the DfT has subsequently rejected this change.

We believe the continuing issues on this corridor justify a comprehensive study of the whole Arc,which should include a range of management and public transport options as well as infrastructure. Atthe request of the mksm partnership we have prepared a note giving the rationale and scope for suchstudies, which should be endorsed and progressed by a partnership of the DfT, Highways Agency,Northamptonshire County Council and the East Midlands region, and submitted for consideration as aDaSTS regional study. The note is at Appendix H. Failure to address this satisfactorily could bringinto question the desirability of further growth beyond 2021.

Luton east and south east. The corridor analysis suggests significant pressure on roads betweenLuton and Stevenage (via Hitchin), Welwyn/Hatfield/St Albans. With the exception of part of the A505,here again the issue is largely one of inadequate single carriageway roads limiting capacity and

speed. Destinations beyond are better served by M1 and M25, although the longer term seespressure on these motorway links too.

Luton has aspirations for a Northern Bypass, linking the M1 with the A6 and on to the A505, providingan east/west link outside of central Luton between the M1 and the Stevenage area. The first section ofthis potential link (between the M1 and A6) is closely associated with (and potentially fundable by)development here, but the next section (between the A6 and A505) is likely to be more challenging toachieve. Initial modelling by Luton indicates that while this road also performs a local function inenabling development, a significant proportion of traffic using it is likely to be of a more strategicnature. The broad corridor to Stevenage and Welwyn Garden city is identified in this study as carryinglarge volumes with future worsening of journey times. The potential contribution of this link to sub-regional strategic connectivity requires more analysis.

Dunstable: The link between Dunstable and Luton and to Leighton Linslade were also highlighted aspriority areas in the analysis. We are not aware of any current proposals to deal with these issues,

although the Luton-Dunstable busway should offer alternatives for travellers. We recommend that thelink between Leighton Linslade and Dunstable could be considered as part of the proposednorth/south route study proposed by the South East Partnership Board and Buckinghamshirementioned below.

Aylesbury North and South: As noted previously, Aylesbury does not score highly on theaccessibility measures, because of the historic nature of the road network, the limited rail network andthe pattern of settlement across the county. Delivering the growth agenda may be compromisedwithout significant accessibil ity improvements. Priority should be given to those corridors which mostaffect accessibility and where travel demands are likely to increase substantially which meansnorthwards towards Milton Keynes and Luton/Dunstable, and southwards towards High Wycombe andthe Thames Valley.

North-facing accessibility has been improved by the opening of the A4146 bypass round LeightonLinslade. However, addressing the issues raised by the A418 including the conflict of throughmovements and the rural and village environments has presented challenges and causedconsiderable debate locally. Opportunities to improve accessibility by road to High Wycombe and theThames Valley are equally constrained, although we understand that the South East PartnershipBoard has supported a study of this corridor looking at potential solutions. While the current railnetwork plays an important though south-facing role, the EW (east-west) Rail development will openrail access to the north. Meanwhile, recent and prospective investment in bus facilities in Aylesburyand High Wycombe, together with a good response by the main operator Arriva, has seen and willcontinue significant growth in inter-urban bus/coach traffic.


11/18

9


Nevertheless, our role in this study is to point out that successful delivery of the growth agenda forAylesbury (for housing and for jobs) will require inter-urban accessibility to be improved beyondcurrent plans, and this will depend to a considerable extent on addressing the level of service (in itsmost general sense) offered by the road network. In this respect our findings support the case of the

South East Partnership Board for work looking at future strategic connectivity on the north/southcorridor between the M1 and Thames Valley via Aylesbury.

Bedford: Recent and committed road improvements such as the A421 link to the M1 and MiltonKeynes will improve the inter-urban accessibility of Bedford, although the remainder of the link beyondthe new M1 junction 13 and on to Milton Keynes is not yet committed. The TEES study (2008)identified the A421/A428 Cambridge-Bedford-MK (Milton Keynes) as a stressed route in the worsttraffic congestion change group, and regarded it as an economic priority corridor for futureintervention. This study identified medium range flows between Bedford and the east on this corridor,and noted decreases in journey time. The corridor remains one of few east/west links between the M1and A1 and the east in the mksm area, and should be regarded as important in these terms.

It is noted that the modelling used for this study assumed that the Bedford Western Bypass was acommitted scheme, although we understand that this is not currently the case and there is little

prospect of developer funding alone delivering this link. This strengthens the case for advancement ofthe Western Bypass in order to facilitate growth.

Network issues Rail

The principal towns in mksm are well located on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the MidlandMain Line (MML), Aylesbury is the exception, at the end of Chilterns slow but high quality commuterservice to London, and with no north-facing connections. For the WCML and MML, recent andcommitted improvement plans bring sufficient capacity and frequency for the next 10-15 years toprovide for commuters and for business travellers to London, and reasonable access to destinations tothe north/north-west of mksm using the long distance express services and the regional services oneach route. There is some intra-regional movement by rail along the main corridors.

One major concern continues to be the access to Virgin long distance services at Milton Keynes given

its size and strategic economic importance. The problem is familiar and longstanding, and based onour investigations in some depth with DfT and Network Rail, we judge that current trends in rail trafficalong the WCML make the prospects for improvements to Milton Keynes connectivity less and lesslikely.

Recent and committed improvement plans to MML have reduced the frequency for travellers fromKettering to London and Northamptonshire. Northampton is also relatively poorly served by longer-distance services given its size, although opportunities to change this in the short to medium term arelimited by the local rial geography and current service patterns. However the development of HS2 mayoffer opportunities for more fundamental changes in service patterns in the area.

Another concern is the irregularly timed new service between Corby and St Pancras, involving forsome trains waits at Kettering of up to 30 minutes, and only a couple of minutes for other, due toconstraints on platform occupation at Corby on the line used by freight trains. There is some concernabout reduced connectivity on the MML north from Kettering and Wellingborough.

As with the road network, the predominantly radial pattern from London leaves poor East-Westconnectivity by rail both within mksm and to the towns and cities either side of the sub-region. TheEast-West Rail project makes a significant contribution to this, offering connections between theWCML and MML as well as northwards from Aylesbury. The project also supports the RegionalSpatial Strategies for the South-East and East of England, and has strategic benefits for freight andcross-country services. The cost and engineering requirements have now been confirmed through thecontinuing work as part of the GRIP4 process. It is important to secure the necessary funding toprogress this significant project for mksm.


12/18

10


Since this study was initiated, the government has announced the formation of the High-Speed 2company, with a specific remit to identify a route and prospective business case and delivery plans forhigh-speed rail from London to the West Midlands. A substantial opportunity for mksm lies in theconsequential reshaping of services on the existing WCML. At the right time this opportunity must be

seized, and a clear view formed and advocated about how the needs of Milton Keynes, Northampton,and the other towns on WCML can best be served. Additionally, there may be an opportunity to bidfor an intermediate station on HS2 itself, but in our view this has a low chance of being adopted andshould not be pursued at the expense of ensuring that mksm gets the full benefit of the consequentialreshaping. The mksm partnership should also be sensitive to the possible impact of the possible HS2alignments on the mksm environment.

Inter-urban bus

We believe there is significant scope for improvements to the inter-urban bus network, its scope, itsoperation and its quality of service, which with the right degree of collaboration between the localauthorities and the bus operators can be delivered. We believe there is scope for significant increasesin patronage, although its modal share of all travel is still likely to be modest.

An improved inter-urban bus network can make an important contribution to transport accessibilitywithin the sub-region. It will supplement the improvements to local bus services, and by providingimproved connectivity for those without access to car it will contribute to the DaSTS goals of equalityand quality of life.

The current network consists mostly of hourly services linking the main towns, with more frequentservices along the M1 Corridor, on the Northampton Arc and Aylesbury north and south. The twomain operators are Stagecoach (towards the north) and Arriva (towards the south).

The biggest problem for the inter-urban bus network is the unpredictability of journey times due tocongestion, mostly in and out of the towns served. The length of the routes, and the impact of delayson waiting times along the route, make it particularly important to address this, and to do so on a sub-regional basis - the network is only as strong as its weakest part.

There is good cooperation between operators and many of the local authorities individually, onfacilities for buses, priorities, information distribution and so on. In addition to this, however, there areopportunities for the local authorities, working in partnership with each other and the operators, toprogress on a collective basis:

General bus/coach stop provision and quality and interchanges Parking enforcement along critical corridors Traffic signal prioritisation with transponders Selective road geometry and road surface markings to make bus entry into the

traffic stream easier Information and marketing

There is a particular need for real-time passenger information at bus stops and to electronic mediasuch as mobile phones and PDAs; while the technology solutions exist, much of the equipment is inplace, and operating in some towns, there are institutional and commercial barriers that need to beaddressed if the systems integration problems are to be solved and information to be extended along

the length of route for the inter-urban network. Passengers expect and get this on the railways, andraising the game for inter-urban bus must involve the same facility.

The two main bus operators are willing to engage in a sub-regional strategic partnership with thelocal authorities to address these issues on a holistic basis, and we have suggested a possible scopefor such engagement.

It remains the case that achieving significant modal shift away from the car is easier within urbanareas and on journeys between towns and their rural catchments, than for the generality of inter-urban


13/18

11


journeys where journey patterns are more dispersed, and longer journeys make alternative modesless attractive or practical.

Nevertheless a longer term vision for a step-change in the role of inter-urban bus, including extensive

application of park-and-ride, as set out in this report is worth taking forward. It will involve someradical thinking about policies, priorities and facilities, and require a strategic response from theoperators. The opening of the Luton-Dunstable busway will demonstrate how a major shift in therelative travel times of bus against other modes can transform the competitive offer and lead to newservice development and passengers. We are pleased to note that Northamptonshire County Councilis to develop a radical rapid transport system for the Northampton Arc, with just such atransformational objective.

We believe that an aspirational target of doubling the current patronage using inter-urban bus within10 years can be achieved.

Local transport issues

Within the urban areas there are significant congestion and accessibility problems, and this can also

have an important impact on the location decisions of employers and residents. It is important thatinvestment in local transport therefore keeps pace with growth.

There is much that the respective authorities are doing in relation to encouraging walking, cycling andbuses, and other improvements to reduce congestion. The Smarter Choices work at this local level isalso highly important Aylesbury for example has shown what a concerted effort on encouragingcycling can achieve. The travel issues within towns are also highly important for inter-urban travel:

The exact location and density of development, particularly where accessible togood inter-urban bus corridors, can significantly influence modal share; in othercases (e.g. in the Northampton Arc), development can impact on other inter-urbantravel between towns

Higher density development around sub-regional hubs (such as that planned atStation Quarter, Kettering) can encourage sustainable travel

Congestion on key corridors can have a significant impact on the reliability and

attraction of inter-urban bus services these services are only as strong as theirweakest link

A focus on improving the quality and catchments of the key local interchangesproviding access to inter-urban networks

Common standards across authorities and a focus on travel behaviour change byencouraging the appropriate mode for the different types of travel can reduce intra-urban congestion which helps improve inter-urban public transport accessibility

There is also scope for considering the linkages between development and travelin relation to major travel generators such as educational and health facilities,which serve wider catchments

In addition at local level we believe that local authorities can seriously influence thetake-up of technology change initiatives for vehicles users within their areas to helpachieve climate change goals

In terms ofrural accessibility, this has not been a major focus of the study, but we recognise the fact

that access to public transport in the rural areas of the sub-region is vital to the DaSTS goals of qualityof life and promotion of equal opportunity. The emphasis within the strategy of promotion of highqualityinter-urban bus services should help to strengthen the overall quality of rural accessibility.

Contribution to DaSTS goals

DfT have set out clearly their goals within Delivering a Sustainable Transport System and the planningprocesses that will help their delivery. The goals are:


14/18

12


to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliableand efficient transport networks

to reduce transports emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,with the desired outcome of tackling climate change

to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy byreducing transport risks, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial tohealth

to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens to improve quality of life and to promote a healthy natural environment

Our report indicates how the emerging transport strategy is informed by these goals and to whatextent it satisfies them at a strategic level.

mksm is well placed to make a significant contribution to the first DaSTS goal, and overall has anappropriate pattern of growth to support it. This also supports the second goal on carbon reduction,on the basis that achieving a target modal share by getting the relative scale and location of newdevelopment right in the first place is more effective than trying to influence travel behaviour oncepeople and firms have moved in. Alongside the promotion of travel behaviour change, the

governments approach to carbon reduction in transport involves promoting a wide range oftechnology measures - and the fiscal and regulatory policies to incentivise their adoption - to drive upvehicle fuel efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions. Thereare many opportunities for local authorities to use their own powers to reinforce and leverage thesechanges, which on an mksm-wide basis could be particularly effective.

While the potential to contribute to the last four DaSTS goals for travel within towns is substantial,because of the opportunities for alternatives to the private car, it is more limited for inter-urban travel.Nevertheless, improvements in the inter-urban bus network, including park-and-ride, and betterintegration with the existing rail networks, will make an important contribution to equality ofopportunity, and to improved quality of life especially for those without access to a car.

Planning within mksm

No purpose-designed transport planning model exists for the mksm sub-region. A number of localauthorities have or are renewing their own more granular transport models, but we understand thatnone connect with adjacent models to enable policies and scenarios wider than one local authority tobe tested reliably. While there is (understandably) no appetite for a sub-regional transport model assuch, there is a case for exploring what would be involved in developing a common modelarchitecture, and common formats and data structures for networks, zones and so on, for the variouslocal authority models. This would enable linking between models and the opportunity to properly testscenarios over parts or the whole of the mksm sub-region. The mksm partnership could lead a projectwith this objective.

Conclusions

Our report identifies that

mksm is well placed to deliver its growth agenda of homes and jobs.

Committed transport interventions on road and rail will be helpful in catering formuch of the anticipated growth, and in providing accessibility improvements whichwill in general encourage and enable that growth.

The different parts of mksm are highly inter-related in terms of travelpatterns, and the inter-urban travel is of critical importance to business.

Overall, the planned growth to 2021 is located appropriately and sustainablyfor the planned transport infrastructure (not always the case in growth areas).


15/18

13


The current plans make a good contribution to DaSTS goals ; improvementsare possible with further interventions that we identify.

This is because accessibility offered by the transport networks to enable and encourage investors to

deliver homes and jobs growth is higher where the growth plans are most ambitious. However, weexpress concern however about the effect of pressure on the Northampton Arc on the longer termprospects for growth in this area; and we note the lower accessibility of Aylesbury and the difficultiesof significantly improving it in relation to its growth plans. Meanwhile, Luton stands out as a placewhich in accessibility terms would be able to attract much higher employment than is planned, if otherfactors (such as town congestion and land availability) allowed it. Bedford will also have excellent railaccess following Thameslink completion, but similarly will need to tackle town centre congestion.

There are significant challenges affecting the overall connectivity for the sub-region:

The M1 is critical to future accessibility for the mksm sub-region, but futuremanagement strategies for this road by the HA could adversely affect access to M1for the three largest towns; joint studies are recommended with the HA and thelocal authorities, to be brokered by the mksm partnership.

The A43/A45 corridor the Northampton Arc covering Daventry/Towcester toNorthampton and to Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby and Rushden/A14 is underparticular pressure through the combination of local, regional and national trafficmovements. Current transport plans envisage only limited transport interventions.A comprehensive review is required, considering options of strategic trafficmanagement and public transport improvements as well as infrastructureinvestment; we note Northants CC have already initiated a rapid transport study.If the longer term growth aspirations of the corridor and Northampton in particularare to be delivered without adverse impacts on the existing communities thenthese issues must be addressed.

Aylesburys growth agenda is ambitious given its relatively constrainedaccessibility, due to its location, the historic nature of its road network and itslimited rail connectivity. Any improvements to the inter-urban road network aresensitive; however, the substantial improvements to bus and coach facilities within

the town, coupled with the prospect of EW Rail opening new access northwards,make a valuable contribution. Nevertheless, the overall accessibility may limit theability to achieve the targeted growth.

At the same time, there are a number of opportunities for enhancement in the transport networkswhich will not only help deliver the growth agenda but make useful further contribution to dasts goals,especially those concerned with equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as modestly tocarbon reduction.

The recognition within mksm of a sub-regional network of importance(See

Figure S.2), and the focus of future attention and investment in protecting andenhancing this network as a means of accessing the national networks andconnecting the sub-region. There is potential to co-ordinate and develop commonSmarter Choices policies and measures across the sub-region. While these willobviously have greater impact at the local level, the sharing of expertise and bestpractice across the sub-region, a focus on a common message to travellers, co-ordination of policies for travel to e.g. major health and educational facilities, andencouragement of car share and sustainable freight initiatives will also have animpact on inter-urban travel

East/West links, in particular those of the A421/A428 through Bedford and thoselinking the A505 to the M1 have been identified as carrying significant sub-regional


16/18

14


volumes and will have future decreases in journey times, and variousimprovements are being considered for these

The East-West Rail proposals will make an important contribution to east-westconnectivity in a sub-region dominated by north-south links (including Aylesbury aswell as Bicester, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Bedford), and to Oxford andCambridge outside mksm. Prospects for its use for rail freight and for (national)cross-country services will benefit the sub-region too

The role that inter-urban bus plays in connecting mksm can be enhanced byconcerted action by local authorities within the sub-region, with the bus operators,to address a range of practical issues affecting service reliability, passengerinformation and infrastructure facilities; a longer term, more ambitious vision forinter-urban bus, including use of park-and-ride, could make a strategic contributionon certain corridors

The possibility of rail electrification beyond Bedford raised in the recentNetwork Rail RUS on electrification holds the opportunity for projecting the

Thameslink service to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby

High-Speed 2 (HS2) the vision for high-speed rail from London to the WestMidlands offers the possibility of radical reshaping of the existing WCMLservicers to serve the mksm towns, especially Milton Keynes and Northampton,more effectively

In some locations the more significant challenges for delivering growth are localissues such as local transport access and congestion, or other issues such asskills, training or land availability, rather than strategic inter-urban accessibility


17/18

15


Figure S.2: Conceptual sub-regional network

StrategyThe Transport Strategy for mksm therefore

1. Recognises the close inter-relationship of the towns and areas of the mksm sub-region, as shown by sub-regional travel patterns.

2. Recognises the generally high level of connectivity for mksm offered by thestrategic and regional networks, and emphasises the critical nature of the plannedimprovements on these networks for future growth.

3. Recognises that generally the pattern of growth planned across the sub-region islocated appropriately and in areas of higher accessibility (including rail), and overallcontributes to the first two DaSTS goals.

4. Requires, in order to sustain the growth agenda, that attention be given to the keychallenges of the M1 Corridor, the Northampton Arc, and the north-southconnectivity for Aylesbury.

5. Identifies opportunities for enhancements to public transport connectivity; theseare worth pursuing both in their own right and for their wider contribution to DaSTSgoals of equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as to carbon reduction.Some, such as inter-urban bus development, the backing for EW Rail, and thelonger term benefits of reshaping the WCML services in the wake of HS2, will


18/18

16


benefit from concerted action which should be led by the mksm partnership; othersrequire pressure and advocacy with the relevant agencies.

6. Recognises the key role that individual authorities need to play to improve travel

and accessibility within their areas, and how decisions made here can have asignificant impact on inter-urban travel.

7. Involves the mksm partnership in an important continuing role to.- keep this agenda in front of government both DfT and CLG and the

national agencies it needs to influence (Highways Agency and Network Rail)

- inform the regional spatial plan review process currently being led by theregions, and engage the regions in supporting the transport agendaidentified, both for the regional DaSTS process generally and for therecommended DaSTS studies in particular emphasising the particularaspects of the transport plans which are essential to support and sustain theambitious growth agenda for the sub-region

- inform the LTP3 process led by the local transport authorities, identifying theconnections with the sub-regional agenda, and supporting those aspects ofthe local transport plans which contribute to connectivity across the sub-region

- provide leadership for the issues, identified above, which need concertedsub-region-wide action

mksm transport strategy executve summary

Documents