The West Midlands is home to a number of road enhancements identified within RIS2. This includes improvements on M6 Junction 10 and M42 Junction 6.
M6 Junction 10 improvements aim to reduce queuing on the roundabout and the motorway slip roads, the Black Country Route and other roads leading to and from the junction. The westbound A454 Black Country Route (towards Wolverhampton) was upgraded from 2 lanes to 3 to increase capacity in the vicinity of key employment sites in the Bentley area. The rationale for the scheme is to help to create future opportunities for business, employment and housing by supporting growth along the Black Country regeneration corridors whilst improving access to the Strategic Route Network. Significant benefits have been realised for pedestrians and cyclists as there is now a much safer controlled route through the junction for non-motorised users. This has also been complemented by other schemes (Connecting Bentley Phases 1 and 2) that delivered walk and cycle alternative routes linking people in the Bentley area with ODs on the other side of the motorway.
However, given that the scheme was designed to de-congest the existing situation, plus cater for background growth, previously supressed trips, and new trips generated by the development sites the scheme helps unlock, the analysis showed that – even when the changes to the vehicle fleet from petrol/diesel cars to EVs and the more free-flowing journey patterns are factored in – the scheme is more or less neutral in air quality terms.
Originally the project was projected to finish by Spring 2022, but due to COVID, logistics issues, and other unforeseen circumstances the works are still ongoing. These delays have been managed through a comprehensive communications strategy, including but not limited to the use of TfWM’s Demand Management Team, website/social media/radio updates, use of Variable Message signs. Traffic management restrictions only allow the Contractor to work during off-peak hours to aim to minimise disruptions of journeys.
The current full completion date is June 2023 although the local authority roads will be running at full capacity in advance of this date. It is still too early, however, to fully assess if the scheme has been successful in delivering its desired benefits. We understand the need to temporarily close segments of the SRN to accommodate enhancement works, however prolonged delivery of schemes, has resulted in a much greater impact on residents and businesses than originally anticipated. In the case of M6 J10, prior to the start of the scheme a package of work was undertaken to improve resilience at nearby hotspots determined by the traffic modelling. This included junction widening and traffic signal upgrades to provide greater capacity for any re-routed traffic. As noted, all local roads in the vicinity of J10 have been continued to be open at full capacity during peak periods (06:00 – 22:00) during the construction phase.
Similarly, schemes that are delivered through temporary lane reduction result in some drivers choosing to travel via local roads as an alternative. Mitigations may be put in place, such as those associated with the M5 viaduct works but again delays in completion will impact local roads for longer and could also impact delivery of Utility or local authority promoted schemes on diversion routes both of which impact our residents and businesses.
TfWM are not best placed to respond to this question.
The Covid-19 pandemic and other associated impacts has led to most delays and cost overruns in the past 3 years. Continuing effects on material and labour costs are likely to be experienced for many years to come. The pandemic also led to a change in travel behaviour, lessening demand on the SRN. The cost of living and energy crises have also come out of the pandemic, leading to further industry pressures. Climate change and extreme weather events also have ongoing programme impacts. Projects, such as improvements at M6 junction 10 and M42 junction 6 have already seen delays and cost overruns due to a combination of these factors and future projects will need to incorporate significant mitigations and contingencies.
Delays, themselves, can have impacts on the projected capacity of new infrastructure. The capacity predictions that informed the project can be outdated by the time works are completed or even started, as traffic evolves throughout a road’s lifespan and is determined by many externalities. Projections have also been affected by the pandemic, making it more difficult to determine what travel demand will be in the coming years.
The landscape of risks to timescales and costs is ever changing, so even a revised programme of enhancements within the RIS is unlikely to be delivered perfectly on time or to budget. Labour and energy prices are currently very volatile in the market. Shortages of materials and skilled workers are also ever evolving, with particular impact being felt by the freight and logistics sector. A revised programme can incorporate these risks now which will help to bring the programme back on track, but elimination of delays and cost overruns can never be guaranteed.
TfWM is currently integrating key performance indicators (KPIs) from RIS2 into our Local Transport Plan (LTP) core strategy and the LTP Big Moves. We are also aiming to go above and beyond these targets (i.e. 50% reduction of KSIs rather than national goal of 40%). This is to encourage more ambitious national targets for improving air quality, reducing collisions, etc. There is also a strong collaboration element within our LTP, to ensure that Local authority and business stakeholders understand current targets and strategies to prepare them for future ambitions.
We would like to know how RIS3 is planning for levelling up, decarbonisation, and other future scenarios that will impact the road network. RIS2 does address some of these issues, but exploration of future scenarios needs to filter throughout the project lifecycle of road improvement schemes. For instance, with developments in vehicle power sources, are you planning to reduce travel demand and work with cross-boundary and cross-sector partners to deliver this? Do future schemes take into account the variety of low emissions power sources and the associated infrastructure that’s required? Do schemes also consider air quality impacts along routes and adhere to particulate emission regulations?
Midlands Connect has run workshops with local stakeholders to draw out priorities for RIS3 and TfWM will work with them to develop priorities for future investment in the West Midlands road network. TfWM is also working to ensure that our CRSTS programme proposals align with current and future RIS projects to further the SRN improvements in the region.
TfWM recognises the importance of resilience and climate adaptation. The focus of government to date has been on efforts to mitigate climate change, but adaptation measures will now be critical to ensuring communities are resilient to locked-in climate breakdown. Without this, our infrastructure in relation to housing, transport and energy will become increasingly vulnerable. The West Midlands is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts because of the large concentration of strategic roads in the region. Networks, such as the Motorway Box of the M6, M42 and M5, contribute to local air and noise pollution problems as well as experience resiliency issues due to high usage and traffic congestion. These roads also run through areas with the highest climate change risks and levels of deprivation, increasing their vulnerability. RIS3 should include more ambitious policies around climate adaptation to further national efforts towards resiliency.
It is acknowledged that some improvements to the SRN will continue to be needed, however, the challenges facing us all in terms of the impacts of transport and travel (including carbon) and the need to change travel behaviours cannot be solved by simply adding more capacity especially where it is likely to simply to result in increasing traffic and further supporting car dependent lifestyles. WMCA in line with the Government’s ambition in Gear Change is seeking to achieve fifty percent of all trips in our urban areas walked and cycled by 2030. This will require local and national Government to help people think differently about car use and this needs a more coherent set of strategies between LTPs, Sub-National Transport Body Strategic Plans and national government policy. Greater funding control should also be given to local councils and highway authorities, so that they can have more input into how funds are distributed and where funding is invested within their region and to help deliver the most effective outcomes. We would like to see a rebalancing of road investment to better promote our policy aims of ‘decide and provide’ network development, greater modal shift, and fewer journeys particularly by single occupancy car.
The RIS2 has some positive considerations of pedestrians, public transport users, cyclists and other non-drivers on the SRN but TfWM believes that in line with the comments regarding the need to help deliver travel behaviour change above, projects and investments must be more ambitious in these considerations. As such it will be really important for future investment in the SRN to ensure it is clear on what these future needs are in light of the challenges we face and how investment can help to support the changes in travel behaviour that are needed.
The SRN carries more than just people and the vehicles they are in, so infrastructure projects should consider the interaction of pedestrians, public transport vehicles and others within the road environment. This improves safety for all users on the road network and promotes greater choice among consumers for how they want to travel and TfWM supports the efforts towards a safer road network set out in RIS2. This will help to minimise the detriment of collisions on our residents who utilise the local SRN. This also aligns well with projects to maintain the network, as keeping the roads in good condition helps to support safety. Maintenance plans are also important as climate change progresses and the network experiences more harsh weather events. This will limit the disruptions that users experience and allows them to continue to use the network during extreme weather events and in the long run.
Provision of accurate, real-time information is another important piece for improving efficiency of people’s and businesses’ journeys. RIS2 does address this need but future technologies in this space should be considered in further strategies. New technology is especially important on the digital side to connect with drivers around planned and unplanned disruptions on the network. This can feed into travel demand management to help people not only plan their journeys around traffic and disruptions, but also help to encourage them to consolidate journeys or rethink trips and transport modes in an effort to reduce carbon emissions from transport. This is explored further in the final question.
The strategy also needs to ensure that rural areas are not ignored when considering digital access. Although many rural areas often suffer from poorer digital accessibility than their urban counterparts their reliance on digital infrastructure for home deliveries, telecommuting methods and social connectivity can be huge. Improving access to digital products within rural areas can also help to reduce some of the longer distance trips which may otherwise have been taken by personal vehicle. Rural areas also generate high levels of freight deliveries from online ordering, putting mounting pressures on delivery timescales. Planning will be required around aligning rural demand for timely deliveries and the logistics sector’s management of their scheduling and routes. Consideration of last-mile delivery patterns is beneficial for urban deliveries and could be expanded to rural communities.
Transport is critical and whilst investment in appropriate new road infrastructure remains important, there is a pressing need to consider how existing infrastructure is used most efficiently and to consider how travel behaviours will need to change to support this. Furthermore, transport policy and strategy at the national, regional and local levels together with wider spatial and economic strategy must present a coherent framework to support progress against the strategic aims of decarbonisation, levelling up, productivity and growth.
RIS2 has some strong approaches for decarbonisation within the freight and logistics sector, as well as transport’s challenges to decarbonisation. However, the strategy has some blind spots. There are no national targets for vehicle mile reduction relating to decarbonisation, nor a position on how demand management/reduction should be distributed across travel between different places in the UK. Without these policy objectives, local authorities are limited in their control over and unclear on their aims for regional travel demand. Again, as noted above, investment in the SRN should be complementary and coherent with measures being brought forward in LTPs to reduce vehicle use and encourage more sustainable travel behaviours.
Decarbonisation of vehicles through a transition to ZEV’s is also important but aims should seek to transition all vehicle types; public and private (commercial and household) passenger and freight vehicles. The infrastructure for this requires integrated transport and energy planning. For example, there are opportunities to co-locate charging facilities for various public and private vehicles such as Mobility Hub type facilities. This could help leverage greater transport benefits from energy infrastructure, delivering better value for money.
However, TfWM believes that ZEVs should not be over relied on as the solution to decarbonising transport. While their tailpipe emissions are negligible, they still produce emissions through tyre and road wear and embedded carbon and without a more coherent strategy on wider travel demand we will still see congestion, road safety issues and noise pollution in urban areas and a perpetuating need for more capacity to simply meet demand which is ultimately unsustainable. National policies should recognise the limitations of ZEV’s to better deliver aims, through more diverse solutions. Similarly, there are significant trade-offs between increasing road capacity and decarbonising transport. Greater road capacity means greater emissions, regardless of if more EV’s are driving on the road network. Future RIS should reconsider the role of increased road capacity within the wider strategy aims.
RIS2 does well to address growth and productivity because it looks at both how goods and people move on the roads.. TfWM recognises that some road building is still necessary in some circumstances to support new developments to provide homes and jobs, but these must be planned well so that these communities don’t become car dependent. Isolation from urban communities and public transport provision and ultimately risks adding greater demand on local and strategic highway networks. This is detrimental to a range of policy goals, not least transport decarbonisation. The policy framework for placemaking has also resulted in division, for example with gaps between Local Development Plans and Local Transport Plans. These need to share a common vision for transport within place but instead development is permitted which is leaving a car dependent transport legacy that will make decarbonisation and other objectives less achievable. New homes can also lead to increased congestion on roads, thus nullifying current capacity improvement schemes.
Similarly, levelling up shouldn’t be solely focused around providing more road capacity. While highway improvement schemes do allow for the realisation of housing developments and economic growth, this approach is not equal because not everyone has access to a car nor benefits from new development. Those without a car are still dependent on public transport or active travel and again highlights the need for a more coherent approach between national, regional and local plans and policies. Greater strategic alignment and prioritisation of corridors for public transport and active travel, as well as ensuring permeability through the network for pedestrians and cyclists is helpful in achieving levelling up as it greater contributes to people’s access to employment, leisure and other facilities. Road building on its own cannot deliver similar connectivity and growth. Schemes would need to align with Active Travel England’s objective from Gear Change to increase 50% of all journeys by 2030, as well as be compliant with LTN 1/20 and Manual for streets.
There are a number of new road and vehicle technologies that RIS3 should evaluate. These would aid in collectively managing the network and dealing with disruptions on the SRN, KRN and local roads, including:
Monitoring of the network will require the incorporation of new technologies. The Regional Transport Coordination Centre (RTCC) at TfWM uses live data feeds and CCTV to monitor the public transport and road networks. This information is then relayed to users, so that they can plan accordingly during network disruptions. Traffic can then be redistributed across the network, limiting congestion and keeping capacity high on other SRN routes. Active travel levels are also monitored through cycling and walking counters. These can provide information on routes and analysis specific directional travel to tell us how and when the network is used. This level of monitoring should be utilised on a national level, but it being integrated with digital connectivity is a key aspect of its success.Network monitoring tools can also be used to evaluate road usership and inform local demand management schemes. RIS3 should investigate the role of demand management in both unlocking capacity on the SRN and promoting transport decarbonisation. Demand management includes:
Future road investment strategies should investigate the use of demand management tools, as they will increase capacity on roads through a reduction in vehicles and journeys. They will also help to deliver decarbonisation aims, especially through increased use of public transport, active travel and micromobility. Investments in public transport infrastructure will lead to similar reductions in car journeys, unlocking more road capacity. This also ensures that increases in road capacity work alongside decarbonisation efforts, rather than running counter to them.
February 2023