Transport Wales Welsh Assembly Governmentbailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/M4-Newport/C - Core Docume… · 2 Evolution of the New M4 Project 2.1 Early Studies In March 1989,

Transport Wales Welsh Assembly Government

New M4 Project Magor to Castleton

WelTAG Planning Stage Report

Document ref 08/7442 APPROVED WORKING DOCUMENT

1


New M4 Project Magor to Castleton

WelTAG Planning Stage Report March 2009

This report takes into account the

particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party Ove Arup & Partners Ltd

4 Pierhead Street, Capital Waterside, Cardiff CF10 4QP Tel +44 (0)29 2047 3727 Fax +44 (0)29 2047 2277 www.arup.com

Job number 117300

2

J:\117000\117300-00\4 INT PROJ DATA\4-50 REPORTS\4-50-49 WELTAG (ALSO SEE4.70.55)\WELTAG PLANNING STAGE REPORT\0002PLANNING STAGE REPORT - APPROVED.DOC 08/7442

Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 25 March 2009

Document Verification Page 1 of 2

Job title New M4 Project Magor to Castleton Job number

117300

Document title WelTAG Planning Stage Report File reference

Document ref 08/7442

Revision Date Filename 0003Report.doc

Draft 1 24/06/08 Description First draft

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name Janette Shaw Susan Thomas Dan Saville

Signature

Draft 2 17/07/08 Filename 0003Report.doc

Description Second draft


Name Jodie Matthews Stuart Watkins Dan Saville

Signature

Draft 3 30/07/08 Filename 0003Report.doc

Description Third draft



Signature

Draft 4 01/08/08 Filename 0008 Planning Stage Report.doc

Description



Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

3

J:\117000\117300-00\4 INT PROJ DATA\4-50 REPORTS\4-50-49 WELTAG (ALSO SEE4.70.55)\WELTAG PLANNING STAGE REPORT\0002PLANNING STAGE REPORT - APPROVED.DOC 08/7442

Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 25 March 2009

Document VerificationPage 2 of 2

Job title New M4 Project Magor to Castleton Job number

117300

Document title WelTAG Planning Stage Report File reference

Document ref 08/7442

Revision Date Filename 0009 Planning Stage Report.doc

Draft 5 15/08/08 Description



Signature

Draft 6 19/01/09 Filename 0002Draft 6 Planning Stage Report.doc

Description



Signature

Draft 7 20/03/09 Filename 0002Draft 7 Planning Stage Report.doc

Description Including WAG comments letter dated 9 March 2009



Signature

Issue 25/03/09 Filename 0002Draft 7 Planning Stage Report.doc

Description Approved Working Document



Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

4


New M4 Project Magor to CastletonWelTAG Planning Stage Report

J:\117000\117300-00\4 INT PROJ DATA\4-50 REPORTS\4-50-49 WELTAG (ALSO SEE 4.70.55)\WELTAG PLANNING STAGE REPORT\0002PLANNING STAGE REPORT - APPROVED.DOC 08/7442

Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 25 March 2009

Contents

Page 1 Introduction 1

1.1 New M4 Project Planning 1

1.2 Transition to WelTAG 1

1.3 Report Content 1

2 Evolution of the New M4 Project 2

2.1 Early Studies 2

2.2 Route Options 2

2.3 The M4 Common Appraisal Framework Study (CAF) 3

2.4 Preferred Route Development 4

2.5 The New M4 Project 5

3 Application of WelTAG to the New M4 Project 7

3.1 Context 7

3.2 WelTAG Transitional Arrangements 7

3.3 Planning Stage Approach 8

4 Problems 11

4.1 Existing Problems 11

4.2 Evidence Base 12

4.3 Major Maintenance 16

4.4 Extreme Weather Events 16

5 Transport Planning Objectives 17

5.1 Guidance 17

5.2 Transport Planning Objectives 18

5.3 Conformity to SMART Principles 19

5.4 Correlation Between Planning Objectives and Problems 19

6 Welsh Impact Areas and WTS Outcomes 20

6.1 Welsh Impact Areas 20

6.2 Strategic Priorities 21

6.3 Correlations 21

7 Options and Testing 22

7.1 Planning Stage - Options Studies and Development 22

7.2 Options Sifting and Testing 27

8 Participation 29

8.1 Environmental Consultation 29

8.2 First Public Consultation 29

8.3 Second Public Consultation 29

5





8.4 Stakeholder Meetings 30

8.5 Public Information Exhibitions 30

8.6 WelTAG 30

9 Option Testing Matrix 31

10 Conclusions 33

10.1 Nature and Outcomes of the Planning Stage 33

10.2 Questions Raised by the Sifting Process 34

10.3 Next Steps 35

Appendices Appendix A

CAF Sub-objectives

Appendix B

Planning Stage Workshop Report of Findings

6




Page 1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdDraft 3 30 July 2008

1 Introduction 1.1 New M4 Project Planning

Planning for the New M4 Project began in the early 1990s when Welsh Office programmes made reference to an M4 Relief Road around Newport.

Present guidance in Wales is contained in the Welsh Transport Planning and Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG), June 2008. The aim of WelTAG is to assist decision makers in making rational choices.

The guidance states that ‘the appraisal process will need to be applied to proposals which have already been well researched and developed’.

1.2 Transition to WelTAG

The key principles of the WelTAG approach are that it should be objective-led and subject to participation. There are three stages to the process:

Planning Stage: This starts from problems and opportunities, continues through the setting of objectives, identification of possible solutions and initial sifting, to option development and preliminary testing.

Stage 1: This comprises the screening and testing of those options which made it through the planning stage in order to assess performance against the transport objectives and the wider sustainability objectives of the Assembly Government.

Stage 2: This is a more detailed quantitative and evidence-based appraisal of the feasible options.

1.3 Report Content

This Planning Stage Report outlines the planning and appraisal history of the scheme, together with the vision and key objectives which have been agreed and publicised. It sets out the problems and agreed transport planning objectives, outlining the means by which they were derived and refined, together with the options considered, the testing method and outcomes.

7





2 Evolution of the New M4 Project 2.1 Early Studies

In March 1989, the (then) Secretary of State for Wales commissioned the South Wales Area Traffic Survey (SWATS) to review the traffic patterns over part of the trunk road network in South Wales to ascertain the sections which were likely to exceed their recommended flow levels, and to identify possible solutions. Following this study, in May 1991, the proposal for a relief motorway around Newport, the M4 Relief Road, was included in the Trunk Road Programme.

2.2 Route Options

Arup was appointed in 1992 on the basis of a DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) Stage 1 study ‘to consider all route corridor options for improvement of the M4 motorway between Magor and Castleton’ in order ‘to enable the Secretary of State to decide upon a preferred route for the scheme’.

Initial Studies

Initial studies were carried out, in accordance with DMRB guidelines, between 1992 and 1993 to gather basic data on the environment, traffic, engineering, planning constraints and topography in a study area of approximately 110 square miles between Cardiff and Caldicot (east-west), and Cwmbran and the coast (north-south).

Using the base data collected, a full range of possible routes was identified to the north and south of Newport. The aim was to go through an exhaustive selection process that would leave no feasible road-based opportunity unexplored. All route options and sub-options were assessed on the basis of environmental impacts, cost, traffic, engineering and economics, during which the least favoured options were discarded. Broadly, the options could be grouped into three principal corridors: north of the M4, south of the M4, and along the general line of the existing road.

The best route option north of Newport was found to be not as good as those to the south. It was nearly 4 miles longer, would cause major impacts on the landscape where it crossed the valleys and hillsides north of Newport and would not attract sufficiently high levels of traffic from the existing M4 motorway. In economic terms, it performed much less well than the southern routes.

The option for widening the existing M4 motorway was also assessed, including consideration of the significant disruption and consequential delays that such a scheme would involve. To meet desirable standards, some 340 residential properties were identified for demolition, primarily in the High Cross and St Julian’s areas of Newport, as well as through the Brynglas ridge where a new tunnel would need to be constructed. In economic terms, it also performed less well than the southern routes.

Various combinations of on-line and northern alignments were considered but these did not compare favourably with routes south of Newport. There were sets of public consultations (in 1993 and 1994), which are described in more detail in Section 8 of this report.

Selection of Preferred Route

After examination of the results of the Second Public Consultation and further study, the preferred route was announced by the Secretary of State in July 1995 and became subject to TR111 Planning Protection. The route was modified in 1997 in the vicinity of Duffryn to take account of the LG development.

8





2.3 The M4 Common Appraisal Framework Study (CAF)

CAF Study and Findings

Arup was commissioned by the Welsh Office in 1997 to undertake a ‘Common Appraisal’ of all possible options to provide relief from the anticipated effects of increasing traffic on the M4 around Newport (Junctions 23a to 29). This was a multi-modal study, which adopted an ‘objectives-led’ methodology.

CAF developed scenarios to address the transport objectives for the M4 Relief Road based on road building, public transport, traffic/demand management and hybrid combinations. The performance of these scenarios was then assessed using transport, economic and environmental sub-objectives using measurable indicators (the CAF sub-objectives can be found in Appendix A).

The main conclusion, reported in 1999, was that there seemed to be two ways of providing relief from the effects of increasing traffic on the M4 around Newport:

• The first was through the construction of the M4 Relief Road. This was economically beneficial but would cause environmental damage to nationally important resources and would encourage more car trips.

• The second was with a hybrid strategy combining some car restraint (i.e. tolling the M4) with significantly improved public transport to encourage mode switching. This approach was consistent with the general aim of UK national transport policies at the time.

In February 2000, the National Assembly for Wales Local Government and Environment Committee considered the CAF Study. It felt that tolls on the existing M4 would inhibit economic development as well as directing traffic onto unsuitable local roads; the hybrid scheme was thus considered unacceptable.

A new hybrid scenario (Hybrid 2) was subsequently considered. Hybrid 2 provided additional highway capacity at the Brynglas Tunnels and associated motorway widening, replacing the motorway tolling measure in the first hybrid.

In considering the overall conclusions of the CAF Study, the Transport Directorate (now Transport Wales) found that none of the alternatives investigated would relieve the M4 around Newport to the same degree as the M4 Relief Road.

Without significant traffic restraint, such as motorway tolling, the Directorate found that either new road building or motorway widening would be the only effective measure to reduce traffic congestion. However, motorway widening had been discarded during earlier feasibility work in favour of building the Relief Road because of the impact on the built environment, the high cost and the poor economic return.

The conclusion was to:

• Discard Hybrid 2.

• Discard widening of the existing M4 around Newport as a means of increasing capacity.

• Accept that the M4 Relief Road would be the appropriate scheme to implement if increased capacity is needed, but not to proceed at this stage.

In 2002, the proposal for an M4 Relief Road was put “On Hold” in the Trunk Road Forward Programme, pending the conclusion of the Wales Spatial Plan.

CAF Review

Following the Ministerial announcement (December 2004) that the New M4 Project was being moved from ‘on hold’ to Phase 2 of the Trunk Road Forward Programme (projects that could be ready to commence by 2010), Arup reviewed the CAF work. The key findings of this review were as follows:

9





Project Objectives: Notwithstanding the re-casting of objectives for the New M4 Project, the main problem targeted has not changed, i.e. tackling the effects of increasing congestion on the existing motorway.

National Transport Policy: The CAF Study was commissioned in 1997. Since then, there has been devolution in Wales and a general shift in transport policy statements towards sustainability.

Tolling/Charging: Since the CAF work, the prospect of road pricing had been considered for some areas. However, government pronouncements have indicated that a national road pricing scheme is unlikely to be pursued in the near future.

Climate Change Impacts: The global debate on climate change is much more prominent than was the case during the CAF Study. Indeed, the Stern Review to Government (October 2006) on the economics of climate change highlighted the need for urgent national action to limit carbon emissions.

Newport’s Growth Strategy: At the time of the CAF Study, Newport had a plan based on consolidation, whereas Newport is currently planning a growth strategy. The CAF demand management approach would conflict with Newport’s plans for growth unless alternative means of transport were provided.

Construction Costs: Construction costs have risen significantly since the earlier CAF work and would affect the comparative assessment between options.

On the basis of a qualitative assessment of the above change factors it was generally considered that broadly similar technical conclusions would have been reached on the options that were developed and tested at the time. However, those original options were developed some nine years ago and national views on how to deal with traffic congestion, and the need to limit CO2 emissions, have altered.

The above charts how new planning and appraisal techniques have been used to aid planning and inform decision-making and evidences how an objectives-led multi-criteria analysis of multi-modal options has been applied to address congestion on the M4 around Newport. CAF anticipated the introduction of WelTAG by utilising the same fundamental approach and principles.

2.4 Preferred Route Development

Preliminary Design

In 1997, work started on the Preliminary Design of the preferred route corridor for the M4 Relief Road. This was conducted in accordance with the requirements of DMRB Stage 2 – the purpose of Arup’s commission being ‘to provide the Secretary of State with adequate detail on the project to enable him to seek and obtain the necessary Scheme and Side Roads Order to construct it’.

The Stage 2 objectives for the scheme were:

• To provide relief of or from the anticipated effects of increasing traffic on the M4 motorway around Newport between Magor and Castleton;

• To develop the scheme on the basis of acceptable environmental, financial,

economic and safety criteria.

10





These objectives were derived from those stated in the report ‘Roads in Wales – 1994 Review’ (with subsequent updates), together with the annual Welsh Office Departmental Report and the various statements made in connection with the scheme.

As part of this process, specific surveys were undertaken along the corridor to gather data to support both the environmental assessment and the preliminary design.

It was recognised that further options which modified the preferred route would emerge during preliminary design, in view of the timescale of the development of the project since the initial studies.

With the M4 Relief Road in place, flows on the existing M4 were forecast to reduce by between 30% and 40%, to levels at which congestion would be unlikely to occur within 25 years of the year of opening.

The findings of the Stage 2 works were presented in a Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) in 2001.

In January 2002, the M4 Relief Road was put into the On Hold category of the Trunk Road Forward Programme 2002, pending the outcome of the Wales Spatial Plan. The TR111 protection zone for the motorway was extended in 2003, following announced changes at Llanwern Steelworks, to facilitate potential changes in the route alignment in this area.

2.5 The New M4 Project

In November 2004, ‘People, Places, Futures: The Wales Spatial Plan’ was adopted and stated the intention to:

[…] increase the transport capacity of the corridors and gateways to Europe and beyond. This will include capacity enhancements on the M4 and A465 corridors through the Trunk Road Forward Programme as well as development of routes from Cardiff International Airport.

Following this, in December 2004, the Minister for Economic Development and Transport announced, as part of his 2004 Transport Review, that the New M4 Project was included in Phase 2 of the Trunk Road Forward Programme (i.e. schemes that could commence by April 2010).

The announcement initiated studies to investigate funding and procurement methods, together with a number of key review activities:

• A re-examination of route corridors, considering in particular the implications and consequences of legislative changes and physical developments within the original project study area (Re-examination of Route Corridors Report, March 2006);

• An holistic review of the 1997 Modified Preferred Route in the light of relevant changes that may have occurred since 2002, primarily the cessation of steelmaking and redevelopment at Llanwern (Preferred Route Review, April 2006);

• A review of the junction strategy for the New M4 taking into account current traffic flows and predictions and an initial assessment of the impact of tolling (Junction Strategy Review, April 2006).

The Re-examination of Route Corridors was conducted by means of a facilitated workshop involving relevant Assembly and Statutory Agency (stakeholder) personnel, the purpose of which was to look at the route corridor of the road scheme in the light of strategic change factors, to consider whether the decision to pursue a southern corridor remained valid. It concluded that environmental risks and constraints had increased along all route corridors but not so as to preclude progress of the scheme on the southern corridor. In progressing the southern route, it was emphasised that the issues and constraints identified

11





at the workshop must be addressed, in particular the impact of development on the Gwent Levels suite of SSSIs; historic landscape; archaeology; and flood risk.

The Preferred Route Review considered the following key factors:

• River Usk – this was formally designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) in December 2004.

• Gwent Levels Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) - increased obligations to protect and enhance SSSIs introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.

• Llanwern Steelworks ‘Corus’ - the ending of steel production.

• Newport City Council’s (NCC) Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

• Monmouthshire County Council’s (MCC) UDP

• Junctions - proposed locations

• Proposed Network Rail Sidings within Newport Docks

• Uskmouth Railway Line - reopening

• Docks Way Landfill Site - planned extension.

It recommended a revised alignment, moving the route further north at Llanwern (with associated alteration to the west around Tatton Farm), reducing the severance in the Gwent Levels SSSIs and historic landscape. Alterations to the Newport UDP also facilitated a northward movement of the alignment away from protected areas at Duffryn.

The Junction Strategy Review considered the merits of intermediate junctions and recommended a junction east of the River Usk, providing a good connection to Newport’s road network via Meadows Road and the Southern Distributor Road. It also proposed that the provision of a western partial junction with east-facing slip-roads would accommodate direct access to the western sector of the city from the east.

Revised Preferred Route

Revisions to the 1997 Modified Preferred Route identified in the Preferred Route Review were the subject of a revised TR111 (April 2006) and related Public Information Exhibitions in April-May 2006.

The strategic objectives of the project were outlined for the public in a brochure distributed in April 2006, prior to the public information exhibitions.

• Social: to deliver enhanced accessibility to services and employment opportunities for people, whilst retaining a choice for road users.

• Economic: to deliver a more efficient transport capability for road traffic on the primary economic gateway to South Wales, to facilitate growth in regional and national prosperity.

• Environmental: to prevent, reduce and where practicable offset any significant adverse effects on environmental receptors.

12





3 Application of WelTAG to the New M4 Project 3.1 Context

In applying WelTAG, regard must be taken of the fact that the Minister for Economic Development and Transport in December 2004 announced that the New M4 Project was being moved to Phase 2 of the Trunk Road Forward Programme (schemes which could commence by April 2010).

Following major incidents on the M4 at Newport, Ieuan Wyn Jones, Deputy First Minister, during Assembly proceedings in the Senedd on 19 September 2007, stated the Assembly Government’s commitment to delivery of the New M4 by 2013.

Given the advanced state of progress of the scheme and Ministerial announcements, certain WelTAG stages are, of necessity, a reconsideration and validation process, drawing on the multi-modal and DMRB-based studies which have already been conducted.

3.2 WelTAG Transitional Arrangements

In the published version of WelTAG the following guidance is given:

WelTAG will need to be applied to projects that have already been advanced to some degree, but which have not yet been approved. Any previous appraisal work can be used in the context of WelTAG (Stages 1 and 2) as long as it is still relevant and updated. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 provide guidance on the transitional arrangements for major road and rail schemes.

Figure 3.1 from WelTAG, reproduced below, confirms that an appraisal must be completed using the principles of WelTAG.

13





Clearly much of the work undertaken for the planning stage equivalent of WelTAG preceded the final version of the guidance and the final version of the Wales Transport Strategy (April 2008). Table 3.2 of the published WelTAG guidance (June 2008), reproduced below, itemises the differences from previous versions and acknowledges changes to the WTS which are pertinent to the planning stage.

3.3 Planning Stage Approach

The approach to the Planning Stage is summarised in WelTAG as follows:

The planning process has to start from problems and opportunities, then set objectives, then identify the best ways of achieving these. An important implication of this is that the planner has to consider a diverse range of alternatives, and not start from an implicit objective of promoting a particular proposal.

Given the context of the scheme, described in 3.1 above, the approach is primarily one of endeavouring to confirm previous assumptions and objectives and testing those conclusions using the new WelTAG approach i.e. a post hoc consideration of the evidence in the light of the objective-led sequence in WelTAG.

Method

Accordingly, the Planning Stage has entailed a series of steps, as follows, with the first two being conducted through the means of a Workshop held on 24 October 2007 (following on from a workshop in 2005, see below). The purpose of the workshop was to examine and seek consensus on the problem that the New M4 is intended to resolve, together with the objectives against which potential options should be assessed.

Participation in the workshop was more limited than might be the case under schemes which are less advanced, in order to avoid confusion over the status of the project. Attendance comprised Assembly staff from relevant departments and staff from Arup. This report variously covers the outcomes from the workshop in subsequent chapters and a summary report of findings can be found at Appendix B, including a list of attendees.

Problem Validation

The “problem” is expressed in Assembly plans, policies and programmes and previous objectives for the scheme. In essence it has been characterised as journey time unreliability due to increased congestion and capacity limitations and inherent shortcomings in the layout of the existing motorway and east-west transport links. This problem was identified as one of the key challenges affecting the social, economic and environmental well-being of Wales in the Wales Transport Strategy Draft July 2006 (the version current at the time of the workshop):

Rising traffic levels have led to increased levels of congestion and deterioration in journey time reliability. While much of our network is congestion-free for a large part or all of the day, significant problems exist on strategic routes such as the M4 and also in main urban

14





centres. Unreliability means that more time needs to be planned for journeys, which is a particular problem for businesses and freight operators. […] Improvements are already underway or are planned to address congestion on the M4 in South Wales.

It should be noted that this paragraph has since been removed from the final version of Connecting the Nation: the Wales Transport Strategy (2008), but had clear contextual relevance to the workshop.

Work to date has confirmed the capacity problem on the road network around Newport, and Chapter 4 of this report sets it out in more detail. Agreement on the problem was regarded as a fundamental step, notwithstanding previous suppositions.

Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs)

A WAG stakeholder workshop was held in July 2005. This initiated a process which culminated in the January 2007 draft set of SMART objectives for the scheme (reproduced in section 5 of this report).

The objectives agreed by the 2005 workshop were to be used as the basis of initial stakeholder consultation, and were to be tested using the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), the appraisal process temporarily in place prior to the implementation of WelTAG.

Given the time that has elapsed since initial WAG stakeholder engagement, the WelTAG Planning Stage workshop was used as a follow-up to test the level of support for the objectives proposed.

In addition, an exercise was undertaken in December 2006, which tested the degree of fit between the objectives of the New M4 project and those used in CAF. There was a close correlation between the objectives.

The principal areas in which the CAF approach was less expansive than WelTAG relate to the degree of participation and the extent of social impact examination.

Associated Transport Measures

As part of the earlier planning stage (NB, this predates the current WelTAG Planning Stage), consideration has been given to the package of measures which might make up the New M4 Project. A first pass on suitable associated measures against a preliminary set of transport planning objectives was conducted in August 20051. Essentially these measures were aimed at enhancing social integration and performance of the scheme through the encouragement of non-car modes and reduced dependence on the car, the potential for which might be delivered as part of, or facilitated by the project.

Strategic Performance Comparison As part of this Planning Stage, the feasible problem-solving scenarios have been subjected to a strategic comparison of performance to verify the option(s) for testing in WelTAG Stage 1. The baseline scenario, for use as a comparator, is ‘do minimum’. More detail can be found in section 9 of this report.

Reporting The output of this stage is this report covering:

• Problems and opportunities

• Transport planning objectives

• Possible solutions and sifting

• Identification and development of options to be tested under WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal.

1 Associated Measures Scoping Report

15





As indicated above, the focus of this stage of WelTAG is to bring relevant previous work up-to-date and attend to gaps which have arisen from policy development, attitudinal change or advancement in appraisal techniques and/or baseline knowledge.

2007 Workshop Commentary on Method

The approach set out in this report had previously been described in the information pack given to participants in the 2007 workshop. The description covered work to date and work that was anticipated as part of the WelTAg Planning Stage. At the workshop, it was agreed that this method conformed to the principles of WelTAG in the guidance then current (May 2007).

The WelTAG guidance manual (final version) was published in June 2008. Whilst there have been some revisions to WelTAG they do not alter the general approach and method of the planning stage.

It is a WelTAG requirement that planners demonstrate how TPOs contribute towards the Wales Transport Strategy (WTS) outcomes. While the Wales Transport Strategy was not published until April 2008, the workshop participants had, in the spirit of WelTAG, regard to the Draft WTS (July 2006) outcomes. Between the beginning of the consultation process in 2006 and the final published version of the strategy in 2008, these outcomes did not change.

16





4 Problems 4.1 Existing Problems

The M4 is the principal economic lifeline of South Wales. It provides the strategic link into the industrial metropolitan area of South Wales and forms part of the internationally designated transport corridor (TEN) from Ireland to England and on to mainland Europe. The over-riding problem on the M4 in south east Wales is one of congestion during peak periods of travel and hence journey time unreliability and a poor safety record. During these times, traffic is slowed and stop-start conditions are a common occurrence with major and minor incidents exacerbating delays and causing journey time unreliability. Traffic has grown substantially since 1990, and a comparison of current flows with the theoretical capacity for urban and rural motorways2 has shown that sections of the existing M4 around Newport are operating at, or approaching, capacity during weekday peak periods of travel.

The M4 around Newport does not conform to present motorway standards. It lacks a continuous hard shoulder, has closely spaced junctions with sub-standard visibility and narrows to a restricted two lane section through the Brynglas Tunnels. Heavy congestion occurs along this stretch, and either side of it, at peak hours. The most heavily-trafficked section is Junctions 29 to 28.

Congestion on the M4 around Newport

The Wales Spatial Plan adopted by the Assembly Government on 17 November 2004 recognised the existing problem by confirming that there was a need for additional capacity on the M4 in South Wales as part of the wider integrated transport strategy for South East Wales.

The key problems with the transport system in south east Wales are summarised in the table below: Table 4.1 Problems with the Transport System in South East Wales Problems Definition

P1 There is a lack of resilience* in the road network around Newport.

P2 There is a mismatch between demand and available capacity on the motorway around Newport.

P3 Problem P1 and P2 will worsen over time.

P4 The existing transport system acts as a constraint to economic growth.

P5 There will be capacity restrictions during essential major maintenance on the existing M4 within the next 5-10 years.

2 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 1, Part 3, TA 79/99 ‘Traffic Capacity of Urban Roads’

17





Problems Definition

P6 HGVs do not operate efficiently on the motorway around Newport. P7 There is an air pollution problem associated with the motorway around

Newport. P8 Traffic congestion on the M4 around Newport contributes to emission of

greenhouse gases. P9 The transport system is at increasing risk from extreme weather events.

P10 There is an environmental noise problem associated with the motorway around Newport.

P11 The existing transportation system does not meet the Wales Spatial Plan aspirations as a gateway to Wales.

P12 The existing transportation system does not meet the aspirations of the local development plans.

P13 The current accident rate on the existing M4 is higher than average. P14 The existing M4 is a barrier to intra-regional travel.

* Resilience is the ability of a network to cope with sudden changes in demand or operation, eg traffic throughput could be maintained during periods of temporary disruption.

4.2 Evidence Base

High Traffic Demand

In 2001, traffic forecasts were made for the M4 around Newport for 2007. Comparison of the observed 2006 daily flows against the forecast 2007 daily flows shows that traffic growth in the intervening years has been higher than predicted.

Table 4.2 Traffic Flows on M4 around Newport

SECTION OF M4 OBSERVED DAILY TRAFFIC FLOW IN 2006

(Vehicles/day)

2001 TRAFFIC FORECASTS* FOR 2007

(Vehicles/day)

J24 – J25 102,000 94,000

J25 – J26 78,000 70,000

* Prepared as part of the M4 Relief Road Studies

The observed peak hour traffic flows3 have been compared against the theoretical capacity on significant lengths of the motorway around Newport.4 This has shown that, during peak periods, existing traffic flows reach up to 99% of theoretical capacity.

It is generally recognised that traffic conditions deteriorate when traffic flows reach around 85% of theoretical capacity with delays occurring during some peak periods. Peak period traffic flows on the M4 around Newport regularly exceed 85% of theoretical capacity and peak period congestion on the M4 around Newport occurs regularly on weekdays throughout the year, but especially during school term time.

Observed Patterns

Staff at the South Wales Traffic Control Centre were interviewed with a view to ascertaining what might be considered ‘typical’ (without incident) traffic conditions on the M4 between junctions 23 and 29. Their observations are reported fully in the Arup report, ‘Consequences of Doing Nothing on the M4 Corridor’, and are illustrated in the following photographs.

3 Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data from March 2007 4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 5, Section 1, Part 3, TA 79/99 “Traffic Capacity of Urban Roads”

18





Morning Peak Hour: Queues on westbound approach from Junction 25 to Brynglas Tunnels.

Morning Peak Hour: Queues eastbound on Malpas Straight extending to Junction 27.

Evening Peak Hour: Eastbound queues on approach to Junction 26.

19





Traffic Speeds

The graph illustrates the average recorded speed of traffic on Malpas Straight, between junctions 27 and 26 in the eastbound direction during the evening peak for a randomly selected week in March 2007. It indicates that traffic speeds vary quite dramatically, with speeds dropping significantly at times to below 40kph (25mph) – in comparison with the interpeak average of about 100 to 110kph (63 to 70mph).

Average Speed on Malpas Straight (J27-J26)PM Peak Eastbound

Week Commencing 05 March 2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

16:30

16:40

16:50

17:00

17:10

17:20

17:30

17:40

17:50

18:00

18:10

18:20

Time

Spee

d (k

ph)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Spee

d (m

ph)

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Peak Spread

In addition to higher traffic volumes, examination of the peaks indicates that the am peak starts earlier and that the pm peak lasts longer in 2007 compared to 1997.

Weekday Traffic Flows Through Brynglas Tunnels 1997 Compared to 2007

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

00:00

- 01:00

02:00

- 03:00

04:00

- 05:00

06:00

- 07:00

08:00

- 09:00

10:00

- 11:00

12:00

- 13:00

14:00

- 15:00

16:00

- 17:00

18:00

- 19:00

20:00

- 21:00

22:00

- 23:00

Time

Traf

fic F

low

(veh

icle

s pe

r ho

ur)

19972007

20





Accidents

Accident data for the period 2002 to 2005 indicates that the M4 section J24 to J28 has an accident rate which is high compared with average values for a road of its type. The substandard alignments, high concentration of junctions, absence of continuous hard shoulder and everyday congestion contribute to this higher than average occurrence of accidents. When an accident occurs queues and delays build up quickly and can take a long time to dissipate.

Congestion due to Accident between Junctions 29 and 28 Eastbound.

A fatal accident involving a lorry travelling westbound near Junction 27 on 2 August 2007 resulted in closure of the motorway for approximately ten hours. The ensuing congestion from the closure saw some road users stranded on the motorway and other local roads, such as the Southern Distributor Road, for several hours and the cost to the economy has been estimated at several millions pounds. Whilst this was a particularly severe example, there have been many other examples of significant disruption due to accidents on the M4 motorway.

Freight Operators

Surveys on the M4 indicate that Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) account for a range of 8-14% of daily traffic.5 A selection of freight representatives, hauliers and transport managers for retail organisations were interviewed about their use of the M4. The majority of views were negative, characterising the M4 around Newport as congested, unreliable and unsafe, affecting just-in-time delivery and driver working hour restrictions.

Air Quality

The M4 passes through built up areas on the north side of Newport, being most constrained in the areas of St Julians, around the Brynglas Tunnels and at High Cross where housing areas lie adjacent to and/or above the road.

That the presence of the M4 has adverse impacts on air quality is evidenced by the fact that 4 out of Newport’s 7 Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), 6 listed below, are associated with the M4:

• Glasllwch AQMA - located south of the Junction 27 off Basseleg Road, extending either side of the M4.

• Shaftesbury/Crindau AQMA - located around Junction 26 of the M4 including part of Malpas Road.

• St Julians AQMA – located at the north end of Denbigh Street immediately adjacent to the slip road at Junction 25 of the M4.

• Royal Oak Hill AQMA - located adjacent to the M4 motorway just west of where Royal Oak Hill crosses the motorway.

5 Arup classified traffic counts on M4 motorway links, 2005 6 An AQMA is declared where it is predicted that National Air Quality Standards will be exceeded – in these cases it is due to the NOx level of vehicle emissions.

21





4.3 Major Maintenance

To date, maintenance has been carried out at night and at other off-peak times to minimise the traffic impact. However, significant investment will be needed in the near future to ensure the continued safe and effective operation of the route. This will include maintenance and refurbishment works as part of the natural lifecycle of the route such as carriageway in-lays and reconstruction, together with re-waterproofing and joint replacement to the structures.

Specifically, the tunnels at Brynglas require substantial maintenance and improvement work to maintain safe operations. A number of other structures will need substantial refurbishment.

These works have yet to be firmly scheduled but it has been broadly programmed that the works might take some 5 to 8 years to complete, budget permitting. Given the network availability and budgetary constraints currently imposed on Transport Wales, it is anticipated that the work is likely to be programmed over a period of 8-10 years.

Whilst every effort will be made to undertake these works at night, the nature of the works, together with layout constraints, will inevitably necessitate daytime restrictions of the motorway, ranging from lane and slip road closures to full carriageway closures, diversions and contraflow arrangements. The critical length is the two lane section between junctions 25 and 26; this includes the Brynglas tunnels, Malpas Viaduct and the bridges across the River Usk.

4.4 Extreme Weather Events

The Environment Strategy of the Welsh Assembly Government (2006) notes that 'we expect to see impacts in Wales as a direct result of climate change, for example increased storminess leading to a greater risk of flooding […]'. The Assembly Government’s transport strategy, ‘One Wales: Connecting the Nation’, has as one of its long-term outcomes the ability for the network to adapt to the impacts of such climate change. Specifically, 'increased flood risk, higher temperatures and more extreme weather events will present new challenges for our infrastructure and we will need to ensure that it is able to cope'. The indicators for this outcome are the proportion of the transport network protected against future flood risk and the proportion of the network that is able to cope with predicted temperature increases.

Currently, the road network has limited capacity to accommodate additional through traffic when there are problems on the rail line between South Wales and Bristol/London. Between 1998 and 2004, Network Rail had to close the Chipping Sodbury tunnel an average of 24 times a year following heavy rain. In 2004, work commenced to reduce the effect of flooding here by 70 to 80%. However, some risk of disruption remains, particularly as one of the impacts of climate change is likely to be further flooding. In addition, the line was closed in January 2008 following a landslide at the Old Sodbury tunnel, an additional consequence of heavy rain.

Stretches of the M4 around Newport, in particular at St Julian’s Hill can be affected by the build-up of surface water during periods of heavy rainfall. The steep hills and tight bends in this area create an environment where managing surface water run-off during periods of inclement weather is difficult and can affect the operation of the motorway. This could get worse in the future if extreme weather events become more commonplace and would further compromise the ability of the motorway to operate efficiently during these times.

22





5 Transport Planning Objectives 5.1 Guidance

WelTAG has the following to say about the setting of Transport Planning Objectives (TPOs):

TPOs should be framed in such a way that:

• They focus on the outcomes to be achieved (the ends rather than the means);

• They are specific about what the planner or promoter wishes to achieve;

• They relate directly to the identified problems and opportunities;

• Their success can be tested in a consistent manner;

• They are sufficiently detailed to enable the comparative assessment of different options.

In addition objectives should comply with SMART principles:

Specific, in that it will say in precise terms what is sought;

Measurable, in that there will exist means to establish to stakeholders' satisfaction whether or not the objective has been achieved;

Attainable, in that there is general agreement that the objective set can be reached;

Relevant, in that the objective is a sensible indicator or proxy for the change which is sought; and

Timed, in that the objective will be associated with an agreed future point by which it will have been met.

23





5.2 Transport Planning Objectives

These objectives were the result of the 2007 workshop and were reported in the Arup draft report, WelTAG Planning Stage Workshop Report of Findings (see Appendix B for more details).

Table 5.1: TRANSPORT PLANNING OBJECTIVES for the Transport Systems within South East Wales

Objectives Definition (Note: The timing of these objectives apply from the date of the workshop - October 2007)

TPO 1 To achieve traffic demand on the motorway around Newport that does not exceed 85% of its theoretical capacity within 10 years.

TPO 2 To reduce the number of incidents per week on the motorway around Newport to be comparable with the average for similar roads in Wales within 10 years.

TPO 3 To increase the journey time reliability of freight movements on the motorway around Newport within 10 years.

TPO 4 To provide sufficient network flexibility to undertake essential major

maintenance on the motorway around Newport without causing unacceptable disruption within 10 years.

TPO 5 To reduce air quality pollution around Newport by 2015.

TPO 6 To reduce the number of people subjected to high noise levels by 2015.

TPO 7 To reduce greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle and/or person kilometre within 10 years.

TPO 8 To reduce the probability of disruption by extreme weather events within 10 years.

TPO 9 To reduce the accident rate on the motorway around Newport to be comparable with similar roads in Wales within 10 years.

TPO 10 To increase accessibility to jobs within 30 mins travel time by car and 60 mins travel time by public transport within 10 years.

24





5.3 Conformity to SMART Principles

Each objective was tested by the workshop participants against the SMART principles, with the “time” element effectively imposed by the likelihood of major maintenance in 5-10 years and the solution delivery dates in Ministerial announcements and committed programmes, i.e. availability by 2013. The results are summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2: SMART Transport Planning Objectives

5.4 Correlation Between Planning Objectives and Problems

The Workshop also conducted a cross check to ensure that each of the problems identified was addressed by at least one objective. The results are given in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Problem Fit Against Objectives

Problems Objectives

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14

TPO 1

TPO 2

TPO 3

TPO 4

TPO 5

TPO 6

TPO 7

TPO 8

TPO 9

TPO 10

25





6 Welsh Impact Areas and WTS Outcomes 6.1 Welsh Impact Areas

The Welsh Impact Areas (WIAs) focus on the three pillars of sustainability: the economy, the environment and society, and are directly related to Wales Transport Strategy outcomes. The performance of various transport interventions against WelTAG criteria in the WIAs will be tested in Stages 1 and 2.

Table 6.1 below lists the outcomes from the Wales Transport Strategy and contains an assessment of how the TPOs identified at the 2007 Workshop contribute to the WTS outcomes. The table generally follows the template recommended in WelTAG Table 4.2, but has been modified to show clearly where the outcomes and objectives intersect. There are some outcomes at which the TPOs are directly targeted (green), some where the TPOs will have a positive indirect effect (amber) and some, inevitably, where the TPOs do not coincide with the WTS outcomes. The outcomes cover, after all, a broad base of issues, and no set of scheme objectives could be expected to solve every social, economic and environmental issue in Wales.

Table 6.1 Contributions of New M4 TPOs to WTS Outcomes TPOs

WTS Outcomes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Society Improve access to healthcare Improve access to education, training and lifelong learning

Improve access to shopping and leisure facilities

Encourage healthy lifestyles Improve the actual and perceived safety of travel

Economic Improve access to employment opportunities

Improve connectivity within Wales and internationally

Improve the efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of people

Improve the efficient, reliable and sustainable movement of freight

Improve access to visitor attractions

Environmental Increase the use of more sustainable materials

Reduce the contribution of transport to greenhouse gas emissions

Adapt to the impacts of climate change

Reduce the contribution of transport to air pollution and other harmful emissions

Improve the impact of transport on the local environment

Improve the impact of transport on our heritage

Improve the impact of transport on biodiversity

26





While none of the TPOs specifically mention improving connectivity within Wales and internationally, this is the implicit goal when improving the transport network by reducing the number of incidents, providing flexibility and increasing journey time reliability. Again, though the TPOs are not aimed at improving access to visitor attractions, visitors to Wales benefit from an improved network.

6.2 Strategic Priorities

The long-term outcomes in the Wales Transport Strategy are grouped to focus on net improvement and provide strategic direction. These priorities are listed in Table 6.2 and the New M4 Transport Objectives tested against them.

Table 6.2 Contributions of New M4 TPOs to Welsh Assembly Government Strategic Priorities

TPOs

Strategic Priorities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from transport

Integrating local transport Improving access between key settlements and sites

Enhancing international connectivity; and

Increasing safety and security

6.3 Correlations

The correlation with long-term objectives and strategic priorities tends to emphasise the focus on economic factors and the role of the New M4 Project in seeking to achieve resilience in the primary east-west trunk road link in South Wales and through to Ireland.

27





7 Options and Testing 7.1 Planning Stage - Options Studies and Development

7.1.1 New M4 (Option A) See section 2.4 for details of the New M4 route development.

7.1.2 Active Traffic Management (Option B) Controlled motorways are designed to manage congestion more efficiently using mandatory variable speed limits that vary automatically according to traffic conditions. Sensors in the road detect congestion and the best speed to keep traffic flowing is calculated. The speed is displayed on signals overhead. The same speed is used for every lane to avoid lane switching. Drivers are also encouraged to maintain a safe headway behind the car in front. This helps to improve traffic flow conditions and reduce stop-start driving. Smoothing traffic flow in this way helps to delay the onset of flow breakdown and advances the recovery of traffic flow from congested conditions. When congestion is severe, the hard shoulder is used as an extra running lane under controlled conditions.

Research by the Highways Agency7 into controlled motorway schemes introduced on the M25 indicates that the measures can improve safety, journey time reliability, speed limit compliance, frequency and duration of flow breakdown, and shock wave characteristics, as well as reducing the adverse effects of noise and emissions.

The Highways Agency has also published research on its trial of ATM between Junctions 3a and 7 of the M42. 4-lane variable mandatory speed limits (4L-VMSL) have offered a significant improvement in traffic conditions. The observed capacity increased under 4L-VMSL operation by an average of 7-9%. 4L-VMSL is likely to give larger increases in observed capacity when applied on sites with longer distances between junctions. Users perceived that there were lower levels of congestion on the M42-ATM section in 2007 (46%) compared to 2003 (39%).

The analysis of secondary indicators has shown that 4L-VMSL smoothes the traffic operation on the M42-ATM section, which can potentially lead to improved road safety. Based on normalised traffic flows, there has also been a benefit in terms of environmental impact. Noise levels have been reduced by 1.8 to 2.4 dB(A). According to WelTAG Stage 2 Appraisal, ‘for estimation of exposure to noise, noise contours using 3dB(A) increments for road […] need to be mapped and overlaid with population distribution data’. These data from the M42 show that ATM on the M4 is unlikely to significantly affect the number of people subjected to high noise levels in Newport, as the likely differential is below that which has a measurable impact.

Fuel consumption has been reduced on the M42 ATM section by 4%. Vehicle emissions for a range of pollutants have been reduced by 4-10% except for hydrocarbons which increased by 3%. It is not expected that additional traffic will be attracted to the motorway as a result of hard-shoulder running.8 While hard-shoulder running was discounted from the 2004 Capita Symonds ‘M4: Making Better Use Study’, this was not because it was considered unworkable, rather it fell outside the remit of the study.9

In short, 4L-VMSL was successful in reducing congestion, improving the predictability of journey times and increasing motorway capacity.10

7 M25 Controlled Motorways Summary report, Issue 1, November 2004, The Highways Agency. See also the Advanced motorway signalling and traffic management feasibility study report to the Secretary of State for Transport, March 2008 at <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/network/policy/mtorsigntrafmanagement/advancedmotorwaysignal.pdf> [accessed August 2008]. 8 See Atkins report, ‘M4 Controlled Motorway System: Assessment of Benefits Study’ (September 2005). 9 Capita Symonds report, ‘M4: Making Better Use’ (December 2004). 10 For results of the study, see <http://www.ha-research.gov.uk/projects/index.php?id=613> [accessed August 2008].

28





7.1.3 Road-user Charging – 30p/km (Option C) & 3p/km (Option D) Road-user charging is a mechanism through which motorists pay to use roads. There are many different forms of charging regime. Arup explored the idea of area-wide road user charging, with investigations focused on motorists’ reactions to the implementation of a fixed distance-based charge.11 The conclusions are based on the following assumptions:

• All motorists pay a uniform charge (pence/km), whatever the trip purpose, social background or time of travel;

• Special permits or exemptions are not taken into account;

• Distance-based charge is uniform throughout the network;

• Road user charge is applied for all journeys in the study area;

• Charge is applied 24 hours a day;

• Target is reduction of traffic flows to 85% of capacity as defined in DMRB from M4 J23a to J29;

• Elasticities used were based on previous research into change in vehicle kilometres travelled with respect to fuel price, i.e. a fuel price increase is taken as a proxy for a distance-based charge;

• All prices quoted are in a 2005 base year.

The study into road user charging concluded that:

• The cost of travel to restrain demand to below congestion threshold levels is estimated as approximately 30 pence/km in the long term (as people find alternative ways of travel or avoid travel altogether).

• The additional cost is estimated as approximately £2,000/year in the long term for the average driver. For drivers doing more than the average km/year the cost would increase proportionally.

• The likely shift in mode of travel brought about by the introduction of the road user charge would create a significant extra demand on public transport. Initial estimates suggest that an additional 100 – 150 buses/hour may be needed to cater for this demand.

Bearing in mind the above, when considering road-user charging as an option, two pricing levels were explored. The first of these was at the 30p/km rate, with the expectation that there would be a significant modal shift and reduction in travel demand. However, it is unlikely that this higher rate could be practically introduced, so a ‘politically acceptable’ rate of 3p/km, which would be likely to be more fiscally neutral, was also considered.

7.1.4 M4 Widening – 3 lanes (Option E) & 4 lanes (Option F) Building on earlier work undertaken as part of the M4 Relief Road commission, two options have been considered for widening the existing M4, one of which could be combined with other measures, such as ATM, for further testing in Stage 1, if appropriate. These are:

• On-line widening to 3 lanes (+ hard shoulder) throughout the length of motorway between junctions 23 and 29.

• On-line widening to 4 lanes (+ hard shoulder) between junctions 29 and 24, except for through the Brynglas Tunnels, which would have a lane drop to 3 lanes (Junction 26 through to J25a).

There are certain assumptions associated with both of these options:

11 Arup report, New M4 Project Magor to Castleton, Road User Charging, March 2007.

29





On-line Widening - 3 lanes

• All sections of M4 between junctions 29 and 23 will be 3-lane (i.e. there will be new tunnel bores at Brynglas);

• It is assumed that on the eastbound approach to junction 26, there is a 4th lane, dedicated to left turners, as at present queues frequently extend back from this junction onto the dedicated inside lane of the motorway;

• Instead of being a lane gain on the M4 eastbound at J25a, it is assumed that the traffic merges in to the 3 lane motorway;

• Currently there are 4 lanes on the eastbound approach to J24, utilising the hard shoulder. 2 lanes are dedicated off-slip lanes and 2 lanes carry on across the motorway interchange. This will be amended to 4 lanes on the approach to Coldra, the inside lane will be dedicated off-slip to J24, the second lane in will be shared between the off-slip and mainline motorway, and lanes 3 and 4 will be motorway only traffic;

• It assumed that the westbound on-slip at junction 26 is a merge, where one lane on the sliproad merges in and the second lane on the sliproad merges in a further 240 metres downstream.

On-line Widening - 4 lanes

• Lane widening is between junctions 29 and 24 (because there is less demand between junctions 23 and 24);

• Four lanes in each direction, with lane drop across junctions 26 and 25a in each direction to give 3 lanes through Brynglas tunnels;

• The eastbound approach to Coldra would be 5 lanes, with the two inside lanes being a dedicated off-slip to J24;

• East of Coldra would be 3 lanes;

• The westbound approach to J28 would be 5 lanes, the inside lane being a dedicated lane for the off-slip;

• The M4 would be widened across J23a to be 3 lanes throughout (i.e. no lane drop as there is at present).

7.1.5 Public Transport (Option G) A comprehensive list of rail improvements formed part of CAF Hybrid 2. These improvements have been reconsidered12 to determine whether or not they remain capable of taking sufficient vehicles off the road network to achieve substantive trip reductions on the M4 around Newport.

Table 7.1 shows the estimated daily mode shift of the CAF Hybrid 2 rail options, revised in early 2008 to take account of measures already implemented and changes in the rail industry and in costs since the CAF study was undertaken. The options considered were:

• Cardiff to Bristol/Bath Service – Train Lengthening

Retain existing two trains per hour service and lengthen trains to 4-car operation throughout the day.

• Improvements to Cardiff to Shrewsbury line – with additional 2tph Abergavenny to Cardiff

• Park and Ride Stations plus new 2tph Chepstow-Cardiff local service

12 See Arup report, ‘Assessment of Rail Measures in CAF Hybrid 2’ (March 2008).

30





Introduce a local service (2 trains per hour) between Chepstow and Cardiff calling at Magor (with park and ride facilities), Llanwern, Newport and St Mellons.

• Caerleon

Provision of a new station at Caerleon but with trains no longer stopping at Pontypool.

• Abergavenny Station Upgrade plus additional 2tph Abergavenny-Cardiff

Upgrade of station including new car park and a minimum of 2 trains per hour between Abergavenny and Cardiff.

• Valley Lines – additional 4tph Valley Lines-Cardiff & Train Lengthening

Increase train capacity and operate additional trains into Cardiff Central.

The largest impact is from the park and ride stations (with a new 2-trains per hour service between Cardiff and Chepstow), seeing an increase of 1,250 rail trips, resulting in a reduction in M4 daily traffic volume of about 930 vehicles. Overall, the combined effect of all the revised options would be an increase of around 3,130 daily rail trips, representing a reduction in M4 traffic volume at the Usk crossing of about 2,330 vehicles per day. This would be equivalent to a reduction in the 2016 traffic volume of about 3% (equivalent to less than 2 years’ anticipated growth). This reduction in traffic volume on the M4 would have an estimated capital cost attributable to the M4 study area of £96million, and annual operating costs of £17million.13 In practice, the rail measures are part of wider schemes, and capital costs for those affecting traffic on the M4 are practically indivisible. As such, this attribution is only an indication of the relative cost to achieve the mode shift from road to rail on the M4 at the River Usk crossing.

Despite these results, the rail improvement measures fulfil a number of other objectives in addition to relieving the M4. In addition, this demand analysis is based on changes at the River Usk crossing. Some schemes will have a more significant impact in other locations, such as service frequency improvements on the Valley Lines.

There is a presumption in the road pricing option (above) of public transport enhancements necessarily running alongside to cater for trips no longer taken on the road network.

Table 7.1: Summary of Rail Option M4 Impacts and Costs (Daily Change in Demand)

Option Increase in Rail

Demand (number of trips)

Reduction in M4 Traffic

Volume at Usk

Crossing

M4 Flow After

Reduction/veh

(% reduction)

Capital Costs

(£m, 2006 prices)

Operating Costs

(£m, 2006 prices)

Cardiff-Bristol/Bath 330 250

85,250

(0.3) n/a 1.2 – 1.8

Cardiff – Shrewsbury Line – plus additional 2tph Abergavenny-Cardiff

580 430 85,070

(0.5)

See Abergavenny

below 2.5 – 2.8

Park and Ride Stations plus new 2tph Chepstow-Cardiff local service

1,250 930 84,570

(1.1) 19.8 3.1 – 3.6

Caerleon 320 240 85,580 6.6 0.1

13 See Arup report, ‘Assessment of Rail Measures in CAF Hybrid 2’ for cost assumptions.

31





(0.3)

Abergavenny 650 480

85,020

(0.6) 4.1

As Cardiff - Shrewsbury

Valley Lines Negligible Negligible

85,500

(0) 65.0 9.9 – 14.2

Total 3,130 2,330

83,170

(2.7) 95.5 16.8 – 22.5

Source: MOIRA Wales & SATURN 2016 DM models

7.1.6 Non Public Transport Improvements (Option H) The CAF study identified a number of possible improvements which were not linked to public transport or active traffic management on the existing M4. These are proposed as a package of measures as an option for consideration under WelTAG, independently of road-building.14 Some or all of these may again be considered as associated measures to any of the larger-scale infrastructure options considered in WelTAG Stage 1 Appraisal. The package includes:

• Cycling improvements (land use planning, travel plans, cycleways, advanced stop lines);

• Walking improvements (land use planning, travel plans, footpaths, crossing facilities);

• High-occupancy vehicle lanes;15

• Increased parking charges in Cardiff, Newport and Bristol and charges on workplace parking;

• Travel Awareness Measures;

• Teleworking, video-conferencing and teleservices.

7.1.7 Corridor Efficiency Improvements (Option I) In order to take a comprehensive view of the spectrum of opportunities, it is incumbent to consider the situation in the absence of the New M4 and full on-line widening of the existing M4 between junctions 29 and 24. This will require a review of the future role of the M4 motorway around Newport in the context of the transportation corridor. This may call for an alternative strategy whereby non-strategic traffic movements are discouraged from using the motorway and, where necessary/possible, improvements are made to the transportation networks and services to manage demand more efficiently. For this scenario, options might be put forward for consideration, either individually or in combination, under the following broad categories:

• Selective widening;

• Intelligent transport systems (ITS);

• Up-grading of diversionary routes to improve resilience;

• Re-focusing on use of the motorway by strategic long distance traffic through rationalisation of junctions; and

• Increasing travel choice – targeting access to Newport and motorway car journeys through park and ride/share and improved local public transport.

14 Fuel duty increases were included in the CAF proposals, but have been excluded from this package of measures due to the current conditions of rapidly increasing fuel costs, a result of global economic, environmental and political factors. 15 See Arup Working Paper on High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (June 2007).

32





It is possible that a package of measures aimed at making better use of existing infrastructure might be introduced incrementally. This would mean that some improvements might be implemented as “quick wins” and there would be flexibility in this approach to prioritise interventions to fit with investment programmes.

Whilst an alternative strategy based on efficiency improvements within the M4 Corridor might not be the optimum solution when compared to the provision of the New M4, in circumstances where it is not possible to allocate sufficient funding in a reasonable timescale, such a strategy could offer a pragmatic way forward in the short to medium term.

7.2 Options Sifting and Testing

Although recent pronouncements have suggested that road pricing does not enjoy current government support, it nonetheless remains a valid candidate for continued consideration. In England, the Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, said in a command paper, ‘Roads: Delivering Choice and Responsibility’, that:

Over the past couple of years, the debate has been running about the case for implementing a widespread road pricing scheme. […] Work is ongoing across the world to explore the new technologies and systems that could make such a scheme practicable in the future. […] In the meantime, while we are still a long way away from having these answers, our priority, over the next decade, must be on the things we can be doing to relieve pressure on the most overcrowded routes, to give road users greater choice over the journeys they take, and to recognise the premium they put on the reliability and predictability of journey times.16

In Wales, Minister for the Economy and Transport, Ieuan Wyn Jones, has said that there is ‘no prospect whatsoever of introducing charges on the existing network’, but that it would be considered on future big infrastructure projects where there were congestion issues.17

As the M4 is used as a strategic route between England and Wales, the implications of universal road pricing in either or both countries should be considered. As mentioned above (7.1.3), two versions are tested. The first is 3p/km road pricing, a rate which might have a degree of political acceptability, and 30p/km, the rate needed if sufficient travel suppression and modal shift is to occur to achieve the Transport Planning Objectives. Accordingly, both of these options were taken forward for testing against the Transport Planning Objectives along with the other options outlined in the box below.

This option testing was undertaken using largely qualitative assessment techniques, with some quantitative assessment where information existed. Quantitative assessment relied on the output of traffic modelling and the expert judgement of transport planners and engineers. The summary results of the testing exercise are shown in Table 9.1.

Options taken forward for testing against Transport Planning Objectives:

A) New M4 Motorway

B) Active Traffic Management (ATM

C) Road pricing (3p/km)

D) Road pricing (30p/km

E) On-line widening, 3 lane (60mph)

F) On-line widening, 4 lane (60mph

G) Public transport improvements

16 <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/introtoroads/roadcongestion/roadscommandpaper1.pdf> (16 July 2008). 17 ‘Road Pricing “Only on New Roads”’, 20 January 2008, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7198652.stm>.

33





H) Non-public transport improvement

I) Corridor efficiency improvements

WelTAG notes that ‘It is important not to discard possible solutions too early on weak grounds or because of lack of information, but, on the other hand, appraisal is resource intensive and there is little point in developing proposals that are unlikely to prove workable.’18

Accordingly a further filter was applied to the options in accordance with WelTAG, where ‘other tests that should be applied include fit with other policies […], public acceptability, acceptability to stakeholders, technical and operational feasibility, financial affordability and deliverability and risks’.

18 WelTAG, p. 41

34





8 Participation The project has been the subject of extensive public consultation/participation over more than a decade. Details of these consultations can be found below.

8.1 Environmental Consultation

During Stage 2 of the M4 Relief Road work, the EACG (Environmental Assessment Consultative Group) was formed to provide input to the Environmental Assessment (EA). This group met every three months and comprised formal statutory consultees (the Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, Cadw, the Caldicot and Wentlooge Drainage Board, Planning Officers from Newport and Monmouthshire Councils) and Assembly Officers (from Major Projects, Countryside, Environment and Agriculture Divisions), as well as Arup. This group has now been re-formed as the Environmental Liaison Group, which is itself constituted of smaller, more specialised sub-groups.

It should be noted that these groups have been established to discuss only environmental issues associated with the provision of the New M4.

8.2 First Public Consultation

A selection of route options to the south of Newport was taken forward to Public Consultation in the Summer of 1993. This took the form of public exhibitions which were attended by almost two thousand people. The routes were attributed purple, red and yellow. The consultation responses highlighted the concerns about the impact of the scheme on the Gwent Levels, severance of land, and the effects on communities. As a result, further consideration was given to the possibility of reducing these impacts

In July 1994, the (then) Secretary of State announced his Preferred Corridor and his decision to proceed with an M4 Relief Motorway to the south of Newport. He was, however, minded to adopt an option routeing the motorway to the north of Magor and further north on the approach to Castleton to reduce intrusion on the Levels and to take account of existing commercial and business interests; this would be subject to further examination and consultation. It was also announced that he would consult separately on navigation and affected interests where routes would cross the dock area and River Usk.

8.3 Second Public Consultation

A second consultation was undertaken in the Autumn of 1994. This took the form of exhibitions held at Magor/Undy and Castleton (and attendance of about 1,300 people) to present two options at both Magor and Castleton:

• The purple-red route represented an optimisation of the previous Public Consultation routes.

• The blue route was a revision to try and alleviate concerns about the effects on the Gwent Levels and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Postal consultation was undertaken in October/November 1994 concerning options X, Y and Z for crossing the dock area and the River Usk to cover a range of clearances above both the dock and river on different alignments. Route Y was selected as the optimum alignment based on the results of the postal consultation and a specially convened meeting with principal consultees in December 1994.

After examination of the results of the Second Public Consultation and further study, it was decided to adopt the revised (blue) options at both Castleton and Magor as being the best options for alleviating the concerns raised locally. The preferred route was announced by the Secretary of State in July 1995 and became subject to TR111 Planning Protection. The route was modified in 1997 in the vicinity of Duffryn to take account of the LG development.

35





8.4 Stakeholder Meetings

In relation to the New M4, more than fifty meetings have been held with a range of stakeholders. A Live Stakeholder Report has been produced to summarise these meetings, and that report is continually updated as and when new meetings take place.

8.5 Public Information Exhibitions

Revisions to the 1997 Modified Preferred Route identified in the Preferred Route Review were the subject of a revised TR111 (April 2006) and related Public Exhibitions in April-May 2006. A series of nine exhibitions was held in five different locations, attracting some two thousand people.19

The feedback from the exhibitions was collated, with most comments (either written on the feedback forms or noted by exhibition staff) being made on environmental issues, a third of them concerning noise. The most significant single issue raised was the suggestion that a new local junction to the east of Magor would reduce through traffic in the village. This suggestion has been fully considered and is now being considered as an associated measure.

8.6 WelTAG

In the light of route safeguarding and government announcements about provision of a new motorway round Newport, participation, as required in a conventional WelTAG planning stage inter alia seeking to identify problems, opportunities and constraints, was deemed inappropriate and potentially confusing. Accordingly, with the exception of one subsequent round of public exhibitions, participation has been limited to statutory agencies and transport stakeholder bodies:

• Stakeholder consultation took place as part of the Preferred Route Review (PRR) in 2005;

• A WAG stakeholder workshop was held in July 2005 to consider SMART Transport Planning Objectives for the scheme;

• Public Information Exhibitions were held in April-May 2006;

• A further WAG stakeholder was held on 24 October 2007 to examine and seek consensus on the problem which the New M4 is intended to resolve, together with the objectives against which the scheme and other potential options should be assessed.

This last mentioned workshop has been part of a systematic validation and endorsement exercise as part of the WelTAG planning stage.

19 See Arup report on Spring 2006 Public Information Exhibitions (January 2007).

36





9 Option Testing Matrix Table 9.1 is a summary of the Planning Stage option testing. Columns with more green cells meet more of the TPOs. The balance of red and green columns must also be considered in relation to the penultimate row (Acceptability, deliverability, feasibility). Options that are easily deliverable and have a high level of acceptability may not meet the objectives. Conversely, options that meet all the objectives may not be deliverable or acceptable to the public and other stakeholders.

37





Table 9.1: Summary of WelTAG Planning Stage Option Testing

Note: Green: Compatible; Amber: Contribution; Red: Minimal or No Impact Option (A) New M4

Untolled Option (B) ATM Option (C) Road

Pricing (3p/km) Option (D) Road

Pricing (30p/km)

Option (E) On-line widening 3

lane 60mph

Option (F) On-line widening 4

lane 60mph

Option (G) Public transport

improvements

Option (H) Non-public transport

improvements

Option (I) Corridor efficiency

improvements TP01: To achieve traffic demand on the motorway around Newport that does not exceed 85% of its theoretical capacity within 10 years.

1A) Likely to reduce ratio of traffic flows against capacity for opening year (2016) and design year (2013).

1B) Improving operation rather than capacity.

1C) Unlikely to sufficiently reduce flow.

1D) Likely to reduce flow. 1E) 3-lane sections of existing motorway currently over 85% capacity. Parts of route may meet objective.

1F) Likely to reduce ratio of traffic flow to capacity.

1G) See CAF work. Unlikely to sufficiently reduce traffic on motorway.

1H) Measures unlikely to sufficiently reduce flow on their own.

1I) Restriction of local traffic movements may reduce ratio of traffic flow to capacity.

TP02: To reduce the number of incidents per week on the motorway around Newport to be comparable with the average for similar roads in Wales within 10 years.

2A) Provides additional capacity, reducing likelihood of incidents.

2B) Likely to reduce incidents.

2C) Will not reduce flows sufficiently to make stretch of motorway comparable with similar roads in Wales.

2D) Flows much reduced, reducing likelihood of incidents.

2E) Improved highway standards, less likelihood of incidents occurring.

2F) Improved highway standards, less likelihood of incidents occurring.

2G) Insufficient reduction in number of vehicles on existing motorway to reduce likelihood of incidents.

2H) Measures unlikely to sufficiently reduce flow on their own.

2I) Closure of junctions and application of ITS likely to improve operations.

TP03: To increase the journey-time reliability of freight movements on the motorway around Newport within 10 years.

3A) Reducing congestion on the network increases journey-time reliability.

3B) Improving standard of operation likely to increase journey-time reliability.

3C) Flow not sufficiently reduced to improve journey-time reliability.

3D) Flow sufficiently reduced to improve journey-time reliability.

3E) Improved highway standards likely to improve reliability.

3F) Improved highway standards likely to improve reliability.

3G) Insufficient reduction in flow to have an impact on reliability.

3H) Little impact on freight movements.

3I) Some improvement in operating conditions for long distance freight.

TP04: To provide sufficient network flexibility to undertake essential major maintenance on the motorway around Newport without causing unacceptable disruption within 10 years.

4A) New road provides alternative route. Strategic traffic unaffected by major maintenance.

4B) On-line solution, insufficient flexibility without causing unacceptable disruption.

4C) On-line solution, insufficient flexibility without causing unacceptable disruption.

4D) On-line solution, insufficient flexibility without causing unacceptable disruption.

4E) On-line solution, insufficient flexibility without causing unacceptable disruption.

4F) More opportunities for traffic management, traffic kept live going through Brynglas tunnels.

4G) Limited impact on flows on existing motorway, therefore limited additional flexibility.

4H) Limited impact on flows on existing motorway, therefore limited additional flexibility.

4I) Improved diversionary routes provide limited relief.

TP05: To reduce air quality pollution around Newport by 2015.

5A) Traffic will be taken away from confined areas and AQMAs.

5B) Marginal impact; may reduce pollution but traffic volumes will be unaffected.

5C) Marginal impact; may reduce pollution but traffic volumes will be largely unaffected.

5D) Likely to be less traffic and therefore less pollution.

5E) Flows unaffected so pollution unlikely to be reduced.

5F) Flows unaffected so pollution unlikely to be reduced.

5G) Flows unaffected so pollution unlikely to be reduced.

5H) Likely to reduce air pollution slightly, but not to a tangible degree.

5I) Limited impact.

TP06: To reduce the number of people subjected to high noise levels by 2015.

6A) Likely to be slight reduction but not by target date: M4 to be delivered by 2016.

6B) Marginal impact; flow reduction on existing corridors insufficient to provide significant differences in noise levels.

6C) Marginal impact; flow reduction on existing corridors insufficient to provide significant differences in noise levels.

6D) Objective achievable but not by target date: M4 to be delivered by 2016.

6E) Flows unaffected on existing corridors so number of people affected by noise unlikely to be reduced.

6F) Flows unaffected on existing corridors so number of people affected by noise unlikely to be reduced.

6G) Flows unaffected on existing corridors so number of people affected by noise unlikely to be reduced.

6H) Unlikely to have impact on noise levels.

6I) Marginal impact.

TP07: To reduce greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle and/or person kilometre within 10 years.

7A) Improved vehicle efficiency due to balanced flows, less congestion, smaller gradients.

7B) Reduced stop-start conditions. Lower emissions for a range of pollutants (except hydrocarbons).

7C) Change in flows too marginal to alter efficiency of each vehicle/ person km.

7D) Improve average vehicle efficiency by reducing flow and, therefore, stop-start conditions.

7E) Improve average vehicle efficiency by reducing stop-start conditions.

7F) Improve average vehicle efficiency by reducing stop-start conditions.

7G) Reduces emissions per person if more people travel by public transport.

7H) Marginal impacts on flow.

7I) Improved efficiency by reduced disruption of motorway flows.

TP08: To reduce the probability of disruption by extreme weather events within 10 years.

8A) The provision of an additional corridor increases network flexibility in such an event.

8B) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8C) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8D) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8E) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8F) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8G) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8H) No additional flexibility as existing corridor remains the only option.

8I) Improved diversionary routes provide limited relief.

TP09: To reduce the accident rate on the motorway around Newport to be comparable with similar roads in Wales within 10 years.

9A) Improved alignment and, therefore, safer.

9B) Accident rates unlikely to be reduced to a level comparable with similar roads.

9C) The number of vehicles (and, therefore, the number of accidents) is likely to decrease, but the rate will stay the same.

9D) The number of vehicles (and, therefore, the number of accidents) is likely to decrease, but the rate will stay the same.

9E) Better highway standards, more capacity and more space. Likely improvements will not meet modern standards.

9F) Better highway standards, more capacity, more space. Likely improvements but will not meet modern standards.

9G) Accident rate unlikely to change.

9H) Accident rate unlikely to change significantly.

9I) Closure of junctions and application of ITS likely to reduce accidents.

TP10: To increase accessibility to jobs within 30 mins travel by car and 60 mins travel by public transport within 10 years.

10A) Likely to enhance accessibility by private car across a wide area of south-east Wales.

10B) Improves operating conditions for travel by car, but is unlikely to alter journey times within the parameters of 30 minutes.

10C) Insufficient impact on traffic to alter journey times.

10D) Less traffic on roads likely to improve public transport times. Unlikely to alter accessibility by car.

10E) Relieves congestion so likely to improve accessibility by car. Unlikely to impact on public transport.

10F) Relieves congestion so likely to improve accessibility by car. Unlikely to impact on public transport.

10G) Improved accessibility by public transport.

10H) Measures such as improved cycling facilities may improve accessibility for some.

10I) Improvements in public transport provision likely to improve accessibility.

Green: Amber: Red 10:0:0 2:1:7 0:0:10 7:0:3 5:1:4 7:0:3 2:0:8 1:0:9 2:7:1 Acceptability, deliverability, feasibility. Subject to public inquiry. Successfully delivered in

England. Further consultation likely to be needed.

Dependent on government policy. Unlikely to be delivered within timescales in TPOs.

Dependent on government policy. Unlikely to be delivered within timescales in TPOs.

Subject to inquiry. Subject to inquiry. Cannot guarantee delivery – dependent on market. Rail improvements, in particular, are planned years in advance.

Delivery possible with a range of partners. Some problems with HOV on existing M4, feasibility study required.

Further feasibility and consultation likely to be needed.

Summary Meets all TPOs and is deliverable.

Meets some TPOs but no additional flexibility for network. May work better as enhancement to other schemes.

Insignificant flow reductions so fails to meet TPOs.

Will reduce flow so meets some TPOs but no additional flexibility. Likely to be unpopular.

Improved highway standards but insufficient increase in capacity.

Improves standards and operation but does not increase flexibility.

Improves accessibility by public transport but insufficient modal shift to resolve road capacity problems.

Insufficient impact on transport problems around Newport.

Contributes to a number of TPOs and warrants further investigation.

38





10 Conclusions 10.1 Nature and Outcomes of the Planning Stage

The discussion in this report has been predicated on the fact that, prior to Ministerial announcements, the New M4 Project (including previous nomenclature – M4 Relief Road) had been through an appraisal process which pre-empted WelTAG and anticipated its objective-led principles.

Since the inception of WelTAG and its predecessors, the assessment process has sought to review and reconsider, in the light of contemporary circumstances, the problems which prompted the scheme and its aims and objectives. This first occurred through CAF and latterly through WelTAG.

Given substantial stakeholder involvement in the M4 Relief Road and New M4 Project, a workshop approach was used to re-examine and re-confirm the problems (see Table 4.1).

Starting from these problems, former objectives were re-appraised and re-cast in the light of current policy and thinking, resulting in the ten TPOs (see Table 5.1).

These objectives were used, in accordance with WelTAG guidance, to test the performance of potential solutions. These solutions drew from work formerly undertaken for CAF and the subsequent re-appraisal of alternatives i.e. traffic management measures, public transport initiatives and alternative road-building options. The following alternatives were tested against the scheme objectives:

A) New M4 Motorway B) Active Traffic Management (ATM)

C) Road pricing (3p/km) D) Road pricing (30p/km)

E) On-line widening, 3 lane (60mph) F) On-line widening, 4 lane (60mph)

G) Public transport improvements

H) Non-public transport improvements

I) Corridor efficiency improvements

The options were tested further against the following factors:

• fit with other policies;

• public acceptability;

• acceptability to stakeholders;

• technical and operational feasibility;

• financial affordability;

• deliverability; and

• risks.

39





The summary of the outcome of the WelTAG Planning Stage option testing is given in table 9.1. The table indicates that the New M4 Option is compatible with all transport planning objectives and, subject to Public Inquiry, is deemed to be deliverable and feasible within a reasonable timescale, subject to availability of funding.

Active Traffic Management (ATM), smoothes out existing operations and may have a positive impact on capacity and safety. Journey time reliability is thus increased. However, it does not increase network resilience. There may be some benefits in terms of noise and air pollution, but the number of people affected by noise is unlikely to be significantly affected and some greenhouse gas emissions increased. ATM was thus not seen to be an option to provide for future needs, other than as a possible associated measure to complement options that either significantly increase highway capacity in the long term or reduce travel demand. ATM could also be seen as an interim measure to deal with increasing congestion pending delivery of the New M4, currently estimated as 2016/2017.

Road pricing at 3p/km was found not to meet any of the TPOs because it did not sufficiently reduce flows, while 30p/km is likely to be more successful but also more unpopular.

3-lane on-line widening improves highway standards but is unlikely to sufficiently increase capacity. The 4-lane option meets more of the TPOs, despite not adding increased resilience.

Neither public transport improvements nor non-public transport improvements were found to solve the transport problems around Newport as independent packages or measures. However, elements of these options may be reconsidered at a later stage to complement other schemes.

The adoption of an alternative strategy involving efficiency improvements in the context of the M4 corridor by making better use of existing infrastructure and services with capacity improvements, additions and demand management measures may result in betterment in circumstances where it is not possible to provide the New M4 or wholescale widening of the existing M4 between junctions 29 and 24. These measures are considered worthy of further investigation as they could present a position where a series of affordable measures could be implemented incrementally and their impacts monitored.

It is thus concluded that the following options – which are broadly viable and address the objectives and problems – should be taken forward to Stage 1 Appraisal:

• Provision of the New M4 motorway;

• 4-lane on-line widening of the existing M4 motorway; and

• Corridor efficiency improvements.

10.2 Questions Raised by the Sifting Process

The following questions should be further investigated as part of the Stage 1 Appraisal:

• Does widening of the existing M4 provide sufficient residual life?

• Does widening of the existing M4 offer enough flexibility?

• Should ATM be considered as a subset of widening at Stage 1?

• What would be the impact of tolling the New M4?

• What measures associated with the New M4 or widening of the existing M4 might enhance the performance of the project against the TPOs?

• How could the requirements for clearing the maintenance backlog be incorporated into the on-line widening solution?

40





10.3 Next Steps

Stage 1 will entail a more detailed testing of options against the TPOs and the Welsh Impact Areas. This testing will provide a transparent audit trail via an Appraisal Summary Table (AST), using a formal scoring system and potential weighting of TPOs, to record which option(s) is/are recommended for further consideration.

41


Page A37 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 25 March 2009

Appendix A CAF Sub-objectives

42




Page A1 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 25 March 2009

CAF Sub-objectives

Environment

Environment Objective 1:Traffic noise levels in the vicinity of transportation infrastructure are minimised (EO1).

Environment Objective 2:Total greenhouse gas emissions from transport are minimised (EO2).

Environment Objective 3:Any increase in the acidification loading due to transport is minimised (EO3).

Environment Objective 4:Emissions from transport affecting local air quality are minimised (EO4).

Environment Objective 5:Minimise adverse change in designated or historic landscapes (EO5).

Environment Objective 6:Minimise any adverse effects on the integrity of designated sites of national importance (EO6).

Environment Objective 7:Minimise adverse effects upon locally designated sites of irreplaceable value (EO7).

Environment Objective 8:Minimise adverse affects on the integrity of nationally designated sites of cultural heritage (EO8).

Environment Objective 9:Minimise any increase in the susceptibility of land use activities to flood risks (EO9).

Environment Objective 10:To reduce community severance or conflict between motorised and non-motorised travellers (EO10).

Environment Objective 11:Minimise the need for property demolition or land take (EO11).

Environment Objective 12:Maximise support to transportation, land use planning, environmental sustainability and health policies (EO12).

Environment Objective 13:Minimise the amount of energy consumed by the transportation network (EO13).

Environment Objective 14:To minimise risk of extensive construction disturbance to sensitive features (EO14).

Transport

Transport Objective 1:To provide relief from the anticipated effects of increasing traffic on the M4 motorway around Newport between Magor and Castleton (T1)

Transport Objective 2:To avoid adverse traffic impact on the transport network of Newport (T2)

Transport Objective 3:To reduce reliance on the private car (T3)

Transport Objective 4:To reduce growth in the length of motorised journeys (T4)

Transport Objective 5:To improve safety for road users (T5)

Transport Objective 6:To promote accessibility to everyday facilities for all, especially those without a car (T6)

Transport Objective 7:To promote the efficient and reliable movement of freight (T7) To improve travellers’ journey time reliability (T8)

43


Page B3 Ove Arup & Partners LtdIssue 25 March 2009

Appendix B Planning Stage Workshop Report of Findings

44





B1 Introduction A WelTAG Planning Stage Workshop was held on 24 October 2007 at the Arup office in Cardiff. The purpose of the Workshop was to review the New M4 Project in the light of the draft WelTAG appraisal methodology and to examine and seek consensus on the problems which the New M4 is intended to resolve and the objectives against which the scheme and other potential options should be assessed.

A background paper titled “WelTAG Planning Stage: Workshop Information Pack” was produced and circulated to the attendees before the Workshop, together with an Agenda.

The following lists attendees at the workshop, together with those invited but unable to attend:

ACCEPTED

Catherine Mullin, WAG (DE&T Transport & Infrastructure Policy)

Charles Coombs, WAG (SPLC – Strategic Policy Unit)

Gareth Edwards, WAG (ECAD) Tony Carroll, WAG (Principal Route Manager, Roads Network Manager)

Graham Evans, WAG (DE&T – RNR10) Claire Bennett, WAG (ESH-CCWD)

Hywel Butts, WAG (SRD – Planning) Kerry Keirle, WAG (ESH-CCWD)

Jeff Collins, WAG (DE&T – RNR10) Jason Hibbert, WAG (DE&T – RNM)

Matt Enoch, WAG (DE&T – Transport Wales) Paul Witham, Arup (Highways)

James Ardern, WAG (Transport Information Officer) Dan Saville, Arup (Highways)

Len Wyatt, WAG (DE&T – RNR7) Janette Shaw, Arup (Environmental)

Louise George, WAG (SRD – Environment) Mike Edmonds, Arup (Project Management)

Tim Dorken, WAG (DE&T – RNR7) Stuart Watkins, Arup (Transport Planning)

Richard Carr, WAG (Regional Transport Policy) Susan Thomas, Arup (Transport Planning)

Daniel Halford, WAG (Strategic Policy Unit) Ellie Atkinson, Arup (Project Management)

Invited, but could not attend:

Andy Phillips, WAG (DE&T – RNM)

Colin Eaketts, WAG (DE&T – RNM)

Ian Davies, WAG (RNM)

Peter Jones, WAG (Head of Food and Coastal Management – Water Division)

Juliet Martinez, WAG (Sustainable Futures)

Suzanne Pritchard, Arup (Transport Planning)

B2 Workshop Process and Findings The workshop was chaired by Mike Edmonds and comprised presentations, to refresh and update attendees’ understanding of the project and its planning and appraisal, together with interactive sessions.

The workshop participants:

• reviewed, in brief, the history of the development of the M4 Relief Road (now the New M4);

• endorsed the methodological approach to the New M4, having regard to the draft WelTAG guidance;

45





• re-confirmed the problems with transport in south east Wales; and

• agreed a series of Transport Planning Objectives to address the problems and help define the potential solution(s).

B3 Discussion The discussion sessions covered:

• the methodology and transitional arrangements for projects subject to WelTAG;

• the problems that the New M4 project is seeking to address;

• the transport planning objectives for the New M4 project;

• how far the objectives addressed the problems and were SMART.

WelTAG Approach

It was confirmed that only ‘approved schemes’ did not have to follow the WelTAG procedures. Approved schemes were defined as those where draft Orders had been published. For schemes already under development, such as the New M4 project, the principles of WelTAG should be followed.

It was agreed that the approach set out in the workshop information pack, covering work done to date and anticipated as part of the WelTAG Planning Stage, conformed to the principles of WelTAG in the present draft guidance (May 2007).

It was suggested that a potential area of risk, viz conformity, related to the “participation” requirements of WelTAG. Accordingly, it was agreed that an assessment should be conducted into the robustness of participation in the project to date.

Given that WelTAG guidance draws from the Wales Transport Strategy (WTS) it was queried whether amendments to WTS might change WelTAG. It was agreed that any likely revisions would be capable of being complied with.

Problems

Following agreement that the principles of WelTAG were being followed properly, the Workshop moved on to focus on defining and articulating the ‘Problem’ within the context of the Transport Systems in South East Wales. [See section 4.1 of the current report].

Transport Planning Objectives

Having established the problems, Transport Planning Objectives were developed to address the problems. [See section 5.2 of the current report].

Focus of Problems on Objectives and SMARTness

The Problems and Transport Planning Objectives in the Tables above are expressed in a form that reflects the discussions, modified only for succinctness.

A cross check was conducted to ensure that each problem is addressed by at least one objective, together with a checklist of whether the objectives meet SMART principles. [See sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the current report].

B4 Summary The conclusion of the Workshop proceedings was that the approach to planning and appraisal for the New M4 complied with the Welsh Transport Appraisal Guidance (WelTAG) and a common understanding of problems and agreement on transport planning objectives was reached.

46

Documents

Transport Wales Welsh Assembly Governmentbailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/M4-Newport/C - Core Docume… · 2 Evolution of the New M4 Project 2.1 Early Studies In March 1989,