1 The Agency's approach to tackling
congestion
1. The Highways Agency has estimated that congestion
on England's motorways and trunk roads costs industry and commerce
£3 billion a year. The government has set a target of stabilising
congestion at 2000 levels by 2010, but has acknowledged that it
will not achieve it. Data show that average speeds have fallen
as the volume of traffic has continued to grow and that they were
lower in 2003 than they were in 1995. Around 7% of the motorway
and trunk road network suffers heavy congestion at peak times
and a further 13% on at least half the days of the year. Research
has estimated that weight of traffic accounts for 65% of congestion.
The Highways Agency has fallen behind other leading countries,
such as the Netherlands, Germany and the United States in adopting
measures to tackle congestion caused by the weight of traffic
on the network (Figure 1).[2]Figure
1: Measures adopted in other countries to tackle congestion, compared
with the extent of their use in England
| Measure used in other countries
| Extent to which the Agency has tested or adopted the measure in England
|
| Tidal flow reverses the direction of traffic to cope with peaks in traffic volumes. Used since the 1970s, it can only be used where it is safe to do so, usually without the traffic being segregated by cones or temporary barriers.
| The Agency has inherited two tidal flow schemes that were opened in the 1980s. It has assessed its use on the M42 but found that the motorway did not offer sufficient differences in directional flow for the measure to be effective on that motorway.
|
| Dedicated lanes are restricted for use by a specified type of vehicle, such as buses or heavy goods vehicles. Widely adopted in the United States since the 1970s, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are a form of dedicated lane to encourage, for example, commuter car-share schemes.
| The Agency operates dedicated bus lanes on four stretches of road, including the M4. The Department announced in July 2004 that the Agency would be carrying out a trial of HOV lanes.
|
| Ramp metering uses traffic signals similar to traffic lights to control the rate at which vehicles join a motorway from a slip road. It has been used extensively in the United States since the 1970s. Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany have used it since 1989 and 1995, respectively.
| The Agency has at one time operated Ramp Metering at six sites on the M6, although the number is now down to four. It has also run trials of the measure on the M3 and the M27.
|
| Variable speed limits involve reducing speed limits on motorways when the volume of traffic reaches a predetermined level, to improve traffic flow and reduce the number of accidents and congestion. Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany have used them since the 1980s and 1990s respectively.
| The Agency operates mandatory variable speed limits on 30 kilometres of the western section of the M25. It also provides advisory speeds through its automated incident detection system, which covers around 30% of the network.
|
| Hard shoulder running involves temporarily opening the hard shoulder on motorways to traffic during peak periods. Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany have used Hard Shoulder Running since 1996 and 1999 respectively.
| The Agency does not use hard shoulder running on any part of the network, but plans to use it as part of a wider trial of measures on the M42.
|
| Dynamic lanes use lights similar to cats' eyes in the surface of a road to alter the number and width of lanes on a motorway, usually to increase the capacity of the road. Dynamic lanes are a new measure, currently under trial in the Netherlands and Germany.
| The Agency has no plans to test dynamic lanes.
|
Source: National Audit Office
2. The Agency accepted that it had fallen behind
other countries in some areas, but its motorways carried an average
of 73,000 vehicles a day, compared with 68,000 in the Netherlands
and between 32,000 and 50,000 in France, Germany and the United
States. The network also carried more freight than almost any
other country. Some traffic management measures, such as ramp
metering had difficulties coping with constant high volumes of
traffic.[3]
3. The Agency acknowledged that bureaucracy and risk
aversion had also held back the deployment of some measures, such
as the use of dedicated lanes and ramp metering where the business
case could be supported, although such measures were now being
developed. Good progress had been made on variable speed limits
and such measures could be rolled out with other improvements
such as motorway widening schemes. The Agency was supporting hard
shoulder running, with the first stage starting next summer and
a full pilot from the summer of 2006. Safety was a concern, but
technology which provided data on traffic speeds, and sight of
what was happening in traffic lanes, made such pilots feasible
now.[4]
4. The Agency did not consider that it was over influenced
by special interest groups such as motoring organisations. It
considered such organisations had legitimate concerns, for example
about the safety of their employees who rescue drivers and passengers
in stranded vehicles. Motoring organisations had been concerned
that the Agency's new Traffic Officer role might displace theirs,
but once an accident or broken down vehicle had been moved to
the hard shoulder it would become motoring organisations' responsibility.
The Agency considered such organisations made a valuable contribution
on the roads.[5]
5. The Agency accepted that its culture had differed
from that of some similar organisations overseas, which had been
more willing to embrace novel options. The Agency had made a number
of personnel changes, including some at senior level. The focus
of the Agency was being changed so staff would be accountable
for the overall performance of the parts of the network for which
they were responsible. The Agency was also issuing a culture document
called "Customers First" which was intended to explain
to staff how they should conduct themselves and innovate within
the organisation to provide a better service to people using the
roads.[6]
6. The Agency acknowledged that management effort
had been concentrated on its new Traffic Officer service, under
which the Agency was taking over many of the police's responsibilities
for clearing motorways after accidents and incidents.
Traffic Officer teams would free up police time to investigate
the scene of the incident or accident, while the traffic officers
would concentrate on getting traffic moving again by putting diversions
in place as quickly as possible, and arranging the removal of
debris and broken down cars from the motorway. Traffic officers
would also gather information about the cause of incidents and
accidents they attended, to inform the Agency's thinking about
how the number of incidents might be reduced to avoid the disruption
that they caused.
7. The Agency expected these new arrangements to
reduce the time taken to clear motorways, although it did not
have any targets for measuring performance. The new service was
being introduced progressively and full coverage of the motorway
network should be in place by September 2006. The Agency anticipated
being able to keep traffic moving on those parts of a carriageway
not deemed to be the scene of a crime or in the rescue area, and
to reduce the time taken to investigate an incident which currently
averages around five-and-a-half hours. Authorities in the United
States and Canada completed their investigations in a much shorter
time, partly because they had a different attitude to incidents
but also because they used technology differently. The Agency
would be working with the police to introduce improved technology
in England, and to develop guidelines for investigating incidents
and accidents.[7]
2 Q 2 Back
3
Qq 3, 15, 23, 89, 103, 121, 128 Back
4
Qq 3-8, 61-66, 70-71, 80-81, 89, 103-104 Back
5
Qq 5-6, 70-71 Back
6
Qq 61-64 Back
7
Qq 20, 39, 43, 45-46 Back
|
