Effective road and traffic management

Written evidence from the AA (ETM 41)

THE VIEWS OF THE AA

1. Introduction and summary

1.1 Throughout its 106 year history the AA has been looking after the interests of drivers. It has sought to improve the condition of the roads they drive on, looked after their safety and campaigned to ensure they are treated fairly. The AA is the UK’s largest motoring organisation. It engages with its members through numerous communication channels, ranging from the internet, a mailed magazine, direct contact by letter, telephone and through polling. The AA ‘members’ panel’ which comprises of 170,000 people, who agree take to part in monthly AA/Populus surveys on a range of motoring issues, was created in 2008. The panel is the largest dedicated motoring opinion panel in Europe. The AA website also hosts a motoring discussion ‘zone’.

1.2 Private motoring is an essential part of 21st century life and is something people continue to aspire to, and even enjoy – although it is certainly no longer a luxury and should not be treated as such. Motoring is the main form of transport for 86% of passenger journeys. Many people are dependent on the car and the mobility of the car benefits society in many ways. However, congestion and unreliable journeys are a significant problem for motorists and businesses. The ‘quality’ of the roads is also an issue for members. In a survey in February 2011, 81% said that road surface condition had deteriorated over the last three years (57% said it had deteriorated significantly). The way that roads are managed is also a key issue for drivers. In AA/Populus research 72% said they did not agree that the Government and local councils were doing all they could to facilitate road use. A majority of AA/Populus panel members support the construction of new and improved roads. Motorists accept they must pay for their motoring but resent being seen as a ‘problem’ and oppose unjustified escalation of costs such as fuel, road tax, parking charges and road pricing. AA members often have very differing views on many of the key motoring issues.

1.3 The UK’s road system is critical to the national economy and at local level to daily household life, business vitality and social need. Most trips, even ones by rail, involve a road element and the majority are completed entirely by use of roads. At local level there is a feeling that congestion is a fact of life and that nothing can be done to alleviate it. Roads are by far Britain’s most extensive and comprehensive transport system – nothing can replace them in terms of fulfilling households’ and businesses’ needs for goods and services distribution and also for providing access to education, work, pleasure and a myriad of other things.

2. Comments on specific issues raised in the call for evidence:

2.1 The prevalence and impact of traffic congestion and likely future trends

2.1.1 Traffic congestion is a daily fact of motoring life for many drivers in the UK. At peak travel times numerous vital road links are often reduced to a slow crawl. Routes to and from most towns and cities are often congested, and even our motorways suffer congestion in places, often at key interchanges, with traffic often backing up onto the motorway traffic lanes. This is a common occurrence just yards from our office in Basingstoke where the limited capacity of the adjoining road network junction often forces traffic to queue on the M3 – this situation has existed for decades despite (never fulfilled) plans for a major improvement to the Black Dam roundabout. In economic terms this is very wasteful to business and individuals and it also impacts on traffic safety as standing traffic on motorways is potentially very dangerous. This is just one example of a situation which exists throughout the UK.

2.1.2 An AA/TrafficMaster study in 2009 found that in the first 8 months of 2009 1,700 accidents and incidents resulted in over 5,000 hours of motorway closures. The following were identified in the study:

Top Ten Motorways closed (Jan-Aug 2009)

M25 (closed for 206 hours)
M1 (189 hours)
M6 (179 hours)
M5 (153 hours)
M40 (124 hours)
A1(M ) (74 hours)
M4 (73 hours)
M62 (53 hours)
M2 (48 hours)
M11 (41 hours)

Other notable closures outside the top ten were in Scotland , the M74 (29 hours) and M8 (25 hours).

The M32 near Bristol suffered from 12 hours of closure as did the M3.

2.1.3 It is perhaps unsurprising that UK roads suffer more congestion than many other EU countries. We have a dense pattern of roads which often follow centuries old routes, we also have a large driving population and public transport networks often lack penetration and frequency. Our inter-urban routes have largely by-passed communities, but we have not upgraded our local roads anywhere near enough to reduce congestion hot spots.

2.1.4 The AA believes that congestion will continue to blight journeys in the UK and believes it will worsen as the economy moves out of recession. The reduction in road building and improvement in the last decade will undoubtedly lead to a worsening of congestion in the next few decades. Even our motorways will not be immune as the policy of ‘making best use’ could backfire when the recovery is fully under way and traffic levels start to grow again – perhaps more rapidly than in previous times of economic cooling and prosperity.

2.1.5 Congestion is wasteful to the economy and bad for the environment. The AA estimates that an average petrol car, consumes 0.72 litres of petrol p er hour and each litre produces 2.36kg of CO2 . Therefore 1000 cars idling in a queue for 10 seconds would produce 4.7 kg of CO2. F ive days a week and 48 weeks a year, they would prod uce 1.128 tonnes of CO2 while stationary.

2.2 The extent to which the Government and local authorities should intervene to alleviate congestion and the best means of doing so.

2.2.1 At local level there is a feeling that congestion is a fact of life and that nothing can be done to alleviate it. As mentioned above traffic congestion is wasteful to the economy and unhelpful in terms of achieving our CO2 targets. Highway authorities have a legal duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to act expeditiously to facilitate the smooth flow of traffic for road users. They should indeed intervene to make this happen. However, the AA believes that not enough is being done to evaluate and minimise congestion at national and local level. Some progress has been made in monitoring journey time reliability on the worst 100 or so strategic roads but even here some of the improvements have been due to less traffic over the last few years not road management and construction. In some instances improvements to journey time reliability occur simply because road works have ceased.

2.2.2 Solutions, particularly at local level, are often simple and straightforward, for example re-phasing traffic lights, making junction improvements, widening roads or cracking down on disruptive road works. To some extent the relatively new role of ‘traffic manager’ within local highway authorities is helping, although we think there is considerable variation in the importance this is given from authority to authority.

2.2.3 The AA believes in the importance and integrity of a national traffic signing system and does not support wholesale abandonment of national standards and local variations. Drivers must expect key types of traffic sign to be the same whether they are in Bradford or Brighton especially as failure to comply can result in a traffic offence or perhaps an accident. Many traffic signs are not ‘clutter’ but are essential for directing or regulating traffic. Temporary signs to events like those erected by the AA are essential traffic management tools which can be erected and removed quickly and fulfil a useful traffic management function.

2.2.4 The AA has supported the role of Highways Agency traffic officers but thinks more should be done to improve incident management on motorways. Numerous initiatives have been promised but so far a number remain to be fully implemented for example, privacy screens to prevent ‘rubber necking’ at accidents, proper signed diversion routes around key motorway junctions, quicker accident investigation and variable speed limits at motorway road works. We welcome recent adjustment of motorway central barriers at some key points to allow trapped traffic to be released and think this should be rolled out fully. We remain concerned about the ‘welfare issues’ which occur when motorways are closed for long periods and people are trapped. The biggest complaint from people in these circumstances is lack of information. The AA also supports the need for the quicker closing of key motorway slip roads to prevent traffic joining already blocked motorways.

2.2.5 Some argue that demand management measures are the only way to reduce traffic congestion and manage roads efficiently. They include road pricing/congestion charging and workplace parking levies as prime examples. However, these measures are deeply unpopular and lead to significant unintended consequences, for example pricing those, who can least afford to drive, off the road.

AA/Populus polls have found that:

· 45% oppose national road pricing

· 42% support the principle of ‘pay as you go’ motoring

· 86% do not believe government would deliver any promised quid-pro-quo reforms to motoring taxation if road pricing was introduced

· 67% are opposed to local congestion charging schemes

· 78% in the NW opposed local congestion charging schemes (Manchester)

· 68% in London opposed local congestion charging schemes

· 84% agreed that a workplace parking levy was simply another way of taxing people who work

2.2.6 The Central London congestion charging scheme initially took around 20,000 private cars off the road in the morning peak , in traffic flow terms this is a very small number. Traffic congestion did reduce but this was mostly because ‘complementary measures’ were introduced to improve traffic flow for example, junction improvements , the re-phasing of traffic lights and the removal of road works. However, con gestion levels are now back to the level they were before the scheme started , despite a continuing small decline in the number of private cars entering the cent ral area in the morning peak. In Central London the speed of traffic has not changed significantly in almost a century, largely because of all the activity involved in servicing a capital city - buses, delivery lorries, taxis, building works, road works, incidents, events and so on. Traffic problems are not all due to private moto ring - many other cities in the UK also experience this to a more limited degree.

2.2.7 Bona-fide and fully accredited roadside assistance organisations are granted 100% discount from the Central London congestion charging scheme. This is because their role is regarded as being crucial in keeping London ’s streets moving, through delivering prompt service to vehicles broken down at the roadside. This concept could be extended by allowing these defined organisations to use bus lanes to enable them to reach and deal with breakdowns in traffic quicker than at present. It could apply to bus lanes across the UK .

2.3 The extent to which road user culture and behaviour undermines effective traffic management, including the relevance to today’s road users of the Highway Code.

2.3.1 It is interesting that much is made of driver attitude and behaviour in Britain. However, despite anger and concern with the ‘irresponsible minority’, UK road accident casualty statistics are at record low levels and are the best in Europe. This does not mean we can be complacent.

2.3.2 It is also often said by some that car drivers are selfish and only comply with traffic rules and laws which suit them. This generalisation is far from the mark and the majority of drivers do their best to comply and understand. However, this compliance and understanding often requires considerable effort on the part of drivers. Traffic rules, road systems and parking arrangements are often highly complex. With heavy traffic flows, congested urban areas and busy motorways it is sometimes not surprising that driving is a complex task. Highway authorities are also devising increasingly complex traffic management schemes, signing programmes, and restrictions on movement – sometimes these schemes go against the grain of ‘natural’ motoring behaviour. A good example is bus lanes which sometimes do not allow sensible left turning behaviour – drivers may want to decelerate smoothly without impeding the flow behind them – but to avoid getting a penalty notice drivers are forced to say in their lane until a break in the bus lane, which often occurs very close to the left turn.

2.3.3 Some say that road user culture and behaviour should actually be ‘allowed’ to flourish more – for example, by encouraging the removal of traffic lights, road markings, safety railings, and developing the concept of shared space. In an AA /Populus poll carried out in April 2009, 73% disagreed with the shared space concept (55% disagreed strongly). This view is perhaps an indication that British drivers expect to be controlled and regulated and prefer this to potential chaos and possible danger.

2.3.4 The AA supports experimentation in a search for more radical traffic management measures that could make our streets less cluttered and more pleasurable to use for by road users. Quite clearly these measures must be carefully tailored to traffic intensity.

2.4 Intelligent traffic management schemes, such as the scheme which has operated on the M42, and their impact on congestion and journey times.

2.4.1 The AA has supported the active traffic management scheme on the M42. In an AA Populus survey in August 2008, 50% supported hard shoulder running under controlled conditions (Active Traffic Management, ATM), 29% opposed this (15% opposed strongly) and 17% were neutral.

2.4.2 However, the AA maintains that ATM is not a panacea and is concerned that putting considerable emphasis on this policy may be storing up problems for future generations. We believe that the capacity gain from ATM is quite limited and does not match full widening of a motorway (although it is acknowledged that in a time of austerity this may be a cheaper option). The problem with ATM is that benefits are relatively short lived and as traffic continues to grow widening an ATM motorway will actually be more difficult.

2.4.3 There is no doubt that the ATM scheme on the M42 has been popular with drivers by smoothing traffic flow and improving journey time. However, it has fortunately not been ‘tested’ in severe accident conditions. A further downside of ATM is that it has the potential to urbanise a rural motorway which might actually be left more rural if it were just widened by one lane.

2.5 The effectiveness of legislative provisions for road management under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004

2.5.1 The length of time involved in implementing the above legislation has been significant and is very disappointing for road users. They have been subjected for decades to highway works which have often been carried out at the convenience of utility companies and at the expense of the road user. The permit schemes which are now evolving, and even the prospect of lane rental schemes in places, are both very welcome and overdue.

2.5.2 The AA remains concerned that disruption caused by works is still unacceptable and fails to consider the economic cost of delayed road user journeys. It seems that we are in an impossible spiral in that the regulated utility companies must keep customers bills down, get huge value for money from their sub-contractors who dig up the roads and must do this whilst trying to minimise disruption to road users and with the prospect of charges on their street activities. It is perhaps not surprising that many are struggling to meet all these objectives and we believe the easiest one to renege on is service to the road user.

2.6 The impact of bus lanes and other aspects of road layout.

2.6.1 The AA has welcomed the removal of the M4 bus lane which was implemented to ‘make a point’ rather than introduce and encourage new express coach services. It did not succeed as a new breed of public transport scheme or a traffic management measure – in fact it led to longer journey times outside the peak. There are probably many similar less high profile bus lanes like this in authorities throughout the UK. The AA believes bus lane proposals must withstand economic scrutiny in that there must be a high number of passengers carried and buses using the bus lane to justify removal of a traffic lane which is available to all road users. Research by TRL some years ago showed that sometimes buses themselves are delayed by upstream queues created by bus lanes themselves. The AA believes many bus lanes could be converted to car-share lanes and given the high cost of fuel this would encourage more to car share.

February 2011