1.  Brief background to study including area, start and end dates of the study, duration of the strategy, forecast traffic growth and key issues. Please provide details of any objectives that strongly influenced the outcome of the studies.

  The immediate origin of M1MMS was the proposals for widening the motorway, including a bypass of Kegworth that were placed on hold in the roads review.

  The remit for M1MMS was to develop a long-term (20-year) transport strategy that addressed the problems in the study area. Within that context the study was to set out a plan of specific interventions to address the most urgent problems. The study was also tasked with making recommendations about the motorway widening schemes that had been placed on hold.

  The study area extends from the M1 Junction with the M69 (Junction 21) in the south to M1 Junction 30 north of Chesterfield.

  2.  Summary of the main options appraised and the reasons for pursuing the final strategy (ie Heavy public transport expansion including x, y and z, Some public transport expansion and some road improvements including a, b and c and Heavy demand management including d, e and f the options that were rejected did not meet the following study objectives ...... and the preferred option was therefore.....).

  The strategy development process was driven by the wish of the steering group to test a strategy that precluded new highway capacity increase. The four strategies tested were therefore:

—  Package A—Maximum public transport improvement, maximum travel restraint and minimum highway capacity increase;

—  Package B—High public transport improvement, high travel restraint and moderate highway capacity increase;

—  Package C—Moderate public transport improvement, moderate travel restraint and high road capacity increase;

—  Package D—Moderate public transport improvement, moderate travel restraint and maximum road capacity increase.

  Details of the schemes included within each package are provided in Table 6.1 (page 79) of the Final Report

  The results indicated that with a very high level of public transport investment and strong travel restraint measures including motorway tolling and urban road pricing, overall only 7 per cent of the road traffic predicted for 2021 would switch to using public transport. It should be noted that this converts to a near 50 per cent overall increase in the level of public transport use compared to the situation without the implementation of the proposed schemes and measures.

  Without the inclusion of motorway tolling, the shift from road to rail had no material effect upon motorway traffic volumes or congestion levels. The testing of motorway tolling indicated that a substantial proportion of traffic would divert off the motorway, mostly onto the rest of the road network. The tests indicated that this would result in very significant increase in traffic congestion on the wider road network and a substantial increase in road traffic accidents.

  The tests also indicated that if the motorway were to be widened by adding an additional lane in each direction throughout the study area, then congestion in 2021 could be at a similar level to conditions in 2000.

  The final strategy was then put together (following further testing and consultation) mostly from schemes taken from each of the four initial packages. It essentially consists of:

—  High public transport improvement, High road capacity increase, and moderate travel restraint.

  3.  Details of the schemes, including costs and timings, proposed in the final strategy. Please include information on the split between expected public and private finance where available.

Scheme/Intervention	Agency	Cost £ million	Timescale
Heavy Rail
NR14/NR15: Station Access/Facility Improvements	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	13	2005-06
New Rail Services
IR2: South Coast-Birmingham-Nott-West Yorkshire	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
IR5: Manchester-Stoke-Derby-Leicester	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
IR8: Sheffield-Alfreton-Leicester-St Pancras	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
IU1: Cardiff-Birmingham-Nottingham	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
IU2: Birmingham-Leicester-Nottingham-Alfreton-Sheffield	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
IU4: Manchester Airport-Nott-Mansfield	SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack	—	2003-06
UT1: Belper-Derby-Nottingham	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
UT3a: Mansfield-Nottingham 2nd train per hour	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
UT4: Matlock-Derby-Leicester	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
UT5: Worksop-Nottingham-Leicester	SRA/Rail operators	—	2003-06
IR3: South Coast-Birmingham-Nottingham-W Yorks	SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack	—	2006-11
IR6: Manchester-Buxton-Derby-Nottingham	SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack	—	2006-11
UT3b: Rotherham-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham	SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack	—	2006-11
UT7: Chesterfield-Staveley-Mansfield-Nottingham	SRA/Rail operators/Railtrack	—	2006-11
Rail Infrastructure (including stations)
NR5: Clowne Branch reopening	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	29	2003-06
NR6: Pye Bridge-Kirkby Summit reopening	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	5	2003-06
NR8: Castle Donington line reopening	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	9	2003-06
NR12: Matlock-Buxton reinstatement	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	76	2003-11
NR13: Newark Chord	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	10	2006-11
NR14: Network capacity improvements	SRA/Railtrack	69	2003-06
New stations at Trowell, Derby South, Blaby	SRA/Railtrack/Local Authorities	29	2003-06
Freight
FR1: Intermodal Railfreight Terminal	SRA/Railtrack	10	2009-11
FR2: Loading Gauge Improvements	SRA/Railtrack	30	2011-16
FR3: Humber Rail Link	SRA/Railtrack	10	2012-15
TC7: Inland Port at Colwick	BWB/Humber Barges/Developer	10	2006-07
Road Based Public Transport
LR1: NET extensions to Clifton, M1 J25/Beeston, Nuthall	City and County Councils	296	2003-06
LR3: Additional NET routes to Nottingham South, Ilkeston	City and County Councils	254	2006-11
LR5b/c: New LRT East Goscote-Leicester-Blaby	City and County Councils	296	2006-11
New express coach services BC4, BC5, BC6, BC7	Local Authorities/Coach operators	—	2003-06
Strategic Park & Ride
PR3a: Trowell Parkway (served by NET) including a new Road Link from the M1 Service Area with an M1 over-bridge	Railtrack/Highways Agency/ Nottinghamshire County Council	10	2008-11
PR3b: M1 Junction 26 (Nuthall)—Served by an ext" n of NET	Nottinghamshire County Council	19	2004-05
PR3c: M1 Junction 25—served by NET via Beeston	Nottinghamshire County Council	*	2008-11
PR5: MEGZ (served by Heavy Rail via the re-opened Clowne Branch)	Derbyshire County Council	*	2015-16
Motorway
MW1: M1 Junction 21 roundabout carriageway widening and lane re-allocation/re-signing	Highways Agency	0.5	2003
MW3a: M1 Junction 29 northbound off-slip and roundabout carriageway widening	Highways Agency	0.5	2003
MW3: M1 Junction 28 roundabout carriageway and A38 approach widening	Highways Agency	2	2004-05
MW10: M1 north to A610 Link Roads	Highways Agency	7	2006-07
MW3b: M1 Junction 29—A617 Flyover	Highways Agency	7	2006-07
MW11: M1 Junction 23A to 25 Improvement	Highways Agency	64	2009-11
MW8: M1 to M69 Link Roads and widening to M1 Junction 21A	Highways Agency	24	2009-11
MW12a: M1 widening to five lanes Junction 25 to 27 with A610 flyover at Junction 26 and Junction 25 improvement	Highways Agency	176	2009-11
MW15b: M1 widening Junction 27 to 30 with crawler lanes between junctions 27 and 29.	Highways Agency	185	2009-11
MW15a: M1 widening Junction 21A to 23A with crawler lane on southbound approach to Junction 22	Highways Agency	98	2009-11
Strategic Roads
SR4: M1 Junction 24: A453 to A50 left turning lane	Highways Agency	0.2	2003
SR7a: Minor improvement of the A453: Crusader Junction to University.	Highways Agency	1	2003
SR5: Kegworth Bypass	Highways Agency (or Leicestershire County Council if A6 de-trunked)	7	2005-06
SR18: A617 Pleasley Bypass Extension	Nottinghamshire County Council	5	2006-07
SR18: A617 Glapwell Bypass	Derbyshire County Council	11	2006-07
SR12: New Bridge across River Trent east of Nottingham City Centre-	Local Authorities	23	2009-11
Policy Interventions
Policy Intervention Programme	GOEM/EMRLGA lead	30	2003-07
Strategy Implementation and Monitoring Body	GOEM/Local Authorities	—	2002-21
Public Transport Co-ordinating Body	Central Government/EMRLGA	—	2006
Integrated Ticketing	Central Government/TOCs	—	2006
Goods Vehicle Restriction on motorways	Central Government	—	2011

*Costs included elsewhere Quick win

—Subject to further assessment Quick win

  Note: The Table excludes on-going operating costs incurred by private sector operators. It also excludes annual maintenance and operating costs associated with major infrastructure.

Total	£1,816m
Public Transport / Freight	£1,175m	65%
Highways	£611m	33%
Policy	£30m	2%

  4.  Details of the timing and scale for the introduction of charging measures in the study area

  A wide range of charging scenarios were tested both as part of the study and also separately at the request of the DfT. The implications of the different charging regimes have been reported in a study Technical Note.

  Due to there being no indication from Government that legislation to enable charging would be introduced in the foreseeable future, charging was not included within the final strategy. However, it was stated that the full level of motorway widening recommended would not be needed if road charging were to be introduced in the medium term.

  In terms of the charging strategy—this was linked to a much improved public transport system that would be delivered through the M1 recommendations. The thinking was that public transport needed to be improved to become a transport choice for significantly more people before charging being introduced to encourage greater mode shift away from the private car.

  5.  The costs and forecast impact on traffic levels of the behaviour change measures proposed and a list of suggested measures.

  A programme of policy measures (including behaviour change) is included in the recommended strategy. This was costed at a figure of £30 million for the first five years. The following is extracted from the Final Report.

POLICY INTERVENTIONS

  As the Executive Summary to the Consultation on the Draft Preferred Package Report of December 2001 indicated, even with significant investment in public transport use, increases in highway capacity will be necessary if traffic conditions are not to get worse. In this context, "significant behaviour change is needed to reduce reliance on the car, increase public transport use and thus reduce the growth in traffic". The longer term M1MMS strategy depends on travel demand management and behaviour change.

  For this to be successful, people need to understand today's transport problems, and their implications for the future, and the part they can play in helping to resolve the situation through travel behaviour change. There is also the need to identify practical ways by which the partners in the East Midlands can act to facilitate behaviour change, incorporating it as a distinct component of all the recommended activity streams, and also pursuing it as an area of activity in its own right.

  It is clear that success will require the political willingness to become engaged at national, regional and local levels—a willingness which is not yet generally apparent. Some of the pioneering work already undertaken in the East Midlands could, however, form the basis of efforts to make the region a recognised centre for excellence in the field of travel demand management. Clearly Regional Planning Guidance and the Regional Transport Strategy are central to the definition of how to take things forward.

  As indicated in a recent Soft Factors Report produced for the DTLR1, individual measures are likely to have little impact, but a coherent, integrated set of policy interventions may be more effective. The policy interventions and measures identified in that report as offering significant change should be given due prominence in the M1MMS behaviour strategy. These are:

—  tele-working;

—  video-conferencing;

—  workplace travel plans;

—  public transport fares and ticketing;

—  individual marketing campaigns; and

—  bus quality partnerships.

  A number of other policy interventions and measures will also be critical components of a behaviour change strategy for the M1MMS. These include:

—  urban charging—congestion/road user or workplace;

—  parking strategy and its application;

—  development control policy and its implementation;

—  school curriculum contributions;

—  household and community behavioural change approaches;

—  improved interchange; and

—  freight transport.

  Given that the two basic aims of the policy interventions are to educate, and facilitate travel behaviour change, the framework of interventions by which the aims might be achieved should incorporate actions to:

—  ensure the next generation(s) are better informed and more discerning in their travel behaviour;

—  ensure a consistent application of travel demand management policy interventions such as parking supply and management, charging (road user and/or workplace) development control etc;

—  ensure that investment in infrastructure and service improvements is matched by action to maximise their utility;

—  create a deliberate and open monitoring programme early in the plan programme, to assess in a robust manner the programme outcomes;

—  demonstrate success in the first five years; and

—  promote an ambition for regional excellence and a pre-eminence in the subject that will help achieve the plan and benefit local employment.

  Six areas of intervention are identified which could be taken forward as discrete programmes of activity. These are set out below, together with an indication of some of the tasks which each could entail. Clearly the study cannot be prescriptive. The suggested components are illustrative and not a blueprint. Further details of the strategy are set out in the study report: "Policy Interventions: The Programme of Measures".

Strategy Programme

  The programme of activity recommended by the study includes infrastructure measures, public transport service improvements and policy interventions concerned with travel demand management and behaviour change. The success of the third element will determine what is needed in future years with respect to infrastructure and service development.

  In developing the strategy programme, it is assumed that an oversight role—East Midlands Partnership for Transport Policy Interventions (EMPfTPI)—would be appropriate. This could be chaired by GOEM, but operate through, and in close partnership with, the local authorities that have the responsibility for much in terms of local transport as well as with the proposed Public Transport Co-ordinating Body (or Executive).

  The strategy programme tasks might entail:

—  championing the strategy, and communicating the successes;

—  leading/co-ordinating the implementation programme for infrastructure and service improvements; advising on prioritising of expenditure on infrastructure, services and policy interventions;

—  developing area-wide policy responses and seeing their implementation progresses satisfactorily and consistently in accordance with the objectives set;

—  providing region-wide local authority officer training, with respect to various areas of policy application—parking supply and management, freight transport, interchange, development control etc;

—  developing and representing the centre of excellence in the policy area of travel demand management and behaviour change;

—  leading the work of regionally significant interventions, such as a regional freight transport strategy, transport assessments and facilitation of measures at major business parks alongside the M1 or in the corridor; and

—   monitoring and reviewing the strategy.

Workplace Travel Plans

  The workplace travel plan is a policy intervention that is central to ambitions for travel demand management and behaviour change. Significant change for the better has already been demonstrated in the monitoring of some existing plans. Employers' initiatives in Nottingham have been regarded as good practice exemplars for some years, as has the partnership sponsored by the City Council.

  The strategy proposes that the EMPfTPI would provide a regional dimension to the promotion of these initiatives. Specific tasks might entail:

—  extending the work of local authorities that is already underway;

—  facilitating measures at major business parks along the route of the motorway;

—  providing a regional scheme of assistance in measuring and monitoring progress; and

—  promoting a programme of development of tele-working/teleconferencing.

Transport Quality Partnership Scheme

  Quality partnerships provide the means by which transport operators and local authorities can find ways to develop best practice solutions in service supply. Successful partnerships have been shown to make a major difference, to the benefit of users. The concept has recently been extended to freight transport in connection with distribution strategies for Local Transport Plans. Whilst local partnerships already exist, many of the public transport improvements suggested in the strategy would benefit from area wide co-ordination and "branding".

  This aspect of activity would be led by the proposed Public Transport Co-ordinating Body and involve establishing study area or regional partnerships with a view to achieving improvements in transport operations and operating practice. It might thus entail:

—  communicating and promoting change and system improvement over time;

—  taking forward an East Midlands passenger transport ticketing initiative—through tickets on different modes/services, electronic ticketing/smartcard initiatives etc;

—  taking forward initiatives relating to freight transport policy, such as fuel initiatives and improved co-ordination;

—  introducing system-wide information improvements;

—  branding and communicating the East Midlands passenger transport network; and

—  actively marketing and promoting (not just informing of the existence of) the East Midlands network of passenger transport services.

Awareness Raising Programme

  Whilst there have been awareness raising campaigns under the auspices of DTLR and local Travelwise initiatives, the strategy requires more direct promotion of the local interventions. The introduction of climbing lanes or narrower lanes on the motorway, for example, could make it appropriate to try to influence driving standards through an advertising campaign.

  This strand of activity would entail such elements as:

—  communicating the plan and programme over time; and

—  providing information designed to dispel the "perception gaps", particularly with respect to public transport, identified in the study.

Educational Programme

  While a number of education authorities, in connection with their Local Transport Plans, are taking forward initiatives aimed at devoting parts of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools to transport and related issues, this area of intervention will be particularly important in ensuring that the next generation(s) are better informed and more discerning about their travel behaviour. It will be targeted at both schools and universities/colleges, and involve:

—  assessing the extent of schools' travel plans implementation;

—  researching the scope for introducing travel behaviour training into the curriculum, given that a new "Education for Sustainable Development" approach to the whole national curriculum is due to be introduced in 2002;

—  researching the possibilities of introducing more university/college travel behaviour related courses and research programmes; and

—  exploring the scope for these institutions to become involved in monitoring progress.

Community Programme

  Individualised marketing and personalised journey planning initiatives have demonstrated that people do make changes to their travel behaviour, if it can be shown that there are benefits to be gained by so doing. Cost savings are important, but some respond well to environmental improvements, health improvements and so on.

  This area of intervention might thus involve:

—  identifying the range and nature of current community activity;

—  identifying the scope and scale of a possible programme of community intervention designed to influence travel behaviour, in conjunction with or in addition to current activity including Agenda 21 programmes; and

—  one or two demonstration projects per year, to demonstrate individuals'/organisations' ability to change their travel behaviour, to the overall benefit of others.

Key Partners

  In addition to GOEM and the Regional Planning Authority, a wide range of organisations would be needed to participate in and to support the activities required. These would include:

—  Regional Assembly;

—  LGA and local authorities;

—  East Midlands Development Agency;

—  Highways Agency;

—  Railtrack;

—  Strategic Rail Authority;

—  Transport trade bodies including CPT and FTA;

—  East Midlands Airport;

—  Public transport operators;

—  Employers' representatives and chambers of commerce;

—  Environmental and community interest groups;

—  User groups;

—  Health sector;

—  DfES; and

—  Retailing representatives.

  This programme of policy interventions has been costed at £30 million for the first five years within the overall cost of the recommended strategy.

  6.  A summary of outcomes including mode shift and congestion reduction.

Measure	Change
Access to New Rail Station	+2060
Access to LRT	+118,000
Accidents	-5%
Vehicle kilometres	-3%(HGV -14%)
Vehicle Hours	-6%(HGV -15%)
M1 Journey Times	-15%(-9% compared to base year)
Total Traffic	-1% (HGV -4%)
Stress on M1	-65%(-35% compared to base year)
Stress on other roads	-25%(+12% compared to base year)

  7.  A list of key implementation issues and risks identified by the studies.

  The need for a specific body to be established to champion and monitor the implementation was recommended.

  The main risk is associated with the delivery of the Heavy Rail schemes. Not only because of the issue of satisfying value for money criteria but simply in terms of the overall national spend resulting from the multi-modal studies and also the substantial resource issues associated with delivering the many schemes that are in addition to those included in the SRA's Strategic Plan.

October 2002