Return to Agenda

ITEM EX11

EXECUTIVE – 1 JUNE 2004

A34 SCOPING STUDY

1. The final report of the A34 scoping study with the title ‘A34 North of Southampton Transport Study’ was published in April 2004. Although it was not intended to be the subject of consultation, the South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA) has now decided to carry out a six week public consultation exercise. The purpose of this report is to provide some background to the study and to seek approval for the County Council’s response. A copy of the report has been placed in the Members’ Resource Centre.

Background

2. A study of the A34 route was originally scheduled for the final tranche of Multi-Modal Studies (MMS). The first two tranches were completed during 2002 and the Secretary of State’s decision on many of the studies including the Thames Valley MMS was given in July 2003. Following concern that a number of recommendations coming out of the studies were too ambitious, the Government Office for the South East (GOSE) decided that there should first be an A34 scoping study that would help to determine whether a full MMS or smaller studies should proceed.
3. Consultants were appointed by GOSE and SEERA in late 2003 to conduct a three month scoping study. The purpose of the study was to review the key issues affecting the transport corridor and to assess the case for further study work and the appropriate scale of that work. There was no formal consultation during the preparation of the study, although stakeholders including officers from Oxfordshire County Council were asked to make available relevant survey data and were given the opportunity to put forward initial views on the need for and scope of further study.
4. The A34 is managed by the Highways Agency as part of the national trunk road network. It should be noted that the scoping study is distinct from the A34 Route Management Strategy (RMS) that has been undertaken recently on behalf of the Highways Agency. The scoping study has considered a movement corridor, covering all modes of transport, and has taken a longer term and more strategic viewpoint.
5. The remainder of this report sets out the issues identified by the consultants in their final report, the options put forward for further study and the implications of the scoping study for the County Council.

Issues identified by the consultants

6. The primary focus of the scoping study was longer distance north-south movements along the transport corridor. A key issue was to understand how these movements interact with local movements, particularly in the South Hampshire and Oxford areas. The strategic road corridor is the M3/A34 trunk road from the M3/M27 interchange north of Southampton to M40 Junction 10 at Ardley. Some connecting routes such as A40, A44 and A415 were also considered. The rail corridor is the route from Southampton via Basingstoke, Reading and Oxford to Birmingham.
7. Amongst the issues identified by the consultants were peak period congestion on A34 and connecting roads (particularly the A40) which puts additional pressure on alternative less suitable roads, and capacity constraints on the rail route between Reading and Oxford.
8. Future issues identified for the A34 corridor include the planned growth of Milton Keynes and Swindon and continued growth in the Reading area, as well as the scale and location of any future housing and employment growth in Oxfordshire. The spatial distribution of land uses would need to be considered as part of the study.
9. Using available data and assumptions on future growth, the consultants made an outline forecast of peak hour traffic on sections of the A34 for 2016 and 2026. A number of alternative scenarios were also tested to take into account the possible effects of demand management, including road user charging, local congestion charging and a transfer of trips to bus and rail. The forecasting indicated that if the proposed scale of development takes place, then sections of the corridor will exceed capacity by 2026 even if demand management measures are in place.

Consultants’ options for further study

10. Option 1 – No Further Study – This would leave a significant number of the identified problems unresolved including the impact of development in Bicester, Oxford, Witney and Didcot, the need to relieve congestion and noise problems on the A34 around Oxford, a review of junctions and slip roads and consideration of strategic rail issues.
11. Option 2 – Localised/Focused Studies for Route Sections – The corridor would be sub-divided into five sections. Section 1 would be from M40 Junction 10 to A34 junction with A4185 at Chilton and would include nearly all the route within Oxfordshire. A localised study of section 1 would be led by Oxfordshire County Council in conjunction with the Regional Assembly and the Government Office.
12. The study would consider the urban areas of Oxford, Bicester, Didcot and Abingdon as well as the effects of continued growth at Witney and Banbury. It would also take account of the rail line, bus services, Park and Ride and the potential GTE service. However, a localised study would not be capable of considering the interaction between local and longer distance movements on the highway network or the potential role of the rail network.
13. Option 3 – Whole Corridor Study – The Regional Assembly would be responsible for the overall management of the study in conjunction with the Government Office. A steering group would comprise the main delivery agencies such as the Highways Agency, Strategic Rail Authority and local highway authorities including Oxfordshire County Council.
14. The aim of the study would be to assess the range of pressures, issues and constraints affecting the A34 road and the parallel rail corridor from junctions 3 – 5 of the M27 to junction 10 of the M40. While there are considerable benefits to undertaking a whole corridor study, the costs and practicalities would need to be given serious consideration, particularly given the varied nature of the issues identified in the separate sections of the corridor.
15. Option 4 – Focused Studies with Strategic Considerations – This would provide detailed land use/transport studies for the two sections facing the greatest pressures, namely South Hampshire and Oxfordshire, with less detailed coverage of the remaining route sections. ‘Strategic considerations’ that affect the whole corridor would also be taken into account. The mechanism for taking the study forward would be the same as for option 3.
16. In the Oxford sub-region the study would need to explore in depth the potential implications of the location of new housing and employment around a strong employment centre whilst taking account of the potential role of improved public transport and demand management. Early guidance will be needed on the acceptability (nationally and locally) of new infrastructure solutions.
17. The consultants concluded that although the study brief does not ask the consultants to make recommendations, the option of no further study is ruled out because of the scale of the issues identified by the scoping work. The consultants also suggest that the issues in the Oxford and South Hampshire sub-regions need to be addressed in the context of strategic and long-distance movements in the corridor. This implies that options 3 (Whole Corridor Study) and 4 (Focused Studies with Strategic Considerations) present the best way forward.

Implications for the County Council

18. The scoping study final report confirms that there is a general lack of data that would enable future trends along the A34 corridor to be predicted with any degree of accuracy. However, it is clear that even under the most optimistic scenario, there will be a significant worsening in existing conditions. This confirms the County Council’s view that a study is urgently needed to address the growing problems on the A34 route and adjacent transport networks. The study process will need to include extensive data collection to cover travel by all modes of transport.
19. Given the scale of problems and the importance of the A34 corridor the option of no further study should be ruled out. Although a localised study would have the advantage of being led by the County Council, the scope would be limited and there could be less commitment to the study process from national and regional stakeholders. A whole corridor study would be more comprehensive but there is a risk that the focus would be on long-distance travel. Given the reservations about the outcomes of the earlier Multi-Modal Studies a similar approach to a whole corridor study may meet resistance.
20. The option of focused studies with strategic considerations combines elements of the whole corridor study and localised studies. It could overcome some of the concerns about those study options and has the advantage that Oxfordshire has been identified as one of the two study areas where issues would be explored in more depth. However, the scope of ‘strategic considerations’ needs to be clarified in the study specification to ensure that the potential for strategic public transport improvements including rail and GTE is taken into account. It is important that road and public transport improvement options are not ruled out at such an early stage in the process.
21. Regardless of which option is taken forward there will be a need to ensure that local considerations are given a high priority alongside national and regional objectives. The Regional Transport Board may have a role to play in managing the study but it will be important that the County Council is fully involved at all stages. The A34 is of vital importance to Oxfordshire’s local economy and its connections to the main urban areas need to be included in the study. As the consultants have highlighted in their report, congestion in the A34 corridor also has a significant impact on other routes within the county.
22. An issue that will need to be addressed during the study process is the potential overlap with ongoing work to develop the revised Structure Plan and the South East Plan, the Transport Networks Review and Local Transport Plan process and the Integrated Transport Strategies (ITS) for towns along the A34 corridor. Although the intention to consider a wide range of issues and cover a broad area can be welcomed in principle, there will be a need to ensure that proposals are consistent with these other workstreams. Measures to address problems along the A34 corridor need to be developed in a wider local policy context.
23. There has been no prior public consultation regarding priorities for the A34 and so the relative importance of issues identified by the consultants needs to be tested through a process of structured public consultation. This should be carried out at an early stage to inform the development of the study brief. Structured public consultation will also be important during the course of the study to test the acceptability of emerging proposals. The study will also need commitment from the relevant agencies to participate and to incorporate agreed study proposals into their own delivery plans.

Environmental Implications

24. There is already concern about the environmental implications of increasing congestion in the A34 corridor. Further study of the route offers the opportunity to consider how increasing noise and air pollution can be tackled. An important objective of the study will be to consider how the predicted growth in traffic in the A34 corridor can be reduced through provision of alternatives including improved public transport as well as measures to reduce the demand for travel.

Financial and Staff Implications

25. Any study would require staff input from Oxfordshire County Council. However, it is likely that this can be met from within existing staff resources. A localised study led by Oxfordshire County Council would require funding and a higher level of staff input. It is assumed that the alternative options of a whole corridor study or focused study with strategic considerations would be wholly funded by GOSE. However, while the costs of the study are likely to be met at regional level, the funding of any improvements emerging from the process will be dependent on the Secretary of State’s response to the study recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

26. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to thank SEERA for consulting the County Council on the final report of the A34 north of Southampton scoping study and to make the following comments:

1. in view of the growing problems for local and strategic traffic on parts of the A34 route and adjacent transport networks, a study of the A34 corridor to find out how these problems may be resolved is now urgent;
2. the County Council should be fully involved in any transport studies, other studies and future decisions affecting transport routes and movement in the A34 corridor;
3. the specification for the study needs to be further developed from the consultants’ scoping study and the County Council would wish to be involved in that process;
4. some of the areas where the specification should be further developed are: the need for extensive data collection; clarification of the strategic considerations to be included in option 4; and structured public consultation on the relative importance of the identified issues and the range of solutions to be considered; and
5. the consultants’ options 3 (Whole Corridor Study) and 4 (Focused Studies with Strategic Considerations) are supported in principle and option 4 is considered to be the best way forward, subject to clarification of the scope of the study.