Interim Advice Note 111 09 Managed Motorways ...origin.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian111.pdf · Motorway Schemes. Section 7 ... Section 10.20 – new advice

Interim Advice Note 111 09 Managed Motorways implementation guidance – Hard shoulder running

IAN 111/09 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Nov 09

INTERIM ADVICE NOTE 111/09 Managed Motorways implementation guidance – Hard shoulder running

Summary

Provides guidance on implementation of Managed Motorways schemes incorporating Hard Shoulder Running (HSR)

Instructions for Use

This document replaces IAN 111/08


IAN 111/09 Page i Nov 09

Amendments The main changes from IAN 111 Version 1 (May 30th 2008) are:

(NB References are to sections within this document)

Section 1.2.1 – indicates that there are now mandatory sections of the document identified by black boxes.

Section 1.2.2 – there is now no requirement to contact HA NetServ regarding the implementation of MM-HSR on D4M and D5M. Revised guidance on the evaluation (‘fit for purpose’) of existing features with regard to the proposed scheme.

Section 3.5 – advice is now provided on the minimum length of MM-HSR link and opening long links.

Section 5.4.1 – updated advice on scoping the likely impacts for:

o Disruption due to construction

o Ecology and Nature Conservation

o Traffic Noise and Vibration

o Water Quality and Drainage

Section 5.5 – updated advice on potential generic mitigation strategies

Section 5.7 – updated advice on drainage design philosophy with regard to flow widths.

Section 6 – reference to Project Safety Risk Management (PSRM) updated along with advice concerning the level of Safety Management required for Managed Motorway Schemes.

Section 7 – substantially updated.

Section 8.4 – updated to reflect that the expected maximum speed of operation of the hard shoulder when it is opened to traffic will be 60mph (Figures 8.6 and 8.7 revised). Also revised advice about the use of legends on MS4s and clarification on application of close proximity rules. Figures 8.10 and 8.11 revised for clarity.

Section 8.5 – substantially revised guidance on the fixed signing at entry and exit to an MM-HSR scheme.

Section 8.7.1 – reference made to IAN 68/05 and IAN 75/06.

Section 8.11 – section reduced – national guidance is available from the Highways Agency.

Section 8.12 – further guidance added for Ramp Metering.


IAN 111/09 Page ii Nov 09

Section 9.1 – revised advice on Site Data.

Section 9.2 – revised advice on the Transmission System

Section 9.3 – additional advice on the Control System

Section 9.4 – new guidance on Power Issues

Section 9.5 – further advice on Combined Equipment Cabinets

Section 9.8 – Advice provided on the provision of mock enclosures and road markings for HADECS

Section 9.10.1 – new advice on the use of Strategic VMS (MS3s)

Section 9.11 – revised advice on Ambient Light Monitors

Section 9.12 – revised section on MIDAS

Section 9.13 – revised advise on ERA Detection and Monitoring

Section 9.16 – new advice on Ramp Metering

Section 9.17 – Brief note provided on commissioning of equipment

Section 10.1 – new advice on Piers, Parapets and Gantries

Section 10.2 – new advice on Headroom and Clearance

Section 10.3 – new advice on Railway Infrastructure Considerations.

Section 10.4 – new advice on alignment

Section 10.5 – new advice on Permanent Traffic Signs including “Driver Location Signs” and “Hard Shoulder Ends” signs

Section 10.6 – revised advice on drainage

Section 10.7 – additional advice provided on Lane Widths

Section 10.9 – additional advice on carriageway issues

Section 10.10 – revised advice on signal gantry frequency

Section 10.11 – revised advice on gantries in the vicinity of junctions especially in relation to TD46/05 and IAN 87/07 and long merges.

Section 10.11.1 – new advice on gantries in the vicinity of motorway service areas.

Section 10.13 – revised advice on ERAs

Section 10.15 – revised advice on determining the stopping sight distance at ERAs and further advice on the width dimension and implementation on gradients.


IAN 111/09 Page iii Nov 09

Section 10.17 – revised guidance on lighting

Section 10.18 –revised guidance on MIDAS loops.

Section 10.19 – new advice on Road Restraint System.

Section 10.20 – new advice on the treatment of maintenance and other similar accesses.

Section 10.21 – new advice on Maintenance Hardstandings

Appendix B: Glossary amended

Appendix C: Replacement of original contents with Environmental Assessment checklists.

Appendix D – Revised Generic Drawings showing the following changes:

o Drawings PR/99/09/001-012 designated Standard. General amendments.

o Amendment to width of white line used at back of hard shoulder leading to changes in the carriageway cross-section.

o Removal of note regarding LBS1 width and HGV proportions on PR/99/09/001-004. Refer now to Section 10.7.

o Inclusion of an ERA at “mixed sign and signal gantry” on drawing PR/99/09/010

o Location of Hard Shoulder Ends signs.

o The possible need for an additional gantry at long merges.

o Revised note regarding signs and signals on the diverge.

Appendix E – Revised Drawings with Definition of Exit and Entry Datum points.


IAN 111/09 Page iv Nov 09

Document Map

Section Contents Page

1. About this Document

1.1 Who is this Guidance For? 1-2

1.2 What Does the Guidance Cover? 1-2

1.3 This Guidance in Context 1-8

1.4 Further Support 1-8

2. Overview of MM-HSR

3. Factors Influencing MM-HSR Installation

3.1 Introduction 3-13

3.2 Existing Physical Constraints and Infrastructure 3-13

3.3 Traffic Flow Characteristic 3-13

3.4 Entry and Exit to MM-HSR Scheme 3-15

3.5 Link Lengths 3-16

3.6 Topography 3-16

3.7 Future Developments and Programmed Schemes 3-16

3.8 Summary 3-17

4. Economic

Appraisal 4.1 Introduction 4-19

4.2 The TAME MM-HSR spreadsheet model 4-20

4.3 Other Economic Impact Assumptions for the effect of MM-HSR4-21

5. Environmental Assessment


5.2 Need for an Environmental Assessment and Procedural Pathway

5-23

5.3 Business Case and Scheme Approval Process 5-25

5.4 Environmental Assessment Process 5-25

5.5 Environmental Design and Potential Generic Mitigation Strategies

5-32

5.6 Earthwork and Structures Design Philosophy

5.7 Drainage Design Philosophy 5-37

6. Safety

Considerations 6.1 Introduction 6-40

6.2 Project Safety Risk Management System (PSRM) 6-40

6.3 Generic MM-HSR Risk aAeas to be Managed 6-43

6.4 CDM 2007 6-50


IAN 111/09 Page v Nov 09

7. Legislative Requirements


7.2 Outline Methodology for Introducing New Regulations 7-53

7.3 Timescales to Commence Drafting of Sis 7-55

8. Operations 8.1 Introduction 8-57

8.2 Terminology – Lane Referencing on MM-HSR Schemes 8-58

8.3 MM-HSR Traffic Officer Service (TOS) Procedures 8-58

8.4 Operating Regimes 8-60

8.5 Entry and Exit Scheme Signing, Road Marking and Signalling 8-74

8.6 Maintenance 8-78

8.7 Access for Emergency Services 8-86

8.8 Operating Speed 8-87

8.9 RCC and Traffic Officer Considerations 8-87

8.10 Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running 8-89

8.11 Compliance/Enforcement 8-90

8.12 Ramp Metering 8-91

8.13 Driver Behaviour, Education and Publicity 8-92

8.14 Operational Development 8-92

8.15 Monitoring and Evaluation 8-93

9. Technology 9.1 Site data 9-95

9.2 Transmission System 9-95

9.3 Control System 9-96

9.4 Power Issues 9-97

9.5 Combined Equipment Cabinets (CEC) 9-99

9.6 Emergency Roadside Telephones 9-100

9.7 Lane Specific AMIs 9-101

9.8 Achieving Compliance 9-102

9.9 Post Mounted AMIs 9-102

9.10 Message Signs 9-102

9.11 Ambient Light Monitors 9-104

9.12 MIDAS 9-104

9.13 Hard Shoulder Monitoring 9-104

9.14 ERA Detection and Monitoring 9-105

9.15 CCTV General Surveillance 9-106


9.17 Commissioning of Equipment 9-108


IAN 111/09 Page vi Nov 09

10.Infrastructure 10.1 Piers, Parapets and Gantries 10-111

10.2 Clearance and Headroom 10-112

10.33 Railway Infrastructure Considerations 10-112

10.4 Alignment 10-113

10.5 Permanent Traffic Signs 10-114

10.6 Drainage 10-120

10.7 Lane Widths 10-120

10.8 Road Markings and Studs 10-121

10.9 Carriageway 10-123

10.10 Signal Gantry Frequency 10-123

10.11 Gantries in the Vicinity of Junctions 10-124

10.12 Gantries – Design Considerations 10-128

10.13 Emergency Refuge Areas 10-129

10.14 Central Reserve 10-133

10.15 Stopping Sight Distances 10-133

10.16 Enforcement 10-134

10.17 Lighting 10-134

10.18 MIDAS Loops 10-136

10.19 Road Restraint System 10-140

10.20 Other Accesses 10-140

10.21 Maintenance Hardstandings 10-140

A References A-142

B Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations B-143

C Environmental Reporting Methodology Checklist C-145

D Drawings D-153

E Datum Point Definitions E-166

Appendices

F Index F-170


IAN 111/09 Page 1-1 of 170 Nov 09

1 Document Map - Section 1

Section


Contents Page

1.1 Who is this Guidance For? 1-2

1.2 What Does the Guidance Cover? 1-2

1.3 This Guidance in Context 1-8

1.4 Further Support 1-8 Key Points

Guidance is for Project Managers/Sponsors planning to implement MM-HSR with controlled use of Hard Shoulder

Scope of guidance is defined

Sets out assumptions used in the document

Provides a road map to installation

Explains need to remain up-to-date with MM-HSR developments



4. Economic Appraisal


6. Safety Considerations


8. Operations

9. Technology

10. Infrastructure


IAN 111/09 Page 1-2 of 170 Nov 09

1 About this Document

1.1 Who is this Guidance For?

This document provides guidance for delivery teams on the implementation of a Managed Motorway scheme incorporating Hard Shoulder Running (HSR). It also provides guidance for operational teams on implementation and subsequent management of the network.

It has been designed to provide the reader with information in a number of project areas (see Section 1.2). Each of these is addressed in a distinct section some of which may be relevant to all readers, whilst only one or two may be relevant to others. It has been designed as a reference document and is not designed to be read in its entirety, but rather to help guide a reader on specific issues.

A glossary of terms and abbreviations is presented in Appendix B.

An index is presented in Appendix F.

1.2 What Does the Guidance Cover?

1.2.1 Objective

Managed Motorways is a ‘tool-box’ which facilitates the dynamic control of traffic for congestion and incident management. The tools allow the road space to be managed in different ways for varying conditions to maximise capacity whilst providing a safe and informed environment for the travelling public and on-road resources (Emergency Services, Maintenance Operatives, Recovery Operators and Traffic Officers). The ‘tool-box’ includes:

Hard Shoulder Running: Controlled use of the Hard Shoulder during times of heavy congestion or during incident management

Controlled Motorways: The dynamic management of traffic in the designated running lanes using Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (VMSL)

Queue Protection: Automatic protection of incidents and queues

Lane Specific Signalling: Protection of incidents and on-road resources

Ramp Metering: Controlling traffic entering the main carriageway from slip-roads or connector roads to maintain the flow on the main carriageway

Integrated Traffic Management: Management of traffic on the motorway and local road network

The objective of this document is to provide generic guidance on the implementation of Managed Motorways incorporating Hard Shoulder Running (i.e. incorporating the operational regime of controlled use of the Hard Shoulder). It does not provide guidance on the implementation of the other items in the Managed Motorways ‘tool-box’. These are covered separately.


IAN 111/09 Page 1-3 of 170 Nov 09

It is expected that the information presented in this document will be used in conjunction with existing standards to enable the ‘design’ of appropriate schemes.

Following consultation within the Highways Agency, the below has been agreed:

Within this document certain items have been highlighted by the Highways Agency as requiring a submission of a Departure from Standard (i.e. A Departure from Standard submission is required for X....). This does not mean that they are the only the items requiring a departure. The purpose of this is to emphasise the need for a departure for the item identified.

Each scheme needs to be individually designed taking into account local conditions. This also means that new schemes could be more innovative than those which currently exist or are being planned. In these circumstances advice from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]) should be sought.

Mandatory sections of this document, i.e. those that are a requirement of Managed Motorways, are contained in Black Boxes. These requirements must be complied with or obtain a prior agreement to a Departure from Standard must be obtained from the Overseeing Organisation. The text outside boxes contains advice and explanation, which is commended to users for consideration.

This document must be used forthwith on all Managed Motorway schemes currently being prepared provided that, in the opinion of the Overseeing Organisation, this would not result in significant additional expense or delay progress (in which case the decision must be recorded in accordance with the procedure required by the Overseeing Organisation).

In exceptional situations, the Overseeing Organisation may be prepared to agree to a Departure from Standard where the Standard, including permitted relaxations, is not realistically achievable. If a Departure from Standard is required this course of action must be discussed with the Overseeing Organisation at an early stage in the design process. Proposals to adopt Departures from Standard must be submitted to the Overseeing Organisation and formal approval received before incorporation into a design layout.

In difficult circumstances, Relaxations may be introduced at the discretion of the Design Organisation, having regard to all relevant local factors, but only where specifically permitted by this Standard. Careful consideration must be given to layout options incorporating Relaxations, having weighed the benefits and any potential disbenefits. Particular attention must be given to the safety aspects (including operation, maintenance, construction and demolition) and the environmental and monetary benefits/disbenefits that would result from the use of Relaxations. The consideration process must be recorded. The preferred option must be compared against options that would meet full standards.


IAN 111/09 Page 1-4 of 170 Nov 09

The clauses within a Black Box do not require a Departure from Standard (unless this is explicitly stated within the Black Box). However, this does not mean that the clauses within the Black Box can be applied to a scheme without due consideration of their potential impact on safety. For example, this document does permit lane widths that are different to those stated in the DMRB. Application of these lane widths may affect the risk associated with certain scheme hazards. For this reason an appropriate level of project review is required. The results of this review must be recorded and appended to the Hazard Log.

1.2.2 Revised process for Dealing with potential “Departures from Standard” issues on ‘Early Delivery’ Managed Motorway schemes

The absence of a complete set of standards for Managed Motorways means that there is the potential for a large number of Departures from Standard to be generated. In order to manage this, a revised process is to be used as outlined below. Further details can be obtained from the HA NetServ Group Manager, Road Safety & Casualty Reduction.

The use of those sections in this guidance that have been “black boxed” do not constitute Departures from Standards, where compliance can be achieved. However, designers must properly consider the appropriateness of the application of these sections of the guidance in the Safety Report(s) and Hazard Log (See Section 6.2). In instances where compliance with these “black boxed” sections cannot be achieved, or raise significant (‘Type C’) safety issues, the justification of the relevant design issues shall be disaggregated into discrete Departures submissions or within a composite departures report submission. The HA NetServ Group Manager Road Safety & Casualty Reduction will direct designers on any specific requirements in this regard.

Where specific Departures are required, as stipulated in this IAN, the established processes for the submission and approval of Departures shall be used. These Departures shall also be properly considered in the development of the Safety Report and Hazard Log, including any interrelation with those of those sections in this IAN that have been “black boxed”.

The Black Box items adopted by the scheme must be recorded in a Design Features report that is appended to the Hazard Log. This must be reviewed and evidence recorded that cumulatively these will not prevent the Safety Objective for the scheme being achieved. Particular attention needs to be paid to the potential interaction of different features.


IAN 111/09 Page 1-5 of 170 Nov 09

1.2.3 Scope and Assumptions

The scope of this guidance is limited to the implementation of Managed Motorways incorporating Hard Shoulder Running on motorways in England. (For brevity, this is referred to as ‘MM-HSR’ in the remainder of this document). Careful consideration is required before MM-HSR is implemented in a new location on the motorway network. MM-HSR leads to substantial changes in operational practices, implementation of technology and changes to infrastructure. The complexity of design and operational requirements associated with MM-HSR is difficult to comprehensively address in a single document. Therefore, the intention of this document is to provide generic guidance on the main issues that need to be considered, capturing lessons learned from the M42 Active Traffic Management (ATM) Pilot scheme between Junction 3A and 7. It provides a baseline for future schemes which delivery teams should further refine and value manage where safe and practicable to do so.

The following assumptions are made in this document:

The introduction of MM-HSR on a length of carriageway does not include the bringing forward of major maintenance schemes unless directed by the Overseeing Organisation.

Where current structures or features (e.g. restraint systems, drainage) are fit for purpose, they should not be replaced for the sole purpose of meeting current standards. Other improvements should only be considered if what is there now is not appropriate (for example, either unsafe or beyond economic repair). The asset management decision making process therefore follows a logical process:

1. The true condition of the asset is established to determine if it is fit for purpose.

2. If the asset is deemed fit for purpose, then it is reasonable for it to be retained.

3. If it is deemed not fit for purpose then there is another decision about removal or replacement. This decision should be taken in the normal way to justify renewal/upgrading including referring to the relevant Assessment Standards.

See Section 10 for further information.

This Guidance is based on the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and draws on the lessons learnt from the M42 Active Traffic Management (ATM) Pilot between J3A and 7 and M25 (Controlled Motorways).

MM-HSR is currently only implemented on existing dual 3-lane motorways with standard width Hard Shoulder (D3M).

For installation on other motorways configurations, such as D4M and D5M, further advice must be sought from, Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]) early in the option assessment phase.


IAN 111/09 Page 1-6 of 170 Nov 09

Controlled use of the Hard Shoulder applied only to links1 between junctions. If a scheme incorporates controlled use of the Hard Shoulder within a junction then designers should be aware that separate guidance on ‘Through Junction Running’ is available [1].

It is assumed that after scheme handover the MM-HSR will be managed by Network Operations (NO) operated from an existing Regional Control Centre.

1 A motorway ‘link’ is defined as the carriageway between two adjacent junctions.


IAN 111/09 Page 1-7 of 170 Nov 09

1.2.4 Document guide

Figure 1-1 shows how the information contained in this guidance document would support the implementation of an MM-HSR scheme. The numbers for each box represent the relevant section of this document.

Figure 1-1: Implementation of a MM-HSR scheme

Figure 1-1 shows a generic sequence of events. However, this may not be appropriate for every scheme. Feedback would be expected from all aspects of the scheme, including how it operates both in terms of traffic management and maintenance activities.

The way the scheme will operate determines whether any operational modifications are required and also provides key data for the traffic, environmental and economic assessments. The operational requirements will also determine the technology and infrastructure requirements.

Experience gained from the implementation of MM-HSR schemes is expected to feed into further Highways Agency advice, guidance or standards. Project Managers/Sponsors should ensure that relevant information is fed back to Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]) so that it can be incorporated into future updates.

8. Operations

Scheme Inception

3. Factors Influencing

Installation

4. Economic

Appraisal

5. Environmental

Assessment

7. Legal

Requirements

9. Technology

10. Infrastructure

6. Safety

Assessment 11. Stakeholder

Management

Scheme Delivery

Feedback to HA NetServ

Updated

Guidance

Scheme designers must consider as early as possible how the scheme will operate and how it will be maintained taking into account local factors.


IAN 111/09 Page 1-8 of 170 Nov 09

1.3 This Guidance in Context

The M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and J7 has been subject to close and extensive monitoring and capturing of lessons learnt. As a result, the ‘design and operation’ of any future MM-HSR schemes will have differences from the Pilot.

The guidance provided in this document reflects the continued evolution of Managed Motorways incorporating the controlled use of the Hard Shoulder. It provides guidance that is consistent with ‘current thinking’, taking on board lessons learnt from the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 and work carried out on MM-HSR schemes being designed for implementation on other parts of the motorway network. It is not intended to stifle innovation, but if other approaches are considered then advice should be sought from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

1.4 Further Support

It is strongly advised that before commencement of the development of an MM-HSR scheme, contact is made with Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]) who will be able to advise further on the items discussed in this guidance and ensure that scheme queries are forwarded to the most appropriate specialist.


IAN 111/09 Page 2-9 of 170 Nov 09


Section


2. Overview of Key Points

Provides a description of what MM-HSR is and how it works

Details of the benefits and results

How the MM-HSR is managed

3. Factors

Influencing MM-HSR Installation





8. Operations 9. Technology 10. Infrastructure


IAN 111/09 Page 2-10 of 170 Nov 09

2 Overview of MM-HSR

Managed Motorways, incorporating the controlled use of the Hard Shoulder as a running lane (MM-HSR) during periods of high vehicle flow or incidents, is recognised as an increasingly important tool in managing the motorway network. It provides a number of benefits compared to conventional road-widening; including cost effectiveness, speed of construction and an increased likelihood of implementation within the existing highway boundary.

Figure 2-1: MM-HSR as implemented on the M42 ATM Pilot

MM-HSR provides an additional lane during congested periods by utilising the existing Hard Shoulder as a running lane. This concept has been piloted on the M42 ATM scheme (J3A –J7) in the West Midlands2 (Figure 2-1) and early indications [2] show that this is a safe, efficient and sustainable way of creating increased capacity within the existing road space to manage changing traffic conditions.

MM-HSR applies the latest proven technology3 in new ways to enable controlled use of the Hard Shoulder, whether the congestion is caused by peak traffic flows, an incident, or a special event. The following paragraphs provide a high level summary of MM-HSR operation.

2 Useful information on the M42 ATM Pilot scheme (J3A –J7) is available at http://www.highways.gov.uk/atm 3 Note: the most up-to-date generation of signals and signs was used on the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme. While the underlying scheme technology remains standard, innovative applications of this technology have been used to meet the scheme objectives.


IAN 111/09 Page 2-11 of 170 Nov 09

During periods of low traffic flow and when no incidents are present, no signs or signals are displayed. As traffic flow increases, a variable mandatory speed limit (VMSL) is automatically displayed by the Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMI) above the running lanes (similar to those seen on the M25 Controlled Motorways scheme). However, unlike the M25 Controlled Motorways, an additional AMI displays a ‘Red-Cross lane control’ aspect over the Hard Shoulder (See Section 8.4.2). When traffic flows require additional capacity, and when it is safe to do so, the Hard Shoulder is opened to traffic by the Regional Control Centre (RCC) operators. This is conveyed to road users through the display of a mandatory speed limit above the Hard Shoulder, in addition to those displayed over the remaining running lanes, and appropriate text messages are shown on the Message Signs Mark 4 (MS4s).

When the demand level subsides, the Hard Shoulder is closed to traffic by the RCC operators and the motorway reverts to an M25 Controlled Motorway style environment with mandatory speed limits displayed on the AMIs above the running lanes and a ‘Red-Cross lane control’ aspect displayed above the Hard Shoulder. As traffic flows further reduce, the signs and signals are switched off and the carriageway returns to conventional motorway operation.

To manage the MM-HSR environment and the process for opening and closing the Hard Shoulder, signals and message signs are mounted on gantries. Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs) are provided at appropriate regular intervals, generally co-located downstream of the gantry where the topography and road layout permits. Over each lane, an AMI displays VMSL and lane control aspects. Each gantry is equipped with an MS4 to provide driver information and reinforce the display set on the AMIs. Good compliance to the VMSL is supported by the use of an appropriate enforcement system (in the case of the M42 Pilot the Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System (HADECS) is used).

A system of in-road detectors (in the case of the M42 Pilot, Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) loops) is used to monitor traffic speeds, flows and queues. Comprehensive Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) coverage is provided to allow the control room operators to monitor the road network and rapidly detect and resolve incidents.

A hard shoulder detection system (in the case of the M42 Pilot, fixed CCTV) is used to support the RCC Operator in implementing the hard shoulder opening sequence.

Each MM-HSR requires a unique set of operational procedures to manage the scheme. Effective training and adherence to these procedures is fundamental to successful operation.


IAN 111/09 Page 3-12 of 170 Nov 09


Section




Contents Page


3.2 Existing Physical Constraints and Infrastructure 3-13

3.3 Traffic Flow Characteristic 3-13

3.4 Entry and Exit to an MM-HSR Scheme 3-15

3.5 Link Lengths 3-16

3.6 Topography 3-16

3.7 Future Developments and Programmed Schemes 3-16

3.8 Summary 3-17 Key Points

Guidance to recognise what factors influence installation

Factors to consider before installing the MM-HSR

Understanding traffic flow characteristics when determining where to implement MM-HSR

Considering Hard Shoulder for congestion management

Threshold flows for opening and closing the Hard Shoulder

Future developments that may affect the scheme

To determine the likely life of an MM-HSR intervention

MM-HSR relies on signals to convey the status of the Hard Shoulder

4. Economic

Appraisal






IAN 111/09 Page 3-13 of 170 Nov 09

3 Factors influencing MM-HSR installation

3.1 Introduction

It is important that assessment of the following factors is undertaken prior to determining the feasibility and economic viability of implementing MM-HSR at a particular location on the motorway network. Although MM-HSR is a very flexible solution, there may be locations where another solution, for example Conventional Widening and/or Controlled Motorways, may be more appropriate.

3.2 Existing Physical Constraints and Infrastructure

In considering MM-HSR, it is necessary to establish the extent of existing physical constraints – particularly in relation to infrastructure. This assessment should not only consider horizontal constraints (reduced width Hard Shoulder, Hard Shoulder discontinuities at overbridges etc) but also vertical constraints (vertical clearances over the Hard Shoulder may not be the same as those over the running lanes). It is necessary to identify the location of cuttings and embankments as these may influence the locations for ERAs. The integrity of the existing Hard Shoulder also needs to be considered (see Section 10.9) as well as the type and location of existing drainage (see Section 10.6) and the presence or otherwise of lighting (see Section 10.17).

Where controlled use of the Hard Shoulder running through the junction is to be considered (whether at implementation or at some point in the future), then assessments to check whether or not this can be physically achieved need to be undertaken. If it can only be achieved by removing or widening structures etc, these costs need to be included in the economic assessment for the scheme (See Section 4). Removing or widening structures is likely to have a significant impact on the programme.

3.3 Traffic Flow Characteristics

Local and strategic traffic flow characteristics need to be fully understood when determining where to implement MM-HSR. This information should help designers to understand the:

Traffic flow suitability for an MM-HSR solution

Period of Operation over the design life of the scheme

Geographic extent of MM-HSR on a scheme

Need for through junction hard shoulder running

In investigating the various factors involved, designers must decide how the scheme is expected to operate and be maintained (See Section 8). Without this understanding, the full implications of each factor cannot be assessed.


IAN 111/09 Page 3-14 of 170 Nov 09

Effect of future traffic flows

3.3.1 Traffic flow suitability for an MM-HSR solution

MM-HSR is primarily designed as a tool to alleviate congestion. However, MM-HSR offers a flexible solution and different modes of operation can be applied to differing circumstances (for example as a tool to mitigate the risk of incidents).

Evidence from the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 suggests a 7% to 9% improvement on through put verses 3 Lane (3L) VMSL. In calculating the likely capacity for future schemes a number of factors should be taken into account these include:

Distance between junctions - weaving movements may affect capacity.

Proportion of commuters – a high proportion of commuters may lead to a higher capacity as a great proportion of drivers are used to travelling through the scheme.

Geometry – a tight geometry may reduce capacity.

Proportion of HGVs – a high proportion may reduce capacity.

Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running – leading to improved capacity through junctions where there is a high proportion of through traffic.

Environment – weather conditions.

3.3.2 Period of Operation

This section only considers the opening of the Hard Shoulder for congestion management.

The Hard Shoulder can be opened at times when it is predicted that traffic flow is going to exceed the natural capacity of the motorway. The Hard Shoulder is likely to be opened during the morning and evening peak. However, there is no reason why the Hard Shoulder cannot be opened for the morning peak and closed after the evening peak, if flow demands it.

For any new MM-HSR scheme detailed analysis of traffic flows is required to determine flow thresholds for informing RCC operators of when to open and close the hard shoulder, as well as for Controlled Motorway settings. These flow thresholds will depend on a number of factors including topographical gradient and flow composition (e.g. proportion of HGVs). Determining the likely frequency and duration of hard shoulder usage will help determine resource levels required for opening and closing the hard shoulder. During these periods VMSL will be applied and the effect on maintenance activities must therefore be considered.


IAN 111/09 Page 3-15 of 170 Nov 09

3.3.3 Geographic extent of MM-HSR on a scheme

Traffic modelling work should be used to determine the links that are likely to require Hard Shoulder usage. For example, traffic patterns of through traffic and local traffic may mean that the Hard Shoulder need not be opened for each peak period on all links. Equally some links may need to be opened for the morning and evening peaks, whilst others may need to be left open throughout the inter-peak.

As each link has different characteristics, modelling may reveal that one or more links in the centre of a scheme do not require MM-HSR. However, if this is the case, it needs to be determined how the scheme would physically ‘look’ to road users, and how it would operate with a mixture of MM-HSR and non-MM-HSR links. It may be deemed necessary to implement MM-HSR on links where congestion is not the key driver, but where scheme consistency becomes important. Different Operational Regimes (ORs) may be appropriate in these circumstances, possibly without the regular use of the Hard Shoulder as a congestion management regime.

3.3.4 Need for through junction hard shoulder running

The traffic flow joining and leaving at each junction within the scheme as this determines whether or not Hard Shoulder running is required through the junction (see separate guidance IAN112/08 “Managed Motorways Implementation Guidance – Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running” [1]– Section 3.1). If the traffic flow on the main carriageway remains high through the junction (i.e. the efficient operation of the junction is impeded by the forecast level of flow through the existing junction configuration) then a ‘Through Junction Running’ type arrangement may be required.

3.3.5 Effect of future traffic flows

It is also important to consider current and future predicted traffic growth levels and their effect on the local and strategic network. MM-HSR suits locations where the inter-peak flows (either during the day or night or both) are mostly within the existing capacity of the motorway and are expected to remain this way for the period covered by the Economic Appraisal spreadsheet model (See Section 4). Conventional widening may be a more appropriate alternative where capacity is reached during the inter peak period.

3.4 Entry and Exit to MM-HSR Scheme

It is important that drivers understand when they are either entering or leaving an MM-HSR scheme. On the main carriageway this is best achieved on the main carriageway by starting and terminating controlled use of the Hard Shoulder at junctions (see Section 8.5) However, with careful planning, it is possible to commence and terminate MM-HSR at an interchange, as achieved on the M42 ATM Pilot at Junction 3A. Entry to or exit from the MM-HSR scheme may also be to or from a Controlled Motorway link.


IAN 111/09 Page 3-16 of 170 Nov 09

3.5 Link Lengths

For the successful operation of MM-HSR it is important to establish:

Whether it is physically possible to install the necessary signals and signing to convey clear and unambiguous information to road users about the status of the Hard Shoulder. For very short link lengths, advice should be sought from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

Whether appropriate weaving lengths can be achieved.

That each link can be opened in a timely manner.

The current way that the Hard Shoulder is opened to traffic requires sections4 between signal gantries to be opened in sequence (following confirmation that the Hard Shoulder is clear of obstruction – See Section 8.4.3). This sequence takes a finite length of time to complete, which in simple terms means that the longer the link, the longer it takes to open. If the scheme has a number of longer links it may be necessary to develop a revised procedure of opening and closing the Hard Shoulder and this may in turn have an impact on resource requirements. For example, one possibility is opening the complete length of the Hard Shoulder on the link, as a single unit, at the same time. However, to do this it is necessary to put in place a process for checking that the entire length of the Hard Shoulder is clear of stopped vehicles and/or debris. There needs to be minimal delay between this check and the opening of the Hard Shoulder and it may be that a revised methodology is required to achieve this.

3.6 Topography

During Hard Shoulder Running or Controlled Motorways, MM-HSR relies on signals and message signs to convey the status of the Hard Shoulder to road users. It therefore follows that drivers need to have a clear view of these signals and signs.

On motorways with topographical constraints, it may be challenging to convey information clearly to the driver. The topography may make ERA installation challenging and expensive. Vertical alignment may also restrict where ERAs can be located. Steep inclines on the carriageway could require additional ERAs as broken-down vehicles may not be able to travel as far. Such considerations may significantly increase the anticipated cost of MM-HSR implementation.

3.7 Future Developments and Programmed Schemes

It is important to establish the status of any pending developments and schemes that may affect the network (in the scheme location) at some point in the future, for example major maintenance schemes, junction improvement schemes and other local developments with planning permission.

4 A ‘section’ is the length of carriageway between adjacent signal gantries.


IAN 111/09 Page 3-17 of 170 Nov 09

3.8 Summary

The following activities should be undertaken to inform the economic assessment:

An overview of how the scheme operates is established.

An assessment of the proposed MM-HSR scheme site to determine;

o The extent of existing constraints (i.e. vertical and horizontal)

o The extent of existing infrastructure (e.g. lighting and drainage)

o Constraints on locations of ERAs

o Constraints on locations of gantries

o Constraints on Hard Shoulder Running through Junctions, Through Junction Running (if required)

o Link Lengths (and their implications on operation)

o Possible constraints on sight-lines to signals on gantries

o Future developments and programmed schemes that may affect the MM-HSR scheme

An assessment of traffic flows to determine;

o Expected periods of operation for each link over the design life

o Exit and entry flows at each junction (to determine whether or not the Hard Shoulder within a junction should be trafficked, i.e. Through Junction Running)

Traffic Modelling:

o Capacity assessment

o Threshold flows for opening and closing the Hard Shoulder


IAN 111/09 Page 4-18 of 170 Nov 09


Section





Contents


4.2 The TAME MM-HSR spreadsheet model 4-20

4.3 Other Economic Impact Assumptions for the Effect of MM-HSR 4-21

Key Points

The process that will be used for the economic appraisal of an MM-HSR scheme.

Description of the TAME MM-HSR spreadsheet model

MM-HSR Spreadsheet Model Assumptions/ Considerations

Explains why an INCA assessment should be carried out for both MM-HSR and full widening.

5. Environmental

Assessment





IAN 111/09 Page 4-19 of 170 Nov 09

4 Economic Appraisal

4.1 Introduction

The information presented in this section complements the existing processes for the economic appraisal of Highways Agency schemes.

The process that should be used for the economic appraisal of an MM-HSR scheme has been developed by the HA Traffic Appraisal Modelling and Economics (TAME) group.

The process involves:

Using a spreadsheet model (See Section 4.2) to determine the economic effects (link transit, queuing and merge delays and vehicle operating costs) of introducing an MM-HSR scheme on the Highways Agency network.

Currently the spreadsheet is used to carry out a two stage assessment of MM-HSR:

An initial Stage 1 assessment uses the benefits generated by the spreadsheet in conjunction with construction and associated costs to ascertain whether MM-HSR is a viable option. A Stage 1 assessment can include, if available, the other elements of economic appraisal such as the effects of accidents, maintenance etc.

If the Stage 1 assessment indicates that MM-HSR is a viable option, a Stage 2 assessment can then be carried out using TUBA outputs based on data from a scheme traffic model to derive the full network wide affects of MM-HSR. The Stage 2 assessment includes the other elements of economic appraisal including the effects of accidents, maintenance etc.

A guidance document on the process and use of the spreadsheet is available from the TAME group. It covers:

MM-HSR spreadsheet model assumptions

Other economic impact assumptions for the effect of MM-HSR

The spreadsheet methodologies for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 assessments

Pro-formas for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 assessments

Pro-forma for the treatment of consecutive links


IAN 111/09 Page 4-20 of 170 Nov 09

4.2 The TAME MM-HSR Spreadsheet Model

The TAME MM-HSR spreadsheet model uses various inputs to enable the comparison of four scenarios:

Existing lane configuration ‘Do-Minimum’5,

‘Do Minimum’ + MM-HSR operating with a maximum speed limit of 50mph when the Hard Shoulder is open to traffic6

‘Do Minimum’ + MM-HSR operating with a maximum speed limit of 60mph when the Hard Shoulder is open to traffic

Full Widening

As noted above, the outputs from the spreadsheet are link transit, queuing and merge delays and Vehicle Operating Costs. A number of assumptions/considerations associated with the spreadsheet are noted below.

4.2.1 MM-HSR Spreadsheet Model Assumptions/ Considerations

The spreadsheet does not assess the safety benefits or the economic effects of MM-HSR on the wider network beyond the motorway.

The spreadsheet does not provide data on scheme costs. Scheme costs, calculated in terms of Present Value Costs, will need to be derived outside the spreadsheet.

As noted previously, the spreadsheet has been set up to appraise both a 50mph and 60 mph speed limit operation for MM-HSR (see Section 8.8). The traffic flow input to each scenario should be the same and, for a Stage 2 Assessment, should include the effects of variable demand responses for future year flows derived from the macro traffic assignment/demand model. When undertaking a Stage 1 Assessment without the benefit of variable demand based forecasts, care should be taken to ensure that the forecast flows do not exceed the available capacity in both the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios. (The Stage 1 method assumes the same flows for both Do-Minimum and Do-Something. This is likely to lead to flows greater than the Do-Minimum capacity and hence the occurrence of queuing delays.)

The full widening scenario and MM-HSR options do not take account of the implementation of VMSL.

5 This is D3M with the fitment of automatic queue protection 6 See Section 8.8 regarding operating speed


IAN 111/09 Page 4-21 of 170 Nov 09

4.3 Other Economic Impact Assumptions for the Effect of MM-HSR

An INCA assessment should be carried out for both MM-HSR and full widening to assess the effects on journey time reliability.

It should be assumed that introducing MM-HSR is expected to lead to a 15% reduction in accidents compared with the implementation of automatic queue protection on its own. This is based on the reductions achieved as a result of Controlled Motorways (VMSL) on the M25, as longer term data from MM-HSR solutions is not yet available. This assumption is also applicable to the full widening option if it also includes VMSL, and should be updated when longer term validated MM-HSR accident data is compiled.

A full QUADRO assessment will be required to determine costs associated with the planned replacement of MM-HSR equipment.

Operational costs associated with MM-HSR should also be included in the scheme costs over the projected life of the scheme including any increased staff costs (e.g. traffic officers/ control room operators).


IAN 111/09 Page 5-22 of 170 Nov 09


Section






Contents Page



5-23

5.3 Business Case and Scheme Approval Process 5-25

5.4 Environmental Assessment Process 5-25

5.5 Environmental Assessment and Potential Generic Mitigation Strategies

5-32


5.7 Drainage Design Philosophy 5-37

Key Points

Description of the Environmental Assessment methodology

The topic areas to be addressed and the anticipated outcomes of an environmental assessment process, based on currently available data and experience of previous and ongoing projects

Potential environmental impacts arising from the implementation of an MM-HSR scheme

Potential mitigation strategies to avoid, minimise or offset any adverse impacts

Earthworks and Drainage design philosophies

6. Safety

Considerations




IAN 111/09 Page 5-23 of 170 Nov 09

5 Environmental Issues

5.1 Introduction

This section presents a summary of key environmental considerations associated with the implementation of MM-HSR at a new location on existing sections of the motorway network and includes:

A potential scheme environmental assessment procedural progression path

An initial generic ‘Scoping exercise’ to identify specific topic areas of relevance to MM-HSR schemes

Potential environmental impacts arising from the implementation of an MM-HSR scheme

Potential mitigation strategies to avoid, minimise or offset any adverse impacts

A summary of anticipated outcomes of an environmental assessment process, based on currently available data and experience of previous and ongoing projects.


MM-HSR requires changes to existing infrastructure (additional gantries, ERAs etc) and therefore is likely to be delivered via some type of improvement scheme. Improvement schemes are subject to compliance with the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 as amended. Therefore, to comply with the regulations despite generally being located entirely within the existing HA land boundary, an MM-HSR scheme requires an appropriate level of environmental assessment as set out in the Agency’s current guidance HA200/08, HD 47/08 and HD48/08. For advice on any environmental assessment or design issues contact the Highways Agency’s NetServ Regional Environmental Advisors (REA) who can be contacted through [email protected].

5.2.1 Screening

The guidance in HD47/08 sets out the pathway (known as screening) for establishing the appropriate level of Environmental Assessment for each project;

1. The first step is to decide if the project is an Annex I or Annex II project (see Figure 5-1). Thresholds for Annex I and Annex II projects are included in HD 47/08 Section 1.7. Previous experience has shown MM-HSR schemes generally follow the Annex II pathway as a result of the scale of the intervention and construction works.

Each individual scheme must be assessed on its own merits, taking into consideration any specific scheme and or local environmental requirements.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-24 of 170 Nov 09

2. The second step is to decide if the project is a “relevant project”. Again HD 47/08 Section 1.8 includes the thresholds with respect to size and sensitivity which help to determine whether the project is a relevant project. Again previous experience has suggested MM-HSR schemes are likely to be “relevant” projects.

3. The third step is to arrive at a “determination” of the project. This means that an environment assessment needs to be undertaken which will allow a “determination” to be made. This is then summarised in a Record of Determination (ROD) which is prepared by the project team and sent to HA NetServ who approve the Record of Determination (RoD) on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS). This then gives the project team the authority to publish the Notice of Determination in the London Gazette and at least one other local paper (local to the scheme) for a minimum period of six weeks. This then allows 6 weeks to object to the determination, in which time no decisions should be taken on project development which may prejudice the SoS’s position. Projects should note that it is intended to issue new guidance on determination shortly and projects should consult with their NetServ Regional Environmental Advisors (REAs) for clarification.

This procedural pathway has been utilised on previous and ongoing schemes including the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7, the ongoing Productivity TIF Birmingham Box Managed Motorway Phase 1 and 2 (BBMM 1&2) scheme. Both have both resulted in a determination which has concluded that no formal Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Statement were required. This has been documented as a defensible, pragmatic mechanism for ‘early delivery’ of what are, primarily technology based projects. However it should be pointed out that each project inhabits its own specific geographical context, with differing constraints. Therefore each determination should take into account local circumstances. As Determination is a significant procedural and gateway process for projects, the NetServ REAs should be consulted throughout the process.

Figure 5-1, abstracted from HA 47/08, summarises the screening process for the progression of any scheme.

It is considered likely that based on experience to date the RoDs for MM-HSR projects would establish that a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would not be required including the production of an Environmental Statement. However this must be reviewed on a scheme by scheme basis.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-25 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 5-1: HA Determination Process

5.3 Business Case and Scheme Approval Process

Environmental information in the form of the Environmental Appraisal Report (EAR), obtained in support of the determination assists the scheme’s progress through the project approval stages.

5.4 Environmental Assessment Process

Generally the undertaking of an environmental assessment process, and subsequent production of an EAR, or Environmental Statement, for an MM-HSR scheme on an existing, operational highway corridor should recognise that:


IAN 111/09 Page 5-26 of 170 Nov 09

To a degree design choices may be constrained by operational necessity; if this is the case and the design is fixed early, the EAR could move straight to the appropriate level of assessment (see HA 200/08) relatively quickly followed by a ‘determination’ process.

In the context of an operational highway corridor there are probably already existing impacts upon locally sensitive receptors. The project assessment should only include those impacts attributed to the project including any cumulative impacts. As such assessments may reasonably conclude the impact is a relatively small addition to the baseline.

5.4.1 Scoping of Likely Impacts

In accordance with HA 204/08 the first level of environmental assessment is scoping. From the experience on the M42 ATM Pilot and the productivity TIF Birmingham Box Managed Motorway Phase 1 and 2 scheme, a generic scoping exercise would suggest the following topic areas including their likely impacts are likely to be the main areas to assess and report on.

Air Quality: Air Quality is likely to be in scope for most projects due to the potential impacts (both positive and negative) on any nearby Air Quality Management Areas and consideration against the Air Quality Strategy Objectives/EU Limit Values. The M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 experience using ‘evidence based assumptions’ demonstrated that the operation of the schemes may result in some minor beneficial reduction in specific emissions via the ability to control and regulate traffic speeds and it may be important to demonstrate this. Projects should ensure that the scope of any air quality assessments is appropriate to the circumstances of the scheme and sufficient to clarify the impacts, both positive and negative and if necessary compare the results against the pollutant concentrations as defined by the UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives and EU limit Values.

The current assessment guidance on air quality is contained in HA 207/07 DMRB Volume 11 Section 3 Part 1.

There may be air quality issues associated with the construction phase. However it is likely with best practice these can be contained with legal limits and are temporary.

Cultural Heritage – for most schemes, scoping exercises will identify that MM-HSR projects almost certainly are contained within ‘disturbed’ highway boundary, therefore impacts on buried archaeology are considered to be unlikely and scope out any further assessment. Any potential impacts are likely to be limited to receptors off site, such as the effects on the setting of any adjacent listed building. Scheduled Ancient Monument. or conservation area, or historic landscapes and if this is likely then this aspect would be scoped in and further assessment undertaken.

The guidance on cultural heritage assessment is given in DMRB HA 208/07.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-27 of 170 Nov 09

Disruption due to Construction - No significant long term impacts can be anticipated arising from the construction and installation process, any impacts being temporary in duration and ‘reversible’. Any potential impacts would be controlled and managed in accordance with procedures set out in a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The construction process associated with MM–HSR schemes requires a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) to be produced, particularly when older structures such as gantries may be removed or refurbished, which may contain controlled materials such as asbestos which requires detailed assessment and appropriate handling in line with best practice health and safety guidance and legislation. Projects should note it is intended to issue guidance on SWMP shortly.

Ecology and Nature Conservation – This is a subject which is likely to in scope due to the fact that MM-HSR projects have the potential to generate the following type of impacts in relation to ecology and nature conservation. The following is a list of potential impacts:

The physical land take (engineering works) required to construct the new gantries and cabinets (including associated cabling), and the physical land take requirements associated with ERAs, along with any structural engineering works to support them, and any temporary areas of construction may have a local effect on habitats or protected species.

Therefore there may be the potential for temporary exclusion or relocation of protected species under appropriate licence conditions from Natural England (NE) and or Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Finding receptors sites in an reduced soft estate footprint may be an issue.

It can be anticipated that any impacts on habitats and protected species within the HA boundary are likely to be considered as of local scale. This is not to say they may not be locally significant. If data collection and or surveys identify actual or potential presence of protected species, then discussions with the appropriate licensing authority Natural England would have to be concluded to agree mitigation strategies. If there are designations that lie within the highway corridor then consent maybe needed from appropriate authorities.

Whilst it is considered, on the basis of available evidence to date, that it is unlikely that the projects would have direct or indirect effects on off-site designations, each project should however take into consideration any potential for effect on adjacent Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and specifically Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). Project teams are reminded that scoping exercises should consider the guidance contained in HD 44/09 on the requirements for ‘Assessment of the Implications on European Sites (AIES)’ with reference to SPAs and SACs should be considered in the form of an initial screening exercise, to discussed and agreed with the REA on behalf of the HA with a view to advising on the requirements for an Appropriate Assessments.

The current guidance on ecology and nature conservation is contained in HD 44/09 and DMRB Vol 11 Section 3 Part 4.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-28 of 170 Nov 09

Landscape Effects – This is a subject which is likely to in scope. For MM-HSR schemes the primary impacts anticipated can be split into two key areas: Visual Effects and Landscape Character Effects. The following provides an indicative list of potential impacts that may require consideration:

Visual impacts

For visual effects the receptors will be people; those living or working near the motorway, users of adjacent footpaths and recreational facilities and of lesser importance road users. The following factors will affect the magnitude of visual effects and need to be considered;

Views of the motorway resulting from the removal of existing landscape planting to accommodate gantries, signs, associated buried cables and ERAs together with the establishment of new sight lines.

Views of gantries, signs, CCTV masts and other new road furniture from sensitive visual receptors in the motorway corridor.

Day and night time effects of lighting should be considered separately and the possibility of light spillage to adjoining sensitive receptors should be taken account of.

If used, the local impact associated with the height and density of verge mounted CCTV masts and lighting columns.

The potential ‘temporary’ loss or cutting back of areas of established tree and shrub cover, to provide working space within the highway boundary, around structures, along the cable corridors and or at any transverse crossing points;

The narrowing of existing landscape screening may cause an indirect effect as the residual vegetation becomes un-sustainable and would have to be removed as it would become un-maintainable.

Landscape Character Effects – Key effects on landscape character are likely to result from the following:

The introduction of new infrastructure such as gantries, signs, CCTV masts, cabinets, access steps and other new road furniture may all contribute to a change of landscape character and have an urbanising effect. The position, height, shape, density and massing arrangement of these features are all key considerations.

The removal of existing vegetation which can change the pattern of the landscape at the local level and affect the way the landscape is perceived.

It should be remembered that if there are several projects along a route, then their effects together may in increase the sense of change in landscape character via cumulative effects.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-29 of 170 Nov 09

The landscape assessment should focus on how the landscape character will be changed and should take account of measures incorporated into the scheme design to mitigate adverse effects. The effects of schemes within designated landscapes such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are likely to be more significant and special design solutions may be required.

It is currently anticipated that generally the impact of implementing MM-HSR on an existing network is likely to generate overall impacts of neutral to slightly adverse overall. This may however vary, particularly if the scheme requires significant new lighting provision within sensitive and or designated landscape areas. Individual gantries and other new features may also have a locally more significant adverse impact which may be difficult or impossible to mitigate. Due to the site specific nature of impacts it is difficult to generalise until investigation can be completed for an individual scheme.

The current assessment guidance for Landscape is contained in DMRB Vol 11 Section 3 Part 5

Traffic Noise and Vibration – It is likely noise and vibration is a subject which will be scoped in for most projects.

Generally, adverse impacts are likely to be associated with the construction phase which is temporary and can be controlled through the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Longer term MM-HSR running may provide some potential for benefits derived from the ability to control and regulate traffic speeds and movement patterns and it may be important to demonstrate this. This should be addressed through appropriate monitoring, modelling and assessment as required.

It may be necessary to identify night-time noise impacts in situations where it is expected that the MM-HSR scheme will be in operation during the night time hours (11pm to 7am).

It may also be necessary to carry out an assessment to determine if any vibration impacts are likely to result from an MM-HSR scheme. It is possible that increased levels of ground-borne vibration are possible in situations where vehicles and HGV’s in particular, will be running both closer to properties and on an unimproved hardshoulder.

On the basis of ‘best available evidence’ to date, an overall assessment of neutral impact may be expected for a majority of MM-HSR schemes.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-30 of 170 Nov 09

If the outcome of an assessment of an MM-HSR scheme fails to predict a neutral impact then some mitigation may be required. Current policy precludes resurfacing simply to reduce noise levels. However, if the current condition of the existing surfacing justifies significant intervention, adopting ‘quieter surfacing’ may be considered. This would potentially demonstrate ‘betterment’ to an assessment of neutral from currently available data from the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7 and ongoing Birmingham Box schemes. It should however be noted that any reduction benefit from quieter surfacing would be dependant upon several factors, including whether or not the surfacing extends across all, or just individual carriageways.

Projects should ensure that the scope of any noise assessments is appropriate to the circumstances of the scheme and sufficient to predict the overall impact of traffic noise of an MM-HSR project.

The current assessment guidance for Noise is set out in DMRB Vol 11 Section 3 Part 7. HA 213/08.

Effects on All Travellers – It is not thought likely any scoping exercise would recommend a detailed level of assessment, but projects may decide to scope this in. It is also not thought likely there would be any significant impact on non – motorised users. There is clearly potential for a degree of ‘urbanisation’ of the motorway corridor as perceived by vehicle travellers and, particularly once accustomed to the MM-HSR ‘operational environment’. Potential stress relief through improved lane discipline, journey time reliability and improved traffic management at incidents. This has been observed from the ongoing monitoring of M25 Controlled Motorway and the M42 ATM Pilot. The relative impacts of these factors should be considered in the assessment.

For effects on Vehicle Travellers assessment guidance is provided by DMRB Vol 11 Section 3 Part 9

Water Quality and Drainage – Assessment of water and drainage issues would normally be expected to be scoped out as MM-HSR projects make no effective change to the existing drainage asset and are not expected to have new significant incursions into the water table / flood plains / or direct impact on rivers or other water bodies. Any impacts are expected to be short term during the construction process. Current available information and ‘evidence based assumptions’ suggests that the scale of the construction works associated with MM-HSR within existing highway boundaries, would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the existing surface or ground water environment. As such no assessment of discharge rates, water quality and flood risk will normally be required. In some locations however the following situations may arise;

1. Identified risks to the water environment from the existing asset; 2. Known failures with the drainage system in the project area: 3. The need for hardening of the central reservation and installation of High

Containment Concrete Barriers leading to potentially significant increases in the hardened area of the carriageway.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-31 of 170 Nov 09

Policies and Plans – generally not applicable, not anticipated to directly impact on the majority of Regional or Local Planning policies apart from assisting in wider proposals to promote the economic development of the area. ‘Relevant policies’ and protected sites are identified to contribute to the assessment of relative sensitivity of individual equipment site locations.

The above initial generic ‘Scoping Exercise’ has been undertaken and agreed with HA Network Services and is taken from the various environmental topic areas set out in the DMRB. It should however be reiterated that, whilst drawing on these guidelines, each individual scheme should undergo its own Scoping exercise. It is likely that for some projects this generic list of subject would be amended/revised as appropriate to take into account local context.

5.4.2 Reporting Methodology

The specific ‘reporting methodology’ proposed for the environmental assessment process is based on DMRB and should be utilised in conjunction with the requirements of the latest HAs, HDs, IANs (HA 201/08, HD 48/08) in combination with the requirements of MPs MMP Project Control Framework. To establish a consistency of data collection requirements, record of consultation and audit trail, projects are advised to use the 3 checklists attached (Appendix C). This methodology was utilised during the preparation of the EAR for the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A to 7 project and has been utilised for the ongoing assessment of the Birmingham Box Productivity TIF Phase 1 and 2 scheme. This would entail:

Existing Data Review - Utilising ‘Checklist 1’ (Appendix C) to collate data on a strategic overview and local scale and to map existing constraints and sensitivities to MM-HSR. Information to be obtained from the HA’s Maintaining Agents, the Environmental Database (Environmental Information System - ENVIS), other ongoing or completed HA projects, and published sources such as Local Planning Authority (LPA) Local Development Frameworks.

Consultation – Consultation, once authorised by the Project Manager/Sponsor, should be entered into with key statutory bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency and other non-statutory parties which may hold information such as the local Wildlife Trusts. This should take the form of a targeted Scoping and consultation letter followed up by telephone consultation and re-issue of letters and meetings as required. Initial Checklists and supporting Constraints Plans should then be supplemented by additional/updated data from this consultation process.

Field Surveys and Environmental Modelling – Once the scheme option and extents have been identified more detailed site specific assessments should then be undertaken as necessary, with the information collated in the following checklists. Checklist 2 (Appendix C) to be populated with information on ‘temporary’ construction impacts, generally associated with the long linear lengths of cable upgrade, barrier and CCTV corridors, and Checklist 3 (Appendix C) used to record field observations for each major equipment site (specifically landscape, heritage and biodiversity) and to identify mitigation measures.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-32 of 170 Nov 09

The above referenced Checklists would then be located in a support volume to the main EAR text, where the key information will be presented in a summary form. Other specialist reports, such as those summarised below would then also be lodged in supporting volumes to the main EAR report. These may include:

Specialist ecological reports - Air and noise reports and any other supporting data utilised in the assessment process, should then be located in a further support volume(s).

Projects are reminded of the need to consider potential for ‘Cumulative’ environmental impacts, mitigation strategies and any residual impacts, referencing DMRB & IANS and WebTAG, which should then be presented in a Volume 1 Environmental Assessment Report/ES which should act as the main reference document.

This process has been successfully used on past and ongoing projects, including the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7. The structure also offers a mechanism for a rapid conversion of the document to a more standard Environmental Statement format should the RoD and NoD process determine that this is required.

5.5 Environmental Design and Potential Generic Mitigation Strategies

The following general design principles and mitigation strategies can be utilised to avoid, offset and minimise potential adverse impacts associated with the construction and operation of a MM-HSR scheme:

Careful attention to the minimisation and/or avoidance of earthworks, as far as practical and avoidance of removal or damage to existing trees and shrubs.

No spoil piles should be left on site, material excavated during trench works should be used to back-fill the trenches and re-grade the verge locally around the trench Soil handling storage and replacement should adhere to best practice and Standards and in accordance with any specific requirements to be set out in Appendices to the Specification.

The preparation of and adherence to a Site Waste Management Plan.

Trenching works should be minimised as well as the size of the plant required to install the infrastructure to reduce the overall footprint of disturbance.

The adoption and application of a hierarchical approach to the selection of suitable earthworks retention systems within the scheme, looking to balance the requirements of retaining the existing soft estate against the avoidance and minimisation of significant retaining structures (see Section 5.6).

The creation of a family of structural treatments and finishes for retaining systems and consideration of the requirement for visual barriers where space may be restricted.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-33 of 170 Nov 09

The use of new tree and shrub planting within the highway boundary to restore screening or restore landscape character. Guidance on planting distance from the carriageway is given in DMRB Vol 2 Sect 2 part 8(3.132). Whilst the majority of new planting should generally consist of transplant size stock, consideration should be given to a higher proportion of larger planting material to give a more immediate impact in terms of screening, as successfully implemented on the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7. However in designing any landscaping mitigation, due regard should be given to whether the design is sustainable over the medium to longer term. The narrower the width, the less likely it is to be sustainable over the medium to long term, particularly for large trees.

Where there are limited opportunities for new planting/habitat creation within the highway offsite planting may be considered. This will require the agreement of the landowner and due to the uncertainties attached it should not be taken into account during the landscape assessment unless an agreement in principle has been confirmed.

Minimisation of signs, gantries, etc and other features in terms of both size, number and, to avoid clutter.

Also consider the identification of wider mitigation opportunities such as offsite planting.

The decommissioning and removal of redundant infrastructure, and reinstatement of former equipment sites.

The adoption of the drainage design, attenuation and pollution control mechanisms where required. (See Section 5.7).

The potential provision of noise barriers following detailed assessment, in addition to the adoption of ‘quieter surfacing’.

The collation of mitigation strategies and specific (i.e. ecological licences etc) requirements into a comprehensive CEMP to be taken on board and operated by the successful Contractor.

Consideration of various specific ORs to regulate factors such as speed, if air quality, specific emissions and/or noise levels become problematic.

DMRB Vol 10 in general, and Section 2 in particular, provides guidance on environmental design issues associated with improving existing roads.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-34 of 170 Nov 09


The following summarise the key design and environmental issues that need to be considered when finalising the selection and development of a detailed design solution for a site specific retaining requirement, considering selection criteria and treatment options. This text is not intended to provide detailed guidance on the various geotechnical options that may be required to address site specific issues, but to provide a hierarchy of potential options, taking into consideration sometimes conflicting engineering and environmental objectives.

In summary the key design hierarchy selection considerations are;

Is sufficient space available to create a slope re-grading or ‘green earthworks’ modification system? (Gradients up to max 450)

If yes then consider the following: would the construction of a slope realignment or geotechnical solution require the loss of significant amounts of higher vegetation cover in the short and medium term, particularly where this may be located adjacent to sensitive receptors, if ‘yes’ then consider another system, question 2 below, if ‘no’ then proceed with the design solution, accommodating opportunities for reinstatement including tree and shrub planting.

If no then consider next stage in the design solution selection system, bullet 2.

Is sufficient space available for some form of ‘green faced retention system’? (Gradients between 450 and a max of 550)

If yes then consider the following: would the construction of the green faced retention system (NB also take into consideration ‘temporary’ construction land take requirements) require the loss of significant amounts of higher vegetation cover in the short and medium term, particularly where this may be located adjacent to sensitive receptors, if yes then consider another system, bullet 3, if no then proceed with the design solution, accommodating opportunities for a grass faced retention system;

If no then consider next stage in the design solution selection system, bullet 3.

Space, and or, geotechnical restrictions (i.e. rock cut etc) where some form of ‘vertical’ treatment may be required. (Gradients above 550)

If geotechnical considerations allow then utilise stable exposed rock cutting faces, if however this is not practical then consider appropriate geotechnical solutions to achieve earthwork stability but accommodate a facility for a ‘standardised’, aesthetically appropriate surface treatment.

The following sections briefly set out issues to be taken into consideration when developing one of the 3 main retention systems in more detail to address specific site based requirements.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-35 of 170 Nov 09

System 1 - Slope Re-grading or ‘Green Earthworks’ modification system

Further considerations when adopting this type of solution at any given location could include;

The transition from a re-graded slope into the adjacent existing slopes to create a flowing sympathetic design solution.

The retention of as much of the higher vegetation cover as possible at any given location, and the requirement to design in sufficient soil depth to allow for appropriate mitigation reinstatement works, i.e. a minimum of 100 – 150mm for seeding and up to 300mm + for areas requiring tree and shrub planting.

The careful segregation of topsoil and subsoil, along with handling to maintain its viability for use within the scheme, and particularly for the reinstatement of areas of ecological or other sensitivities. Ecological principles should be adopted during the preparation of all of the detailed earthworks and top-soiling proposals, with a view to optimising the ecological benefits.

Consideration of the adoption of a biodegradable surface protection geotextile on steeper slopes, or slopes subject to particular challenges such as springs, particularly exposed and or dry aspects.

Consideration of the requirements for a wrap around geotextile solution (preferably biodegradable) for slopes at the upper end of the range and at difficult transition interfaces.

The seed mixes should be designed to meet the requirements of the landscape and ecological objectives, and would be selected to meet specific design criteria such as; the need for a ‘bioengineering mix’ i.e. a mix of grasses and appropriate herbs to create a rapidly establishing, dense sward capable of withstanding dry conditions in conjunction with hydroseed ameliorants and binding agents on any steepened or surface geotextile protected earthworks.

Native species, which match locally typical National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities should be utilised in seeding areas where possible and practical.

The design of environmentally sensitive, possibly ‘bioengineered,’ over-steepened slopes, with particular attention given to transition details where there are requirements to fulfil landscape and or other mitigation objectives. Possible systems could consider, utilising biodegradable geotextiles, live willow fascines, mattresses and stakes. The latter are more appropriate where works may be located adjacent to ditches, watercourses or damp areas.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-36 of 170 Nov 09

System 2 – ‘Green Faced’ Retention System


Adoption of several of the above general bullets with reference to soil handling, transition details, existing higher vegetation retention and appropriate seed mixes to achieve bioengineering functions, whilst taking note of ecological considerations.

The consideration of a variety of geotechnical solutions such as reinforced earth, soil nailing to undertake the primary retention functions. From experience gained from the M42 ATM Pilot where sufficient space is available within the Highways Agency boundary (to accommodate the fully bonded tensile elements) soil nailing provided a relatively quick in-situ gravity structure which can be installed progressively whilst minimising earthworks. Reinforced earth however takes longer to install, and requires greater temporary and permanent earthwork operations and space, hence potentially requiring larger areas of the soft estate.

Particular attention is required to the transition zone between the retained structure and the existing slopes to avoid issues of local drainage problems, erosion, health and safety and aesthetic conflicts.

The integration of cells, panels, wrap around geotextile into the overall geotechnical design solution to allow for sufficient depth of soil to sustain a healthy sward (normally 75 – 100mm minimum). This may also require consideration of a wrap around geotextile detail, or mat, preferably biodegradable to retain soil prior to vegetation establishment.

Consideration of the requirement for soil ameliorants, fertilisers and water retention systems / pellets to promote and sustain vegetation cover.

Consideration of drainage requirements / ‘irrigation’ to address both geotechnical stability issues and vegetation sustainability.

Consideration of issues such as aspect, exposure, access and maintenance within the design to allow for successful establishment and long term sustainability of a green faced solution. If a sustainable solution is impractical it may be better to adopt a System 3 approach at that individual site.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-37 of 170 Nov 09

System 3 – Vertical Retention System / ‘Natural’ Cuttings


The consideration of a variety of geotechnical solutions, including piling, gravity in-situ concrete, block-work, soil nailed or reinforced earth solutions to meet the specific design constraints of the site. From experience gained on the M42 ATM Pilot scheme between J3A and 7 and other Communication Upgrade schemes, from an environmental perspective, piled solutions and soil nailing generally required a smaller temporary working footprint than other solutions require, hence potentially minimising impacts on the adjacent soft estate.

A standardised approach should then be adopted to face or clad the vertical retaining system to create a ‘family’ of visible structural treatments for the scheme as a whole. This could include; a standardised profile to any pile cap beam; standard panel widths to accommodate cladding or expansion joints; careful attention to drainage and the location of weep holes; careful consideration of wall capping or coping layers to minimise spill onto the face of the walls causing staining and or moss growth. It may not be considered appropriate to select one block size / reconstituted stone colour / finish for the entire scheme; however consideration should be given to the use of materials appropriate to the local area, and particular sensitivity.

Particular attention is again required when considering the transition zone between the retained structure and the existing slopes to avoid issues of local drainage problems, erosion, health and safety and aesthetic conflicts.

Where natural rock outcrops then, where possible, cuttings should be created to provide a balanced solution between the minimisation of land take and geotechnical / safety / aesthetic profile considerations. If local stabilisation works are required these should be designed to minimise visual impact, i.e. the use of local / site won stone for infill set to complement local bedding plans as far as practical, or the use of ‘colour matched’ shotcrete. Opportunities for re-vegetation in the form of berms and local hydro-seeding should also be considered.

5.7 Drainage Design Philosophy

As set out in Section 5.4.1 no assessment of discharge rates, water quality and flood risk would normally be required for MM-HSR. The following summarises key issues set out in the scheme Design Assumptions;

Existing outfalls continue to discharge at existing established rates.

Where minor pavement area increases are required e.g. Emergency Refuge Areas (ERA) as part of the project, attenuation will be required to ensure existing discharge rates are not increased. The design should be assessed in accordance with PPS25. Appropriate spillage control measure should also be included in the ERA design. Guidance is set out in HD33 (DMRB 4.2.1) or reference made to the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme between Junction 3A and 7.


IAN 111/09 Page 5-38 of 170 Nov 09

Flow width: MM-HSR is a managed environment where Operational Regimes can provide mitigation for different types of event. Where it is seen as a potential risk that the flow width will ingress onto managed Hard Shoulder (including the road markings at the back edge of the managed Hard Shoulder) an assessment should be made of how often this may occur and whether these events could reasonably be managed.

For any central reserve alterations see advice in Sections 10.14 and 5.4.1.

Keep surface and sub-surface waters separate in design process, but encourage permeable solutions.

Be mindful of safety issues associated with loose materials.

Manholes in hard shoulder should be avoided if possible, relocated or upgraded to D400/E600 standard. Also see HA104 for advice on skid/slip resistance.

Adoption of the above procedures and standards, which have been agreed with Highways Agency NetServ, should both satisfy design and statutory requirements with reference to attenuation requirements and a pragmatic system for pollution incident control and management. The latter is anticipated to provide a ‘betterment’ to the existing pollution control management procedures, specifically when linked to the greater degree of control and monitoring provided under MM-HSR systems.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-39 of 170 Nov 09


Section






6. Safety

Considerations Contents Page


6.2 Project Safety Risk Management (PSRM) 6-40

6.3 Generic MM-HSR Risk Areas to be Managed 6-43

6.4 CDM 2007 6-50 Key Points

Safety Assessment on existing MM-HSR

The benefits of PSRM

Description of the level of safety needed in the initial installation of MM-HSR

Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Activities

Purpose of the Safety Report

Safety issues associated with ERAs

Safety issues associated with the carriageway after the design and operation of MM-HSR

Safety hazards associated with the maintenance of MM-HSR

Safety requirements associated with the operation of an MM-HSR scheme

Safety hazards with the management of the entry to and exit from the MM-HSR scheme




IAN 111/09 Page 6-40 of 170 Nov 09

6 Safety Considerations

6.1 Introduction

The introduction of a change to the layout and operation of a highway inevitably results in changes in risk from some hazards, and therefore could change the level of safety experienced by road users and on-road resources (Emergency Services, Traffic Officers, Maintenance Staff and Recovery Operators). The frequency of and/or consequences of some hazards may increase, others may decrease, and new hazards may be introduced.

6.2 Project Safety Risk Management (PSRM)

The Highways Agency has adopted a new system that integrates the management of safety risk on the Managed Motorway projects that it undertakes. This system is known as the Project Safety Risk Management System (PSRM). It complements and integrates with existing safety processes such as Road Safety Audits and adherence with the Construction, Design and Management (CDM) Regulations.

This system has been developed as the Highways Agency needs to demonstrate that projects are implemented with an appropriate level of safety in order to provide road users, road workers and other 3rd parties with adequate risk protection. It is also designed to support the Highways Agency’s rolling programme of safety objectives.

The benefits of PSRM are:

It defines a clear and cost-effective process for the management of safety on projects.

It improves consistency in the management of safety on projects.

It helps to identify areas where additional risk reduction can be obtained.

It facilitates the setting of realistic safety objectives, enabling measurement against Highways Agency objectives.

To ensure that operation remains acceptably safe a robust system of Safety Assessment must be implemented. This is outlined in Section 6.2.

By applying a robust Safety Assessment on existing MM-HSR schemes (both installed and planned) it has been possible to identify a number of generic safety issues that all schemes need to consider. These generic safety issues are described in Section 6.3. This list is not exhaustive and each scheme must undertake its own safety hazard identification, assessment and management exercise.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-41 of 170 Nov 09

It promotes an auditable trail of decision-making within the safety management process that is robust and defensible.

Information about PSRM and how it is to be applied to Managed Motorways can be found in the Managed Motorways section of PartnerNet (www.ha-partnernet.org.uk).

Under the HA Project Control Framework (PCF) the following deliverables (products) are required;

Safety Plan

Hazard Log

Safety Report(s)

Refer to PartnerNET for more details.

6.2.1 Level of Safety Management

The first stage of implementing the PSRM is the categorisation of the scheme by an appropriate level of safety management.

Further advice can be sought from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]). However, the current guidance is that following the implementation of MM-HSR on the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7 each new installation of MM-HSR would expect to be classified as Type B, with some elements of Type C (to deal with scheme specific issues not previously experienced/tested).

6.2.2 Safety Management of Managed Motorway projects

PSRM describes the safety management activities required for Managed Motorway projects. These are;

Setting of Safety acceptance and approvals process

Setting of Safety Baseline and Safety Objectives – see Section 6.2.3.

Development of a Safety Plan – defining what safety activities need to occur, when they occur and who carries them out.

Conducting Risk Assessment Activities

Development and maintenance of a Hazard log – for recording identified hazards, the risk associated with those hazards and the mitigation put in place to manage the risk

Conducting Verification and Validation Activities – to confirm that safety related activities have taken place and that the project is expected to meet its Safety Objectives.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-42 of 170 Nov 09

Producing a Safety Report – see Section 6.2.7.

Updating Safety Documentation – introducing mechanisms for ensuring that documentation is kept up-to-date.

6.2.3 Safety Baseline and Safety Objectives

The objective of setting a safety baseline is to define the level of safety against which the project safety objectives are measured. The purpose of considering safety objectives is to establish the level of safety that the project aims to deliver.

6.2.4 Safety Plan

The objective of the project safety plan is to describe the safety activities that are to be undertaken as part of the Safety Management System and how these activities lead to the safety objectives being met.

6.2.5 Hazard Log

The objective of the risk assessment activities is to make sure project hazards are identified and appropriately mitigated. This is managed within the Hazard Log.

The objective of the Hazard Log is to provide a means of recording all hazard related information and tracking all hazards that are identified in a project through to their successful resolution. Resolution in this instance may be regarded as demonstrating that necessary mitigation has been identified and subsequently applied to the hazard.

6.2.6 Verification and Validation activities

The objective of the project verification activities is to show that the project meets its safety requirements. The objective of the project validation activities is to determine whether the project satisfies the requirements of its intended use, by

• confirming whether the safety objectives are being met after operation has commenced

• confirming, also after operation has commenced, whether the assumptions made in carrying out risk assessments are correct

6.2.7 Safety Report

The objective of the Safety Report is to provide evidence that the project safety objectives have been met by summarising all of the safety work that has been done thus facilitating the safety approval of the project.

There are a number of versions of the Safety Report, although the exact number varies according to the requirements of individual projects.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-43 of 170 Nov 09

Further versions of the safety report are also needed when:

• An additional hazard is identified that needs mitigation.

• Other changes are made to the project to which the Safety Report relates.

6.3 Generic MM-HSR Risk Areas to be Managed

As noted previously, a consequence of implementation of MM-HSR is that the frequency of and/or consequences of some hazards may increase, others may decrease, and new hazards may be introduced.

Each implementation of MM-HSR is unique and will have its own set of individual safety concerns that require robust management. However there are a number of generic risk areas, which are likely to be applicable to most if not all MM-HSR schemes. The following sub-sections highlight what these are.

6.3.1 Incidents in and around the Emergency Refuge Areas

Emergency Refuge Areas (ERAs) mitigate the risk associated with vehicles breaking down when the Hard Shoulder is opened to traffic. They provide a safer environment for its driver and passengers to wait for assistance while at the same time maintaining traffic flow along the Hard Shoulder. Although they reduce the overall risk level of the scheme, this can only be achieved if the risk associated with their use is managed.

ERAs (see Section 10.13) are a feature that is added to the motorway to ensure that MM-HSR is able to function. As they are an addition to the motorway infrastructure, the risk associated with their use does not have any equivalent on a conventional motorway and needs to be carefully considered.

The key ERA safety issues that are likely to be common to potential MM-HSR schemes are presented below along with their associated safety requirements:

Entry – collisions involving vehicles entering the ERA or as a consequence of a driver not using them in an emergency.

Exit – collisions on exit whether or not controlled use of the Hard Shoulder is in operation.

RCC Operators need to be alerted within a short period of time (See Section 9.14) to the fact that a vehicle has entered and/or stopped in an ERA. The ERA and carriageway traffic conditions need to be visible to RCC Operators so that they can effectively manage the exit of vehicles from ERAs.

The Project Safety Risk Management System defines the approval process to be followed for Safety Reports. The appropriate Safety Report must be approved by the Highways Agency before the scheme becomes operational.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-44 of 170 Nov 09

Stopping – collisions related to stopping in the ERA (e.g. the vehicle hits another vehicle or person already in the ERA)

The ERA will be designed with appropriate skid resistance and with a cross-fall to avoid standing water.

To reduce the possibility of pedestrians standing in the ERA, the ERA needs to contain a communications facility for contacting the RCC (i.e. an Emergency Roadside Telephone (ERT)) which is to be located next to and upstream of the ERA. It should be clearly visible to vehicle occupants, be straightforward to operate by vehicle drivers/occupants and maintained and checked at regular intervals. A clearly identifiable pedestrian facility needs to provide protection when using the ERT, or waiting for further assistance, from vehicles in the ERA and the Hard Shoulder.

Appearance/Visibility – collisions as a result of drivers misunderstanding or not being aware of the presence of the ERA

ERA should not be mistaken for an exit slip. A clear distinction is required between signing for junctions and signing for ERA locations. The ERA appearance should be more appealing to drivers than the main carriageway in order to encourage drivers to use the ERA for emergency stops and breakdowns but discourage ‘comfort’ stops. The ERA appearance should be distinguished from the rest of the carriageway and the Hard Shoulder. (See Section 10.13 and Appendix D Drawing 006).

Dimensions – collisions as result of the ERA not being long or wide enough.

Road workers – collisions with Road Workers (Emergency Services, Recovery Operators and Maintenance workers) using the ERA

Procedures for working in an ERA will need to be developed and agreed with the maintaining agent. The unavailability of an ERA because of maintenance should be clearly indicated to road users (while the maintenance work is being carried out). Procedures already exist for Traffic Officers when working in an ERA (see section 8.3).

Provision – collisions as a result of a driver not being able to reach an ERA in an emergency (i.e. they are not provided at an appropriate frequency.)

ERAs need to be provided at appropriate regular intervals (See Section 10.13).

6.3.2 Carriageway

The design and operation of MM-HSR will lead to a number changes with respect to the carriageway and its associated infrastructure (see Section 10).

The existing carriageway line markings and studs will need to be replaced as the layout of lanes and the Hard Shoulder will change. It is important that when this is done potential confusion over clarity of purpose (to the road user) is minimised taking into account wet weather conditions and day and night operating conditions (see Section 10.8). Consistency of markings with the rest of the motorway network is also essential.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-45 of 170 Nov 09

There is a specific hazard associated with motorcyclists crossing the ‘rumble-strip’ between the Hard Shoulder and Lane 1. In certain conditions this can lead to vehicle instability. Therefore, there is a safety requirement to use an alternative road marking as the frequency of crossing this line is substantially increased (see Section 10.8).

Changes in lane widths (see Section 10.7) lead to a number of safety related issues, in particular hazards associated with vehicles drifting out of lane, drifting off the edge of the carriageway or colliding with slow moving or stopped vehicles. Therefore;

Lane widths need to be appropriate for the type of traffic using the carriageway.

Any changes in lane width should be introduced gradually (refer to TD 27/05).

The road geometry should be such that sufficient visibility is maintained (i.e. sufficient stopping sight distances).

The edge of the carriageway is appropriately marked.

The drainage system adopted has a great influence on the safety of road users especially in relation to drivers losing control of their vehicles by either travelling through standing water or encountering drainage features in the carriageway (see Section 10.6). The following generic safety requirements need to be met:

Reduce the impact on driver/vehicle control from drainage features in the carriageway.

Drainage capacity to match the expected rainfall.

Avoid placing new drainage features in running lanes (which includes the Hard Shoulder).

Drainage to be designed to reduce maintenance requirements.

Drainage should be designed to minimise the possibility of surface water in the nearside of the Hard Shoulder. See Section 10.6.

An essential element of MM-HSR is the smooth transition of traffic entering/exiting the carriageway while maintaining the smooth flow of traffic using the existing carriageway. To achieve this, the junction area needs to be carefully designed and operated (as there are two modes of operation at each junction; with/without Hard Shoulder Running) (see Section 10.4). The generic safety issues are:

Undertaking,

Vehicles entering the main carriageway unsafely and

Sudden weaving at the exit point.

For traffic entering there is the risk that a driver will fail to merge with carriageway traffic and continues to use the Hard Shoulder when Hard Shoulder running is not in operation. For lane-drop/lane-gain arrangements, there is always the risk that a driver will drive down the (permanent) Hard Shoulder within the junction.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-46 of 170 Nov 09

The safety requirements associated with junctions are;

Provide appropriate junction layout visibility taking into account expected weather conditions and operating modes,

Hard Shoulder users are informed that traffic may exit or enter the carriageway (to/from the slip road)

Ensure that the status of the Hard Shoulder is communicated to vehicles entering the carriageway

Clear, advanced warning to motorists of lane drop or lane gain.

6.3.3 Maintenance

Issues concerning the approach to maintenance of an MM-HSR scheme are considered in Section 8.6. The main identified safety hazards associated with maintenance are;

Hard Shoulder and/or ERA - vehicle either hits pedestrians (i.e. a maintainer) and/or vehicle collides with maintenance site / vehicle (including short term stops to remove debris and working on the verge) or both.

Rest of Carriageway – vehicle either hits pedestrians (maintainer) and/or vehicle collides with maintenance site / vehicle (e.g. when maintaining equipment above lanes) or both.

Central reserve – collision with maintainer either setting up or taking down Traffic Management signs

Carriageway – maintenance vehicle collides with either other (non-maintenance) vehicles or pedestrians.

The safety requirements associated with maintenance are:

Hard Shoulder and ERA – the amount of maintenance from the Hard Shoulder needs to be reduced where possible (for example equipment moved to ERAs.). On-road personnel need to be trained to carry out maintenance and essential activities from ERAs. Appropriate instructions on the use of ERAs needs to be included in the maintainers’ safe system of work.

For equipment requiring regular maintenance that cannot be moved to ERAs, an appropriately positioned maintenance hardstanding should be provided where other forms of access (e.g. from a local road) are not practicable. The maintenance hardstanding size shall be minimised such that it accommodates a car or light van only. Hardstandings are not an acceptable safe stopping place on sections where there is no Hard Shoulder.

Maintenance access – to be undertaken via an ERA, a Maintenance Hardstanding or Chapter 8 Temporary Traffic Management as appropriate. See Section 8.6 for more details on maintenance issues.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-47 of 170 Nov 09

Procedures – a procedure should be implemented that would prevent the operators opening the Hard Shoulder whilst maintenance is taking place in this area (see also Section 8.6). The RCC Operators need to have information on activities and locations of all on road work being undertaken. A procedure needs to be established to operationally manage the access and actions of maintenance personnel and other people working on the road.

Also it is important to note the following:

Where possible maintenance activities should be designed out.

It is recommended that the Managed Hard Shoulder is classed as a running lane meaning that TechMAC/MAC and Traffic Officer Service stopping in Managed Hard Shoulder is only permitted when Traffic Management to Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 is in place. This includes the off-peak periods.

Use of the Hard Shoulder as a running lane will introduce additional maintenance activities on or near the Hard Shoulder, for example repairs to the nearside safety barrier. Any increased requirements for maintenance will need to be carefully managed if they are not to increase the overall level of risk to which maintenance workers are exposed to.

The removal of debris on the Hard Shoulder is more critical due to the use as a part-time running lane (it can only be opened if it is clear of debris).

Drainage maintenance activities are likely to be more time-critical should surface water collect on Hard Shoulder, given its intermittent use as a running lane.

ERAs can be used by maintenance vehicles to park when maintenance is required in the vicinity, for example at the combined equipment cabinets.

Equipment: The general philosophy should be that equipment on gantries needs to be minimised where possible and/or maintained at ground level. All equipment, especially those present on gantries need to be specified to have high reliability and low maintenance (it is recognised that it may not be possible for individual projects to influence these areas in the short term, but where opportunities exist they should be explored).

Design for Maintenance (IAN 69/05) must be applied to all equipment requiring maintenance, in order to optimise the frequency of maintenance activities.

Winter maintenance – Winter maintenance procedures must be developed to satisfy safety and capacity needs for use of ERTs, ERAs and the carriageway. Salt spreading and ploughing of snow must include ERAs and the hard shoulder and must be carried out in a timely manner prior to opening.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-48 of 170 Nov 09

Where the opportunity exists, operations and maintenance staff should have a shared communication system.

6.3.4 Operations

The operation of an MM-HSR scheme is described in Section 8. The generic safety requirements associated with the operation of an MM-HSR scheme are:

Opening the Hard Shoulder – it needs to be possible for the RCC to monitor activity over the entire Hard Shoulder (length and width) for any motorway link on which MM-HSR is implemented.

The time elapsed should be minimal. If CCTV cameras are to be used, the opening sequence should not continue if the operator does not confirm that a camera image is clear of relevant visible obstructions.

Closing sequences - the Hard Shoulder closing sequence should take place at a speed that will not overtake normally moving traffic (i.e. drivers are never at risk of being presented with an unexpected display, a Red-Cross Lane Control aspect – see Section 8.4.2).

Human factors - due consideration of human factors issues needs to be given in the design of the RCC operator interfaces required for MM-HSR, including, if required user trials to test operator performance. A training specification needs to be developed for all staff involved in the operation of MM-HSR and the operational management of maintenance. This needs to detail the competencies they need to achieve, over and above their existing training for a standard motorway, due to the specific safety requirements for MM-HSR. Target times need to be set for locating and responding to an incident once informed of it.

Maintenance and RCC Staff must be trained and competent in procedures for maintenance on MM-HSR.

The Hard Shoulder must be checked for vehicles in a timely manner prior to opening.

Before setting a speed aspect on a particular gantry over the Hard Shoulder, the sections immediately downstream and upstream of that gantry shall be scanned for stopped vehicles.


IAN 111/09 Page 6-49 of 170 Nov 09

Surveillance system – operators need to have a reliable facility to monitor or view the status of signals, and the highways in general to provide early detection of congestion and incidents. It needs to allow the operator to clearly identify the location being viewed within any CCTV image. Clear indication needs to be provided to the operator of any component failure (for example, loss of image feed from a camera). Images need to be provided in a timely manner. It needs to be possible to use the surveillance system during the hours of darkness and, so far as is reasonably practicable, during inclement weather conditions. Operators need to be trained to understand the limitations of the surveillance system (for example likely scenarios where the system may not perform as expected, etc)

System – the control system should have a high level of reliability and be designed to minimise possible human error.

6.3.5 Entry to and Exit from the MM-HSR scheme

The entry to and exit from the MM-HSR scheme requires careful management. The main hazards are;

Road users not understanding that they can use the Hard Shoulder when it is open and as a result the other lanes are more congested than they should be, leading to flow breakdown and the risk of rear-shunt accidents.

Road users continuing along the Hard Shoulder upon leaving the scheme. This is less of an issue if the scheme ends with a lane-drop/lane-gain arrangement as the chevrons on the diverge nosing discourage vehicles from continuing through the junction on the hard shoulder. It is more challenging at locations where the hard shoulder is continuous for example at interchanges.

It is important that a detailed investigation is undertaken of driver behaviour (possibly through modelling) if there is any concern that drivers will continue to use the Hard Shoulder upon leaving the scheme (for example, if a similar design of gantry is used within and downstream of the proposed MM-HSR scheme). In these circumstances it is advised that a Safety Assessment is carried out into this potential hazard to determine whether or not the problem represents a significant safety risk. Possible mitigations could then be identified, potentially involving supplementary signing or operational changes.

It is also important to consider any other MM-HSR schemes that are already in operation. From the drivers’ point of view, all MM-HSR schemes should ‘look’ and operate in a similar manner in order to minimise driver confusion when moving from one scheme to the next.

Exit and entry signing and signalling is considered in Section 8.5. The generic safety requirements are;

Procedures – the procedures adopted must comply with the National Operating procedures and the appropriate MM-HSR Procedures (see Section 8.3 for location of these procedures).


IAN 111/09 Page 6-50 of 170 Nov 09

Motorway users need to be provided with advance warning of any changes in operation. The status of the Hard Shoulder needs to be clearly indicated to motorway users at an interface between MM-HSR and conventional motorway sections.

There needs to be consistency in appearance of key features to road users between MM-HSR schemes.

Motorway users need to be informed within the approaches to an MM-HSR scheme of any relevant changes in design features that may affect their safe use of the features included within that scheme (e.g. ERAs).

6.4 CDM 2007

In all consideration of safety risk associated with a proposed scheme, the scope of such risk consideration must address the elements required under CDM 2007.

The key aim of CDM2007 is to integrate health and safety into the management of the project and to encourage everyone involved to work together to consider impact of the project on Construction, Maintenance and eventual Demolition/removal, the areas that need to be considered are:

(a) Improve the planning and management of projects from the very start;

(b) Identify hazards early on, so they can be eliminated or reduced at the design or planning stage and the remaining risks can be properly managed;

(c) Target effort where it can do the most good in terms of health and safety.


IAN 111/09 Page 7-51 of 170 Nov 09


Section








Contents Page


7.2 Outline Methodology for introducing new Regulations 7-53

7.3 Timescales to Commence Drafting of SIs 7-55 Key Points The two Statutory Instruments used on the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme to modify

existing regulations were the Traffic Signs Regulations and MM-HSR Regulations

Summary of outline methodology from the start of the SI process to having the SIs signed by the Minister and put in place

Provides guidance to when the drafting of the SIs should commence



IAN 111/09 Page 7-52 of 170 Nov 09

7 Legislative Requirements

7.1 Introduction

For the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme between J3A and J7, two Statutory Instruments (SIs) were used to modify existing regulations:

The Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations and General Directions 2005, (“the Traffic Signs Regulations”)

The M42 (Junctions 3A to 7) (Actively Managed Hard Shoulder and Variable Speed Limits) Regulations 2005, (“the ATM Regulations”)

The Traffic Signs Regulations amended the TSRGD 2002 in relation to motorways with an Actively Managed Hard Shoulder. Accordingly, schemes with Hard Shoulder Running similar to the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme could be implemented elsewhere without the need for further amendment to the TSRGD 2002. (It should be noted that any significant changes in design and operation of a proposed MM-HSR scheme from that used on the M42 Pilot could potentially result in a need to further amend the TSRGD.)

Regulations made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’) are required in order to provide variable speed limits and hard shoulder running on those sections of the motorway as specified. The relevant legislative power in the 1984 Act, under which the Regulations are made, allow for variable speed limits to be used on specified parts of the motorway and those roads are set out in the Regulations. For hard shoulder running to be possible the Regulations will modify the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982 (S.I. 1982/1163). (“the 1982 Regulations”),

The ATM Regulations modified the 1982 Regulations, in respect of the M42 between Junctions 3A and 7 and the adjoining slip roads. Similar Regulations have also been prepared for the Birmingham Box Phase 1 and 2 (BBMM 1&2) scheme. The Regulations introduced two new concepts:

An “actively managed Hard Shoulder” - a Hard Shoulder which may be used by motor vehicles as an additional running lane; and

An “emergency refuge area” - an area beside an actively managed Hard Shoulder that can be used as a normal Hard Shoulder.

The ATM Regulations allow for the display of variable speed limits only in relation to the relevant roads; they do not amend the 1982 Regulations on a national basis.

It will be necessary to amend the 1982 Regulations on the sections of motorway wherever controlled use of the Hard Shoulder is being implemented. This will enable the display of Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (VMSL) and define the use of ERAs and an Actively Managed Hard Shoulder.


IAN 111/09 Page 7-53 of 170 Nov 09

7.2 Outline Methodology for introducing new Regulations

This section presents an outline methodology from the start of the process to having the Regulations signed by the Secretary of State and put in place. A summary of the process is as follows:

A consultation pack should be prepared as part of the consultation process which will include a scheme Consultation Paper (providing a summary of the operation of the scheme), Scheme Impact Assessment and a list of consultees.

The Highways Agency Project Manager/Sponsor will use the services of the Highways Division Legal Services Directorate in DfT. They were involved in the preparation of the Regulations for the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 and the BBMM 1&2 scheme.

It will be necessary to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to enable the consultation with stakeholders to take place on the proposed changes to the legislation. The draft regulations do not need to be included within the consultation pack and therefore it is not necessary to have drafted the Regulations prior to the start of the consultation period. The consultation pack will need to be agreed and approved by the Highways Division Legal Services Directorate in DfT.

The consultation period will last for a period of 12 weeks and give stakeholders the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed policy to be introduced. The consultation will need to take place in accordance with the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation. Further information about the Code of Practice can be located on the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/bre/consultation-guidance/page44420.html

The drafting of the Regulations can take place in parallel with the consultation period so that when the consultation period closes the Regulations have been prepared and are available to be issued to the Secretary of State for signing.

Following the consultation period it will be necessary to address comments received from consultees within the consultation period with the Highways Division Legal Services Directorate in DfT and amend the Regulations accordingly. The final draft Regulations can then be issued to the Minister to be signed and laid before Parliament. The Regulations will be accompanied by supporting information including a Consultation Summary Report, the Explanatory Memo and scheme Impact Assessment.

Figure 7-1 identifies the approach for preparation and implementation of the Regulations SI. The SI will need to incorporate the length of scheme from the first Gateway Gantry to the “Variable speed limit End” sign (See Section 8.5).


IAN 111/09 Page 7-54 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 7-1 Process to Introduce Regulations


IAN 111/09 Page 7-55 of 170 Nov 09

7.3 Timescales to Commence Drafting of SIs

The consultation period and drafting of the Regulations should commence once the outline design phase of a scheme has been completed and be undertaken in parallel with the detailed design works and tender period. The design of a scheme will need to feed into the Regulations to ensure that what is proposed is covered by the legislation. It would not be desirable to agree the Regulations with the Minister and then have to amend it at a later date due to a change in design works. However, once the design works have reached a stage whereby there will not be any significant issues or changes with the design or operation of the scheme then the Regulations should be prepared and agreed as soon as possible. The timescales for signing and laying of the Regulations will need to be discussed and agreed with the Highways Division Legal Services Directorate in DfT. Agreement from the Minister should also be sought at an early stage to gain support and ensure that the risk of policy and political changes are minimal.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-56 of 170 Nov 09


Section








8. Operations Contents Page


8.2 Terminology – Lane Referencing on MM-HSR Schemes 8-58

8.3 MM-HSR Traffic Officer Service (TOS) Procedures 8-58

8.4 Operating Regimes 8-60

8.5 Entry and Exit Scheme Signing, Road Marking and Signalling 8-74

8.6 Maintenance 8-78

8.7 Access for Emergency Services 8-86

8.8 Operating Speed 8-87

8.9 RCC and Traffic Officer Considerations 8-87

8.10 Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running 8-89

8.11 Compliance/Enforcement 8-90


8.13 Driver Behaviour, Education and Publicity 8-92

8.14 Operational Development 8-92

8.15 Monitoring and Evaluation 8-93 Key Points Guidance on how the MM-HSR scheme would be expected to operate Guidance for completion of the MM-HSR Procedures Manual What the guidance elements for operating regimes will provide Elements for the operating regimes may be developed which are considered

more appropriate Process of the Handover and Acceptance Information on the specific impacts on maintenance Summary of the key points to be taken forward for consideration and inclusion

in future MM-HSR schemes

9. Technology 10. Infrastructure


IAN 111/09 Page 8-57 of 170 Nov 09

8 Operations

8.1 Introduction

This section provides an overview of the operation of an MM-HSR scheme. It presents guidance on how the scheme would be expected to operate from a road-user point of view and from the RCC perspective. It also considers operation in terms of the Network Operations, Area Teams and TechMAC.

It provides guidance on:

Lane referencing.

The extent and availability of existing MM-HSR procedures.

How MM-HSR is currently operated (the ‘operational regimes’).

How the entry and exit to the scheme should be detailed.

The details presented in this section focus on the operation of MM-HSR on links between junctions (i.e. within Junctions the Hard Shoulder is not trafficked). The implementation and operation of MM-HSR schemes incorporating Hard Shoulder running within Junctions (Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running) is considered in separate guidance “Managed Motorways Implementation Guidance – Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running”.

It should be noted that this section presents an outline of how MM-HSR is expected to operate. Local circumstances may dictate that the scheme needs to operate differently. If this is the case further advice should be sought from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

More detailed operational guidance for operations teams is being prepared as a companion document to this IAN. The latest version of the Operational Guidance is available from the Managed Motorways Delivery Office (Operations Group): [email protected]


IAN 111/09 Page 8-58 of 170 Nov 09

8.2 Terminology – Lane Referencing on MM-HSR Schemes

For ATM and Birmingham Box Phases 1 and 2, the lanes in the MM-HSR section are referred to as “Lane Below Signal 1, 2, 3 or 4 (LBS1, 2, 3 or 4)”. Be aware that while LBS1 will normally be the Hard Shoulder, in some locations it may be lane 1 (where no Hard Shoulder is present) or on a slip-road (where there are gantry signals over it).

The use of the above terminology is encouraged by the maintaining agents and the police so that the main users of an MM-HSR scheme use clear and precise language about lanes. However, it is expected that the other Emergency Services, Recovery Organisations, other stakeholders and the general public still use the lane reference system for a normal motorway, i.e. “Hard Shoulder” etc. Therefore messages on signs continue to use the reference “Hard Shoulder” etc.

8.3 MM-HSR Traffic Officer Service (TOS) Procedures

The TOS Procedures Team will produce national procedures for Managed Motorways. These procedures will need to be approved by the National Procedures User Group (NPUG) which includes the National Health & Safety Team (NHST) and Traffic Learning Centre (TLC). The result will be a standardised set of core procedures that covers the majority of Managed Motorways operations.

It is the responsibility of each scheme to identify any scheme specific considerations that require a “non standard” operational procedure. In particular, the scheme will need to identify any new hazards.

The national TOS procedures team will work with each scheme to develop a set of procedures to cover such scheme specific conditions and to gain the necessary approvals from NPUG. Where applicable these will form a set of regional procedures that will be described for each TOS region.

When implementing an MM-HSR scheme a clear terminology for the description of each lane must be implemented.

The terminology that must be used operationally, i.e. by the control room and on-road Traffic Officer Service is as set out below:

Lane Reference Normal Motorway Lane Reference MM-HSR

Hard Shoulder Lane Below Signal 1 (LBS1)

Lane 1 Lane Below Signal 2 (LBS2)




IAN 111/09 Page 8-59 of 170 Nov 09

The core and regional (scheme specific) procedures will be held and maintained centrally on the Traffic Officer Procedures Index on the Highways Agency Portal by the TOS Procedures Team.

NOTE: For the M42 ATM Pilot, the WMRCC uses procedures that were written specifically for RCC Operators and Traffic Officers working on the scheme. These are currently being updated for use on the Birmingham Box Phase 1 and 2 managed motorway schemes. These procedures can be found as an addendum to the National Procedures under West Midlands Regional Information on the Highways Agency’s “Way We Work” website.

8.3.1 ATM Procedures Manual: new operational procedures

Many of the scenarios that affect the rest of the motorway network occur and are treated in a similar manner within the MM-HSR scheme. To achieve a seamless transition between the two for the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7, a decision was made to review the National Procedures and alter them to suit MM-HSR operation. To undertake this transition, a gap analysis of the National Procedures was undertaken. In the production of the procedures, changes were made to some existing National Procedures to take account of the operational requirements of the MM-HSR section and appropriate operator training was provided (see Figure 8-1). Once again, these procedures can also be found as an addendum to the National Procedures under West Midlands Regional Information on the Highways Agency’s “Way We Work” website.

8.3.2 National Procedures

‘Local variations’ to the National Procedures were identified in the review process for ATM. These were not incorporated into the ATM procedures but were delivered to the National Team for amendments to the National Procedures.

During 2010, the National Procedures will be updated to include the required MM-HSR procedures, so that from early 2011 there will be a complete set of National Procedures. Where possible these procedures should be used without modification, otherwise both time and resource will need to be identified for any modification to these procedures. There may be local challenges or improvements which may lead to change, however, the Procedures will be under the National Procedures User Group (NPUG) change control process so proposed modifications for future MM-HSR schemes will need to go through this process. The National Procedures are available to RCC Operators in handbooks and through the Highways Agency’s “Way We Work” website. Figure 8.1 illustrates the relationships between the sets of Procedures described in this section.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-60 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 8-1: Relationship of National and ATM Procedures

8.4 Operating Regimes

Traffic needs to be managed in an appropriate way for an MM-HSR scheme to operate safely and efficiently as traffic conditions vary. To achieve this, a set of operating regimes has been developed that can be deployed according to the traffic conditions. These aim to:

Reduce congestion;

Provide more reliable journey times;

Reduce the impact of collisions/incidents;

Have a neutral or beneficial effect on the environment;

Maintain safety; and

Improve driver comfort.

The following elements of MM-HSR operation are discussed within this section (based upon a D3M Motorway):

Normal State

3-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limits

4-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (with controlled use of the Hard Shoulder)


IAN 111/09 Page 8-61 of 170 Nov 09

Lane Control/Incident management

ERA Management

These elements are supported and enabled through technology (Section 9), institutional partnerships and the Highways Agency Traffic Officer Service (Section 8.9). Road user compliance with the instructions under the operating regimes is a vital element in ensuring safe and effective operation (see Section 8.11).

It should be noted that these elements are those that are currently expected to be implemented on MM-HSR and represent the ‘core’ elements of MM-HSR. They are presented for guidance. Depending upon local circumstances others may be developed that are considered more appropriate (for example, where the implementation of gantries at regular intervals is impractical a ‘Gateway’ type arrangement could be considered where the operational mode is defined at the start and end of each link). However, the operation of other regimes is not tested and may lead to changes in MM-HSR (ATM) procedures.

When considering variations to these elements, driver behaviour and understanding, and consistency with other MM-HSR schemes need to be investigated. Guidance should be sought from NetServ and the Managed Motorways Delivery Office (Operations Group).

8.4.1 Normal State (D3M)

During Normal State (Figure 8-2) three running lanes (LBS2, 3 and 4) are open and operating at the national speed limit with the Hard Shoulder closed and for emergency use only. This can occur with no restrictions in place, i.e. there are no aspects being displayed on the AMIs and no operator or on-road interventions.

Figure 8-2: Normal State


IAN 111/09 Page 8-62 of 170 Nov 09

8.4.2 3-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (3L-VMSL) on D3M

3L-VMSL (as shown in Figure 8-3) effectively delivers Controlled Motorway for an MM-HSR scheme. The purpose of implementing 3L-VMSL is to improve the throughput during congested periods, smooth the flow of traffic, improve driver information, reduce secondary accidents and improve journey time reliability. Compliance to the Variable Mandatory Speed Limits is supported by enforcement.

Figure 8-3: 3L-VMSL

3L-VMSL differs from the standard implementation of Controlled Motorway in one crucial detail; to prevent vehicles from using the Hard Shoulder a Red-Cross (lane control) aspect is used (this was introduced for the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme between J3A and 7). Therefore, two types of Red-Cross aspect are used on an MM-HSR scheme (see Figure 8-4):

A broken Red-Cross (lane control) aspect7 exclusively used on signal 1 (over the Hard Shoulder) to show that the Hard Shoulder is not a running lane during 3L-VMSL;

A solid Red-Cross (STOP) aspect displayed with flashing red lanterns which can be displayed over any lane (including the Hard Shoulder) to indicate that the lane is closed and road users (except Emergency Services) cannot proceed further in that lane.

7 The use of the broken Red-cross (lane control) aspect is stipulated in the Statutory Instrument obtained to permit Hard Shoulder running on the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 (see Section 7.1). It is used to provide additional differentiation to the solid red-cross (STOP) aspect. For consistency it must be used on future MM-HSR schemes.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-63 of 170 Nov 09

Red-Cross (lane control) aspect TSRGD Diagram 5003.1

Red-Cross (STOP) aspect TSRGD Diagram 6031.1

(Note: Flashing red lanterns)

Figure 8-4: The two types of Red-Cross aspect used on MM-HSR

(i) Automatic 3L-VMSL

3L-VMSL is implemented automatically on an MM-HSR scheme by MIDAS (Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling) through algorithms for:

Congestion management

Queue protection

In congestion management MIDAS automatically sets 60mph, 50mph and 40mph speed limits in LBS2, 3 and 48 to delay the onset of flow breakdown and so improve the throughput of vehicles and improve journey time reliability. Inductive loops9 monitor traffic flows and speeds and the Controlled Motorways algorithm set speed limits accordingly. As a minimum this is likely to occur during the morning and evening peaks each week day.

In queue protection mode, MIDAS automatically sets speed limits in LBS2, 3 and 4 through its High Occupancy (HIOCC) algorithm, supported by an appropriate message on the MS4s. These are either 60/50 mph and the associated “Queue Ahead” message or 40mph and the associated ‘Queue Caution’ message.

This occurs either when congestion leads to the formation of queues or when there is heavy braking which causes a queue to form.

8 The same speed limit should be displayed above each lane as per DfT guidelines 9 Other technologies can be used


IAN 111/09 Page 8-64 of 170 Nov 09

(ii) Manual 3L-VMSL

Manual 3L-VMSL is implemented if an RCC operator sets any signals manually during “Normal State” or “Automatic 3L-VMSL”, for example to close a lane or to offer additional protection to workers or vehicles/pedestrians on the Hard Shoulder. A Red Cross (lane control) aspect is displayed above the Hard Shoulder and as required speed limits of 60mph, 50mph, 40mph. 20mph,may be set in LBS2, 3 and 410 or STOP or Lane Divert as appropriate (see Sub-Section 8.4.4). 3L VMSL is implemented on all the gantries included in the signal sequence.

8.4.3 4-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limits (4L-VMSL) on D3M

4L-VMSL (see Figure 8-5) is similar to the 3L-VMSL operating regime with the difference being that the Hard Shoulder (LBS1) is opened as an extra running lane to provide additional capacity and then reverts back to the 3L-VMSL regime when there is no longer the requirement for extra capacity. It is not technically possible to change directly from normal state to 4L-VMSL or from 4L-VMSL to the normal state (without going through 3L-VMSL). The additional capacity may be required when:

Traffic flows are predicted to exceed the capacity of 3L-VMSL

Main carriageway running lanes are closed for incident management (or setting out maintenance), and the Hard Shoulder is needed to provide extra capacity (although this would not provide four lanes).

Compliance to the VMSL is supported by enforcement.

10 The same speed limit should be displayed above each lane as per DfT guidelines


IAN 111/09 Page 8-65 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 8-5: 4L-VMSL

(i) Opening the Hard Shoulder

To implement the 4L-VMSL regime it is necessary to open the Hard Shoulder (LBS1) to traffic. This is a mode of operation that is unique to MM-HSR and cannot be achieved on a conventional motorway using signs and signalling alone.

The Hard Shoulder is only opened once the carriageway is operating under 3L-VMSL and the speed has been reduced to an agreed threshold. This process is known as ‘Conditioning’ and is intended to smooth the transition to Hard Shoulder opening. A trial of a 60mph threshold on the M42 ATM Pilot (originally 50mph) has been completed and early results are encouraging. Future schemes should be designed to operate the Hard Shoulder at 60mph.

A flow threshold at which the Hard Shoulder is opened, so that 3L-VMSL is changed to 4L-VMSL, need to be established for the scheme. If the scheme has difficult topology or running speed, the threshold may need to be lower to avoid the on-set of flow breakdown. That is, this threshold is likely to be link specific (requiring a certain amount of ‘fine tuning’) and one link could operate independently under 4L-VMSL whilst neighbouring links remained as 3L-VMSL.

Before the Hard Shoulder is opened, other criteria also need to be met such as checking for vehicles stopped on the Hard Shoulder (via CCTV monitoring or by other means – see Section 9). Road users are informed that the Hard Shoulder is available as a running lane through the use of message signs and signals over the Hard Shoulder.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-66 of 170 Nov 09

The Red-Cross (lane control) aspect, present on the signal over the Hard Shoulder during 3L-VMSL, is replaced by a mandatory speed limit aspect. These signals migrate upstream along a link as the Hard Shoulder CCTV check is completed for each section11 of a link. This is shown in Figure 8-6 where the arrow indicates the direction of travel of road users. It should be noted that as a consequence of how each section is checked the last two signals are set together.

Figure 8-6: Opening Sequence

The detailed procedure for opening the M42 ATM Pilot Hard Shoulder can be found on the Highways Agency ‘Way We Work’ website (see Section 8.3.1).

Network Operations is reviewing the procedures, resource and technology support needed for opening of the Hard Shoulder for all planned MM-HSR schemes (see Section 8.3.2). This is particularly important on schemes with a large number of links or links that incorporate a large number of sections. Links can be opened independently of one another as the flow on each link dictates, but where there are elements of Through Junction Running (see Section 8.10) there may be a requirement to open links in a particular order. It is important that links can be opened promptly once the flow thresholds are reached, before flow breakdown occurs.

(ii) Closing the Hard Shoulder

Closing the Hard Shoulder marks the transition back from 4L-VMSL to 3L-VMSL. This sequence is manually initiated but otherwise automatic.

A flow threshold needs to be established at which the Hard Shoulder should be closed; this is a lower threshold than that used to open the Hard Shoulder. This is to ensure that the peak flows have passed and that the Hard Shoulder is not prematurely closed, whilst still being used as a running lane.

11 A ‘section’ is the length of carriageway between adjacent signal gantries

Hard Shoulder running must not be implemented if any part of the managed Hard Shoulder, including its markings, is flooded or obscured by snow etc.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-67 of 170 Nov 09

During the Hard Shoulder (LBS1) closing procedure lane divert right arrows are displayed in a sequence that progresses downstream along the link above LBS1 to indicate to drivers that LBS1 is being closed. This prevents new road users entering LBS1 whilst allowing existing road users in LBS1 to continue their journey without realising that LBS1 is closing behind them.

A Hard Shoulder Divert (HSD) right arrow is used for the closing sequence as the signals accompanying it (signal 2, 3 and 4) display 60mph12, not 40mph. The closing sequence is shown in Figure 8-7.

Figure 8-7: Closing sequence

It should be noted that, depending upon prevailing traffic conditions, 3-Lane VMSL may be displayed for some time. As traffic levels reduce still further, the algorithms clear the speed limits to ‘Delimited’ for a defined period of time.

The detailed procedure of closing the M42 ATM Pilot Hard Shoulder can be found on the Highways Agency ‘Way We Work’ website. Network Operations is compiling detailed National Procedures for all MM-HSR schemes (see Section 8.3).

12 The Hard Shoulder Divert arrows are required as existing signal sequencing rules did not permit this. They are the same as Lane Divert arrows with the omission of the flashing amber lanterns.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-68 of 170 Nov 09

(iii) Messages (text and legends)

All variable message signs on an MM-HSR scheme would typically be MS4s. These have the capability to display driver information in the form of text and legends (formerly known as pictograms). (Figure 8-8 shows the legends that have been approved13 for use on the M42 ATM Pilot scheme between J3a and 7.) Legends are now being implemented on MS4s on the Highways Agency network. Each subsequent MM-HSR scheme would need to determine whether the use of approved legends are appropriate for that scheme.

Unique Message Required Display Typical MS4 Display

1

[Accident legend]

Accident

SLOW DOWN

2

[Queue legend]

Queue

SLOW DOWN

3

[Snow legend]

Snow

SLOW DOWN

4

[Skid legend]

Skid Risk

SLOW DOWN

5

[Windsock legend]

Strong Winds

SLOW DOWN

13 A Roadworker legend has also been authorised but is not currently used at request of RCC.

If any non-prescribed legends are considered necessary, (for example to better communicate the status of the Hard Shoulder), special authorisation must be obtained from the Highways Agency Information Directorate.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-69 of 170 Nov 09

Unique Message Required Display Typical MS4 Display

6

[Queue legend]

Queue

after Jct

7 [Queue legend]

Queue Ahead

8

[Queue legend]

Queue Caution

Figure 8-8: Legends approved for use on the M42 Pilot

The M42 ATM Pilot Scheme between J3A and 7 introduced additional messages required for the operation of MM-HSR, and gained consent for the use of Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) approved messages in lower case. The Pilot also gained consent for use of (Association of Chief Police Officers) ACPO/Highways Agency approved VMS messages in lower case. Signalling rules that dictate on which gantries certain messages are set have also been revised.

Figure 8-9 shows some of the new messages that were required and approved for use on an MM-HSR scheme. Further legends have been approved for Through Junction Running at J5 on the M42 ATM Pilot between Junction 3A and 7.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-70 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 8-9: Example of some of the additional approved messages that may be required for MM-HSR

8.4.4 Lane Control/Incident Management

Signals can also be used to close lanes to protect incidents or Maintenance Staff setting out traffic management.

(i) Speed Limits during Lane Closures

Experience on the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 suggests that reducing the speed limit to 40mph (using mandatory speed limits) has been successful and well received by the Emergency Services and Recovery Organisations.

This limit, is displayed alongside the Stop and Lane Divert signals, and provides the following benefits:

Improved safety for maintenance,

Improved safety for road users – the provision of a 40mph limit when managing an incident provides major safety benefits to the travelling public.

Little effect on traffic throughput – in periods of low flow.

In order to facilitate this, all signal sites in the MM-HSR area marked as MM-HSR (i.e. ATM) in the site data.

(ii) Longitudinal Signal Sequencing

This section presents the longitudinal signal sequences (i.e. the sequence of speed restriction, lane diverts and stop signals) for use on an MM-HSR scheme to manage an incident. They should not be confused with the opening sequence for 4L-VMSL.

On any scheme where gantries are closely spaced (MM-HSR has intervisible gantries which tend to have a nominal 800m gantry spacing (IAN 87/07)) modifications are made to the national standard signal sequencing rules. These modified rules are referred to as the ‘Close Proximity’ rules. They introduce:


IAN 111/09 Page 8-71 of 170 Nov 09

An additional Lane Divert gantry (gantry spacing up to 1000 metres) – This is a national rule applied automatically.

Additional gantry displaying 40 mph on the lead into the incident.

Off-side Stop signal triangulation (gantry spacing up to 900m)

Each is explained in more detail below. In order to facilitate the latter two items, all signal sites in the MM-HSR area are marked as MM-HSR (i.e. ATM) in the site data (see Section 9.1) in the same way that sites need to be marked as Controlled Motorways in order to display mandatory speed limits.

(iii) Additional Lane Divert

The additional Lane Divert gantry was introduced because closely spaced gantries do not allow drivers sufficient time to complete the required lane change manoeuvres before reaching a stop signal.

Figure 8-1014 shows a comparison between the standard rules and the close proximity rules (the arrow indicates direction of travel). It should be noted that unlike the lane divert arrows used during Hard Shoulder running, these are accompanied by flashing amber lanterns.

Figure 8-10: Comparison between national rules and close proximity rules

14 In the “Current Situation” gantry spacing is assumed to be 1000m while the revised gantry spacing is assumed to be 800m. The Figure shows the settings with regard to 3-lane VMSL.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-72 of 170 Nov 09

(iv) Additional lead in 40mph gantry

The signal sequencing rules set 40mph ahead of lane diverts in an MM-HSR area (see Figure 8-10). The net effect is an extra gantry of signalling with the 40mph set by the rules generating 50mph or 60mph upstream of it.

(v) Stop Signal Triangulation

For two lane closures on the offside the close proximity gantry spacing rules introduce Stop signal triangulation. This introduces an additional Stop signal on the gantry immediately upstream of the primary stop gantry. Stop triangulation provides the following benefits:

Increased protection at the incident scene.

Improved access to the incident for the Emergency Services.

More progressive and safer movements of vehicles across the lanes that remain open.

Triangulation actively encouraging drivers to move out of lanes early rather than continuing through lane diverts until they reach the Stop signal.

Figure 8-11: Offside closure, showing introduction of Red Cross (STOP) signal triangulation on MM-HSR

It is possible that nearside triangulation could also be implemented in future MM-HSR schemes. However, this would require sequencing rules and system change.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-73 of 170 Nov 09

8.4.5 Operation of the Emergency Refuge Areas

It is essential for the safe operation of the motorway that the presence of vehicles within an ERA and the activities of the occupants are monitored as the Hard Shoulder may be opened to traffic at any time. For example, it would not be safe for an operator to open the Hard Shoulder just as an HGV is exiting an ERA under tow by a heavy recovery vehicle – in this instance the operator would wait until the HGV is clear of the ERA before considering initiating the opening sequence. This issue is covered in the ATM procedure for opening the Hard Shoulder, and will be incorporated into the national TOS Procedures.

ERAs are equipped with a number of systems to assist in their effective management. When a vehicle enters an ERA a detection system alerts the RCC operators, whilst CCTV cameras allow the operators to see and monitor the vehicle. Each ERA is equipped with a new generation ERT to provide individuals in need of assistance with the means of communicating directly with RCC staff. An RCC operator is required to make an assessment as to whether a Traffic Officer patrol needs to attend. It is recommended that during all states of operation, drivers are encouraged to inform the RCC of their intention to exit the ERA.

Figure 8-12: Car recovered from an ERA with 50mph 4L-VMSL

There is no provision in law to require the removal from the Hard Shoulder of a vehicle that is lawfully stopped and positioned, unless offences of obstruction or dangerous position are identified, or under provisions put in place by the police for dealing with those occasions where a vehicle has been abandoned on the motorway. Therefore in the case of a lawful stop on the Hard Shoulder a Traffic Officer can offer advice and assistance to move the vehicle to an ERA but cannot lawfully demand that the drivers takes or accepts such action. This issue is covered in the ATM Procedures Manual, and will be incorporated into the national TOS Procedures.

The National Vehicle Recovery Service (with new removal and disposal powers for Traffic Officers) has completed its roll out.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-74 of 170 Nov 09

8.5 Entry and Exit Scheme Signing, Road Marking and Signalling

Appropriate signing and signalling needs to be provided to inform drivers that they are entering or leaving a MM scheme and to manage traffic behaviour as it enters and exits the scheme. For the purposes of this guidance a MM-HSR schemes commences at the first gantry upon which Variable Mandatory Speed Limits can be displayed and concludes at the “Variable speed limit Ends” sign. Therefore a MM-HSR scheme includes ‘Gateway Gantries’ on approach and the ‘Final Signal Gantry’ on exit from the scheme, as well as the section up to the “Variable speed limit Ends” sign (See Sections 8.5.1and 8.5.2).

An appropriate place to commence hard shoulder running is downstream of a junction where the Hard Shoulder creates a ‘lane gain’. Commencement of dynamic use of Hard Shoulder away from a ‘lane gain’ needs careful consideration. In order to prevent vehicles entering the hard shoulder injudiciously, where hard shoulder running is commenced away from a ‘lane gain’, carriageway markings to TSRGD diagram 1040.5 or variant should be installed on the approach to the section of hard shoulder that forms part of the HSR section. This hatching should extend for an appropriate distance depending on site conditions.

8.5.1 Fixed Signing (Entry, Exit and Slip roads)

Drivers need to be provided with relevant information as they enter an MM-HSR scheme. This signing needs to be provided at the start of the scheme and at all subsequent entry points. Fixed signing needs to be provided at the mainline exit points of the scheme to inform motorists that they are exiting the MM-HSR area and that national speed limits now apply.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-75 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 8-13 shows the signing to be used on entry and exit to the scheme (also see Appendix D Drawing 012).

Figure 8-13 MM-HSR scheme entry and exit signing


IAN 111/09 Page 8-76 of 170 Nov 09

8.5.2 Signalling (Entry and Exit)

For a new MM-HSR scheme signalling must be as follows:

The main carriageway entry to the scheme must include two ‘Gateway’ gantries that can display mandatory speed limits prior to the beginning of the scheme. These two Gateway gantries must not have an AMI over the Hard Shoulder. Motorway merges must have location-specific solutions to ensure that all traffic encounters two Gateway gantries, but only if traffic on the ‘link road’ moves directly from one motorway to another without encountering some form of control (for example a motorway roundabout). If there is some form of control, the link road can be treated as an on-slip.

Nearside and offside post mounted AMIs at all on-slips entry points (including any Motorway Service Areas) - these signals must display mandatory speed limits that are the same as those set on the mainline carriageway gantry upstream of the merge. (Therefore both the traffic on the main carriageway approaching the merge and traffic on the slip road are presented with the same information.)

No additional gantries must be provided at the end of the MM-HSR scheme. Note: Message sign requirements are covered in Section 9.10.

Figure 8-15 shows an example of the MM-HSR scheme entry signalling applied to a standard junction with an intra-junction gantry. At locations where the lead into the scheme is a mainline carriageway (i.e. away from a junction or at an interchange) two ‘Gateway’ gantries that can display mandatory speed limits and fixed entry sign upstream of the first ‘Gateway’ gantry must be provided. If Variable Mandatory Speed Limits are already present prior to the scheme these may be incorporated as ‘Gateway’ gantries and mainline fixed entry signs should be present at the start of the Variable Mandatory Speed Limit section.

Figure 8-14: MM-HSR Scheme signalling philosophy applied to a standard junction


IAN 111/09 Page 8-77 of 170 Nov 09

Following the above philosophy, if HSR is commenced downstream of a junction where there is no requirement for an intra-junction signal gantry, the two Gateway Gantries must be located upstream of the junction. Where there is a merge of two motorways, traffic on both motorways must pass under two Gateway Gantries before encountering HSR. In most configurations, these two Gateway Gantries would be upstream of the merge. However, if traffic on ‘motorway merge’ is subject to some form of control (e.g. roundabout, signals, but not Ramp Metering) then it can be treated as an on-slip with post mounted AMIs.

In the circumstances where there is a 2 or 3 lane motorway with verge mounted signalling (MS3/MS4) on approach, these signals would have to be replaced by gantry mounted signals which may in turn impact on the location of Advance Direction Signing.

At the exit from the scheme, the final signal gantry (as shown in Figure 8-15) must not have an AMI over the hard shoulder. If there is a merge the combined fixed “Variable speed limit ENDS”/national speed limit signs should be placed just before the merge, and at least 300m downstream of the Final Signal Gantry. If no merge is present at the exit from the scheme, the combined fixed “Variable speed limit ENDS”/national speed limit signs should be located between 200m and 300m upstream of the next advisory signal, if the next advisory signal is more than 1km downstream the signing should be placed between 300m and 800m downstream of the Final Signal Gantry. Where central reserve width is limited, a reduced ‘x’ height can be used to a minimum of 100mm.

These signs are not required if controlled motorway signalling and signing (i.e Variable Mandatory Speed limits) is applied immediately downstream of Hard Shoulder Running. See Appendix D Drawing 012.

Figure 8-15: MM-HSR scheme signalling philosophy applied at end of scheme


IAN 111/09 Page 8-78 of 170 Nov 09

Consideration must be given to linking signal setting and gantry locations with adjoining schemes, or sections within the scheme boundaries which do not operate MM-HSR.

A detailed investigation needs to be carried out during the operational development. This includes minimising the likelihood of driver information overload occurring should the entry signing be positioned mid-junction.

8.6 Maintenance

This section refers to MM-HSR related maintenance, rather than general highway maintenance. However, account must be taken of IAN 115 “Guidance for Works on the Hard Shoulder and Road Side Verges on High Speed Dual Carriageways”. Reference should also be made to the latest version of the Operational Guidance which is available from the Managed Motorways Delivery Office (Operations Group): (MMOperations @highways.gsi.gov.uk).

Network Operations will ensure that there is a firm understanding by contracted parties prior to commencement of maintenance activities of the differences between regular motorway practices and MM-HSR. For example, working on or from the Hard Shoulder needs to be carefully managed (including an appropriate road-space booking system (taking into account possible Hard Shoulder mis-use) and the level of equipment requiring maintenance is likely to be increased.

The designer is responsible for identifying a safe method of maintenance; either to Chapter 8 or via a risk assessed site specific solution. The designers need to identify all of the appropriate Hazards in undertaking the maintenance regime and identify the appropriate risk mitigation to reduce the likely risk from the maintenance Hazard. Total elimination is not possible because of the nature of the equipment and location. There is a need to agree a suitable maintenance philosophy before agreeing an appropriate maintenance strategy, due consideration needs to be given to the positioning of equipment and the appropriate access arrangements in any design considerations. In addition, designers need to take account network effects, such as network availability, access limitations, traffic delays, road closures, and traffic diversions. If the impacts of any of these issues are not acceptable to the HA the designer/contractor will need to identify alternative safe methods of maintenance or change the design to allow an alternate safe method of maintenance to be used.

The Maintenance philosophy needs to be proposed by the designers in line with IAN 69/05 "Designing for maintenance" and the CDM regulations 2007 which requires that any structure can be maintained and that due consideration has also been given to the significant risks that remain and how these can be sufficiently managed. This should be approved by the Highways Agency as ultimately they control the procurement strategy and have responsibility for their maintainers. The relevant MAC, TechMAC and NRTS should be involved from the earliest stage in the development of the Maintenance Philosophy and need to agree the final approach.

This agreement should be recorded in the Maintenance and Repair Strategy Statement PCF product. There needs to be some iteration as, when the detail of some items in the maintenance strategy is costed, it influences how far the philosophy is actually implemented.

Procedures must be put in place to ensure that maintenance activities do not take place in ERAs or Maintenance Hardstandings during Hard Shoulder Running.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-79 of 170 Nov 09

8.6.1 Handover and Acceptance

The MAC, TechMaC and NRTS are ultimately responsible for maintaining the MM-HSR equipment and infrastructure. It is important to ensure that a process is in place to facilitate the smooth handover of maintenance responsibilities.

A clear dialogue needs to be maintained between the Highways Agency, the maintainer and relevant Stakeholders. An appropriate handover plan and agreed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should be developed. These KPIs may well need to differ from those on conventional motorways given the increased provision of technology and infrastructure on MM-HSR type schemes.

8.6.2 New Systems and Infrastructure Requiring Maintenance for MM-HSR

MM-HSR introduces new highway features and systems that need maintaining. This includes some high integrity systems such as the equipment related to speed enforcement, as well as a large number of signs, signals, cameras and associated roadside equipment.

The maintainers practices may need to be revised to reflect the increased numbers and the safety requirements of MM-HSR.

Where new features are being employed, these may have new or specialist maintenance requirements. There also needs to be some additional maintenance regimes and procedures to ensure that the required levels of availability and safety are achieved when viewing MM-HSR as a whole system. These are described in Section 8.6.3 items (vii) to (xiii).

The proposed new highway features are divided into two categories: Technology (Section 9) and Infrastructure (Section 10). Details of specific maintenance issues relating to MM-HSR Technology and Infrastructure features are covered in those sections.

8.6.3 Maintenance Philosophy

(i) High reliability/reduced maintenance

The Hardware being deployed needs to be designed to minimise maintenance as far as reasonably possible. This is particularly relevant to locations where maintenance access may be restricted and systems may have to function with faulty equipment for an extended period of time. There needs to be a balance between what is still expected to be routine maintenance and cleaning of the equipment and ‘as required’ maintenance, taking into account the restrictions on access to the network. Where maintenance is necessary infrastructure design needs to aim to reduce the time taken for the maintenance operation.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-80 of 170 Nov 09

(ii) Maintain infrastructure/technology from ERAs or Maintenance Hardstandings where possible

As a general principle, maintenance activities from the Hard Shoulder should be minimised as far as reasonably practical.

Therefore, MM-HSR infrastructure/technology provision requiring maintenance from the Hard Shoulder should be minimised and the provision of infrastructure/technology that can be accessed and maintained from ERAs or Maintenance Hardstandings should be maximised.

(iii) Access

Achieving safe access for maintenance is more challenging in MM schemes and careful consideration must be given at the design stage. For items requiring maintenance which cannot be located at an ERA, it is important to liaise with the MAC, TechMAC and NRTS about their policies regarding access to equipment to ensure that appropriate access has been designed into the scheme.

(iv) Offsite repairs

The philosophy that should be adopted is to replace units and repair off site rather than repair at the road side (unless a repair can be implemented quickly at the roadside).

(v) Surety of power supplies

Surety of power supplies directly impacts on the safety of road workers. This is especially true when signals are used to help protect road workers when setting up and taking down maintenance sites (i.e. traffic management).

The use of 3-phase supplies should be avoided wherever possible.

(vi) Signals used to support maintenance activity

Existing national procedures state that signals can be used to protect Maintenance Staff setting out and removing traffic management for roadworks.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-81 of 170 Nov 09

(vii) Management of Access for Maintenance

It is likely that there are going to be a number of contractors (e.g. MAC, TechMAC, NRTS etc) who need to work within the boundaries of where MM-HSR is implemented. Due to the different environment of MM-HSR and the requirement for operators to have a full understanding of the current status of the motorway, access to the road space by organisations such as maintenance contractors or recovery vehicles must be strictly controlled. Similarly, any organisation being given access to work on the scheme must have undergone specialist training to make them aware of the special hazards associated with working on the scheme, and to ensure that they are educated on the correct procedures. The procedures covering these requirements must be developed and agreed prior to MM-HSR going operational. A permit to access system was used on the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7. Advice should be sought from the Managed Motorways Delivery Office on the management of access for each scheme, as it is not yet clear whether a national system for allowing and monitoring access will be available.

(viii) Maintenance Management Systems

Maintenance contractor(s) are required to implement a maintenance management system for the monitoring and control of both planned and reactive/corrective maintenance activities. There may be scope for the maintenance contractor to work with the Highways Agency to utilise the existing Highways Agency databases to pro-actively manage the maintenance of the scheme, to assist in optimising the through-life management of these assets, and to minimise disruption to the road user.

(ix) Diagnostic Support

Wherever a new piece of equipment or sub-system requiring specialist diagnostic equipment for maintenance is supplied for MM-HSR it should be reviewed on an individual basis to evaluate the best solution where diagnostic equipment is not supplied by HA Bulk Purchase. It may be appropriate for the maintenance contractor to purchase the diagnostic equipment, or it may be more appropriate to hire the equipment needed. Alternatively, for more complex systems, it may require a ‘call-out’ provision to be established with the equipment manufacturer. This would almost certainly be required for systems that contain complex software such as Highways Agency Traffic Management System (HATMS) and subsystems within it.

(x) Spares

The number of spares required to maintain MM-HSR needs to be determined when the designs and operational regimes are finalised. At that time the exact quantities required for the scheme can be determined in accordance with MCH 1349.

It should be noted that where equipment is key to the safe operation of MM-HSR, or where the turnaround time for repaired items is not known, then these items should be allocated a higher spares holding than would normally be allocated using the standard spares provisioning algorithms. The strategy for the management of spares holding is being developed by Network Operations.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-82 of 170 Nov 09

(xi) Maintenance Procedures

It would be expected that these procedures are drawn up between the project team, the Managing Agent Contractor (MAC), TechMAC and NRTS, and then taken through a review process with the Highways Agency.

(xii) Safety Implications

MM-HSR contains a number of systems whose operation are significant in maintaining the level of safety on the network. They are not all of themselves safety systems, e.g. MIDAS is designed to improve safety, whereas VMSL is intended to improve capacity. If MIDAS is not functioning the risk to users is higher, if VMSL is not operating this is not necessarily the case. However, experience has demonstrated that VMSL provides better speed compliance and reduced lane changing and, as such, provides associated safety benefits. The availability and correct maintenance of these systems also provides mitigation to certain hazards of the scheme and therefore are key to its safe operation.

(xiii) Training and Competency

Due to the nature of MM-HSR, and the new operating environment, additional training needs to be given to anyone likely to have to work on or with the MM-HSR scheme (e.g. Area Teams, Route Performance Managers, MACs, TechMACs, NRTS and RCC). For maintenance this covers both Traffic Officers and maintainers.

As described in Section 8.9.1, Traffic Officers will be trained and assessed on Managed Motorway procedures by the Highways Agency’s training team. This will cover the responsibilities of both on-road and control room Traffic Officers for working with maintainers and includes procedures such as “Operational Management of Maintenance” and “Inability to Set Signals” and the guidance “Access to and Departure from Site” and “Maintenance on the ATM section”.

Maintenance procedures must be developed to enable the safe implementation of the operational regimes.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-83 of 170 Nov 09

8.6.4 Specific impacts of controlled use of the Hard Shoulder

The controlled use of the Hard Shoulder as a running lane is expected to have the following specific impacts on maintenance:

(i) Lane markings and studs

With the addition of ERAs, extra road markings are required. The renewal and maintenance of these and associated road studs are carried out in accordance with current maintenance standards. (Also see Section 10.7)

(ii) Winter Maintenance

A Winter Maintenance regime needs to be developed by Network Operations to meet the requirements of MM-HSR in the area and specifically how the ERAs are to be treated.

(iii) Debris in the running lanes

If High Containment Concrete Barrier (HCCB) is introduced15 (possibly as part of a package of other improvements) in the central reserve this would most likely increase the likelihood that animals will be hit and killed on the running lanes as they cannot escape due to the solid HCCB. More removals are therefore likely. If HCCB is being considered, Network Operations should be informed so that they can consider the safety and maintenance implications.

(iv) Total carriageway resurfacing

A trafficked Hard Shoulder increases the need for maintenance intervention. Survey methods are used by Network Operations to determine whether a carriageway is within specification or requires resurfacing/strengthening.

8.6.5 Lesson Learned from M42 ATM Pilot for maintenance

(i) MAC

Below is a summary of the key points to be taken forward for consideration and inclusion in future MM-HSR schemes. Some of these issues may not apply to individual proposed schemes (and therefore may or may not be under the control of the scheme). For example in a DBFO area, organisations may have different responsibilities.

Ensure that all redundant apparatus/structures no longer used within the boundaries of the scheme are removed. This ensures a reduced maintenance risk to maintenance personnel.

15 The implementation of MM-HSR in itself does not require the use of HCCB


IAN 111/09 Page 8-84 of 170 Nov 09

Ensure an accurate Maintenance Plan is developed and that all relevant parties are signed up to its implementation. The Maintenance Plan is to be clear and workable and updated on a regular basis ensuring details and activities can be effectively managed.

Agree a clear definition of what constitutes an emergency for the TechMAC or NRTS; communicate this to the MAC. This is being agreed nationally by Network Operations for all MM-HSR schemes.

Clarification of understanding of requirements for traffic management provision - who should be providing traffic management to whom, to what required layout and in what time scales.

Enable safer working practices - where possible use a Red-Cross Stop aspect on the Hard Shoulder to provide additional protection to maintenance operatives working on the Hard Shoulder.

MAC provider to be informed of start times of the ‘Inter Peak’ period. To ensure this happens it could be written into ATM Procedures Manual.

(ii) TechMAC

Below is a summary of the key points to be taken forward for consideration and inclusion in future MM-HSR schemes. Some of these issues may not apply to individual proposed schemes (and therefore may or may not be under the control of the scheme).

Fibre Switches (Alternative to Standard for gantry power isolation) - these switches represent a Departure from Standard and are unfamiliar to operatives as well as not being readily available. This design should be reconsidered.

(Note: An improved fibre switch is being pursued on BBMM 1&2 which addresses many of the concerns raised, however it is for each scheme to identify the most appropriate solution to the requirement for emergency power isolation at superspan gantries, and it should be noted that at present this requires a Departure from Standard for each non standard installation).

MS4s – steps should be taken to reduce the number of visits required for maintenance of the MS4s. The risk associated with this activity can be further reduced by considering access to components.

Gantry - the gantry design should make access to components as straightforward as possible. Scheme designers are reminded of the requirements of IAN 69/05 “Designing for Maintenance” when considering the issues surrounding maintaining equipment on gantries.

Ambient Light Monitors (ALMs) – minimise the number on future schemes (See Section 9.11)


IAN 111/09 Page 8-85 of 170 Nov 09

Hard Shoulder CCTV System

o A better incremental adjustment mechanism is required for the final adjustment of the fixed cameras– wider angle lens have solved this but it is suggested that this be considered for any future roll out.

o Consideration is needed on a method of cleaning the CCTV Housing glass from the ground so that a mobile lifting platform and Traffic Management is not required for this activity.

(Note: Since the fixed HS cameras are installed either on short masts, portal gantry beams or a bridge abutment, these cameras are more prone to the accumulation of dirt on the camera housing window than a PTZ camera mounted on a 15m high mast. To avoid the need for an access platform to be deployed, with associated traffic management, to facilitate cleaning the provision of a camera wiper with a washer jet is thus desirable.

A locally activated wash/wipe facility would most likely be the most cost effective and reliable option. (A remotely activated system could require additional cabling for the control channel, the fitment of a water reservoir, pump and non-return valve at each location and, possibly the fitment of a telemetry receiver.) The manual wash/wipe can be effected by a portable appliance that could include a high pressure pump, washer fluid reservoir and manual control switches. The portable appliance can be connected at ground level.)

o It is important that the casing and seals are watertight or condensation can build-up within the casing.

Gantry Mounted Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) CCTV - wind down masts should be included on any future installations.

(Note: This has been resolved on Birmingham Box Managed Motorway Phases 1 and 2 by using 15m masts with wind-down capability being mounted on the same foundation as the gantry.)

Maintenance Access - Access to repair faults in technology equipment is a significant issue. There is a need to consider ways to maximise the time available for safe access, e.g. request for more flexibility on the inter-peak period – this could help with the repair of a critical fault which would otherwise prevent opening of the Hard Shoulder


IAN 111/09 Page 8-86 of 170 Nov 09

8.7 Access for Emergency Services

The question of access to incidents is one that is likely to be raised by the Emergency Services. Dialogue needs to be commenced by Network Operations with the Emergency Services at an early stage so that this issue does not become a major concern. When engaging with the Emergency Services the following points should be considered;

Experience has shown that overall Emergency Services have not been affected by the loss of the Hard Shoulder and this has not lead to any increased response times or caused them any difficulty in reaching an incident scene.

When the incident is on the nearside of the carriageway and traffic can still pass the scene, access can be provided as now along the Hard Shoulder (as the RCC would close the nearside lanes to protect the incident, and could then use the signals to close LBS1 all the way back to the upstream junction).

If the incident affects the offside of the carriageway, it may be preferable to close that side of the carriageway back to a convenient access point and channel the Emergency Services directly to the incident scene along a closed, offside, lane.

It is possible that during MM-HSR for some sufficiently severe incidents it would be necessary to close the entire carriageway such that no traffic can pass the scene. Due the controlled speeds that would be in force under MM-HSR it is unlikely that this would be a frequent occurrence under MM-HSR (certainly less likely than for a normal motorway). However, should such an incident occur, the RCC can close LBS1 to traffic and set appropriate warning legends on the MS4 signs. Traffic would then clear LBS1 to the extent that it is able to do so. The Emergency Services would then approach the incident in the usual manner. On the final approach, they may need to negotiate a path through standing traffic, which would need to move over to provide access. There should be sufficient carriageway width to allow for this. This process is the same as the Emergency Services adopt when attending an incident on the 5,000km of dual carriageway without Hard Shoulder. It is also what happens now where discontinuities in the Hard Shoulder exist, or where broken down vehicles or debris block the Hard Shoulder.

Overall MM-HSR provides significant benefits for the Emergency Services compared to a normal motorway. Even where all lanes are blocked under MM-HSR, it is expected that the Emergency Services would still be able to access an incident in a conventional manner. Under all scenarios, the significantly increased provision of detection technology, signs and signals means that the RCC would be able to give the Emergency Services better locational and access information than is currently the case, and would be able to close lanes and set signs and signals to assist access.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-87 of 170 Nov 09

8.7.1 Emergency Access

Advice on Emergency Access can be found in the following Interim Advice Notes (IANs):

IAN 68/05 "Infrastructure changes to improve emergency access to and egress from the trunk road network in England"

IAN 75/06 "Code of Practice for Emergency Access to and Egress from the Trunk Road Network in England" to be referenced

8.8 Operating Speed

Each MM-HSR scheme should proceed on the basis of operating LBS1 at up to 60mph unless there are practical or physical impediments, e.g. unfavourable geometry. Therefore Stopping Sight Distances associated with travel on LBS1 need to be based on a design speed of 60mph (see Section 10.15).

8.9 RCC and Traffic Officer Considerations

The design and implementation of an MM-HSR scheme has a significant impact on the local Regional Control Centre (RCC) Control Room and on-road operations. This section describes the key issues arising.

8.9.1 Traffic Officer Training

Training will be arranged by Network Operations through the Traffic Learning Centre. The Highways Agency’s trainers will advise on the most appropriate time period taking account of the numbers of staff to be trained and the expected go live date. The Highways Agency is responsible for ensuring this training takes place and that staff are suitably competent in MM-HSR procedures.

8.9.2 Handover and Acceptance

Handover and acceptance procedures for MM-HSR schemes are not yet defined, although they are likely to be based on existing procedures. They will be defined in the relevant PCF products.

The RCC is ultimately responsible for the operation of the MM-HSR scheme. These responsibilities include (in addition to the safe operation of other areas of the motorway network):

Active monitoring of the network, including MM-HSR section of motorway Controlled use of the Hard Shoulder Safe operation of ERA Incident management Operational management of maintenance Control room systems


IAN 111/09 Page 8-88 of 170 Nov 09

As the RCC operates the scheme it is important that the ‘scheme’ Project Board and working groups have representation from the Senior User (potentially in the form of the Senior Users Representative and the regional lead Operations Manager for Managed Motorways), to ensure that when the time comes to hand over the scheme to the RCC for operation that it will be accepted by Network Operations Directorate. A Handover Strategy should be developed and agreed as part of the PCF.

8.9.3 RCC Implications

The management of the Hard Shoulder is a semi-automatic process which relies on a combination of people and systems. The operator makes the decision to open the Hard Shoulder. The actual opening and closing of the Hard Shoulder is undertaken by the operators supported by systems. The MM-HSR functions within the RCC are carried out by operators who have been trained, and assessed as competent, in the use of the MM-HSR procedures.

The Hard Shoulder is opened by setting the signals and message signs on the overhead gantries to provide instructions and information to drivers. The decision to open the Hard Shoulder is made one link at a time (a link is a single carriageway of motorway between two junctions). Each link is divided into sections, with a section being defined as the length of motorway between one signal gantry and the next.

Prior to opening any link, the operator checks that the Hard Shoulder is in a ‘ready to run’ status whereby no maintenance is taking place, the Hard Shoulder has been checked and the routine CCTV checks have been completed, and all relevant systems are available.

The systems required within the RCC to enable the above to happen are as follows:

Command and Control logging system;

National Motorway Communications System 2 (NMCS2) MM-HSR incorporating MM-HSR Semi-Automatic Control System;

Hard Shoulder Fixed and PTZ CCTV;

Communications Systems and Telephony (Integrated Communication Control System);

Business Information Systems (ICTService+); and

Dynamic Display System (DDS) / Wall-mounted Monitors.

As well as ‘hardware’ implications, introducing an MM-HSR scheme has implications on the resources within the RCC. Network Operations is assessing the likely resourcing and technology impacts of all MM-HSR schemes, taking into account other technology and efficiency savings that may be implemented across the Traffic Officer Service as a whole over the next few years.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-89 of 170 Nov 09

8.9.4 Traffic Officer Service Implications (On Road)

The operation of Hard Shoulder running is unlikely to have an effect on the ability of Traffic Officers to respond promptly to incidents. As noted in Section 8.7, experience has shown that overall Emergency Services have not been affected by the loss of the Hard Shoulder.

It is recognised that one notable feature of the MM-HSR Pilot scheme between Junction 3A and 7 is the reduction in incidents resulting in injury, and thereby the attendance of Emergency Services or Traffic Officers to incidents on that section of the network is also likely to be reduced. It is expected that the same effect will be experienced through the implementation of MM-HSR schemes elsewhere on the network.

In order to establish the full impact on the Traffic Officer service of the introduction of an MM-HSR scheme a number of key criteria is being be addressed by Network Operations:

Identifying the level of resources that are currently available;

Establishing the target response times which the Highways Agency wants to achieve on the new scheme for carriageway clearance and attendance at incidents; and

Identifying the location from which resources need to respond to access incidents.

In terms of general patrols a MM-HSR scheme results in no additional mileage to the patrol areas, it merely changes the way in which some of the motorway sections are used.

A proposed MM-HSR scheme requires greater awareness from the Traffic Officer Service (especially with regard to on-road staff). In order to manage the potential impact of the introduction of a scheme Network Operations is reviewing:

current working practices, in particular with regard to patrol routes and incident response times; and

the Traffic Officer ‘depot’ strategy with a view to rationalising resources and/ or providing improved response times throughout the local area.

Managing the road with a dynamically operated hard shoulder brings new challenges and the need for Traffic Officers to develop an awareness of new requirements and hazards. For example: management of ERAs, supporting the maintenance of the Hard Shoulder inspection log and the effect of Hard Shoulder running on the safety of the Hard Shoulder. However, overall the implementation of MM-HSR does not significantly change the role and required skills of the Traffic Officers.

8.10 Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running

As noted earlier, this document generally refers to the implementation of MM-HSR that incorporates controlled use of the Hard Shoulder between junctions. If the scheme intends to incorporate controlled use of the Hard Shoulder within a junction then this guidance should be read in conjunction with separate guidance that is available on ‘Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running’ [Ref 1 Appendix A].


IAN 111/09 Page 8-90 of 170 Nov 09

8.11 Compliance/Enforcement

In order for any proposed MM-HSR type scheme to operate safely and effectively it is essential that motorists comply with the signs, signals or other instructions that are fundamental to successful operation.

The guidance sets out how the measures outlined in Section 8.11.1 and the proposed level of enforcement will be deployed to achieve compliance.

Enforcement remains a key element to obtain an acceptable level of compliance. However, additional measures and techniques to ensure compliance; which include the analysis of driver behaviour, communication strategy and the education of road-users, should also be considered.

8.11.1 Construction and Operation

There are 2 phases in the implementation of an MM-HSR scheme which require consideration: the Construction Phase and the Operational Phase.

Table 8-1 considers the measures available to obtain the required driver behaviour and reach an acceptable level of compliance in the construction phase.

Construction Phase

Measures Approach How this will be addressed though Project

Education

Publicity of scheme through leaflets

Newspaper articles

Through Project Communications Strategy

Encouragement Mobile VMS

Fixed signs

Speed Camera signs

Through Project Signage Strategy

Engineering Reduced width lanes

Chicanes

Through Road Works Design and Scheme Design

Enforcement Average Speed limit enforcement

Police Patrols

Through Scheme Compliance Strategy

Table 8-1: Measures to obtain compliance during Construction Phase

Education, encouragement and engineering (along with enforcement) all play a key role in obtaining compliance.

During the operational phase enforcement activity should be considered in 3 areas:

Speed – The Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System (HADECS) is the current system used for speed enforcement. This is a system developed by the

Each scheme must develop its Compliance Strategy PCF product based upon national guidance available from the Highways Agency.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-91 of 170 Nov 09

Highways Agency and continues to be improved to enable wider application of enforcement.

There is currently no automated system to enforce the misuse of the Hard Shoulder and Red-Cross (STOP).

There is currently no automated system to enforce the misuse of Emergency Refuge Areas. However the current system is able to monitor vehicles entering ERAs. It is currently envisaged that misuse is initially enforced when and where offences are detected through routine police patrols in line with current practices.

It is recognised however that the Highways Agency is considering misuse of the Hard Shoulder on the motorway network and the output is to be monitored and reviewed to inform the decision whether further enforcement is required.

The MM Compliance Guidance is expected to clarify the need for such systems described above. Further advice should be sought from the Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

8.12 Ramp Metering

Ramp Metering or Integrated Traffic Management (ITM) (the control of vehicles joining the main carriageway from slip roads by the means of traffic lights or similar) may provide additional benefits in managing the traffic entering the scheme and these benefits should be considered when determining the economic justification for the scheme.

It should be noted that there may be operational issues associated with the order of implementation. For example, existing Ramp Metering may need to be modified or even removed upon the implementation of MM-HSR. MM-HSR may also negate the need for proposed Ramp Metering.

As Ramp Metering may impact on the surrounding road network, correspondence needs to be entered into with the relevant local authority.

If Ramp Metering needs to operate differently depending upon whether or not the Hard Shoulder is open then this would require system changes.

The inclusion of Ramp Metering is junction specific and there may be local issues where it could be considered at specific junctions e.g. associated with major sporting or entertainment events. The installation of Ramp Metering is most likely to be applicable to Through Junction Running junctions, although the Ramp Metering may need to be particularly carefully set up in these situations if there is closer proximity of the point of merge to the bottom of the ramp.

Consideration also needs to be given as to whether Ramp Metering is applicable at non-Through Junction Running junctions as these junctions are effectively ‘lane gain/lane drop’ when MM-HSR is in operation. In these cases, Ramp Metering is unlikely to be necessary, except where special local circumstances apply.

Careful consideration needs to given to which junctions RM is installed, with consultation with the RM Task Force if required.

Also refer to Section 9.16.


IAN 111/09 Page 8-92 of 170 Nov 09

8.13 Driver Behaviour, Education and Publicity

Driver behaviour trials were undertaken prior to the M42 ATM Pilot between Junction 3A and 7 to determine the best aspect to be displayed over the Hard Shoulder when closed. Unless an MM-HSR design changes this philosophy, further driver behaviour trials are not required for this particular issue.

Education and publicity for MM-HSR schemes will need to be focused on ensuring that driver compliance is maximised,

The Managed Motorways Delivery Office will if necessary implement a driver education and publicity programme for MM-HSR implementation in new areas. This could consider a variety of media including the press and local radio, leaflets and displays at Motorway Service Areas.

8.14 Operational Development

Following commissioning Network Operations Directorate will review the operation of a scheme over a period of time. Monitoring should take place within the RCC. This enables the operational regimes to be ‘fine-tuned’ to provide maximum benefit.

8.15 Monitoring and evaluation

The methodology for monitoring and evaluating MM-HSR schemes is under review and has not yet been finalised. The HA Project Manager/Sponsor must check with the Highways Agency (NetServ ([email protected])) before any planning for monitoring and evaluation is undertaken.

The M42 ATM scheme was classed as a Pilot and a before and after comparison has been undertaken for the scheme. This encompassed:

Planning for the monitoring and evaluation task

Collection of sufficient before data to undertake a before and after comparison

After implementation, collection of sufficient after data to make the comparison

Reporting to the Highways Agency on the results

The Primary Indicators used for the M42 ATM Pilot scheme were:

Traffic flow and throughput

Average and variability of journey times

Compliance

Safety

Vehicle emissions and air quality


IAN 111/09 Page 8-93 of 170 Nov 09

Noise

User consultation

A series of Secondary Indicators were also analysed to support the interpretation of the results.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-94 of 170 Nov 09


Section








8. Operations 9. Technology Contents Page

9.1 Site data 9-95

9.2 Transmission System 9-95

9.3 Control System 9-96

9.4 Power Issues 9-97

9.5 Combined Equipment Cabinets (CEC) 9-99

9.6 Emergency Roadside Telephones 9-100

9.7 Lane Specific AMIs 9-101

9.8 Achieving Compliance 9-102

9.9 Post Mounted AMIs 9-102

9.10 Message Signs 9-102 9.11 Ambient Light Monitors 9-104

9.12 MIDAS 9-104

9.13 Hard Shoulder Monitoring 9-104

9.14 ERA Detection and Monitoring 9-105

9.15 CCTV General Surveillance 9-106


9.17 Commissioning of Equipment 9-108

Key Points Examines the technology deployment required to support the implementation

of an MM-HSR system Considers the transmission and power system requirements Examines the signalling requirements Provides guidance on how to achieve the necessary compliance levels Considers how the MM-HSR scheme should be monitored

10. Infrastructure


IAN 111/09 Page 9-95 of 170 Nov 09

9 Technology

This section examines the technology deployment required to support the implementation of MM-HSR.

It focuses on ‘tried and tested’ technology that is currently available for deployment. However, there is no requirement to use the technology stated if other technology can reliably achieve the same or improved results.

If new and/or different technologies are considered allowance needs to be made for the risk associated with the trial, development and reliability of such technology within a proposed scheme and how it fits with adjacent interventions.

9.1 Site Data

Site data defines how technology on the road is referenced and, therefore, how it communicates with the control system. It enables the automatic setting of signals and message signs utilising traffic flow data provided from MIDAS loops. As there are clear safety implications associated with incorrect signals and messages being displayed, the Highways Agency categorises the correct specification of site data as a priority activity. The introduction of new technology, changes in MIDAS loop spacing and changes in the number of lanes means that the correct specification of site data on MM-HSR represents a number of challenges.

This planning should begin as soon as it is known what technology is to be used on the scheme. Data changes need to be agreed well in advance by the Regional Technology Manager, Site Data Administration and Software Maintenance Contractor (SMC) at the Systems Data Action Group (SDAG) meetings. Applications for changes need to be made and accepted at least a minimum of preferably a year in advance of the requirement to allow for inclusion in the SMC programme. This is due to extensive changes required to systems, operator maps required and considerable testing necessary in the factory. This is particularly relevant if the MM-HSR scheme is new to an RCC area. The impact of the data load on the operation of the RCC needs to be discussed with suitable representatives from the RCC and their agreement to proceed secured. A review of training needs should be undertaken and for the more complex changes a briefing note should also be provided.

The procedures to be followed when planning and implementing changes to Site Data are detailed in MCH 1596 (NMCS Site Data Procedures).

MIDAS data needs to include the implementation of speed and flow threshold levels (rising and falling) for congestion management algorithms to set 40, 50 or 60 mph speed aspects as discussed in section 9.12.

9.2 Transmission System

MM-HSR typically requires a high density of roadside equipment, which in turn requires a high capacity transmission system. The transmission system is provided by National Roadside Telecommunication System (NRTS).


IAN 111/09 Page 9-96 of 170 Nov 09

Early liaison with NRTS and the NRTS Contractor is required in order to ensure that the Transmission System design meets the requirements of the scheme.

If fixed CCTV cameras are used to monitor the Hard Shoulder they need a bespoke service category from NRTS. If Internet Protocol (IP) based MIDAS is used then this needs to be taken into account in the design of the Transmission System. Bandwidth should also be identified for MIDAS sites that provide Individual Vehicle Data (IVD).

NRTS employs Internet Protocol (IP) based services which exhibit inherent camera selection and video transmission latency. It is important that the camera selection latency does not impede the rapid selection of images by operators during the opening sequence. It is important that latency differences between adjacent cameras does not create apparent gaps in hard shoulder coverage or mask actual gaps in coverage.

The nominal spacing of CEC cabinets, and hence cable joints, of typically 800m is inconsistent with conventional copper cable transmission design which is based on 500m spaced joints. Where traditional NMCS transmission protocols are utilised, a suitable cable loading pattern, with capacitance build out as required, needs to be agreed with NRTS and the NRTS Contractor.

It should be noted that in the event of a communications failure the signals ‘freeze’ on the aspect that was displayed when the failure occurred. This is consistent with existing signal sequencing rules.

It is expected that where the gantry spans both carriageways, all the signals would be serviced from Roadside Controller Units (RCU) located within a single CEC located at one of the ERAs on the same side as the Transmission System cabling.

9.3 Control System

An MM-HSR specific control system is required to support the opening / closing sequences for the Hard Shoulder and provide RCC operators with the required level of control over the MM-HSR system. There is one Instation Control System covering the whole RCC including any sections of MM. In addition to the changes required to the Signals and MIDAS subsystems software as identified in section 8, a bespoke Hard Shoulder Management (HSM) system (formerly referred to as Semi-automatic Control System (SCS)) was developed for the ATM M42 Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7, and could feasibly be installed into other RCCs to support deployment of the MM-HSR system in other RCC areas, although this depends greatly on the type of COBS system already installed at the RCC. It also needs to interface with whatever form of hard shoulder monitoring system is utilised.

The ATM M42 Pilot SCS integrates the inspection, by an operator, of hard shoulder CCTV cameras with the control of signals. Measures are taken to ensure that the correct live images are presented to the operator and that these images are displayed in their entirety and with sufficient size and quality that the hard shoulder can be inspected with a high degree of certainty. The system is designed to ensure that images are actively viewed prior to signals being operated. If a significant delay is encountered during the opening process the system ensures that cameras are re-viewed prior to signal operation. The system also includes the means by which continuity of CCTV coverage of the hard shoulder can be routinely checked.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-97 of 170 Nov 09

Scheme designers, consultants and Highways Agency Project Managers/Sponsors should seek guidance when selecting and procuring a control system and on road technology for each for an MM-HSR scheme ([email protected]).

If the signalling in the vicinity of the RCC boundaries is complex it is important to ensure that cross-boundary signalling is operational, or suitable mitigation has been agreed with the RCC.

9.4 Power Issues

9.4.1 Power Supply

A typical signal gantry for MM-HSR would be expected to have on each carriageway an MS4, AMIs (4 total for D3M), PTZ CCTV and possibly HADECS. In the future it may include other technology, e.g. alternative detector technologies. It is important to ensure that the power distribution network is designed to adequately meet all envisaged power requirements, with appropriately rated cables and fuses. Typical power ratings for various equipment types are presented in the BSCP 520 Operational Information. There is a need to ensure that the power supply is resilient. It is advisable to obtain high level involvement from the HA Technology Equipment Procurement Team for information on the power supply company at an early stage to facilitate this.

The power requirements need to be discussed and integrated with the needs of NRTS, and so early liaison with HA National Roads Telecommunications Team is required.

The design and specification of lighting requirements for MM-HSR fall within the normal requirements of DMRB.

9.4.2 Power Consumption and Power factors

Analysis of the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7 and independent testing of signal power consumption has suggested that gantry loads will be typically around 11.7kVA (12.8kVA inc 10% spare capacity). This is made up of the following components:

CECLB (located on the same carriageway as longitudinal cable): 8645 VA

o CECLB Load: 3450 VA (80VA internal lighting, 2200VA heating & cooling, 690VA maintenance equipment, up to 480VA roadside equipment)

o NRTS Load: 2500 VA (Peak load of rectifiers for NRTS battery backup)

All power supplies into a CEC or private power supply cabinet must be single phase. 3 phase supplies into a CEC or private power supply cabinet are not permitted.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-98 of 170 Nov 09

o MS4: 1215 VA (Peak measured value, however MCE2214 clause 6.1.1 states up to 4kVA)

o AMI (x8): 1480 VA (185VA Peak measured value of enforcement AMI)

CECR (located on opposite carriageway to longitudinal cable): 3015 VA

o Domestic Load: 1800VA (30VA internal lighting, 800VA heating & cooling, 690VA maintenance equipment, up to 280VA roadside equipment)

o MS4: 1215VA

At enforcement locations the additional equipment required may increase the total load by 3.6kVA, as detailed below:

CECLB replaced with CECEB: +388VA (100VA additional heating and cooling, 230VA 2 No. HADECS roadside controllers, 58VA network interface unit)

HADECS Flash Units: +2300VA (2 No. units @ 1150VA peak)

HADECS Camera Heads: +874VA (2 No. units @ 437VA)

The figures above do not take into account the following equipment which may also be required:

Fixed CCTV: up to 640VA per CEC (8No. fixed post mounted cameras @ 80VA)

ADS lighting (per carriageway) – applicable around junctions, but usually only one carriageway is expected to have ADS per gantry: up to 2000VA

Where the enforcement site also has ADS lighting (which may happen on shorter links), the total site load can approach 20kVA and as such is very close to the maximum capacity that can be provided on a single phase from the DNO.

The figures quoted above are for guidance purposes only and scheme designers should ensure they utilise latest data supplied by HA Technology Equipment Procurement team when undertaking detailed power design calculations. Designers should allow 2.0 kVA spare capacity at all signal gantry structures provided this does not result in the total load exceeding the maximum capacity on a single phase that will be supplied by the DNO.

Each scheme is different and relevant power consumption calculations must be made.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-99 of 170 Nov 09

Scheme designers should consider three different power consumption figures:

1. An estimate of the total energy required to operate each scheme is a useful consideration at the early stage for feasibility and costing purposes. The figures used to calculate this estimate need not be too accurate. In fact obtaining accurate figures at an early stage may well be impossible, particularly where equipment is to be procured through the scheme contractor rather than being supplied from the HA Bulk Purchase.

2. To enable liaison to be conducted with the DNO, the maximum demand for each item of equipment is required to enable the detailed power distribution network to be designed. At present no data is provided in the DMRB for most items of equipment that are required for a Managed Motorway scheme. As more equipment becomes available through the HA Bulk Purchase route it should be easier for standard data to be published. The electricity interfaces may comprise of both new DNO Exit points (Cabinet 609 EI) and existing but with the load increased. There is scope for an existing low voltage supply to supply an increased load if a DNO sub-station transformer is replaced.

3. As HA supplies are generally unmetered, an agreed average power consumption figure ‘Charge Code’ is necessary for energy procurement purposes as legally required by Elecon BSCP520. Where the scheme is procuring equipment then the scheme is responsible for ensuring that all equipment supplied complies with this. Note: as reinforced by HA specification TR1100. The HA Technology Equipment Procurement Team can advise on equipment supplied from the Bulk Purchase procurement process.

9.4.3 HA Requirements

The electricity industry requires that the power factor is between 0.85 lagging and 0.95 leading. This is reinforced in the latest version of HA specification TR1100 revision D, Section 12.2.2. The drive towards a good power factor and hence energy efficiency is in line with green policies and supports commercial reasons in negotiating the tariff for the national un-metered supply agreement. If the equipment power factor is outside these agreed limits then it may not be possible to secure agreement for the equipment to be supplied from an unmetered supply.

9.5 Combined Equipment Cabinets (CEC)

At time of publication, documentation and drawings are in the process of being prepared with the aim of eliminating the need for a departure from standard for the use of CEC cabinets. In addition, it is also expected that CEC cabinets will, in time, be made available through Bulk Purchase.

The maintenance philosophy is, where possible, to move equipment away from the edge of the Hard Shoulder and to the ERAs. It is anticipated that most of the roadside equipment associated with the technology systems is to be housed in a CEC located adjacent to each gantry (these cabinets are used to rationalise equipment into a single location that is easily identifiable and accessible). As noted above, at time of publication, CECs are not available through HA Bulk Purchase. However, it is expected that they will be available in the future.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-100 of 170 Nov 09

These CECs contain a variety of hardware, such as power supplies, standard transponders, MIDAS outstations and transponders, and telephone responders along with other miscellaneous equipment associated with CCTV cameras. Access to these cabinets is likely to be required by several organisations including the maintenance contractor, the enforcement equipment maintainer and the fire service. Access is controlled by a Permit to Access system (see Section 8.6.3(vii)).

There are significant benefits in combining this equipment into a single cabinet. It is important to ensure that sufficient space is made available in the cabinet for anticipated future technology needs. In particular the NRTS contractor should be consulted as well as other stakeholders. It is also important to note that there are special requirements for HADECS equipment (see Section 10.16).

Clustering of cabinets reduces the number of cabinets required. Maintenance resources need to be provided to take account of the expected level of maintenance activities over the life-time of the scheme.

There may be occasions where due to narrow verges and close proximity of fence lines it may not be possible to fit a CEC. In these situations, further advice should be sought from the Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

9.6 Emergency Roadside Telephones

Compliance with the above removes the requirement for an ERT spacing Departure against DMRB TA 73/97. However, note that TA 73/97 states that the HA should be consulted at an early stage on the standards of provision, location, access and design of telephones on link roads and other problem locations. This is especially important at junctions with long merges and diverges.

Refer to Section 10.13 for further information about the provision of ERTs at intra-junction Emergency Refuge Areas.

For superspan gantries electricity isolation from either carriageway in accordance with HCHW HCD MCX 0137 SH3 must be provided. Note: alternative arrangements to achieve this may be possible subject to departure as noted in Section 8.6.5ii – 1st bullet.

For Hard Shoulder Running sections, ERTs must be co-located with ERAs as indicated in Appendix D Drawing 005. They must never be located next to the Hard Shoulder on the main carriageway where Hard Shoulder Running is to be implemented.

The ERT must be located at the upstream end of the ERA (even if the ERA itself is upstream of a gantry). It is orientated so that users face towards approaching traffic (see safety requirements in Section 6.3.1 for more details). Each ERA must have an associated ERT. As a result the frequency of ERTs will increase compared to a conventional 4 lane motorway and communications should be designed accordingly.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-101 of 170 Nov 09

As ERTs are located at the upstream end of ERAs, ERTs on either carriageway are generally not opposite each other. The risk of a driver crossing to an ERT on the opposite carriageway is mitigated by ERTs being provided at a greater frequency than that on a conventional motorway, the use of the ERT signing on the gantry leg as shown in Drawing 005 and appropriate direction arrows on marker posts (pointing to the safest available ERT, even if this is not the closest).

9.7 Lane Specific AMIs

On a conventional motorway fitted with Controlled Motorways, Advanced Motorway Indicators (AMIs) are placed over each running lane (but not the Hard Shoulder).

The Enforcement AMI includes additional hardware and forms part of the Home Office Type Approval for the enforcement system. It should be noted that, even if it is not apparent to a driver, a fault on an Enforcement AMI may require the suspension of enforcement until the fault is fixed. For this reason, they should ideally be positioned at locations that do not require a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) or full carriageway closure to enable maintenance, as long as the desired impact of enforcement is achieved.

The contractual MTBF for AMI mark 1 and mark 2 is 20,000 hours. The MTBF for the future AMI mark 3 is planned to be 30,000 hours. It is anticipated that they do not need any operational routine maintenance although the displays may require periodic cleaning to ensure clarity for road users.

The AMIs are designed to continually carry out self-checks which enable them to detect failures such as single and multiple LED failures. They are programmed to display a ‘fall back’ aspect to ensure faulty LEDs do not prevent the required aspect from being displayed. The maintenance engineer terminal receives the fault status (as well as HALOGEN). The RCC is notified that there is a “lamp failure”, and by further examination of the equipment in the CEC the maintainer can determine exactly which LEDs have failed, and whether remedial action is required.

The AMI mountings have been designed for quick replacement (the design specification states within 30 minutes); therefore in the event of a critical failure the whole device is replaced with a working spare. The faulty unit is then to be returned to the supplier where it can be repaired down to module level. Note that a complete replacement would currently require traffic management which significantly adds to the time and cost of AMI replacement. AMI replacements would normally be carried out overnight. HA Bulk Purchase provide a trailer mounted HiAb with the swap-out replacement AMI.

For MM-HSR an additional AMI must be installed over the Hard Shoulder to inform drivers of its status. This clause does not apply to ‘Gateway’ gantries or the Final Signal Gantry at the end of the scheme.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-102 of 170 Nov 09

9.8 Achieving Compliance

A key element of the successful operation of MM-HSR is that good driver compliance to speed limits is achieved. Without this, the scheme may not achieve its objectives as the mitigation to a number of potential hazards is associated with good compliance to speed limits.

The MM Compliance Guidance will cover design requirements to achieve compliance including camera numbers, locations, secondary speed check markings and the deployment strategy. Further advice should be sought from the Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

9.9 Post Mounted AMIs

On a conventional motorway fitted with “Controlled Motorways”, post mounted AMIs are placed at the start of the slip road (on both sides) to indicate the speed limit operating on the main carriageway or a motorway closure. For MM-HSR, the same is required. These are functionally the same as the gantry mounted AMIs, but have a smaller electrical connector at the rear and hence are not interchangeable with the gantry mounted variants.

9.10 Message Signs

On a conventional motorway fitted with Controlled Motorways, Enhanced Message Signs (EMS) are used, capable of displaying two lines of 12 characters each (2x12).

The MS4 is designed in a modular fashion to enable a relatively quick repair to be carried out on site, with rear doors enabling access to the internal components/modules. This work requires appropriate traffic management. Like the AMIs, the MS4s contain built-in test equipment which allows an engineer to accurately assess the condition of each sign from the roadside CEC.

The MS4 has also been designed to require no routine maintenance; however the requirement for cleaning needs to be assessed during the early stages of operation.

MM-HSR schemes shall use MS4s (one per carriageway per signal gantry) to display the message sets (text and or legends) as described in Section 8.4.3 or other messages as appropriate to the operation of the scheme.

Due to the presence of an additional AMI over the Hard Shoulder, these MS4s are to be mounted above the AMIs located above LBS1, or LBS1 and LBS2.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-103 of 170 Nov 09

9.10.1 Strategic MS (MS3s)

MS4s are used to provide information on the status of the Hard Shoulder during VMSL. For this reason it is not normally possible to also use the MS4s for providing strategic information.

If significant difficulties are identified in accommodating the above layout, the Strategic MS3 can be considered for removal on the grounds that the Managed Motorway signals are essential and therefore should take precedence over the Strategic signals. Under such circumstances NetServ ([email protected]) should be contacted. However this requires close liaison with stakeholders (including NTCC) to secure agreement and any suitable mitigation.

If MS3s are already present and fulfilling a strategic function they must be retained or repositioned.

TD46/05 requires Strategic MS3s to be installed desirably 300m (± 100m) upstream of both ADS (1 mile and ½ mile or ⅔ mile and ⅓ mile). This may conflict with the positioning of Managed Motorways gantries (see Section 10.11). The visibility of the MS3 and of the information on Managed Motorways gantries needs to be maintained.

Where there are Strategic VMS already present they may need to be relocated. The pre-½mile Strategic MS3 can be relocated to the mid-point of the ½ mile (or ⅓ mile) cantilever and proceeding mixed sign and signal gantry around the point of the ERA exit, this being about 200m in advance of the ½ mile (or ⅓ mile) cantilever. This is compliant to TD46/05.

The pre-1mile strategic MS3 can be relocated to the mid-point of the 1 mile (or ⅔ mile) cantilever and the proceeding Signal Gantry around the point of the ERA exit, this being about 200m in advance of the 1 mile (or ⅔ mile) cantilever. This is compliant to TD46/05.

For installations that are Strategic, but not presently fitted with Strategic MS3, their placement can be as indicated above.

A Departure from Standard submission is required for omission of strategic MS3 or their placement outside of the 300m (± 100m) upstream of both ADS (1 mile and ½ mile).


IAN 111/09 Page 9-104 of 170 Nov 09

9.11 Ambient Light Monitors

A single ALM should be used to set the brightness level for Message Sign and AMIs on the same gantry, but can be used to set the brightness of signals over a number of gantries.

At present one ALM tends to only control devices on two portal gantries. The ALM coverage area is limited by the number of AMI and MS4 IP addresses that can be stored in the ALM.

9.12 MIDAS

On a conventional motorway, MIDAS loops provide data that supports incident detection and queue alerts only (using the HIOCC algorithm to set advisory 60, 50 and 40mph speed limit). Managed Motorways schemes involve the implementation of Variable Mandatory Speed Limits to deliver Controlled Motorway or MM-HSR. In addition to queue protection (HIOCC), MIDAS includes the operation of congestion management algorithms to set 40, 50 or 60 mph speed aspects based on speed and flow levels as discussed in Section 8.4. The appropriate threshold levels for both speed and flow (rising and falling) is influenced by factors such as road geometry, percentage of HGVs, link lengths between junctions, traffic patterns and movements etc., and needs to be determined specifically for each link by appropriate modelling so that this can be included within the site data. For MM-HSR, MIDAS loops also assist in determining when the Hard Shoulder should be opened and closed to traffic.

MM-HSR schemes are capable of operating with a variable number of live running lanes, for example 3 lane VMSL with LBS1 (Hard Shoulder) closed and MM-HSR with LBS1 open. It is important that the same MIDAS functionality is provided for LBS1 when it is open to traffic as all other live running lanes, but that this does not result in the unwarranted setting of signals when LBS1 is closed. Therefore, the MIDAS subsystem needs to be able to detect whether LBS1 is open or closed. This is done by utilising the HSM subsystem to set a flag which the MIDAS subsystem reads to identify the status of LBS1. In addition, loop arrays should include installing inductive loops on the Hard Shoulder. MIDAS loop requirements are discussed in more detail in Section 10.18.

9.13 Hard Shoulder Monitoring

Currently, the only proven form of Hard Shoulder monitoring (on the HA network) is through the use of fixed CCTV cameras located at intervals along the Hard Shoulder. However, as noted at the start of this section, there are other technologies that are being considered by Network Operations.

Maintenance issues associated with existing Hard Shoulder CCTV systems are presented in Section 8.6.5(ii).

Ambient Light Monitors (ALM) must be provided at suitable intervals to control the brightness levels for the MS and AMIs.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-105 of 170 Nov 09

Whatever system is employed it is important that it provides ‘comprehensive’ coverage of the Hard Shoulder (as in particular, vehicles can be parked partly on and off the Hard Shoulder). It is also important that should a vehicle be detected on the Hard Shoulder that an operator is able to identify it.

For the CCTV based system implemented on the ATM Pilot a minimum percentage image height for objects detected at the extremity of the camera’s range was specified. The design using a percentage image height of 10% for an object 1.6m tall at the extremity of the camera's target range with an absolute minimum of 6.7% where necessary to provide additional coverage overlap or to accommodate particular site conditions.

If fixed CCTV cameras are used it is important to ensure that there is sufficient overlap between the images of successive cameras and suitably stable mounting arrangements are utilised. A method for checking the alignment of the cameras needs to be adopted. Appropriate arrangements for cleaning the cameras need to be incorporated into the maintenance strategy. The alignment of the cameras needs to be verified after cleaning or other maintenance.

The camera identification should be generated at the camera and not by the in-station to give confidence that the correct camera is being viewed in the opening sequence. It is further recommended that the on-screen camera identification forms part of an unbroken numerical sequence to further confirm correct camera selection.

If fixed Hard Shoulder cameras are employed the transmission of CCTV images is provided by NRTS. The control system shall interface with the NRTS network to enable cameras to be selected for inspection by the operator. It is important that the quality of images is maintained by the transmission system and the display devices so as to not impair the ability of an operator to reliably detect a vehicle on the hard shoulder. It is also important that the transmission network does not introduce switching and transmission latency which impairs the ability of an operator to rapidly switch between cameras or assess continuity of CCTV coverage.

9.14 ERA Detection and Monitoring

An ERA detection and monitoring system must be implemented. The performance of this system must be in line with identified scheme operational and safety requirements.

The image from each camera must have on-screen confirmation of its reference number and geographic location.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-106 of 170 Nov 09

There are two issues associated with ERA detection and monitoring; alerting the RCC operators that a vehicle has entered the ERA (i.e. detection) and providing RCC operators with a visual confirmation of ERA activity (i.e. monitoring). It is important that the performance requirements identified in the scheme Operational Requirements and Safety Requirements are met. These are primarily based on the ability of different classes of vehicles to exit the ERA unaided, and hence may be dependant upon factors such as the size of the ERA, whether the standard Stopping Sight Distances at the design speed are met for entry and exit, and the geometry of the road. For example on ATM Pilot, the requirement was to detect all HGVs, the majority of cars and some motorcycles.

The M42 ATM Pilot scheme between Junctions 3A and 7 uses two oversized MIDAS style loops to alert RCC operators to the presence of a vehicle in the ERA. These are designed to cover the entry and ‘parking area’ of the ERA (i.e. where drivers are encouraged to park within the main body of the ERA). When triggered an alert is sent to the RCC. This alert must be sent within a minute of the loop being activated. If loops are used they should each be allocated as primary loops and be declared in the site data. There are alternatives to the use of loops which include Video Image Processing (provided by various manufacturers), although the reliability of such systems may not yet be sufficient to meet current requirements.

Providing visual confirmation of ERA activity can only realistically be achieved by CCTV. The camera should be fixed (usually to the associated gantry). Its field of view must cover the full extent of the ERA and also the associated ERT. The RCC operator should be able to clearly interpret activity at the far end of the taper to the ERA. The image from each camera must have on-screen confirmation of its reference number. The camera identification should be generated at the camera and not by the in-station to give confidence that the correct camera is being viewed in the opening sequence.

Where coverage of a section of the hard shoulder is obtained from an ERA camera, this coverage may be used to supplement the coverage from hard shoulder cameras (if a fixed camera hard shoulder monitoring system is used). Under these circumstances, only that length of hard shoulder that is covered within the (performance) specifications for hard shoulder coverage (see Section 9.13) can be used to supplement coverage from the hard shoulder cameras.

9.15 CCTV General Surveillance

PTZ coverage of the main carriageway (LBS1 to LBS4 on D3M) should also form part of an MM-HSR solution. This is used to confirm the location of incidents on the main carriageway as well as providing supplementary coverage of the Hard Shoulder.

The PTZ cameras must typically be installed at alternate gantries at up to 1.6km spacing to provide near blanket coverage of the carriageway. Blind spots due to structures and bends must be kept to a minimum where practical, and must not exceed 5% of camera operational coverage. Camera coverage shall also be in accordance with TD17/85.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-107 of 170 Nov 09

The transmission of CCTV images is provided by NRTS. Video recording is provided by NRTS as part of the standard transmission package. Consideration should be made to replace existing CCTV (both video and control) with 2nd Generation cameras, as these provide better quality.

9.16 Ramp Metering

Ramp Metering is a traffic management technique which regulates the number of vehicles allowed to join a motorway at peak periods. The purpose of the system is to prevent or delay the onset of flow breakdown on the main carriageway by managing the flow onto the motorway.

On a standard motorway the provision of Ramp Metering includes equipment shown in Figure Figure 9-1 below.

Figure 9-1: Typical Ramp Metering Site Layout

The Ramp Metering signals are controlled by a Ramp Metering Controller (RMC) in conjunction with a Traffic Signal Controller which are both located in a standard 600 cabinet adjacent to the slip road. The RMC uses a number of algorithms to determine when and how the Ramp Metering system operates. These algorithms take data from MIDAS loops (One site downstream of the slip road and one site upstream) and detector loops installed on the slip road to determine the level of traffic that should be released from the slip road.

The image from each camera must have on-screen confirmation of its reference number and geographic location. The reference number should be generated at the camera end and not by the in-station end.


IAN 111/09 Page 9-108 of 170 Nov 09

The successful implementation of Ramp Metering is dependant on several factors such as the level of flow down the slip road during peak periods and the road layout of both the main

carriageway and the slip road (see IAN 103/08 for details). As described in Section 8.12 the provision of Ramp Metering on a MM-HSR scheme needs to be considered on a site by site basis with the RM Task Force consulted where necessary.

9.17 Commissioning of Equipment

Commissioning of the equipment used in a Managed Motorway Scheme is a task which needs to be carefully planned with sufficient time allocated within the delivery programme. A number of tests (i.e. Factory Acceptance and Site Acceptance) need to be carried out.

It is necessary to ensure that the ‘whole’ system, as opposed to individual pieces of equipment, is working as planned before implementing the new Operational Regimes.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-109 of 170 Nov 09


Section








8. Operations 9. Technology 10. Infrastructure Contents Page

10.1 Piers, parapets and Gantries 10-111

10.2 Clearance and Headroom 10-112

10.3 Railway Infrastructure Considerations 10-112

10.4 Alignment 10-113

10.5 Permanent Traffic Signals 10-114

10.6 Drainage 10-120

10.7 Lane Widths 10-120

10.8 Road Markings and Studs 10-121

10.9 Carriageway 10-123

10.10 Signal Gantry Frequency 10-123

10.11 Gantries in the Vicinity of Junctions 10-124

10.12 Gantries – Design Considerations 10-128

10.13 Emergency Refuge Areas 10-129

10.14 Central Reserve 10-133

10.15 Stopping Sight Distances 10-133

10.16 Enforcement 10-134

10.17 Lighting 10-134

10.18 MIDAS Loops 10-136

10.19 Road Restraint System 10-140

10.20 Other Accesses 10-140

10.21 Maintenance Hardstandings 10-140

Key Points The infrastructure requirements for MM-HSR Sets out the requirements that the designers should consider

11. Stakeholder Management


IAN 111/09 Page 10-110 of 170 Nov 09

10 Infrastructure

The infrastructure requirements for MM-HSR are not the same as those required for conventional motorway widening, and many of them require Departures from Standard. It is important that time is set aside within the project for Departures to be processed. It is also important to establish the status of any pending developments that may affect the network in the location of the scheme at some point in the future, for example major maintenance schemes, future programmed improvement schemes, private developments generating traffic, planned adjoining road schemes, junction improvement schemes and Motorway Service Areas.

The introduction of MM-HSR on a length of carriageway does not include the bringing forward major maintenance schemes unless agreed with and directed by the Overseeing Organisation16.

Where current structures or features (e.g. central road restraint systems, drainage) are fit for purpose, they should not be replaced for the sole purpose of meeting current standards. Other improvements should only be considered if what is there now is not appropriate (for example, unsafe or beyond economic repair)

Scheme designers are reminded of the need for adequate asbestos management. Most of the risk of disturbance of asbestos materials will be through ground works (gantries and power supplies and strengthening/reconstruction works to the hard shoulder). The risk is considered higher on older parts of the network where, for example, drainage pipes may be constructed of asbestos cement. Reference should be made to IAN 63/05r2.

16 This statement refers to land boundaries and not the carriageway. It is recognised that there may be occasions where a limited area of widening (within existing land boundaries) may produce significant benefits.

Existing features must be reviewed to determine whether or not they are acceptable for the scheme from a safety perspective.

In some cases existing DMRB standards require that features are upgraded when an improvement scheme is carried out (e.g. TD 19 requires this for road restraint systems and parapets). Therefore the safety assessment must be reported in the departure from standard submission. The safety assessment must take account of the general reduction in safety risk which has been experienced from the M42 ATM Pilot between Junction 3A and 7 and is likely to result from the 'controlled environment'. For example, it is not sufficient to state that reducing the set-back to restraint systems will increase risk without accounting for the particular circumstances introduced by MM-HSR. The results of this assessment must be recorded.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-111 of 170 Nov 09

10.1 Piers, Parapets and Gantries

IAN 91/07 and IAN 97/07, the Interim Advice Notes covering the upgrading of piers and parapets respectively, enable sites to be identified as high, medium, low, or negligible risk with the following appropriate means of mitigation:

High-Risk : High-priority Upgrade/strengthening required

Medium-Risk: Upgrade at next suitable major maintenance scheme

Low-Risk; Upgrade at next suitable major maintenance scheme

Negligible-Risk: Upgrading not required (Monitor only)

(Note that clause 1.4 of BD 48/93 covers the risks associated with substandard protection to existing gantry legs.)

Although managed motorways schemes have some effect on the risks associated with pier, gantry leg or parapet impact (traffic running closer, narrower lane widths), the overall level of risk is unlikely to change significantly.

For existing bridge piers the risk of vehicle impact is assessed using IAN 91. For existing gantries: BD 48/93 clause 1.4 provides the following advice:

“Sign and signal gantries and pipe bridges need not be assessed for impact loading using analytical methods. However, each structure should be individually assessed to ensure that it is adequately protected by a safety fence or barrier which has a containment level equal to or greater than an open sided box beam.”

Consequently, in accordance with current guidance, gantry legs protected by vehicle restraint systems of N2 containment class (or equivalent) are considered to be acceptable for assessment purposes. Where gantry legs are not provided with this minimum level of protection, the level of risk is never higher than low (based on comparison with IAN 91 risk ranking levels for low-use footbridges).

For bridge parapet sites the risk of vehicle impact is assessed using IAN 97.

Where sites are assessed as high-risk (e.g., Group 1A piers, parapets requiring upgrading to H4A level of containment, parapets with containment level less than minimum requirement for pedestrians), the risk should be mitigated by upgrading work carried out as matter of priority before the managed motorway scheme. The upgrading work must be discussed and agreed with the Overseeing Organisation.

Where sites are assessed as medium-risk or low-risk (e.g., Group 1B and Group 2 piers, substandard gantry leg protection, parapets requiring N1/N2 or H2 level of containment), the risk should be mitigated by upgrading work carried out after the managed motorway scheme (or beforehand where suitable major maintenance works are programmed ahead of the managed motorway scheme). The upgrading work must be discussed and agreed with the Overseeing Organisation.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-112 of 170 Nov 09

10.2 Clearance and Headroom

Sites with “paved width” headroom less than 5.03m represent a potentially unacceptable risk to road-users. Light-weight structures (footbridges, gantries, and some accommodation bridges) with inadequately shielded “paved width” headrooms less than 5.41m are prone to structural collapse caused by deck impact. Of these, only very-heavily used footbridges are considered to provide high enough consequence to make the overall risk necessitate urgent action (based on the rationale implicit within IAN 91). Sites with adequate “paved width” headroom but low headroom within Structure Free Zones (SFZ) do not generally represent high-risk because the probability of deck impact is very remote (specifically involving over-height heavy vehicle in road traffic accident).

In general, managed motorway schemes do not change the nature of existing risks associated with low headroom because the “paved width headroom” and “structure free zone” (SFZ) are not altered by the scheme proposals unless, contrary to the general principles of this guidance, the paved width or overall width of running lanes is increased. Where a structure has low headroom, the process of risk mitigation is defined and summarised in clauses 6.1.7 and 6.3.3 of TD 27/05, included below:

In the majority of cases, where risks are considered as non-negligible, they fall under the category of medium-risk or low-risk where remedial works should ideally be carried out after the managed motorway scheme (or beforehand where suitable major maintenance works are programmed ahead of the managed motorway scheme).

Where sites are considered as high-risk (e.g. structures with “paved width” headroom less than 5.03m + sag allowance, very-heavily used footbridges with “paved width” headroom less than 5.41m + sag allowance where the risk of bridge deck impact is not currently mitigated) remedial works should ideally be carried out before the managed motorway scheme. (Note that sites with low headroom within the SFZ but adequate “paved width” headroom should not generally be considered as high-risk) Also note also that in the offside lane of Managed Motorways more than D2M standard, high vehicles are not normally anticipated and the risks at the offside would not normally change purely by the introduction of Managed Motorways alone, even where paved width is below standard.)

Where remedial action is required, the possible remedies for low headroom are given in TD19 and TD27. Where the provision of VRS to safeguard headroom is proposed it will be necessary to carry out iterative assessment of setback, working width and headroom to achieve an overall balance to the solution. Safe-guarding the full extent of headroom envelope may lead to unacceptably low set-backs which would affect all vehicles, whereas safeguarding to a level of around 4.8m would mean that all normal vehicles would be unable to impact the bridge soffit.

10.3 Railway Infrastructure Considerations

Piers to bridges belonging to Railway Infrastructure Authorities may be affected by managed motorway proposals. Where potential changes are considered to be significant (e.g., structural modifications, replacement of protective barriers, reduced setbacks), the issues should be referred back to the Railway Infrastructure Authority by NO/MP.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-113 of 170 Nov 09

10.4 Alignment

Horizontal and vertical alignments should be in accordance with TD 9/93 – Highway Link Design. Layouts at junctions should be in accordance with TD 22/06 – Layout of Grade Separated Junctions, however this may not be possible within the existing carriageway. The upgrading of slip road layouts, where widening would be required, is not considered to be a usual part of the implementation of Managed Motorways. The configuration of a merge or diverge layout should only be changed if there is sufficient existing carriageway space available to accommodate the change. The exception to this would be if there were specific safety and / or operational issues at a given location. In this case, the designer should then consider whether the available highway space can be easily and efficiently utilised to adequately mitigate the issues identified. That is, the available existing carriageway space should always be considered first, then the available highway space. This applies to both Merge and Diverge layouts.

There is a known potential conflict point at junction diverges between vehicles in LBS1 and LBS2 wishing to leave at the junction. In order to mitigate this, the arrangement shown in Appendix D Drawing 010 is recommended for diverge slip roads with two lanes.

10.4.1 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD)

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) should be provided in accordance with Chapter 2 of TD 9/93 DMRB 6.1.1. When designing a managed motorways junction approach, a reduction of SSD of up to one step below Desirable Minimum for the high or low object is acceptable.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-114 of 170 Nov 09

10.4.2 Set-back to Vehicle Restraint System

10.5 Permanent Traffic Signs

10.5.1 Variable speed limit ENDS

The use of a combined fixed “Variable speed limit ENDS”/national speed limit sign (see Appendix D Drawing 012) is not contained within the TSRGD 2002 and is therefore a non-prescribed traffic sign. The Highways Agency do not have delegated powers to authorise any non-prescribed speed limit signs. Therefore, until the appropriate NP drawing is published, DfT RUS Division approval must be sought prior to use.

Desirable minimum set-back values are given in Section 4.11 of TD 27/05. At constraints the nearside setback may be reduced to 0.60m. Reduced setbacks may have consequential effects therefore designers must check the following:

(i) For double sided deformable barriers this dimension must be checked to ensure that the deflected system does not encroach into the opposite live traffic lane.

(ii) For rigid systems, the dimension must be checked to ensure that rotated high vehicles (within the containment class) do not encroach into opposite live lanes at impact.

(iii) Reduced setback can affect forward visibility. If an associated visibility departure is required, then a departure must also be submitted for this setback reduction.

(iv) Reduced setbacks reduce the overall width of central reserve and this may be critical for future maintenance. The designer must consider this.

(v) Feasibility drainage designs must be prepared at the same time as reduced setbacks are considered to ensure that drainage will be adequate and maintainable.

(vi) Reduced verge setbacks that coincide with emergency phone locations or regularly maintainable features may increase risk for stopped vehicles and pedestrians.

(vii) For rigid VRS systems the designer must ensure that the proposed set-back does not conflict with the foundation requirements of the VRS

If any of these reductions in standard is in CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER GEOMETRIC DEPARTURES then a departure from standard MUST be sought.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-115 of 170 Nov 09

10.5.2 Design of Signs

It is acknowledged that the structural requirements of portal and cantilever gantries can limit the size and configuration of traffic sign that can be provided.

In these instances, cantilever gantries on the approach to a junction, in addition to the four portal gantries, can be considered. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that drivers are not presented with too much information. Too many signs or too much information on signs, result in “driver information overload” with potentially adverse safety implications and also significantly increase the scheme costs.

Any queries with regard to location and design of signs must be resolved with NetServ NPPD Safe Road Design, prior to the design of sign bases and gantry bases. In order to minimise the risk of sign obscuration and late lane change manoeuvres on the approach to a junction and at the junction, all directional signs must be cantilever or portal gantry mounted. A link length is defined as the length of the route between the Entry Datum Point and the next Entry Datum Point downstream, including slip roads (See Appendix E). If at least one gantry/cantilever is not in accordance with the sequence of gantries as described in Section 10.11 and shown in Appendix D Drawing 008 or Drawing 010 as applicable, then a Departure from Standard must be obtained as described below. For each link length in one direction only, 1 No. Departure from Standard must be obtained for gantry locations, to include all gantries on that link length, including confirmatory gantries on exit and entry slip roads, in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) or (c) below: (a) the group of new gantry locations prior to design of gantry bases or gantry fabrication. (b) the group of existing and new gantry locations prior to design of gantry bases, or gantry fabrication, or strengthening of existing gantries. (c) the group of existing gantry locations prior to strengthening of existing gantries. If additional cantilever or portal gantries (which are not shown on the layout drawings in this IAN) are to be included in the design, for the provision of signs, the proposals must be discussed with NetServ ROGD, Technology Standards & Solutions team and NetServ NPPD, Safe Road Design team, as early as possible in the design process.

Any sign which is not shown in one of the diagrams (or permitted variants) included in the TSRGD 2002, as amended, must be authorised by NetServ NPPD Safe Road Design, prior to installation.

Directional signs on the exit slip road, which are located more than 180m downstream of the final signal gantry, may be verge mounted or gantry mounted, as appropriate. The information provided on a sign face needs to be easily assimilated by a driver from a casual glance, avoiding the need for the driver to divert his attention from the road ahead for longer than necessary - this is often the case with non-standard, smaller than normal ‘x’


IAN 111/09 Page 10-116 of 170 Nov 09

heights. The designer needs to ensure that an appropriate ‘x’ height is used to allow drivers to read the signs sufficiently far upstream of the sign to enable a lane change manoeuvre to be completed well before the junction. Minimising the risk of late lane change manoeuvres very close to the junction improves road safety and journey time reliability.

Where there is no walkway on a lightweight portal gantry, the lighting units could be recessed (within the gantry structure) with the top of the lighting units as low as possible, enabling the signs to be installed at a slightly lower level. This may result in reduced wind loading on the portal gantry structure.

The height and width of signs is determined by considering six key aspects of design, namely: (a) Road layout; (b) Gantry locations; (c) Site constraints; (d) Route signing strategy; (e) Signals in addition to signs; (f) Detailed sign design. The scheme design is an iterative process, balancing conflicting needs of each of these six elements, with changes to one part usually resulting in changes to one or more of the others, until a suitable balance has been achieved. The height and width of a sign depends upon these six factors, therefore it is not appropriate to specify the “maximum readable sign size envelope” (height and width) for gantry signs or verge signs in a contract document - this can only be determined during detailed design stage. For complex layouts or where junctions are closely spaced, gantry locations may need to be adjusted in accordance with site constraints. Sign designs may have to be adjusted to ensure that they are compatible with the road layout and signalling requirements, so as not to confuse drivers who have not travelled the route before.

The designer must consider the maintenance requirements of traffic signs and signals (e.g. AMI’s, internal/external illumination equipment, rotating plank variable message signs) and safety of operatives carrying out maintenance works. Each type of electrical equipment on a gantry must be capable of being isolated independently from all other electrical circuits. This is to ensure that equipment such as CCTV, VMSL signals, enforcement equipment, MS4 units all work normally when sign lighting is switched off for maintenance.

10.5.3 Number of destinations

The possibility to minimise the number of destinations should be considered before contemplating the reduction of the x height of legend on signs.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-117 of 170 Nov 09

Destinations on existing traffic signs evolve over many years to improve road safety and to address local and regional signing issues. Destinations need to be appropriate and compatible with the road layout, so as to not confuse drivers.

During the sign design process, the destinations to be included on a traffic sign should be carefully considered. Signing consistency and continuity along the route needs to be evaluated. The removal of a destination from an existing sign is likely to result in complaints from the relevant local stakeholders, so needs to be handled with care.

The scheme designer must consult the HA Area team, to seek their agreement on the destinations which are to be shown on traffic signs and the area wide signing strategy. This must be undertaken prior to the design of the gantry bases.

Destinations shown on signs should normally be Primary Route Destinations as given in LTN 1/94. On motorways the number of forward destinations is usually two, that is a regional or long distance target destination plus and intermediate target destination, as given in LTN 1/94, clause 4.2. The number of side destinations shown on the advance direction signs does not normally exceed two (i.e. one for each direction along the side road). On all-purpose roads and motorway exit slip roads the maximum number of destinations on any one sign should not normally exceed six and may include a mixture of Primary, Non-primary and local place names, as given in LTN 1/94, clause 4.3.

10.5.4 Legend x-height

For a motorway where the permanent speed limit is 70mph, or where there is a variable mandatory speed limit, the x-height for legend (including symbols) on gantry signs must be either:

(a) 300mm in accordance with the TSRGD 2002 and LTN 1/94 or,

(b) where an ‘x’-height of 300mm cannot be achieved, perhaps due to an existing gantry not having sufficient strength to support signs with an x-height of 300mm, then the x-height can be reduced to an absolute minimum of 250mm, in 5mm increments so that the maximum possible x-height can be provided.

Where the proposed x-height is less than 300mm, a risk assessment should be carried out to justify using the reduced x-height.

No site specific signs authorisation is required if the sign design is in accordance with one of the sign diagrams in the TSRGD 2002 and the sign legend has an ‘x’ height of 250mm or more.

The x-height of all legend on a gantry sign must be the same. Where the proposed x-height is less than 300mm, a risk assessment must be carried out to justify using the reduced x-height.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-118 of 170 Nov 09

In exceptional situations, an x-height lower than 250mm may be considered, to an absolute minimum of 225mm. If this is being considered, the designer must discuss the safety implications of this option with NetServ NPPD Safe Road Design as a site specific signs authorisation would be required. It should however be noted that x heights less than 250mm will not normally be authorised for complex road layouts or where junctions are closely spaced.

Any motorway signs with an x-height of less than 250mm must be authorised by NetServ NPPD Safe Road Design.

10.5.5 Abbreviation of destinations

The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 7 recognises that in some cases it may be necessary to use abbreviated destinations. These should be used only where it is impractical to give the full name and should be kept to a minimum. Where abbreviations are used these should be clear and understandable to road users who are unfamiliar to the area, including foreign HGV drivers. Generally, an abbreviated word should not use more than one apostrophe.

The scheme designer must consult the appropriate HA Area team, to seek their prior-agreement on suitable abbreviations are to be shown on signs on a Managed Motorway route, including existing signs and new signs. They are best placed to advise on the local and area wide signing strategies. This consultation must be undertaken prior to the design of the gantry bases or gantry fabrication.

10.5.6 Retention of Existing Gantries

10.5.7 Entry and Exit Signs

Details of Entry and Exit signing are presented in Section 8.5

10.5.8 Driver Location Signs

A driver location sign (DLS) on the nearside of a motorway informs drivers of:

The motorway route number

Where an existing gantry is being retained as part of a scheme, a structural evaluation must be carried out to determine the maximum height and width of new sign that the existing gantry could accommodate following strengthening works. This needs to be carried out early in the design process, so as to minimise delays to sign design and gantry strengthening works (if necessary).


IAN 111/09 Page 10-119 of 170 Nov 09

The direction of travel

The precise location on the route.

They also assist Traffic Officers and Maintenance Staff to find specific locations more quickly. They can also be used to identify individual ERAs.

An interim performance specification for DLS is provided in IAN 93/07.

Driver location signs should preferably be located within an ERA, co-located with the existing distance marker post. If the distance marker post is not located in the ERA, then a supplementary DLS must be provided within the ERA. Each driver location sign must have a unique reference (comprising the route number, carriageway identifier and kilometerage). This is to ensure that if a driver has stopped within an ERA the driver can see the driver location sign and read the legend without having to leave the vehicle (especially important for mobility impaired drivers who may be able to use a mobile telephone but cannot easily get out of their vehicle to use an ERT). The maximum longitudinal spacing of driver location signs of 500m must not be exceeded. Care should be taken to ensure that gantry legs do not obscure DLS.

10.5.9 Hard Shoulder Ends signs

Figure 10-1: Example of Hard Shoulder Ends Sign

MM-HSR schemes will utilise DLS. Until DLS are incorporated into TSRGD, a signs authorisation will be required.

“Hard shoulder Ends” Signs (see Figure 10-1) must be provided at the locations shown in Appendix D Drawings 008 and 010. Until Hard Shoulder Ends Signs are incorporated into TSRGD, a signs authorisation will be required.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-120 of 170 Nov 09

10.6 Drainage

The type of drainage used has a significant impact on the carriageway cross-section (Appendix D Guidance Drawings 001-004). Further information on the Drainage Design Philosophy is presented in Section 5.7. Where possible existing drainage should be re-used.

If a kerb and gulley arrangement is used, a hard-strip is required to ensure that the Hard Shoulder traffic does not travel through surface water on the carriageway (i.e. the hard strip needs to have sufficient width to contain the surface water). (If surface water collects on the Hard Shoulder it is necessary to suspend use of the Hard Shoulder. Although this is a potential operational mitigation to surface water on the Hard Shoulder, it does rely on the Hard Shoulder being closed in good time before this occurs. The drainage should be designed to eliminate or substantially reduce this risk.) A sufficient cross-fall is also necessary within the ERAs to avoid ponding. Also the drainage design at the ERA should facilitate the containment of spills (see Section 5.7).

If chambers are located under the existing Hard Shoulder, it is recommended that they are removed from the carriageway. Otherwise, arrangements have to be made to ensure that inspection covers are sufficiently secure for the expected level of traffic. Also see HA104 for advice on skid/slip resistance especially with regard to motor-cyclists.

There may be instances where a filter drain is located at the back of the existing hard shoulder. To minimise the risk of vehicles entering the drain and scattering filter material onto the carriageway or losing control, consideration should be given to replacing it with an alternative drainage system. Alternatively, if the existing hard shoulder is wide enough, a 1m hard strip in front of the filter drain could be provided as a mitigation against this risk. Alternatively an appropriately located vehicle restraint barrier could be used. The surface of the filter drain could also be stabilised using an appropriate method to avoid scatter of filter material.

There is expected to be some additional drainage, especially with regards to the ERAs and an increase in surface area associated with the revised cross section. The exact maintenance requirements for this needs to be clarified when the design is known.

Particular care needs to be taken if Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running is considered as the existing profile at the merge and diverge nosing may not be suitable. See separate guidance IAN 112/08 on ‘Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running’ [1].

10.7 Lane Widths

On a conventional motorway the standard width of the Hard Shoulder is 3.30m. This is not sufficient for MM-HSR where a minimum width of 3.60m or 3.40m, depending on the hard-strip detail, is considered appropriate (although also see the last paragraph in this sub-section). The available carriageway width needs to be reallocated.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-121 of 170 Nov 09

The width of Hard Shoulder and carriageway used should take into account vehicle composition and any potential Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running arrangements. For example, for ‘Lane Drop/Lane Gain arrangements, it would be expected that most HGVs would use LBS2; the proposed lane widths reflect this. However, for Though Junction Running (TJR – see Section 8.10) it would be expected that there would be more HGVs in LBS1. The lane widths should reflect this.

It should be noted that TD26 is the current standard on maintenance of road markings and studs. The standard assumes a standard lane width of 3.65m for calculating preview times. If reduced lane widths are used, defects normally categorised as Cat II for the rest of the network will be Cat I defects for Managed Motorways. The use of dimmed or part time street lights requires the road markings to be maintained as if the road is unlit.

With reducing the width of lanes the required preview times for markings increase exponentially, this results in the need to use higher performance markings. For reduced width lanes below 3.5m, and where there are no street lights, the performance of the road markings will have to be 200mcd/m2/lux+. Below 3.3m the spacing of road studs will need to be reduced to compensate for their lower preview times.

10.8 Road Markings and Studs

Changes in lane widths lead to changes in the position of existing markings and studs. Care needs to be taken to avoid "shadow effects" from the removal of the existing markings. This could mean that resurfacing may be required.

An alternative to the raised rib is required for the solid white line between LBS1 and LBS2 as there is some evidence that the raised rib can lead to instability in motorcycles. (To mitigate the potential loss of the ‘rumble’ effect of raised rib studs must be used at an interval of 9m rather than the usual 18m.)

Appendix D Standard Drawings 001-004 contain a number of potential carriageway arrangements that are permitted to be used depending upon the available width. Advice must be sought from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]) in the event of the carriageway not being able to support the minimum dimensions shown in Appendix D Drawings 001-004.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-122 of 170 Nov 09

The Police will advise when enforcement markings require cleaning or renewal. When the lane markings and studs are maintained, approximately every 2-4 years, additional effort is required to ensure the ERA markings are also maintained to the same standard.

For lit roads markings of a higher level of luminance (Qd) may be required where the road has a lighter coloured surface; to be determined by the designer. The uses of dimmed or part time street lights require the road markings to be designed as being on an unlit road.

The point at which the solid white line markings between LBS2 and LBS1 change to Diagram 1010 markings (i.e. the point at which the hard shoulder becomes an auxiliary lane) shall commence a minimum of 50m and a maximum of 75m downstream of the 300m signal gantry (See Appendix D Standard Drawings 008 and 010). Extending the auxiliary lane upstream of this point may lead to driver confusion.

A raised rib is required at the outer edge of the Hard Shoulder to mark the edge of the ‘running lane’ (see Appendix D Drawing 008 and 010). This is required to deter vehicles from running too close to the edge of the carriageway (causing damage to the sub-structure) and also to segregate the traffic from any surface water channels.

The Traffic signs (Amendment) Regulations and General Directions 2005 No. 1670 contained amendments to permit certain types of widths of edge line markings to be used with actively managed hard shoulders to which diagrams 1012.1 and 1012.2 refer. These state that a 100mm wide line is to be used at the back edge of an actively managed hard shoulder. However, experience gained from the M42 ATM Pilot between J3A and 7 indicate that, taking into account the application of a maximum speed limit of 60mph on the Hard Shoulder when it is opened to traffic, it is more appropriate to apply a 150mm wide line to Diagram. 1012.2.

Appendix D Drawings 001 – 004 show the application of a 150mm wide line to Diagram. 1012.2. This is not contained within the TSRGD 2002 and is therefore a non-prescribed traffic marking. (It is however expected to be included in the next update.) In the interim, DfT RUS Division approval must be sought prior to use.

New road markings will be added in the ERA to instruct and direct drivers, and there will also be speed enforcement road markings (see Section 10.16) on the main carriageways. Again, Sign Authorisations will be required.

If non-compliance with Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5 is proposed, advice must be sought from Highways Agency NetServ.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-123 of 170 Nov 09

10.9 Carriageway

Reconstruction may be required depending upon the crossfall of the main carriageway and Hard Shoulder. Adequate headroom above the Hard Shoulder must be maintained at bridges (see Section 10.2) It is also necessary to check the strength and integrity of the Hard Shoulder to ensure that it is capable of taking sustained traffic loading.

There may be occasions where abnormal loads are transported through sections of MM-HSR whilst it is in operation. The composition of the hard shoulder or supporting structures (e.g. viaducts/underbridges needs to be checked utilising relevant structure assessment records to ensure that it can structurally cope with the additional weight that it is required to carry should an abnormal load pass over it.

The RCC Operators for the MM-HSR need to ensure that the hard shoulder is opened with regard to the fact that an abnormal load is coming through, it may be necessary to delay opening the hard shoulder until the load has passed. Note that opening the hard shoulder specifically to let through the abnormal load is not recommended. as it may lead to driver frustration and negate the benefits opening the hard shoulder is designed to bring.

A hard strip is usually required to provide sufficient width for an edge line and for surface water if gullies are used (see Section 10.6).

10.10 Signal Gantry Frequency

The “standard” for frequency of signal gantries on roads with four or more lanes is described in IAN 87/07 clause 4.3. This states that inter-junction gantries need to have a desired spacing of 800m, a maximum spacing of 1000m and a minimum spacing of 600m.

There are benefits in co-locating ERAs and gantries (see Section 10.13). The desired spacing between gantries for MM-HSR schemes is 800m. In some instances this may not be possible to achieve so gantry spacing may be increased (by exception only) to a maximum of 1000m while maintaining intervisibility). The following should also be noted:

The above cannot be used as a reason for increasing the average distance between ERAs to more than 800m

Section 8.4.4 (v) notes that for lane closures, an additional Red-Cross stop is displayed (Stop Signal Triangulation) if the spacing between gantries is assumed to be 800m. If the distance between gantries is over 900m then ‘normal’ signalling rules apply and these additional lane diverts are not displayed.

The gantry spacing must maintain the intervisibility requirement as set out in IAN 87/07 clause 4.3 to 4.6.

A Departure from Standard submission is required for signal gantry positions not in accordance with IAN 87/07.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-124 of 170 Nov 09

10.11 Gantries in the Vicinity of Junctions

Generic drawings showing the location of signal gantries and Advance Direction Sign (ADS) gantries in the vicinity of junctions are shown in Appendix D Drawings 08 to 11.

For other junction layouts, the features shown in these drawings should be transposed as appropriate. Further advice can be obtained from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

The following notes apply to Appendix D Drawings 08 to 11. 1. The Exit Datum Point is defined by road geometry. The Exit Datum Point is fixed and must not be moved, even if the Final Sign Gantry has to be installed upstream of the Exit Datum Point, due to site constraints.

All distances to gantries upstream of the Exit Datum Point must be measured from the Exit Datum Point in an upstream direction, not from the Final Sign Gantry. The distance shown on the sign must be one of the distances (in miles) from the Table 10-1. The sign must be located within the appropriate Tolerance Zone as defined in the Table 10-1.

Distance shown on

sign

Distance from sign to Exit Datum Point

Tolerance Zone distances

(in miles) (in metres) -20m tolerance

(in metres)

+10% tolerance

(in metres)

Tolerance Zone name

⅓ 535 515 590 ⅓ mile Tolerance Zone

½ 805 785 885 ½ mile Tolerance Zone

⅔ 1070 1050 1180 ⅔ mile Tolerance Zone

1 1610 1590 1770 1 mile Tolerance Zone

Table 10-1: Tolerances for Gantry positions

2. Sign Cantilevers must be at 1 mile, ½ mile or ⅔mile, ⅓ mile combinations. 3. The Final Sign Gantry must be provided at the Exit Datum Point. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints, the Final Sign Gantry must be provided at a location between the Exit Datum Point and 50 metres upstream of the Exit Datum Point. The Final Sign Gantry must never be provided downstream of the Exit Datum Point. 4. The 1 mile Cantilever must be provided at a location 1610 metres upstream of the Exit Datum Point. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints, the 1 mile Cantilever must be provided within the 1 mile Tolerance Zone defined in Table 10-1. If the 1 mile Cantilever cannot be provided within the required 1 mile Tolerance Zone defined in Table 10-1 due to site constraints, a ⅔ mile Cantilever must be provided at 1070 metres upstream of the Exit Datum Point. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints, the 2/3 mile Cantilever must be provided within the ⅔ mile Tolerance Zone defined in Table 10-1.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-125 of 170 Nov 09

5. The ½ mile Cantilever must be provided at a location 805 metres upstream of the Exit Datum Point. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints, the ½ mile cantilever must be provided within the ½ mile Tolerance Zone defined in Table 10-1. If the ½ mile Cantilever cannot be provided within the required ½ mile Tolerance Zone defined in Table 10-1 due to site constraints, a ⅓ mile Cantilever must be provided at 535 metres upstream of the Exit Datum Point. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints, the ⅓ mile Cantilever must be provided within the ⅓ mile Tolerance Zone defined in Table 10-1.

6. The Final Signal Gantry must be located as close as possible to the back of the nosing whilst meeting requirements of TD19. 7. The optimum location for the slip road gantry to support confirmatory signage is 30 to 50 metres downstream of the diverge nose tip. If the confirmatory sign on the exit slip road cannot be installed at this location (either on a cantilever or portal gantry) due to site constraints, a Departure from Standard is required. A post mounted confirmatory sign must not be provided on the nose where a cantilever or portal gantry mounted confirmatory sign is provided. 8. A Signal Gantry must be provided 400m in advance of the Final Sign Gantry. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints and the distance between the Final Sign Gantry and the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry is:

a) 800m or more, the Signal Gantry must be provided between 200m and 400m in advance of the Final Sign Gantry;

b) less than 800m, the Signal Gantry must be provided between 200m in advance of the Final Sign Gantry and the midpoint between the Final Sign Gantry and the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry.

9. A Mixed Sign and Signal Gantry must be provided 400m in advance of the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints and the distance between the 1 mile (⅔ mile) ADS Gantry and the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry is:

a) 800m or more, the Mixed Sign and Signal Gantry must be provided between 200m and 400m in advance of the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry; or

b) less than 800m, the Mixed Sign and Signal Gantry must be provided between 200m in advance of the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry and the midpoint between the 1 mile (⅔ Mile) ADS Gantry and the ½ mile (⅓ mile) ADS Gantry.

10. A Signal Gantry must be provided 400m in advance of the 1 mile (⅔ mile) ADS Gantry. If this cannot be achieved due to site constraints, this Signal Gantry must be provided between 200m and 400m in advance of the 1 mile (⅔ mile) ADS Gantry.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-126 of 170 Nov 09

This arrangement on Appendix D Standard Drawings 008 and 010 shows that the 1mile (or ⅔mile) and ½mile (or ⅓mile) ADS on the approach to an exit are mounted on gantries (or cantilevers) separate from the signal gantries.

The philosophy is to keep static and dynamic information on separate gantries. Where the information is combined and the gantry is less than 1200m from the junction, the ADS information is kept to a minimum to reduce potential driver confusion. In view of this philosophy, it is important that the provision of AMI’s should be in accordance with Section 10.10 and not additionally installed on sign only gantries.

If it is considered appropriate or suitable to do so (i.e. there are no sightline or safety related issues and providing additional driver information is considered appropriate), confirmatory signing information can also be located on the Final Signal Gantry. A confirmatory gantry or cantilever as appropriate is to be located on the exit slip.

Should access be required to equipment on the gantry designers need to carefully consider Traffic Management arrangements (the need for unnecessary lane closures on either the main carriageway and/or slip-road or both may prove costly if the gantry cannot be relocated to a position where lane closure is not required). It should be noted that access to gantries on carriageways of three lanes or less (including the Hard Shoulder) may require closure of the carriageway, especially if removing/replacing the AMI located over the middle lane (LBS2).

Noted that there are differences in positioning of gantries between this guidance and TD46/05 and IAN87/07. (IAN87/07 requires the provision of signal gantry positioning “suitable for implementing VMSL” which in turn is in accordance with TD46/05).

In the vicinity of junctions TD46/05 requires the following:

A 1 mile gantry (containing ADS, Lane signals and a MS4)

A ½ mile gantry (containing ADS, Lane signal and a MS4)

Exit Datum Point Final Signal (containing final direction sign, Lane signals and a MS4)

11. A Departure from Standard from the Overseeing Organisation is required for any of the following situations:

a. If Sign Cantilevers are provided showing a distance of ⅔ mile and ⅓ mile. b. Provision of a Sign Cantilever at a location outside of the Tolerance Zone for

that gantry. c. Non-Provision of a Sign Cantilevers as shown in Appendix C Drawings 008

and 010 d. Provision of Sign Cantilevers in a combination other than at “1 mile and ½

mile” or at “⅔ mile and ⅓ mile”.

The Departure from Standard must be submitted as described in Section 10.5.2.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-127 of 170 Nov 09

Confirmatory portal gantry 30-50m downstream of the diverge nose tip (containing confirmatory sign, Lane signals and a MS4)

The requirements in this guidance are:

A 1 mile cantilever (exit ADS only)

Intermediate gantry (containing ahead ADS, AMIs and a MS4)

A ½ mile cantilever (exit ADS only)

Intermediate gantry (containing ahead ADS, AMIs and a MS4)

Final Sign Exit Datum Point (containing final direction sign only)

A portal gantry (Final Signal gantry) on main carriageway downstream of diverge nose (containing, AMIs and a MS4 and if deemed necessary ADS). The Final Signal Gantry must be located as close as possible to the back of the nosing whilst meeting requirements of TD19. This requirement is due to the necessity for the Hard Shoulder width to be fully developed in order for an AMI to be displayed above it.

Confirmatory cantilever or gantry on exit slip road (containing confirmatory sign)

Therefore, at the 1 mile and ½ mile positions, TD46/05 and IAN87/07 requires gantries while this guidance specifies cantilevers. The ‘Intermediate gantries’ (as defined above) are only required for MM-DHS (i.e. ‘Intermediate gantries’ are not required in TD46/05 and IAN87/07).

Exit Datum Point and Final Signal Gantries are similarly located and populated.

On the diverge slip road the provision of signing should be determined on a site-by-site basis. The provision of AMIs on the slip road is once again determined by the circumstances of the site. For example, it would be considered appropriate to include ‘slip road’ signal gantry where the ‘slip road’ is a link to another motorway. However, if the slip road is on the approach to a roundabout or other type of junction where fixed plate speed limit signs are located at the end of the slip road then there is unlikely to be any operational or safety benefit in providing the signals. For this reason it is necessary to consider the provision of a slip road signals gantry in terms of the safety and operation of the scheme.

If the intention is to design the scheme for the implementation of MM-HSR, the layouts presented in this guidance are to be applied. If MM-HSR is to be applied in the future the TD46/IAN 87 arrangement should be ‘future proofed’ to enable the 1 mile and ½ mile gantries to be relocated to the intermediate positions and cantilevers installed in their place. Alternatively, the 1 mile and ½ mile gantries can be ‘depopulated’ (but not replaced with cantilevers) and new gantries installed at the intermediate positions.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-128 of 170 Nov 09

At the merge the first signal gantry to be encountered is the “First Signal Gantry”. If however the merge is particularly long it may be necessary to install an additional gantry to achieve intervisibility (as shown on Appendix D Standard Drawings 008 to 011). However, it is more desirable to locate an intra-junction gantry in such a position that the need for the intermediate gantry is mitigated.

10.11.1 Gantries in the Vicinity of Motorway Service Areas

The traffic flow in and out of the Motorway Service Area (MSA) is likely to be relatively low, and may therefore suit a Through Junction Running (TJR) arrangement. If “full-time” TJR (as defined in IAN 112/08) is to be used, then standard MSA signing as defined in DfT Circular 1/2008 “Policy on Service Areas and Other Roadside Facilities on Motorways and All-Purpose Trunk Roads in England” (DfT website) should be used. This means that the ½ mile and 1 mile gantries can be replaced by the signing as defined in DfT Circular 1/2008. Also mainline destination information on other gantries can also be omitted.

10.12 Gantries – Design Considerations

This means that they need to be designed so that maintenance using, for example, a ‘cherry picker’ is as straightforward as possible.

It is good practice to not have a support in the central reserve as this reduces maintenance activities in the central reserve.

Due to the design requirement for torsional stability from wind loading, the costs of gantries are directly proportional to the size of sign. Legends for gantry signs should be designed in accordance with current guidance. However, if it is subsequently found that the sign face is very large and needs an exceptionally large structure to support it, then consideration should be given to reducing the size of the sign face (see Section 10.5 for detailed considerations).

With regard to MSA signing, scheme designers must seek advice from Technical Services Division of NetServ and NetServ Safe Road Design team.

In accordance with current standards (IAN 86/07) gantries must not be provided with a fixed means of access for inspection and maintenance.

The design life of gantries should be in accordance with IAN 86/07. If gantries are designed to a shorter design life then a departure from standard will need to be obtained.

Any existing gantries modified and reused for MM-HSR will be subject to a thorough structural and geotechnical assessment and take into account the issue of wind loading.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-129 of 170 Nov 09

The use of gantry signs and signals on the entry and exit from a scheme is covered in Section 8.5.

As noted previously (See Section 9.10) it is expected that MS4s would be provided on each signal gantry.

The gantries are to be designed to require little in the way of routine maintenance. A general inspection is required every two years and a principal inspection every six years.

Gantries are also repainted every 15 years. The least disruptive way of doing this is to remove and refurbish them. Gantries on the M42 ATM Pilot between Junctions 3A and 7 were designed for gantry boom erection with rolling blocks, enabling erection and future replacement/refurbishment with minimum traffic disruption.

If PTZ CCTV is to be mounted on gantries, wind-down masts should be used. Consideration should be given to use of free standing wind-down CCTV masts located adjacent to gantries and mounted on shared foundations, to facilitate access without the need for lane closures.

10.13 Emergency Refuge Areas

ERA provide an area where drivers can stop in an emergency and for maintenance vehicles that need regular access to the CECs and other verge side equipment. ERAs are particularly important to the operation of Hard Shoulder Running (see Section 8.4.5 for operation of ERAs).

For gantries with no fixed means of access there is no requirement for cable tray covers as stated in SHW clause 1507.23.

ERAs form an integral part of the MM-HSR design and will be spaced between 600m and 1000m inter-junction (i.e. between junctions). The average frequency must be no greater than 800m. They are to be co-located with gantries and located downstream of the gantry (See Appendix D Drawing 005). This arrangement is to enable drivers to associate gantries with an ERA beyond it. It also enables signs for the ERA (“Emergency Refuge Area - SOS”) to be mounted on the gantry leg (See Appendix D Drawing 007) ERA signs will need to be authorised by the NetServ Safe Road Design Team.

If local conditions (topology, SSD) dictate that it is impractical to locate the ERA downstream of the gantry, the ERA may be located upstream of the gantry (See Appendix C Drawing 006).

Each ERA will have an ERT and the vehicle restraint system provided at the ERA will have a gap to allow access to the ERT and adjacent equipment such as the CEC.

Generic design for upstream and downstream ERAs are shown in Appendix D Drawings 005 and 006 as appropriate. All ERAs designed for an MM-HSR scheme should be at least to the dimensions shown in the drawings. An access to the ERT for wheelchair users will be provided.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-130 of 170 Nov 09

The design of the ERA is intended to enable the exit of an HGV without it protruding into LBS2.

Sufficient Sight Stopping Distance for vehicles entering and exiting the ERA is required. As noted earlier, Hard Shoulders on MM-HSR schemes must be designed with a 60mph design speed, all other lanes must be design in accordance with the DMRB.

For a speed limit of 60mph the exit SSD is 215m (desirable minimum) and 160m for the entry (one step below desirable minimum). The exit SSD must be checked to determine that there is unimpaired visibility for the appropriate distance from the centre of LBS1 to a point along the exit kerb line within the ERA at 2m depth from the back of LBS1 (Offset Location A in Figure 10-2).

Figure 10-2: Measurement of exit SSD from an ERA

The entry SSD must be checked to determine that there is unimpaired visibility of the appropriate distance from the centre of the Hard Shoulder Running lane to vehicles and/or remote pedestrians occupying the Parking Bay (See Appendix D Drawing 007). The measurement is to be made from the centre of the Hard Shoulder running lane to the corner of the parking bay markings (Offset location B in Figure 10-3).

Figure 10-3: Measurement of entry SSD at an ERA


IAN 111/09 Page 10-131 of 170 Nov 09

Between the diverge and merge of the same junction (i.e. Intra-Junction), and where Through Junction Running is not in operation, the existing Hard Shoulder provides a permanent facility that drivers can use in an Emergency. As noted in Section 6.3.1, there are a number of safety issues associated with ERAs that would potentially be difficult to resolve 'intra-junction' due to the presence of existing structures and tight geometry. These include providing sufficient conspicuity (sight stopping distances) and providing sufficient entry and exit tapers.

In addition the provision of an 'intra-junction' ERA may encourage non-legal, non-emergency stops that would not have ordinarily occurred (compared with the provision of a Hard Shoulder on a conventional motorway).

Taking the above factors into account, designers should not provide an 'intra-junction' ERA unless it can be demonstrated that there are safety and/or operational benefits in doing so.

For schemes where TJR is proposed, an assessment of the need to provide an intra-junction ERA needs to be carried out on a site-by-site basis. (For example, at Motorway Service Areas (MSAs), the MSA could provide the function of an ERA eliminating the need for one to be placed intra-junction). A comprehensive safety assessment should also be carried out to justify the decision made. Further advice is presented in IAN 112/08 “Managed Motorways Implementation Guidance – Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running”.

For schemes where TJR is proposed and it is concluded that an ERA is required the following principles should be considered with regard to its design:

The longitudinal dimension of ERAs presented in this document is consistent with the longitudinal dimensions of an Emergency Lay-by as defined in TD69/07. However, it should be noted that the taper dimensions shown in TD 69 have been reversed for an ERA layout. There is no need to adjust the standard ERA dimensions with the sole purpose of taking account of a maximum speed limit of 70mph for traffic passing the ERA.

An ERA must not be located less than ½ mile upstream of the Exit Datum Point at a junction and always upstream of the ½ mile or ⅓ mile sign. This requirement is to prevent the ERA from being confused with an off-slip.

A Departure from Standard submission is required if an ERA is located within the ½ mile or sign ⅓ mile and a junction.

In this circumstance, the green-studs along its edge must be omitted (see Appendix D Standard Drawing 007).

In exceptional circumstances, where the cost of construction is prohibitively expensive, the width of the ERA may be reduced to a minimum of 4.0m. A Departure from Standard must be submitted for ERA widths less than 4.6m.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-132 of 170 Nov 09

It is probable that within a junction, existing structures could hinder the achievement of adequate entry and exit stopping sight distances. The priority should be to providing a minimum of a two step sightline departure on exit. Entry stopping sight distance is less critical as in a genuine emergency the vehicle is likely to be travelling at lower speed.

The above principles can also be applied to ERAs which are provided adjacent to permanent running lanes without a Hard Shoulder.

Further advice on this is provided in "Managed Motorway Implementation Guide - Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running and from NetServ ([email protected]).

It is important that each ERA has suitable crossfall and drainage to prevent standing water. ERAs also have the potential to be used as a facility for the containment of liquid spills

Eventually the surface of the ERAs requires renewal. It is assumed that this is carried out along with the relevant stretch of motorway, and the increased work required should be allowed for in the resurfacing works programme. It is also important to consider the signs and signals that are put in place if the ERA is being closed for maintenance purposes.

ERAs have unique requirements with regard to winter maintenance. Salt spreading machines may not have sufficient spread from the main carriageway to include the ERAs. In addition to this, under existing salt spreading and snow clearance regimes any ploughed snow is likely to accumulate in the ERAs. A detailed examination of the regimes required to keep ERAs free from snow and ice is therefore needed to understand what specialist equipment or new procedures may be required.

If it is identified that there is equipment located at or near the ERA that (even after applying the principles of IAN 69/05, Designing for Maintenance) requires a higher frequency of maintenance (or more extensive periods of maintenance), provision of a safe means of access from the ERA to the equipment location should be considered.

The safety issues associated with ERAs and the resulting generic safety requirements are presented in Section 6.3.1.

10.13.1 Observation platforms

Local agreement needs to be obtained from the Police over the use, removal or retention of observation platforms. If they are to be retained, an issue that needs to be addressed is how to access the carriageway when the hard shoulder is opened to traffic. (Also note that traffic routinely travelling closer to the edge of the carriageway which may affect the location and design of VRS). A risk assessment needs to be undertaken on a site-by-site basis.

Full height anchorages should only be used at ERA locations, where there is insufficient room for a 10m full height overlap of VRS, They should not be used facing oncoming traffic unless behind another barrier as detailed on Appendix D Drawings 005 and 006.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-133 of 170 Nov 09

ERAs should not be routinely used as substitute observation platforms as the presence of an official vehicle may deter legitimate emergency use. However, if required, a replacement platform can be provided as part of the ERA. Care should be taken to ensure that its layout and usage does not affect the safe usage of LBS1 as a running lane, the ERA or the observation platform. Further advice should be sought from Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

10.14 Central Reserve

As noted in Section 10.7, it is necessary to reallocate lane widths to implement MM-HSR.

Depending upon the type of drainage that is going to be used, the only option that may be available for maintaining adequate lane widths (without widening the carriageway) may be to reduce the width of the central reserve.

Using a reduced set-back of 1.0m and a concrete step barrier 600mm wide, a central reserve width of 2.6m is possible. However, designers should be aware that this is too narrow for some signs used for TSM Chapter 8. It is considered that a width of 3.6m is required using current signs. If the central reserve is to be less than 3.6m wide then other mitigations are required to ensure the Traffic Management can be installed, for example starting traffic management at predefined locations where it is possible to widen the central reserve. Note that central reserve widths less than 4.5m including hard-strips require approval as a Departures from Standard.

10.15 Stopping Sight Distances

The standard Stopping Sight Distances (SSD) required by TD 9 (DMRB 6.1.1) should be applied to MM-HSR. The reallocation of lane widths and, if necessary, reducing the width of the central reserve may lead to the need to check that the existing SSD are maintained, particularly in the offside lane.

For ERAs within the Junction (if deemed required following an assessment), the design speed should be 70mph, if Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running is planned at some point in the future.

For LBS1 the SSD must be calculated on a design speed of 60mph (even if it is planned to operate the scheme at 50mph). It is especially important to check SSDs on entry and exit from the ERAs.

Designers should first consider whether or not it is possible to retain the existing central reserve infrastructure. If this can only be achieved using a reduced set-back then a Departure from Standard must be applied for.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-134 of 170 Nov 09

10.16 Enforcement

As noted previously (see Section 8.11) compliance to speed limits is an important aspect of the safe operation of MM-HSR. Some form of enforcement is considered essential. If driver compliance (enforcement) is to be provided by Enforcement Cameras then it is necessary to put the “Enforcement Camera” sign on the gantry. The frequency of these signs is covered in the MM Compliance Guidance. Further advice should be sought from the Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

Secondary check markings are currently used on all lanes including the Hard Shoulder for every gantry. This approach is under review as part of the MM Compliance Guidance. Further advice should be sought from the Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).

10.17 Lighting

The economic justification of lighting on a scheme is currently determined by the application of TA 49/07. This may or may not support the need for lighting on a particular scheme. For clarity, there is no requirement to carry out such an assessment if the scheme intends to retain the existing road lighting.

However, if a significant element of any existing lighting infrastructure is to be renewed, replaced or relocated during an MM-DHS project then justification for its replacement/retention by the application of TA 49/07 – Application of New and Replacement Lighting on the Strategic Motorway and All Purpose Trunk Road Network is required.

To make an informed decision with regard to lighting on an MM-HSR scheme it is necessary to:

Undertake a safety analysis of the hazard that is affected by lighting. For example, without lighting (and in the absence of alternative mitigations), the risk associated with a number of MM-HSR only hazards may change and the degree of this change should be formally quantified. These hazards mainly relate to the detection of vehicles on the Hard Shoulder and the conspicuity of vehicles within ERAs and on the Hard Shoulder.

Review Hard Shoulder opening in darkness to determine whether alternative mitigations to lighting are practical when checking the hard shoulder.

Produce Risk Assessments if reduced lighting levels are to be retained on the hard shoulder.

Produce an appropriate business case in line with TA 49/07.

If new lighting is economically justified then the following points should be considered:


IAN 111/09 Page 10-135 of 170 Nov 09

Lighting from the verge minimises disruption and/or risk caused by routine maintenance, however, it is recognised that there may be situations where it is impractical to do so. When lighting from the central reserve, it will be necessary to check that lighting levels on the Hard Shoulder are consistent with its use as a running lane. (The standards currently allow the Hard Shoulder to be lit at a level less than that used for a running lane). Specialist lighting advice should be obtained for the Hard Shoulder and ERA. The benefits of utilising existing lighting versus installation of new lighting should be considered in terms of environmental impact, programme and scheme economics.

Lighting columns will need to be either protected by a restraint system or be passively safe columns. It is expected that lighting maintenance activities will be undertaken at night and during off peak times. On the M42 ATM Pilot between Junction 3A and 7, degradation of lighting has been tested and it has been shown that the CCTV systems can function providing the lighting installation meets the requirements of the British Standard, BS 5489-1: 2003 + A2: 2008 Incorporating Corrigendum No. 1 – Code of practice for the design of road lighting – Part 1: Lighting of roads and public amenity areas and TD 34/07 - Design of Road Lighting for the Strategic Motorway and All Purpose Trunk Road Network, and that the maintenance meets the requirements of TD 23/99 - Trunk Roads and Trunk Road Motorways Inspection and Maintenance of Road Lighting.

Where MM-HSR schemes, or sections of motorway within the schemes, are currently unlit then the process of evaluating the lighting should be to complete a business case in line with TA 49/07 for the lighting of the motorway. If the lighting is economically justified then a fully compliant lighting scheme should be installed.

If the lighting of the motorway, or currently unlit sections, is not justified and the main carriageway remains unlit, then the process of evaluating the lighting should be as follows:

Stand alone business cases, in line with TA 49/07, need to be produced for the separate lighting of each of the following areas:

o Junctions; o Extended slip roads; o Through Junction Running (TJR), o ERAs.

The Safety Specialists should carry out an assessment to estimate the likely accident

saving through providing road lighting in each of these situations. This information will be used in the TA 49/07 process.

If the business cases, in line with TA 49/07, justify the lighting of junctions, extended

slip roads and/or TJR, then lighting schemes compliant with the requirements of BS 5489-1 and TD 34/07 should be installed in those areas.

If the lighting of ERAs is justified by the business case, then for the purposes of

lighting the ERAs should be treated as conflict areas. Conflict areas are defined in PD CEN/TR 13201-1: 2004 – Road Lighting – Part 1: Selection of Lighting Classes as:


IAN 111/09 Page 10-136 of 170 Nov 09

“relevant areas where motorised traffic streams intersect each other or overlap areas frequented by other user types”.

The advice in BS 5489-1 for the lighting of conflict areas, where the adjacent areas are not lit, is that the appropriate conflict area (CE-series) lighting class be selected in relation to the traffic demands and the environment of the location. For an ERA, on an unlit motorway, the lowest CE-series lighting class, CE5, would be appropriate.

If the business cases do not justify any lighting there may be other significant benefits

which can not be presented in a monetised form.

Expert advice should be obtained from Lighting and Safety Specialists.

10.18 MIDAS Loops

The use of MIDAS Loops is a proven technology that provides the accurate traffic data required to set effective and appropriate speed restrictions, monitor the carriageway (including the Hard Shoulder) for incidents and queues, and determine the traffic flow threshold to advise on the opening and closing of the Hard Shoulder.

Where the existing motorway lighting, located in the central reserve, is to be retained, the following points need to be considered:

The provision of low level verge mounted lighting in the ERAs will be required to enable drivers on the hard shoulder to see activity in the ERAs so that they are able to make the right choices regarding entering or not entering the ERAs. It will also highlight the ERAs to passing drivers that are not intending to use the ERAs.

“Low level” lighting refers to the reduced mounting height of the columns that are

proposed at each ERA. The lighting level in the ERAs will need to comply with the appropriate Conflict Area lighting class, as per BS 5489-1.

The installation of MM-DHS may require the extension of slip road merges and

diverges. The slip road lighting will need to be extended to cover the entire length of all slip road merges and diverges, as required by BS 5489-1 and TD 34/07.

At junctions, where permanent through junction running is to be provided, the

lighting through the junction will need to be upgraded to comply with the requirements of BS 5489-1 for motorway lighting.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-137 of 170 Nov 09

As noted previously (Section 10.10), for an MM-HSR scheme the gantries are expected to be typically 800m apart. The HA standard for MIDAS (Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling) loop siting is not suited to a controlled motorways environment in general as a result of the nominal 800m gantry spacing stated in accordance with IAN 87/07, and additionally undesirable on MM-HSR type schemes due to maintenance access issues. The design should ensure that the operational effectiveness of MIDAS as a safety tool for road users is not compromised, whilst providing a system that minimises the amount of roadside infrastructure required for the MIDAS system, and is easier and safer to maintain within the constraints placed on a HSR equipped motorway.

This configuration also simplifies the communications infrastructure required for the scheme, reducing costs and complementing the National Roadside Telecommunications System (NRTS) solution.

The MIDAS Loop arrangement as illustrated in Figure 10-3 should be used. That is, a MIDAS loop site spacing of nominally 400m, located up to 200m upstream and downstream of each gantry.

To provide the necessary data to support controlled use of the Hard Shoulder, MIDAS Loops are also installed on the Hard Shoulder.

This arrangement has been chosen as it enables the MIDAS outstation to be located at the nearest ERA associated with each gantry and not next to the Hard Shoulder (thus satisfying the Maintenance Philosophy of, where possible, moving equipment from the edge of the Hard Shoulder to the ERAs).


IAN 111/09 Page 10-138 of 170 Nov 09

Figure 10-3: MIDAS Loop Arrangement

It is recognised that, although signal sites are typically 800m apart, this can range from 600m (or less exceptionally) to over 1000m. The variable loop spacing and positioning can be formulated into a set of design rules (in no particular order):

Gantries should be positioned first in accordance with IAN 87/07 and other applicable standards.

The design should use only 3 turn loops.


IAN 111/09 Page 10-139 of 170 Nov 09

It is recommended that consideration should be given to mitigating the impact of complete failure of a loop site of 400m loop spacing by revising the maintenance regime, in particular such that the chance of two consecutive loop sites being faulty and remaining faulty is reduced to a minimum.

Loop Feeder cable length must not exceed the specified 200m as required by MCH1540. A Departure from Standard submission is required if the feeder cable length exceeds 200m.

Where gantry spacing is 800m or less, the designer should start at the most upstream gantry within the extent of the scheme, and divide the distance to the next adjacent downstream signal gantry (x metres) by 4. A loop site should then be provisionally positioned at x/4 metres upstream and downstream of each gantry.

Inductive loops for Gateway Gantries and final signal gantries, located to provide conditioning upstream and downstream respectively of the HSR signal gantries at the entry and exit to the scheme, should follow the same rules as those within the HSR section. This will simplify potential future amendment to HSR and maintenance.

Upstream of the first (Gateway) and downstream of the final signal gantries for the scheme the inductive loops should be located taking into account the distance to the next signal site so as to ensure a broadly even spacing, whilst also complying with standard requirements that loop spacing should not exceed 600m, whilst ensuring that loop feed cable lengths do not exceed 200m

Loop site positions should be then be fine tuned where necessary in order to comply with the requirement for <200m LF cables by calculating the actual duct route + snakeage.

Where gantry spacing exceeds 800m, loop sites must be spaced to ensure that Loop Feeder cable lengths do not exceed 200m.

Where gantry spacing exceeds 1000m or a gap in MIDAS coverage of over 600m exists, an intermediate loop site and associated cabinet must be provided as close to the midpoint as possible.

Where gantry spacing is less than 400m, a single loop site should be deployed at x/2 to serve as both the upstream and downstream loop site for the pair of gantries.

In order to provide adequate signal lead in relative to the back of the queue following a queue protection alert, the downstream loop site should be defined as adjacent in site data

The above assumes that MIDAS is already installed on the sections of road adjacent to the scheme. If this is not the case, the interface between the Managed Motorways scheme and the existing network will require more consideration and liaison with Highways Agency NetServ ([email protected]).


IAN 111/09 Page 10-140 of 170 Nov 09

During commissioning and maintenance re-commissioning/checking activities, a 2 man team, is likely to be required as the loop sites is located up to 200m away from the MIDAS outstation.

10.19 Road Restraint System

Application of TD 19/06 (Requirement for Road Restraint System) to this scheme results in a significant increase in safety fencing due to the increased infrastructure present. TD 19/06 requires gaps of 50m to be closed and states that "It might also be practicable to close gaps up to 100m; this will depend on the site and the proposed end terminals being considered." Therefore it is possible that continuous verge safety barrier may be required. This increases the number of safety barrier repairs that have to be carried out. Designers should carry out a cost benefit analysis to determine the value for money of providing continuous safety barrier. The VRS likely to be implemented on MM-HSR is the same as already in use on the rest of the network and introduces no new maintenance requirements.

10.20 Other Accesses

Other types of accesses to the carriageway (for example from a maintenance depot) almost certainly need to be modified to accommodate hard shoulder running. In the first instance serious consideration should be given to their relocation outside the scheme. If this is not possible, the entrance and exit tapers could be redesigned so that they are adjacent the hard shoulder (i.e. it is assumed that they are approached and exited on the hard shoulder). If this is not possible, operational procedures would need to be adopted to reduce risk. For example, consideration could be given to banning entry and exit when the hard shoulder is open to traffic.

10.21 Maintenance Hardstandings

The design of Maintenance Hardstandings needs to be appropriate to the specific circumstances of each scheme. On the Managed Motorways Birmingham Box 1 & 2 scheme they are installed as small parking areas (typical dimensions 20m x 2.5m compared to 100m x 4.6m for an ERA) TD69/07 Chapter 7 refers. They are constructed out of grass paving and do not include the fixed plate signing and other above ground features that would draw the road users attention to their location.

It must be noted that whilst an MM-HSR scheme may run traffic at 60mph in LBS1, when LBS1 is closed traffic will be able to travel at 70mph in LBS2, LBS3 and LS4. Nearside VRS must be designed to standards to reflect this.


IAN 111/09 Page A-141 of 170 Nov 09

Appendices: Document Map - Appendices

Section








8. Operations

9. Technology

10. Infrastructure

Contents Page

A References A-142

B Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations B-143

C Environmental Reporting Methodology Checklists C-146

D Drawings D-151

E Datum Point Definitions E-164

Appendices

F Index F-168


IAN 111/09 Page A-142 of 170 Nov 09

Appendix A References

[1] Managed Motorways Implementation Guide – Through Junction Hard Shoulder Running (Highways Agency Publications Code PR100/08)

[2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/m42activetrafficmanagement/M424LVMSLPerf1.pdf


IAN 111/09 Page B-143 of 170 Nov 09

Appendix B Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Acronym Description

3L-VMSL 3-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limit

4L-VMSL 4-Lane Variable Mandatory Speed Limit

ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers

ADS Advance Direction Sign

AIES Assessment of the Implications on European Sites

ALM Ambient Light Monitors

AMI Advanced Motorway Indicator

ARM Availability Reliability and Maintainability

ATM Active Traffic Management

BBMM 1&2 Birmingham Box Managed Motorway – Phases 1 and 2

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

CDM Construction, Design and Management

CEC Combined Equipment Cabinet

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CMU Cable Marshalling Unit

COBS Control Office Base System

CPO Compulsory Purchase Order

D3M Dual 3-lane motorways

D4M Dual 4-lane motorways

DDS Dynamic Display System

DEFRA Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs

DfT Department for Transport

DLCB Data Link Connection Boxes

DLS Driver location sign

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

DNO Distribution Network Operator

EA Environment Agency

EAR Environmental Assessment Report

EC European Community

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMS Enhanced Message Signs

ENVIS Environmental Information System

ERA Emergency Refuge Area


IAN 111/09 Page B-144 of 170 Nov 09

Acronym Description

ERT Emergency Roadside Telephone

FAT Factory Acceptance Test

FTA Freight Transport Association

GSN Goal-Structured Notation

HA Highways Agency

HADECS Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System

HALOGEN Highways Agency LOGging ENvironment

HATMS Highways Agency Traffic Management System

HCCB High Containment Concrete Barrier

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

HIB Highways Investment Board

HIOCC High Occupancy

HRA Hot Rolled Asphalt

HSD Hard Shoulder Divert

HSM Hard Shoulder Management

HSR Hard Shoulder Running

IAN Interim Advice Note

INCA INcident Cost-benefit Assessment

IP Internet Protocol

ITM Integrated Traffic Management

IVD Individual Vehicle Data

KPIs Key Performance Indicators

LBS Lane Below Signal

LED Light Emitting Diode

LFS Link Flow States

LPA Local Planning Authority

MAC Managing Agent Contractor

MAHS Managing Arrangements for Health and Safety

MEWP Mobile Elevating Work Platform

MIDAS Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling

MSA Motorway Service Area

MS3 Message Sign Mark 3

MS4 Message Sign Mark 4

MM-HSR Managed Motorways – Hard Shoulder Running

MTBF Mean Time Between Failure


IAN 111/09 Page B-145 of 170 Nov 09

Acronym Description

MTV Motorway Traffic Viewer

NDC National Distribution Centre

NE Natural England

NHST National Health and Safety Team

NMCS2 National Motorway Communications System 2

NO Network Operations

NO/MP Network Operations/Major Projects

NoD Notice of Determination

NPUG National Procedures user Group

NRTS National Roadside Telecommunication System

NTCC National Traffic Control Centre

NVC National vegetation Classification

OR Operational Regime

PCF Project Control Framework

PI Public Inquiry

PIA Personal Injury Accident

PICG Project Investment & Control Group

PPS Planning Policy Statement

PSRM Project Safety Risk Management

PTZ Pan-Tilt-Zoom

QUADRO QUeues And Delays at ROadworks

RADAR RAdio Detection And Ranging

REA Regional Environmental Advisors

RCC Regional Control Centre

RCU Roadside Controller Units

RHA Road Haulage Association

RoD Record of Determination

RMC Ramp Metering Controller

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SAT Site Acceptance Test

SCS Semi-automatic Control System

SDAG Systems Data Action Group

SFZ Structure Free Zone

SI Statutory Instrument

SoS Secretary of State


IAN 111/09 Page B-146 of 170 Nov 09

Acronym Description

SMC Software maintenance Contractor

SPA Special Protection Area

SSD Stopping Sight Distance

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

TAME Traffic Appraisal Modelling and Economics

TechMAC Technology Maintenance Contractor

TJR Through Junction Running

TLC Traffic Learning Centre

TO (Highways Agency) Traffic Officers

TOS Traffic Officer Service

TRL Transport Research Laboratory

TSol Treasury Solicitors

TSRGD Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions

TTRO Temporary Traffic Regulation Order

TUBA Transport Users Benefit Appraisal

UPS Uninterruptible power supplies

VMSL Variable Mandatory Speed Limit

WAFO Working Away From Office


IAN 111/09 Page C-147 of 170 Nov 09

Appendix C Environmental Reporting Methodology Checklists

CHECKLIST 1 EXISTING DATA REVIEW

PROPOSAL NAME Project Name

DESIGNATIONS Description / Sensitivity Marker Post Reference Strategic Impact and Mitigation Outline

STATUTORY PROTECTED AREAS (ECOLOGICAL)

Special Protection Areas

Special Area of Conservation

NON STATUTORY PROTECTED AREAS (ECOLOGICAL)

Ancient/Semi Ancient and Ancient Replanted Woodland

Local Biological Designations (E.g. Wildlife Corridors, Sites of Biological Interests)

National Inventory of Woodland and Trees (England)

FLORA

PROTECTED SPECIES

Amphibians

Reptiles

Mammals


IAN 111/09 Page C-148 of 170 Nov 09




UK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN (UKBAP) PRIORITY SPECIES

WATER FEATURES

Ponds

Linear Water Features

Ditches

LANDSCAPE DESIGNATIONS

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

Greenbelt

Regional Character Areas

Local Character Areas

CULTURAL HERITAGE

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

FLOOD RISK AREAS


IAN 111/09 Page C-149 of 170 Nov 09




NATURAL AREAS

AIR QUALITY

PLANNING

Insert here – Title of Regional Plan

Title of Local Plan

KEY CONSTRAINTS / OUTLINE MITIGATION STRATEGY


IAN 111/09 Page C-150 of 170 Nov 09


PROPOSAL NAME Insert here

OPTION DESCRIPTION

CONSULTATION REFERENCES

Address Details Contact Name Comments / Responses

The Environment Agency

Natural England

English Heritage

Local Authorities

Local Wildlife Trust

Local Interest Groups


IAN 111/09 Page C-151 of 170 Nov 09

CHECKLIST 2 CABLE RUNS AND INFRASTRUCTURE FIELD APPRAISAL

PROPOSAL NAME

LOCATION REFERENCE

HA Environmental Database / Site Description / Impact Assessment

Mitigation Residual Impact (If Applicable)

A Carriageway From: To:

B Carriageway From: To:

KEY CONSTRAINTS / MITIGATION STRATEGY


IAN 111/09 Page C-152 of 170 Nov 09

CHECKLIST 3 MAJOR EQUIPMENT SITE FIELD APPRAISAL PROPOSAL NAME Ref. Number Location

/ Type Landscape Character

Site Description

Visual Impact Assessment

Biodiversity Mitigation Residual Impact

A Carriageway

CCD ‘A’

‘B’

MD MS4

B Carriageway CCTV


IAN 111/09 Page D-153 of 170 Nov 09

Appendix D Drawings


IAN 111/09 Page D-154 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-155 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-156 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-157 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-158 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-159 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-160 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-161 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-162 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-163 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-164 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page D-165 of 170 Nov 09


IAN 111/09 Page E-166 of 170 Nov 09

Appendix E Datum Point Definitions

E.1 General

An Exit or Entry Datum Point is a fixed point defined by the highway geometry, on which all signs and signals spacing is based. This Appendix defines the locations of the Exit and Entry Datum Point relevant to the different junction layouts. These layouts are consistent with those described in TD 22. Where a junction layout does not comply with this Standard in such a way that the location of the datum cannot be determined, advice should be sought from the Overseeing Organisation.

The location of the Exit and Entry Datum Point are reliant on road markings that are in accordance with the TSRGD as interpreted by Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual and lane widths that are in accordance with TD 27 and TD 22. Where road markings do not comply with these Standards in such a way that the location of the datum point cannot be determined, advice should be sought from the Overseeing Organisation.

E.2 Exit Datum Point

The location of the Exit Datum Point for the different types of diverges is defined in Table E-1 below. These locations are illustrated in Figure E-1 to Figure E- 3.

Table E-1 Exit Datum Point Locations

Diverge Type Location of Exit Datum Point Illustrated in

Figure

Lane Drop (single or two lane) at Taper Diverge

200m upstream of the diverge tip of nose, along the TSRGD Diagram 1010 marking

Figure E-1

Ghost Island at Taper Diverge with Lane Drop

200m upstream of the tip of the Ghost Island head, along the TSRGD Diagram 1010 marking

Figure E-2

Lane Drop at Parallel Diverge

The point where the lane to be dropped exceeds the standard lane width (3.65 metres). This is usually the commencement of the 1000m radius curve which links the mainline and exit taper edge lines.

Figure E-3

For clarity, the “Start of the TSRGD Diagram 1010 marking” is the upstream end of the first mark.


IAN 111/09 Page E-167 of 170 Nov 09

Figure E-1 Lane Drop at Taper Diverge

Figure E-2 Ghost Island at Taper Diverge with Lane Drop

Figure E-3 Lane Drop at Parallel Diverge


IAN 111/09 Page E-168 of 170 Nov 09

E.3 Entry Datum Point

The location of the Entry Datum Point for the different types of diverges is defined in Table E-2 below. These locations are illustrated in Figure E-4 to Figure E-6. Note that only lane-gain arrangements relevant to Managed Motorways schemes are shown.

Table E-2 Entry Datum Locations

Merge Type Location of Entry Datum Point Illustrated in

Figure

Lane Gain (Single or Double)

Start of TSRGD Diagram 1004 marking following merge tip of nose (the same principle applies to multiple lane gains)

Figure E-4

Lane Gain with Ghost Island Merge (Option 1 – Preferred Layout)

Downstream end of TSRGD Diagram 1010 marking at offside slip road lane, making a taper merge with the mainline. Where multiple lanes merge at major intersections and several ghost islands are required, advice should be sought from the Overseeing Organisation.

Figure E-5

Lane Gain with Ghost Island Merge (Option 2 – Alternative Layout)

End of TSRGD Diagram 1010 marking at nearside slip road lane, making a taper merge with the gained lane and mainline.

Figure E-6

Figure E-4 Lane Gain

Note: Single lane gain shown in this figure – same principle applies to multiple lane gains


IAN 111/09 Page E-169 of 170 Nov 09

Figure E-5 – Lane Gain with Ghost Island Merge (Option 1 - Preferred Layout)

Figure E-6 – Lane Gain with Ghost Island Merge (Option 2 - Alternative Layout)


IAN 111/09 Page F-170 of 170 Nov 09

Appendix F Index

A

Assessment, iv, 1-1, 2-9, 3-12, 4-18, 4-20, 5-22, 6-39, 6-41, 7-51, 7-53, 8-56, 9-94, 10-109, A-141, B-143, B-144

C

CEC, v, 9-94, 9-96, 9-99, 9-101, 9-102, B-143 Controlled Motorways, 1-2, 1-5, 2-11, 3-13, 4-21, 8-

63, 8-71, 9-101, 9-102

D

determination, 5-24, 5-25 Determination, B-145

E

Emergency Services, v, 1-2, 6-40, 6-44, 8-56, 8-86 ERA, v, 6-39, 6-43, 6-44, 6-46, 8-61, 8-73, 8-87, 9-

94, 9-105, 9-106, 10-120, 10-132, B-143

G

gantries, 2-11, 3-16, 3-17, 6-47, 8-61, 8-64, 8-66, 8-69, 8-70, 8-71, 8-88, 10-123, 10-126, 10-128, 10-129, 10-137

gantry, 2-11, 8-58, 8-70, 8-71, 8-72, 8-78, 8-84, 8-88, 9-97, 9-99, 9-102, 10-126, 10-128, 10-129, 10-134

H

HADECS, 2-11, 8-90, 9-97, 9-100, B-144 HGV, 8-73, B-144

M

Maintenance, v, 1-2, 6-40, 6-44, 6-46, 8-56, 8-70, 8-78, 8-79, 8-80, 8-81, 8-82, 8-83, 8-84, 8-85, 9-104, 10-119

MIDAS, v, 2-11, 8-63, 9-94, 9-95, 9-96, 9-100, 9-104, 9-106, 10-136, 10-138, B-144

Q

Queue Protection, 1-2

R

Ramp Metering, 1-2 RCC, v, 6-44, 6-47, 6-48, 8-56, 8-57, 8-59, 8-64, 8-

73, 8-86, 8-87, 8-88, 8-92, 9-96, 9-106, B-145 Recovery Operators, 1-2, 6-40, 6-44 Recovery Organisations, 8-58, 8-70 Red-Cross lane control, 2-11

S

SSD, B-146

T

Traffic Officers, 1-2, 6-40, 6-44, 8-82, 8-89, 10-119, B-146

V

verge, 6-46, 10-129 VMSL, 1-2, 2-11, 3-14, 4-20, 4-21, 7-52, 8-62, 8-63,

8-64, 8-65, 8-66, 8-70, 8-73, 8-86, B-143, B-146

Documents

Interim Advice Note 111 09 Managed Motorways ...origin.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian111.pdf · Motorway Schemes. Section 7 ... Section 10.20 – new advice