mksm Partnership

mksm Transport
Strategy July 2009

Connecting the mksm

sub-region

colinbuchanan.com

TRANSPORT
TRAFFIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
URBAN DESIGN
ECONOMICS
MARKET RESEARCH
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Project No: 16096

July 2009

10 Eastbourne Terrace,
London,
W2 6LG
Telephone: 020 7053 1300
Fax: 020 7053 1301
Email : London@cbuchanan.co.uk

Prepared by: Approved by:

____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Atholl Noon/David Quarmby David Quarmby

Status: Final Issue no: 5 Date: 14 July 2009

16096-01-1 mksm final report v12 290709 .doc

(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin
Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.
No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it
was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and
diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly
stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has
been made
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Executive Summary

Introduction
Milton Keynes/South Midlands – mksm – will see a 25% growth in population to 2 million by 2021 and
200,000 more jobs. Sitting astride the M1, A14 and two strategic rail corridors, mksm has strong
connectivity with London and other cities, and with ports and airports, which have helped to fuel its
growth and will continue to do so.

But mksm faces challenges: it depends heavily on the national networks (road and rail) for movement
within the sub-region as well as to and from it, and any congestion and overcrowding, and measures
taken to prioritise the needs of longer-distance movement will be to mksm’s disadvantage. Second,
mksm sits at the intersection of three administrative regions, which complicates the strategic planning,
funding and advocacy processes. So mksm – a clutch of major towns and their hinterlands linked by a
common destiny of growth – need to develop their own views of what is required in transport terms to
enable and sustain their growth. The task is to ensure that the ambitious growth agenda is matched by
action to support its successful delivery

The Scope and Nature of this Report – an inter-urban strategy

Colin Buchanan was appointed by the mksm partnership of local authorities and regional agencies to
develop an inter-urban transport strategy for the mksm sub-region – that is, an integrated strategy
for the networks connecting the towns to each other, to their rural catchments and to the rest of the
country.

The study does not explicitly consider transport or traffic issues within the towns; these are the
subject of local transport plans. We are aware, of course, that the levels of congestion and ease of
movement within the towns can affect their desirability and attractiveness for development, alongside
their connectivity to other towns, cities, ports and industrial centres.

In addition, ease of movement into and out of the towns does have an effect on the whole interurban
journey, whether by bus, car, van or freight vehicle. Our analysis of interurban networks, including
levels of congestion and journey speeds, therefore does take account of the urban radial roads
leading to the regional and national networks.

We also emphasise that this report is not a ‘transport plan’ – it is not a set of schemes or specific
policy proposals. Developing those is the responsibility of local authorities, regional and national
agencies. This study, commissioned by the mksm partnership, provides a strategic framework for
capturing, analysing and prioritising the key issues for transport – those that are special to mksm as a
designated area of very substantial growth.

So this report informs the formal processes (LTP3, RFA, DaSTS regional and national planning
processes for highways and rail, etc). It presents analysis, insights, concerns, issues and
recommendations which enrich these processes, helping to ensure that the particular needs and
concerns of the mksm area and its local and regional partners are taken on board.

And it also makes recommendations for action which we believe the mksm partnership itself can
facilitate and progress – such as for the interurban bus network..

The planning context

The mksm transport strategy is about enabling successful delivery of the growth agenda. Its focus is
on inter-urban movement of people and goods, and on the inter-urban networks – road, rail and bus -

1
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

which link the towns and settlements to each other, to the important nearby destinations, and to
London, other major business centres and international gateways.

The strategy informs and provides context for the local transport plans of the individual towns and
counties; the strategy also seeks to influence the processes of regional transport planning, and of
national network planning by the DfT (Department for Transport) and its agencies and partners.

The government’s recently announced framework for transport planning – DaSTS (Delivering a
Sustainable Transport System) – sets a clear timetable, context and process for the national and
regional bodies to prepare their proposals for the 2012 Transport Plan (which will determine plans,
priorities and funding for 2014-2019 and indicatively beyond that); in particular there is an invitation to
the regions and national bodies to bid by June for programmes of studies which will support the
planning process towards 2012. mksm has no direct locus of its own in this process, and pursuit of
the integrated transport strategy requires advocacy supported by evidence to the relevant
stakeholders.

The DaSTS paper also sets out the government’s five goals to which the whole basket of national,
regional and local transport plans will aspire. It is a critical requirement of this study to consider how
well the emerging strategy fulfils these goals.

The strategy also aims to interface with the regional transport planning agenda by:

Recognising any current committed regional schemes as part of the strategy

Providing analysis supporting plans for longer term growth in housing and
employment in the sub-region

Showing how the three regions ‘interface’ in the mksm area, and highlighting key
corridors and priority issues for future work

Highlighting the priorities for supporting the growth agenda in the sub-region

2
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure S.1: mksm sub-region showing growth points

mksm: an overview
The mksm Business Plan sets out clearly by area and timing the plans for population and employment
growth across the sub-region. It highlights the key interventions critical to achieving sustainable
growth at a local level, together with those strategic interventions across mksm as a whole. It already
identifies issues of connectivity which provide a starting point for our work.

The sub-region has benefitted from considerable recent investment in the transport networks (road
and rail), and more has recently been committed by government. Some significant issues of capacity
and congestion still remain.

What is also clear is that the travel patterns show that the constituent parts of the mksm sub-region
are highly inter-related – some 70% of all mksm morning peak travel is within the sub-region as a
whole, and more than 80% of the employed residents work within the sub-region. It is also important to
note that the travel that does take place outside the sub-region is highly significant for businesses,

3
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

with a very high proportion (more than 55%) of this being heavy goods vehicles and business-related
travel. Good connectivity to and through the regional and national networks is therefore critical for
competiveness and business success.

The approach of this study

Our primary concern in this study is the successful delivery of the growth agenda and the role of
transport at a sub-regional and regional level in enabling that. While the performance of the local
networks is taken account of in our analysis, we are not explicitly considering the road or bus networks
themselves within towns or within local areas.

We also review how well the current plans – and the further transport interventions identified in this
report – meet the five goals clearly set out in the DfT’s DaSTS planning process.

We have focused in particular in this study on the links between employment and transport and the
growth agenda.

Our proposition is that businesses will only come and invest and grow if they have good access to
labour, good access to business centres and markets, and (depending on their sector) good freight
access to ports, terminals and logistics centres. And that housing development will only be successful
if there is good access to jobs.

It is important to distinguish between employment that is essentially ‘local’, in that it serves the local
residential population; and employment that is ‘regional’, which is in businesses which serve other
businesses, or wider regional, national or international markets, or in government or other public
bodies which serve much wider areas. The key point is that ‘regional’ employment growth is
potentially ‘footloose’ – it is not tied to any particular location, and the location decisions will be
influenced, among other things, by accessibility. ‘Local’ employment growth, on the other hand,
largely follows population growth.

One of the issues for sustainability is the relative location of population and employment growth, and
particularly the location of the ‘regional’ employment which by its nature generates more inter-urban
business-related movement of people and goods.

With the focus on inter-urban movement, we have therefore addressed the following questions:

What is the planned pattern of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ employment growth and does it
support a sustainability agenda?

How accessible are the different employment growth areas to labour, business
centres and markets?

How accessible are the different housing growth areas to jobs?

How are these measures of accessibility influenced by the performance of the
various networks they depend on?

In which corridors are there particular pressures and costs due to congestion and
poor service levels?

What network issues – road and rail - therefore require further consideration to
sustain accessibility and support the growth agenda

What further contribution can public transport investment and improvement make –
not only to the growth agenda, but to other transport objectives as reflected in the
DaSTS goals?

So what are the priorities for networks and modes, what it is the emerging vision
and transport strategy, and how well does the emerging strategy score against the
DaSTS goals?

4
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

‘Local’ and ‘Regional’ employment

We have explained above the concepts of ‘local’ and ‘regional’ employment. ‘Regional’ organisations
and businesses have greater need of access to strategic networks, and generate more traffic and
travel on inter-urban and strategic networks.

Our analysis has identified that in the mksm Business Plan ‘regional’ employment and its planned
growth is indeed concentrated in the main towns – Northampton, Milton Keynes, Luton/Dunstable, and
to a lesser extent Bedford, Aylesbury and Daventry. This is an important finding because with the
better availability of local bus services in these towns, the access to good walking and cycling
networks and the better access to the rail network for commuting and business travel, means that the
transport consequences of this pattern of growth are more sustainable than if the jobs growth were
distributed differently.

Accessibility and the growth of homes and jobs

This study explores the extent to which different growth areas within mksm face different levels of
‘accessibility’ (or connectivity), and how this affects their likely success in a) attracting investors and
new jobs, and b) attracting housing developers to build houses. For each of the growth areas in mksm
we have estimated the accessibility that businesses in those locations would face to labour and to
business centres, by mode of travel. Account is taken, as relevant, of access to freight nodes and
gateways. This is calculated from the ‘levels of service’ offered by the road and rail networks at 2021,
taking account of congestion or crowding on those transport networks at that time (from the EERM
(East of England Regional Model) model). This measure is then set against the target for jobs growth,
and the different areas in mksm are then compared. Similarly, the accessibility to jobs for areas of
housing growth is estimated, and this is set against the target for growth.

While the performance of the local networks is taken account of in the analysis, we are not explicitly
considering the road or bus networks themselves within towns or local areas. Our focus is on the
accessibility offered by the inter-urban road, rail and limited-stop bus networks to new and existing
businesses, and to housing developers.

Accessibility to labour, to business centres and to freight nodes does vary significantly between areas
within mksm, and between modes. In areas of lower accessibility, jobs growth may take longer – or
some may not happen at all. And growth is more likely if the economic sectors targeted for growth
area by area are those most suited to the particular pattern of accessibility in that area.

We consider the corridors of movement where there are issues of congestion and overcrowding, and
possible transport interventions in the networks indicated by this. While our analysis is unlikely to say
anything new about the ‘hotspots’ themselves, it demonstrates the impact they have on accessibility
and on the ability to deliver the growth agenda in the different areas within mksm.

Broadly our findings are that

Northampton has an ambitious target for regional jobs growth, and is reliant on
strong commuting flows in from Daventry, Wellingborough, Kettering and to a less
extent Corby. The A43/A45 corridor linking these towns and the M1 is increasingly
congested – particularly at the key junctions - and this is likely to be a factor limiting
Northampton’s accessibility ‘scores’, in spite of its good accessibility to the M1 and
to regional services on the West Coast Main Line. This may affect the
achievement of the jobs growth target – or at least its timing.

Milton Keynes’ plan for ‘regional’ jobs growth is well in line with its accessibility,
with its proximity to M1 and access to the West Coast Main Line which offers
(somewhat compromised) Virgin’s long distances services as well as the London
Midland regional services. However analysis shows the M1 is under considerable
pressure from longer-distance traffic, and measures adopted by the Highways

5
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Agency to address this are likely to affect travel to and from Milton Keynes - over
25% of its inter-urban journeys use the M1.

The Luton/Dunstable urban area offers high inter-urban accessibility both for
business and for residents, by road and by rail; we recognise, however, that
congestion within the urban area is a continuing problem for businesses and
residents alike. But inter-urban transport is not a factor affecting Luton’s future
growth; the 2021 accessibility indices reflect the completion and use of the A5-M1
link and the Luton-Dunstable busway. However, the M1 and other corridors east
and south-east of Luton demonstrate the same growing pressure as further north.

Bedford demonstrates high accessibility by rail for businesses and for residents.
While the completion of the A421 to the M1 will significantly improve Bedford’s
accessibility on the inter-urban road network, the sustained and widespread traffic
congestion within the town will continue to affect overall accessibility – especially
the perception of it by prospective investors. East-West links between Milton
Keynes and to Cambridgeshire are regarded as vital by stakeholders.

Accessibility to jobs by road for prospective housing developers in the North

Northants towns of Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby is commensurate with the
scale of growth. Rail accessibility for business and for commuters – dependent on
the intercity Midland Main Line – may be compromised if the service pattern
develops to favour the larger towns to the north. The prospect of electrification
north of Bedford and projection of ‘Thameslink’ services – considered in Network
Rail’s latest draft RUS (Rail Utilisation Strategy) – could be particularly beneficial.
Generally, Corby’s more compromised accessibility to main business centres is
offset by its closeness to the A14 and the availability of rail freight facilities. Its
prospective employment growth will be most successful with a strong focus on the
logistics sector.

Aylesbury shows lower accessibility than the larger towns, although its growth
target is lower. The issue is the low road speed and limited capacity offered by the
existing modest road networks, rather than heavy traffic congestion characteristic
of other mksm towns. This is particularly felt in the critical north-south corridor to
High Wycombe and the Thames Valley and - to a lesser extent since the
completion of the bypass of Leighton Linslade - to Milton Keynes and the M1.
Given the sensitive environment, there is currently no appetite for significant road
schemes; accessibility improvements will depend on other measures, such as
East-West Rail and inter-urban bus developments, but it is not clear that these will
be sufficient to enable the growth to occur.

The findings also suggest that – to support the sustainability goal - distribution of further growth
beyond 2021 should reflect the different levels of accessibility, and opportunities to make good use of
public transport in and between the sub-region and the rest of Britain. Towns recommended for the
higher levels of growth beyond 2021 therefore include Luton/Dunstable, Milton Keynes and Bedford.

Problem corridors
Given our understanding of the generally adequate forward capacity and service levels offered by the
main rail networks, our gathering of evidence about ‘problem’ corridors has focussed on origin-
destination movements by road (which constitute 90%+ of total inter-urban movements). We
identified those corridors with high flows, and in particular those showing a significant deterioration in
travel time by 2021 compared with the base date. Based on the combination of these two factors, the
main problem corridors identified are:

6
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

The M1 Corridor – defined as the M1 itself over the section J10-J16 (Luton-Milton
Keynes-Northampton), together with the parallel local/regional roads, especially
A5/A43/A508/A4146/A505

The ‘Northampton Arc’ – the A43/A45 corridor linking Daventry and Towcester
with Northampton/Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby and
Wellingborough/Rushden/A14-Thrapston

The North-South corridor around Aylesbury – to Milton Keynes and M1 in the

north and High Wycombe and Thames Valley in the south, and the links to
Leighton Linslade and on to Luton/Dunstable

The Luton / Dunstable ‘Gateway’ - between Dunstable, Luton and south and east
of Luton, on towards the ‘A1’ towns, St Albans, and Hemel Hempstead

The links between Bedford, via the A421/A1/A428 and further east.

Network issues – Road

The M1 is a critical sub-regional link for mksm as well as a national link. The improvements proposed
for the M1, which is one of two main highway ‘arteries’ of mksm, are welcome. Nevertheless the
Highways Agency's projected speed levels on the M1 in the sub-region in 2025 compared to 2003
show that – even with programmed improvements - speeds are expected to drop significantly.

The planned ‘managed motorway’ regime is likely to involve ramp-metering to control the entry of
traffic to maintain smoother and undisrupted flows on the motorway itself, as part of an Integrated
Demand Management (IDM) strategy. However, we understand from discussions with the HA
(Highways Agency) that they are contemplating the use of more aggressive forms of ramp-metering -
imposing delays of up to 5 minutes or more on joining traffic to discourage short distance ‘hops’
travelling two or three junctions, giving priority to longer-distance journeys.

This is likely to incentivise some traffic to divert to parallel local/regional roads such as A5, A43, A508,
A4146, A505 and further south, the A5183 and A1081, but the extent of diversion and the scale of the
problem needs to be modelled in order to be assessed, and the implications evaluated for those
roads, for other traffic and for the communities they serve.

Because of the critical role of the M1 in mksm, we are recommending that the M1 Corridor (that is the
M1 together with the network of parallel local and regional roads) be the subject of joint studies
between the Highways Agency and the relevant local authorities in mksm; Colin Buchanan has
already submitted a paper to mksm partnership outlining the rationale and possible scope of such
studies for consideration in the package of ‘DaSTS’ studies by the end of June (See Appendix G).

Improvements are also planned for the A14, which runs east/west along the north of the mksm area,
including widening around Kettering, an improvement scheme between Ellington and Fen Ditton and
traffic management measures along the route. The traffic management regime is considering
‘traditional’ ramp-metering. We recommend that the mksm partners also review the use of those
techniques with the HA on this strategic route and understand that discussions are underway
between the HA, DfT and the County Council. The implementation of these improvements is critical to
the delivery of the growth agenda around Kettering and for the sub-regions’ wider links.

The ‘Northampton ‘Arc’ - the A45/A43 linking Towcester and Daventry with the M1 through to
Northampton-Wellingborough-Kettering and from Wellingborough-Rushden-Thrapston (A14) - shows
significant pressures, especially around Northampton, and at the major junctions. This is largely due
to the combined pressure of substantial local, regional and national traffic movements, already
reaching nearly 100,000 vehs/day on some sections. The A43 is the key route linking the north of the
County with the M1, and reducing congestion on this road would strengthen the inward investment
potential of Northampton, Kettering and Corby. The recent Highways Agency decision about M1 J19

7
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

(joining A14 and M6) removes any south<>east movement between the A14 and the M1, and puts
more pressure on the A43/A45 corridor for longer-distance traffic (especially LGVs (Light Goods
Vehicles)) going from the A1/A14 to the M1, the A34 and the South Coast and the West Country. On
our advice, mksm submitted in February 2009 a response to the DaSTS consultation recommending
that the A43/A45 corridor from M40 J10 – M1 J15/15A – A14/Thrapston be classified at part of the
strategic national network; the DfT has subsequently rejected this change.

We believe the continuing issues on this corridor justify a comprehensive study of the whole ‘Arc’,
which should include a range of management and public transport options as well as infrastructure. At
the request of the mksm partnership we have prepared a note giving the rationale and scope for such
studies, which should be endorsed and progressed by a partnership of the DfT, Highways Agency,
Northamptonshire County Council and the East Midlands region, and submitted for consideration as a
DaSTS regional study. The note is at Appendix H. Failure to address this satisfactorily could bring
into question the desirability of further growth beyond 2021.

Luton – east and south east. The corridor analysis suggests significant pressure on roads between
Luton and Stevenage (via Hitchin), Welwyn/Hatfield/St Albans. With the exception of part of the A505,
here again the issue is largely one of inadequate single carriageway roads limiting capacity and
speed. Destinations beyond are better served by M1 and M25, although the longer term sees
pressure on these motorway links too.

Luton has aspirations for a Northern Bypass, linking the M1 with the A6 and on to the A505, providing
an east/west link outside of central Luton between the M1 and the Stevenage area. The first section of
this potential link (between the M1 and A6) is closely associated with (and potentially fundable by)
development here, but the next section (between the A6 and A505) is likely to be more challenging to
achieve. Initial modelling by Luton indicates that while this road also performs a local function in
enabling development, a significant proportion of traffic using it is likely to be of a more strategic
nature. The broad corridor to Stevenage and Welwyn Garden city is identified in this study as carrying
large volumes with future worsening of journey times. The potential contribution of this link to sub-
regional strategic connectivity requires more analysis.

Dunstable: The link between Dunstable and Luton and to Leighton Linslade were also highlighted as
priority areas in the analysis. We are not aware of any current proposals to deal with these issues,
although the Luton-Dunstable busway should offer alternatives for travellers. We recommend that the
link between Leighton Linslade and Dunstable could be considered as part of the proposed
north/south route study proposed by the South East Partnership Board and Buckinghamshire
mentioned below.

Aylesbury – North and South: As noted previously, Aylesbury does not score highly on the
accessibility measures, because of the historic nature of the road network, the limited rail network and
the pattern of settlement across the county. Delivering the growth agenda may be compromised
without significant accessibility improvements. Priority should be given to those corridors which most
affect accessibility and where travel demands are likely to increase substantially – which means
northwards towards Milton Keynes and Luton/Dunstable, and southwards towards High Wycombe and
the Thames Valley.

North-facing accessibility has been improved by the opening of the A4146 bypass round Leighton
Linslade. However, addressing the issues raised by the A418 – including the conflict of through
movements and the rural and village environments – has presented challenges and caused
considerable debate locally. Opportunities to improve accessibility by road to High Wycombe and the
Thames Valley are equally constrained, although we understand that the South East Partnership
Board has supported a study of this corridor looking at potential solutions. While the current rail
network plays an important though south-facing role, the EW (east-west) Rail development will open
rail access to the north. Meanwhile, recent and prospective investment in bus facilities in Aylesbury
and High Wycombe, together with a good response by the main operator Arriva, has seen and will
continue significant growth in inter-urban bus/coach traffic.

8
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Nevertheless, our role in this study is to point out that successful delivery of the growth agenda for
Aylesbury (for housing and for jobs) will require inter-urban ‘accessibility’ to be improved beyond
current plans, and this will depend to a considerable extent on addressing the level of service (in its
most general sense) offered by the road network. In this respect our findings support the case of the
South East Partnership Board for work looking at future strategic connectivity on the north/south
corridor between the M1 and Thames Valley via Aylesbury.

Bedford: Recent and committed road improvements such as the A421 link to the M1 and Milton
Keynes will improve the inter-urban accessibility of Bedford, although the remainder of the link beyond
the new M1 junction 13 and on to Milton Keynes is not yet committed. The TEES study (2008)
identified the A421/A428 Cambridge-Bedford-MK (Milton Keynes) as a stressed route in the worst
traffic congestion change group, and regarded it as an ‘economic priority corridor for future
intervention’. This study identified ‘medium range’ flows between Bedford and the east on this corridor,
and noted decreases in journey time. The corridor remains one of few east/west links between the M1
and A1 and the east in the mksm area, and should be regarded as important in these terms.

It is noted that the modelling used for this study assumed that the Bedford Western Bypass was a
committed scheme, although we understand that this is not currently the case and there is little
prospect of developer funding alone delivering this link. This strengthens the case for advancement of
the Western Bypass in order to facilitate growth.

Network issues – Rail

The principal towns in mksm are well located on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the Midland
Main Line (MML), Aylesbury is the exception, at the end of Chiltern’s slow but high quality commuter
service to London, and with no north-facing connections. For the WCML and MML, recent and
committed improvement plans bring sufficient capacity and frequency for the next 10-15 years to
provide for commuters and for business travellers to London, and reasonable access to destinations to
the north/north-west of mksm – using the long distance express services and the regional services on
each route. There is some intra-regional movement by rail along the main corridors.

One major concern continues to be the access to Virgin long distance services at Milton Keynes given
its size and strategic economic importance. The problem is familiar and longstanding, and based on
our investigations in some depth with DfT and Network Rail, we judge that current trends in rail traffic
along the WCML make the prospects for improvements to Milton Keynes connectivity less and less
likely.

Recent and committed improvement plans to MML have reduced the frequency for travellers from
Kettering to London and Northamptonshire. Northampton is also relatively poorly served by longer-
distance services given its size, although opportunities to change this in the short to medium term are
limited by the local rial geography and current service patterns. However the development of HS2 may
offer opportunities for more fundamental changes in service patterns in the area.

Another concern is the irregularly timed new service between Corby and St Pancras, involving for
some trains waits at Kettering of up to 30 minutes, and only a couple of minutes for other, due to
constraints on platform occupation at Corby on the line used by freight trains. There is some concern
about reduced connectivity on the MML north from Kettering and Wellingborough.
As with the road network, the predominantly radial pattern from London leaves poor East-West
connectivity by rail both within mksm and to the towns and cities either side of the sub-region. The
East-West Rail project makes a significant contribution to this, offering connections between the
WCML and MML as well as northwards from Aylesbury. The project also supports the Regional
Spatial Strategies for the South-East and East of England, and has strategic benefits for freight and
cross-country services. The cost and engineering requirements have now been confirmed through the
continuing work as part of the GRIP4 process. It is important to secure the necessary funding to
progress this significant project for mksm.

9
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Since this study was initiated, the government has announced the formation of the High-Speed 2
company, with a specific remit to identify a route and prospective business case and delivery plans for
high-speed rail from London to the West Midlands. A substantial opportunity for mksm lies in the
consequential reshaping of services on the existing WCML. At the right time this opportunity must be
seized, and a clear view formed and advocated about how the needs of Milton Keynes, Northampton,
and the other towns on WCML can best be served. Additionally, there may be an opportunity to bid
for an intermediate station on HS2 itself, but in our view this has a low chance of being adopted and
should not be pursued at the expense of ensuring that mksm gets the full benefit of the consequential
reshaping. The mksm partnership should also be sensitive to the possible impact of the possible HS2
alignments on the mksm environment.

Inter-urban bus
We believe there is significant scope for improvements to the inter-urban bus network, its scope, its
operation and its quality of service, which with the right degree of collaboration between the local
authorities and the bus operators can be delivered. We believe there is scope for significant increases
in patronage, although its modal share of all travel is still likely to be modest.

An improved inter-urban bus network can make an important contribution to transport accessibility
within the sub-region. It will supplement the improvements to local bus services, and by providing
improved connectivity for those without access to car it will contribute to the DaSTS goals of equality
and quality of life.

The current network consists mostly of hourly services linking the main towns, with more frequent
services along the M1 Corridor, on the ‘Northampton Arc’ and Aylesbury north and south. The two
main operators are Stagecoach (towards the north) and Arriva (towards the south).

The biggest problem for the inter-urban bus network is the unpredictability of journey times due to
congestion, mostly in and out of the towns served. The length of the routes, and the impact of delays
on waiting times along the route, make it particularly important to address this, and to do so on a sub-
regional basis - the network is only as strong as its weakest part.

There is good cooperation between operators and many of the local authorities individually, on
facilities for buses, priorities, information distribution and so on. In addition to this, however, there are
opportunities for the local authorities, working in partnership with each other and the operators, to
progress on a collective basis:

General bus/coach stop provision and quality and interchanges

Parking enforcement along critical corridors

Traffic signal prioritisation with transponders

Selective road geometry and road surface markings to make bus entry into the
traffic stream easier

Information and marketing
There is a particular need for real-time passenger information at bus stops and to electronic media
such as mobile phones and PDAs; while the technology solutions exist, much of the equipment is in
place, and operating in some towns, there are institutional and commercial barriers that need to be
addressed if the systems integration problems are to be solved and information to be extended along
the length of route for the inter-urban network. Passengers expect and get this on the railways, and
‘raising the game’ for inter-urban bus must involve the same facility.

The two main bus operators are willing to engage in a sub-regional ‘strategic partnership’ with the
local authorities to address these issues on a holistic basis, and we have suggested a possible scope
for such engagement.

It remains the case that achieving significant modal shift away from the car is easier within urban
areas and on journeys between towns and their rural catchments, than for the generality of inter-urban

10
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

journeys – where journey patterns are more dispersed, and longer journeys make alternative modes
less attractive or practical.

Nevertheless a longer term vision for a step-change in the role of inter-urban bus, including extensive
application of park-and-ride, as set out in this report is worth taking forward. It will involve some
radical thinking about policies, priorities and facilities, and require a strategic response from the
operators. The opening of the Luton-Dunstable busway will demonstrate how a major shift in the
relative travel times of bus against other modes can transform the competitive offer and lead to new
service development and passengers. We are pleased to note that Northamptonshire County Council
is to develop a radical ‘rapid transport system’ for the Northampton Arc, with just such a
transformational objective.

We believe that an aspirational target of doubling the current patronage using inter-urban bus within
10 years can be achieved.

Local transport issues

Within the urban areas there are significant congestion and accessibility problems, and this can also
have an important impact on the location decisions of employers and residents. It is important that
investment in ‘local ‘transport therefore keeps pace with growth.

There is much that the respective authorities are doing in relation to encouraging walking, cycling and
buses, and other improvements to reduce congestion. The Smarter Choices work at this local level is
also highly important – Aylesbury for example has shown what a concerted effort on encouraging
cycling can achieve. The travel issues within towns are also highly important for inter-urban travel:

The exact location and density of development, particularly where accessible to
good inter-urban bus corridors, can significantly influence modal share; in other
cases (e.g. in the Northampton Arc), development can impact on other inter-urban
travel between towns

Higher density development around sub-regional “hubs” (such as that planned at
Station Quarter, Kettering) can encourage sustainable travel

Congestion on key corridors can have a significant impact on the reliability and
attraction of inter-urban bus services – these services are only as strong as their
weakest link

A focus on improving the quality and catchments of the key local interchanges
providing access to inter-urban networks

Common standards across authorities and a focus on travel behaviour change by
encouraging the appropriate mode for the different types of travel can reduce intra-
urban congestion which helps improve inter-urban public transport accessibility

There is also scope for considering the linkages between development and travel
in relation to major travel generators such as educational and health facilities,
which serve wider catchments

In addition at local level we believe that local authorities can seriously influence the
take-up of technology change initiatives for vehicles users within their areas to help
achieve climate change goals
In terms of rural accessibility, this has not been a major focus of the study, but we recognise the fact
that access to public transport in the rural areas of the sub-region is vital to the DaSTS goals of quality
of life and promotion of equal opportunity. The emphasis within the strategy of promotion of high
quality–inter-urban bus services should help to strengthen the overall quality of rural accessibility.

Contribution to DaSTS goals

DfT have set out clearly their goals within Delivering a Sustainable Transport System and the planning
processes that will help their delivery. The goals are:

11
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable

and efficient transport networks

to reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,
with the desired outcome of tackling climate change

to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by
reducing transport risks, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to
health

to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens

to improve quality of life and to promote a healthy natural environment

Our report indicates how the emerging transport strategy is informed by these goals and to what
extent it satisfies them at a strategic level.

mksm is well placed to make a significant contribution to the first DaSTS goal, and overall has an
appropriate pattern of growth to support it. This also supports the second goal on carbon reduction,
on the basis that achieving a target modal share by getting the relative scale and location of new
development right in the first place is more effective than trying to influence travel behaviour once
people and firms have moved in. Alongside the promotion of travel behaviour change, the
government’s approach to carbon reduction in transport involves promoting a wide range of
technology measures - and the fiscal and regulatory policies to incentivise their adoption - to drive up
vehicle fuel efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions. There
are many opportunities for local authorities to use their own powers to reinforce and leverage these
changes, which on an mksm-wide basis could be particularly effective.

While the potential to contribute to the last four DaSTS goals for travel within towns is substantial,
because of the opportunities for alternatives to the private car, it is more limited for inter-urban travel.
Nevertheless, improvements in the inter-urban bus network, including park-and-ride, and better
integration with the existing rail networks, will make an important contribution to equality of
opportunity, and to improved quality of life – especially for those without access to a car.

Planning within mksm

No purpose-designed transport planning model exists for the mksm sub-region. A number of local
authorities have – or are renewing – their own more granular transport models, but we understand that
none ‘connect’ with adjacent models to enable policies and scenarios wider than one local authority to
be tested reliably. While there is (understandably) no appetite for a sub-regional transport model as
such, there is a case for exploring what would be involved in developing a common model
architecture, and common formats and data structures for networks, zones and so on, for the various
local authority models. This would enable linking between models and the opportunity to properly test
scenarios over parts or the whole of the mksm sub-region. The mksm partnership could lead a project
with this objective.

Conclusions
Our report identifies that

mksm is well placed to deliver its growth agenda of homes and jobs.
Committed transport interventions on road and rail will be helpful in catering for
much of the anticipated growth, and in providing accessibility improvements which
will in general encourage and enable that growth.

The different parts of mksm are highly inter-related in terms of travel
patterns, and the inter-urban travel is of critical importance to business.

Overall, the planned growth to 2021 is located appropriately and sustainably
for the planned transport infrastructure (not always the case in growth areas).

12
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

The current plans make a good contribution to DaSTS goals; improvements

are possible with further interventions that we identify.

This is because ‘accessibility’ offered by the transport networks to enable and encourage investors to
deliver homes and jobs growth is higher where the growth plans are most ambitious. However, we
express concern however about the effect of pressure on the ‘Northampton Arc’ on the longer term
prospects for growth in this area; and we note the lower accessibility of Aylesbury – and the difficulties
of significantly improving it – in relation to its growth plans. Meanwhile, Luton stands out as a place
which in accessibility terms would be able to attract much higher employment than is planned, if other
factors (such as town congestion and land availability) allowed it. Bedford will also have excellent rail
access following Thameslink completion, but similarly will need to tackle town centre congestion.

There are significant challenges affecting the overall connectivity for the sub-region:

The M1 is critical to future accessibility for the mksm sub-region, but future
management strategies for this road by the HA could adversely affect access to M1
for the three largest towns; joint studies are recommended with the HA and the
local authorities, to be brokered by the mksm partnership.

The A43/A45 corridor – the ‘Northampton Arc’ covering Daventry/Towcester to
Northampton and to Wellingborough/Kettering/Corby and Rushden/A14 – is under
particular pressure through the combination of local, regional and national traffic
movements. Current transport plans envisage only limited transport interventions.
A comprehensive review is required, considering options of strategic traffic
management and public transport improvements as well as infrastructure
investment; we note Northants CC have already initiated a rapid transport study.
If the longer term growth aspirations of the corridor and Northampton in particular
are to be delivered without adverse impacts on the existing communities then
these issues must be addressed.

Aylesbury’s growth agenda is ambitious given its relatively constrained
accessibility, due to its location, the historic nature of its road network and its
limited rail connectivity. Any improvements to the inter-urban road network are
sensitive; however, the substantial improvements to bus and coach facilities within
the town, coupled with the prospect of EW Rail opening new access northwards,
make a valuable contribution. Nevertheless, the overall accessibility may limit the
ability to achieve the targeted growth.
At the same time, there are a number of opportunities for enhancement in the transport networks
which will not only help deliver the growth agenda but make useful further contribution to dasts goals,
especially those concerned with equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as modestly to
carbon reduction.

The recognition within mksm of a sub-regional network of importance

(See

Figure S.2), and the focus of future attention and investment in protecting and
enhancing this network as a means of accessing the national networks and
connecting the sub-region. There is potential to co-ordinate and develop common
Smarter Choices policies and measures across the sub-region. While these will
obviously have greater impact at the local level, the sharing of expertise and best
practice across the sub-region, a focus on a common ‘message’ to travellers, co-
ordination of policies for travel to e.g. major health and educational facilities, and
encouragement of car share and sustainable freight initiatives will also have an
impact on inter-urban travel

East/West links, in particular those of the A421/A428 through Bedford and those
linking the A505 to the M1 have been identified as carrying significant sub-regional

13
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

volumes and will have future decreases in journey times, and various
improvements are being considered for these

The East-West Rail proposals will make an important contribution to east-west

connectivity in a sub-region dominated by north-south links (including Aylesbury as
well as Bicester, Bletchley, Milton Keynes and Bedford), and to Oxford and
Cambridge outside mksm. Prospects for its use for rail freight and for (national)
cross-country services will benefit the sub-region too

The role that inter-urban bus plays in connecting mksm can be enhanced by
concerted action by local authorities within the sub-region, with the bus operators,
to address a range of practical issues affecting service reliability, passenger
information and infrastructure facilities; a longer term, more ambitious vision for
inter-urban bus, including use of park-and-ride, could make a strategic contribution
on certain corridors

The possibility of rail electrification beyond Bedford – raised in the recent

Network Rail RUS on electrification – holds the opportunity for projecting the
Thameslink service to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby

High-Speed 2 (HS2) – the vision for high-speed rail from London to the West
Midlands – offers the possibility of radical reshaping of the existing WCML
servicers to serve the mksm towns, especially Milton Keynes and Northampton,
more effectively

In some locations the more significant challenges for delivering growth are local
issues – such as local transport access and congestion, or other issues such as
skills, training or land availability, rather than strategic inter-urban accessibility

14
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

Figure S.2: Conceptual sub-regional network

Strategy
The Transport Strategy for mksm therefore
1. Recognises the close inter-relationship of the towns and areas of the mksm sub-
region, as shown by sub-regional travel patterns.

2. Recognises the generally high level of connectivity for mksm offered by the
strategic and regional networks, and emphasises the critical nature of the planned
improvements on these networks for future growth.

3. Recognises that generally the pattern of growth planned across the sub-region is
located appropriately and in areas of higher accessibility (including rail), and overall
contributes to the first two DaSTS goals.

4. Requires, in order to sustain the growth agenda, that attention be given to the key
challenges of the M1 Corridor, the Northampton Arc, and the north-south
connectivity for Aylesbury.

5. Identifies opportunities for enhancements to public transport connectivity; these

are worth pursuing both in their own right and for their wider contribution to DaSTS
goals of equality of opportunity and quality of life, as well as to carbon reduction.
Some, such as inter-urban bus development, the backing for EW Rail, and the
longer term benefits of reshaping the WCML services in the wake of HS2, will

15
mksm Inter-Urban Transport Strategy
Connecting the mksm sub-region

benefit from concerted action which should be led by the mksm partnership; others
require pressure and advocacy with the relevant agencies.

6. Recognises the key role that individual authorities need to play to improve travel
and accessibility within their areas, and how decisions made here can have a
significant impact on inter-urban travel.

7. Involves the mksm partnership in an important continuing role to.

- keep this agenda in front of government – both DfT and CLG – and the
national agencies it needs to influence (Highways Agency and Network Rail)

- inform the regional spatial plan review process currently being led by the
regions, and engage the regions in supporting the transport agenda
identified, both for the regional DaSTS process generally and for the
recommended DaSTS studies in particular – emphasising the particular
aspects of the transport plans which are essential to support and sustain the
ambitious growth agenda for the sub-region

- inform the LTP3 process led by the local transport authorities, identifying the
connections with the sub-regional agenda, and supporting those aspects of
the local transport plans which contribute to connectivity across the sub-
region

- provide leadership for the issues, identified above, which need concerted
sub-region-wide action

16