HEYSHAM-M6 LINK, NORTHERN ROUTE
APPRAISAL OF SCHEME JUSTIFICATION
SUMMARY
Transport Solutions for Lancaster and Morecambe (TSLM) commissioned a review of the case for the Heysham-M6 Link Northern Route submitted by Lancashire County Council to DfT for Programme Entry as a LTP Major Scheme. The review has found significant flaws in the presentation, in particular in the Major Scheme Business Case and its Annexes. The conclusion is that the scheme should be rejected, because of failings in both the scheme itself and the appraisal process as set out in WebTAG guidance.
The main issues are:-
Failure to fulfil overall objectives
Of the four overall objectives, the proposal only partially satisfies one (faster journey times to the Port of Heysham), which benefits only 2.5% of traffic on the network. On the other three:
- There is not significant relief of congestion even with the claimed reductions: on many roads there is little reduction, on most of the most congested routes there is not enough reduction to make much difference, and induced traffic will erode the effects of any temporary relief to a greater extent than is suggested
- Contrary to claims in the MSBC, the scheme does not create worthwhile opportunities to improve provision for walking, cycling and public transport. The opportunities are either already there or not possible even with the new road in place, because of the high residual levels of traffic on most of the existing road network. The only tangible new provision, for a footway/ cycleway along the new road, is unattractive and will not be well used
- Regeneration benefits are at best unproven, and at worst illusory
Failure to follow appraisal guidance
The most significant failing in the bid is to follow WebTAG appraisal guidance in many areas. The most important of these are:-
- Option identification, appraisal, distillation to front runners and rejected options, audit trail for rejected options, leading to identification of preferred scheme, next-best, low cost alternative: there is no evidence whatsoever that this procedure has been followed
- The ‘next-best’ option presented (the ‘Western Route) is one which was comprehensively rejected almost a year before MSBC submission, which is clearly absurd: the Low Cost Alternative is an arbitrary and rather curious option, most of which (probably at least 80% of the scheme cost) involves upgrading the M6 slip-roads which is not a LTP responsibility. The next best and LCA options is not shown to have come out of an option distillation process, so it is unverifiable that these were wise choices
- Shortcomings in consultation: stakeholder consultation, including with local communities, is embedded in NATA, and is integral at the stages of defining objectives, option identification, appraisal, and endorsement of choice of front runner/ rejected options. This procedure has not been followed: there appears to have been little or no public consultation on an actual Northern Route option until it was presented as the preferred scheme, and there has been no effective public participation
- Flaws in detailed appraisal, either in basic information levels (heritage aspects), areas of coverage (noise, air quality), or transfer of findings from worksheets to AST
- Failure to use appraisal findings meaningfully: in particular the serious adverse impacts on landscape and townscape have been reported rather than evaluated, and play no part in the Value for Money assessment, which they expressly should under WebTAG.
- Lack of NATA documentation: the presentation of the appraisal is haphazard in its use of NATA documents, which defeats the purpose of having a consistent format of appraisal presentation in order to assist decisions. Examples include: absence of ASTs on rejected options (inevitable, given the absence of alternative options); no worksheets on biodiversity appraisal; no systematic presentation of supporting analyses, including dispassionate reporting of public acceptability and responses to this issue; no “distillation towards the final summary” (WebTAG Unit 2.5) or final appraisal summary with summary sheets on appraisal strands.
A central concept of the NATA approach, of a systematic working towards an optimum solution, with an audit trail explaining each decision at each stage, is absent.
Regional issues
RPG 13 does not call for a new road link to the port of Heysham, but for improvements to the road link. Its policies point towards new road construction being the option of last resort, with the emphasis on making best use of existing infrastructure, maximising the potential for modal transfer, incorporating all modes into solutions, and only considering roads after a thorough examination of all possible solutions. Lancashire CC have not provided evidence that they have done all these things: even a claim in the MSBC that they have a track record on sustainable transport falls short of integration into the solution, since almost all ‘soft measures’ are happening independently of the new road proposal, and are separately funded.
An improved link to Heysham is a regional transport priority, but in the recent regional prioritisation exercise the Northern Route proposal failed to make the top quartile of regional priority transport schemes. It appears to be in effect the 18th highest priority out of 72 schemes in NW England.
Public consultation
The main issues have been covered under appraisal guidance above. Specific shortcomings in such consultation as did occur are reported by TSLM in the appendix to the main report.
Traffic modelling
There are many issues of detail, but the main point is that the implied long-term reduction in traffic levels on existing roads purported to be relieved by the Northern Route is at odds with recent experience of traffic effects of new roads. In a situation where there is serious congestion, and at least 70% of existing traffic will not reassign to the new road because it does not serve those trips, it is illusory to pretend that traffic levels will not rise back towards the current situation fairly rapidly, especially in the absence of significant demand management measures fully integrated into the solution. In any case, many local roads are not relieved to any extent.
Scheme design
The treatment of the M6 junction area is extremely convoluted and does not come across as a good design solution. It almost certainly contributes to the very high scheme cost of £118 million (and rising).
Cost issues
- The Value for Money assessment is weak, relies too much on the BCR and unproven regeneration benefits, and does not include non-monetised issues, such as landscape impact, which generally have an adverse effect on the scheme value: a satisfactory ‘overall net value’ figure has not been given
- Costs are almost inevitably going to increase due to the Environment Agency objections, which to be satisfied involve a significant increase in the Lune bridge span length
- The scheme cost is very high, at £118 million for a 4.8km road, and there appears to be no prospect of funding from elsewhere, to minimise the cost to the public sector
Conclusion
The Heysham-M6 Link Northern Route is the product of a decision making process which decided a long time ago that a new road was the solution to accessibility problems on the Morecambe/ Heysham peninsula. The choice lay between a western and northern route, and once the western route was decisively rejected in 2004 the northern route became the preferred scheme. Although current appraisal guidance calls for in effect a “blank sheet” at the start of the process of defining a preferred option for new LTP major schemes, with a wide range of possible solutions, no preferred modal solution in mind, and a requirement to explore synergies between different types of solution, this was never the case with the current proposal.
As a solution to current congestion problems on the local road network the Northern Route is futile. The wide range of possible solutions involving less drastic, and less damaging, increases in road capacity have not been adequately identified and appraised, and until this is done there should be no question of this scheme proceeding any further.
Download the full Report (132 Kb pdf file) here