Post on 13-Feb-2018
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
1/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Nov 09
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
2/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Nov 09
INTERIM ADVICE NOTE 111/09
Managed Motorwaysimplementation guidance Hardshoulder running
Summary
Provides guidance on implementation ofManaged Motorways schemes incorporatingHard Shoulder Running (HSR)
Instructions for Use
This document replaces IAN 111/08
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
3/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page i Nov 09
Amendments
The main changes from IAN 111 Version 1 (May 30th2008) 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
4/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 ERAsand further advice on the width dimension and implementation on gradients.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
5/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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. Generalamendments.
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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
6/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page iv Nov 09
Document Map
Section Contents Page
1. About thisDocument
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 4-194.2 The TAME MM-HSR spreadsheet model 4-20
4.3 Other Economic Impact Assumptions for the effect of MM-HSR4-21
5. EnvironmentalAssessment
5.1 Introduction 5-23
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. SafetyConsiderations
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
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
7/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page v Nov 09
7. LegislativeRequirements
7.1 Introduction 7-52
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 8-578.2 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. Technology9.1 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
9.16 Ramp Metering 9-107
9.17 Commissioning of Equipment 9-108
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
8/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page vi Nov 09
10.Infrastructure10.1 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
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
9/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 1-1 of 170 Nov 09
1 Document Map - Section 1
Section
1. About thisDocument
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
2. Overview of MM-HSR
3. FactorsInfluencing MM-HSR Installation
4. EconomicAppraisal
5. EnvironmentalAssessment
6. SafetyConsiderations
7. LegislativeRequirements
8. Operations
9. Technology
10. Infrastructure
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
10/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 arecovered separately.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
11/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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
(NetServ.ITSRG@highways.gsi.gov.uk) 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
realisticallyachievable. 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
12/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 issueson 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
13/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 leadsto 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 bringingforward 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) Pilotbetween 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
(NetServ.ITSRG@highways.gsi.gov.uk) early in the option assessment phase.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
14/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 NetworkOperations (NO) operated from an existing Regional Control Centre.
1A motorway link is defined as the carriageway between two adjacent junctions.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
15/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 economicassessments. 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
(NetServ.ITSRG@highways.gsi.gov.uk) so that it can be incorporated into future updates.
8. Operations
Scheme Inception
3. Factors Influencing
Installation
4. Economic
Appraisal
5. Environmental
Assessment
7. LegalRequirements
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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
16/179
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
17/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 2-9 of 170 Nov 09
2 Document Map - Section 2
Section
1. About thisDocument
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. FactorsInfluencing MM-HSR Installation
4. EconomicAppraisal
5. EnvironmentalAssessment
6. SafetyConsiderations
7. LegislativeRequirements
8. Operations
9. Technology
10. Infrastructure
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
18/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 ofbenefits 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 Pilo t
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 technology3in 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.
2Useful information on the M42 ATM Pilot scheme (J3A J7) is available at http://www.highways.gov.uk/atm
3Note: the most up-to-date generation of signals and signs was used on the M42 ATM Pilot Scheme. While theunderlying scheme technology remains standard, innovative applications of this technology have been used tomeet the scheme objectives.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
19/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 issafe 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
20/179
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
21/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 3-13 of 170 Nov 09
3 Factors inf luencing 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 thetype 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
22/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 solut ion
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 wellas 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
23/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 tobe 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 junct ion 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
24/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 HardShoulder. For very short link lengths, advice should be sought from Highways Agency
NetServ (NetServ.ITSRG@highways.gsi.gov.uk).
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-HSRimplementation.
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.
4A section is the length of carriageway between adjacent signal gantries.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
25/179
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
26/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 4-18 of 170 Nov 09
4 Document Map - Section 4
Section
1. About thisDocument
2. Overview of MM-HSR
3. FactorsInfluencing MM-HSR Installation
4. EconomicAppraisal
Contents
4.1 Introduction 4-19
4.2 The TAME MM-HSR spreadsheet model 4-204.3 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-HSRscheme.
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. EnvironmentalAssessment
6. SafetyConsiderations
7. LegislativeRequirements
8. Operations
9. Technology
10. Infrastructure
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
27/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 2assessment 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
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
28/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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-Minimum5,
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 delaysand 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.
5This is D3M with the fitment of automatic queue protection
6See Section 8.8 regarding operating speed
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
29/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 4-21 of 170 Nov 09
4.3 Other Economic Impact Assumptions for the Effect of MM-HSR
An INCAassessment 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 costsover the projected life of the scheme including any increased staff costs (e.g. traffic officers/
control room operators).
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
30/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-22 of 170 Nov 09
5 Document Map - Section 5
Section
1. About thisDocument
2. Overview of MM-HSR
3. FactorsInfluencing MM-HSR Installation
4. EconomicAppraisal
5. EnvironmentalAssessment
Contents Page
5.1 Introduction 5-23
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 Assessment and Potential Generic Mitigation Strategies
5-32
5.6 Earthwork and Structures Design Philosophy
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 anenvironmental assessment process, based on currently available dataand experience of previous and ongoing projects
Potential environmental impacts arising from the implementation of anMM-HSR scheme
Potential mitigation strategies to avoid, minimise or offset any adverseimpacts
Earthworks and Drainage design philosophies
6. SafetyConsiderations
7. LegislativeRequirements
8. Operations
9. Technology
10. Infrastructure
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
31/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 toMM-HSR schemes
Potential environmental impacts arising from the implementation of an MM-HSRscheme
Potential mitigation strategies to avoid, minimise or offset any adverse impacts
A summary of anticipated outcomes of an environmental assessment process, basedon currently available data and experience of previous and ongoing projects.
5.2 Need for an Environmental Assessment and Procedural Pathway
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 Agencys current
guidance HA200/08, HD 47/08 and HD48/08. For advice on any environmental assessment
or design issues contact the Highways Agencys NetServ Regional Environmental Advisors
(REA) who can be contacted through NetServ.ITSRG@highways.gsi.gov.uk.
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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
32/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 anenvironment 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 SoSs
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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
33/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 schemes 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:
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
34/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 existingimpacts 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 followingtopic areas including their likely impacts are likely to be the main areas to assess and report
on.
Ai r Quality: Air Quality is likely to be in scope for most projects due to the potentialimpacts (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 andsufficient 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-HSRprojects 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
35/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-27 of 170 Nov 09
Disruption due to Construction - No significant long term impacts can beanticipated 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 MMHSR
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 dueto 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, eachproject 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
36/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-28 of 170 Nov 09
Landscape Effects This is a subject which is likely to in scope. For MM-HSRschemes 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 fromsensitive 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, aroundstructures, 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 achange 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
37/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 bescoped 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 HGVs
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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
38/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 3Aand 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 wouldrecommend 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 highwayboundaries, 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 thehardened area of the carriageway.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
39/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-31 of 170 Nov 09
Policies and Plans generally not applicable, not anticipated to directly impact onthe 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 isbased 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 astrategic overview and local scale and to map existing constraints and sensitivities to
MM-HSR. Information to be obtained from the HAs 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 andmeetings 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 extentshave 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
40/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
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 datautilised in the assessment process, should then be located in a further support
volume(s).
Projects are reminded of the need to consider potential for Cumulativeenvironmental 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 aspractical and avoidance of removal or damage to existing trees and shrubs.
No spoil piles should be left on site, material excavated during trench works shouldbe 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 toinstall the infrastructure to reduce the overall footprint of disturbance.
The adoption and application of a hierarchical approach to the selection of suitableearthworks 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 systemsand consideration of the requirement for visual barriers where space may be
restricted.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
41/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-33 of 170 Nov 09
The use of new tree and shrub planting within the highway boundary to restorescreening 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 Pilotbetween 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 thehighway 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, numberand, to avoid clutter.
Also consider the identification of wider mitigation opportunities such as offsiteplanting.
The decommissioning and removal of redundant infrastructure, and reinstatement offormer equipment sites.
The adoption of the drainage design, attenuation and pollution control mechanismswhere required. (See Section 5.7).
The potential provision of noise barriers following detailed assessment, in addition tothe 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
42/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-34 of 170 Nov 09
5.6 Earthwork and Structures Design Philosophy
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 thatmay 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 amountsof 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 450and 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 basedrequirements.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
43/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-35 of 170 Nov 09
System 1 - Slope Re-grading or Green Earthworks modi fication 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 aflowing sympathetic design solution.
The retention of as much of the higher vegetation cover as possible at any givenlocation, 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 itsviability 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 tooptimising the ecological benefits.
Consideration of the adoption of a biodegradable surface protection geotextile onsteeper 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 (preferablybiodegradable) 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 andecological 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-steepenedslopes, with particular attention given to transition details where there arerequirements 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.
7/23/2019 Horas Pico
44/179
Interim Advice Note 111 09Managed Motorways implementation guidance Hard shoulder running
IAN 111/09 Page 5-36 of 170 Nov 09
System 2 Green Faced Retention System
Further considerations when adopting this type of solution at any given location could
include;
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, soilnailing 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 structureand 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 geotechnicaldesign 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 soi