Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013
PRESENT: Pc Britt Birch
Chris Blanksby
David Carter
Greg Challis
Mick Coley
Brent Collier
Tim Hale
- South Yorkshire Police
- Motorist
- Motorist
- Transport Strategy, Sheffield Council
Institute of Advanced Motorists
Network Management, Sheffield
-
Council
-
Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
Cllr Chris Rosling-Josephs - Chairman, Cabinet Advisor, Transport
Vernon Silcock - Amey (Streets Ahead project)
GUESTS
1.
Andy Sturrock
Haydn Vernals
Pete Vickers
Andy Kirk
Bruce Nowell
- Motorist
- Motorist
- Highway Network management,
-
Sheffield Council
- Highways Agency
- Mouchel
INTRODUCTION
Cllr Chris Rosling-Josephs welcomed everyone to the meeting.
ACTION
2.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies had been received from Councillor Ian Auckland, Robert
Baybutt, Steve Robinson and Mick Wardle.
3.
THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY M1 MANAGED MOTORWAYS
SCHEMES J32-35A a) Andy Kirk, Highways Agency Project Manager and Bruce
Nowell from contractor Mouchel introduced themselves to the meeting. Andy Kirk explained that part of his role was to look at the opportunities for savings between the two schemes -- Junction 32 to 35A and the adjoining J28 to
31. b) Bruce Nowell took Forum members through a presentation on the Managed Motorways project for J32-
J35A. The expected outcomes were

Additional capacity

Lower costs and reduced environmental impact compared to traditional road widening schemes, with no additional build other than in refuge areas

Reduced impact, so quicker to deliver with less disruption

Unlocking capacity to offer congestion relief and improved
Page 1 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013 journey time reliability

Improved driver compliance and behaviour

Maintenance of at least the current level of road safety using a controlled environment c) The J32-35A scheme linked to the M18 and Stocksbridge bypass exits and, to the south, from J28 South
Normanton to where the road widening ended at J31.
There would be likely conversion to mandatory traffic signals between J31 and J32 in order to give consistency for the motorist from J25 through to J35A. d) Further north again there was work between J39 and
J42, dovetailing with the current scheme on the M62, showing the extent of the HA programme on this key stretch of motorway. e) The scheme worked by conversion of the existing hard shoulder to a permanent running lane, giving four lanes in each direction around the clock. Emergency refuge areas, with emergency roadside telephones, were provided every 1.8kms to 2.5kms where the hard shoulder was in use. A concrete central reserve safety barrier was provided throughout on the J32-35A and J28-
31 schemes. f) Control mechanisms included comprehensive CCTV along with variable speed limits displayed on overhead gantries and on the side of the motorway. These indicated lane availability and advisory speed limits, with signals every 1 to 1.5kms. g) A computer system for queue protection and congestion prevention, known as MIDAS, measured the flow and speed and also the volume and speed of traffic. This enabled it to smooth the flow and prevent too sharp braking by vehicles which was the cause of much delay at present. h) Driver compliance improved as a result of the controls in place via VMS panel signs which were deployed more frequently to show lane availability with pictogram facility to alert for example in the event of accidents, speed limits etc. Text would be the standard two lines with a maximum of 12 characters per line. i) At most junctions there will be four lane through running, with lane drop/gain at junctions 33 (Parkway) and 34
(Meadowhall) because of the very significant amount of traffic leaving or joining the motorway at these junctions.
In future, therefore, there will be three lanes open to traffic over Tinsley viaduct itself. j) Safety had been studied in detail. The reduction in congestion meant less likelihood of “tail end shunts” and this, combined with the improved driver behaviour on managed motorways, maintained the current safety levels and so was felt to be appropriate and safe. There was a different safety target for road workers, determined
Page 2 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013 by the Health and Safety at Work Act. k) The emphasis was primarily on congestion relief and a series of public information events had been staged in
January 2013, with more to come during the year. l) The next thing that the motoring public would notice would be work on the central reserve, which was planned in any case. No date had yet been set for the main construction as governance issues were still being dealt with, but the aspiration was to get on site in 2013/14.
There was a need to manage the work in relation to other schemes in order to minimise the impact. m) The Chairman thanked Bruce Nowell for his presentation and invited questions and comments from the Forum.
Tim Hale said that he had noted the comments about how Variable Speed Limits would lead to a safer motorway. He wanted to know how imposition of unnecessary speed limits would be prevented, particularly if there were problems with traffic detection as was the case on Sheffield’s roads. Responding, Andy
Kirk said that at least 90per cent of the road loops were working correctly and that this enabled automated traffic control which operated effectively elsewhere on the network. However it was not a wireless system, as further work was still needed to improve this type of detection.
Further responding to Tim Hale, Andy Kirk confirmed that in the event of a power failure the system would switch off until it was reset, so in this sense it was the same as any other motorway. n) Haydn Vernals said that there were safety concerns, including from the police, which needed to be addressed.
The number of cameras was dependent on the number of gantries and there were questions as to whether there were sufficient to safely enforce the scheme. Andy Kirk said that there were enough gantries and that a new camera that could be deployed from the motorway side was also undergoing Home Office approval. This could cover all four lanes and had been developed since the
M42 scheme. The HA was aware of South Yorkshire
Police (SYP) concerns and there were operational aspects that needed to be resolved because of the way that SYP worked. o) Further responding to Haydn Vernals about whether the scheme would go ahead without SYP approval, Andy
Kirk said that police support would be required for enforcement. However, the outstanding issues were about operational procedures and not the design itself. p) Responding to Chris Blanksby, Andy Kirk confirmed that there were areas of the highway that might be partially obscured and so could not be seen by the existing cameras. However it was not felt to be value for money to install further cameras to be able to monitor such areas.
Page 3 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013 q) Chris Blanksby further asked about the policy on narrowing lanes under road bridges. Andy Kirk explained that it would be possible to squeeze some additional carriageway width by narrowing the central reservation when the new, concrete barriers were installed and that substantial lengths of narrow lanes were not required. r) Additionally Chris Blanksby thought that a safety point worth considering was the similarity between 50 and 60 as figures when displayed as speed limits. Perhaps a flashing indicator to highlight the change in maximum speed between the two might be considered to prevent heavy and sudden braking by people mistakenly believing they had seen the lower limit. Andy Kirk said that it was an automated system and was not set up for such a change. Drivers would ha ve a “period of grace” to adjust their speed when limits changed, but driver education and awareness was the key to compliance.
(Post meeting note
– the HA have looked further into this and advise that they have little evidence to suggest sudden braking occurs in a managed motorways environment. The speed limit is visible from 350m away from the point at which the speed limit applies, giving drivers plenty of time to adjust their speed. Flashing a mandatory speed limit would not be legal, without a legislation change, and is considered likely to be a distraction).
s) Tim Hale wanted to know if the enforcement cameras would be visible, yellow boxes as elsewhere on the wider road network. Andy Kirk said that they would be speed cameras not safety cameras, but there were enforcement signals to show that the cameras were present. Their purpose was to control traffic by speed enforcement. Tim
Hale felt that cameras needed to be visible to the driver, as signs did not automatically mean that there was a camera there. Fining motorists was not necessarily the right approach and would lead people to conclude that the cameras were for raising revenue. Andy Kirk said that the number of people fined by the system was only a very small percentage given the high volumes of traffic. t) Responding to Tim Hale’s question about whether there was a conflict between the safety agenda and speeding fines, Bruce Nowell confirmed that tickets would be issued by the police at a threshold which they would determine. u) David Carter referred to a report from the DfT which suggested that national speed limits were not enforced at
70mph and asked if it was proposed to use average speed cameras. Andy Kirk said that it was up to police to enforce national speed limits. On managed motorways fixed cameras were used although there may have been trials on other roads using average speed cameras.
Page 4 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013
4.
5. v) David Carter said that managed motorway speeds had proved effective elsewhere in the country and he was not aware that they were introduced for money raising purposes. They seemed to work in traffic flow terms by evening out the distances between vehicles to get better use of road capacity. w) Bruce Nowell explained that the construction phase of the scheme was useful in getting motorists used to driving at 50mph in narrower lanes during roadworks.
Three lanes would remain open at all times. x) Responding to Haydn Vernals’ question about dealing with engineering issues at certain structures, Andy Kirk said that in some cases it might be necessary to remove the adverse camber. It could also involve lowering the carriageway, or even raising the height of bridges. y) Tim Hale asked if, given the increase from three to four lanes, it would be helpful to have Keep Left signs to prevent people blocking the overtaking lanes. Andy Kirk said that the HA was aware of the issue and strategically located signs would be used to remind drivers about lane discipline. David Carter added that lane discipline was important and “Get in Lane” now signs, such as on the
M60, were useful. The danger arose when people made their lane changing manoeuvre too early or very late, causing conflict. z) Haydn Vernals said that as work got underway it was important that information was available via the HA website. Andy Kirk, concluding the session, said that when a site office was established for the J32
– 35A scheme, the Highways Agency would create a Traffic
Management Regional Forum to help gather and feed in views from the local area.
MINUTES OF THE MOTORISTS FORUM 13.12.12 a) With the addition of two minor amendments, these were accepted as a correct record.
MATTERS ARISING / UPDATE ON ACTIONS a) Pc Britt Birch drew attention to the discussion at the
December Forum about the Streets Ahead work in
Shiregreen and referred to the experimental road markings. Pc Birch said that there had been a formal road safety audit which had agreed that all existing road marking should be replaced by conventional Give Way markings. Discussions continued between the audit team and the head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services about regularising the markings which were a legal requirement at junctions which had a Give Way sign. b) Pete Vickers, Highways Network Management, drew attention to a Department for Transport website providing comparative accident statistics from across the UK. c) Haydn Vernals reported that the access issues reported at 7k) had been resolved.
Page 5 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013 d) Tim Hale suggested that the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry would benefit from some guidance as to how to prepare a questionnaire about lift sharing.
6.
HIGHWAYS PFI – UPDATE FROM CONTRACTOR AMEY ON
STREETS AHEAD PROJECT a) Vernon Silcock (VS), Amey Community Assembly steward, introduced the item by displaying the new website which captured all the road works and potential disruption in Sheffield in one place. Forum members were favourably impressed with this new online tool that enabled them to see at a glance what was happening with the Streets Ahead programme and associated utility works across the city. b) VS said that there were two simple routes to the website, via roadworks.org.uk, or at the Streets Ahead page on the Sheffield Council website. It showed in detail what was happening in local areas, with a RAG rating where red meant to expect delays, amber being possible delays and green meaning things should be OK. c) Responding to Tim Hale about maintenance of the website, Pete Vickers explained that it was updated automatically when notices and permits were issued onto the Council’s street works register by the Highways Coordination team. Utility companies in particular were able to take advantage of it as a planning tool. There were other spin off benefits to the Council, where the site could be used by the Customer Contact Centre to direct people where to find the information and offer it to them directly.
Vernon Silcock said that a communications plan was being developed to get the information more widely known with the public and stakeholders. d) Brent Collier said that the system used a Google base map and improvements to the website were being worked on, including real time information. Pete Vickers said this would include a facility that to send text / email alerts about disruption to people who registered their regular routes, thus helping people to make informed travel choices. e) Tim Hale thought that the site would benefit for directional indicators. The road works symbol could usefully include details of which point on the compass that disruption was likely. f) Pete Vickers said that the next stage was to align this with information from the Highways Agency so that it became a truly national and comprehensive site. g) Vernon Silcock pointed out that Streets Ahead work was starting to step up now, in Wisewood, Stannington and
Walkley, Effingham, Mosborough, Totley and Manor. The
Page 6 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013 approach was to work first on street lighting and footpaths and finally carriageways. h) Pete Vickers added that the majority of works so far had taken place on more minor roads, but the focus was now moving to more major routes. This meant that in some cases, such as the A621 Abbeydale Road South, and
Twentywell Lane / Mickley Lane, there was no option but to close them during work. However, the majority of closures would be overnight. i) Haydn Vernals said that the Forum had spoken for some time about the advantages of reducing the number of traffic signals and road signs and the Streets Ahead project was the ideal opportunity to do this. He was therefore surprised to see the “like for like” replacement of traffic signals at the exit to Meadowhall Park and Ride when this would be ideal for a mini-roundabout. j) Andy Sturrock noted that the rate of progress on certain jobs seemed disappointing
– seven weeks to re-cable at one set of traffic signals, for example. Responding,
Vernon Silcock explained that more complex technology was now being deployed to allow for LED control of traffic signals. k) Chris Blanksby enquired about Twentywell Lane resurfacing. VS explained the general approach to determining if resurfacing was required. He said information on the conditions of the highway was gathered and prioritised via the Schemebuilder computer programme. As with any such application, it was only as effective as the information which was inputted and some roads were not fully tracked. As further details were gathered, anomalies were being ironed out. Pete Vickers emphasised that common sense would overlay this approach. On Twentywell Lane, another look was being taken and this would determine whether resurfacing took place. l) Mick Coley, attending on behalf of the Institute of
Advanced Motorists (IAM), said street surveys should also take into account pothole information submitted via
Fix My Street online reporting. m) Andy Sturrock described problems when he contacted the new “help centre” to report potholes. They were not able to take a note of the problem and requested that he ring back. When he did ring back there was an insistence on leaving a name and address in order to receive an update, which he didn’t want to do. His impression was someone working from a script, with a lack of flexibility in dealing with individual callers. n) Responding to David Carter, Pete Vickers explained that although the Parkway wa s in Rotherham Council’s area,
Sheffield was also involved as a result of the knock-on impact of pending repair work. This would be largely
Page 7 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013
7.
8. done overnight, although Pc Britt Birch pointed out that there would be some diversions in force at weekends also.
LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN 3 (2011-26) – UPDATE ON FUNDING
POSITION a) There was insufficient time to discuss this item. It was agreed that a written report would be circulated to members for information.
ITEMS RAISED BY FORUM MEMBERS a) Tim Hale drew attention to continuing traffic congestion problems outside Weston Park hospital. Greg Challis referred to the reply made before the meeting by Simon
Botterill, Sheffield Council traffic management, which explained that road engineering options here were limited. Haydn Vernals suggested that there was also an onus on the hospital itself to address the additional demand that they were generating. A reply had been requested from the hospital. b) Pete Vickers updated the Forum on Inner Ring Road traffic signal timings , an issue which had previously been raised by Mick Wardle and other members. In the past we had been restricted by the available funding to working on traffic signal timings largely in isolation. What was required was a more comprehensive project to model the entire area and the resources had been secured to do so, looking at the section from the Rutland
Road junction on Penistone Road to the Parkway. c) Brent Collier explained that the work was funded by the
Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF), and aimed at improving transport links in the Upper Don and Lower
Don valleys. Additional automated equipment would allow for more interventions to help reduce the variability in journey times. Capacity on the Inner Ring Road was finite but it was still possible to squeeze more from it.
However there was no “miracle cure” and it was important to combine this with other initiatives.
Staggering journey times in particular would help to reduce the burden on the road which reached its peak between 17:00 and 17:20. d) Chris Blanksby felt that there were shortcomings with the design of the road which did not join up together and had too many traffic lights. David Carter wondered if it was possible to make improvements in traffic flow by looking at even this section in isolation. e) Brent Collier explained that there were limitations on capacity, principally caused by three stage signalised junctions which inevitably caused traffic conflicts. The alternative was “grade separation” and urban motorways and the Department for Transport had been clear that
ACTION 7a)
Greg Challis to circulate written report on Local
Transport funding
ACTION:
8a) Greg
Challis to provide a summary of the issues at this location
Page 8 of 9

Minutes of Sheffield Motorists Forum, 21 March, 2013
9.
10. they were not funding that kind of scheme. f) Responding to Haydn Vernals, Brent Collier said that there were few opportunities for altering road markings so the emphasis was on re-timing the traffic signals and keeping the road well maintained.
FORUM MEMBERSHIP – POTENTIAL VACANCY a) Greg Challis reported that there was currently one vacancy on the Forum. This would bring the membership up to 10 motorists which had proved a workable number over the five years that it had been functioning. A second vacancy may arise if Mick Wardle is to leave, although he had indicated he wished to continue serving on the
Forum for the time being. b) It was agreed that invitations should be extended to potential new members and that anyone interested in serving on the Forum should be referred to Greg Challis.
Dates of meetings in 2013: (4.30pm at Sheffield Town Hall)
Thursday 20 June
Thursday 19 September
Thursday 12 December
Page 9 of 9