Agenda item

( Report by Head of Network Management)

(1)       The report provided information on the progress of the proposed HA Tactical Diversion Routes.  The Traffic Management Act, and its specific Network Management Duties, emphasised the need for adjacent highway Authorities to work together to reduce congestion on the network.

(2)       It was the duty of the local traffic authority to manage their road network with a view to securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network and facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for bordering authorities. This meant that we must proactively manage traffic on the network even if the traffic was a result of an incident caused on any bordering traffic authority’s network, and included the Highways Agency motorway & trunk road network.

(3)       Over several months we had been working with the HA to identify suitable Tactical Diversion Routes. The success of the work and the progress made over a short period of time had been as a result of each authority’s willingness to work harmoniously together to improve how we dealt with the aftermath of congestion as a result of traffic incidents on the motorway and trunk road network.

(4)       The Tactical Diversion Routes would be used to divert traffic off the HAs network onto KCC roads to assist in incident management. These would only be used as a last resort. The HA would use its variable message signs to implement Strategic Diversions using its own roads first. In Kent this would involve advance signing from M25 and beyond. When an incident closed a section of motorway at present traffic was given no directions when it was forced to leave the motorway. The purpose of signing a diversion route was to manage the situation. Local traffic might still make its own decision about the route to take but longer distance traffic would be seeking guidance and should be expected to follow the signed route.

(5)       The procedure for identifying routes was set out in the National Guidance Framework. This detailed that whilst the HA and local traffic authority would bear their own costs for identifying routes, the HA would fund the introduction of the route, including sign design and, if appropriate, make a contribution to an improvement on a local road to facilitate the establishment of the tactical diversion. We chose M20 Junctions 2 to 13 to pilot the procedure. There were already a number of de facto diversions in the area and suitable roads linking with M2.

(6)       Plans of all the potential routes were drawn up and were then assessed on a risks basis recognising that the potentially high volumes of traffic would be difficult to handle on local roads. We identified certain areas as unsuitable for use, such as A20 through Ditton and all town centre routes in Maidstone, and these had been excluded.

(7)       The most suitable route for each section of motorway was then examined in detail. KHS surveyed the routes and made proposals for various improvements that would mitigate the impact of the diverted traffic. The improvements had been agreed and would be funded by the HA.  The routes identified were principally on 'A' roads or major strategic routes that were capable of occupying large volumes of traffic at any given time.

(8)       KHS and HA were currently preparing costs for the improvements in order to get the necessary funding from the HA. The majority of the work comprised signing the route, with agreed symbols fixed to KHS signs, some carriageway markings, improvements to traffic signal operations to allow special timings to be introduced remotely and some other small measures. Each route would only be available for use once the work was complete.

(9)       In the event of an incident on the HA network that required the activation of a Tactical Diversion route, the implementation would only be with the agreement of KHS. We would need to compile information on conditions on the route, including roadworks, events and other conditions which would prevent the use of the route. This would be a responsibility of our Network Management Team. We would look to combine all the factors into a common database and make them available to the HA through a preferred system called eLGIN (Electronic Local Government Information Network).

(10)     Once the initial routes had been formally agreed and the process for establishing and operating the routes was understood, it was intended to carry out the same process for the remaining motorway and trunks roads across the County. A proposed implementation timeline was included in the report and would be delivered subject to the authorisation from KHS of the proposed routes and approval from the Highways Agency to implement the recommended route improvements.  Further routes would be reported to the Highways Advisory Board in the coming months for information.

(11)     The Board noted the report.