Leeds Core Strategy Submission Draft – Examination in Public
Statement of the Highways Agency
Introduction
This Statement has been prepared by the Highways Agency for consideration in Session 8 of the
Examination in Public (EiP) of the proposed Leeds City Council Core Strategy concerning transport
matters.
It provides the following information:

Recent Engagement of the Highways Agency in Core Strategy development

The Agency’s responses to recent Core Strategy consultations

The Leeds Infrastructure Study

Summary
Recent Engagement of the Highways Agency in Core Strategy development
In November 2011 the City Council and the Agency jointly commissioned a consultant to undertake a
piece of work to better understand and establish the traffic impact of different development
scenarios.
Using the evidence gathered on development scenarios established through the above work the
Agency has also undertaken a strategic modelling exercise using a mesoscopic model to provide a
better assessment of the traffic impact of the Core Strategy proposals of the five Districts in West
Yorkshire. The Agency has worked closely with each Authority to understand their respective
development plans. The Agency has modeled the cumulative impact of the five West Yorkshire
Authorities developments plans, producing individual Infrastructure Studies for each district.
The Leeds Infrastructure Study commenced in March 2013 when information became available on
the District-wide and Leeds city centre transport strategies. The Agency submitted its draft Leeds
Infrastructure Study to the City Council at the beginning of September 2013, marking the beginning
of a period of discussion that it is anticipated will lead to the emergence of an agreed approach to
managing the impact of development on the SRN over the next 15 years.
An initial response has been received from the Council in relation to the Leeds Infrastructure Study
which indicates its continued commitment to working with the Highways Agency to understand the
potential impacts of the development proposals in the Core Strategy on the SRN and to identify
schemes that will be required to address some of the issues.
1
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913
The Infrastructure Schedule in the April 2013 version of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan contained a
list of schemes that broadly corresponded with the Agency’s plans and intentions at that time. The
Agency is anticipating that the output of its Leeds Infrastructure Study will lead to changes to the
Infrastructure Schedule once discussions on the report have taken place with the City Council and a
mutually satisfactory set of measures has been agreed. We would also expect the Infrastructure
Study to feed into the Route-based strategies that the Agency is currently producing
The Agency’s responses to recent Core Strategy consultations
When the Agency was consulted on the Core Strategy Publication Draft early in 2012 the scale and
distribution of proposed new development was clear but there was still a degree of uncertainty about
the supporting District-wide transport strategy and the transport strategy for Leeds city centre. In
particular, the development and agreement of a management strategy for the M621 and its junctions
with the local primary road network by the Agency and the Council was inhibited by the lack of a firm
route for an extension of the city centre ‘Loop’ road in the south west quadrant of the city centre.
In responding to the consultation on the proposed Revisions to the Core Strategy Publication Draft
early in 2013, the Agency was able to draw on the upgraded version of the Network Analysis Tool
(NAT) spreadsheet model. The following areas were identified to be of particular concern to the
Agency in terms of capacity after completion of the committed M1 and M62 Managed Motorway
schemes:

The full length of the M621.

The M1 between junctions 44 and 46 (reflecting Aire Valley developments and increasing use of
the A63 route into the city centre via the East Leeds Link Road).

The M62 at junction 30 (in Wakefield) and the approaches to the Lofthouse Interchange (the
M1/M62 intersection).

The A1(M) north of the merge with the M1 (at 2028).
These are the issues that were highlighted in the list of Matters and Issues identified for
consideration in Session 8 of the Examination on Transport circulated by the Programme Officer on
5th August 2013.
In drafting its response to the consultation on the proposed Revisions to the Core Strategy
Publication Draft, the Agency took the approach that the proposals would be sound if agreement
could be reached with the City Council on the measures needed to mitigate the traffic impact on the
SRN of the Core Strategy development proposals.
The Leeds Infrastructure Study
During summer 2013 the Agency completed its assessment of the traffic impact of Core Strategy
development on the SRN and some of the main routes on the local primary road network. This
enabled completion by the Agency of a draft version of its Leeds Infrastructure Study and its
submission to the City Council for consideration at the beginning of September 2013.
2
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913
The primary purpose of the Leeds Infrastructure Study is to identify the potential operational impacts
on the SRN arising from the delivery of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD), and
the extent to which committed and potential new highway schemes would mitigate those impacts.
Modelling approach
The approach adopted in the modelling and the drafting of the study report is summarised below:

The mesoscopic model was developed with a base year of 2011 using a traffic matrix derived
from the City Council’s Leeds Traffic Model (LTM).

The LTM was also used to forecast traffic flows for the future years 2020 and 2028 based on the
pace and distribution of development as indicated in the City Council’s Core Strategy Submission
Draft (as it was understood in spring 2013) plus the development aspirations of the other four
West Yorkshire authorities. The resulting traffic matrix was then input to the mesoscopic model.

Highway schemes that were considered to be committed for completion by 2020 and 2028 were
included in the mesocopic model runs for 2020 and 2028.

The mesoscopic model outputs for 2020 and 2028 were scrutinised to identify the causes of
traffic congestion and delay in order to allow potential highway improvement schemes
addressing those problems to be developed in sufficient detail for modelling purposes.

Further runs of the mesoscopic model were undertaken for 2020 and 2028 with both committed
and potential new highway schemes to allow the impact of the potential new schemes to be
assessed.
Schemes at the following locations in and around Leeds District were included as committed in the
2020 runs of the mesoscopic model:

M1 junctions 39 (Durkar) – 42 (Lofthouse): Hard shoulder running and variable speed limit.

M1 junction 41 (Carr Gate).

M1 junction 44 (Rothwell Haigh).

M1 junction 45 (East Leeds Link).

M1 junction 46 (Colton).

M62 junctions 25 (Brighouse) - 30 (Rothwell): Hard shoulder running and variable speed limit.

M62 junction 27 (Gildersome).

M621 junction 7 (Stourton).

Signalisation of the A642/B6135 junction south of junction 30 of the M62.

Capacity enhancement in the Meadow Lane / Meadow Road / Victoria Road area north of M621
junction 3 (Holbeck).
3
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913
Committed Section 278 schemes or Highways Agency schemes elsewhere in West Yorkshire were
also included in the committed 2020 network, together with relevant committed schemes developed
by the other West Yorkshire local authorities. There were no committed schemes in the Leeds area
at 2028 in addition to those that were committed at 2020.
The following paragraphs summarise the indicative findings of the draft Leeds infrastructure Study.
The network at 2020
At 2020, the committed schemes (including hard shoulder running and variable speed limits on
sections of the M1 and M62) provide some benefits to the network. However, the mesoscopic model
identifies the following problem locations:

M1: Increased congestion and delay is apparent on several arms of M1 junction 42/M62 junction
29 (Lofthouse); a southbound evening peak traffic queue develops on the M1 between junctions
43 (M1/M621 merge) and 44; and less significant problems emerge on the A63 East Leeds Link
Road approach to junction 45 in the evening peak and southbound on the link road at junction 46
(Colton).

M62: In addition to the issues at junction 29 (Lofthouse), the queue on the westbound diverge at
junction 28 (Tingley) extends back onto the motorway mainline in both peaks and long queues
are predicted on the A650 and A653 northbound approaches to the junction in the morning peak
hour.

M621: Significant traffic congestion with queuing traffic is observed on the M621 in one or both
peak hours at junction 1 (Beeston), junction 2 (Elland Road), junction 3 (Holbeck), junction 5
(Tunstall), junction 6 (Belle Isle) and junction 7 (Stourton). In addition, the northbound queue on
the Ingram Distributor extends to or through junction 2 in both peaks and there is severe
congestion in both directions on Cemetery Road at junction 2a.
A total of ten potential new highways schemes were identified and tested in the mesoscopic model in
combination with the committed highway schemes. The main objectives of the proposed new
schemes were to improve the operation of the M621 motorway over its full length and to address
emerging congestion at M1 junction 46 Colton.
The mesoscopic model outputs indicated that these measures would provide significant relief on the
M621 and at M1 junction 46 at 2020. However, some issues remained on the M621 including
capacity issues at junction 7 (Stourton) and reduced, but still significant, queues on the motorway
and the Ingram Distributor at junction 2 (Elland Road). In addition, a longer outbound queue
developed on the A639 at M1 junction 44 (Rothwell Haigh) in the evening peak hour.
The network at 2028
At 2028, with the same committed schemes included in the modelled network as in 2020, the levels
of congestion and delay predicted were greater, with previously identified problems worse and new
problems emerging as follows:
4
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913

M1: Traffic congestion for most movements at M1 junction 42 / M62 junction 29 (Lofthouse)
increases with the M1 northbound queue in both peak hours extending back well past junction 41
(Carr Gate). There is queuing of southbound traffic on both the M1 and M621 approaches to
junction 43 (M1/M621 merge) in both peaks; traffic on the B6481 impedes the operation of the
gyratory at junction 44 (Rothwell Haigh); and the queues on the East Leeds Link Road at junction
45 and southbound on the link road at junction 46 become longer.

A1(M): Traffic flow breakdown is predicted at the M1/A1 junction resulting in the northbound
queue on the M1 in the evening peak extending back from the A1 to M1 junction 47 (Garforth)
and a morning peak hour westbound queue develops on the A64 approach to junction 44.

M62: The problems seen at 2020 at junction 28 (Tingley) are worse and a morning peak hour
eastbound queue on the motorway extends back from junction 27 (Gildersome) towards junction
26 (Chain Bar).

M621: The queues forming in both directions on the M621 at junction 3 (Holbeck) are much
longer than at 2020; peak traffic queues on the Ingram Distributor at junction 2 (Elland Road) are
much longer; and there is queuing back from M621 junction 7 (Stourton) to junction 6 (Belle Isle).
The 2028 mesoscopic model test of potential schemes included all of the additional interventions
tested for 2020 plus two additional schemes on the local road network and substantial alterations at
M621 junction 3 (Holbeck) and junction 4 (Tunstall). The additional schemes proposed at 2028 in
the Agency’s Infrastructure Study were found to provide significant benefits, reducing congestion,
queuing and delay on the M621 to an acceptable level.
The package of measures for the M621 suggested by the Agency addresses most of the main
problems anticipated at both 2020 and 2028. Compared to the situation without the proposed
additional interventions, there are no longer any significant impediments to traffic flow at junction 1
(Beeston). Queuing on the Ingram Distributor at junction 2 (Elland Road) and the M621 mainline at
junction 3 (Holbeck) is much reduced; and only minor turbulence remains at the anticlockwise
merges at junctions 4 (Hunslet) and 5 (Tunstall).
A capacity issue remains at the anticlockwise merge at junction 7 (Stourton), where site constraints
preclude any additional capacity at the merge. However, arrangements at this junction are still under
discussion with the design team for the New Generation Transport (NGT) trolleybus project and it
may be that a solution emerges from this process.
However, the schemes tested at 2020 and 2028 did not address either the capacity problems for
most movements at M1 junction 42 / M62 junction 29 (Lofthouse) or the southbound flow breakdown
at junction 43 (M1 / M621 merge) with southbound queuing back on both the M1 (to junction 44) and
the M621 (to junction 6 Belle Isle). Investigation by the Agency in recent years has indicated that
any schemes to deliver meaningful improvements to the operation of Lofthouse interchange and M1
junction 43 would be of a scale and nature that would not be fundable locally. A number of lesser
issues at 2028 were not addressed by schemes suggested in the Leeds Infrastructure Study. They
are listed below:
5
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913

Problems of queuing on the local road network still disrupt the operation of the gyratories at M1
junction 44 and there are still outbound evening queues on the East Leeds Link Road approach
to M1 junction 45 and southbound on the link road at M1 junction 46. Further work with the City
Council is needed to investigate these issues and identify potential solutions.

The M1 northbound queue back from the A1 junction to M1 junction 47 and the flow breakdown
at the M1/A1(M) intersection is not addressed by any of the additional schemes.

There are still long queues on the southern approaches to M62 junction 28 (Tingley) in the
morning peak hour and, in the evening peak hour, the queue on the M62 westbound diverge
extends back onto the motorway mainline with a long queue on the A650 westbound.
Limitations of the model
The testing of committed and additional schemes using the mesoscopic model indicated that some
of the key issues could be mitigated to at least acceptable levels. In particular, there is a potential
set of measures to mitigate the impact of development related traffic growth on the M621 motorway
that should provide a starting point for agreement of a satisfactory management strategy and
discussion of funding mechanisms that is acceptable to both the City Council and the Agency.
However, the measures needed to address the increasing problems of congestion and traffic
queuing at Lofthouse Interchange (M1 junction 42 / M62 junction 29), M1 junction 43 and the M1 /
A1(M) bifurcation near Aberford would be of a scale that it would be unrealistic to expect to be
funded locally.
Whilst the situation at 2020 can be predicted with relative certainty, it is more difficult to be confident
about the situation in 2028, which is well beyond. Although there will be a marked deterioration in
operating conditions at both junctions, the modelled output at 2028 should be considered as a worst
case scenario as there are ways in which future demand may be reduced that have not been
modelled. Some examples are given below:

The proposed Core Strategy identifies the quantity of housing development that is proposed in
sub-areas of the District. Different distributions of housing development in those sub-areas will
result in different levels of impact on the SRN. The degree of impact will only become clearer as
the Site Allocations Plan proceeds through the process of consultation, examination and
adoption.

The timing of development is governed not only by the timescales set out on the Core Strategy,
but also by the performance of the national and local economies and the state of the housing
market. Deviation from the scale and pace of Core Strategy development proposals will be
picked up through monitoring of progress and updating of the Strategy which could have the
effect of altering the scale of impact on the SRN in the medium and long terms.

The City Council, in its initial response to the draft Infrastructure Study, has drawn the Agency’s
attention to the recent realisation that there may be an over-provision of employment land in the
Core Strategy relation to forecast employment growth as a result of factors such as churn,
competition in the market and the availability of sites with existing consent. That over-provision
includes land for office employment in Leeds city centre. The consequence is that the traffic
6
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913
impact of employment development could be over-stated, particularly close to the city centre,
and that the forecasts contained in the Agency’s Infrastructure Study could represent a worst
case scenario.

Strengthening of demand management in the form of policies on parking supply and pricing in
and close to the city centre could constrain car travel into the city centre, although this is
addressed to an extent by assumptions in the modelling process.

Committed investment in the North Trans-Pennine railway and in Greater Manchester may well
affect mode share for Trans-Pennine travel, giving potential benefits on the M62.

As the cost of travel increases and communications technology continues to develop, the scale
of home-working is likely to increase thereby reducing demand for travel by all modes.

Future increases in the real cost of fuel are also likely to change the balance of cost and comfort
between private and public transport, therefore affecting mode choice and the need to travel.
Notwithstanding this, there is clearly a potential strategy for the management of the M621 motorway
that would address most of the problems on the route. At the time of submission of this Statement,
an initial response to the Agency’s Leeds Infrastructure Study has been received from Leeds City
Council, but the strategy remained to be discussed in detail. Some potential measures affect the
local primary road network and require investigation by the City Council which could either result in
their being taken forward or different potential solutions emerging.
Summary
The Agency’s Leeds Infrastructure Study represents the start of a process of discussion with the City
Council that should lead to an agreed strategy for the management and operation of the M621 and
the primary roads serving junctions along the M621.
Congestion and delay at Lofthouse Interchange (M1/M62) and M1 junction 43 (M1/M621) and the
M1/A1 junction near Aberford will increase steadily over time as a result of cumulative growth. Any
schemes that emerge to address these problems will be large scale and require major investment
The Agency is anticipating that the output of this study will lead to changes to the Infrastructure
Schedule once discussions on the report have taken place with the City Council. The Infrastructure
Schedule is understood to be a living document that will change over time. The Infrastructure Study
will also from part of the evidence base for the Route-based strategies that are being produced to
inform the future investment plans for the Strategic Road Network.
Prepared by:
Highways Agency, Network Delivery and Development, Yorkshire & North East
Asset Development Team
Date:
13th September 2013
7
Leeds Core Strategy – Examination In Public
Highways Agency Statement 20130913