South Wye Transport Package - WhatDoTheyKnow€¦ · schemes in the South Wye area, including a new...

PROJECT NO. 35122983BP

South Wye Transport Package

APPRAISAL SPECIFICATION REPORT

January 2017

Final Report Project no: 35122983BP Date: 2017

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff 1 Capital Quarter Tyndall Street Cardiff CF10 4BZ Tel: +44 (0) 2920 769 200 www.wsp-pb.com

SOUTH WYE TRANSPORT PACKAGE

APPRAISAL SPECIFICATION REPORT

Herefordshire Council

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3

Remarks

Updated ASR with DfT feedback on October 2015 version incorporated

Updated ASR with HC feedback

Date 18/07/2016 04/01/2017

Prepared by

Paul Roberts, with inputs from Mark Hill, Amy Hallam, Fintan Geraghty, Rob Jones

Paul Roberts, with inputs from Mark Hill, Amy Hallam, Fintan Geraghty, Rob Jones, Himanshu Budhiraja

Signature

Checked by Marcus Chick/Himanshu Budhiraja

Jason Collins

Signature

Authorised by Himanshu Budhiraja

Jason Collins

Signature

Project number 35122983BP 35122983BP

Report number

File reference

ii

South Wye Transport Package - ASR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 35122983BP January 2017

P R O D U C T I O N T E A M

CLIENT

BBLP Project Manager Dean Neal

Herefordshire Council Project Manager

Mairead Lane

Herefordshire Council Business Case Lead role on Project

Jeremy Callard

WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

Business Case Lead Jason Collins

Transport Modelling Inputs Mark Hill, Tom Metcalfe, Marcus Chick

Other Inputs Himanshu Budhiraja, Paul Roberts, Amy Hallam, Fintan Geraghty, Rob Jones

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1

2 PROPOSED SCHEME .................................................................3

3 PROPOSED APPROACH TO TRANSPORTATION MODELLING AND FORECASTING .............................................8

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (TEE & ROAD SAFETY) ...................................................................... 25

5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (WIDER IMPACTS) ..................................................................... 27

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ENVIRONMENT .............................. 30

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ACTIVE MODES.............................. 37

8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – OTHER IMPACTS ........................... 41

9 DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS ..................................................... 42

10 SCHEME COSTS ....................................................................... 44

11 APPRAISAL SPECIFICATION SUMMARY TABLES ................ 46

iv


T A B L E S

TABLE 3-1 – SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF HISTORIC DATA ............................................ 9

TABLE 3-2 – SCREEN LINE FLOW VALIDATION CRITERION AND ACCEPTABILITY GUIDELINES .................................................................................. 14

TABLE 3-3 – LINK FLOW AND TURNING MOVEMENT VALIDATION CRITERIA AND ACCEPTABILITY GUIDELINES ..................................................... 15

TABLE 3-4 – JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION CRITERION AND ACCEPTABILITY GUIDELINES .................................................................................. 15

TABLE 3-5 – SUMMARY OF CONVERGENCE MEASURES AND BASE MODEL ACCEPTABLE VALUES ................................................................. 16

TABLE 3-6 – USER CLASS, VEHICLE TYPE AND TRIP PURPOSE DESCRIPTIONS . 17

TABLE 3-7 – TRIP MATRIX BUILD COMPONENTS AND DATA SOURCES ................. 19

TABLE 11-1 – OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMY IMPACTS ..................... 47

TABLE 11-2: OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......... 48

TABLE 11-3: OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................ 49

F I G U R E S

FIGURE 2-1: SOUTH WYE AREA & PROPOSED SOUTH WYE TRANSPORT PACKAGE ......................................................................................... 4

FIGURE 3-1: RSI LOCATIONS ......................................................................................... 11

FIGURE 3-2: SIMULATION NETWORK COVERAGE ..................................................... 13

FIGURE 7-1: PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF PERMANENT / LONG TERM CYCLE COUNTER SITES ........................................................................... 38

A P P E N D I C E S

A P P E N D I X A TRANSPORT MODELLING KEY RISKS

v


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMPH AM Peak Hour

AMPP AM Peak Period

AMSH AM Shoulder Hour

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

AQMA Air Quality Management Area

ASR Appraisal Specification Report

ASST Appraisal Specification Summary Table

AST Appraisal Summary Table

BBLP Balfour Beatty Living Places

BCIS Building Cost Information Service

BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio

CA Countryside Agency

CIfA Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

DfT Department for Transport

DI Distributional Impact

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

EAR Economic Appraisal Report

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

GIS Geographic Information System

GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

HB Hereford Bypass

HBE Home Based Education

HBEB Home-Based Employer’s Business

HBO Home-Based Other

HBW Home- Based Work

HC Herefordshire Council

HCCTP Hereford City Centre Transport Package

HEAT Health Economic Assessment Tool

HER Historic Environment Record

HEZ Hereford Enterprise Zone

HMMTM Hereford Multi-Modal Transport Model

HTM Hereford Transport Model

HTP Hereford Transport Package

vi


IAN Interim Advice Note

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

IMD Indices of Multiple Deprivation

LEP Local Enterprise Partnership

LI Landscape Institute

LMVR Local Model Validation Report

LNR Local Nature Reserve

LSOA Lower Layer Super Output Area

LTB Local Transport Body

LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

MSBC Major Scheme Business Case

MSOA Middle Layer Super Output Area

NHBE Non-Home Based Education

NHBEB Non-Home Based Employer’s Business

NHBO Non-Home Based Other

NHBW Non-Home Based Work

NPV Net Present Value

NSRs Noise Sensitive Receptors

NTEM National Trip End Model

OBC Outline Business Case

OFF Off-Peak Period

OSRs Other Sensitive Receptors

PCU Passenger Car Unit

PMPH PM Peak Hour

PMPP PM Peak Period

PMSH PM Shoulder Hour

QCRA Quantified Cost Risk Assessment

RAs Regeneration Areas

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SATURN Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks

SLR Southern Link Road

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SOBC Strategic Outline Business Case

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SWTP South Wye Transport Package

TAG Transport Analysis Guidance

vii


TEE Transport Economic Efficiency

TEMPRO Trip End Model Presentation Program

TPI Tender Price Indices

TUBA Transport User Benefit Assessment

UK United Kingdom

VERs Valued Ecological Receptors

VISUM Verkehr In Stadten S – (Traffic in Cities -

WSP | PB WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

ZoI Zone of Influence

1


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1.1 The Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) identifies appropriate methodologies for the various elements of appraisal required for a Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) submission.

1.1.2 The ASR provides the basis and a reference for the work undertaken; the approach adopted for the MSBC, including the underlying assumptions and limitations which apply to the methodology.

1.1.3 The ASR is intended to inform the following bodies or organisations:

Herefordshire Council (HC), the promoters of the scheme;

Department for Transport (DfT), to whom HC are submitting the MSBC;

1.1.4 The ASR identifies a proportionate approach to the appraisal, consistent with WebTAG and:

The scale and severity of impacts identified in the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC);

The level of uncertainty about estimated impacts; and

The focus of the local objectives, reflecting the need for intervention.

The aim of the ASR is to propose an appraisal approach which is in the process of being agreed with the DfT. Once agreed, the ASR will form the basis of the appraisal of the South Wye Transport Package.

1.2 BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Herefordshire Council (HC) had submitted an ASR to the Department for Transport (DfT) in October 2015 to agree the methodology and scope of proportionate appraisal to be undertaken on the preferred option of the South Wye Transport Package.

1.2.2 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP | PB) has been commissioned by Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) on behalf of Herefordshire Council (HC) to update the highway assignment model part of the Hereford Multi Modal Transport Model (HMMTM) and create a new Hereford Transport Model (HTM). This was completed in October 2015 and documented in the South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report (MDVR). Following completion of the HTM, the reporting was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) for consideration alongside the initial draft of the ASR.

1.2.3 Following submission of the ASR and the MDVR, comments were received from the DfT on the South Wye Transport Package Model Development and Validation Report (Reference: 3512983BP-5.2.1-TPV-0001, dated October 2015). This was followed by meeting with the DfT on 17th March 2016 to discuss the way forward with the Hereford Transport Model. Subsequently the approach to transport modelling and appraisal has been updated.

1.2.4 The current ASR therefore has addresses the DfT’s feedback and is being submitted for a final sign-off by the DfT.

1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE

1.3.1 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

2


Chapter 2 – Proposed Scheme;

Chapter 3 – Proposed Approach to Transport Modelling and Forecasting;

Chapter 4 – Impact Assessment – Economics (TEE and Road Safety);

Chapter 5 – Impact Assessment – Economics (Regeneration and Wider Impacts);

Chapter 6 – Impact Assessment – Environment;

Chapter 7 – Impact Assessment – Active Modes;

Chapter 8 – Impact Assessment – Other Impacts;

Chapter 9 – Distributional Impacts

Chapter 10 – Scheme Costs; and

Chapter 11 – Appraisal Specification Summary Tables.

3


2 PROPOSED SCHEME

2.1 SCHEME LOCATION

2.1.1 The proposed scheme is located to the south of Hereford City Centre and the River Wye, in the South Wye area. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the South Wye Area and the proposed South Wye Transport Package (SWTP), including the Southern Link Road (SLR).

2.2 SCHEME BACKGROUND

2.2.1 The aim of the SWTP is to promote the economic growth agenda of HC and the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), by addressing the specific transportation problems within the South Wye area of Hereford.

2.2.2 The recently adopted Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 (HLPCS) sets ambitious targets for the county as a whole, including creating 70,000 new homes and almost 40,000 new jobs over the period to 2031, accelerating growth and providing opportunities for those who live and work in the area. The HLPCS has also identified the transport infrastructure that is required to support this, including the need for a package of improvements in the South Wye area (referred to within the HLPCS as the South Wye Transport Package).

2.2.3 The Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which the HLPCS has superseded, formed the basis of the initial option development for the emerging transport package for the South Wye area. In particular the UDP was informed by the outputs of the Hereford Transport Review Local Multi-Modal Study (2003), which identified the need for a package of measures for Hereford to accommodate housing and employment growth. This review recommended a package of schemes in the South Wye area, including a new link road between the A49(T) and A465 and measures to encourage active travel choices.

2.2.4 The Herefordshire Local Transport Plan (LTP4) and supporting evidence base has also identified the need to invest in transport infrastructure to address existing and forecast problems of traffic congestion. Investment in transport in the South Wye area will be an important enabler of sustainable growth in Hereford, facilitating access to employment opportunities using a range of transport modes. Investment in the South Wye area is a priority within the Marches Growth Deal (2014) with the Marches LEP having approved Herefordshire Council’s Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for a package of measures and provisionally allocated £27million towards the development and delivery of a package.

4


Figure 2-1: South Wye Area & Proposed South Wye Transport Package

5


2.3 SCHEME OBJECTIVES

2.3.1 The objectives have been developed at three levels, namely:

Level 1 - Strategic Objectives (L1) – These are defined as objectives which transport contributes to, but not always in a direct manner. It results in outcomes that are reflected over a wider area and/or to non-transport issues such as health.

Level 2 – Scheme Specific Objectives (L2) – These are defined as the objectives which reflect the direct effects of transport intervention. They also include the desired outputs and outcomes which are directly aspired for in the scheme area.

Level 3 - Operational Objectives (L3) – These are defined as desirable outputs which are necessary for the immediate objectives to be achieved.

LEVEL 1 - STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

2.3.2 The following objectives have been highlighted as having a wider impact on the South Wye area including additional benefits of supporting planned growth in Hereford City

Objective L1-O1: Support the delivery of planned housing and employment growth in Hereford.

Objective L1-O2: Improve health outcomes by encouraging and enabling physical activity.

Objective L1-O3: Minimise adverse economic and environmental impact of future developments by managing growth in traffic congestion and transport related emissions and noise.

2.3.3 These objectives support and are consistent with national, regional and local transport objectives including those within the Marches ‘Strategy for Growth 2013-2022’, Herefordshire’s Local Plan Core Strategy and the Local Transport Plan.

LEVEL 2- SCHEME SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

2.3.4 The specific objectives for the South Wye area, which are in addition to the strategic objectives, are set out below:

Objective L2-O1: Improve access to the HEZ for all modes, thereby helping to support delivery of Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy planned development.

Objective L2-O2: Reduce the growth in traffic flows along the A49(T) and A465 in the South Wye area.

Objective L2-O3: Reduce growth in transport related emissions and noise in the South Wye area.

Objective L2-O4: Encourage use of active modes for journeys between South Wye and Hereford City Centre.

Objective L2-O5: Enhance road safety for all modes within the South Wye area.

LEVEL 3- SCHEME OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES

2.3.5 The operational objectives which needed to help to achieve the strategic and scheme-specific objectives are set out below:

Objective L3-O1: Develop an active travel strategy for South Wye to ensure that accessibility and health benefits are maximised;

6


Objective L3-O2 :Support revenue initiatives which may encourage behavioural change in favour of using active travel modes in the South Wye area;

Objective L3- O3: Support the overall signing strategy with the aim to support any infrastructure improvements within the South Wye area;

Objective L3 - O4: Continue to work in partnership with transport operators to enhance the quality of service provision with the aim to encourage use of public transport and Highways England, thereby helping to reduce car dependence and encourage longer term behavioural change;

Objective L3-O5: Enhance access to services for those living in rural areas.

2.4 OPTIONS CONSIDERED

2.4.1 The Option Development process is summarised in the Option Assessment Report.

2.4.2 The following four broad options were identified as potential methods of meeting the objectives set out in section 2.3:

Online Highway Improvements. This aimed to generate maximum capacity for vehicles within the South Wye area by improving existing junctions and roads;

Active Travel Measures. This approach aimed to reduce car use solely through improvements to public transport, cycle routes and lanes, pedestrian crossings, traffic management, behavioural change activities and small localised improvements;

Southern Link Road (SLR). This involved construction of a new link road between the A49(T) and A465 aimed at relieving constrained sections of the highway network and improving access to the HEZ; and

SLR + Active Travel Measures. A combined package

2.4.3 These options were assessed using the Option Assessment Framework in the DfT WebTAG ‘Transport Appraisal Process’. This established that the option which best supports the achievement of the scheme objectives and performs well across the majority of the assessment areas was the SLR + Active Travel Measures. In consequence, this option formed the basis for the SWTP.

2.5 CURRENT STAGE OF THE PROJECT

2.5.1 The Marches LEP approved the SOBC for the SWTP for inclusion in its project prioritisation process.

2.5.2 The SWTP is a DfT “portfolio scheme”, i.e. it is part of the DfT’s Large Transport Project Portfolio.

2.5.3 Since the determination of the components of the SWTP, significant option refinement has been completed. This has resulted in the following:

Preferred route for the SLR

A planning application for the proposed SLR was submitted in May 2015. The application was considered by Planning Committee on 6th June 2016 with a decision in favour of planning permission granted.

Consultation on the package of Active Travel Measures to determine a preferred package.

7


2.5.4 The detailed design for the SLR element of the scheme is underway, due for completion in March 2017. Preliminary design of the Active Travel Measures will commence in April 2017.

2.5.5 The option refinement to both the SLR and the Active Travel Measures will be summarised in an Option Refinement Report.

8


3 PROPOSED APPROACH TO TRANSPORTATION MODELLING AND FORECASTING

3.1 EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND DATA

BACKGROUND

3.1.1 The initial Hereford Multi-Modal Transport Model (HMMTM) was developed with a 2012 base year in 2013/14. This model was used by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff to produce traffic forecasts and trip costs to determine the volumes of traffic and the economic performance of the South Wye Transport Package (SWTP).

3.1.2 The information collected from the forecast models was used in the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for the SWTP The results from the economic assessment are described in Section 2, but the traffic flow forecasting showed that the Southern Link Road (SLR) will carry up to 10,000 vehicles per day and reduce traffic flows on the A465 and A49 near the River Wye crossing by up 50%.

3.1.3 As a part of the SWTP, complementary Active Traffic Measures (ATMs) have also been proposed to reduce the number of trips within Hereford. The schemes include off-highway high-quality active travel routes, upgrades to pedestrian crossings, streetscape enhancements and removal of barriers on cycle routes.

3.1.4 Following a detailed review of the base year model in 2014, and subsequent discussions with the Department for Transport (2016), it was decided that there was insufficient information available on the development of the HMMTM and the data used to create the model would not be reliable to robustly rebuke challenge at Public Inquiry/Examination in Public. It was therefore considered reasonable to review the existing and historic data with regards to suitability for use and identify any additional data collection requirements to re-build the model.

EXISTING DATA

3.1.5 Existing data will be used where possible to have minimum impact on the programme. The existing data sources to be used are:

2011 Census data - journey to work data (travel patterns), income bracket, age, car availability (social and distributional impacts);

Trafficmaster data – link-based journey travel times and origin-destination data (travel patterns);

National Trip End Model (NTEM) extracted using Trip End Model Presentation pROgram (Tempro) - Housing and employment projections, traffic growth forecasts

National Transport Model (NTM) – Light Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic growth forecasts; and

TRADS – traffic flow specifically sites on the A49 trunk road through Hereford.

9


3.1.6 It should be noted that consideration will be given to the age of the data provided through existing data sets to ensure that the data is fit for purpose for the earlier stages of the SWTP assessment as well as the later stages of the project.

HISTORIC DATA

3.1.7 Historic survey data, previously used in the 2012 base year model, was reviewed to assess the suitability for its use for the 2016 base year Hereford Transport Model. The following table summarises the data source and the quality of data with reference to its suitability for use.

Table 3-1 – Summary of review of Historic Data

DATA SOURCE USABILITY QUALITY

Off-Street Car Park Surveys

Raw data requires only moderate reprocessing. Processed data could be used with very limited reprocessing.

Small sample sizes at some of the car parks limits the quality of the data

Registration Plate Survey Processed data is usable in its current form

The registration sample rate is fairly high and covers the main routes through the wider Hereford area.

Household Travel Survey

Reprocessing the raw data would require a large amount of resource and expertise, as well as additional data sources.

The sample is of a good size and it is considered to be representative of household travel patterns in the Herefordshire area. There is some concern that the processed data excludes so many records.

Workplace Travel Survey The raw data is presented in complete and usable form, as is the processed data.

The sample is biased towards Herefordshire Council employees. Assumptions relating to journey times have been made that are less than robust.

Journey Time Data The data has been reprocessed successfully.

With the exception of some outliers and erroneous statistical reporting, the data is considered to be of a high quality.

3.1.8 The review of the data identified issues within the existing survey data, most notably the origin–destination trip data. The issues included small sample sizes, missing records and bias towards specific trip types. It was therefore concluded that the data was sub-standard when considered for future use and that new traffic data was required.

3.2 BRIEF EVALUATION OF TOPIC-RELATED CONSTRAINTS

3.2.1 The constraints identified, relating to the transport modelling, were with the data collection and data availability. Potential constraints are:

Quality of existing available data, as detailed in section 3.1;

Identification of suitable roadside interview survey locations around a full cordon and Police availability to attend the surveys; and

Timescales for data collection.

10


3.2.2 Further details of the impact and the measures undertaken to mitigate these constraints will be reported in the Traffic Data Collection Report.

3.3 IDENTIFY LIKELY SCALE OF IMPACTS

3.3.1 The model coverage of the Hereford transport model will enable the appropriate assessment of the SWTP that will include Hereford City and the surrounding areas.

3.3.2 More detailed information on the modelled network coverage is detailed in Section 3.5. This section sets out the proposed methodology for identifying the appropriate scale of the network to be included in the model.

3.4 ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIREMENTS AND SURVEY APPROACH

BACKGROUND

3.4.1 Existing data for use in the development of trip matrices and for link and junction demand has been deemed outdated and not fit for purpose. As a result a comprehensive data collection programme has been undertaken in 2016.

3.4.2 The traffic data collection programme was scoped in spring 2016 with the data collection undertaken in June and July 2016. The results of this data collection will be summarised in the Report of Highway Surveys.

TRAVEL PATTERNS

3.4.3 The development of trip matrices for the highway assignment model requires observed data that provides information of travel patterns made on the highway network within the modelled area. This data will be collected using a combination of Roadside Interview (RSI) data, Hereford on-line travel surveys (HOTS); Herefordshire on-line school travel surveys (HOSTS) and car park surveys.

3.4.4 RSI surveys have been undertaken in June and July 2016 at 14 sites located strategically around Hereford to create a cordon that is designed to capture all movements into Hereford. Placing the RSI surveys at these sites has allowed an element of the trip matrix to be developed using observed data. This limits the amount of synthesized trips within the trip matrix and therefore provides as much observed information as possible. Undertaking RSI surveys at 14 sites provides a near complete cordon around the outside of Hereford.

3.4.5 Figure 3-1 below shows the locations of the RSI sites that have been undertaken.

11


Figure 3-1: RSI locations

3.4.6 The RSIs that have been conducted provide information for trips within a substantial part of the trip matrix and have been designed to provide information of vehicles that are most likely to be affected by transport interventions within Hereford.

3.4.7 The questions in the RSI interviews were designed to obtain the following information:

Time of interview;

Vehicle Type;

No. of passengers;

Trip origin location (postcode, street name);

Trip origin purpose (home, work, leisure etc.);

Destination location;

Destination trip purpose;

Possible alternative mode for trip;

Information of regarding the time of potential return trips that day; and

Information regarding the car parking type used in Hereford City Centre, if applicable.

12


3.4.8 The RSI data will be supplemented by household on-line travel surveys (HOTS), household on-line school travel surveys (HOSTS) and 20 car park surveys within Hereford City Centre. This provides a methodology to collect data for trips which could potentially not pass through the RSI cordon.

3.4.9 The origin-destination surveys will be further supplemented with off-line travel surveys to ensure the sample is not limited to online users only. Paper copies of the online questionnaires will be available at key locations within Hereford. These could include the public library, county council offices etc.

3.4.10 Once completed, the origin-destination survey data will undergo a comprehensive analysis and logic check to ensure that the data is appropriate for trip matrix development and provides an accurate representation of travel patterns in Hereford. This analysis will include sense checking of origin and destination locations and the removal of erroneous data entries.

TRAFFIC DEMAND

3.4.11 A comprehensive set of traffic count surveys have been undertaken in June/July 2016 consisting of link and junction turning counts. In total, 37 Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) counts and 66 Manual Classified Counts (MCC) have been completed. The sites have been specifically chosen to provide complete screenline and cordon datasets. This will enable the appropriate level of calibration and validation of major traffic movements throughout Hereford.

3.4.12 The proposed link count screenlines are to be reported in the Report of Highway Traffic Surveys and Local Model Validation Report. The key screenlines that have been identified include the Railway line, River Wye and the A49. Further screenlines will be added once the data has been reviewed.

3.4.13 The ATC sites were active for a period of 6 weeks. This was extended beyond the RSI data collection period due to the actual number of ‘normal’ survey days within the period being comparatively small due to one-off events (e.g. EU referendum, Euro 2016). It should also be noted that a market is held in Hereford on Wednesday’s and can impact on traffic flows. As a result RSIs, Car Park Surveys and Junction Turning Count surveys were not undertaken on Wednesdays. All surveys were undertaken on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

JOURNEY TIME DATA

3.4.14 HC undertake journey time surveys across Hereford at regular intervals on a bi-annual basis. To increase the sample size of the journey time data it is proposed to supplement this data with Trafficmaster data. This also serves as validation for key parts of the network and therefore is important to demonstrate the highway assignment model’s fitness for purpose.

3.5 PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

MODELLED NETWORK COVERAGE

3.5.1 The model is being developed to assess the impact of the SWTP on traffic network within Hereford and the surrounding areas. The modelled SATURN network will provide the appropriate level of detail of the network that is likely to be affected by the SWTP in and around the city.

13


3.5.2 The simulation network is to consist of a fully modelled area of Hereford with the level of detail reducing the further away from the city. The simulation network is to represent the road network as far as Bridge Sollers to the west, the River Wye B3499 Bridge crossing to the east, the A49 South of the A49/B3499 Roundabout and the A49 North near Lugg in the North. This ensures that the SATURN model network encompasses the road network that is likely to be impacted by schemes from the SWTP. This includes all alternative routes to the proposed highway schemes. The simulation network extents are shown in the Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Simulation Network Coverage

3.5.3 The SATURN buffer network provides less detail and focuses on primarily link speed and delay and will not include delay caused by junctions. The following road network is to be represented by the SATURN buffer network:

Within the County of Herefordshire: “A” roads and significant approaches to the city and informal bypasses will be included;

Outside the County of Herefordshire: the strategic road network will be included out as far as the West Midlands region;

Beyond the West Midlands in England and Scotland a skeletal network will be coded; and

In Wales the strategic road network will be coded.

3.5.4 Areas further afield representing the rest of the UK will be modelled by zone connectors, which are modelled using fixed speeds and travel times.

14


MODEL SOFTWARE

3.5.5 The highway assignment model will be developed using the SATURN suite of programs.

3.5.6 SATURN has been chosen to be used for the development of the highway assignment model for the following reasons:

Junctions within the fully modelled area provide a better representation of junction performance and interaction than other modelling programs such as VISUM;

SATURN’s ability to interact with DIADEM to undertake potential Variable Demand testing provides a clear benefit over VISUM; and

Potential integration of a SATURN highway model with a VISUM Demand/Public Transport model, with scripting developed to facilitate the transfer of matrices between the models.

MODELLING STANDARDS TO BE ACHIEVED

3.5.7 Calibration and validation is necessary to ensure that the traffic model developed does not produce unduly misleading or biased results in the context of the policies and/or schemes being assessed. Usually, the model development focuses on a particular area of the traffic model that is of most interest to the scheme/policy being assessed. Whilst this traffic model will be used immediately to inform the development of the SWTP business case, the traffic model will be built to reflect traffic conditions across Hereford and its surroundings. Therefore, the traffic model has been calibrated and validated consistently across the whole of the fully modelled area.

3.5.8 The traffic model will be developed to meet the validation and convergence standards in WebTAG Unit M3.1 (January 2014). The standards are repeated in the following sections of the ASR for completeness.

TRIP MATRIX VALIDATION

3.5.9 For trip matrix validation, the measure used is the percentage difference between the modelled flows and counts. Comparisons at the screen line level will provide information on the quality of the trip matrices. The validation criterion and acceptability guidelines are defined in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 – Screen line flow validation criterion and acceptability guidelines

CRITERIA ACCEPTABILITY GUIDELINE

Differences between modelled flows and counts should be less than 5% of the counts

All or nearly all screen lines

LINK FLOW AND TURNING MOVEMENT VALIDATION

3.5.10 For link flow and turning count validation, the measures used are:

The absolute and percentage difference between the modelled and observed flows and counts; and

The GEH statistic, which is a form of the Chi-squared statistic that incorporates both relative and absolute errors and is defined as:

𝐺𝐸𝐻 = √(𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 − 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤)2

0.5 ∗ (𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 + 𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤)

15


3.5.11 The validation criteria and acceptability guidelines for the link flows and turning movements are in Table 3-3

Table 3-3 – Link flow and turning movement validation criteria and acceptability guidelines

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA ACCEPTABILITY GUIDELINE

1

Individual flows within 100 veh/h of counts for flows less than 700 veh/h

More than 85% of cases

Individual flows within 15% of counts for flows from 700 – 2,700 veh/h


Individual flows within 400 veh/h for flows more than 2,700 veh/h


2 GEH <5 for individual flows More than 85% of cases

JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION

3.5.12 Journey time validation is measured as the percentage difference between the modelled and observed journey times, subject to an absolute maximum difference. Table 3-4 defines the journey time validation criterion and acceptability guidelines.

Table 3-4 – Journey time validation criterion and acceptability guidelines

CRITERIA ACCEPTABILITY GUIDELINE

Modelled times along routes should be within 15% of surveyed times (or 1 minute, if higher than 15%)

More than 85% of routes

CONVERGENCE AND STABILITY

3.5.13 Before the results of any traffic assignment are used to influence decisions, the stability (or degree of convergence) of the assignment must be confirmed at the appropriate level. The importance of achieving convergence, at an appropriate level, is related to the need to provide stable, consistent and robust model results. When model outputs are being used to compare them with-scheme and without-scheme cases, and especially when estimating the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) impacts of a scheme, it is important to be able to distinguish differences due to the scheme from those associated with different degrees of convergence. Similar considerations apply when the benefits and dis-benefits of different interventions are being compared. Model convergence is therefore essential to a robust TEE appraisal.

3.5.14 To monitor model convergence, the following measures will be used:

The percentage of links on which flows or costs change by less than 1% between successive iterations, known as “P” or “P2” respectively; and

The difference between the costs along the chosen routes and those along the minimum costs routes, summed across the whole network, and expressed as a percentage of the minimum costs, usually known as the “Delta” or “%GAP”

3.5.15 Table 3-5 details the model convergence measure and the acceptable values for a base year model.

16


Table 3-5 – Summary of convergence measures and base model acceptable values

MEASURE OF CONVERGENCE BASE MODEL ACCEPTABLE VALUES

Delta and %GAP Less than 0.1% at least stable with convergence fully documented and all other criteria met

Percentage of links with flow change (P) less than 1%

Four consecutive iterations greater than 98%

Percentage of links with cost change (P2) less than 1%

Four consecutive iterations greater than 98%

ZONING SYSTEM

3.5.16 The highway assignment zone system is to be thoroughly assessed and developed in order to meet the requirements for model calibration and validation. The model includes a zone system that covers the whole of the United Kingdom with the level of detail included growing more aggregate as the distance from Hereford increases.

3.5.17 The zonal system will be built to correspond to:

Office of National Statistics (ONS) Output Areas within Hereford;

TEMPRO zones and wards within Herefordshire;

Local authority boundaries within the West Midlands region;

Counties adjacent to Herefordshire in Wales;

The remainder of England as regions;

The remainder of Wales as North, Mid and South Wales; and

Scotland.

TIME PERIODS

3.5.18 The Highway assignment model will consist of three time periods each representing an hour within an average weekday. Analysis of historic data suggests the following time intervals for the model peak hours:

AM peak hour (8:00am-9:00am);

Interpeak average hour (10:00am-4:00pm); and

PM peak hour (5:00pm-6:00pm).

3.5.19 These time periods will be validated against new data when it becomes available. This analysis is to be summarised in the Report of Highway Surveys. The traffic counts to be used for this analysis will be selected to provide the best representation of traffic levels of Hereford and surrounding areas.

USER CLASSES

3.5.20 There are 8 user classes that have been proposed in the use of the Hereford Transport Model. The user classes that have been chosen provide the best fit with the TUBA and COBALT standard user classes. This creates a simpler conversion between the SATURN model outputs and the Economic Assessment tools.

17


3.5.21 The vehicle proportions are defined using count data from manual classified count sites. These user classes represent three different vehicle types and five different trip purposes. Table 3-6 summarises the details of the user classes, vehicle types and trip purposes. Buses will be included in the traffic model using fixed bus routes and frequencies.

Table 3-6 – User class, vehicle type and trip purpose descriptions

USER CLASS VEHICLE TYPE TRIP PURPOSE

1 Car Employer’s Business (EB)

2 Car Commute (Com)

3 Car Other (Oth)

4 Car Education (Educ)

5 LGV Personal Other (Oth)

6 LGV Freight Employer’s business (EB)

7 OGV1 Employer’s business (EB)

8 OGV2 Employer’s business (EB)

ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY

3.5.22 There are generally four different types of assignment methodology and the choice between them is dependent on the level of congestion anticipated in the modelled network and the level of traffic demand. The assignment methods available are:

All-or-nothing assignment (no congestion);

Pure stochastic (with costs fixed);

Wardrop Equilibrium (also known as User Equilibrium); and

Stochastic User Equilibrium.

3.5.23 The levels of traffic and congestion anticipated in the model means All-or-Nothing and pure stochastic assignment should not be considered.

3.5.24 Waldrop Equilibrium will be selected as the assignment algorithm as it avoids the complexities in model development, calibration, validation and interpretation that can occur by introducing an element of randomness in route choice associated with Stochastic User Equilibrium.

GENERALISED COST FORMULATIONS AND PARAMETER VALUES

3.5.25 The generalised cost formulations and parameter values will be developed using the latest transport analysis guidance from WebTAG M3.1 and data from the WebTAG databook (December 2015). Different values have been calculated for each peak period and where possible for each vehicle type and trip purpose.

3.5.26 The parameters to be listed within the SATURN network data file are to chosen to adhere to WebTAG and DMRB guidance where appropriate. The remaining parameters that are not listed will be allowed to change for calibration purposes and reported win the LMVR.

18


NETWORK DATA AND CODING – JUNCTION REPRESENTATION

3.5.27 All network coding will follow the principles set out in the Highways England document ‘Regional Transport Models – Network Coding Guidance’. Where network coding has been undertaken that deviates away from the network coding guidance it will be justified for network calibration purposes and reported accordingly.

3.5.28 The operations of junctions within the model are crucial to achieve calibration and validation of link and junction traffic flows. Every junction within the fully modelled area will be explicitly modelled to reflect the day-to-day operation. To enable the SATURN model to provide the most accurate representation of junction operation within Hereford the following information will be included:

Junction type (traffic signals, roundabout, priority);

Number of approach arms; and

Any additional data required to describe the operational characteristics of the junction (e.g. saturation flows, signal timings and phasing, turning radii and gap acceptance characteristics).

3.5.29 Where appropriate, larger complex junctions within Hereford (e.g. signalised roundabouts) will be coded using multiple nodes. This is in order to provide an accurate representation that cannot be achieved in a SATURN network using only a single node.

3.5.30 Critical junctions and roundabouts within this area are to be coded using estimates of saturation flows and will be based on the highway geometry obtained from the following information:

Aerial photography;

Google Street View; and

Measurements obtained on site where possible.

3.5.31 For non-critical junctions, typical arrangements of capacity and operation are to be used and derived from aerial photography.

3.5.32 Signal timings will be requested from Herefordshire Council for key junctions within Hereford where possible. For other signal junctions within the simulation network where possible they will be optimised using the SIGOPT and SATOFF modules within the SATURN assignment and updated accordingly.

NETWORK DATA AND CODING – LINK REPRESENTATION

3.5.33 Links are to be represented within the SATURN model based on the following information:

Link length;

Number of lanes;

Cruise speed; and

Speed/flow relationship.

3.5.34 Highway assignment models should represent mean traffic speeds. Therefore, cruise speeds should represent the mean speed of traffic between junction queues, given the activity alongside and crossing the link in the time period concerned. For key routes within the model the cruise speeds defined will be calculated using Trafficmaster journey time data where possible.

19


3.5.35 Speed flow curves are to be included in the network for each road classification. They are to be developed using the latest guidance from WebTAG, which is detailed in Appendix D of WebTAG Unit M3-1 Highway Assignment Modelling.

3.6 TRIP MATRIX DEVELOPMENT

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

3.6.1 The trip matrix will be built from RSI, Hereford Travel and Car Park surveys and Trafficmaster data collected in June and July 2016. The process uses the data to build the components of the trip matrix that are observed. An infill matrix to model unobserved trips will be built using bespoke methods that use a combination of planning and 2011 census data.

3.6.2 The trip matrix is to be divided into components based on the modelled area of zones internal to Hereford (within the RSI cordon) and zones external to Hereford (outside the RSI cordon). Table 3-7 provides detail of each component of the matrix and what datasets will be used to build it.

Table 3-7 – Trip matrix build components and data sources

COMPONENT INTERNAL EXTERNAL HEREFORD (TRAVEL

WITHIN HEREFORD)

From

Internal

Combination of: Car Park Survey data, HOTS, HOSTS, Bespoke gravity model, Trafficmaster data (for HGVs)

RSI, Car Park Survey data

External Hereford (travel within Hereford)

RSI, Car Park Survey data

RSI data (trips through Hereford) Trafficmaster (Trips not through Hereford)

PRIOR MATRIX BUILD PROCESS

STEP 1 – RSI MATRIX BUILD (INTERVIEW DIRECTION)

3.6.3 For each RSI site a SATURN trip matrix is derived for the interview direction for each trip purpose within the modelled peak hours. The sample size for each peak hour will be expanded to also include the peak hour shoulders. E.g. for the AM peak hour (8:00am-9:00am) the peak shoulders of (7:00am-8:00am) and (9:00am-10:00am). This method uses data across the entire 12 hour working day and provides as much detail as possible.

3.6.4 The SATURN trip matrix is derived by mapping the origin and destination locations to each SATURN zone using a GIS program. The trip matrices for each trip purpose are then stacked into a trip matrix and then factored to match the traffic count taken at the RSI site for that peak hour.

20


STEP 2 – TRANSPOSE RSI MATRIX (NON-INTERVIEW DIRECTION)

3.6.5 To produce non-interview direction trip matrices each interview provides information regarding return journeys that have occurred either earlier or that are planned for later that day. This information can be used to derive matrices for the opposing direction in the alternate peak period. This method relies upon a suitable sample of interviews that provides this return trip information. The resultant matrix can be validated against an alternative method that uses the DIADEM tour proportions that have been applied to the inbound trip matrices. A decision can then be made regarding the suitable method to be taken forward subsequent to the production of the Report of Highway Surveys.

STEP 3 – CAR PARK SURVEY MATRIX BUILD

3.6.6 The car park survey data is to be used to build trip matrices for traffic movements with a destination at that specific car park. Using a similar method, as per the RSI matrix build, trip matrices will be generated for each purpose within each peak hour period. A factor will be applied to the number of trips within each matrix to match the inbound/outbound traffic counts that have been collected for each car park.

3.6.7 The return journey from the car park will be generated based information collated from each survey. As per the RSI matrix build, the resultant outbound matrix will be validated against a matrix that has been generated using DIADEM tour proportions applied to the inbound trip matrix.

STEP 4 – HOTS AND HOSTS MATRIX BUILD

3.6.8 The on-line data collection is designed to provide additional observed travel information for trips within Hereford that have not been observed by RSIs or car park surveys. The HOTS data is to be used for all purposes with the HOSTS surveys being used for education trips only.

3.6.9 Using the same method as per the RSI and car park survey datasets, the origin and destination locations have been mapped to model zones using a GIS programme. The data is split into trip purpose and time period. Observed trips that occur within the peak shoulders are to be included in the corresponding peak hour trip matrix.

3.6.10 There is no method available that allows the data to be factored from a sample to population. Therefore the data will be used, depending on sample size, as a guide to the travel demand on the unobserved sections of the network.

STEP 5 – MERGING OF ORIGIN/DESTINATION TRIP MATRICES AND REMOVAL OF DOUBLE COUNTING

3.6.11 Certain movements within Hereford have been observed in more than one dataset (e.g. external to internal car park) and by merging datasets this can result in double counting of these movements. Upon inspection of the data sources, an adjustment is to be made to the matrix to remove identified double counting within the matrix.

3.6.12 The adjustment is to be based upon putting each dataset within a hierarchy which has been derived from the size of the sample rate for that dataset. The hierarchy of datasets will be developed subsequent to the production of the Report of Highway Surveys. The hierarchy will be based upon the reliability and weighting that can be put on each type of survey. Further bespoke adjustments will be based on detailed analysis of the datasets where appropriate.

21


STEP 6 – GRAVITY MODEL FOR REMAINING INTERNAL TRIP ENDS

3.6.13 Once the Origin and Destination datasets have been merged together, a gravity model will be developed to infill trips between model zones where observed data is missing. The method is based on using a gravity model to distribute trips ends between the internal zones. Trip ends are to be generated using datasets from the National Trip End Model (NTEM) and address-based residential and employment data. The most recent version of the NTEM data set is 7.0. This however is to be superseded by 7.2 due to issues identified within 7.0. The 7.2 dataset, as of January 2017, is not available but it is understood is should become available in time for the future year model forecasting. Therefore, it has been agreed that due to the requirement of the base year prior trip matrix being a precursor to model calibration and matrix estimation that the 6.2 and 7.0 datasets are suitable for the purposes of the internal matrix development. WSP|PB has previously developed a method using the 6.2 dataset and can be adopted for the purposes the HTM trip matrix development and can be scaled up to the equivalent 7.0 levels. The method has been previously agreed by the DfT and provides the most efficient method available to WSP|PB.

3.6.14 The inputs required for the gravity model are origin and destination trip ends for each modelled HTM zone. This shall be achieved using the following steps:

1) Map the HTM Zone system to the NTEM 6.2 zone system;

2) Map address base data, containing land use information for every address in the area, to each HTM and NTEM zone;

3) Use the address data to estimate the proportion of households, jobs, people types, and employment types in each HTM zone;

4) Split the original NTEM 6.2 zone system into the HTM zones using the data in steps 1 and 3;

5) Feed this new zone data back into the NTEM 6.2 model application, which will output a set of trip ends for each HTM zone for each time period;

6) Apply scale factors to the resultant trip ends, factoring to NTEM 7.0 values;

7) Use a gravity model to distribute the NTEM 7.0 trip ends across the internal trip matrix.

3.6.15 The resultant matrix will be added to the observed data matrix before model calibration and matrix estimation.

STEP 7 – EXTERNAL TO EXTERNAL MOVEMENTS SYNTHESIZED

3.6.16 Trips that do not travel through the RSI cordon are to be synthesized using Trafficmaster data and a gravity model can synthesize remaining trips. Consideration will also be given to any information which can be obtained from the Regional Transport Models commissioned by Highways England.

22


3.7 NETWORK CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION METHODOLOGY

NETWORK CALIBRATION

3.7.1 Once finalised, the prior trip matrices are assigned to the network. The next stage is model network calibration, which is to be undertaken by:

Reviewing and amending as required the errors and warnings produced by the highways assignment modelling software;

Reviewing links and junctions where the modelled saturation flows are less than the observed flow on the link or at the turn;

Reviewing calculated delays where they are significantly greater than those observed (or expected through local knowledge); and

Reviewing minimum cost routes between zones to ensure they are plausible.

3.7.2 These will be initially reviewed prior to the validation of the traffic demands, flows and journey times to ensure that any issues with the network are not obscured by changes during the trip matrix calibration.

ROUTE CHOICE CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION METHODOLOGY

3.7.3 Route choice calibration will be undertaken throughout the model development process. There is no specific data available for route choice calibration or validation, therefore routes will be examined and considered whether plausible or not.

3.7.4 Not all routes through the model can be examined, therefore the route choice calibration/validation will focus on routes that:

Relate to zone pairs with a significant numbers of trips;

Are of significant length or cost, i.e. more than 20 minutes congested travel time;

Pass through areas of interest;

Include both directions of travel;

Link different compass areas, i.e. north to south, east to west, etc.; and

Coincide with journey time routes as appropriate.

3.7.5 The number of OD pairs examined will be based on the following rule of thumb1

Number of OD pairs = Number of zones0.25

x the number of user classes

ASSIGNMENT CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION

3.7.6 In addition to the model calibration documented above, a “stress test” of the model will be undertaken by increasing the numbers of trips in the matrices by 20% and reassigning. This should reveal faults in the networks which previous checks have not detected, such as, against expectations some junctions may become over-loaded while others show no queues despite the increased demands.

1 TAG Unit M3.1: Highway Assignment Modelling, p7.3.2

23


PROPOSED ASSESSMENT OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE

3.7.7 The transport model will be deemed fit for purpose if the required level of standards are achieved as set out previously in this report and with agreement from the relevant highway authorities.

3.8 FORECASTING APPROACH

MODEL SCENARIOS

3.8.1 The forecast scenarios to be tested will include the package of measures in the SWTP. The SWTP includes a highway element (Southern Link Road) and package of active transport measures that will be reflected in the forecast year networks and trip matrices.

3.8.2 The model scenario future years require an opening year, intermediate year (Opening year + 15) and final modelled year (currently 2041). An impending update to NTEM is expected and changes to final modelled year will be altered if required.

3.8.3 Each modelled year will be assessed using the range of growth assumptions as defined within WebTAG. Each growth scenario is detailed below.

CORE SCENARIO

3.8.4 The core scenario forms the most suitable basis for decision making given current evidence. It is to be based on more certain, unbiased assumptions and that are the most consistent. The core scenario is to include:

NTEM growth in demand, at a suitable spatial area;

Sources of local uncertainty that are more likely to occur than not; and

Appropriate modelling assumptions.

3.8.5 The amount of development to be specifically modelled is detailed in the uncertainty log that has been agreed with HC. The developments to be included in the core scenario have a certainty of more than likely (MTL) and near certain (NC).

ALTERNATE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS

3.8.6 The further into the future modelling scenarios are, the less certainty there is over the accuracy over the projections and assumptions used in the process. Therefore, it is best to test the uncertainty by modelling low and high growth assumptions in addition to the core scenario. This provides an assessment of the impact the uncertainty has upon future year forecasting and appraisals.

3.8.7 The low and high growth scenarios are to be based upon guidance set out by WebTAG. The method essentially uses a parameter that reflects the uncertainty surrounding the National Transport Model (NTM). It is used to calculate the level of base year demand that is added or subtracted from core scenario forecast.

3.8.8 Further alternative growth scenarios will also be developed that reflect the different assumptions on the uncertainty log. A pessimistic scenario assumes all development listed in the uncertainty log are to be built and an optimistic growth scenario that assumes the minimum amount of development is to be built. This essentially provides a best and worst case scenario in terms of trip generation within Hereford.

24


REQUIREMENT FOR VDM TEST

3.8.9 The WebTAG tests for the requirement for Variable Demand Modelling (VDM) will be applied upon the completion of the forecast year models. Any requirement for VDM will be reviewed and discussed accordingly at this point for the purposes of testing the schemes proposed through the South Wye Transport Package.

3.8.10 The method used for the variable demand model is to be based upon TAG Unit M2 variable demand modelling, January 2014.

MODAL SHIFT SIGNIFICANCE TEST

3.8.11 A test will be conducted to assess the requirement for a Public Transport Model to be developed to appraise the SWTP. The test is formulated to make a preliminary estimate of the likely amount of modal diversion. A test will be conducted that adheres to WebTAG guidance which is shown in paragraph 2.3.8 of WebTAG unit M2.

3.9 THE PROPOSED APPROACH TO CONSIDERING SOCIAL AND DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS

3.9.1 The assessment of the Social and Distributional Impacts (SDIs) will be conducted in line with the most up to date guidance from WebTAG Unit A4-1 and as discussed in further details in Chapter 10.

3.10 WORK PROGRAMME

3.10.1 The work programme is shown below of this report. It details the proposed work program and includes the deliverables which are:

Data Collection Report – December 2016

Local Model Validation Report – February 2017

Forecasting Report – May 2017 and

Economic Assessment Report – June 2017

3.11 SUMMARY OF RISKS ADDED TO THE PROJECT RISK REGISTER

3.11.1 The summary of risks is shown in Appendix A of this report. It is recognised that not all risks have been identified and that should any be identified at later stages of the assessment then they will be added to the project risk register.

3.12 CHANGE LOG

3.12.1 The ASR is not intended to remain static throughout the SWTP appraisal. It is recognised that details of the assessments may need to change as details are uncovered that were not available at the time that the initial draft of this ASR was written. If the need arises, the ASR will be updated to reflect any changes in methodology that have been agreed with the appropriate highway authorities.

3.12.2 The ASR will be given a version number for each draft version that will be logged on a document register.

25


4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (TEE & ROAD SAFETY)

4.1 EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND DATA

4.1.1 The highway scheme elements of the SWTP were previously tested using the initial HMMTM model and the economic results were presented in the Herefordshire Transport Strategy – Prioritisation Study, 2014. The work indicated that the scheme provide a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.55.

4.2 TOPIC RELATED CONSTRAINTS

4.2.1 The constraints of the economic assessment are minimal with no specific constraints been known at the time of writing this ASR.

4.3 DATA REQUIREMENTS

4.3.1 The data requirements of the model include the scheme and maintenance costs associated with the SWTP. This will include the cost profile of the schemes leading up to the scheme opening and the cost schedule for the maintenance of the scheme.

4.4 TRANSPORT USER BENEFIT ANALYSIS

4.4.1 The transport user benefit analysis will be undertaken in accordance with WebTAG Unit A1-1 Cost benefit analysis, WebTAG Unit A1-2 Scheme costs and WebTAG Unit A1-3 User and provider impacts. The application of these units will be based on using the Transport User Benefit Assessment tool (TUBA v1.9.8) using outputs from the forecast transport models. The assessment of the TEE benefits will be derived from changes in forecast traffic flows and travel times from the transport models. The outputs from the transport models will be in passenger car units (PCUs) by vehicle type and trip purpose. These outputs will be factored and aggregated to reflect the different vehicle types and trip purposes in TUBA. The factors will be derived from the manual classified link counts undertaken to support the development of the transport models.

4.4.2 The results provide the input into the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) and Analysis of Monetised Cost and Benefits (AMCB) tables. The AMCB table provides a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) for the scheme when all present value benefits (PVB) are compared with present value costs (PVC).

4.4.3 The economic assessment of the alternate growth scenarios will be summarised in a TEE table only with no AMCB tables provided.

4.4.4 To convert the hourly outputs from the transport models to annual figures, annualisation factors will be generated using the simple calculation of the amount of time within a year that the modelled peak occurs.

4.4.5 Current best practise insists that if benefits are to be derived from time periods then a model is required that represents that time period. The shoulder peak hours will be represented by an additional assignment where the trip totals in the matrix correspond to the proportion of trips within that time period compared to the corresponding peak hour traffic. The comparison will use the traffic count totals from the ATC sites for the RSI site locations. This will be undertaken for the shoulder peak hours (7:00am-8:00am, 9:00am-10:00am, 4:00pm-5:00pm and 6:00pm-7:00pm).

26


4.4.6 The average interpeak hour model assignment will provide benefits for the time period between 10:00am-4:00pm. As is the current recommended practice, calculation of factors to non-modelled time periods (for the purpose of TEE calculations) will not be undertaken. The annualisation factors to be used will be summarised in the Economic Assessment Report.

4.5 ACCIDENT BENEFIT ANALYSIS

4.5.1 Factors will be derived from the ATC data to convert the modelled hours into Annual Average Daily Totals (AADTs) to support the assessment of the road safety impact of the scheme.

4.5.2 An assessment of the impact on road safety, in the form of the number and severity of collisions will be undertaken using COst and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch (COBA-LT v2013.2) alongside historical collision data (as required) and traffic flow predictions from the forecast transport models.

4.6 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE

4.6.1 The SLR is predominantly off-line and therefore will have a minimal impact on the operation of the highway during construction. No assessment of the impact of the package during construction is expected to be required.

4.6.2 It is also expected that impact of highway maintenance without and with the scheme will be negligible. Therefore it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the assessment of TEE benefits. No assessment of the difference in maintenance therefore is proposed at this stage.

4.6.3 If at a later date, an assessment of the construction and maintenance benefits is required, then further modelling using SATURN will be undertaken. This will provide inputs into an additional TUBA assessment and the resultant benefits will be included in the TEE benefits table.

4.7 JOURNEY TIME RELIABILITY

4.7.1 The impact of the scheme on the journey time reliability will be assessed in-line with the relevant guidance from WebTAG. The impact is based on an equation that formulates the change in travel time and travel distance and provides an estimate of the reliability benefit. This is detailed in section 6.2 of WebTAG Unit A1-3.

4.8 APPRAISAL PERIOD

4.8.1 The TEE and road safety benefits will be appraised for a period of 60 years from the first year of scheme opening.

4.8.2 The forecasting of traffic flows during the assessment period will be derived from the transport models. Any forecast changes in the parameters of the TUBA assessment will be taken from the TUBA economics file provided with the software. The same approach will be adopted for the COBALT assessment, default forecast changes in the number, severity and costs of collisions in the future will be retained.

27


5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (WIDER IMPACTS)

5.1 BACKGROUND

5.1.1 Under standard DfT WebTAG guidance, the scale of impacts will be dependent on the extent to which the SWTP improves connectivity between workers and jobs as well as the extent that DfT WebTAG-defined ‘regeneration’ impacts take place. Note that regeneration in this context refers to improved accessibility to labour markets in defined ‘regeneration areas’.

5.1.2 In addition, if the SWTP scheme unlocks new development (such as new residential accommodation), the land value gain from these impacts can also be considered.

5.1.3 WebTAG guidance on ‘dependent development’ states that land value gain associated with new infrastructure can be considered if the proposed transport schemes are required to unlock various developments (including extensive residential development at key sites). This could represent a substantial economic ‘benefit’. The dependent development guidance is primarily for housing developments. However, it provides a good basis to use the underlying approach to determine the value to the economy of commercial developments. The dependent development methodology will therefore form the basis of determining the dependence of commercial developments on transport schemes, as required for the SWTP.

5.1.4 The SWTP is expected to result in:

Greater agglomeration benefits across Hereford as a result of greater connections to the HEZ. In other words, the SWTP scheme will improve productivity through better transport connectivity (i.e. decreases in generalised travel costs will improve workers’ productivity and hence agglomeration improvements will take place). In addition, the scheme will support the adopted economic growth of the Marches Sub-region;

Regeneration benefits as the Southern Link Road will provide a direct connection to the HEZ from the A465. There will also be positive regeneration impacts due to greater accessibility to employment opportunities within the HEZ; and

Potential benefits in terms of dependent development - the analysis will investigate the potential for the new schemes to ‘unlock’ development land and the land value gains associated with it which will be calculated using DfT WebTAG guidance as summarised in the following sections. At this stage it is anticipated that the SWTP will primarily support proposed developments by enhancing access to these sites. Only some elements of.the scheme may be necessary to “unlock” parts of the developments and the HEZ. This will be assessed as the scheme progresses further and the wider impacts analysis will reflect this in the overall appraisal.


5.2.1 As the work needs to comply with DfT guidance, the following elements of work will be undertaken.

28


WIDER IMPACTS

5.2.2 Using WebTAG Unit A2.1, the increases in agglomeration that will arise when the schemes are in place will be considered. Agglomeration increases will occur when the reduced generalised costs associated with the new road schemes generate productivity benefits which in turn improve agglomeration in the area. The WebTAG guidance sets out a series of formulae and calculations which will be used when making this assessment. WSP | PB have used this guidance for other similar studies. However, the impact in terms of agglomeration is likely to be small in scale. Therefore the assessment of agglomeration impacts will be a qualitative assessment rather than quantitative.

5.2.3 As well as agglomeration, Wider Impacts also covers ‘output change in imperfectly competitive markets’ and ‘tax revenues arising from labour market impacts’. The former refers to where a transport scheme increases the output of goods and services through the impact of a reduction in transport costs (i.e. a reduction in generalised costs due to faster journey times etc.). The overall economic impact will be a welfare gain as consumers’ willingness to pay for the increased output will exceed the cost of producing it. Given the emphasis of the SWTP scheme is on improved connectivity between jobs and workers, this category of wider impacts is unlikely to be realised.

5.2.4 Tax revenue impacts refer to the taxation payments that the Government receives following the various labour market impacts attributable to transport schemes. These may arise as part of the SWTP wider economic assessment and will be considered as part of the analysis (it may be possible that these are either included or ruled out at an early stage in the process).

DEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT

5.2.5 As stated in section 5.1.4, at this stage it is anticipated that the SWTP will primarily support developments by enhancing access to the proposed developments. In other words only some elements of the SWTP will be essential to unlock development/parts of it and the HEZ. This will be assessed and the dependent development benefits appraisal will only be undertaken on the appropriate elements of the scheme.

5.2.6 For the developments/HEZ elements that are dependent on the certain parts of the SWTP, the appraisal approach will be based on the January 2014 WebTAG guidance (Unit A2.3 and supporting Excel model). We understand that the dependent development guidance is primarily for housing developments and it is more difficult to determine the value to the economy of commercial developments. However in the absence of any specific guidance on commercial dependent development, the dependent development methodology will form the basis to determine the dependence of commercial developments on the SWTP as appropriate. The following paragraphs give an overview of the proposed methodology

5.2.7 The approach will involve calculating the ‘economic impact’ of potential land value gain. Having previously used this method and approach for the HCCTP scheme, WSP | PB are familiar with how it can be used in this context.

5.2.8 As part of the HCCTP scheme appraisal, the approach was discussed with the Marches LTB’s ITE who provided valuable guidance as to how the approach should be used. The 'Valuing Housing Impacts Workbook' was obtained from WebTAG and is to be populated with relevant data covering the following:

Value of land in residential use/commercial use (£'000);

Value of land in existing use (Agricultural or Industrial) (£'000);

Externality Value (Perpetuity Value) (£'000); and

Hectareage of dependent development.

29


5.2.9 The 'output' from this process is the following (based on the template calculations within the DfT model):

Net private value of housing/commercial (£'000);

Net External impact of housing/commercial (£'000); and

Net Social Value of housing/commercial (£'000).

5.2.10 Once appropriate data is made available from HC (or other appropriate sources, such as from local land agents) these calculations can be completed.

5.2.11 In Paragraph 4.1.7 of WebTAG Unit A2.3, it states that the benefits of the dependent housing unlocked by a transport scheme should not be included in the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits table (and thus not be included in estimates of the Net Present Value (NPV), nor in estimates of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for the transport scheme). Nevertheless, paragraph 4.1.7 also states that these benefits, together with the number of dependent homes unlocked by the transport scheme should be reported within the economic appraisal. As discussed in sections 5.1.4 and 5.2.6, this will be applied to any commercial development that is dependent on the scheme, as appropriate.

5.2.12 In addition, the estimated benefits of the dependent development unlocked by a transport scheme are considered in the Value for Money assessment to reach the overall assessment of Value for Money of the transport scheme.

REGENERATION

5.2.13 WebTAG Unit A2.2 refers to regeneration in the context of improved connectivity to and within regeneration areas (RAs). RAs refer to a defined area whereby there is a need to boost economic activity through better links between jobs and workers as well as through increased tourism in areas where this is appropriate.

5.2.14 Regeneration analysis tends to be more suited to rural areas where there is poor connectivity and hence a need to make transport improvements to address this. Given that the SWTP schemes are likely to impact in a more urban context, a ‘regeneration’ analysis will not be necessary. This will, however, be confirmed through discussion with DfT.

5.3 ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIREMENTS

5.3.1 As well as the traffic modelling outputs described above, data will be collated on the various developments that are planned (including the HEZ and the other residential development sites). This data will provide key inputs to the wider impacts analysis, especially in terms of the number of additional trips that are likely to be generated to / from each site (as well as the number of new jobs).

5.3.2 In addition, data will be collated on land values (current and anticipated once developments can take place) from local sources such as Herefordshire Council and land agents. This data is required for the ‘dependent development’ element of the analysis.

30


6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ENVIRONMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1 WebTAG guidance for Environmental Appraisal assumes that an environmental impact assessment consistent with that specified in DMRB Vol 11 is available. This is in place for the SLR as a Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report and an Environmental Statement has been completed in accordance with DMRB guidance.

6.1.2 A DMRB assessment of the SLR scheme has been completed but will be updated to take account of the changes to road network as a result of the Active Travel Measures and subsequent new traffic data from the updated HMMTM modelling (as discussed in Chapter 3).

6.2 NOISE

BACKGROUND

6.2.1 The current traffic noise and vibration level experienced on the existing road network varies depending on time of day and year, and it is likely that the trends found in national traffic data would be relevant and applicable on these sections of roads.

6.2.2 The DMRB assessment undertaken for the SLR included a total of 791 Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) and 16 Other Sensitive Receptors (OSRs). No existing issues with regard to complaints from existing noise sources in the area have been identified at this stage. An assessment in accordance with the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975, as amended 1988, was also undertaken for the SLR that concluding that no properties will be eligible for noise insulation.

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

6.2.3 The study area for the noise assessment, as stated in WebTAG Unit A3, is based on the DMRB methodology, and will be the area that is 600m from the centre line of a road at either side, on roads are likely to be affected by any changes in traffic flows.

6.2.4 The noise assessment will follow the methodology steps detailed in paragraph 2.2.1 of WebTAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal. Step two of this methodology references DMRB as the standard prediction methodology for noise impacts.

6.2.5 An updated DMRB assessment will be undertaken for this scheme and the results will be used for the remaining steps of the WebTAG appraisal.

6.2.6 The third step, estimation of the change in noise annoyance, will use the annoyance response relationships given in ‘WebTAG Data Book Table A3.1, Annoyance Response Relationships for Road and Rail Traffic Noise’

6.2.7 The fourth and fifth steps, Monetary Valuation of noise impacts and Distributional Impact analysis, will use the latest WebTAG Noise Workbook.

ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIREMENTS

6.2.8 Index Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) data will be used to inform distributional analysis.

31


6.2.9 Revised traffic data for all scenarios and years assessed as part of the traffic modelling will be required following the update to the traffic model as discussed in Chapter 3.

6.3 AIR QUALITY

BACKGROUND

6.3.1 The air quality in the study area is generally good, however, within Hereford City Centre an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been declared for an exceedance of the air quality objective for annual mean nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Concentrations of NO2 outside of the city centre are below the annual mean objective, and well below the objective in rural areas. In particular NO2 concentrations recorded at Belmont Road between 4

th February to 6

th May 2014 was 15.23

g/m3which is below the annual mean objective.

6.3.2 The counting of properties within 200m of affected routes will be based on AddressBase data used within a Geographical Information System (GIS) package. Distributional impacts will use the available LSOA (Lower Layer Super Output Areas) data and latest Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data.


6.3.3 The study area for the air quality assessment, as stated in WebTAG Unit A3, is based on the DMRB methodology criteria, and will include areas that are within 200m of physical works associated with the scheme and any roads that are likely to be affected by any significant changes in traffic flows, namely:

A road alignment change by more than 5m;

A change in daily traffic flows of more than 1,000 AADT;

A change in heavy duty vehicles of more than 200 AADT; or a

A change in the daily average speed of more than 10km/h.

6.3.4 Based on existing area knowledge, the likely study area shown in Figure 3-2 will extend from the route of the SLR:

To the north, up to the River Wye, along Belmont Road and Ross Road;

To the east, up to the B4399;

To the south, along the A49; and

To the West, along the A465.

6.3.5 The assessment will follow the methodology steps detailed in Section 3 of the WebTAG unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal for air quality impacts. The pollutants assessed will be NO2 and PM10.

6.3.6 Steps two to four reference the DMRB criteria (Section 11.3.1, HA207/07) as the standard assessment method of air impacts. The DMRB screening method is recommended for the assessments. However, as it is currently under review, detailed modelling will be used along with IAN 170/12 (Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB Volume 11.3.1 ‘Air Quality) to predict impacts at the receptors. The WebTAG Local Air Quality Workbook will then be used for the appraisal of air quality impacts.

6.3.7 For the Monetary Valuation and Distributional Impact analysis, the assessment will use the latest WebTAG Air Quality Workbook.

32


6.3.8 The Regional assessment will be undertaken using the latest WebTAG Air Quality Workbook and inputs from the TUBA model.


6.3.9 Revised traffic data for all scenarios and years assessed as part of the traffic modelling will be used following the update to the traffic model as discussed in Chapter 3.

6.4 GREENHOUSE GASES

6.4.1 Greenhouse gases will be assessed as part of the TUBA assessment undertaken as part of the Economic Appraisal (see Chapter 4).

6.5 LANDSCAPE

BACKGROUND

6.5.1 Existing knowledge for the SLR has been informed by the information provided in the Stage 2 Environment Assessment Report produced for the Belmont Transport Package in October 2013. Following announcement of the preferred route by HC, and further consultation, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and submitted to the Local Planning Authority in May 2015.This will form the basis of the updated appraisal for the Business Case.

6.5.2 For the Active Travel Measures in the South Wye area see the Townscape section below.


6.5.3 The assessment will consider the effect of the scheme on the surrounding area during the construction and operational phases.

6.5.4 The assessment will be based on guidance in DMRB (Volume 11, Section 3 Part 1) and WebTAG Unit A3 Section 6.

6.5.5 The landscape and visual baseline will be established through desk-based and on site appraisal, including the establishment of key viewpoints. The baseline will include a description of landscape features, landscape character, visual character and receptors and can then be used to carry out a qualitative assessment to identify any potential impacts from the scheme.

6.5.6 This information will be provided for an area extending out 2 km from the scheme (the study area).

6.5.7 The methodology for appraising the impact of the scheme on landscape will be carried out in accordance with WebTAG Unit A3 and will be recorded using The Landscape Appraisal Worksheet.

6.5.8 The methodology for appraising the visual impact of the scheme will follow guidance in the following documents:

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) third edition published by the Landscape Institute (LI) and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 2013;

Interim Advice Note (IAN) 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, which replaces guidance in the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5. It provides guidance on the assessment of landscape and visual effects of highway projects; and

33


Landscape Character Assessment and Guidance for England and Scotland, Countryside Agency (CA) in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (CA & SNH, 2002).

6.6 TOWNSCAPE

BACKGROUND

6.6.1 A DMRB assessment of the SLR scheme has been completed but will be updated to take account of the changes to townscape as a result of the Active Travel Measures in the Belmont area of Hereford as this will be going through an urban area of Hereford.


6.6.2 The methodology for appraising the impact on the townscape from the Active Travel Measures will be carried out in accordance with the DfT WebTAG UNIT A3 Chapter 7. Impacts on Townscape and will follow the 5 step general approach for appraising environmental capital using the Townscape Appraisal Worksheet.

6.6.3 The study area for the townscape assessment, as stated in TAG Unit A3, is based on the DMRB methodology, and will be the area that is 500m from the centre line of a road at either side, on areas likely to be affected by townscape impacts.

6.6.4 The methodology for appraising the townscape impact of the scheme will follow guidance in the following documents:

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) third edition published by the Landscape Institute (LI) and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), 2013;

IAN 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, which replaces guidance in the DMRB, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5. It provides guidance on the assessment of landscape and visual effects of highway projects. The approach for appraising townscape is analogous to the methodology used for landscape. It incorporates the principals of good practice urban design.

LIMITATIONS

6.6.5 Visual impact assessment of residential receptors will be carried out without direct access to private properties.


6.6.6 Townscape and visual desktop and on-site baseline survey will be undertaken to assess the impacts on townscape.

6.7 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

BACKGROUND

6.7.1 Publically accessible data relating to the existing baseline conditions for the SLR has been collected and assessed using the following guidance:

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), 2014, Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment; and

CIfA, 2014, Standards and Guidance for commissioning work on, or providing consultancy on, archaeology and the historic environment.

34


6.7.2 In particular the data held by the Hereford Historic Environment Record (HER) will also be interrogated. This data will allow for the identification of known heritage assets (both statutory designated and non-designated) and for the potential for previously unknown assets to be considered. An assessment of the importance or sensitivity of the assets will be undertaken with a consideration of their cultural heritage significance based on National Planning Policy Framework (2012) criteria.

6.7.3 The on-going investigation of the significance of the archaeological resource (field evaluation) will follow these guidelines:

CIfA, 2014, Standards and Guidance for archaeological geophysical survey;

CIfA, 2014, Standards and Guidance for and archaeological watching brief; and

CIfA, 2014, Standards and Guidance for archaeological field investigation.


6.7.4 Direct and indirect impacts will be assessed and the significance of the impacts quantified using criteria taken from DMRB: Volume 11, Section 2, Part 2 HA208/07.

6.7.5 For the preferred package, further desk-based detailed assessment of the impacts will be undertaken using the following guidance:

Historic England 2015, The setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3

CIfA, 2014, Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment.

6.7.6 A desk-based assessment will be undertaken for the SLR and Active Travel Measures. This will include all of the work required for the WebTAG appraisal. If the results of the second phase of archaeological trenching for the SLR suggest the presence of significant archaeological remains, then a further more extensive programme of archaeological fieldwork could be required. If this proves necessary then a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological mitigation will be devised in consultation with the Planning Archaeologist and will adhere to the relevant level of CIfA standards and guidance.

6.7.7 There is no intention to undertake investigative fieldwork for the Active Travel Measures.


6.7.8 Investigative fieldwork for the SLR including geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation trenching are being undertaken in two phases. The results of the second phase are awaited and these will determine the significance of any archaeology encountered. No further data will be required to undertake the WebTAG appraisal for the SLR.

6.7.9 Additional HER data will need to be collected for the Active Travel Measures that form part of the SWTP. This will comprise an HER search and analysis of the data collected in order to assess the importance or sensitivity of the assets and determine their cultural heritage significance based on National Planning Policy Framework (2012) criteria.

6.8 BIODIVERSITY

BACKGROUND

6.8.1 The existing baseline will be informed by work carried out in support of the planning application for the Southern Link Road.

35


6.8.2 In the absence of mitigation it is expected that there will be impacts during construction resulting from:

Permanent and temporary habitat loss;

Habitat fragmentation and degradation;

Direct mortality of species during site clearance and construction;

Direct and indirect disturbance of species from construction activities including visual, noise, vibration and lighting; and

Pollution caused by increased levels of dust, use of hazardous materials and incidental release of chemicals, fuels or waste materials.

6.8.3 In the absence of mitigation during operation, it is expected that there will be impacts as a result of:

Habitat fragmentation due to the presence of an operational road;

Direct mortality from passing traffic;

Direct disturbance from operational use e.g. visual, noise and lighting; and

Air quality changes resulting in deposition to designated sites and ancient woodlands: the zone of influence for operational air quality impacts is 200m.

6.8.4 No additional data is required to inform the assessment. Relevant habitat and species surveys have been conducted within the Zone of Influence (ZoI). The ZoI upon potential habitat receptors (notwithstanding those which are designated sites) is considered to be up to 100m because at this distance, indirect construction and operational impacts will have generally dissipated to negligible levels. The ZoI for species was variable depending on the ecology of the potential receptor and the potential impacts. All surveys were carried out in accordance with DMRB Volume 10, Section 4 guidance.


6.8.5 The assessment will consider the effect of the SWTP on habitats and species of nature conservation importance during the construction and operational phases.

6.8.6 The methodology will follow that required for a detailed assessment in DMRB guidance for Ecology and Nature Conservation, DMRB Volume 11, Section 2 Part 5 and Interim Advice Note 130/10 and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006).

6.8.7 A detailed assessment is required for sites where potential significant effects are identified above the agreed value and magnitude thresholds. The method involves the following key stages:

Consultations;

Baseline studies and evaluation of ecological receptors;

Identification of Valued Ecological Receptors (VERs);

Identification and characterisation of potential impacts;

Identification of effects from potential impacts upon VERs; and

Assessment of impact significance.

6.8.8 This information will be provided for an area extending to 2km from the proposed scheme for the desk study (extended to 30km for Special Areas of Conservation where bats are an interest feature) in accordance with IAN 44/11 guidance.

36


6.9 WATER ENVIRONMENT

BACKGROUND

6.9.1 A DMRB assessment of the SLR scheme on Water Environment has been completed but will be updated to take account of the changes to road network as a result of the Active Travel Measures.


6.9.2 Information regarding the importance of identified water attributes will be obtained from readily available desk-based sources. During the detailed assessments of impacts, this will be further informed by a site visit, a review of the Envirocheck Report and consultation with the relevant authorities (namely the Environment Agency and HC as appropriate). No water quality sampling or hydraulic/hydrological analysis is currently proposed.

6.9.3 The assessment will also be supported by the Flood Risk Assessment prepared in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and submitted in support of the planning application.

6.9.4 The assessment of potential environmental effects will include surface water and groundwater features surrounding the proposed scheme options and within 1km in all directions from the proposed scheme options. It also includes the potential impacts of flood risk to the scheme options and to people and property elsewhere as a result of the scheme options.

6.9.5 The assessment of potential environmental effects will adopt the following approach:

Estimation of the importance of the attribute;

Estimation of the magnitude of the impact; and

Assessment of the significance of the impact based on the importance of the attribute and magnitude of the impact.

6.9.6 This will be undertaken in accordance with WebTAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal.

6.9.7 The importance of the attribute will be considered in terms of indicators including quality, scale, rarity and substitutability. The following criteria have been developed following the general guidance of WebTAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal and HD45/09.

6.9.8 The criteria for assessing the magnitude of a potential effect will be developed from WebTAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal and HD45/09. Not all effects are adverse and there is the potential for beneficial effects, for example a significant reduction in AADT reducing risks to water quality.

6.9.9 The overall significance of potential impacts and overall assessment score considers the magnitude of the effect against the importance of the attribute.

37


7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ACTIVE MODES

7.1 BACKGROUND

7.1.1 Various active travel measures are proposed as part of the SWTP. Impacts arising from the walking and cycling measures are anticipated to include:

Safety, in terms of provision of safer routes for cyclists and pedestrians;

Physical activity, through encouraging more active travel ;

Journey quality, through a reduction in traveller stress, due to improved routes; and

Journey time, through new and improved routes.


7.2.1 The appraisal of active travel impacts will be undertaken in accordance with:

WebTAG A4.1 Social Impact Appraisals – how to estimate and monetise impacts on social factors including physical activity, journey quality benefits for cyclists and pedestrians due to the public realm improvements and accident rates;

WebTAG Unit A5.1 – Active Travel Mode Appraisal – how to estimate and report impacts on active modes (walking and cycling);

WebTAG Unit A1.3 – User and Provider Impacts – how to estimate user impacts including changes in travel time, values of travel time savings, and changes in values of time; and

WebTAG Unit M4 – Forecasting and Uncertainty.

7.2.2 The following data sources will be used to inform the appraisal:

Cycle ATC Site potentially of relevance depending on scheme proposals: The locations of permanent cycle counters in the local area are illustrated in Figure 7-1 and are summarised below:

CC1: Great Western Way in vicinity of The Hereford Academy school;

CC2: Great Western Way Wye River Bridge (South Side);

CC3: In vicinity of Grafton (further details required on this counter);

CC4: Herefordshire Council quarterly video survey for cycle count at Holme Lacy Road/Twyford Road Junction (Feb, May, Aug, Nov survey dates - since 2012/13);

CC5: Bishops Meadow (Castle Green), just before Victoria footbridge; and

CC6: Near the Hereford Greenway Bridge (aka Sustrans Connect2 foot/cycle bridge).

38


Figure 7-1: Proposed locations of Permanent / Long Term Cycle Counter Sites

Traffic and Travel survey data covering relevant sites across the Belmont and Holme Lacy areas including A49 and A465 being undertaken in June and July 2016;

Walk-Cycle Project June 2012 – pedestrian and cycle classified counts used in developing the existing HMMTM. Mix of 0700-1900 and AM, inter peak and PM peak including the following sites:

Holme Lacy Road;

Twyford Road N and S; and

Ross Road/ Belmont Road/ ASDA Car Park entrance.

Census journey to work matrices and distances; and

DfT National Trip End Model – forecasts of trip ends by mode including walking and cycling.

ESTABLISHING EXISTING AND FORECAST DEMAND

7.2.3 Existing demand for walking and cycling will be based on the traffic and travel survey data being collected in June and July 2016 and additional public transport and NMU surveys in January and February 2017 to inform the Hereford Transport Model. The measure of existing demand will be based on time and/or distance multiplied by the number of trips over the baseline appraisal period of one year.

39


7.2.4 Where appropriate forecast changes in demand (cycling only) will be determined using results from studies of the increase in cycling due to cycle facility improvements. The method will be spreadsheet based and based on the study by Wardman, Tight and Page (2007)

2 as set out in

TAG Unit A5.1 that forecast the impacts of improvements in the attractiveness of cycling for commuting trips of up to 7.5 miles associated with differing types of cycle lane.

7.2.5 Demand estimates for the forecast year will be based on NTEM growth plus trip estimates for specific site developments identified in the Core Strategy and Local Plan. The model will provide different daily trip productions and attractions for different areas benefiting from the scheme (e.g. Belmont and Bullingham). An annual growth trip rate will be determined between the base year and the future forecast year. This will be applied to both the walking and cycling trips identified in the assessment.

APPRAISING THE IMPACTS

JOURNEY TIME SAVING BENEFITS

7.2.6 In order to calculate changes to journey time saving benefits along the routes, assumptions will be made about changes in walking and cycling journey times. This will be based on measures introduced as part of the scheme, for example, the addition or relocation of bus stops, introduction of crossing facilities resulting in reduced crossing delay time or the upgrading of an existing Pelican to Toucan crossing saving cyclists’ the time in getting off and on their bike. The time savings will then be combined with future demand to derive economic benefit using the ‘Rule of a Half’ as set out in TAG Unit A1.3.

JOURNEY QUALITY BENEFITS

7.2.7 Journey quality impacts consider impacts in terms of ‘traveller stress’, ‘views’ and ‘care’. The assessment will be based on determination of monetary values of journey quality benefits using Table A4.1.6 of the WebTAG Databook for cycle improvements, some within public realm improvements (e.g. off road segregated cycle track, on-road segregated cycle lane, on-road non-segregated cycle lane, wider lane and shared bus lane, valued between 7.03 and 0.77p/min) and Table A4.1.7 for perceived improvements to the pedestrian environment (e.g. directional signage, kerb level, benches and crowding, valued between 3.8 and 0.6 p/km)

7.2.8 Monetary benefits will be calculated from values based on forecast increase in daily usage (expressed in minutes or distance) and application of the ‘Rule of half’ method set out in WebTAG Unit A1.3.

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY BENEFITS

7.2.9 The health impacts associated with increased take up of active travel modes will be assessed using the Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT). HEAT provides indicative monetised benefits associated with changes in mortality rates calculated from the forecast change in levels of time spent walking and cycling. The economic benefit of reduced mortality will be valued using the value of a prevented fatality given in the TAG Data Book.

7.2.10 The approach will be as of that set out in WebTAG Unit A4.1, based on estimates of the existing and future demand and journey time and then associated changes in the relative risk in the population of all-cause mortality.

2 http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2448/1/ITS2119-actors_infl_to_cycle_uploadable.pdf

40


SAFETY BENEFITS

7.2.11 TAG Unit A4.1 states that COBALT is not directly applicable to the active modes and that the appraisal of interventions primarily affecting these modes should include quantified and monetised costs arising from changes to accident/casualty numbers. The proposed approach takes account of changes in the level of use of different types of infrastructure and the associated accident rates of these types of usage.

7.2.12 With the scheme, it may be established that:

there is more walking and cycling and

these users are using different infrastructure/facilities with different accident rates set out in the WebTAG Data Book.

7.2.13 The TAG Data Book contains monetary values for accidents of different severity: fatal, serious and slight, and these will be applied to the forecast reduction in accidents to provide a monetary value for the safety impact.

DISCOUNTED BENEFITS

7.2.14 The estimated daily benefit of the scheme proposals for each of the impacts assessed (i.e. journey time, journey quality, physical activity and safety) will be converted to a monetary annual benefit value for each year of the appraisal period. The annual benefit for each year in the appraisal period will be discounted to the DfT’s 2010 base year using the recommended discount rates to provide a the total impact in 2010 prices discounted to 2010.

SENSITIVITY TESTS

7.2.15 Uncertainty in the forecasts will be addressed by considering the impact of high and low growth scenarios according to the method set out in Section 4.2 of WebTAG Unit M4 Forecasting and Uncertainty.

7.3 ADDITIONAL DATA REQUIREMENTS

7.3.1 The appraisal of active travel modes will require the following data to be collected:

Signal timings on affected crossing points; and

Walking and cycling data in the areas affected held by the local authority or Sustrans.

7.4 LIMITATIONS

7.4.1 The current limitations are as follows:

Limited data at the appropriate level in relation to walking and cycling origin-destination (O-D) movements and journey purpose; and

Limited or no data in relation to walking and cycle journey times along the routes currently subject to intervention.

41


8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – OTHER IMPACTS

8.1 BACKGROUND

8.1.1 The assessment of other impacts includes all potential impacts that form part of the Value for Money Case in the OBC and associated Appraisal Summary Table (AST), but have not been explicitly covered in Chapters 5 (TEE and Safety), 6 (Wider Impacts and Regeneration), 7 (Environment), and 8 (Active Modes). Impacts not already covered in the previous chapters include:

Reliability;

Security;

Access to Services;

Affordability;

Severance; and

Option and Non-Use Values;


8.2.1 A qualitative assessment of the above impacts was undertaken as part of the Preferred Option/Package Reports. As such the assessment will continue to be undertaken qualitatively, using a desk-based assessment. However the assessments will be updated and reference will be made to relevant WebTAG guidance as appropriate.

42


9 DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS

9.1 BACKGROUND

9.1.1 The Distributional Impacts of the proposed scheme will be examined in accordance with WebTAG Unit A4-2 – Distributional Impacts Appraisal (January 2014).


9.2.1 The approach to the assessment will follow the process set out in WebTAG Unit A4-2, including:

Step 1 - Screening: Identification of likely impacts for each indicator

Step 2 - Assessment:

Step 2a - Confirmation of the area impacted by the transport intervention (impact area of the SWTP);

Step 2b - Identification of social groups in the impact area; and

Step 2c - Identification of amenities in the impact area

Step 3 - Appraisal of Impact:

Step 3a - Core analysis of the impacts

Step 3b - Full appraisal of Distributional Impacts and input into AST

9.2.2 These are discussed below.

STEP 1 - SCREENING

9.2.3 We will use the Screening Proforma to determine which of the various indicators need to be appraised further in terms of Distributional Impacts. The indicators will cover:

9.2.4 User benefits;

Noise;

Air quality;

Accidents;

Security;

Severance;

Accessibility; and

Affordability.

9.2.5 Consideration will be given to whether the proposed SWTP might have negative or positive impacts on specific social groups, including children, older people, people with a disability, Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities, people without access to a car and people on low incomes.

43


9.2.6 The screening process will identify if and where impacts are likely significant or concentrated. In the cases where such an impact is identified and cannot be eliminated through an amendment to scheme design a full Distributional Impact appraisal will be undertaken. Where the expected impact is both marginal in extent and dispersed among social groups or spatially a detailed justification will be provided for not progressing these to the assessment stage.

STEP 2 - ASSESSMENT

STEP 2A: CONFIRMATION OF AREAS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED SCHEME

9.2.7 For those indicators which are progressed from Step 1, we will investigate and confirm the geographical area forecast to experience a significant or concentrated impact arising from the SWTP. It is expected that the majority of the impacts will be limited to the South Wye area. The process of identifying the impact area will be documented to contribute to appraisal audit trail.

STEP 2B: IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE IMPACT AREA

9.2.8 The socio-economic, social and demographic characteristics of the groups likely to be affected by the intervention will be mapped using GIS. The scope of the socio-demographic analysis will be consistent with that set out in WebTAG Unit A4-2 and summarised in Table 2 of that Unit.

STEP 2C: IDENTIFICATION OF AMENITIES IN THE IMPACT AREA

9.2.9 The trip attractors and amenities in the various impact areas will be mapped and used to provide additional context to the Distributional Impact appraisal.

9.2.10 The output of the Step 2 assessment will be summarised in a table setting out the proportion of population in the various social groups that will be impacted by the scheme.

STEP 3 – APPRAISAL OF IMPACTS

STEP 3A - CORE ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS

9.2.11 The core analysis of the impacts will follow the guidance for each indicator set out in WebTAG Unit A4-2. The scale of the impacts will be scored using the seven point range from “large beneficial” through to “large adverse”, This will provide an assessment score for each indicator and each of the social groups under consideration.

STEP 3B - FULL APPRAISAL OF DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS AND INPUT INTO APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE

9.2.12 The findings of the analysis will be summarised in a Distributional Impacts appraisal matrix. This will be supported by a qualitative assessment to describe the key impacts. For the impacts and social groups under consideration the matrix will provide a summary of the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of the proposed scheme. The overall assessment score for each indicator will be recorded in the Appraisal Summary Table.

44


10 SCHEME COSTS

10.1 BACKGROUND

10.1.1 Scheme costs will be estimated and developed in accordance with WebTAG Unit A1.2 – Scheme Costs (November 2014).

10.2 LEVEL OF DETAIL TO INFORM THE COST ESTIMATE

10.2.1 The proposed scheme comprises the Southern Link Road (SLR) and a set of Active Travel Measures.

10.2.2 The SLR is at a more advanced stage of design than the Active Travel Measures, as it is currently at detailed design stage. It is currently anticipated that the detailed design drawings will inform the cost estimated for SLR.

10.2.3 The elements of the Active Travel Measures are currently being considered. It is currently anticipated that proposed package will be delivered to outline design level and this level of design will inform the cost estimates.

10.3 BASE COSTS

10.3.1 The estimate of base costs will be compiled using scheme drawings, including detailed designs for the SLR and outline designs for the sustainable transport package. The rates will be taken from Spon’s Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book 2015. The estimate will be based upon the most up to date price base at the time of preparing the estimates. Included in the base costs will be

10.3.2 Construction Works Estimates, which include costs associated construction works such as construction cost, contract estimate contingency, contractors preliminaries, and traffic management costs; and

10.3.3 Other Cost Heads, including land purchase costs in market prices, statutory undertakers costs, and design and supervision fees.

10.4 TREATMENT OF RISK

10.4.1 In order to adjust the base cost for the risks associated with the cost of the scheme, a Quantified Cost Risk Assessment (QCRA) will be undertaken, based on the DfT prescribed four step process, which includes:

Risk identification;

Assessing the impacts of risk to determine possible outcomes;

Estimating the likelihood of the possible outcomes occurring; and

Deriving the probability distribution and expected value of the costs of the scheme.

10.4.2 A risk register for the SWTP has been developed through a Risk Workshop. It is a live document and is reviewed on a regular basis to manage the SWTP risk.

45


10.4.3 This will be run through a Monte Carlo Assessment tool closer to the Business Case submission The mean of the results from the QCRA will be used to make an allowance of risk to the overall costs. The mean is the value in the middle of the range of results obtained from the QCRA and it is this value which will be been included in the scheme cost estimates to cover risk.

10.5 MAINTENANCE COSTS

10.5.1 Maintenance costs for the 60 year appraisal period will be estimated in consultation with the HC asset management team and Herefordshire Council’s Contractors, Balfour Beatty Living Places.

10.6 DEVELOPMENT OF OUTTURN COSTS

10.6.1 The scheme base costs will be converted to outturn costs by profiling the costs according to when costs will be incurred and by using tender price indices to convert cost estimates at the assumed price base to a cost in the year of spend, taking into consideration inflation. It is the outturn costs which form the basis of the funding bid to the DfT.

COST PROFILE

10.6.2 The risk adjusted costs will be profiled by forecast year of spend. Once cost profiles are established, the base costs will be adjusted for future inflation using factors derived from the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) database, in order the establish the outturn costs.

TENDER PRICE INDICES (TPI)

10.6.3 The tender price indices (TPI) used for estimating the outturn costs for the scheme development will be obtained from the BCIS. In this project the forecast TPI will be used, which are based upon the assumptions as to market trends provided within the BCIS briefing. In order to compile the briefing, the BCIS investigates a wide variety of economic indicators and adhoc models based on their trends. It is a national level forecast.

10.6.4 The “All in TPI” are based upon traditional procurement methods, however the same general market conditions apply to other contractor led methods such as Design and Build and partnering, albeit that some may react more slowly to changes in demand.

CONTRIBUTIONS

10.6.5 The outturn costs will be profiled by funding source, which are likely to include:

Local authority funding from HC;

DfT funding via the Marches LEP; and

Developer contributions.

10.7 TREATMENT OF OPTIMISM BIAS

10.7.1 For the purpose of the economic assessment, optimism bias will be applied to all future costs, at the rates set out in WebTAG Unit A1.2 (November 2014) for the relevant stage of the project.

46


11 APPRAISAL SPECIFICATION SUMMARY TABLES

11.1.1 This section sets out a summary of the proposed approach to the appraisal of the SWTP, as presented in this ASR.

11.1.2 The ASR has been structured based on broad topic areas rather than as per the WebTAG criteria and sub-objectives that form the Economy, Environment and Social assessments.

11.1.3 In order to bring the ASR methodology into line with the WebTAG appraisal structure, the summary of the ASR has been split by Economic, Environmental and Social sections to reflect the structure of the final Business Case document and supporting AST. Table 11-1, Table 11-2, and Table 11-3 provide an overview of the assessment of Economy, Environment and Social impacts respectively, and include:

Overview of proposed approach;

WebTAG references which apply to the assessment;

Key inputs for the assessment; and

A reference to where further details are included within the ASR.

47


Table 11-1 – Overview of assessment of Economy impacts

CRITERIA ASSESSMENT TYPE (WEBTAG REFERENCES) KEY INPUTS FURTHER DETAILS

Business Users & Transport Providers

Quantitative Assessment

The Transport User Benefit Assessment tool (TUBA v1.9.5) will be utilised using outputs from the forecast transport models.

TEE calculations will be undertaken in accordance with:

WebTAG Unit A1-1 Cost benefit analysis;

WebTAG Unit A1-2 Scheme costs; and

WebTAG Unit A1-3 User and provider impacts

Outputs from the forecast transport models.

Scheme costs and profile of spend

See Chapter 4 – TEE & Road Safety

Reliability Impact on Business Users

Qualitative Assessment

Desk-based qualitative assessment making reference to relevant WebTAG Unit A1.3 where appropriate.

Detailed knowledge of the scheme; and

Knowledge of the potential impacts of the scheme. See Chapter 8 – Other Impacts

Regeneration Using WebTAG Unit A2.2 it has been determined that a ‘regeneration’ assessment is not necessary. N/A See Chapter 5 – Wider Economics & Regeneration

Wider Impacts

Quantitative assessment using WebTAG compliant Spreadsheet which includes a series of formulae and

calculations.

Using WebTAG Units A2.1 and A2.3, it has been decided that the assessment of the following topics will be carried out:

Agglomeration assessment (Qualitative)

Assessment of tax revenues arising from labour market impacts (Quantitative)

Dependent Development will be assessed using the 'Valuing Housing Impacts Workbook' obtained from WebTAG. (Quantitative)

Specified outputs from the modelling work (covering generalised cost change data as well as traffic movement data);

Data covering each of the development sites (covering, for example, the number of hectares of land to be developed);

Land values for both ‘current’ and ‘future’ scenarios;

Future planned development data;

Data on land values (current and anticipated once developments can take place).

Value of land in residential use (£'000);

Value of land in existing use (Agricultural or Industrial) (£'000);

Externality Value (Perpetuity Value) (£'000); and

Hectareage of dependent housing development.

See Chapter 5 – Wider Economics & Regeneration

48


Table 11-2: Overview of assessment of Environmental impacts


Noise


The noise assessment will follow the methodology steps detailed in Section 2 of WebTAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal.

The assessment will estimate the change on noise annoyance, and monetised valuation of noise impacts and Distributional Impact analysis using WebTAG Noise Workbook

Data from Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) and Other Sensitive Receptors (OSRs);

Available Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data; and

Available Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) data.

See Chapter 6.1 - Noise

Air Quality


The assessment will follow the methodology steps detailed in Section 3 of the WebTAG unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal for air quality impacts. The pollutants assessed will be NO2 and PM10.

The WebTAG- Local Air Quality Workbook will then be used for the appraisal of air quality impacts.

For the Monetary Valuation and Distributional Impact analysis, the assessment will use the latest WebTAG Air Quality Workbook.

The Regional assessment will be undertaken using the latest WebTAG Air Quality Workbook and inputs from the TUBA model.

AddressBase data used within a GIS package;

Available LSOA data;

Latest IMD data; and

Revised traffic data for all scenarios and years assessed as part of the traffic modelling will be required following the update to the traffic model as discussed in Chapter 3.

See Chapter 6.2 – Air Quality

Greenhouse Gases


Greenhouse gases will be assessed as part of the TUBA assessment undertaken as part of the Economic Appraisal Report (EAR) (see Chapter 4).

As for TUBA assessment undertaken for the Business User and Transport Provider impact assessment

See Chapter 6.3 – Greenhouse Gases

Landscape


A qualitative desk-based and on-site assessment considering the effect of the scheme on the surrounding landscape during the construction and operational phases.

This will be based on guidance in DMRB (Volume 11, Section 3 Part 1) and WebTAG Unit A3 Section 6. The findings will be recorded using The Landscape Appraisal Worksheet.

Qualitative findings of the baseline assessment. See Chapter 6.4 - Landscape

Townscape Qualitative Assessment

Five step general approach for appraising environmental capital using WebTAG appraisal worksheets Desktop and on-site baseline surveys. See Chapter 6.5 - Townscape

Historic Environment

Qualitative assessment (desk-based) of the possible impacts, and associated severity, that the scheme

could have on the identified suitable historic heritage sites.

Direct and indirect impacts will be assessed and the significance of the impacts quantified using criteria taken from DMRB: Volume 11, Section 2, Part 2 HA208/07.

Further desk-based detailed assessment of the impacts will be undertaken using the following guidance:

English Heritage (now Historic England), 2011, The setting of Heritage Assets; and

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), 2014, Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment.

Data held by the Hereford Historic Environment Record (HER);

Baseline data which establishes the suitable historic heritage sites to be assessed.

The results of the second phase of the geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation trenching in order to determine the significance of any archaeology encountered.

See Chapter 6.6 - Heritage

Biodiversity


The methodology for the Biology assessment will follow that required for a detailed assessment in DMRB guidance for Ecology and Nature Conservation, DMRB Volume 11, Section 2 Part 5 and Interim Advice Note 130/10 and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006).

Existing baseline data that will be informed by the Stage 2 Environmental Assessment of the initial Scheme options3 and by further detailed assessments4 following announcement of the Preferred Scheme option by Herefordshire Council.

Data from the relevant habitat and species surveys.

See Chapter 6.7 - Biodiversity

Water Environment Qualitative assessment of the impacts on surface water and groundwater, and flood risk, using the

general guidance of WebTAG Unit A3 Environmental Impact Appraisal and HD 45/09.

Initial desk-based analysis of existing conditions using information sources such as:

Environment Agency’s Flood Zone classification; and

Groundwater vulnerability maps.

See Chapter 6.8 – Water Environment

3 Amey, October 2013 Belmont Transport Package: Stage 2 Environmental Assessment Report.

4 WSP/PB August 2014 South Wye Transport Package Preferred Options report

49


Table 11-3: Overview of assessment of Social impacts


Commuting and Other Users


Assessment forms part of the TUBA assessment to be undertaken as part of the Business Users and Transport Providers assessment.

Additional to the TUBA assessment, a Quantitative assessment of Active Modes journey time changes attributable to the scheme being in place will be undertaken using guidance from WebTAG Unit A1.3.

As per Business User and Transport Providers assessment

Existing and additional data in relation to walking and cycling mode demands and journey times

See Chapter 4 – TEE & Road Safety and Chapter 7 – Active Modes (Journey Times)

Reliability impact on Commuting and Other Users



Detailed knowledge of the scheme; and

Knowledge of the potential impacts of the scheme. See Chapter 8 – Other Impacts

Physical Activity


The monetised health impacts associated with increased take up of active travel modes will be assessed using the Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT).

The approach will be as of that set out in WebTAG Unit A4.1.

Existing and additional data in relation to walking and cycling mode demands and journey times.

See Chapter 7 – Active Modes (Physical Activity)

Journey Quality


Assessment will be based on determination of monetary values of journey quality benefits using Table A4.1.6 of the WebTAG Databook for cycle improvements and Table A4.1.7 for perceived improvements to the pedestrian environment.

Existing and additional data in relation to walking and cycling mode demands and journey times.

See Chapter 7 – Active Modes (Journey Quality)

Accidents


The COst and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch modelling tool (COBA-LT v2013.2 with 2014.3 WebTAG 2014 parameters) will be used to assess monetised impacts in terms of accidents based on changes in layout and traffic flows.

Quantitative assessment of Active Modes journey time changes attributable to the scheme being in place; following guidance from WebTAG Unit A1.3.

Historical collision data;

Traffic flow predictions from the forecast transport models; and

Existing and additional data in relation to walking and cycling mode demands and journey times

See Chapter 4 – TEE & Road Safety & Chapter 7 – Active Modes (Safety)

Security Qualitative Assessment


Detailed knowledge of the scheme;

Local area’s demographics; and

Knowledge of the potential impacts of the scheme.

See Chapter 8 – Other Impacts

Access to Services Qualitative Assessment






Affordability Qualitative Assessment






Severance Qualitative Assessment






Option and Non-Use Values







Appendix A

TRANSPORT MODELLING KEY RISKS

Project Risk Register 1 of 1

NEW REF Risk Description Category Effect of Risk Owner Status Strategy

Prob

abili

ty

Bud

get

Sche

dule

Pre

Miti

gatio

nR

isk

Ran

k

Mitigations

Prob

abili

ty

Bud

get

Sche

dule

Post

Miti

gatio

nR

isk

Ran

k

Mitigate by Action/Notes ActionBy Status

7 Economic case shows an unacceptable rate ofreturn (Benefit Cost Ratio). Funding Risk of no commitment to funding, if the economic case for the

scheme does not show Value for Money for the scheme. HC Open TreatL H H 14 When completing the BC ensure appropriate and robust allocations

based on data available. Monitor/review/report any changes whichmay impact the BC

VL H H 11On-going

56 SOBC (Strategic Outline Business Case) elementsnot complete with Audit Trail Funding Delay in completing Business Case Designer Closed Terminate

L L M 10

Early review confirmed that all SOBC elements are complete withaudit trail

#N/A

Review undertaken as part of development ofBusiness Case and the risk has been closed.

58 Potential delay to Business Case Submission due tosign-off of the base year model by DfT. Funding Delayed submission of Business Case and cost implication to

the project Designer Open Treat

L L L 8On-going discussions with DfT modelling lead to ensure base yearmodel development is robust and follows WebTag Guidance.

#N/A

Closed

Base year model is being redeveloped followingfeedback from DfT on the initial LMVR.

59 Traffic flow model does not validate to convergence Funding Delayed submission of Business Case and cost implication tothe project Designer Open Treat

H L M 16

Develop a robust model with assumptions which can be defended.

M L M 13

On-going

60Delays in transport modelling due to detaileddiscussions with DfT requiring additionalinformation to be provided

Funding Delayed submission of Business Case and cost implication tothe project HC/Designer Open Treat

L L M 10

Engage with DfT to discuss the base year traffic model

VL L M 5

On-going

61DfT do not sign off the model due to lack ofobserved intercept data and advise new roadsideinterview surveys are required

Funding Delayed submission of Business Case and cost implication tothe project Designer Closed Treat

M M H 17 Engage with DfT in to discuss the base year traffic model and set outthe justifications for the methodology applied in developing the baseyear trip matrices. Early engagement with DfT Modelling teamunderway.

L M H 14

Closed

The Risk has been realised and furthermodelling work is being undertaken.

62Uncertainty over demand forecasts resulting in needfor further refinement of the forecast scenarios andthe economic assessment.

Funding Delayed submission of Business Case and cost implication tothe project Designer Open Treat

L VL L 8Make assumptions as robust as possible. Engage with DfT to discussand agree assumptions. Continuous review during designdevelopment.

VL VL L 4

On-going

63 Excessive Model Scenario testing as may berequired by DfT Funding Cost implication to project, may delay submission of Business

Case. HC/Designer Open Treat

L VL VL 2

Engage with DfT to determine the extent of option testing.

VL VL VL 1

On-going

64 Comparison of revised HMMTM model and HEVissim Model showing different results Funding Cost implication to project, may delay submission of Business

Case. HC/Designer Open Tolerate

H VL VL 6Identify reasons why differences may occur (e.g. validated to differentdata sets) and produce a Technical Note to be shared with theVISSIM team.

VH L L 15

On-going

This can only be started after the base yearHMMTM model is completed ( expected end of

2016). To be reviewed in early 2017.

65

Business Case for SWTP is not sufficiently strong toattract funding(e.g. Strategic Case is weak,Economic Case is poor - Benefit: Cost Ratio is low,delivery risks are too high).

Funding Risk of no commitment to funding, if the Business Case for thescheme is weak and does not represent Value for Money. HC Open Treat

L VH VH 19When developing the Business Case ensure that all aspects of thecase for investment are covered and meet DfT requirements in termsof evidence. Monitor/review/report any changes which may impactthe case for investment.

VL VH VH 18

On-going Review the impact as this is a no stopper in theabsence of funding.

69The test for the requirement for variable demandmodel, shows the need to develop a variabledemand model.

Funding Risk of additional cost and delayed programme. Designer/HC Open Tolerate

M VL MFall back on the use of Hereford Bypass VDM, which is currentlybeing developed in line with the HMMTM.

M VL M

On-going

Undertake the requirement for VDM test oncompletion of the forecast year model, likely

timescales spring 2017.

18/07/2016 09:51

South Wye Transport Package - WhatDoTheyKnow€¦ · schemes in the South Wye area, including a new...

Documents

Transcript of South Wye Transport Package - WhatDoTheyKnow€¦ · schemes in the South Wye area, including a new...