TRANSPORT - WordPress.comJun 03, 2014 · TRANSPORT NSC/3/1 June 2014 2.5 Section 4 describes the...

NSC/3/1JUNE 2014

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK CLASSIFIEDROAD)

SIDE ROADS ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2013

THE NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL (SOUTH BRISTOL LINK)COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No 2) 2014

EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATES IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CATEGORYLAND

PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF

ROB THOMPSON

ON BEHALF OF

NORTH SOMERSET COUNCIL

IN RESPECT OF

TRANSPORT

TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014

Contents

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Personal Details

Scope of Evidence

Policy Context and Guidelines

Assessment of the Overall Benefits

Assessment of the Transport Impacts

Consideration of Objections

Conclusions

1

3

5

14

19

45

49

Appendices

1. The South Bristol Link Transport Model

2. The South Bristol Link Economic Appraisal Process

3. Figures

4. Tables


1. Personal Details

1.1 I am a Business Manager in Atkins Highways and Transportation

Consulting Services. I qualified with a BSc in Economics with Statistics

from the University of Bristol and am a member of the Chartered Institute

of Logistics and Transport and the Transport Planning Society. I have

over 38 years of experience in transport planning, specialising latterly in

the development of multi-modal solutions to transport problems and

issues.

1.2 In this context, I have been the project manager of the following major

multi-modal transport studies:

i. South East Dorset Transport Study (July 2008 to November 2011)

ii. Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) (January 2004 to

June 2006) (CD 3/3);

iii. M25 (Orbit) Multi-Modal Study (November 2001 to March 2003); and

iv. Zagreb (Croatia) World Bank Urban Transport Master Plan Study

(January 1998 to February 2000).

1.3 I was the project manager for the GBSTS which developed a transport

strategy through to 2031 for the Greater Bristol sub-region (comprising the

area covered by the four West of England Authorities - Bath and North

East Somerset, Bristol City, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire

Councils). The GBSTS (CD 3/3) contained a wide-ranging series of

measures designed to accommodate the anticipated growth in population

and employment in the sub-region through to 2031. An important part of

the strategy was a network of rapid transit services.

1 .4 Since 2008, I have been involved in the further development of the three

rapid transit schemes: Ashton Vale to Temple Meads (AVTM), North

Fringe to Hengrove Package (NFHP) and South Bristol Link (the Scheme);

known collectively as MetroBus.

1


1 .5 For A VTM, I was responsible for managing the Atkins' inputs including the

development of the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC), the

Confirmation of Interest, the Best and Final Funding Bid (BAFB), the

Public Inquiry, the Bristol City Council review, and the submission of the

revised planning application. For the AVTM Public Inquiry in May-July

2012, I was the expert witness for the transport aspects of that scheme.

1.6 For NFHP, I have been responsible for managing Atkins' recent inputs

including the planning applications for the Stoke Gifford Transport Link and

the full NFHP scheme.

1 .7 Atkins has been involved in the development and appraisal of transport

measures within the route corridor of the Scheme from the earlier light rail

proposals through to the completion of the GBSTS and the subsequent

development of measures emerging from the GBSTS. Atkins has been

involved in the development and progress of the Scheme including the

demand forecasting and business case, the environmental appraisal, the

planning aspects and the preparation of the planning application. Atkins

was also responsible for developing the transport modelling tools which

form the basis of the SBL transport model, the output from which has

underpinned the preparation of forecasts of the passenger demand for the

Scheme, the impact on the highway network and the subsequent business

case.

1.8 I hereby declare that insofar as the contents of this proof of evidence are

matters within my knowledge they are true. Insofar as they are not within

my direct knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge and belief

and are drawn from documentation and information to which I have had

access. The evidence which I have prepared and provide for this inquiry

has been prepared and is given in accordance with the guidance of my

professional institution, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport,

and I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional

opinions.

2


2. Scope of Evidence

2.1 In this proof of evidence, I demonstrate that transport has been taken fully

into consideration in the development and assessment of the impact of the

Scheme with strong benefits accruing from the Scheme. The evidence

that I am presenting is covered under the following headings:

i. Policy Context and Guidelines;

ii. Assessment of the Overall Benefits;

iii. Assessment of the Transport Impacts;

iv. Consideration of the Objections; and

v. Conclusion.

2.2 My evidence describes the benefits identified by the appraisal of the

Scheme, considering firstly how the Scheme was represented in the

transport modeL. Further details of the transport modelling process are

outlined in Appendix 1 to my evidence. The assessment of the Scheme

examines the forecast traffic volumes on the new highway link and the

passenger demand levels for the MetroBus service in the two modelled

future years of 2016 and 2031.

2.3 The economic appraisal of the Scheme is described and based primarily

on the DfT TUBA software, supplemented by additional analysis to provide

the full appraisaL. Further details of the appraisal process are provided in

Appendix 2 to my evidence.

2.4 Section 3 of this proof outlines the background to the Scheme and the

development of the transport aspects, including the preparation of the

MSBC (CD 3/4) in March 2010, the BAFB (CD 3/5) in September 2011 ,

subsequent updates undertaken during the development of the planning

application (CD 4/3) submitted in July 2013 and refinements in the

preparation of this evidence.

3


2.5 Section 4 describes the transport economic benefits generated by the SBL

Scheme while Section 5 examines the transport impacts together with the

appropriate mitigation measures that have been put in place.

2.6 Some of the principal transport issues raised in objections that have been

received are examined within the main evidence in Sections 4 and 5.

Section 6 considers the content of further objections which are not covered

in the main body of evidence.

2.7 Section 7 contains overall conclusions to my evidence.

2.8 A summary of my proof is provided (NSC/3/3) and the following

appendices are included separately (NSC/3/2):

i. Appendix 1 - describes the SBL transport model;

ii. Appendix 2 - outlines the economic appraisal process;

iii. Appendix 3 - contains figures to which reference is made in my main

Proof of Evidence; and

iv. Appendix 4 - contains tables to which reference is made in my main

Proof of Evidence.

4


3. Policy Context and Guidelines

3.1 The Scheme will provide a transport link between the A370 Long Ashton

bypass within North Somerset and Hengrove Park within the Hartcliffe

area of south BristoL. This will incorporate 4.5km of new and upgraded

highway between the A370, the A38 and the Cater Road roundabout, a

bus-only link between a new junction at Brookgate and the A VTM scheme,

and a continuous shared cycleway and footway along the route corridor.

3.2 The Scheme is one of a package of transport schemes that together will

create a MetroBus network across Bristol City linking key employment,

housing and leisure areas. It also provides a new highway link in the

southwest of Bristol, reducing journey times, easing congestion and

increasing the reliability of journey times in the area.

3.3 As identified in the evidence by Karuna Tharmananthar (NSC/1/1), the

objectives for the Scheme are:

i. to facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol;

ii. to reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of North

Somerset; and

Hi. to improve accessibility from south Bristol to the City Centre and to

strategic transport links, including the trunk road network and Bristol

International Airport.

Policy Context

3.4 The development of the Scheme has been aligned with national, regional

and local transport policies, as is highlighted by the evidence from Karuna

Tharmananthar (NSC/1/1) and Janette Shaw (NSC/10/1).

3.5 The national policy has dictated the way in which the suitability of the

Scheme for potential funding by central government has been undertaken,

determining the content of the business case for the Scheme as indicated

in the DfT WebTAG Transport Analysis Guidance.

5


3.6 The publication in March 2012 of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) (CD 2/6) also indicated a change in Government policy in the

presumption in favour of sustainable development within the planning

system. Although the case for the Scheme was prepared well in advance

of the publication of the NPPF, the Scheme accords with the principal

messages in the NPPF, as is indicated below. The evidence of Janette

Shaw (NSC/1 0/1) considers the implications of the NPPF in further detaiL.

3.7 At the regional level, in the early development of the Scheme, there was a

strong emphasis on the importance of regional decision-making with the

draft Regional Spatial Strategy defining the growth in development and the

Regional Funding Allocation process determining the availability of funding

for the Scheme and its priority within the competing schemes across the

South West. With the change in the Government's emphasis towards

localism, including the abolition of the Regional Spatial Strategy, the

assessment of the Scheme has taken into account changes to the

development patterns and therefore new demand forecasts for the

Scheme.

3.8 At the local level, the proof of evidence by Karuna Tharmananthar

(NSC/1/1) highlights the role of the Scheme within the evolution of the

local policies as recorded in the Joint Local Transport Plan (JL TP) (CD

3/1) and (CD 3/2) for the West of England Partnership sub-region and the

Core Strategies for Bristol (CD 217) and North Somerset (CD 2/8).

3.9 The content of the JL TP for the period 2006 to 2011 (CD 3/2) took account

of the GBSTS (CD 3/3), prepared by a team led by Atkins. In particular,

within a multi-modal transport strategy for Greater Bristol through to 2031,

GBSTS recommended the introduction of a Rapid Transit Network formed

by three cross-Bristol corridors. GBSTS also concluded that (para 5.123):

"further work is required to identify the type of vehicle used to operate the

service but modern, low-floor, articulated buses are likely to be the most

6


appropriate, flexible and cost-effective vehicles to satisfy the requirements

of the service."

3.10 GBSTS appraised the highway aspect of the overall Scheme within two

separate schemes:

i. Between A38 and A370 - separate Orange and Red routes were

examined, with the Red Route which closely followed the alignment

followed by the Scheme being included in the resulting strategy

proposed by GBSTS; and

ii. Between A38 and A4174 (Hengrove Way/Hartcliffe Way roundabout)

- was part of a wider scheme which linked A38 with A4 at Hicks Gate

and which was also included in the GBSTS strategy.

3.11 The North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007) (CD 2/11) contained

safeguards for the Red Route appraised by GBSTS while the Bristol Local

Plan (1997) (CD 2/10) safeguarded the route between A38 and A4174

(Hengrove Way/Hartcliffe Way roundabout), with this safeguarding being

retained in the 2003 Proposed Alterations to the Local Plan.

3.12 The development continued with the issue JL TP3 (CD 3/2), which was

published in March 2011, and set out the transport strategy for the West of

England area between 2011 and 2026 with the Scheme included in the

proposals for major development. The Scheme is also a proposed

development within the local planning documents prepared by the two

local authorities in the form of the Bristol City Council Core Strategy (CD

217) and the draft North Somerset Council Core Strategy (CD 2/8), as

identified in the evidence by Janette Shaw (NSC/1 0/1).

3.13 Bristol City Council's Core Strategy (CD 217), adopted in June 2011,

identified the proposed MetroBus alignments on its proposals key

diagrams including the route for the Scheme.

7


3.14 The North Somerset Core Strategy (CD 2/8) published in 2011 also

highlights the Scheme which is contained within its schedule of proposed

major transport scheme investment.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

3.15 As noted above, the Scheme has been prepared in line with the relevant

current government guidelines at the different stages within the

development. The NPPF (CD 2/6) was published by the Government in

March 2012. The SBL Scheme is aligned with one of the NPPF principles

of making "the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling'

(para 17). By improving accessibility to Bristol City Centre, the Scheme is

also compatible with the NPPF objective of ensuring the vitality of town

centres.

3.16 A further NPPF objective is promoting sustainable transport, including

balancing the transport system "in favour of sustainable transport modes,

giving people a real choice about how they travel" (para 19). The

combination of the new segregated alignment with parallel cycle facilities

and the additional public transport services provided by the Scheme

represent a significant increase in the availability of sustainable transport

modes, in line with NPPF.

3.17 Furthermore, the NPPF guidance also indicates that "local authorities

should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to

develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to

support sustainable development" (para 31) which represents a clear

reflection of the joint development of the Scheme by Bristol City Council

and North Somerset Council, as described by Karuna Tharmananthar

(NSC/1/1).

8


National Infrastructure Plan (NIP)

3.18 The Government's NIP 2013 (CD 2/16) re-emphasises the link between

transport improvements and economic growth. It confirms the

commitment to:

"developing and maintaining a road network that will facilitate people's

day-to-day activities, drive economic growth and meet the needs of road-

users now and in the future. In particular it is focused on:

. addressing road quality, increasing capacity and tacklingcongestion, and ensuring the network provides critical connections

. securing the network, by fixing the instability and institutional

problems that have led to 20 years of underinvestment

. adapting to, and taking advantage of, technological change and

meeting the government's environmental and climate change

targets" (para 3.6)

National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN)

3.19 Although the draft policy document (CD 2/9) is directed mainly at

infrastructure improvements on the national road and rail networks, its

principles have a wider general implication for schemes such as SBL. The

draft document highlights that:

"Improved and new transport links can create opportunities for growth by

improving connectivity and performance, opening up new markets, new

job opportunities, and new opportunities for growth. It can help rebalance

the economy rather than accentuate existing divisions." (Summary of

Need in Chapter 2)

3.20 Furthermore, again relating to the national road network, the document

identifies that, in some cases:

"it will not be sufficient to simply expand capacity on the existing network.

In those circumstances new road alignments and corresponding links.......

may be needed to support increased capacity and connectivity to meet

the needs created by economic and demographic growth." (para 2.23)

9


3.21 Although the NPSNN is currently only in draft, the paragraphs above are

consistent with the NIP. There is therefore a direct link between the

objectives for the Scheme and the national Government policy.

Preparation of Funding Bids to the Department for Transport

3.22 Following the GBSTS, the SBL Scheme was progressed further through a

series of studies, concentrating on particular aspects of the Scheme, as

covered by the evidence of Karuna Tharmananthar (NSC/1/1). The

evolution of the Scheme has seen the submission of two main documents

to the Department for Transport through which funding for the Scheme has

been sought:

i. Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) in March 2010 (CD 3/4); and

ii. Best and Final Funding Submission (BAFB) in September 2011 (CD

3/5).

3.23 The submissions to the DfT involved the preparation of a wide range of

supporting documents which considered specific aspects in the

development of the Scheme, and demonstrated the stages by which the

Scheme had progressed. Within the MSBC submission, the following

supporting documents (both in (CD 3/4)) demonstrate the development

and progression of the Scheme:

i. West of England Rapid Transit - Technology Review (September

2008 - MSBC Appendix 1.1) - undertook a comparative review of

the relevant available technologies including tram-train, ultra-light rail,

bus rapid transit, and guided bus with different forms of power

supply. The assessment considered the alternatives from theviewpoint of operation, vehicles, infrastructure, and fit with the

Scheme objectives and concluded that the guided bus option was the

most suitable; and

ii. Options Appraisal Report (February 2009 - MSBC Appendix 2.1) -

considered five alternative options against a wide range of criteria

including economic impact, safety/security, environmental impact,

10


accessibility and integration. The options appraisal identified the

preferred option which formed the basis for consultation in Autumn

2009.

3.24 The appraisal of the Scheme in the MSBC was supported by a range of

documents (all in (CD 3/4)) which described the Scheme transport model

that formed the basis for the demand and revenue forecasts, including:

i. Modelling Methodology (December 2009 - MSBC Appendix 3.1) -

outlines the general approach to modelling the Scheme;

ii. Data Collection Report (March 2010 - MSBC Appendix 3.13) -

describes the range of data collection approaches to provide up-to-

date information for the SBL transport model;

iii. Highway Assignment Model Validation Report (March 2010 - MSBC

Appendix 3.2) - outlines the development of the highway model and

its validation against observed values;

iv. Public Transport Assignment Model Development Report (March

2010 - MSBC Appendix 3.3) - describes the development of the

public transport model and its validation against observed values;

v. Demand Model Development Report (March 2010 - MS BC Appendix

3.4) - summarises the specification of the model linking the highway

and public transport models with the demand model including the

responses of mode choice, frequency choice, time period choice and

destination choice; and

vi. Forecast Model (March 2010 - MSBC Appendix 3.5) - describes the

application of the population and employment forecasts and land use

changes to produce travel demand forecasts for 2016 and 2031.

3.25 However, the progress of the Scheme, and all other major transport

schemes being developed by local authorities, was affected by the change

of government in May 2010 which resulted in alterations to the funding

process for major schemes. This included not only the revision of the

appraisal criteria for major transport schemes but also to the overarching

planning forecasts as specified in the Regional Spatial Strategy. The

outcome was the issue of a new version of the DfT's planning forecasts in

11


the form of the National Trip End Model (NTEM) version 6.2 which

replaced the earlier version 5.4 on which the MSBC had been based.

These were part of a range of changes to the Scheme transport model

which are summarised in Appendix 1 with associated adjustments to the

economic appraisal process, included in Appendix 2.

3.26 In parallel to the work to update the business case from the March 2010

submission, there were also revisions to the Scheme design, as a result of

the engineering and design review (described in the evidence by Philip

Paterson (NSC/211)).

3.27 Following the submission to the DfT in December 2010 of a Revised

Central Case as part of an Expression of Interest in which the West of

England authorities confirmed their intention to pursue funding for the SBL

Scheme, it gained entry into the Development Pool of major schemes in

February 2011. This required the production of a Best and Final Funding

Bid (BAFB) which was submitted in September 2011 with further

supporting evidence including the Value for Money Assessment Report

(Appendix D of the BAFB submission) (CD 3/5). This outlined the revised

business case for the Scheme in line with the new guidance with updates

for the following principal documents in Appendix J of the BAFB

submission (all in (CD 3/5)):

i. Data Collection Report (August 2011 - BAFB Appendix J1) -

describes collection of data for updating the SBL transport model;

ii. Highway Assignment Model Validation Report (August 2011 - BAFB

Appendix J2) - outlines the development of the highway model and

its validation;

Hi. Demand Model Report (August 2011 - BAFB Appendix J3) -

summarises the specification of the demand model linking the

highway and public transport models;

iv. Forecasting Report (August 2011 - BAFB Appendix J4) - describes

the use of the revised population and employment forecasts and

land use changes to produce travel demand forecasts for 2016 and

2031;

12


v. DfT Engagement - Annualisation Factors Review (August 2011 -

BAFB Appendix J5) - in response to the DfT guidance for the BAFB

submission, analyses traffic and passenger data to revise the factors

to expand the modelled time periods to reflect the full year's

operation;

vi. DfT Engagement - Proposal for Treatment of Wider Impacts

(September 2011 - BAFB Appendix J6) - outlines the approach to

the appraisal of wider economic impacts in the business case for the

Scheme; and

vii. DfT Engagement - Do Minimum MSB Scheme and Sensitivity Tests

(September 2011 - BAFB Appendix J7) - describes the contents of

the Do Minimum network and anticipated sensitivity tests.

3.28 On the basis of the documentation provided for the Scheme, and the

subsequent review of the evidence by the DfT, funding for the Scheme

was announced by the DfT in November 2011.

3.29 Since submission of the BAFB, the documents summarising the

development of the elements of the transport model have been refined and

updated as part of the update of the Scheme transport model for inclusion

in the assessment of the Scheme for the planning application submitted in

July 2013:

i. Data Collection Report (April 2013) (CD 3/15);

ii. Highway Assignment Model Local Model Validation Report (April

2013) (CD 3/16);

iii. Public Transport Assignment Model Validation Report (April 2013)

(CD 3/17);

iv. Demand Model Report (April 2013) (CD 3/18); and

v. Forecasting Report (April 2013) (CD 3/19).

3.30 The transport model described in these reports forms the basis for the

analysis of the Scheme traffic flows and passenger loadings and other

impacts of the Scheme outlined in the next section.

13


4. Assessment of the Overall Benefits

Introduction

4.1 Within this section, I summarise the appraisal of the Scheme from the

transport and transport economics perspectives.

4.2 The foundation for the appraisal of the Scheme, and the associated

business case, is the Scheme transport model which provides the

forecasts of the traffic volumes and passenger levels for the Scheme, the

characteristics of the passenger journeys and the associated impacts on

the highway network. These then form the basis for the estimation of the

Scheme's economic benefits and the impact on the main environmental

indicators such as noise and air quality. The noise and air quality

assessments are covered by the separate evidence by Adam Lawrence

(NSCn/1) and Andy Talbot (NSC/8/1) respectively.

4.3 Appendix 1 outlines the main components of the Scheme transport

model, containing details of the transport model's principal elements - the

highway assignment model, the public transport assignment model and

the demand modeL. The contents of the three components have been

developed for the base year (2012) and then forecast forward to represent

the future years of 2016 and 2031.

4.4 The transport model has evolved during the development of the Scheme in

response to a number of factors including changes in government

guidance, the availability of additional information and the results from on-

going research. Further details are provided in the supporting documents

for the MSBC (CD 3/4), BAFB (CD 3/5), planning application (CD 4/3) and

subsequent work identified earlier in Section 3.

Transport Modelling of the SBL Scheme

4.5 The design of the Scheme as defined in the evidence by Karuna

Tharmananthar (NSC/1/1) and Philip Paterson (NSC/211) in terms of the

14


choice of alignment, design of junctions, location of stops, and other

components, formed the foundation for the transport modelling and

appraisal of the Scheme.

4.6 Figure 3.1 in Appendix 3 summarises the alignment of the Scheme and

the location of stops as represented in the transport modeL. The Scheme

was added to the 'without scheme' networks for each time period in 2016

and 2031.

4.7 The transport model is based on well-established transport modelling

software - SATURN for the highway model and EMME for the public

transport and demand models. It represents the average supply and

demand across each hour-long period covered by the transport model-

the morning peak, the inter-peak and the evening peak. It is not a micro-

simulation transport model in which the movement of individual vehicles or

passengers is tracked as they travel through the transport network, with

the interaction between them influencing their behaviour. Such micro-

simulation transport models would not be capable of reflecting the traffic

behaviour over the wide area of impact of the Scheme and would have

limited ability to represent the change in mode as a result of the Scheme.

Economic Appraisal of the SBL Scheme

4.8 The economic appraisal of a major transport scheme, such as the SBL

Scheme, takes into account the changes in the characteristics of travel as

a result of the scheme. These include variations in the number of journeys

between the 'without scheme' situation and the 'with scheme' position,

together with variables such as journey times and journey distances by

each mode.

4.9 Appendix 2 summarises the process followed to calculate the stream of

benefits (in monetary terms) for the 60 year appraisal period starting from

the year of opening (2016), as required by the DfT appraisal process. This

15


takes into account guidance in a number of TAG Units which are listed in

Appendix 2.

4.10 In order to reflect the preference for benefits now, rather than in the future,

different weights are applied to individual years. The values are

discounted by 3.5% per annum for the first 30 years from the current year

and then by 3% p.a. up until the 60th year after the scheme opening. The

discounted values are then summed to give the Present Value of the

Benefits (PVB).

4.11 The costs of constructing, operating, maintaining and renewing the

Scheme are also discounted using similar principles to derive the Present

Value of the Costs (PVC).

4.12 Taking into account the guidance in TAG Unit, the stream of costs and

benefits over the appraisal period are defined in standard 2010 prices and

values, with the stream of values being converted to the PVC or PVB. The

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is calculated from PVB/PVC while the Net

Present Value (NPV) is PVB - PVC.

4.13 A number of factors create differences between the economic appraisal

contained in the MSBC) (CD 3/4), the corresponding appraisal in the

BAFB (CD 3/5) and the current situation. These include:

i. revised dates for the start of construction works and scheme opening

and revised scheme capital costs;

ii. as highlighted in Appendix 1, changes in the underlying DfT

NTEMITEMPRO planning and trip end forecasts fromNTEMITEMPRO version 5.4 and NTEMITEMPRO version 6.2; and

iii. application of the new version of the DfT TUBA (V1 .9) software with

associated revised assumptions for appraisal parameters.

4.14 Table 4.3 in Appendix 4 summarises the monetised values of costs and

benefits, based on the individual elements identified above. The

combination of benefits and costs produces PVB of £245.4m, PVC of

16


£39.4m and the resulting BCR of 6.23 which, in line with the DfT Value for

Money assessment (TAG Unit A 1.1), represents Very High Value for

Money.

4.15 Table 4.3 highlights the sources of the benefits from the Scheme:

i. The high level of economic efficiency savings demonstrate significant

journey time savings as a direct result of the Scheme, with further

savings in vehicle operating costs, although a small proportion of the

total;

ii. Improvements in the reliability of journey times for people making a

journey; and

Hi. Significant level of wider impacts including benefits to business

activity.

4.16 In addition to the monetised benefits identified above, the appraisal of the

Scheme for the BAFB submission (CD 3/5) also considered the following

principal non-monetised benefits. For these aspects, the appraisal applied

a seven point scale comprising three beneficial measures (slight,

moderate and significant), three adverse measures (slight, moderate and

significant), and the central 'Neutral' score.

i. Physical fitness/activity - (TAG Unit A4.1) - slight beneficial rating;

ii. Journey ambience/quality - (TAG Unit A4.1) - moderate beneficial

rating;

iii. Security - (TAG Unit A4.1) - moderate beneficial rating;

iv. Access to transport system - (TAG Unit A4.1) - moderate beneficial

rating;

v. Personal affordability - (TAG Unit A4.1) - neutral rating;

vi. Severance - (TAG Unit A4.1) - slight beneficial rating; and

vii. Option values - (TAG Unit A4.1) - moderate beneficial rating.

4.17 Further analysis examined how the main effects of the Scheme would

impact on different groups in society. The Social and Distributional Impact

(SDI) assessment was undertaken for the BAFB in accordance with TAG

Unit A4.2 and is reported in the BAFB submission (CD 3/5). The SDI

17


assessment considered the extent to which there are differences in the

way that impacts of the Scheme (positive and negative) affect different

groups in society. The SDI assessment looked at the distribution of the

main impacts of noise, air quality, accidents, security, severance,

accessibility and user benefits across the affected groups, rather than the

overall assessment outlined in the previous paragraph. The SDI

assessment found that, in general, there would be slight beneficial/positive

social and distributional impacts from the Scheme.

4.18 As set out in the evidence of Karuna Tharmananthar (NSC/1/1) and

Janette Shaw (NSC/1 0/1), and summarised in Section 3 of my evidence,

the content and aspirations of the Scheme are integrated with the policies

of central and local government at the local, regional and national leveL.

4.19 Section 5 contains a detailed description of the main transport impacts of

the Scheme.

18


5. Assessment of the Transport Impacts

Introduction

5.1 As identified in para 3.3, the objectives for the Scheme are:

i. to facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol;

ii. to reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of North

Somerset; and

iii. to improve accessibility from south Bristol to the City Centre and to

strategic transport links, including the trunk road network and Bristol

International Airport.

5.2 Within this section, I describe how the transport benefits contribute to

achieving the objectives of the Scheme. The regeneration and growth

aspects are considered in the evidence of lIias Drivylas (NSC/4/1).

5.3 The operation and construction of the Scheme will have an impact, either

directly or indirectly, on the travel characteristics of people using a range

of modes across North Somerset and south and central BristoL. The

impacts were assessed for each of the modes in turn - firstly the road

network, followed by public transport and then walking and cycling. These

are considered firstly within the operation of the Scheme and then during

its construction.

5.4 Where development proposals could potentially have significant transport

implications, a Transport Assessment (TA) is required for submission as

part of the planning application. A TA sets out the transport issues relating

to a proposed development (including a transport measure such as the

Scheme), and identifies the measures required to address the anticipated

impacts. The TA is used by the Highway Authority to determine the

acceptability of the proposals.

5.5 The TA for the Scheme forms part of the Environmental Statement and

was undertaken in accordance with the DfT's 'Guidance on Transport

19


Assessments' (March 2007) (CD 3/6). The TA provides traffic and

transport information and an objective technical assessment (including

capacity analysis) to demonstrate the traffic impact of the Scheme.

5.6 The TA concluded that the Scheme positively influences travel patterns

along the route corridor of the Scheme by attracting patronage from other

transport modes. Overall, the proposed Scheme is forecast to improve

operational conditions along the surrounding highway network in future

years.

Impact of the Scheme on the Operation of the Road Network

5.7 The existing highway network in wider south-west Bristol experiences

extensive congestion on both sub-regional and local roads, highlighting the

limited capacity for orbital journeys across this quadrant of the city. The

congestion not only creates extended journey times for travel across

south-west Bristol but the journey times are also unpredictable producing

irregular times and unreliable journeys. The unreliability causes drivers to,

on the one hand, miss appointments or, on the other hand, to waste time

by allowing too long for the journey. Examples of the location and scale of

the congestion are shown in a series of photos in Appendix 3; the

locations of the photos are shown in the viewpoint plan in Figure 3.2 and

highlight the following:

i. B3130 Barrow Street at Barrow Gurney (Figure 3.3) and Yanley

Lane carry significant levels of traffic between A370 and A38

corridors with limited capacity through the small community of

Barrow Gurney where the restricted road width limits two-way traffic;

ii. The Parson Street gyratory is a major focus for traffic in south-west

Bristol with the confluence of the A38, A3029, A4174 and B3122

routes resulting on significant congestion on all approaches and

around the gyratory itself (for example Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5);

iii. A3029 Winterstoke Road (Figure 3.6) carries significant private cars

and commercial vehicles accessing the retail parks, business parks

20


v.

and commercial properties along the corridor as well as through

traffic for the A370 and Cumberland Basin;

Local roads also experience considerable congestion, for example

the junction of Church Road, Whitchurch Road and Roman Road

(Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8); andWith the heavy volumes of traffic on the major radial routes, local

traffic often experiences delays in accessing the radial network, for

example the junction of Kings Head Lane with A38 Bridgwater Road

(Figure 3.9) as well as other routes.

iv.

5.8 The Scheme will provide a new strategic highway link between the A370,

A38 and Hartcliffe/Hengrove for general traffic which will improve

accessibility to south Bristol and the Airport from the City Centre and

surrounding areas to provide better connectivity for business and private

journeys and reduce the congestion on key interchanges linking to these

areas. At the same time, the additional capacity will improve the reliability

of travel and reduce the unpredictability of journey times. Hence, in this

way, the Scheme will have a direct positive impact on accessibility in line

with the third objective in para 3.3.

5.9 The SBL Scheme provides an alternative connection between south

Bristol (including the residential areas of Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe,

Withywood and Highridge), the A38 and the A370. At present, the most

direct alternative route is along the congested A3029 Winterstoke Road

via the Parson Street gyratory and then along either the A38 Bridgwater

Road or the A4174 Hartcliffe Way.

5.10 The improvements to accessibility created by the Scheme are

demonstrated in Figure 3.10 to Figure 3.12 which show the change in

journey times from across Bristol to three points located at different

positions along the Scheme. In each case, the output from the transport

model presents the change in travel times following the introduction of the

Scheme (in one minute bands) on the highway network in the 2031

morning peak hour for:

21


i.

ii.

Highridge Common (Figure 3.10);

Imperial Retail Park on Hengrove Way/Hartcliffe Way (Figure 3.11);

and

Long Ashton P&R site (Figure 3.12).iii.

5.11 The impact of the Scheme on accessibility highlights:

i. For Highridge Common, there are significant improvements to the

west of the area but also noticeable journey time reductions to the

north, across the Cumberland Basin and to parts of central Bristol;

ii. For the Imperial Retail Park, the main accessibility improvements

are to the west, as well as to the north as far as the Harbourside

area of Bristol City Centre; and

Hi. The accessibility to the P&R site shows widespread improvements

across south Bristol, either directly from the scheme itself or from

the relief that it provides on parallel corridors such as Winterstoke

Road.

5.12 The forecast impact on average journey times is shown in Table 4.4 which

highlights the significant reductions in travel times as a direct result of the

introduction of the Scheme. The residential areas to the south of the

Scheme see an average decrease of approaching 3 minutes when making

a journey to the City Centre in the morning and evening peak hours in

2031.

5.13 Access to Bristol Airport is also improved by the Scheme, with average

journey times from Bristol Airport to the City Centre reducing by

approximately two minutes in 2031.

5.14 For circumferential journeys, such as between the Cater Road Business

Park and the M5 near Avonmouth, via the A4, journey times are forecast

to be between 2Y:2 and 5Y:2 minutes quicker in 2031 with the Scheme in

place. This highlights the current difficulties in completing circumferential

journeys across south-west Bristol due to the limitations in the highway

network.

22


5.15 The values in Table 4.4 represent average travel times across the morning

peak period and hence there will be significantly greater savings at peak

times. Furthermore, together with the time savings for the average

journey, there will be more predictable journey times and less unreliability.

5.16 The impact of the reductions in journey times is to change the distribution

of traffic within the wider corridor. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 in Appendix 4

and Figure 3.13 to Figure 3.18 in Appendix 3 summarise the forecast

change in traffic flows on the road network, in the vicinity of the Scheme, in

the Opening Year (2016) and Design Year (2031). The analysis

demonstrates the function of the Scheme in reducing traffic levels on

surrounding residential streets, along congested routes and on unsuitable

roads. This is achieved as traffic uses the Scheme rather than adjacent

routes.

5.17 Analysis has been applied to traffic flows forecast by SATU RN modelling

(the highway element of the Scheme modelling system outlined in

Appendix 1) in the following peak periods:

i. AM Peak hour 0800 - 0900;ii. Average Inter-Peak hour 1000 - 1600; and

Hi. PM Peak hour 1700 - 1800.

5.18 Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.14 indicate the forecast change in traffic flows in

the AM Peak hour in 2016 and 2031 respectively. Where roads are

marked green, flows on that highway link are forecast to increase as a

result of implementing the Scheme. Where roads are marked blue, traffic

flows are forecast to decrease. The width of the line indicates the volume

of change in the flow of passenger carrying units (pcu - a measure of

converting all vehicles to a single unit of size: 1 car = 1 pcu, 1 HGV =

2.3pcu and 1 bus/coach = 3.0pcu).

5.19 As traffic reassigns to the SBL Scheme in south Bristol (in both 2016 and

2031), there will be decreases in traffic flows on roads which currently link

23


the residential areas of south Bristol (in the vicinity of the SBL route) to

Winterstoke Road and to the City Centre via Bedminster, most notably

along:

i. Whitchurch Road,

ii. Bishopsworth Road,

iii. Kings Head Lane; and

iv. Highridge Green.

5.20 Due to the residential nature of these streets and their proximity to local

schools, the Scheme will generally provide important environmental and

safety benefits associated with reduced traffic flows. The Scheme will be

designed to a higher standard than existing roads, providing a more

appropriate alternative route, particularly for journeys to/from the west.

For example, the Bedminster Down School close to Kings Head Lane

would benefit from the reduction in traffic along that road. Similarly, the

Cheddar Grove Primary School on Bishopsworth Road and St Peter's

Church of England Primary School near to Church Road would also

benefit from traffic reductions.

5.21 Flow reductions are also forecast on Whitchurch Lane in the vicinity of the

staggered junction with Hareclive Road and the Lidl supermarket, where

an existing accident grouping exists. Six collisions were reported at this

location during the five year period from 1 st April 2007 to 31 st March 2012.

Five of these collisions resulted in slight and one in serious injuries. One

collision per year occurred between 2007 and 2010, whilst two collisions

occurred in 2011.

5.22 With the Scheme in place, a new signalised crossroad will connect the

SBL to Hareclive Road. Apart from the left turn movement from Hareclive

Road (south) to SBL, all other turns at the junction will be prohibited.

Whitchurch Lane will connect to the SBL (to the east of the Hareclive Road

junction) via a new 3 arm signalised junction with the right turn from

Whitchurch Lane to south-westbound SBL and the left turn from the north-

eastbound SBL to Whitchurch Lane being prohibited. The proposed

24


alterations significantly reduce the potential for vehicular (and pedestrian)

conflict at these junctions. When combined with the forecast traffic flow

reduction on existing roads and the proposed improvements to pedestrian

provision, the Scheme presents an opportunity to resolve the existing

safety issues and hence reduce accident risks.

5.23 A reduction in traffic flows is also forecast along the A38 Bridgwater Road /

West Street corridor (especially between the proposed A38/SBL junction

and the Parson Street Gyratory).

5.24 With the Scheme in place, traffic flows are forecast to increase between

the proposed SBUA370 roundabout and the A3029 Brunei Way (towards

the Cumberland Basin). However, the forecast change in traffic flows

crossing the Cumberland Basin itself is negligible, because:

i. The SBL section connecting the A370 with the A38 has the function

of formalising the point at which traffic travels between these two

'Primary Routes' and A3029 Winterstoke Road with traffic flows

being reassigned to the Scheme from both Yanley Lane and Barrow

Street.

ii. The Scheme also attracts traffic currently using the congested A3029

Winterstoke Road for travel between south Bristol and the A370 / A4.

Some traffic from other routes reassigns to Winterstoke Road due to

the spare capacity created by traffic switching to the SBL Scheme.

5.25 Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 present the forecast change in traffic flows in

the PM Peak hour which follows a similar pattern to the AM Peak hour.

5.26 As traffic reassigns to the SBL Scheme in south Bristol, a reduction in

traffic flows is forecast along surrounding streets, most notably:

i. Whitchurch Road,

ii. Bishopsworth Road,

Hi. Kings Head Lane; and

iv. Highridge Green.

25


5.27 Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 show that traffic that now uses the SBL

Scheme between the A38 and A370 used to take other routes to travel

between the A38 and A370, notably Barrow Street, Yanley Lane and

Winterstoke Road.

5.28 The eastern end of the Scheme on King Georges Road provides a means

of accessing the local areas within south Bristol, and reducing traffic flow

through the reserved corridor (between Queens Road and Hareclive

Road). From Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16, eastbound traffic would

previously have used Kings Head Lane and Whitchurch Road to head

towards Hengrove and Highridge Green en route to Hartcliffe and

Whitchurch Park.

5.29 Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18 indicate the forecast change in traffic flows in

the Inter-Peak average hour in 2016 and 2031 respectively. The plots

show similar changes in traffic flow to the AM and PM Peak periods.

Impact of the SBL Scheme on Traffic at Individual Junctions

5.30 The evidence of Philip Paterson (NSC/211) considers the design aspects

of the Scheme which took into account the detailed performance of key

individual junctions. The performance of the following six junctions along

the Scheme were also assessed for the Transport Assessment:

i. A370 roundabout;

ii. Brookgate;

Hi. A38 Bridgwater Road;

iv. Highridge Road;

v. Queens Road; and

vi. Hareclive Road and Whitchurch Lane.

5.31 Industry-standard software 'Junctions' and 'LinSig' were used for the

Opening Year (2016) and Design Year (2031) assessments of the above

junctions.

26


5.32 'Junctions' is a package of programmes which includes Transport

Research Laboratory's ARCADY software for assessing operating

conditions at roundabout junctions. Where ARCADY reports a 'Ratio of

Flow to Capacity' (RFC) value greater than 0.85 (Le. 85% of theoretical

capacity) along one or more of the junction approach arms, a roundabout

is forecast to exceed the design capacity. Where ARCADY reports an

RFC greater than 1.0 a roundabout is forecast to exceed the theoretical

capacity.

5.33 LinSig is a software tool developed by JCT Consultancy for assessing

operating conditions at signal-controlled junctions. Where LinSig reports a

'Degree of Saturation' (DoS) value greater than 90% (Le. 90% of

theoretical capacity) along one or more of the junction approach arms, the

junction is forecast to exceed design capacity. Where LinSig reports a

DoS value greater than 100% along one or more junction approach arms,

the junction is forecast to exceed the theoretical capacity. LinSig

processes this information to provide an overall 'Practical Reserve

Capacity' (PRC) value for the junction as a whole; a positive PRC

indicates that all of the junction arms are forecast to operate within the

theoretical capacity.

A370 Roundabout

5.34 The ARCADY results in Table 4.6 (2016) and Table 4.7 (2031) for the

A370 roundabout, operating under normal 'give way' control with no

signalisation, indicate that the junction is forecast to operate within the

capacity during both peak periods in 2016 and during the PM peak in

2031. During the AM peak in 2031, the SBL approach to the junction is

forecast to exceed design capacity but is still shown to be within

theoretical capacity. Whilst an RFC of 0.96 is forecast, this represents a

total queue of only 17 vehicles across the two SBL approach lanes and

hence is not a problem.

27


5.35 The results from the ARCADY assessments indicate that the signalisation

of the roundabout will be required beyond the design year (Le. after 2031)

and consequently the layout has been designed to accommodate this,

primarily through the inclusion of an extended two lane approach along the

northbound SBL arm. LinSig results for the signalised roundabout show

that satisfactory operating conditions would be maintained in both

weekday peak hours in 2031.

Brookgate

5.36 The LinSig modelling in Table 4.8 (2016) and Table 4.9 (2031) shows that

the proposed junction will operate satisfactorily in both peak hours in the

Opening Year (2016) even with the bus link to/from the Ashton Vale Park

and Ride running in every cycle. The predicted PRC was +28.5% during

the AM Peak Period and +35.8% during the PM Peak Period. With the

signals having a 90 second cycle, this represents a situation where 40

buses an hour run in each direction on the bus-only link if only one bus

passes through the junction in each cycle. The services running along the

bus-only link would include the SBL MetroBus service, the Airport Flyer

and any other services which private bus operators seek to operate along

the corridor. Hence, there would be ample capacity at the junction for the

expected combined level of services on the bus-only link in the opening

year.

5.37 The LinSig results for the Design Year (2031) show that the proposed

junction would operate satisfactorily in both peak hours, albeit with the bus

link to/from the Ashton Vale Park and Ride running in every other cycle.

The predicted PRC was + 10.2% during the AM Peak Period and +40.9%

during the PM Peak Period. With alternate cycles, the reduction in the

volume of buses able to run through the junction to 20 buses per hour in

each direction still represents a situation higher than the current plans and

hence would not represent a significant limitation to the service on the bus-

only link. The level of 20 buses per hour is based on an assumption of just

28


one bus per cycle and therefore the initial limit of 20 buses per hour could

be exceeded if more than one bus per cycle passes through the junction.

5.38 In the event that the SBL bus link would need to operate in every cycle by

2031, road marking alterations would be needed to ensure the junction

continues to operate satisfactorily. The road marking alterations would

allow 'straight-ahead' use of both lanes on the southbound approach on

the Scheme from the A370.

A38 Bridgwater Road

5.39 The LinSig modelling of the preferred signalised roundabout design in

Table 4.10 (2016) and Table 4.11 (2031) shows that the layout would

operate within capacity during both peak periods in 2016 and during the

AM peak in 2031. The predicted PRC for the roundabout in 2016 was

+27% during the AM Peak period and +16.7% during the PM Peak period.

During the AM Peak in 2031, the predicted PRC for the roundabout was

+2.6%

5.40 During the PM peak in 2031, the northbound SBL approach to the junction

is forecast to exceed the design capacity (DoS;::. 90%) but to be within the

theoretical capacity (DoS -c:: 100%). In this situation, a total queue of only

16 vehicles is forecast across the three SBL northbound approach lanes

and hence this would not represent a significant restriction.

SBL Junctions with Highridge Road and Queens Road (connected by King

Georges Road)

5.41 The SBL junctions with Highridge Road and Queens Road will operate as

a linked set of traffic signals and have been modelled accordingly in

LinSig. The junction will operate in this manner to ensure that any

significant queuing, that may arise in the 2031 Design Year, will occur

beyond King Georges Road which has residential frontages along both

sides.

29


5.42 The LinSig results for the Highridge Road junction are presented in Table

4.12 (2016) and Table 4.13 (2031). The corresponding results for Queens

Road are shown in Table 4.14 (2016) and Table 4.15 (2031).

5.43 The assessment results indicate that both junctions are forecast to operate

within capacity during the AM and PM Peak periods in 2016. However, by

2031, capacity problems are forecast at both junctions, with LinSig

forecasting a PRC of -27.1 % and -4.4% during the AM and PM Peak

periods respectively at the SBL junction with Highridge Road; and a PRC

of -18.8% at the SBL junction with Queens Road during the PM Peak

Period.

5.44 The forecast Design Year situation at these two signalised junctions is not

unexpected for an urban environment whereby the physical scale of the

junction and the provision of crossing facilities for pedestrians have to be

balanced against potential land-take requirements and the need to provide

capacity for motorised vehicles. Furthermore, to provide junctions at both

these locations to accommodate the forecast 2031 traffic demand would

mean that other policies to encourage use of more sustainable modes, will

be more difficult to implement successfully. Giving due consideration to

these factors, both junctions have not been designed with the appropriate

capacity to accommodate the full traffic level forecast for 2031. It will be

possible to establish appropriate traffic management measures such as

traffic calming, route signing or other 'softer' measures designed to lock-in

the benefits of the Scheme These would form part of a post-opening

evaluation process; which will entail ongoing monitoring of traffic growth

and queuing along this part of the route in particular.

Hareclive Road and Whitchurch Lane

5.45 Assessments of both the signalled SBL junctions with Hareclive Road and

Whitchurch Lane were undertaken using the program LinSig; with the

assessment results indicating that both junctions would achieve a

satisfactory operational performance. The results are presented in Table

30


4.16 (2016) and Table 4.17 (2031). The predicted PRCs in 2016 were

+81 % and +74.7% in the AM and PM Peak periods respectively. By 2031

the predicted PRCs were shown to decrease, although only to +46.1 % and

+40.1 % during the AM and PM Peak periods respectively.

Impact of the SBL Scheme on Public Transport Users

5.46 The introduction of the Scheme will have a significant impact on the

journeys made by passengers using MetroBus, Airport Flyer and other bus

services which take advantage of the potential operating improvements

generated by the Scheme. These benefits to passengers include shorter

journey times, better reliability of the services, greater journey time

predictability, higher quality vehicles and stops, producing a significant

improvement to the overall passenger experience. The benefits are not

only experienced in respect of the Scheme itself but also extend to the

A VTM scheme where services such as MetroBus and the Airport Flyer

take advantage of the priority measures provided by AVTM. Figure 3.19

shows the combined priority measures for the SBL and AVTM schemes

and hence demonstrates the widespread priority available to the services.

5.47 The quality of the MetroBus vehicle is intended to be a significant upgrade

over and above that provided by the standard of vehicle operating on

'Showcase' bus services in the West of England. In particular, it is

proposed that the vehicle will incorporate most if not all of the following

features:

i. Level access and comfortable, accessible seating;

ii. Two sets of doors to speed up passenger boarding and alighting and

minimise dwell time at stops;

Hi. A hybrid drive transmission, or similar energy-efficient technology, to

minimise emissions and fuel consumption;

iv. Intelligent passenger information including service screens and audio

'next stop' announcements;

v. On board Wi-fi and other media features; and

vi. A distinctive livery and branding.

31


5.48 Stops and interchanges will play a key role in promoting the MetroBus

network and maximising patronage. The overall principle for the

specification of the stops and interchanges will be to promote a level of

infrastructure more akin to a tram stop rather than a bus stop. This will be

delivered through an infrastructure specification which sets out standards

for the following aspects of MetroBus stop provision:

i. Platform dimensions - a defined platform to a specific standard to

accommodate waiting passengers in a designated 'safe haven';

ii. A high quality shelter of a sufficient size and structure to provide

protection against the elements, sufficient seating, a distinctive

design to promote and identify the MetroBus network, and

incorporate passenger information and an advertising panel (subject

to planning permission;

iii. Timetable information and a 'Real Time' passenger information

display to an appropriate standard.

iv. A strong emphasis on shelter and stop branding, using the West of

England-endorsed 'Travel Plus' brand to provide a co-ordinated

livery to complement that to be adopted for the MetroBus network as

a whole, including the vehicle, information and publicity material, and

promoting a network which is distinctive and recognisable;

v. Off-bus ticketing equipment (the extent and specification of which will

be confirmed through the MetroBus ticketing strategy);

vi. A bus stop flag (a legislative requirement, and integrated with the

shelter);

vii. A bus stop' clearway' painted on the highway to prohibit parking and

loading at all times other than for MetroBus, and where appropriate,

background bus services; and

viii. Complementary facilities as appropriate (litter bins, cycle parking,

etc).

5.49 Public transport passengers will benefit from reductions in journey times

as a direct result of the new connections provided by the Scheme. Table

32


4.5 highlights the main forecast savings in journey times by public

transport.

5.50 Implementation of the Scheme provides a combination of improved public

transport infrastructure (bus lanes on the Scheme and select vehicle

detection at signals), new and revised services between Bristol City Centre

and south Bristol and Bristol Airport, as well as a reduction in traffic on the

highway network. These together facilitate improved journey times for the

bus services to/from south BristoL. As summarised in Table 4.5, during the

morning peak hour in 2031 there is forecast to be an average bus journey

time reduction of approaching 2112 minutes between south Bristol and

Bristol City Centre. Flyer services between Bristol Airport and the City

Centre see a much larger decrease in average journey times, with the

morning peak hour bus journeys being forecast to take almost 6 minutes

less than the 'without the Scheme' ('Do Minimum') scenario. This is due to

the reduction in traffic north of the Scheme, particularly along the A38, and

the introduction of Airport Flyer services along the Scheme.

5.51 The MetroBus element of the Scheme will comprise modern, comfortable,

low emission vehicles with high quality waiting facilities and integrated

ticketing. Bus lanes and priority measures along the route will ensure that

these seNices not only provide faster connections but also significantly

improve the reliability of journeys by public transport, so that passengers

can travel with greater confidence of reaching their destination on time.

These benefits combine to increase the attractiveness of this mode

relative to journeys using private cars. The new infrastructure also

presents opportunities for the operators of existing bus services which

decide to use the Scheme route (e.g. the Airport Flyer Service, considered

separately below).

5.52 The Scheme provides an opportunity for buses to bypass sections of the

busy A370, A38 and A3029 Winterstoke Road, particularly for travel

to/from the centre of BristoL. Traffic travelling along these routes can

experience significant delays, particularly during the peak periods.

33


Analysis of journey time data (collected for the purpose of the transport

model) for these routes shows the following in terms of observed delays

(i.e. delay as a proportion of the mean journey time):

i. A38 (northbound from Downside to Bedminster Road during the AM

Peak) -29%;

ii. A370 (northbound during the AM Peak) - 42%;

Hi. Winterstoke Road (A3029 clockwise) - greater than 40% during AM

and PM Peaks and 27% during inter-peak; and

iv. South Bristol (Bedminster - Hartcliffe - Hengrove) - greater than

30% during AM and PM Peaks and greater than 20% during inter-

peak.

5.53 These delays affect the movement of buses as well as private motorised

vehicles, with the delays having a direct impact on bus journey time

reliability and an indirect impact on bus patronage levels. From the

experience with the implementation of the Greater Bristol Bus Network,

greater journey time reliability results in increased patronage and fare

revenue. Furthermore, bus priority measures can improve the public

image of buses to other road users; particularly along routes where private

motorised vehicles experience lengthy delays while buses pass by

unimpeded along segregated bus lanes and receive further priority over

other road users at traffic signal controlled junctions. The combination of

the priority measures which would be available to MetroBus and Airport

Flyer services are shown in Figure 3.19.

5.54 Greater bus journey time reliability can provide an incentive for existing

bus operators to provide an improved level of service (both in terms of

frequency and coverage) through south Bristol which, combined with the

MetroBus element, could result in a step change in attitudes towards travel

by public transport. The Scheme therefore presents an opportunity to

improve the reliability of existing bus services and to increase forecast bus

patronage levels and coverage in south BristoL. The passenger volumes

on the MetroBus and Airport Flyer services running along the Scheme

34


alignment are demonstrated in Figure 3.21 which presents the 12 hour

time period (0700-1900) in the 2031 forecast year.

Access to Bristol Airport

5.55 The Airport Flyer provides a public transport service between Bristol

Airport and Bristol City Centre. Since 2007 there has been a steady

increase in the proportion of airport passengers using public transport

(increase from 8% in 2007 to 13% in 2012) which has occurred primarily

as a result of the growth in passengers using the Airport Flyer Service.

Nevertheless, the service currently experiences delays at peak times on

congested urban roads, particularly when running through the congested

areas of Bedminster, West Street and the Parson Street gyratory.

Through a combination of the measures within A VTM (including the

segregated alignment and other priority measures and the SBL Scheme,

the Flyer service would be diverted away from the main congested areas

and would therefore experience reductions in journey times.

5.56 From the current level of 6.1 million passengers travelling through the

airport in 2013, there is now planning consent that allows the passenger

through-put to increase to 10million passengers per year. Bristol Airport

has produced an Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS) covering the

period 2012 - 2016, addressing the planning obligations (linked to their

planning consent) relating to surface access. The aims and objectives of

the ASAS are:

i. To secure easy, reliable and efficient access to Bristol Airport for

passengers and staff;

ii. To increase the use of public transport by passengers consistent with

a target of 15% of passengers using public transport at 10 million

passengers per annum;

Hi. To improve access to Bristol Airport for passengers travelling to and

from the West of England, the South West of England and South

Wales;

iv. To reduce congestion and the carbon and air quality impacts of traffic

35


travelling to and from Bristol Airport;

v. To facilitate access to jobs for local communities through the

implementation of the Staff Travel Plan;

vi. To ensure that the surface access arrangements contribute to the

growth of Bristol Airport and enable it to deliver its full potential in

delivering air services to the local catchment supporting economic

growth.

5.57 The Scheme will play a key role in achieving the above aims and

objectives; and has the potential to transform surface access to Bristol

Airport. The Airport Flyer service would join the segregated section of the

Scheme at the A38 junction and travel into the City Centre via the AVTM

route, gaining considerable improvements in journey time reliability as a

result of segregation from general traffic and prioritisation. The southern

section of the Scheme will also facilitate improved public transport access

to south Bristol, Keynsham, Saltford and Bath. Figure 3.20 indicates the

routes of the Airport Flyer services.

5.58 As passenger levels increase towards the 10 million mark, the Airport

Flyer will be upgraded in terms of both quality and frequency to provide a

MetroBus service with a greatly reduced journey time. The Airport Flyer

vehicle will meet a similar (although not identical) standard to the

MetroBus service.

Impact of the SBL Scheme on Pedestrians and Cyclists

5.59 There are a number of potential impacts for the Scheme on pedestrians

and cyclists along the route corridor of the Scheme. The design of the

Scheme has taken the linkage with cycle routes into account, as indicated

by the evidence by Philip Paterson (NSC/2/1).

5.60 ' The design of the Scheme allows for the continuous provision of a

cycle/footway using a combination of existing, generally shared-space,

paths and newly provided connections.

36


5.61 Figure 3.22 summarises the key formal cycle lane route provision in the

vicinity of the Scheme based on mapping produced by Sustrans and

Bristol City CounciL. National Cycle Network (NCN) Routes 33 and 334

connect Long Ashton to Bristol City Centre, passing close to the western

end of the Scheme. This provides a good radial route between the City

Centre and areas to the south-west of the city.

5.62 There are also good north-south radial linkages for cyclists between the

City Centre and Hengrove Park. This takes the form of both on and off-

road provision through Bedminster or via predominately off-road shared

path provision on the A3029 Winterstoke Road and A4174 Hartcliffe Way,

linking Ashton Vale to Hartcliffe and Hengrove Park.

5.63 However, there is currently no provision for an orbital cycle route directly

linking Long Ashton and Brookgate to the south-west of the city to

Bishopsworth and Withywood to the south of Bristol and providing rural

and urban connectivity. The Scheme will provide this cycle linkage,

significantly reducing overall cycle times for journeys between these two

areas. For example, at present a cycle trip between the Long Ashton Park

& Ride site and the junction of Queens Road / King Georges Road is

6.5km and would take approximately 26 minutes. With the provision of the

new Scheme cycle route, the overall distance will be reduced to

approximately 3.75km, with an average cycling time of 15 minutes. At the

same time, the new segregated route would reduce the number of

potential conflicts between cyclists and motorised traffic.

5.64 Furthermore, the A VTM scheme will provide good cycle links from the

Long Ashton P&R into the City Centre via the Cumberland Basin and

Harbourside as shown in Figure 3.22. Therefore, the Scheme will provide

an attractive cycle route which in combination with the A VTM scheme will

provide a continuous route between Bishopsworth/Withywood and the City

Centre.

37


5.65 In addition to the formalised on-road and off-road provision identified in

Figure 3.22, the Bristol Cycle Map identifies some other minor roads

which are advised for use by cyclists, but which do not have formalised

provision of lanes. Along the route, the only minor roads which are

advised for use by cyclists which run parallel to the Scheme are King

Georges Road, Gatehouse Avenue, Whitland Road and Whitchurch Road

in Bishopsworth and Hartcliffe.

5.66 For pedestrians, the new sections of the Scheme between the A370/P&R

Site and A38, and between A38 and Highridge Green represent direct

links which will significantly reduce the walking time. There are limited

circumferential on-road walking routes across the south-west of Bristol

such that from Bishopsworth to Bower Ashton/Ashton Court would require

an indirect route via Winterstoke Road. The new links offered by the

Scheme will therefore significantly reduce the walking time for such

journeys.

5.67 As highlighted earlier in para 5.22, where the Scheme runs along existing

routes, for example Whitchurch Lane, the junctions have been redesigned

to reduce the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, thereby providing

the opportunity for reductions in the number of traffic accidents involving

pedestrians.

Accessibility Improvements Aiding Regeneration and Growth

5.68 Two of the SBL Scheme's objectives identified in para 3.3 are to facilitate

regeneration and growth in south Bristol and to improve accessibility from

south Bristol to the City Centre and to strategic transport links. These

objectives are closely aligned. The evidence by llias Drivylas (NSC/4/1)

considers the wider regeneration impacts. Figure 3.10 to Figure 3.12,

introduced earlier, highlight the accessibility improvement created by the

Scheme.

38


5.69 The SBL Scheme will give opportunity to facilitate regeneration and

economic growth in south Bristol by improving connections for public

transport users, cyclists, pedestrians, commercial vehicles and those

travelling in private vehicles. This will be achieved by facilitating the

provision of a high quality and reliable MetroBus service (forming part of

the wider MetroBus Network), new cycling and pedestrian linkages and a

new strategic link for general traffic providing improved access between

south Bristol, the A370 and the City Centre. Overall, the Scheme will

improve access to education, employment, leisure, health and retail

services and will provide an opportunity to reduce congestion in south

Bristol and adjacent areas of North Somerset.

5.70 Furthermore, the SBL Scheme will provide transport related improvements

through and close to some of the most deprived areas in the city. The

MetroBus and dedicated cycle and pedestrian provision will give greater

transport choices for those who do not have access to a car or choose not

to drive, which is pertinent to address the lower than average of car

ownership in the area. The improved transport links offered by the South

Bristol Link will therefore provide much needed opportunities for business

growth and prosperity.

5.71 In recognising the potential benefits created by the Scheme, it will be

important for the highway authorities to ensure that, over time, the benefits

are not dissipated by a general increase in traffic volumes and car use but

are locked-in as part of the ongoing responsibility for the management of

the road network. Such benefits include not only the journey time savings

but also the improvements to air quality and reductions in noise for

residents on roads that experience reductions in traffic.

5.72 The Scheme provided the opportunity for the introduction of a wide range

of further measures that are available to the highway authorities, some of

which such as the closure of side roads, and the design/redesign of

junctions will move traffic off minor routes and onto the principal highway

network. The reduction in traffic highlighted in Figure 3.13 to Figure 3.18

39

TRANSPORTNSC/3/1

June 2014

on roads such as the B3130 through Barrow Gurney, Bishopsworth Road,

Kings Head Lane and Whitchurch Road would need to be monitored as

part of the highway authorities' ongoing responsibilities.

5.73 A combination of measures, many small-scale, would contribute to locking-

in the benefits including further bus priority improvements, changes to

existing priorities, small-scale junction improvements, cycle/pedestrian

priorities and local routes, improvements to the streetscape at schools and

local centres, and changes to signed traffic routes. In addition, 'softer'

measures such as improved travel planning and the provision of

information to local residents and users of the transport facilities can

further contribute to the locking-in of the Scheme's benefits.

Interrelationship with Other Schemes

5.74 The SBL Scheme builds on the measures contained in the A VTM scheme

which as it is approved is contained in the baseline for the SBL Scheme.

There are significant synergies between the two schemes with, for

example, the MetroBus and Airport Flyer services running from the Bristol

City Centre on AVTM alignment before moving onto the SBL section.

5.75 In addition to the Scheme, BCC and South Gloucestershire Council are

developing further improvements to the transport infrastructure as part of

the North Fringe to Hengrove Package (NFHP). This includes extensions

to the MetroBus bus rapid transit network, with routes proposed between

Hengrove and Cribbs Causeway and between Hengrove and Emersons

Green. Measures are included in the NFHP to provide priority for the

MetroBus and other bus services, which therefore impact on the capacity

of the highway network including some locations in south BristoL. An

assessment has therefore been made using the transport model to

establish the impact on the Scheme of the measures in the NFHP.

5.76 The impacts demonstrate that the NFHP scheme will have only minor

impacts along the SBL Scheme corridor; most of the impacts are

40


concentrated on the main NFHP corridor between Hengrove and Bristol

City Centre via Hartcliffe Way. There is some small-scale re-routeing of

traffic as a result of the changes to junction priorities with the NFHP

scheme but these would not make a significant impact on the areas

relieved by the SBL Scheme.

Impact of Construction on the Transport Network

5.77 The evidence by Philip Paterson (NSC/211) describes the construction

process including the Construction Methodology which includes the

location of site compounds and the need for temporary road closures and

diversions.

5.78 Transport related impacts are likely during the construction stage of the

SBL Scheme, albeit that these will be of a short term and temporary

nature, occurring in close proximity to the proposed SBL route. In order to

minimise the impacts during the construction stage, a Pre-Construction

Environmental Management Plan has been prepared and was submitted

as part of the SBL Scheme planning application (CD 4/3).

5.79 The aim of the CEMP is to minimise the impact of construction activities

and traffic movements on local communities, the surrounding transport

network (including access to private and commercial properties and to

public access routes) and the environment.

5.80 The main site compounds would be located in the vicinity of the A370, the

existing Great Western rail bridge and the A38. Additional minor

compounds would be established closer to the urban areas during the

road refurbishment / construction works of the southern section of the

route.

5.81 The principal contractor will need to agree with the local highway

authorities appropriate traffic management measures, including

permissible vehicle routes, to accommodate the movement of construction

41


related traffic to and from the site compound(s). This requirement has

been set as a planning condition to the Scheme's planning approval.

Construction Impacts

5.82 The A38 and A370 are key arterial routes carrying a high volume of traffic

into and out of Bristol City Centre. These two routes are likely to

accommodate a large proportion of construction traffic travelling between

the site and the wider network. As far as possible, access to the site

compounds would be provided directly from the A38 and the A370 to

minimise the volume of construction traffic travelling along the residential

streets of south BristoL.

5.83 Between the A370 and the A38, during construction of the northern section

of the Scheme, the main impact in transport terms will be severance of

existing PRoWs. Whilst permanent diversions are proposed to

accommodate for this, some temporary diversions will be required during

the construction stage.

5.84 To minimise the impact on PRoW users, the route would be constructed in

phases (in a single direction), to ensure multiple closures and diversions

are not required simultaneously. Stakeholder consultation should be

undertaken prior to any temporary PROW closures and/or diversions.

Temporary diversions would be agreed and in place prior to any existing

PRoW being 'stopped up' with diversions following the line, wherever

possible, of the PRoW proposed as part of the Scheme. This will assist

with minimising the environmental impacts during construction as well as

inconvenience to PRoW users.

5.85 Between the A38 and Hareclive Road, there will be a greater impact on

the surrounding transport network and private and commercial property

accesses during construction of the central section of the route.

Construction of the new link from the A38 to the junction with Highridge

42


Green and the improvements to King Georges Road will necessitate

closure of these residential roads to through traffic.

5.86 With regards Highridge Green, the extent of the road closure is likely to be

limited to the short section between the junctions with Sandburrows Road

and Highridge Road. Access (for all modes) will need to be retained to the

residential properties along this section of Highridge Green during any

road closures with Cutler Road and the Grange Road, Church Road and

Queens Road corridor providing potential diversionary routes for local

traffic.

5.87 The entire length of King Georges Road will be upgraded as part of the

SBL Scheme. Any road closure would be phased to minimise the impact

of traffic diverting to surrounding residential streets e.g. closure to the west

of Elmtree Drive during the initial phase and closure to the east during the

subsequent phase. Numerous options exist in terms of potential

diversionary routes during the closure (or part closure) of King Georges

Road including the following most direct routes:

i. To the south: Queens Road - Four Acres - Highridge Road; and

ii. To the north: Queens Road - Highridge Road.

5.88 The merits and impacts of the alternative potential diversionary routes

would be considered in order to identify the most appropriate diversion.

5.89 Within the reserved corridor between Queens Road and Hareclive Road,

the main impact during the construction stage will be severance of the two

formalised paths linking the residential areas to the north and south. To

minimise the impact on users of these formalised paths, the route would

be constructed in phases (in a single direction), so that both paths are not

closed simultaneously.

5.90 Between Hareclive Road and the Cater Road roundabout, construction of

this final part of the route will require closure of the short section of

Whitchurch Road outside the Lidl store (between the priority junction with

43


Hareclive Road and the new road link to the east). During construction of

this section of the route, the new road link connecting Hareclive Road to

the Cater Road roundabout (and the Hareclive Road connection to

Whitchurch Road) would be completed prior to the commencement of

works on Whitchurch Road. The new road link will then be able to

accommodate traffic diverting from Whitchurch Road and appropriate

pedestrian and cycle linkages will also be in place connecting to Whitland

Road.

..

44


6. Consideration of Objections

Introduction

6.1 In preparing my evidence, the aim has been to consider the points raised

in objections to the CPO and SRO within the content of the main body of

evidence or the attached appendices. Objections or issues which have

not been considered in this way are examined below.

Potential Impact of Through Traffic on South Liberty Lane (OBJ8)

6.2 An objection has been received from Addleshaw Goddard on behalf of

Sackville UKPEC 2 Galahad Nominee 1 Ltd in relation to the impact of the

Scheme on South Liberty Lane and Brookgate Industrial Estate. The

objection in respect of the transport impact is that:

i. South Liberty Lane will become a through road and that there has

not been sufficient assessment of the traffic impact of the Scheme

on South Liberty Lane and Brookgate and secondly; and

ii. the way in which current unrestricted on-street parking on Brookgate

and South Liberty Lane will be affected by the Scheme needs to be

explained.

6.3 While the route along South Liberty Lane between the Scheme and

Winterstoke Road would technically be a potential through route for traffic,

in practice there are a number of factors which would diminish the

attractiveness of the through route to through traffic to the extent that the

volume of through traffic would be negligible. These factors include:

i. The delays to through traffic due to the traffic signals at the railway

bridges on South Liberty Lane (see Figure 3.23) and Ashton Drive

(see Figure 3.24) which limit the capacity and increase the journey

time for through traffic;

ii. The speed limit of 20mph on South Liberty Lane which limits the

journey time savings on the through route;

45


iii. The additional reductions to traffic speeds resulting from the volume

of on-street parking on South Liberty Lane (see Figure 3.25);

iv. The delays to traffic wishing to access Winterstoke Road from South

Liberty Lane or Ashton Drive, especially vehicles wishing to head

south towards the Parson Street gyratory and hence turning right

across two traffic flows; and

v. The improvements to public transport (with the MetroBus stop at

Brookgate), cycling and walking facilities provided by the Scheme

create improved alternatives to the use of the car.

6.4 The predicted changes to the traffic volumes from the transport model are

shown for the AM Peak hour in 2016 (Figure 3.13) and 2031 (Figure

3.14), for the PM Peak hour in 2016 (Figure 3.15) and 2031 (Figure 3.16)

and for the Inter-Peak hour in 2016 (Figure 3.17) and 2031 (Figure 3.18).

These demonstrate the negligible change in traffic flows as a result of the

Scheme. In fact, with the SBL junction at Brookgate providing traffic in the

South Liberty Lane/ Ashton Drive area with an additional outlet into the

local road network, the number of vehicles entering and leaving at the

junctions with Winterstoke Road shows a small decrease of between 10

and 60 vehicles an hour, with drivers using the Brookgate junction as an

alternative. Further inspection of the transport model identified that there

is no through traffic for the reasons stated above. Hence, the residents

and businesses in the South Liberty Lane/ Ashton Drive area benefit from

the improved accessibility provided by the Scheme.

6.5 Concerning the issue with on-street parking, funding has been secured

through a S1 06 agreement to introduce parking restrictions in Ashton Vale,

supported by the Neighbourhood Partnership. These are focussing

entirely on junction protection (for visibility and safety reasons) and

ensuring access to rear lanes is kept clear. In association with this, and

with requests from some businesses, parking restrictions on South Liberty

Lane are also to be investigated. These will also focus solely on the safety

aspect of junction protection and maintaining access to premises that have

reported specific issues.

46


Traffic at Highridge Common (OBJ43)

6.6 An objection has been received from Mary Walker. The objection in

respect of the volume of traffic and its impact on access to Highridge

Common.

6.7 Currently Highridge Green is a two carriageway road which already

effectively cuts through the Common. The Scheme widens the

carriageway to meet agreed standards and to introduce safe turning lanes

but Highridge Green is essentially still two lanes. The alignment across

the Common has been revised as the scheme has developed to more

closely follow the current alignment of Highridge Green, minimising

additional severance. In recognition of the changes, three uncontrolled

crossing points, each with a central island and dropped kerbs, have been

introduced at points along the alignment as it crosses the Common, in

addition to the new signal controlled crossing at the junction of Highridge

Green with Highridge Road.

6.8 The impact of the scheme will be to increase the forecast two-way traffic

on the section of Highridge Green south of Sandburrows Road with two-

way traffic in the morning peak hour rising from 560 to 1470 in 2016 and

from 610 to 1960 in 2031. In the evening peak hour, the forecast two-way

traffic increases from 520 to 1580 in 2016 and from 610 to 2040 in 2031.

6.9 However the Scheme will produce a reduction in traffic on other sections

of the highway network in the immediate vicinity of the Common. For

Highridge Green north of Sandburrows Road there would be a reduction in

two-way traffic in the morning peak hour from 560 to 190 in 2016 and from

610 to 220 in 2031. In the evening peak hour, the forecast two-way traffic

decreases from 520 to 150 in 2016 and from 610 to 120 in 2031.

6.10 On Highridge Road, to the south of Highridge Green, the Scheme would

have only a minor impact on forecast traffic levels. There would be an

increase in two-way traffic in the morning peak hour from 490 to 530 in

47


2016 and from 500 to 600 in 2031. In the evening peak hour, the forecast

two-way traffic increases from 520 to 560 in 2016 and decreases from 570

to 500 in 2031.

48


7. Conclusions

7.1 In my evidence, I have considered the transport impacts of the Scheme,

highlighting how the benefits from the benefits contribute to achieving the

objectives of the Scheme. The benefits are potentially wide-ranging, with

significant journey time savings for public transport users, cyclists,

pedestrian and drivers. These would bring gains in accessibility across

the area to residents and transport users. At the same time, the scheme

would provide a reduction in traffic on a number of sensitive residential

roads across south-west BristoL. The combined impact of the Scheme

across the area would not reduce journey times for public transport,

cycling, walking and driving but would also significantly enhance the

reliability of travel and the predictability of journey times.

7.2 In addition, I have considered the issues raised in the objections

concerning the access to South Liberty Lane and provided a response

which identifies that the potential impacts suggested in the objection would

not be significant.

49

TRANSPORT - WordPress.comJun 03, 2014 · TRANSPORT NSC/3/1 June 2014 2.5 Section 4 describes the...

Documents

Transcript of TRANSPORT - WordPress.comJun 03, 2014 · TRANSPORT NSC/3/1 June 2014 2.5 Section 4 describes the...