Working in collaboration with Hinkley Point C Nuclear New Build Project Strategic Options Appraisal...

Working in collaboration with

Hinkley Point C Nuclear New Build Project

Strategic Options Appraisal of Transport Proposals in Bridgwater

Community Scrutiny Committee

27th February 2012


• Welcome

• Health & Safety

• Overview of Community Scrutiny Process

• Why We Are Here?...

Chairman’s Introduction – Cllr Julian Taylor


• Meeting on 10th August 2011 debated the latest transport impacts and transport mitigation proposals.

• CSC resolved that further work was required and if not forthcoming by EDF Energy, should be funded and carried out by Councils.

• Executive Committee meeting on 24th August 2011 set out the requirements for a Study and approved funding.

• A detailed brief was prepared and agreed on 14th September 2011.

• Councils instructed Arup and JMP to undertake technical work.

• On the 31 October 2011, subsequent to the commissioning of the Study, EDF Energy submitted their Hinkley Point C Development Consent Order Application (HPC DCO Application) to the IPC.

Why Are We Here?


a) Background and Re-cap of the Project Brief – Doug Bamsey

b) Introduction to the Study and Study Team – Peter Hulson

• Options Considered & Details – Gary Davies

• Traffic Modelling – Alyn Jones

• Traffic Capacity Assessment – Steve Hall

• Economic Implications for Bridgwater – Christopher Tunnell

• Transport Options Appraisal – Steve Hall

c) Next Steps & Way Forward – SDC / SCC

d) Question and Answer Session – Plenary

e) Summary and Committee Resolution – Chairman

Overview


• Part of attempt to shape the Development Consent Order for HPC.

• Exasperation at lack of willingness to provide full and comprehensive transport options assessment.

• Dissatisfaction with rigour of EDF Energy’s previous ‘Bypass Study’.

• Lack of understanding for how proposals fit with existing plans and strategies.

• Pro-growth area but seeking to deliver transformational change.

• Utilise growth and investment to realise tangible local benefits.

• Not just about highways infrastructure.

• Sustainable, integrated approach required.

• Generate evidence to inform Local Impact Report.

Background


• Strategic Options Appraisal and comparative analysis.

• Comparison of options for Bridgwater Northern Bypass and EDF Energy’s proposals for highway/junction improvements.

• Assessment in accordance with NATA / WebTAG guidance.

• Has socio-economic assessment at the core, and also focus on:

• Deliverability;

• Safety;

• Transport economics and wider socio-economic impacts;

• Impacts on key towns and meeting wider objectives e.g. Bridgwater Vision (place shaping);

• Impacts on economic performance – incl. Businesses (congestion / delay); and

• Environmental and quality of life factors.

Project Brief


• Complex study requiring multiple inputs and assessment

• High level comparative analysis of the benefits / disbenefits associated with a Bridgwater Northern Bypass as against the on-line improvements proposed by EDF

• Overview of team involved

• HPC Inquiry (1989)

• EDF’s proposals through from Stage 1 to Stage 2b

• Councils’ Consultation Responses

• Community Consultation Responses

• JMP Interim Assessment – June 2011

• Existing national, county and local policy

Introduction to the Study


• Assumptions underpinning study:

• relates to EDF’s ‘pre-DCO’ highways mitigation proposals;

• utilises traffic model from August 2011;

• desk-based analysis, utilising existing data;

• informed by traffic assessments carried out by SCC;

• outlines assessment of impacts at 2016, and 2021;

• provides high level design for a bypass;

• provides high level cost estimates for bypass and online schemes; and

• does not include flood risk assessment.

Introduction to the Study


Options Considered & Details

Gary Davies


Options Considered

• EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals

• Bridgwater Northern Bypass


EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals



• Pre-DCO submission proposals

• 9 separate measures, including:

•New Cannington Bypass

•Capacity enhancements at 8 individual junctions


EDF’s HGV Routes

HGV Route 1 HGV Route 2


EDF’s Online Mitigation Proposals – Construction Issues

• Package of distinct measures

• Small-scale, minimal time to authorise and

construct

• Measures could be ‘phased’ to suit the HPC

varying traffic demands.

• Likely to cause some disruption to Bridgwater

during the works:

• Increased congestion

• Potential impact upon businesses


Bridgwater Northern Bypass



• Review of previous studies undertaken


Constraints & obstacles - water


Constraints & obstacles – environmental



Routes Considered• Dunball Rdbt

connection rejected:• Dunball Wharf• Major cost penalty

• North of Cannington connection rejected:• Severn Estuary SPA,

SAC, SSSI and Ramsar site.

• More environmentally damaging.



5.3 km long

35-4

0m w

ide

4 - 6m high


Northern Bridgwater Bypass – Construction Issues

• 900,000 m3 of imported fill

• 47 weeks of HGV traffic to deliver fill

material (if HGV movements

restricted to 290 per day – consistent

with Site Prep works).


Northern Bridgwater Bypass – Construction Issues

• 4½ - 5 year scheme delivery phase.

• Earliest opening date of 2017 – this is beyond

the HPC construction traffic peak (2016).

• No HPC construction traffic mitigation.

• Construction would be in parallel with HPC –

further adding to the construction traffic

problems

• Massive increases on traffic congestion

• Potential significant impact upon

businesses, tourism, etc


Traffic Modelling

Alyn Jones


Traffic Modelling

• August 2011 Paramics model taken as the basis for modelling.

• Model year 2016 (pre bypass construction year) and 2021 (first operational year used in the assessment)

• Model scenarios: The traffic models used for this appraisal include:

• 2016 baseline (no HPC development)

• 2016 baseline + HPC + 2016 Travel Plan (P & R, Buses, freight management) + online mitigation (EDF proposals)+ Cannington Bypass

• 2016 baseline + HPC + Travel Plan + Bridgwater Bypass + Cannington Bypass

• 2021 baseline (no HPC development)

•2021 baseline + HPC + 2021 Travel Plan + online mitigation (EDF proposals) + Cannington Bypass

• 2021 baseline + HPC + 2021 Travel Plan + Bridgwater Bypass + Cannington Bypass.

• The baseline models include the committed developments. The models are for 11hours each day (four hours morning and seven hours afternoon).


Traffic Capacity Assessment

Steve Hall



Link 1: A38 Bristol Road

Link 2: A39 Bath Road

Link 3: The Clink

Link 5: A39 Cannington

Link 4: A39 Quantock Road


Economic Implications for Bridgwater

Christopher Tunnell


Implications of Congestion

• Most arterial routes will be heavily congested

• Longer ‘rush hours’

• Existing journeys into the town will be suppressed,

(particularly those where it is possible to go elsewhere,

e.g. for shopping)

• Existing firms reliant on logistics and distribution will

face delays

• New job creating inward investment and other

developments will be deterred

• Loss of revenue to the Council (or revenue foregone)


Town Centre Impacts

• Bridgwater’s Town Centre and Shops serve a

wide catchment

• Viability depends on the wider catchment

• Potential diversion of catchment elsewhere

could be on scale to threaten the existing

provision

• Loss of revenue to the Council if shops close


Mitigation Options

• Local partner options (reduced parking charges) but cost penalty

• Improved online scheme

• Multi modal approach, public transport, walking and cycling provision

• Investment in the town centre environment

• Investment in leisure and community facilities

• Community safety and outreach


Transport Options Appraisal

Steve Hall


Appraisal Summary - Methodology

• Department for Transport’s WebTAG methodology

• Appraisal uses the Government’s five key objectives for transport:

• Environment

• Safety

• Economy

• Integration

• Accessibility


Appraisal Summary - Environment

Objective Sub-Objective On-line Bypass

Safety Accidents xx


Environment Noise - -

Local Air Quality -

Greenhouse Gases -£1.6M -£0.8M

Landscape x xx

Townscape x x

Heritage of Historic Resources

x xx

Biodiversity x xx

Water Environment x x

Physical Fitness

Journey Ambience x


Environment Noise - -

Local Air Quality - -

Greenhouse Gases -£1.6M -£0.8M

Landscape x xx

Townscape x x

Heritage of Historic Resources

x xx

Biodiversity x xx

Water Environment x x

Physical Fitness

Journey Ambience x


Appraisal Summary - Environment


Appraisal Summary - Safety


Safety Accidents xx


Options Appraisal Summary


Economy Public Accounts (2011Q4) £4.5M £90.5M

Transport Economic Efficiency

Reliability/ Network Resilience

xx

Wider Economic Impacts xxx Neutral




Accessibility Option Values Neutral Neutral

Severance x Neutral

Access to Public Transport Neutral




Integration Transport Interchange x

Land Use Policy xx Neutral

Other Government Policies x Neutral



Objective On-line Bypass

Environment

Safety

Economy

Accessibility

Integration


Conclusions of the Study

Steve Hall



BYPASS HIGHWAY/JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS (ONLINE)

4.5 – 5 years to deliver (2017) Phased delivery could work in tandem with HPC construction timeframe

Would therefore not mitigate peak year of impacts (2016)

Would provide some mitigation of traffic impacts

Construction of bypass would in itself generate considerable impacts

Construction of online would add to traffic congestion

Would deliver benefits of reduced traffic in Bridgwater

Against baseline there would be considerable increase in congestion in Bridgwater

£90.5million £4.5million

Achieves some transport user benefits compared to baseline

Decline in transport user benefits compared to baseline

Considerable detrimental environmental impacts Slight adverse environmental impacts



• Two mitigation options considered.

• Bridgwater Northern Bypass and EDF’s ‘Pre-DCO’ highway and junction improvements.

• Significant environmental, construction, programme and cost issues associated with delivery of bypass

• But, ‘Pre-DCO’ online measures are not sufficient to mitigate for increased traffic resulting from HPC.

• Clear that neither proposal represents an optimal solution to mitigate the impacts of the HPC project.

• Data and analysis to feed into Local Impact Report and Detailed Representations.

• Recommended that an alternative model of mitigation setting out comprehensive, integrated transport package for Bridgwater is put forward.


• An alternative model of mitigation setting out comprehensive, integrated transport package for Bridgwater is put forward.

• Two options to be pursued…

Next Steps & Way Forward


Question and Answer Session

Working in collaboration with Hinkley Point C Nuclear New Build Project Strategic Options Appraisal...

Documents

Transcript of Working in collaboration with Hinkley Point C Nuclear New Build Project Strategic Options Appraisal...