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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
£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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
TRANSPORT NSC/3/1June 2014
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
Top Related