E a S a P S a : B 201/202 W A M T a A Projects... · Port of Southampton, reconstruct the quay walls to both berths and subsequently bring the berths back into deep-sea container

ABP Southampton

Environmental Statement

for Port of Southampton:

Berth 201/202 Works

Appendix M

Transport Assessment

david tucker associatest r a n s p o r t p l a n n i n g c o n s u l t a n t s

ABP Southampton - Berth 201 / 202 Works


© David Tucker Associates No part of this publication may be reproduced by any means without the prior permission of David Tucker Associates

Prepared by: David Tucker Associates Forester House Doctors Lane Henley-in-Arden B95 5AW Tel: 01564 793598 Fax: 01564 793983 [email protected] www.dtatransportation.co.uk Prepared for: ABP Southampton Ocean Gate Atlantic Way Southampton SO14 3QN

ABP Southampton - Berth 201 / 202 Works


20th October 2011

SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docx

i

Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 THE WORKS 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Employee Movements 3 2.3 Assessment Scenarios 3 2.4 Terminal Container Demand 4 2.5 Construction Traffic 6 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT 8 3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 National Planning and Transport Policies and Guidance 8 3.3 Regional Strategy 14 3.4 Local Policy and Guidance 15 4.0 EXISTING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 Highway Network 21 4.3 Base Line Traffic Flows 22 4.4 Accident Data 27 4.5 Air Quality Management Areas 28 5.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT 29 5.1 Introduction 29 5.2 Overall Annual Movements 29 5.3 Conversion of Box to HGV movements (Annual) 31 5.4 Conversion of Annual Movements to Average Daily Movements 33 5.5 Adjustment for Monthly Variation 35 5.6 Conversion of Peak Daily Flows to Hourly Flows 36 5.7 Forecast Peak Hour Movements from Container Movements 38 5.8 Employee Traffic Generation 39 5.9 Operational HGV Traffic Generation 39 5.10 Traffic Distribution - Strategic Network 39 5.11 Traffic Distribution Local Road Network 40 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS 42 6.1 Forecast Year Scenarios 42 6.2 Future Forecast Growth and Committed Development Traffic 43 6.3 Change in Flows 46 6.4 Operational Traffic Impact Conclusions 47 6.5 Construction Traffic Impacts 51 7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 52

ii

Figures

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 Strategic Highway Network

Appendices

Appendix A Geldard Consulting Rail Report

Appendix B 2011 Base Traffic Counts

Appendix C 2011 DPWS Data

Appendix D Personal Injury Accident Data

Appendix E Traffic Generation Forecasts

Appendix F Overall Traffic Generation

Appendix G Strategic Traffic Distribution

ABP Southampton: Berth 201/202 WorksTransport Assessment

SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docFinal 20th October 2011 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 DTA has been commissioned by ABP Southampton to assess the transport

implications of the proposed berth 201 / 202 works at the Port of Southampton

as shown on Figure 1.

1.2 In 2008 Associated British Ports (ABP) submitted applications for certain works

that, if consented, will bring berths 201 and 202 at the Container Terminal at the

Port of Southampton back into deep sea container use. These applications are

still being considered by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), as the

relevant determining body.

1.3 The applications, when submitted, were accompanied by an Environmental

Statement (ES). It has recently become clear that further information, to

supplement the ES, is required before a decision on the applications can be

made by the MMO. The traffic implications of the project are one area on which

further information is being produced.

1.4 This Transport Assessment (TA) has therefore been prepared to consider the

road traffic implications of the project and forms the basis of the relevant

assessment chapter provided in the further information. As well as being able to

be read as a stand-alone document, this TA also forms Appendix M to the

Environmental Statement.

1.5 This TA and the relevant ES chapter consider the road traffic implications of the

proposals in detail. The rail traffic implications of the proposals are considered

in a separate ES chapter which is based upon work undertaken by Geldard

Consulting. A technical note on the broad assumptions is included at Appendix

A. Where necessary, this TA makes references to findings of the rail

assessment.

1.6 The methodology used for this TA takes account of ‘Guidance on Transport

Assessment’ (GTA) issued by the Department for Transport (DfT) and

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in March 2007.



1.7 The GTA places significant emphasis on requiring a review of accessibility of

development sites by all modes to assess acceptability and mitigation measures.

In this case, the majority of change in demand will be related to HGV

movements rather than staff or general public accessibility.

1.8 The assessment therefore focuses on the strategic implications of the

development and the HGV traffic generation which may arise as a result of the

project.

1.9 In particular it considers the potential road transport and highways impacts of

the proposals including the impact of the development generated traffic on the

capacity and safety of the surrounding road network.

1.10 Taking account of the various guidelines, the TA is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2: The Works – setting out base assumptions and

description of development.

• Chapter 3: Policy Background

• Chapter 4: Existing Background Conditions

• Chapter 5: Traffic Generation and Distribution Assessment

• Chapter 6: Assessment of Traffic Impacts

• Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions

1.11 The base assumptions and scope of methodology set out in this report have

been submitted to and discussed with Southampton City Council (SCC),

Hampshire County Council (HCC) and the Highways Agency (HA). As a unitary

authority SCC are the relevant highway authority for the public road network to

which the Port immediately connects. HCC are the highway authority for the

other elements of the local road network close to the Port that are not controlled

by SCC. The HA are the highway authority for the strategic road network into

which the local network connects. Where appropriate their views have been

incorporated within the TA.



2.0 THE WORKS

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 ABP propose to deepen the dredged pocket for berths 201 and 202 within the

Port of Southampton, reconstruct the quay walls to both berths and

subsequently bring the berths back into deep-sea container use.

2.1.2 As explained in detail within Chapter 7 of the ES, the assessment considers the

Container Terminal operating at the maximum capacity considered to be

achievable with the berth 201 / 202 works in place. This capacity is considered

to be 2.8m TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Units). As explained in Chapter 7 this

has been taken as the basis of the assessment even though the increase to 2.8m

TEU from current throughput levels will not solely be achieved by the berth 201 /

202 works. Throughout the following road traffic assessment this scenario is

subsequently referred to as The Future Position With the Works.

2.1.3 From a road transport perspective, as dealt with in this report and having regard

to the requirements of the GTA, the key issues arising from the project are the

impacts relating to any increased road travel demands arising from the change

in capacity of the Container Terminal. These are related back to the baseline

(i.e. what has occurred) and the fallback position (i.e. what could or would occur

without the Works). These matters are explained further in section 2.3.

2.2 Employee Movements

2.2.1 At present, the Container Terminal employs a total of 820 staff, working on two

shift patterns (0730-1930 and 1930-0730). In the anticipated year of opening

(2014), the berth operation will generate 36 jobs. Thereafter between 2015 and

2027, the berth operation is estimated to generate 12 additional jobs per year.

This results in an additional 192 jobs by 2027. As with the existing employees,

these will be split over two shifts, with neither involving start/finish times related

to traffic network peak hours. The absolute change in traffic flows arising from

increased staff levels will be negligible during peak hours and modest in terms of

daily flows.



2.3 Assessment Scenarios

2.3.1 As indicated in section 2.1, it is necessary to determine what the position is

against which consideration of the road transport implications of the project is

undertaken. Throughout this TA a number of different terminal capacity and

throughput positions are referred to.

2.3.2 This section of the report sets out the details of those positions (subsequently

called scenarios). These are based on analysis undertaken by ABP and its

consultant team. The details leading to the definition of these scenarios is

provided in the ES.

2.3.3 The Historic Baseline scenario relates to the maximum annual level of

throughput of containers that to date has been handled by the Container

Terminal. This level was in the order of 1.9m TEU (1.87m TEU) and occurred in

2007.

2.3.4 The Current Baseline scenario relates to the level of throughput of containers

predicted to occur in 2011. As a result of the economic downturn, throughput at

the Container Terminal since 2007 has reduced. The overall 2011 throughput is

predicted to be in the order of 1.6m TEU.

2.3.5 The Future Position Without the Works scenario relates to the maximum

capacity of the Container Terminal that is considered to be achievable without

the berth 201 / 202 works. This capacity is considered to be 2.3m TEU.

2.3.6 The Historic Baseline and Current Baseline scenarios refer to throughput

levels at the terminal, whilst the Future Position Without the Works and

Future Position With the Works scenarios relate to capacity.

2.4 Terminal Container Demand

2.4.1 The above capacity assessments take no account of container traffic demand,

which is currently suppressed by the economic climate. They relate wholly to

the physical capacity of the terminal.



2.4.2 It is expected that overall container traffic demand will rise by, on average 3.5%

per year. This increase over time is summarised in Table 1, together with the

likely changes in rail share over the same period. This rail share information has

been provided by Geldard Consulting.

Table 1 – Container Traffic Growth Forecasts with 3.5% growth

Year TEU per /

annum % to rail

2011 1,600,000 33%

2012 1,656,000 34%

2013 1,713,960 34%

2014 1,773,949 34%

2015 1,836,037 35%

2016 1,900,298 35%

2017 1,966,809 35%

2018 2,035,647 36%

2019 2,106,894 36%

2020 2,180,636 36%

2021 2,256,958 37%

2022 2,335,952 38%

2023 2,417,710 39%

2024 2,502,330 40%

2025 2,589,911 40%

2026 2,680,558 40%

2027 2,774,378 40%

2.4.3 This forecast demonstrates that up to 2021, Container Terminal throughput

(predicted to be circa 2.257m TEU) will be limited by demand rather than the

capacity that could be made available at the terminal. In other words, the 2.3m

TEU maximum capacity of the Container Terminal considered to be achievable

without the berth 201 / 202 works would be sufficient to accommodate predicted

demand up to 2021. Beyond 2021, the forecast demonstrates that growth in

containers would continue such that the 2.8m TEU maximum capacity of the



Container Terminal that would be possible with the berth 201 / 202 works would

be sufficient to accommodate predicted demand up to 2027.

2.4.4 It therefore follows that, in adopting a future forecast year of 2021, as required

by the Guidance on Transport Assessment1, the terminal could at this point in

time be operating at the same level of throughput regardless of whether the

berth 201 / 202 works are in place or not. It therefore follows that the berth 201

/ 202 works will potentially not have any impact on terminal generated traffic

movements up to 2021.

2.4.5 Beyond 2021, Table 1 shows that the additional capacity that would be created

by the berth 201 / 202 works will be taken up. In simple terms the works will

result in an additional 0.5m TEU of capacity being available at the terminal, and

this is predicted to be used over the subsequent 6 year period to 2027.

Sections 5 and 6 of this road traffic assessment therefore consider the position

in 2021 and in 2027.

2.5 Construction Traffic

2.5.1 The construction works are expected to commence in July 2012 and will take

approximately 14 months to complete. The construction process will in summary

involve the creation of a new quay wall in front of the existing wall formed with

driven piles. This will then be tied to an anchor wall and paved on the land side.

Following completion of the quay wall, the berth pocket will be dredged to a

depth of -16m CD.

2.5.2 It is anticipated that, where practicable, much of the construction material will

be delivered by water. However a number of road-based movements will be

required as follows. A lorry movement has been taken as being in or out of the

site i.e. 1 lorry making a delivery and then leaving site is 2 lorry movements:

• Concrete: Estimated quantity 25,000 m3 = 8,300 movements (at 6m3 per

1 Guidance on Transport Assessment (2007) Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government



load). The total volume of concrete is considered borderline with regard

to justifying a batching plant on site. If a batching plant were to be used

the aggregates could be delivered by barge to reduce the lorry

movements significantly.

• Paving: Blocks, sand and stone (lean concrete included above); 14,500

tonnes = 2,000 lorry movements. It has been assumed that most of the

existing fill material that is excavated for placing the ties can be reused.

• Tie bars: 740 tonnes = 75 lorry movements.

• Fenders: 50 lorry movements.

• Sundry plant and materials = 500 lorry movements.

• Tubes and sheet piles: Assumed to be delivered by barge = 0 lorry

movements.

• Scour protection: Delivered and placed from the water = 0 lorry

movements.

• Total lorry movements over the construction period = 10,925.



3.0 POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section of the report sets out the current transport policy context in terms

of local, regional and national guidance, to establish the framework against

which the assessment takes place.

3.1.2 On a local level, there are three Highway Authorities, each with their own policy

documents, which are relevant. Southampton City Council in relation to the City

road network, Hampshire County Council in relation to the County network and

the Highways Agency for the Trunk Roads and Motorways. In addition to the

relevant Local Transport Plans, these authorities have, collectively with others,

formed Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH) and Partnership for Urban South

Hampshire (PUSH). Relevant documents produced by these organisations are

discussed in turn below.

3.2 National Planning and Transport Policies and Guidance

3.2.1 National transportation policy on sustainability and integration of land use and

transport was first set out in the Government’s 1998 Integrated Transport White

Paper “A New Deal for Transport”. The White Paper was followed by a number

of associated documents including “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” in

March 1999, and an update of PPG13 Transport in March 2001. PPG13 was

further updated in January 2011.

Sustainable Distribution a Strategy

3.2.2 The Government’s report “Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy” emphasised the

need for strategic planning for the sustainable distribution of freight traffic. The

report stated that the Government would revise planning policy and procedures

to encourage more freight to be carried by rail and water, and would selectively

invest in infrastructure so as to support the objective of sustainable distribution.

3.2.3 In tackling congestion, the Government recognised that there was limited scope

for new road construction. The key being to managing demand, and they



proposed to improve the integration of the road network with major transport

interchanges so as to promote greater use of rail and water transport for freight.

3.2.4 “Sustainable Distribution” recognised that, in planning rail, port and airport hubs,

an unduly restrictive planning policy could result in unnecessary traffic

generation elsewhere.

PPG13: Transport

3.2.5 In March 2001, the Government published its revised Planning Policy Guidance

Note PPG13. This has been most recently updated in January 2011 and sets out

policies to reduce road traffic through the better integration of planning land

uses and transportation and between different transport modes. Specifically,

PPG13 aims to increase the amount of freight carried by rail or water, rather

than by road, wherever viable alternatives can be provided.

The Future of Rail and the Future of Transport

3.2.6 In July 2004, the Government published White Papers on “The Future of Rail”

and “The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030”. These documents set out

the Government’s commitment to increasing rail freight, viewing its growth as an

important contribution to its sustainable development strategy and set out the

Government’s strategy to achieve a more sustainable distribution of goods.

DFT Circular 02/2007

3.2.7 In March 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) published Circular 02/2007,

‘Planning and the Strategic Road Network’. In setting out the Policy background,

the Circular confirms that:

‘It is Government transport policy, wherever possible, to look for

alternatives to building new roads, by reducing the impact of road users on

each other and the environment, improving road performance through

better network management and making smarter journey choices easier.

Any strategic road capacity constraint on sustainable economic

development should be identified at the RSS stage. Where appropriate,



measures to overcome such constraints should be overcome through the

Regional Transport Strategy (RTS), although the presumption should be to

give preference, where possible, to solutions other than the provision of

new road capacity.’

3.2.8 Circular 02/2007 indicates that guidance on the preparation of Transport

Assessments, and specifically details of assessment years, is contained in the

associated DfT/DCLG document ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (GTA) also

issued in March 2007.

3.2.9 In identifying the assessment requirements for the strategic road network (SRN),

the TA guidance states that:

‘For the SRN, the future assessment year should normally be ten years

after the date of registration of a planning application for the development,

in line with the forward horizon of the RTS’.

3.2.10 Clearly, the change in approach to defining the assessment years and impact

assessment test has significant implications for the scale of impact that will be

identified and any corresponding mitigation measures that may be required.

3.2.11 In addition to this, Circular 02/2007 and GTA created a step change in the way

transport implications are assessed and subsequently the approach in identifying

any necessary mitigation measures. In particular, 02/2007 is clear that

infrastructure improvements for road traffic capacity should only be provided as

a last resort (Para 27) and this is followed through in GTA (para 4.3) which notes

that a Transport Assessment should:

“ensure as much as possible that the proposed mitigation measures avoid

unnecessary physical improvements to highways and promote innovative

and sustainable transport systems.”



National Ports Policy - Modern Ports

3.2.12 The Government's national ports policy "Modern Ports: A UK Policy" was

published in November 2000. It followed the policy of sustainability and

integration, which was first set out in the Governments White Paper "A New Deal

for Transport" (July 1998).

3.2.13 “Modern Ports” set out the Government’s commitment to creating successful,

safe and sustainable ports, which are fully integrated into the transport system.

The Government recognised the importance of port hubs in integrated transport

policy. “Modern Ports” summarises the relevance of current planning policy

documents, as they relate to port development.

3.2.14 The White Paper and associated documents provide guidance on a number of

related issues with the principal objective of fundamentally reviewing transport

strategies to create more integrated transport policies and deal with the

shortcomings of short-term transport planning. These revised policies

recognised the need to make more efficient use of the transport system to

reduce dependency on the private car and to minimise the need for more

highway capacity whilst supporting business and economic growth.

3.2.15 “Modern Ports” also recognises the need for good road and rail access to ports,

and within the ports themselves. Delays and congestion within a port will

significantly affect a customer’s business.

The Eddington Report

3.2.16 The Eddington Transport Study was a joint HM Treasury and Department for

Transport project examining the long-term links between transport and the UK’s

economic productivity, growth and stability, within the context of the

Government’s broader commitment to sustainable development and the

environment. The final report was issued in December 2006.

3.2.17 The Eddington Report confirms that globalization means that international trade

is of growing importance to the UK economy and that efficient use of the



transport network is of vital importance. The Eddington Report particularly

identified the importance of international gateways to the UK economy.

Delivering a Sustainable Transport System

3.2.18 In response to the Eddington Study and the subsequent Stern Review on the

economics of climate change, the Department for Transport (DfT) published the

document ‘Towards a Sustainable Transport System’ (TaSTS) in October 2007.

In this document, the DfT proposed a new approach to strategic transport

planning beyond 2014 to support the recommendations of the Eddington Study

and to reflect the findings of the Stern Review.

3.2.19 Since publishing TaSTS, the Government has engaged widely with stakeholders

and is now consulting formally on the transport goals, challenges and process

involved in taking this work forward. As part of this process, the DfT

commenced a formal consultation exercise and published in November 2008 the

document, ‘Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report’. This

document sets out how the Government are putting the new approach to

strategic planning for 2014 and beyond into practice. A key aim of the strategy

is to deliver multimodal transport networks to improve the efficiency of freight

distribution.

3.2.20 As with the Eddington Report, the above report recognises the importance of the

UK’s international gateway’s, such as the Port of Southampton, to the economy.

The document states that the Government is committed to supporting the

improvement of surface access to airports and ports, and has a direct delivery

role in part-funding schemes to improve the strategic national network.

3.2.21 The document acknowledges that container traffic into the country has grown

rapidly and is expected to grow in both volume and importance. The Report

indicates that the Department’s approach to freight has evolved considerably

over the past year and indicates that they are now engaging with the industry in

a different way to better understand the key issues and to define the main areas

of challenge. The report indicated that the Department were about to publish a



freight strategy document and that this, along with supporting analyses in

relation to container movements, would help inform their decisions on policy and

investment choices.

3.2.22 In December 2008, the DfT issued ‘Delivering a Sustainable Transport System:

The Logistics Perspective’. This document looks in more detail at the issues

concerning the movement of freight within Great Britain, across modes, including

the nature and composition of freight flows on the major corridors, and

discusses how Government and industry will need to work together to ensure

that freight benefits from and contributes to the Department’s goals.

3.2.23 The document indicates that the DfT have begun to work with industry to

address the key issues related to ensuring the efficient movement of freight. For

example the document refers to the additional funding announced for the

Sustainable Distribution Fund. The report indicates that this money will be

targeted to increase the use of rail and water transport to reduce emissions and

cut road congestion.

The Ports Policy Review

3.2.24 The Ports Policy Review was launched in May 2006, following a commitment in

The Future of Transport White Paper. It began with a consultation exercise

embracing port operators, environmental groups, shippers and other key

stakeholders. The Review covers England and Wales; ports policy is largely

devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3.2.25 Alongside this Interim Report, the Government also submitted its formal

response to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee whose report

on the ports industry in England and Wales was published in January 2007.

3.2.26 More than 90% of the UK's visible foreign trade passes through sea-ports - a

total of almost 600M tonnes each year. There are three main ownership

categories for civilian ports: companies, which account for the majority of

commercial activity; municipal ports run directly by local authorities; and trust



ports, independent statutory bodies which account for around 30% of tonnage

throughput.

3.2.27 The Interim Report broadly continues the Government's 'light touch' approach to

regulation of sea-ports, recognising the commercial success of all three

ownership sectors and their vital economic importance. The Government's view

is that commercial port operators are best-placed to make decisions about where

and when to invest in the port sector: there is not the same need as was

identified in the case of airports for Government to indicate where it would

expect to see development brought forward.

Draft National Ports Policy Statement

3.2.28 The requirement for ports industry to have a National Policy Statement was the

result of the 2008 Planning Act which required a number of national statements,

including Marine Policy, Energy and Transport Networks. The draft Statement

(2009), which is earmarked for designation in late 2011, endorses the market led

approach to ports policy and also includes, for the first time on a national basis,

forecasts for bulk, ro-ro and container traffic up to 2030.

3.3 Regional Strategy

3.3.1 The South East Plan is the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East. Whilst

Regional Strategies have been revoked by the Secretary of State for

Communities and Local Government in July 2010, that revocation has been

challenged. As a result, at the time of writing, the Regional Strategies (including

the South East Plan) still form part of the statutory development plan. The

Government’s intention, however, remains to revoke the Regional Strategies

through the Localism Bill.

3.3.2 The South East Plan, in the supporting text to policy T10, confirms the vital role

the region’s ports play in supporting the UK economy. The Plan states that the

ports are, however, dependent upon the quality of the landside infrastructure

providing effective connections. The Plan makes it clear that it is for the port



sector to bring forward and justify proposals for future investment in individual

port infrastructure.

3.3.3 Following on from this the Plan states that:

‘In this context, the Port of Southampton is recognised as a major

international deep sea port with significantly global and economic

importance, and its infrastructure needs, both short and long term, require

further consideration. The geographical location and network of port

infrastructure in the region provides the opportunity to encourage the

development of short sea shipping services as a real alternative to land

transport.’

3.3.4 Policy T10: Ports and Short Sea Shipping of the Plan states that:

‘Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and local

transport plans will include policies and proposals for infrastructure that

maintain and enhance the role of the following ports:…..”

3.3.5 The listed ports include Southampton as the first named gateway port. The

emphasis on encouraging short-sea shipping is reiterated in the policy.

3.4 Local Policy and Guidance

LTP3 for South Hampshire

3.4.1 The LTP3 strategy for South Hampshire forms the overarching transport policy of

the three constituent local transport authorities of Hampshire County Council,

Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council, working together as

Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH). This strategy builds on the Joint Solent

Strategy developed as part of the previous LTP2.

3.4.2 The South Hampshire region is by far the largest and most complex of

Hampshire’s four transport strategy areas. The wider sub-region contains the

two major cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, as well as the surrounding



towns, villages and countryside falling with Hampshire, which form the

hinterland to the cities. It also acts as the gateway to the Isle of Wight.

3.4.3 The TfSH authorities have identified seven key outcomes and hence fourteen

policies that set out the framework through which the TfSH authorities will seek

to address the challenges. Policy B establishes the need to work with the

strategic transport network providers to ensure reliable access to the County’s

international gateway for freight and people.

3.4.4 The sub-region has a number of transport related challenges emanating from an

existing transportation infrastructure deficit, relatively high density, peninsula

geography, pockets of social deprivation and other specifically local issues. The

South East Plan proposes significant growth in the region over the next 20 years

and considerable investment will be needed to begin to accommodate this

proposed growth.

3.4.5 The overall strategy for TfSH incorporates the four shared LTP objectives of the

three authorities. These are accessibility, congestion, road safety and air quality.

The long term transport strategy for the sub-region is being formulated within

the context of the South East Plan. This strategy forms an important input to

this plan. The South East Plan leads the decision making process into the size

and location of new developments and the resulting need for transport

interventions.

3.4.6 In the development of plans to tackle particular transport issues a three-tiered

approach is followed. Reducing journey lengths and the need to travel is the

first objective pursued. Secondly, existing transportation infrastructure will be

made best use of and measures introduced to influence travel choice. Finally,

where these two strategies are not sufficient, new infrastructure is planned.

Hampshire Local Transport Plan

3.4.7 The Hampshire Local Transport Plan was approved in February 2011 and covers

the period from 2006 to 2011. The LTP sets out the County Council’s transport

strategy for the next five years. The LTP explains how the strategy has been



designed to achieve wider policy objectives, such as improving quality of life,

protecting the environment and securing economic prosperity. Chapter 7 of the

LTP sets out the South Hampshire Joint Strategy, which, as discussed above

covers the area in which the Port is located.

3.4.8 The LTP includes details of the Port of Southampton confirming it as the second

biggest container port in the UK by through-put and a key route for the import

and export of motor vehicles and bulk goods. One of key transport challenges

identified as facing the South Hampshire area is ensuring continued reliable

transport access to the area’s international gateway ports and airport.

Southampton Local Transport Plan (2011-2031)

3.4.9 Southampton City Council’s Third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) was adopted in

February 2011 and follows on and builds on the progress of the first two Local

Transport Plans. Although the LTP generally relates to the City, the first part of

the plan sets out a twenty year transport strategy for whole of South Hampshire,

covering the period 2011-2031. The second part is a four year implementation

plan identifying transport schemes planned for delivery between 2011 and 2015

within Southampton.

3.4.10 The transport vision for South Hampshire set out within the SCC LTP

incorporates the relevant Policy Background for Freight Strategy. This confirms

Southampton as being “essential to the economy of Southern Hampshire (and)

of significant national and European importance.” The document highlights the

expansion programme including the subject matter of this report/chapter.

The Port of Southampton

3.4.11 Being close to mainland Europe, South Hampshire has a number of European

linkages through the ports of Southampton and Portsmouth and Southampton

International Airport, which are all designated in the Regional Transport Strategy

as International Gateways.



3.4.12 The importance of the Port of Southampton is described in the Solent Transport

Strategy as follows:

The Port of Southampton is owned by associated British Ports (ABP). ABP

are also the Statutory Harbour Authority for much of Southampton Water.

The Port directly employs about 12,000 people and contributes £2 billion to

the local economy. The Port handles 23% by value of the UK’s

international non-EU sea-borne trade, more than any other UK port. In

2004, 38.4 million tonnes of cargo passed through the Port, ranking it fifth

in the UK by tonnage. The Container Terminal is the second largest in the

UK, handling 1.4 million twenty foot equivalent units in 2004. Additionally,

Southampton is the UK’s largest vehicle import/export port handling

750,000 vehicles annually and is also the UK’s leading cruise port, being

used by 680,000 passengers in 2004.

The Port has a national hinterland and is a major trip generator. Its

interface with rail, road and water routes is of national strategic

importance. The majority of trip movements are by road, the principle

roads used in Hampshire being the A34, M27 and M3. The local approach

roads are the M271/A33 to Dock Gate 20 and the A33 to Dock Gate 4….

3.4.13 The Strategy goes on to discuss the wider impacts and implications of dock

growth in terms of the strategic road network and rail capacity and gauge

constraints.

Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH)

3.4.14 In order to implement the strategy set out by PUSH, the relevant Authorities

have set up Transport for South Hampshire (TfSH). This involves a new, formal

partnership between the principal Authorities, i.e. Hampshire County Council and

Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils. The new corporate body so formed

will be empowered to let contracts, collect and disburse funding, commission



research, influence, advise and lobby Government, and develop and deliver

transport schemes in line with its approved Business Plan.

3.4.15 The key objectives of the TfSH are:

• Developing and Delivering a seamless and coordinated public transport

operation in partnership with the operators across the sub-region and

securing infrastructure to support that.

• Developing and Delivering sub-regional transport schemes and innovations

and implementation of sub-regional transport policies (including strategic

traffic management).

• Pursuing and securing funding for sub-regional transport schemes (and

supporting each transport authority in doing so for local schemes).

• Holding and dispersing developer contributions for sub-regional transport

schemes.

• Holding and dispersing other transport funding allocated on a sub-regional

basis.

• Monitoring and reviewing delivery at sub-regional level.

• Developing and updating transport policies in support of the South Hampshire

Spatial Strategy, the Regional Transport Strategy and the Regional Spatial

Strategy (The South East Plan).

3.4.16 The TfSH joint committee is a formal partnership set up under Section 102(1) of

the Local Government Act 1972, and the core terms of reference require the

preparation and implementation of Annual Business Plans to promote and deliver

proposals to achieve the key objectives set out above. This process includes

involvement with key stakeholders, which includes Associated British Ports.

3.4.17 Since the current year is already well advanced, the first Business Plan covers

two years, June 2007 to May 2009. For this period, a total of over £400,000 has

been secured towards initial study work. A further £1.7m is identified as being

required to progress technical studies in relation to Transport Schemes, building

of a sub-regional transport model, the development of transport access



arrangements for SDAs and key employment zones, and developing a Freight

strategy. This funding is not yet secured and the source of funding unidentified.

3.4.18 Connected to this initiative, the Government Office for the South East have

invited the PUSH to engage in a Multi Area Agreement to enable a wider

perspective on the implementation of Local Area Actions plans.



4.0 EXISTING BACKGROUND CONDITIONS

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The location of the Port of Southampton in relation to the local and strategic

highway networks is shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

4.2 Highway Network

4.2.1 The Port of Southampton is made up of the eastern and western docks. These

two parts are physically separated and accessed from different Dock Gates.

The Southampton Container Terminal is located in the Western Docks.

4.2.2 The Western Docks have three access points to the local highway network, being

Dock Gates 8, 10 and 20. Internally, an access / link road runs from east to

west (Western Avenue). This allows access to all parts of the Western Docks

from any of the above access points. In practice however (see below) the

significant majority of traffic relating to the Container Terminal uses Dock Gate

20 as its access and exit point.

4.2.3 Dock Gate 8 is located at the far eastern end of the Western Docks and is

normally kept locked shut except for specific uses / requirements.

4.2.4 Dock Gate 10 provides the main access to the eastern end of the Western Docks

and links to West Quay Road, which connects to the A3034 Mountbatten Way for

Southampton City Centre and the M271 at Redbridge. The junction of West

Quay Road and Southern Road is in the form of a large signal controlled

crossroads. Around 150m north of this junction, Southern Road connects with

Mountbatten Way at another major signalised junction. Similarly, some 250m

west of the new junction, West Quay Road connects with Mountbatten Way at a

signalised junction.

4.2.5 Mountbatten Way runs along the former shoreline and is the main radial route

into Southampton City Centre from the motorway and trunk road network.

Similarly, West Quay Road provides an alternative route to City Centre areas and

is the principal road access to the new West Quay retail centre.



4.2.6 Dock Gate 20 is located within the Docks, access from First Avenue. It connects

the Western Docks directly to the A35 at Millbrook interchange. This is a large

grade separated junction, with traffic signal control on the gyratory. The four

main approaches are dual carriageway, the remaining approach is single

carriageway.

4.2.7 To the west of the Millbrook Interchange, Redbridge Road is a dual three lane

carriageway and connects to the M271 again via a large grade separated

junction with signalised gyratory. Around two miles to the north of the

Redbridge gyratory, the M271 connects to the M27 at junction 3, which is

another large grade separated signalised gyratory junction.

4.2.8 The M27, in turn, provides road access to the east and south-east of England,

South Wales, the Midlands and northwards via the M3 and A34. In addition, the

A36(T) provides a trunk road link to Bath and Bristol via Salisbury. The A36(T)

is accessible via junction 2 of the M27.

4.3 Base Line Traffic Flows

4.3.1 In order to inform the assessment, a number of base traffic surveys have been

undertaken. These surveys have been supplemented by data from DP World

Southampton, the operators of the Container Terminal.

Strategic and Local Network Flows

4.3.2 Headline traffic flows for the strategic highway network have been extracted

from the Highways Agency’s online traffic flow database “TRADS” for the

motorways and trunk roads and from SCC for the A35. Overall peak hour and

24 hour flows for the A35 and Mountbatten Way are summarised below in Table

2.



Table 2 – Baseline Flows – Southampton Local Highway Network (5 day average 2010)

Am Peak

(0800-0900)

Pm Peak

(1700-1800) 24 Hour Flows

E/B W/B E/B W/B E/B W/B

Redbridge

Road 4,199 2,152 2,927 3,742 43,378 38,654

Millbrook

Road 1,109 2,014 1,716 1,500 20,328 21,474

Mountbatten

Way 2,406 1,116 1,441 2,251 22,949 22,783

4.3.3 TRADS data for the M271 and M27 has similarly been obtained and is

summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 – Baseline Flows – Strategic Highway Network (5 day average June 2010)

Am Peak

(0800-0900)

Pm Peak

(1700-1800) 24 Hour Flows

S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B

M271 2,746 2,006 2,221 2,624 30,308 29,620

M27 (J3 –

J4) 4,874 5,522 5,909 5,496 70,087 70,105

M3 4,864 5,506 5,940 4,550 68,779 67,824

A34 1,905 1,759 2,206 1,618 26,535 24,071

Container Terminal Flows

4.3.4 In order to establish an existing base line of traffic generation, Container

Terminal flows have been determined from information obtained from the

Terminal’s Vehicle Booking System (VBS) and by surveys undertaken at Dock

Gate 20 in 2007 and 2011. This section sets out the headline findings.

4.3.5 HGV surveys are available for Dock Gate 20 dating from May 2007. These were

manual classified surveys undertaken for DTA on behalf of ABP. To compliment



these surveys, data from the VBS system at this time was also obtained

(operated at the time by SCT), which provides details of inbound HGV

movements to the Container Terminal.

4.3.6 The surveys from 2007 recorded flows at both Dock Gates 20 and 10. These

showed that the majority of all Container Terminal movements take place via

Dock Gate 20 (circa 95%). On this basis, the following assessments have

therefore focused on Dock Gate 20. SCC have confirmed that the operation of

Dock Gate 10 falls outside the scope of the assessment.

4.3.7 The surveys undertaken at Dock Gate 20 in 2007 consisted of a 24 hour manual

traffic survey (from 07.00 on 22nd May to 07.00 to 23rd May), and the installation

of an Automatic Traffic Counter at Dock Gate 20 between Tuesday 22 May and

Monday 28 May 2007. The weekday average flows measured at Dock Gate 20

between 22 May and 25 May 2007 are shown in Table 4. Data collected on

Monday 28th has been excluded from the following assessments as it was a Bank

Holiday.

Table 4 - Weekday Average Flow - Dock Gate 20 – May 2007

Weekday Average Flows –

Total Vehicles Weekday Average (HGVs)

In Out Total In Out Total

Am Peak (0800-0900) 321 220 541 101 160 263

Pm Peak (1700-1800) 177 374 551 91 132 222

12 Hour (0700-1900) 3,021 3,101 6,122 1,588 1,629 3,217

24 Hour 4,390 4,342 8,732 2,345 2,437 4,784

4.3.8 Further disaggregation of the data to exclude non container HGV movements

shows the following level of container vehicle movements (Table 5).



Table 5 – Container HGV Flow- Dock Gate 20 – May 2007 In Out Total

Am Peak (0800-0900) 76 122 198

Pm Peak (1700-1800) 69 116 185

12 Hour (0700-1900) 1,195 1,330 2,525

24 Hour AADT 1,883 2,055 3,938

4.3.9 The accuracy of this survey data has been assessed against data held by the

terminal operator (obtained from the VBS) for HGV trips generated by the

Container Terminal. This data provides a complete list of HGVs processed

through the terminal (inbound only). Table 6 below summarises the key data.

Table 6 – VBS Data – Two way HGV container vehicle flows – 2007

Date 24 Hour (0000

– 2400) Max Hour

Average

Hour Min Hour

21/05/07 3,454 250 144 10

22/05/07 3,892 256 162 2

23/05/07 3,970 246 165 80

24/05/07 3,984 248 166 90

25/05/07 3,528 238 147 46

Average 3,766 248 157 46

Note: VBS figures have been doubled to provide total movements

4.3.10 The above shows daily flows (midnight to midnight). The manual counts were

undertaken for a slightly different 24 hour period (0700 on 22.05 to 0700 on

23.05). The flows for that same period show a total of 4,014 HGV movements

through the VBS. The total container HGV movements surveyed through Dock

Gate 20 were 3,938. This exercise shows a good correlation between the figures

with only slightly more movements at the VBS than through Dock Gate 20. This

is to be expected given that an element of movement to and from the Container

Terminal, and therefore recorded at the VBS will be retained within the port



estate.

4.3.11 As part of this assessment, the previous survey work has been updated (in June

2011). The results of the updated container HGV movements at Dock Gate 20

are attached at Appendix B and summarised below in Table 7.

Table 7 – Container HGV Flow - Dock Gate 20 (23rd June 2011) In Out Total

Am Peak (0800-0900) 74 68 142

Pm Peak (1700-1800) 45 87 132

12 Hour (0700-1900) 1,136 1,050 2,186

24 Hour 1,526 1,468 2,994

4.3.12 The relevant accompanying data from the VBS system is attached at Appendix

C and summarised below in Table 8:

Table 8 – VBS Data – Two way container HGV flows – 2011

Date 24 Hour

(0000 – 2400) Max Hour

Average

Hour Min Hour

22/06/2011 3,534 288 147 38

23/06/2011 3,256 290 136 34

24/06/2011 2,910 264 121 52

25/06/2011 536 56 36 4

26/06/2011 136 40 19 6

27/06/2011 3,042 256 127 8

28/06/2011 3,354 288 147 38

Weekday Average 3,219 290 134 8

Note: VBS HGV Figures have been doubled to provide total movements

4.3.13 The HGV data from the manual survey was obtained during the period from

05.00 on 23th June for 24 hours. The corresponding VBS HGV flow for this

period was 3,266. Again this is higher than the surveyed flows at Dock Gate 20



and is explained by the internalisation of some trips within the port area.

4.4 Accident Data

4.4.1 Accident data for the local highway network has been obtained and reviewed.

The area of search and data collected is attached at Appendix D.

4.4.2 In total, 82 accidents were recorded in the search area which covers the last five

years. Of these 73 resulted in “slight” injuries and 9 in “serious” injuries. There

were no recorded fatal accidents. These have been split down to review three

key accident types, pedestrian, cyclists and HGVs.

4.4.3 There were a total of 3 accidents involving pedestrians. One, which resulted in

“serious” injuries was recorded as a drunken pedestrian crossing the dual

carriageway at night time. The other two accidents occurred at Redbridge and

Millbrook Roundabouts and both resulted in “slight” injuries, being the result of

conflicts at crossing points. Given the existing flows on the network, there is no

specific accident blackspot relating to pedestrians and no identifiable existing

issue to be addressed. The works carried out by SCC at Millbrook in the last

three years have been explicitly targeted at improving crossing points.

4.4.4 A total of 7 accidents involved cyclists, with one being classified as “serious” and

the remainder as “slight”. All of the accidents were the result of conflicts with

cars at the roundabouts or merges / access junctions. This type of accident is

fairly typical for a built up urban area. There are no specific accident clusters

and therefore no identifiable existing issue to be addressed.

4.4.5 In terms of HGV movements, a total of 9 “slight” accidents were recorded.

There were no fatal or “serious” accidents involving HGVs. One of the accidents

(on the M271 approach) related to driver distraction in the cab. All of the

remaining accidents were of lane usage / conflict at the roundabouts. Again,

there is no specific accident clusters and therefore no identifiable existing issue

to be addressed.



4.4.6 Overall the number of accidents on the local network is consistent with the scale

of road links and junctions in place and the level of flows accommodated.

Despite the relatively high frequency of HGV movements on the network, the

existing highway safety record shows no specific area of concern relating to

either HGVs themselves or the impact on safety of vulnerable road users. There

are therefore no existing highway safety issues to be specifically to be taken

account of in the assessment of the project.

4.5 Air Quality Management Areas

4.5.1 There are AQMA’s in the vicinity of the site of the berth 201/202 works. The air

quality implications on these areas as a result of traffic generated by the project

are dealt with in the relevant chapter of the ES.



5.0 TRAFFIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Based on the information set out in Section 2, this section of the TA considers

the road traffic generation of the project having regard to existing and future

conditions. The GTA notes at paragraph 4.59 that:

“There is a range of trip rate database tools available that contain national,

or in some cases more local, trip rates measured for typical land use sites.

However, obtaining an accurate comparison is not always straightforward,

especially for atypical developments. In these instances it is recommended

that, unless there is a clear valid comparable situation, the assessment

trips should be constructed from first principles based on a detailed

analysis of the daily operation of the proposed development.”

5.1.2 In this case there are no comparable sites in TRICS, so the following assessment

has been constructed from first principles, based on a number of key parameters

as derived and explained below.

5.2 Overall Annual Movements

Terminal Throughput

5.2.1 The key factor relating to inland road and rail movements is linked to the overall

throughput of the terminal. Throughput figures are quoted as per annum TEU

movements over the quay wall. These include all container lifts over the quay

wall excluding restows (boxes moved off the ship to facilitate access and then

replaced).

5.2.2 As explained in section 2 the following overall annual throughput assumptions

have been adopted:

• 2007 – 1.87m TEU – Peak historic throughput of port. (Historic

Baseline)

• 2011 - predicted 1.6m TEU for year. (Current Baseline)

• Terminal Capacity without the Works – 2.3m TEU. (Future Position

Without the Works)



• Terminal with the works Capacity – 2.8m TEU. (The Future Position

With the Works)

TEU / Box Ratio

5.2.3 Based on data from DPWS, the recorded TEU to box ratio in 2007 was 1.68 and

in 2011 (to date) is 1.66. However, the deep sea container east – west trade

(which forms the majority of DPWS trade) is migrating towards a much higher

usage of 40’ containers than 20’ containers. Based on current forecasts it is

expected that the ratio will peak at around 1.75 by 2019.

5.2.4 On this basis, 1.75 has been adopted in the forecast assessment scenarios. This

is consistent with the approach taken in assessing all recent major container port

developments, including Bristol Deep Sea Container Terminal and London

Gateway.

Transhipment

5.2.5 Data on existing transhipment rates have been obtained from DPWS records.

These show a rate of 9.3% in 2007 and 8.1% in 2011 to date. Going forward, it

is expected that this will increase marginally. A rate of 10% has therefore been

adopted for the 2021 forecast year.

Rail Share

5.2.6 Data on existing rail share has also been provided from DPWS records. This

shows a rail share of 26.1% of total throughput in 2007, rising to 33% in 2011

to date.

5.2.7 Geldard Consulting has considered likely changes in rail share that will occur

over time, and these are set out above in Table 1 as being 37% in 2021 and

40% in 2027.

Overall

5.2.8 Based on the above, the overall annual throughput position for each of the

various scenarios are summarised below in Table 9.



Table 9 – Overall Annual Throughput Assumptions

Historic

Baseline

Current

Baseline

Future

Position

Without the

Works

Future

Position With

the works

Year 2007 2011 2021 2027

TEU throughput

of the Terminal 1,869,806 1,600,000 2,300,000 2,800,000

Ratio TEU to

boxes 1.68 1.66 1.75 1.75

Box throughput of

the Terminal 1,111,039 963,175 1,314,286 1,600,000

Transhipment 9.29% 8.09% 10% 10%

Transhipment

Boxes 103,189 77,947 131,429 160,000

Sub total inland

Generation Boxes 1,007,851 885,229 1,182,857 1,440,000

Prop of overall

throughput

moved by Rail

26.09% 33.10% 37% 40%

Rail Boxes 289,852 318,801 486,286 640,000

Total Road Based

Boxes 717,999 566,428 696,571 800,000

Note minor rounding errors (TEU to box ratio for existing conditions to more than 2 decimal places).

5.3 Conversion of Box to HGV movements (Annual)

5.3.1 The conversion of the total number of road based boxes to the number of HGVs

can be calculated in a number of different ways. The VBS records every HGV

movement and box movement. That data shows that for 2007, each HGV

moved an average of 1.56 boxes.

5.3.2 On the basis that each HGV generates a trip in and a trip out, this equates to an



average at the VBS of 1.28 HGV trips (in or out) per box. Although the 2011

figure shows a slightly different ratio, DPWS have advised that the 1.28 average

is likely to be maintained in the future.

5.3.3 This reflects the fact that a number of movements of HGVs are not loaded (and

also a proportion are loaded with two containers).

5.3.4 Given that a number of these movements will be internal to the port estate

(although external to DPWS), at Dock Gate 20 it can be seen that the ratio is

lower. Based on the 2011 surveys, the flows at Dock Gate 20 (First Avenue)

are 9.1% lower than those actually entering the VBS system.

5.3.5 For the wider network strategic network, the ratio can be expected to reduce

further. This is a function of the fact that it is not commercially viable for HGVs

to travel longer distances without a paying load.

5.3.6 The proportion on the wider road network was agreed at the Dibden Terminal

inquiry, based on surveys on the M271, the A14 and the approach to

Thamesport. This showed a ratio of 1.03. Whilst the surveys are now a little

dated, the overall principles remain the same and this parameter has been

accepted by the Highways Agency in relation to both London Gateway and

Bristol DSCT. It has therefore been adopted in assessing strategic road

movements.

5.3.7 The implications of the above are therefore summarised below in Table 10.



Table 10 – Conversion from Boxes to HGV movements

Historic

Baseline

Current

Baseline

Future

Position

Without the

Works

Future

Position With

the Works

Total Road Based

Boxes 717,999 566,428 696,571 800,000

HGV to Box ratio

(VBS Gate) 1.28 1.299 1.28 1.28

Total VBS HGV

per year 921,931 735,620 894,417 1,027,222

HGV to Box Ratio

(Strategic) 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03

Strategic HGV

moves per year 739,539 583,421 717,469 824,000

5.3.8 Comparison of the DPWS Data and Dock Gate 20 surveys show that HGV flows

out through the VBS are higher than those actually out of the Port estate. The

ratio of VBS flows to Dock Gate 20 flows is therefore (2,994/3,266) = 0.9167.

5.4 Conversion of Annual Movements to Average Daily Movements

5.4.1 Annual flows have been converted to average weekly flows on the basis of 50

working weeks per year (on the assumption of significant reduction in

throughput at Christmas). These are set out below in Table 11.



Table 11 – Conversion from Annual to Average Week

Historic

Baseline

Current

Baseline

Future

Position

Without the

Works

Future

Position

With the

Works

Total VBS HGVs

per year 921,931 735,620 894,417 1,027,222

Strategic HGV

moves per year 739,539 583,421 717,469 824,000

Average VBS HGVs

per week 18,439 14,712 17,888 20,544

Average Strategic

HGVs per week 14,791 11,668 14,349 16,480

5.4.2 Although the port is open 24 hours a day, and the VBS is open from Sunday 2pm

to Saturday 2pm, the peak daily road movement tends to be on a Wednesday.

This is shown by the following information in Table 12 which compares VBS

throughput throughout the week surveyed. DPWS have confirmed this is typical

across the year.

Table 12 – Daily proportion of movements

Date Day Total VBS Proportion of

week

22/06/2011 Wednesday 1767 21.1%

23/06/2011 Thursday 1628 19.4%

24/06/2011 Friday 1455 17.4%

25/06/2011 Saturday 268 3.2%

26/06/2011 Sunday 68 0.8%

27/06/2011 Monday 1521 18.1%

28/06/2011 Tuesday 1677 20.0%

5.4.3 Applying the 21.1% peak day flows gives the following average week peak daily

flows.



Table 13 – Conversion from Average Week to Peak Day (average week)

Historic

Baseline

Current

Baseline

Future

Position

Without

the Works

Future

Position

With the

Works

Average VBS Trucks-

Peak Day 3,886 3,101 3,770 4,330

Average DG20

Trucks - Peak Day 3,562 2,843 3,456 3,969

Average Strategic

Truck - Peak Day 3,117 2,459 3,024 3,473

5.5 Adjustment for Monthly Variation

5.5.1 Historically, inland container traffic from the terminal has been subject to peak

periods, which broadly coincide with the run up to Christmas for example. This

has reduced in recent years but still has a slight effect as is demonstrated by

comparison of 2007 flows through the terminal as set out below:

Table 14 – Peak to average month ratio TEU

Total Annual 1,869,806

Peak Month (October) 166,791

Average month 155,817

Average month to peak month 1.070

5.5.2 To account for this, the daily movements set out in Table 13 have been

factored up by 1.070. The resulting peak daily movements for all scenarios are

therefore summarised below:



Table 15 – Peak Daily Traffic Flows

Historic

Baseline

Current

Baseline

Future

Position

Without the

Works

Future

Position With

the Works

Peak VBS HGVs 4,160 3,295 4,006 4,601

Peak DG 20 HGVs 3,813 3,020 3,672 4,218

Peak Strategic HGVs 3,337 2,613 3,213 3,690

5.5.3 Table 16 below summarises the changes in flows between the Historic Baseline

position and the Future Position With the Works, and between the Future

Position Without the Works position and the Future Position With the Works.

Table 16 – Change in peak daily HGV flows.

Change from Historic

Baseline to Future

Position With the Works

Change from Future

Position Without the

Works to Future Position

With the Works

Peak VBS HGVs + 441 + 595

Peak DG 20 HGVs + 404 + 545

Peak Strategic HGVs + 354 + 477

5.5.4 The overall spreadsheet summarising the above is provided at Appendix E.

5.6 Conversion of Peak Daily Flows to Hourly Flows

5.6.1 The hourly profile of the daily movements can be determined from any of the

four survey data sets available. Based on the most recent 2011 surveys, the

daily profile of container movements is as follows in Table 17.



Table 17 – Daily Profile

DG20VBS

In Out Total

0000-0100 0.72% 0.75% 0.73% 1.40%

0100-0200 1.18% 1.36% 1.27% 1.64%

0200-0300 1.31% 0.68% 1.00% 1.68%

0300-0400 2.29% 2.11% 2.20% 2.49%

0400-0500 3.15% 3.88% 3.51% 3.89%

0500-0600 4.46% 5.31% 4.88% 4.40%

0600-0700 5.57% 4.97% 5.28% 4.37%

0700-0800 5.24% 6.95% 6.08% 3.84%

0800-0900 4.85% 4.63% 4.74% 3.62%

0900-1000 4.52% 4.22% 4.38% 3.70%

1000-1100 4.72% 3.41% 4.07% 4.30%

1100-1200 6.42% 4.97% 5.71% 6.08%

1200-1300 8.26% 5.72% 7.01% 7.40%

1300-1400 8.58% 7.77% 8.18% 7.82%

1400-1500 10.35% 8.24% 9.32% 8.50%

1500-1600 8.32% 8.58% 8.45% 8.34%

1600-1700 7.80% 7.36% 7.58% 7.03%

1700-1800 2.95% 5.93% 4.41% 4.75%

1800-1900 2.42% 3.75% 3.07% 3.41%

1900-2000 1.83% 3.34% 2.57% 2.81%

2000-2100 0.92% 2.59% 1.74% 2.27%

2100-2200 1.51% 1.16% 1.34% 2.21%

2200-2300 1.44% 1.16% 1.30% 2.23%

2300-2400 1.18% 1.16% 1.17% 1.80%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

5.6.2 The above profile has been applied to the daily flows as identified above in

Table 16 to provide a peak hour flow from the terminal for the various

scenarios. For robustness, the Dock Gate 20 derived profile has been used as it

shows slightly higher peak hour flows.



5.7 Forecast Peak Hour Movements from Container Movements

5.7.1 Based on the above assumptions, Appendix F, provides a full breakdown of

traffic generation across the peak day, based on both Dock Gate 20 movements

and the strategic network. Peak hour flows at Dock Gate 20 and on the strategic

network for the various scenarios are set out below in Table 18 and 19.

Table 18 - Peak Hour Traffic Generation – Dock Gate 20 /First Avenue Am Peak Pm Peak

In Out Total In Out Total

Historic Baseline

(2007) 92 88 180 56 113 169

Current Baseline

(2011) 74 68 142 45 87 132

Future Position

Without the Works 89 85 174 54 109 163

Future Position

With the works 102 98 200 62 125 187

Table 19 - Peak Hour Traffic Generation – Strategic Network Am Peak Inter – Peak Pm Peak

In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total

Historic Baseline (2007)

81 77 158 143 130 273 49 99 148

Current Baseline (2011)

63 61 124 112 101 214 39 77 116

Future Position without the

Works 78 74 152 138 125 263 47 95 143

Future Position With the Works

89 85 175 158 143 302 54 109 163



5.8 Employee Traffic Generation

5.8.1 At present, DPWS employs a total of 820 staff, working on two shift patterns

(0730-1930 and 1930-0730).

5.8.2 In the anticipated year of opening (2014), the berth operation will generate 36

jobs. Thereafter between 2015 and 2027, the berth operation is estimated to

generate 12 additional jobs per year. This results in an additional 192 jobs by

2027. As with the existing employees, these will be split over two shifts, with

neither involving start/finish times related to traffic network peak hours. The

absolute change in traffic flows arising from increased staff levels will be

negligible during peak hours and modest in terms of daily flows.

5.8.3 In terms of daily movements a car driver percentage of 71% is assumed (based

on ONS data for Southampton 019C super output area), giving rise to 137 cars

or 274 two-way movements.

5.9 Operational HGV Traffic Generation

5.9.1 In addition to the above, the facility also generates different movements per day

relating to vehicle servicing / repair, deliveries etc. Overall the project will not

change these requirements in any significant way. The implication of these

movements has therefore been discounted from further assessment.

5.10 Traffic Distribution - Strategic Network

5.10.1 Having established the above peak hour movements, the following assessment

considers the distribution and assignment of forecast traffic flows. The following

distribution and assignment given in Table 20 has been assumed. This has

been derived from the data reported in Figures 51 and 52 of the DfT Publication

“The Container Freight End-to-End Journey - December 2008.” This includes

the agreed position in terms of distribution for the Bristol Deep Sea Container

Terminal.



Table 20 – Assumed HGV distribution In Out Average

Greater London 8.8% 19.1% 13.9%

South East 14.9% 16.2% 15.5%

East 5.1% 9.0% 7.1%

East Midlands 22.4% 5.9% 14.2%

West Midlands 16.3% 10.7% 13.5%

South West 7.4% 8.6% 8.0%

Wales 2.7% 4.4% 3.5%

North West 11.1% 10.7% 10.9%

Yorkshire & Humber 8.7% 11.7% 10.2%

North East 2.6% 3.6% 3.1%

Scotland 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Total 100% 100% 100%

5.10.2 A breakdown of route choice and assignment is provided in Appendix G.

5.11 Traffic Distribution Local Road Network

5.11.1 It is clear from the expected strategic HGV distribution that the majority of

movements generated by the terminal are to and from the strategic road

network. The impact on the local road network will therefore be limited to those

roads within Southampton City Council that link the terminal with the strategic

road network.

5.11.2 Whilst some movements to and from the Port estate do currently use other

routes (for reasons of local access etc), any change to such movements as a

result of the project are not considered to be material, because the main

additional demand will follow the strategic distribution as set out above.

5.11.3 In terms of the New Forest, there are no additional flows forecast through the

area, with any additional growth focusing on the Trunk Road Network.

Therefore no further assessment has been undertaken on the local road network



within other adjacent local authority areas, including Test Valley Borough and

the New Forest (where Hampshire County Council is the relevant Highway

Authority).

5.11.4 In terms of additional staff traffic, commuting car journeys will quickly dissipate

on the highway network with employees likely to be drawn from across

Southampton and further afield. For the purposes of appraisal, it is assumed

that 50% of staff driving to the site, will route to the east and north as they

reach the A35, quickly spreading across numerous local routes. The remaining

50% are assumed to route to the west via Redbridge Road, in turn splitting

evenly between the A35 towards Totton (ie 25% of the extra staff traffic) and

the M271 (again 25%). Traffic reaching the M27 will take a number of routes,

and for the purposes of assessment, a total of 15% is assumed to route to the

east along the motorway.



6.0 ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS

6.1 Forecast Year Scenarios

6.1.1 GTA advises that future year assessments should normally be undertaken 10

years from the date of submission of the proposals for development for the

Strategic Road Network and 5 years for the local road network. Although the

date of the application submission for the berth 201/202 works is 2008, (which

would give a forecast year of 2018 for the SRN and 2013 for the local road

network), this assessment, is being submitted for consideration in 2011,

therefore an assessment year of 2021 has been used.

6.1.2 As has already been explained, in 2021, the Container Terminal could be

operating at the same level of throughput, linked to demand, regardless of

whether the berth 201 / 202 works are in place or not. Table 1 above shows

that up to 2021, actual terminal throughput will be limited by demand rather

than capacity. It therefore follows that the berth 201 / 202 works will potentially

not have any impact on the level of terminal generated traffic movements up to

2021. Furthermore, despite the increase in throughput over time, there is likely

to be a reduction in external road based movements from the historic baseline

2007 position to the position in 2021 as a result of improved rail share.

6.1.3 Post 2021, the additional capacity that would be created by the 201/202 works

will be taken up. In simple terms the works will result in an additional 0.5m TEU

of capacity being provided and this is predicted to be used over the 6 year

period to 2027. On this basis, the traffic impact has been assessed by

comparing the Future Position With the Works scenario with the Future Position

Without the Works scenario.

6.1.4 The assessment of the traffic impact of the Future Position With the Works

scenario with the Future Position Without the Works is considered to represent

the most meaningful evaluation of impact. This relates to the practical capacity

of the site with and without the works, and removes the need for reliance on

future demand based assumptions of the current operation. Since the Future

Position Without the Works is, however, a capacity driven appraisal, and that

future demand is a symptom of market forces, it is acknowledged that it is also



appropriate to evaluate the impact of alternative comparisons. For robustness

therefore, the Future Position With the Works is also compared with the Current

Baseline and comment made on a comparison with the Historic Baseline position

as defined in Section 2.3. The comparison against the Current Baseline

generates the largest change in traffic flows between any of the relevant

scenarios. It is arguably a somewhat overly cautious analysis because, as

explained in detail in later paragraphs, the traffic flows currently occurring are

less than what has in reality occurred in the past, and what could be achieved in

the future.

6.2 Future Forecast Growth and Committed Development Traffic

6.2.1 As part of the assessment process, consideration has been given to the potential

in-combination effects of a number of developments. These developments have

been agreed with SCC as requiring consideration. These are discussed in turn

below in terms of their implications for the Transport Assessment.

Helius Biomass Generating Station

6.2.2 This scheme is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). An

application for consent has not yet been submitted to the IPC. As of 22nd August

2011 publicly available information from the project’s website confirms the

following in terms of road based traffic movements:

“It is intended that the majority of the fuel will be delivered to the site by

ship through the Port of Southampton however any local sourced fuel will

be delivered by road or rail. In normal operation, if it is assumed that

300,000 tonnes of fuel were to be sourced locally then if it all were

delivered by road, this would amount to around 39 lorry loads per working

day. In exception circumstances, e.g. the closure of the Port, all the fuel

feedstock may be delivered by road for an indeterminate period. Having

regard to this possibility, the application for a Development Consent Order

will include an assessment of the worst case scenario whereby all fuel

would be delivered to the site per road, assuming up to 111 one way lorry

movements per day.”



6.2.3 This generating station, if constructed, will be located within the existing Port

estate, on land used for other purposes. The level of traffic predicted to be

generated is considered likely to be commensurate with the level of traffic that

has been, or could be in the future be, generated by port uses permitted to

occur on the land. Traffic likely to be generated by this generating station is

therefore included in the general growth assessment of traffic movements. No

specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in combination

road traffic impacts.

Planning Permission 09/00106/FUL

6.2.4 This planning consent allows for certain changes to be made to internal port

access arrangements within the Port Estate in the vicinity of Dock Gate 20.

These changes are intended to secure internal safety improvements to the

access road network within the port estate and in particular to the existing

Vehicle Booking System. Other than providing internal improvements, the

consent, when implemented, will have no impact on the overall port related road

traffic movements. No specific additional assessment is therefore required in

terms of in combination road traffic impacts.

Planning Permission 10/00385/R3CFL - Council Depot and HWRC, First Avenue

6.2.5 This consented scheme is due to be opened in early 2012. The Transport

Assessment submitted with the application concluded that the scheme would

have minimal impact on existing junction operation. Minor improvements were

secured to the Millbrook Roundabout junction. In any event, the facility is a

replacement of any existing facility elsewhere within the City. Whilst the new

depot will divert trips from the existing site it will not in itself generate new trips.

The development will not materially alter base flows either in the peak hours and

therefore no specific additional assessment is therefore required in terms of in

combination road traffic impacts.



Planning Application 10/01449/FUL – Redevelopment of BAT Co Ltd

6.2.6 This development relates to the replacement of an existing industrial building

with a Costco warehouse store. The Transport Assessment submitted with the

application suggests minimal changes in weekday flows from the existing

position. Increases in weekend flows are more marked, but these occur at a

time when port traffic is generally low (see Table 12). Furthermore, retail

development is likely to result in linked trips rather than wholly new ones on the

network.

6.2.7 On the basis of the above, no specific additional assessment is therefore

required in terms of in combination road traffic impacts.

General Growth in Network

6.2.8 In accordance with current WebTAG guidance (TAG unit 3.15.2, section 5.5),

where traffic growth factors are required, in the absence of a traffic model, the

Department's published forecasts from the National Traffic Model should be

used. The Department’s published forecasts are based on assumed population

and workforce projections and therefore include general growth in traffic arising

from future housing, employment and retail development. They will therefore

generally include an allowance for future traffic growth arising from the type of

developments considered above, in any event.

6.2.9 Accordingly, to establish the future year reference case, growth factors have

been derived from the most recent release of NTM which is 2009. The NTM

forecasts give traffic growth by region, road type and whether the area is built

up or not. TEMPRO factors are then used to tailor this published traffic forecast

to local circumstances. The most recent release of TEMPRO is v6.2 and has

been used here to adjust the NTM forecasts, which are based on the

Southampton area. The growth factors are provided in Table 21.



Table 21 – Background Growth Rates

Urban

Principal

Urban

Trunk

Rural

Motorway

2011 - 2021 1.175 1.205 1.235

2011 - 2027 1.206 1.219 1.251

6.3 Change in Flows

6.3.1 Based on the preceding assessments, Table 22 shows the change in HGV flows

on the network between the Future Position Without the Works scenario and

Future Position With the Works scenario for 2027.

Table 22 – Additional HGV Flows – comparison of Future Position With the Works with the Future Position Without the Works scenario

Redbridge

Road M271

M3

(south of A34) A34

E/B W/B S/B N/B W/B E/B S/B N/B

Am Peak (0800 - 0900)

12 11 12 11 10 10 10 9

Inter Peak (1300-1400)

20 19 20 19 18 16 17 16

Pm Peak (1700 - 1800)

7 14 7 14 6 12 6 12

24 Hours 239 239 239 239 208 208 200 200

6.3.2 It can be seen from the above that the changes in HGV flows as a result of the

project are modest during the peak hours. The inter-peak is slightly higher, but

at a time when base flows on the network are significantly lower. The worse

case for assessment purposes is therefore the highway peak periods and the 24

Hour period.



6.4 Operational Traffic Impact Conclusions

6.4.1 It is clear from the above that the additional traffic arising from the Works is

modest, when compared against the existing and future likely traffic flows.

6.4.2 Based on the above assessments, Table 23 and 24 compares the changes in

flows on the key links on the network.

Table 23 – Comparison of Total Traffic Flows – between the Future Position With the Works and the Future Position Without the Works scenario in 2027

2027 Without Works 2027 With Works % Change

AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr AM PM 24 Hr

Redbridge E/B

5,068 3,533 52,254 5,080 3,540 52,561 0.2% 0.2% 0.6%

Redbridge W/B

2,598 4,517 46,674 2,609 4,531 46,981 0.4% 0.3% 0.6%

M271 S/B 3,350 2,710 36,983 3,362 2,717 37,256 0.3% 0.3% 0.7%

M271 N/B 2,447 3,202 36,144 2,458 3,216 36,416 0.5% 0.4% 0.7%

M27 W/B 6,100 7,396 87,710 6,110 7,402 87,952 0.2% 0.1% 0.3%

M27 E/B 6,911 6,878 87,732 6,921 6,891 87,974 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%

M3 S/B 6,088 7,435 86,073 6,097 7,441 86,274 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

M3 N/B 6,891 5,694 84,878 6,901 5,706 85,078 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%

A34 S/B 2,384 2,761 33,207 2,388 2,763 33,285 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

A34 N/B 2,201 2,025 30,123 2,205 2,029 30,200 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%



Table 24 – Comparison of HGV Flows - between the Future Position With the Works and the Future Position Without the Works scenario in 2027

2027 Without Works 2027 With Works % Change


Redbridge

E/B 346 241 3,582 358 248 3,822 3.4% 2.9% 6.7%

Redbridge

W/B 178 309 3,202 189 323 3,442 6.3% 4.6% 7.5%

M271 S/B 303 278 5,495 315 285 5,735 3.8% 2.6% 4.4%

M271 N/B 393 219 5,507 405 233 5,747 2.8% 6.5% 4.4%

M27 W/B 640 386 9,193 650 392 9,402 1.6% 1.6% 2.3%

M27 E/B 725 358 9,195 735 371 9,405 1.3% 3.5% 2.3%

M3 S/B 596 405 9,687 606 411 9,889 1.6% 1.5% 2.1%

M3 N/B 657 398 9,827 667 410 10,029 1.4% 3.0% 2.1%

A34 S/B 355 246 5,746 359 249 5,825 1.1% 0.9% 1.4%

A34 N/B 330 249 5,651 334 253 5,730 1.1% 1.9% 1.4%

6.4.3 Assessing the impact of these additional flows on the wider network clearly

demonstrates very modest changes that are not significant. It can therefore be

concluded that the works do not warrant the need for any detailed analytical

assessment of off-site impact. It also follows from this that there are no

material adverse impacts arising in terms of highway safety or operation.

6.4.4 For robustness however, a similar appraisal has been undertaken comparing the

Current Baseline with the Future Position With the Works (see explanation given

in paragraph 6.1.4). Table 25 shows the resulting change in HGV flows on the

network.



Table 25 Comparison between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027

Redbridge

Road M271

M3

(south of A34) A34

E/B W/B S/B N/B W/B E/B S/B N/B

Am Peak (0800 - 0900)

26 25 26 25 23 22 22 21

Inter Peak (1300-1400)

46 42 46 42 40 36 39 35

Pm Peak (1700 - 1800)

16 32 16 32 14 28 13 27

24 Hours 539 239 539 539 469 469 453 453

6.4.5 Tables 26 and 27 show the consequential increases in terms of total traffic and

HGV traffic.

Table 26 – Comparison of Total Traffic Flows – between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027

2027 with Current Baseline flows from Port 2027 With Works % Change


Redbridge E/B

5,054 3,524 51,954 5,080 3,540 52,561 0.5% 0.5% 1.2%

Redbridge W/B

2,584 4,499 46,374 2,609 4,531 46,981 1.0% 0.7% 1.3%

M271 S/B 3,336 2,701 36,683 3,362 2,717 37,256 0.8% 0.6% 1.6%

M271 N/B 2,433 3,184 35,843 2,458 3,216 36,416 1.0% 1.0% 1.6%

M27 W/B 6,087 7,388 87,448 6,110 7,402 87,952 0.4% 0.2% 0.6%

M27 E/B 6,899 6,863 87,471 6,921 6,891 87,974 0.3% 0.4% 0.6%

M3 S/B 6,075 7,428 85,821 6,097 7,441 86,274 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%

M3 N/B 6,880 5,679 84,626 6,901 5,706 85,078 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

A34 S/B 2,379 2,758 33,109 2,388 2,763 33,285 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%

A34 N/B 2,197 2,019 30,025 2,205 2,029 30,200 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%



Table 27 – Comparison of HGV Flows - between the Current Baseline and the Future Position With the Works scenario in 2027

2027 With Current Baseline flows from Port 2027 With Works % Change


Redbridge E/B

331 232 3,281 358 248 3,820 7.9% 6.8% 16.4%

Redbridge W/B

164 291 2,902 189 323 3,440 15.2% 11.0% 18.6%

M271 S/B 289 269 5,195 315 285 5,733 9.0% 5.9% 10.4%

M271 N/B 379 201 5,207 404 233 5,746 6.6% 15.9% 10.3%

M27 W/B 627 378 8,932 650 392 9,401 3.6% 3.7% 5.3%

M27 E/B 713 343 8,934 735 371 9,403 3.0% 8.1% 5.3%

M3 S/B 584 397 9,435 606 411 9,888 3.8% 3.4% 4.8%

M3 N/B 646 383 9,575 667 410 10,028 3.2% 7.0% 4.7%

A34 S/B 350 243 5,649 359 249 5,824 2.4% 2.1% 3.1%

A34 N/B 326 243 5,553 334 253 5,729 2.5% 4.3% 3.2%

6.4.6 Whilst the differences when considering the Current Baseline are higher than the

comparison with the Future Position Without the Works, the additional flows on

the wider network remain modest. Clearly, the absolute 2027 Future Position

With Works are the same in each comparison. The percentage impacts increase

and are discussed in the relevant ES chapter, concluding that no significant

impact results.

6.4.7 The comparison between the Historic Baseline and the Future Position With the

Works has also been reviewed. The numbers are not tabulated since they are

extremely similar to those that result from the comparative differences between

the Future Position Without the Works and With the Works. This can be

interpreted from Table 19 whereby the peak hour traffic generation for Historic

Baseline and Future Position Without the Works are extremely similar.

Equivalent conclusions regarding the lack of material impact are therefore

drawn.



6.4.8 In either event and regardless of the comparisons drawn between the various

scenarios, the operator controls inbound HGV movements through the VBS

system. It is therefore wholly within their control, if deemed appropriate, to

restrict peak hour movements.

6.5 Construction Traffic Impacts

6.5.1 As set out in Section 2, the worst case scenario for construction traffic will

require the importation of concrete by road. On this basis the construction

process would generate a total of around 11,000 delivery / service vehicle

movements (two way). Over a 14 month construction program this equates to

an average of 40 per day (20 in and 20 out). In order to provide a robust

assessment, the average number of construction HGVs are trebled in quantum to

120 per day. Occasional access by abnormal loads may be required for larger

items and cranes, but mostly these will be brought to site by barge.

6.5.2 Around 100 construction staff are expected on site at peak times. Based on a

car driver mode share of around 60% this would equate to a further 120

movements per day.

6.5.3 It is clear from the above that construction related movements are low,

particularly in relation to existing movements into and out of the port as a whole.

Furthermore, construction activity will occur in areas which are currently used for

port purposes and therefore generating vehicle movements. These movements

will not occur whilst construction activity is taking place. It can thus be

concluded that the construction related traffic will have no material impact on

the safety or operation of the adjacent highway network.



7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 This Transport Assessment has been prepared by DTA on behalf of ABP to

assess the transport implications of the proposed berth 201 / 202 works. This

assessment forms the basis of the ES chapter to which this Transport

Assessment is appended.

7.2 The Transport Assessment reviews the transport policy basis against which the

scheme should be considered. This policy review confirms that the status of the

Port is of regional and national importance. The policy analysis concludes that

growth at the Port is encouraged at a Local, Regional and National level and that

the necessary strategic policies are in place to allow this growth to occur.

7.3 The Transport Assessment provides a detailed breakdown of likely road based

traffic generation of the terminal, both at present and in future years, the latter

with and without the works.

7.4 This assessment concludes that the overall peak hour traffic generation from the

works is modest, both in terms of existing generated flows and background

flows on the network.

7.5 Against this background, the TA concludes that, although there is no longer any

formal threshold for assessing materiality based on percentage change, it is clear

that the additional traffic generated by the works will have no material impact on

highway operation or safety. The provision of any off-site mitigation to be

provided as a result of this increase in capacity is therefore unnecessary and

would be unjustified.

7.6 In conclusion, the Future Position With the Works will have no material impact

on the safety or operation of the adjacent local and strategic highway networks.

SJT/SKP/13125-02_Transport Assessment Final.docx 20th October 2011

Figures

Dra

win

g N

o :

13125-0

1

© C

row

n C

opyright

and D

ata

base

Rig

ht

2010 -

AL 1

000304 1

2

Da

vid

Tu

ck

er

Asso

cia

tes

Tra

nsp

ort

Pla

nnin

g C

onsu

ltancy

Fore

ster

House

, D

oct

ors

Lane, H

enle

y-in

-Ard

en

Warw

icksh

ire, B95 5

AW

Tel: +

44(0

) 1564 7

93598 F

ax:

+44(0

) 1564 7

93983

ww

w.d

tatr

ansp

ort

ation.c

o.u

k

Fig

ure

1D

raw

ing T

itle

Job T

itle

Clie

nt

Site L

oca

tion P

lan

South

am

pto

n C

onta

iner

Term

inal Expansi

on

ABP S

outh

am

pto

n

Sca

le :

NTS

NO

RTH

Note

s:

M2

7

J2

M2

7

J3

M2

7

J4

M2

7

J4

M2

7

J5

M2

7

J7

M2

71

J1

DP

W S

ou

tha

mp

ton

Co

nta

ine

r T

erm

ina

l

RE

DB

RID

GE

RO

UN

DA

BO

UT

MILLB

RO

OK

RO

UN

DA

BO

UT

DO

CK

GA

TE

10

DO

CK

GA

TE

2

0

We

ste

rn D

ock

s

Drawing No : 13125-03Figure 2Drawing TitleJob TitleClient

Strategic Location PlanSouthampton Container Terminal ExpansionABP Southampton

© Crown Copyright and Database Right 2010 - AL 1000304 12

David Tucker Associates

Transport Planning ConsultancyForester House, Doctors Lane, Henley-in-ArdenWarwickshire, B95 5AWTel: +44(0) 1564 793598 Fax: +44(0) 1564 793983www.dtatransportation.co.uk

Scale : NTS

NORTH

Appendix A

1.0 Introduction

1.1 This assessment, which has been prepared by Geldard Consulting, considers the

implications of the project on rail transportation conditions.

1.2 The Port of Southampton is already an established generator of rail freight

movements, with the Container Terminal being the main generator of rail freight

traffic. The existing rail related infrastructure (both routes and terminals) which

are currently used to handle the rail freight traffic generated by the terminal

have therefore effectively defined the geographical extent of the assessment.

2.0 Determining Rail Capacity

2.1 National Rail Network

2.1.1 Access to the national rail network is controlled by Network Rail. There are a

number of key factors that determine the capacity of any rail route. These are:

Physical Factors

Destination terminal. The number and limitations of tracks on the route. The design of signalling on the route which determines the minimum possible

headway (the distance between the tail of one train and the front of a following train) between services.

The formation of junctions on the route, as the extent to which services make conflicting moves will impact on capacity.

Operational Factors

The number and mix of service types on the route, as capacity can be more difficult to manage when there is a mix of fast and slow services.

Time of day when paths are required. The match of network paths and terminal access. Network Rail’s maintenance and enhancement plans. Type of equipment, (including locomotives) to be used and related train

speed and acceleration. 2.1.2 In practice the ability to identify additional train paths over a route is influenced

by a mix of these various factors.

2.1.3 As well as a routine half-yearly timetable review, Network Rail has a number of

other mechanisms to model and plan capacity. These attempt to incorporate

such details as the route characteristics, passenger timetable, and allocated

freight paths. Network Rail’s annual Network Statement provides guidance on

path allocation whilst their Strategic Access Planning (SAP) team looks at current

and future capacity requirements. In addition, work undertaken through the

Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) process provides the opportunity for wide

industry consultation and is aimed to plan and maximise capacity.

2.1.4 Rail capacity is never a straightforward issue. For example access may be

possible in one part of the network at one time of day and at a different time of

day elsewhere. Whilst any analysis highlights issues that exist in identifying

additional freight paths, it is always likely that additional paths can be identified

through a trade-off between end to end journey times and the time of day the

services will run. As a general rule daytime access is more difficult than evening

or overnight. This is particularly the case on main passenger routes that try to

combine freight with high speed and local passenger services especially on a 2-

track railway line or in large conurbations. These issues would certainly occur on

routes leading to the North West, the Midlands and the Scottish Central Belt.

2.1.5 It is important to recognise the significance of gauge in the context of the

capacity of the national rail network. In simple terms, gauge is the height

between the rails and any overhead structure such as bridges, tunnels, signals

and platform canopies. Most of the main routes in the past have operated at W8

gauge which will allow an 8ft 6in high container to pass on a standard height

wagon.

2.1.6 With an ever growing use of 9ft 6in containers by the major deep sea container

lines, improving the available gauge has become increasingly important because

these containers are too high to be carried on a W8 route without the use of

special low height wagons. Network Rail is now progressing with a major

programme of gauge enhancement to develop routes at W10 gauge which allow

high cube containers to be carried on standard height wagons. As over 30% of

the maritime box fleet is now high cube, gauge enhancement significantly

increases the potential traffic that can be carried by each train thereby

increasing network capacity by means other than building extra tracks and

signals.

2.2 Rail Terminals

2.2.1 Intermodal rail terminals throughout the UK vary considerably in terms of size,

and the available rail infrastructure and craneage. All of these factors, as well as

operating methods and service details will have a bearing on terminal capacity.

Facilities which are closely located to one another will also provide alternate, as

well as additional capacity to customers within the same area.

2.2.2 Currently around 30 locations are listed as providing intermodal terminals in the

UK. Of these 15 are inland terminals and the remaining are at 15 port locations,

several with more than one operating rail terminal.

2.2.3 There are five key features that will determine the capacity of any rail container

terminal:

Rail Access – this relates to access to and from the main national network. Access can be a restricting factor when terminals are located close to a busy main line such as the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

Terminal Rail Infrastructure – the number and length of sidings will impact on capacity. Working sidings should be long enough to avoid splitting trains whilst reception sidings are required to stable trains before or after loading.

Craneage – the number and type of cranes will impact on the speed of loading and the use of available land for container pre-positioning and storage. Overhead cranes such as rail mounted gantries (RMGs) or rubber tyred gantries (RTGs) provide good cycle speeds (moves per hour) and efficient land use whilst reachstackers are more versatile and flexible.

Terminal size – clearly large unrestricted sites provide the best option to maximise efficiencies through the provision of working sidings, equipment and vehicle access and container storage capacity.

Operations – as with the national rail network it is possible to increase terminal capacity through the efficiency of operations. Planned train arrival and departure times throughout a full 24hour period is essential whilst maximising terminal layout and the use of IT based control systems can significantly influence terminal capacity.

2.2.4 Whilst a combination of all the above factors will impact on terminal capacity

many of these factors are within the direct control of the terminal operator.

Investment in infrastructure and craneage as well as IT systems can markedly

increase terminal capacity.

2.3 Rail Operations – Equipment

2.3.1 The main locomotive being used on most intermodal services is the Class 66.

This vehicle has proved to be reliable and capable of handling most services on

most routes. It should be noted that intermodal traffic is by nature much lighter

than traditional bulk freight traffic. Normally, weight is not therefore a major

issue.

2.3.2 Nevertheless plans for longer trains may have implications on the weight of

trains and consequently on the future use of the Class 66 locomotive. Two

options are available to address this. The first option is to use the new Class 70

locomotive which has recently been introduced into the UK. This locomotive

provides lower emissions and greater power to accommodate heavier loads. The

second option is to use two Class 66 locomotives (double-heading).

2.3.3 A wide variety of wagon types are used for intermodal traffic. Three key issues

determine the capacity that can be achieved with differing wagon types.

Maximising the number of container platforms available for a set train length – this is a function of wagon design and is best illustrated through two examples:

Many of the newer standard 60ft wagons which are capable of

carrying 1 x 20ft and 1 x 40ft container are “twinned”. This is achieved through joining two twinned wagons with a rigid bar coupling rather than buffers and normal couplings. The effect is to reduce the length of the twin as compared with two normally coupled wagons with drawgear at both ends.

On some services it has been necessary to use European style intermodal wagons. These wagons are generally designed to carry 45ft as well as 40ft and 2 x 20ft containers. Clearly, with a 45ft platform being used for deep sea traffic dominated by 40ft and 20ft containers; these wagons are inefficient with 5ft of wasted space per wagon.

Wagon suitability for container mix – this relates to the ability to provide a

balance of 20ft and 40ft containers when using 60ft platform wagons. Generally the growth in the market is in 40ft containers whilst 20ft containers are not growing at the same pace. The result is that it is currently becoming increasingly difficult to fill all the 20ft slots on 60 ft wagons.

Wagon availability – both of the two points above are compounded by the

current inability to source and operate with the most efficient wagon types. As has been stated, 45ft wagons have to be used on some services whilst much needed 40ft wagons are not yet available.

2.3.4 The issue of gauge as explained above has significant implications on wagon

type and capacity on the W8 routes. Where gauge clearance to W10 has not

been achieved the only way of transporting high cube containers by rail is on

special low height wagons. The well-wagon provides a low height platform

situated between standard-height bogies. This is particularly inefficient as a

significant part of the wagon length is unproductive.

2.3.5 A second alternative is a wagon with a low height platform mounted on small

wheel bogies. In some cases these are 40ft platforms and have been twinned as

described above. Unfortunately, these wagons have proved to be

disproportionately expensive to purchase and to maintain although a new design

has recently been type approved and is soon to enter service.

Figure 1 Intermodal Equipment

Class 66 locomotive Class 70 locomotive

Standard twin 60ft wagon well wagon Source: Freightliner and GB Railfreight

2.4 Rail Operations - Utilisation

2.4.1 Utilisation is key in achieving maximum capacity on any rail service. The aim of

any Freight Operating Company (FOC) is always to achieve total train fill on a

consistent basis. In reality, for a variety of reasons, as explained below, this is

difficult to accomplish. However given W10 gauge cleared routes, efficient

terminal operations and good wagon availability, high levels of utilisation can be

achieved.

2.4.2 Ideally, volumes per service would be consistent on a day-by-day and season-

by-season basis. This, however, is not the case. When large deep-sea container

services make, for example, their weekly port call a significant volume of

containers to be moved by rail is immediately available. The availability of

containers for rail movement will diminish as the week progresses and this may

well reduce utilisation. In addition, deep sea container traffic from the Far East is

also prone to seasonality. Peak periods are predictably in line with main British

holidays although the slack periods at other times of year can impact on levels of

utilisation.

2.5 Rail Operations - Train length

2.5.1 Train length is one of the most important issues in determining service capacity.

Recognising any limitations in path or terminal slot availability is essential to

maximise train length to make best use of available path and slot capacity. The

following are key factors in determining train length:

Network passing loops - Network Rail makes use of passing loops to allow freight trains to pull off the main line to allow faster passenger services to pass. Passing loops must be long enough to accommodate longer freight trains. A dynamic loop is sufficiently long to allow this manoeuvre to take place without the need for the freight train to stop and is the most efficient option.

Terminal siding length - this should ideally match the length of trains thereby avoiding the need to “split trains”. Where splitting is necessary some reduction in operational efficiency is inevitable due to increased siding occupancy and extended terminal turn-round times. However, terminals are generally able to plan and organise their operations to accommodate longer services.

Equipment - as described in paragraph F2.35 train length can impact on locomotive choice. This is a manageable situation as is the case with increased wagon numbers for longer services.

3.0 The Current Situation

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The preceding paragraphs have provided general background information

relating to rail freight operations. The following paragraphs provide detailed

information on rail freight information specific to container operations at

Southampton.

3.2 Volumes and Services

3.2.1 The total volume of containers handled by the container terminal at

Southampton in 2010 was 1,539,000 TEU. The total volume of these containers

moved by rail was 415,530 TEU which represented a 27% share to rail.

3.2.2 Two FOCs operate rail services for container traffic from the Port of

Southampton. In 2010 the split in volume was as follows:

DB Schenker (UK) Ltd 59,000 containers Freightliner Ltd 230,000 containers

3.2.3 The intermodal services currently operated by DB Schenker from the port are


Table 1 - Services currently operated by DB Schenker.

Destination Departure Time

Departure Day

Days per week

Number of wagons

Trafford Park, Manchester 00.42 Tues - Sat 5 32

BIFT, Birmingham 09.32 Mon - Fri 5 30

Wakefield 16.10 Mon - Fri 5 30 incl lpw

Hams Hall, Birmingham 02.11 Mon - Thu &

Sat 5 32

3.2.4 DB Schenker therefore timetable a total of 4 daily round trip services all

operating 5 days per week. Many of the European type 45ft wagons currently

used by DB Schenker are being replaced by standard 60ft wagons to maximise

capacity. Low-platform wagons (lpw) must be used for hi-cube containers on the

Wakefield service. All DB Schenker services are operated with Class 66

locomotives.

3.2.5 The intermodal services currently operated by Freightliner from the port are


Table 2 - Services currently operated by Freightliner.

Destination Departure Time

Departure Day

Days per week

Number of wagons

Leeds 19.01 Mon - Fri 5 26 00.01 Tues - Sun 6 26 02.14 Mon - Fri 5 26 lpw

Trafford Park, Manchester

03.48 Mon - Fri 5 .24 12.55 Mon - Fri 5 24 17.02 Mon - Fri 5 24

F2.34 Mon - Fri & Sun 6 24

Lawley Street, Birmingham

08.58 Mon - Fri 5 24 22.55 Mon - Fri 5 24

BIFT, Birmingham 14.55 Mon - Sat 6 30 Daventry, East

Midlands 00.56 Tues - Sat 5 26

Garston, Liverpool 18.00 Mon - Fri 5 26 Ditton, Widnes 09.34 Mon - Fri 5 14

Coatbridge, Glasgow 09.34 Mon - Fri 5 14 Cardiff 03.00 Mon -Sat 6 26 lpw

3.2.6 Freightliner therefore timetable a total of 15 daily round trip services with 11 of

them operating 5 days per week and 4 operating 6 days per week. All services

operate with standard 60ft wagons other than the use of lpw to Leeds and

Cardiff. Between two and three, depending on circumstances, Class 70

locomotives are deployed on the Southampton services whilst the remaining

services are hauled by Class 66 locomotives.

3.2.7 In addition to the preceding intermodal services, several other rail services (as

shown in Table 3) currently arrive into the Port of Southampton.

Table 3 - Other services currently arriving into the Port of Southampton.

Traffic From Arrival Time Arrival Day Days per

week FOC

Cars Halewood or Castle 03.31 Mon - Sat 5 STVA/DB

Schenker

Bromwich Halewood or

Castle Bromwich

10.09 Mon - Sat Only run as required

STVA/DB Schenker

Gypsum Mountfield 19.55

dep Mon - Fri Currently 1 GB Railfreight.

Cruise

Victoria, London 13.18 Varied 8 per year DB Schenker

Glasgow

14.35 arr

10.45 dep

Varied 27 per year DRS

Edinburgh

15.10 arr

10.30 dep

Varied 27 per year DRS

3.2.8 Car trains operate on one or on occasions two per day as dictated by production

and demand - 10 paths per week are allocated. Imported gypsum demand is low

and consequently this service only operates on one day per week. 5 paths per

week are allocated. The Victoria cruise service operates mainly during the

summer months. The Scottish cruise services have built up during the course of

the year. They arrive with passengers to start the cruise and depart days later

after the cruise has been completed.

3.3 Network Capacity

3.3.1 All services shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are already accommodated on the

national network to the destinations and at the times as shown. This equates to

19 daily intermodal services operating a round-trip and up to 5 services per day

for the non-intermodal traffic.

3.3.2 The route currently used as first choice for all intermodal services is via

Eastleigh, Basingstoke, Reading and Didcot and is shown on Figure 2. The

most congested parts of this route are around Basingstoke and Reading and

here the capacity constraints are most significant.

3.3.3 Network Rail has provided details of paths currently allocated to the FOCs for

services operating, planned to be operated or recently discontinued from the

Port. This identifies that currently 24 intermodal services from Southampton are

planned to pass through Basingstoke in any 24hour period. These are split

between the various FOCs according to their current needs. With agreement

from Network Rail, timings and details of services are often changed to suit

specific requirements. In addition and where necessary, reallocation between

FOCs can, and has occurred.

3.3.4 The current position is therefore that 19 daily intermodal services operate from

Southampton with a further five paths currently available and unused.

3.3.5 In addition, it is important to note the work that has been undertaken to achieve

gauge enhancement to W10 on the main route from Southampton. This is

clearly illustrated on Figure 2. In April 2011 the main route from Southampton

to the West Midlands was opened to W10 at a cost of approximately £62m.

3.3.6 ABP along with other funding partners made a significant contribution to the cost

of this project. Today 16 of the 19 services from the port can accommodate hi-

cube containers on standard height wagons. It should be noted that W10 gauge

is currently not available to the following destinations which are serviced daily

from Southampton:

Wakefield Leeds Cardiff

3.4 Southampton Terminal Capacity

3.4.1 The movement of containers by rail at the Port of Southampton is undertaken at

three terminals within, or close to, the port estate. These are the Maritime

Terminal, the Millbrook Terminal and the Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal.

These are all discussed in turn in the following paragraphs.

Maritime Terminal

3.4.2 The Maritime Terminal is situated on the Southampton port estate adjacent to

the Container Terminal and is operated by Freightliner. It occupies a site of

approximately 13.5 hectare (33 acre) and is accessed directly from the main line

from Southampton to Bournemouth between Redbridge and Millbrook Stations.

3.4.3 The rail infrastructure comprises an arrival and departure line with access in

both easterly and westerly directions. The adjoining maintenance depot offers

reception sidings and the main terminal operating area provides 4 working

sidings under the cranes, each of 480 metres. Two further working sidings of

280 metres are also available outside the crane reach. Wagon repair and

stabling sidings are also available.

3.4.4 Train loading is undertaken by two rail mounted gantry cranes operating across

the longer working sidings. These are supplemented by one reachstacker to

provide additional capacity on the shorter sidings. The delivery of containers to

and from the Container Terminal is provided by the terminal operator using

“sprinter” straddle carriers which have dedicated access across the main dock

road.

3.4.5 The terminal currently handles 11 services per day with a further 4 services

operating at weekends. In terms of daily services the operator advises that this

is close to the current terminal capacity. The handling of increased volumes on

these services, partly resulting from the recent W10 gauge enhancement, is

being achieved through better utilisation and train lengthening on certain routes.

Terminal throughput in 2010 was 158,000 lifts.

Figure 2 W10 Network as at April 2011

Source: Network Rail Millbrook Terminal

3.4.6 The Millbrook Terminal is situated to the north of Southampton port estate

alongside Millbrook Road and is operated by Freightliner. It occupies a site of

approximately 3.5 hectare (8 acre) and is accessed directly from the main line

from Southampton to Bournemouth to the east of Millbrook Station.

3.4.7 The rail infrastructure comprises access in both easterly and westerly directions.

There are limited reception sidings and the main terminal operating area

provides 3 working sidings each of 440 metres of which only 320 metres is

accessible under the crane.

3.4.8 Train loading is affected by two rail mounted gantry cranes operating across the

working sidings. The delivery of containers to and from the Container Terminal is

provided by shunting tractors and trailers which access the site via Dock Gate 20

and the public highway.

3.4.9 The terminal is currently handling 4 services per day. Similar to the Maritime

Terminal the operator advises that this is close to the current terminal capacity

in terms of daily services. However, the handling of increased volumes on these

services, partly resulting from the recent W10 gauge enhancement, is proving

possible through better utilisation and train lengthening on certain routes.

Terminal throughput in 2010 was 72,000 lifts.

Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal

3.4.10 This terminal is situated on the port estate to the east of the Container Terminal

and is operated by Pentalver on behalf of DB Schenker. It occupies a long

narrow site of only 3.6 hectares (9 acres) but is adjacent to an approximate 6.4

hectare (16 acre) area within the Port estate used for container storage. It is

accessed directly from the main line from Southampton to Bournemouth close to

Millbrook Station.

3.4.11 The rail infrastructure comprises an arrival and a departure line with access to

the national network only in a westerly direction. There are no direct reception

sidings although the arrival and departure lines can provide stabling capacity for

limited periods. The main terminal operating area provides 2 working sidings of

almost 700 metres and a third runround line. Further lines on the adjacent site

can be used for limited stabling.

3.4.12 Train loading is undertaken by three sideloaders operating from the narrow

terminal pad constructed within and alongside the working sidings. The delivery

of containers to and from this terminal is undertaken by a fleet of internal

movement vehicles (IMVs) and trailers operating between the terminal and the

adjacent container storage area. This area also provides a buffering facility as

containers are collected from the Container Terminal and held in this area in

readiness for timed delivery for train loading.

3.4.13 The terminal is currently handling 4 services per day including some Saturday

working. It has the capacity to handle an increased number of daily services,

although currently efforts are focused on increasing capacity through the use of

more efficient wagons and also through a programme of train lengthening. In

the past, up to 8 services per day have been operated from this facility with

shorter trains and much lower levels of utilisation. The current view is that the

terminal is capable of servicing up to a maximum of 7 longer, well utilised trains

per day. Terminal throughput in 2010 was 59,000 lifts.

3.5 Inland terminals

3.6 The following terminals, shown on Figure 2, are currently handling

Southampton intermodal services:

Freightliner Leeds (Leeds) Freightliner Trafford Park (Trafford Park, Manchester) Freightliner Birmingham (Lawley Street, Birmingham) Freightliner Garston (Garston, Liverpool) Freightliner Coatbridge (Coatbridge, Glasgow) Freightliner Cardiff (terminal not shown on Figure F2.2 but to the east of

Cardiff) DB Schenker Wakefield (Wakefield) DB Schenker Trafford Park (Trafford Park, Manchester) ABP Hams Hall (Hams Hall, east of Birmingham) WH Malcolm Daventry (Daventry, south of Rugby) Roadways BIFT (Birch Coppice, east of Birmingham)

3.6.1 The map at Figure 2 shows all the major intermodal terminals in England and

Scotland. It provides a clear illustration of how terminals are grouped and how

alternate facilities are readily available. There are currently no known issues with

inland terminal capacity and further capacity is also being planned.

4.0 Assessment of the Project

4.1 Volumes and assumptions

4.1.1 The maximum capacity of the Container Terminal at Southampton that is

considered possible with the berth 201/202 works is 2.8m TEU (referred to as

the Future Position with the Works scenario). Table 4 provides calculations of

the projected rail volumes associated with throughput at the Container Terminal

up to 2.8m TEU, which is predicted to occur in 2027/8.

Table 4 Projected Rail Volumes

Year TEU per annum

TEU to cont-ainer ratio

Containers

% to rail

Containers to rail

Av container

s per train round trip

Trains per

annum

Av trains per wee

k

Av working days

per week

Trains per day

2011 1,600,000 1.66 963,855 33% 318,072 66 4,747 95 5.0 19

2012 1,656,000 1.67 991,617 34% 332,192 67 4,958 99 5.1 19

2013 1,713,960 1.68 1,020,214 34% 344,322 68 5,064 101 5.2 19

2014 1,773,949 1.69 1,049,674 34% 356,364 69 5,165 103 5.3 19

2015 1,836,037 1.70 1,080,022 35% 372,607 71 5,248 105 5.4 19

2016 1,900,298 1.72 1,104,824 35% 386,689 76 5,088 102 5.5 19

2017 1,966,809 1.73 1,136,884 35% 400,751 77 5,205 104 5.6 19

2018 2,035,647 1.74 1,169,912 36% 415,319 78 5,325 106 5.7 19

2019 2,106,894 1.75 1,203,940 36% 430,408 79 5,448 109 5.8 19

2020 2,180,636 1.75 1,246,078 36% 448,588 80 5,607 112 5.9 19

2021 2,256,958 1.75 1,289,690 37% 473,703 81 5,848 117 6.0 19

2022 2,335,952 1.75 1,334,829 38% 500,561 82 6,104 122 6.0 20

2023 2,417,710 1.75 1,381,548 39% 531,896 83 6,408 128 6.0 21

2024 2,502,330 1.75 1,429,903 40% 564,812 84 6,724 134 6.0 22

2025 2,589,911 1.75 1,479,949 40% 591,980 85 6,964 139 6.0 23

2026 2,680,558 1.75 1,531,748 40% 612,699 86 7,124 142 6.0 24

2027 2,774,378 1.75 1,585,359 40% 634,143 87 7,289 146 6.0 24

2028 2,800,000 1.75 1,600,000 40% 640,000 88 7,272 145 6.0 24

4.1.2 A number of key assumptions have been made in compiling this table:

Container growth is based on the current growth forecasts of 3.5% per annum provided by the operator of the Container Terminal

TEU to container conversion for 2011 is 1.66:1. This increases on a gradual basis until 2019 when at 1.75:1 the conversion remains constant. The increase reflects the increased use of 40ft, especially high cube containers and the reduced proportion of 20ft containers.

% to rail is a variable figure beginning at 33% a reflection of current predicted 2011 levels and increasing year on year to 40% as a projected maximum. This is explained further in paragraphs F2.82 to F2.83.

Average containers per train, round trip is a key function of rail economics which is being pursued by all FOCs and Network Rail. The number initially reflects current levels and increases gradually until 2015 when network enhancements will increase the opportunity for train lengthening, see paragraph F2.77. In addition, through operational improvements it is expected that all FOCs will achieve higher levels of utilisation, see paragraph F2.73.

Average trains per week is based on the railfreight industry norm of 50 working weeks per annum.

Average working days per week commences at 5 with a gradual increase to 6 by 2021. The justification for this assumption is explained in paragraph F2.78 below.

The resultant number of trains-per-day in 2028 is only a modest increase from 2011 as TEU growth and percentage to rail increases are balanced by the increase in containers per train and 6 day working.

4.1.3 Significantly and based on the assumptions above, it is clear that the current 19

trains will be capable of accommodating rail demand until 2021, and the

available 5 paths will accommodate demand up to 2028.

4.2 Services

Changes to existing services

4.2.1 There are three main developments that are expected to impact on existing

services. The first relates to utilisation. The principles of train utilisation have

earlier been explained. Both FOCs operating from Southampton are already

engaged in programmes to optimise wagon type to conform to the mix of traffic.

Twinned and tripled 40ft wagons are being introduced to compensate for a

proportional reduction in 20ft containers and resultant empty 20ft slots on 60ft

wagons. The first batch of 200 x 40ft wagons is due for delivery to Freightliner in

April 2012. In addition, the less efficient well-wagons and eurotwins are also

being phased out.

4.2.2 A good example of mixing wagon types to maximise utilisation is shown in Table

5.

Table 5 Wagon type, train length and utilisation

Train option

60ft wagon

(number)

Twin length (m)

40ft wagon

(number)

Twin length (m)

Train length

incl loco (m)

Utilisation %

Containers per train, round trip

1 24 40 0 27.8 501 73% 70 2 30 40 0 27.8 621 73% 88 3 18 40 16 27.8 603 90% 94

4.2.3 The table shows with train option 1, how current services with 24 x 60ft wagons

can, with a 73% utilisation achieve 70 containers per train round trip. With train

option 2, by increasing train length to 30 x 60ft wagons this increases to 88

containers. In option 3 by mixing wagon types, slightly reducing train length but

increasing utilisation to 90%, containers per round trip increase to 94.

4.2.4 FOCs are also working to reduce poor utilisation resulting from daily and

seasonal volume fluctuations. Poor utilisation is currently partly a result of overall

reduced container volumes. However, it expected that growth in container

volumes will, over time, increase from the current position and that utilisation of

available space will increase.

4.2.5 The second development that will impact on existing services is train

lengthening. As described in paragraph above this is mainly a function of

suitable infrastructure on the route and at terminals. Generally, terminals are

able to operate with longer trains through a mix of splitting and shunting

manoeuvres. On the main rail network the solution is less simple. This issue has

been recognised by Network Rail and a significant programme of enhancements

is already planned. The impact of this programme of work is reflected in the

step change in containers per train between 2015 and 2016 shown in Table 4.

4.2.6 The third factor that will improve existing service levels will be the extension into

regular 6 day working. As can be seen from Table 2, Freightliner is already

running some services 6 days per week. This maximises equipment utilisation as

well as network capacity and is a clear objective of all FOCs. The industry has

now formed a “Joint Network Availability Plan” (JNAP) which charts a plan to

migrate towards greater network opening hours for freight over the medium to

long term. This will be achieved through;

Improved engineering processes which will shorten line closures. Better planning processes to ensure that diversionary routes are made

available. Enhancement of diversionary routes – in particular their gauge to match the

capability of the primary route. 4.2.7 Network Rail has recognised that freight has a growing need for 6 (and 7) day

access and has committed to deliver improvements that achieve this through its

leadership of the industry JNAP process. It is therefore considered realistic to

assume that over time the average number of working days per week will

increase to 6.

4.2.8 The significance of these three points is reflected in Table F2.4. The average

number of containers per round trip is a function of longer and better filled

trains. Similarly, by operating for 6 rather than 5 days per week, growth and

demand can be regulated and path requirements controlled. The net effect is

that despite a growth in container throughput of 3.5% per annum and an

increase in the percentage of traffic to rail, the increase in the number of daily

services required will be relatively low.

New services

4.2.9 Despite the efficiency changes detailed above it is inevitable that, over time,

there will be the need to increase the number of rail services operating from the

port, see Table 4. Indications from the FOCs reveal that the introduction of new

routes looks unlikely and new services will augment some of the routes that are

currently operated.

4.2.10 To reach the level of 24 daily services only a further 5 services are required. As

previously explained paths to accommodate these extra services are available.

The following are considered the most likely routes from which additional

services could be chosen by each of the FOCs:

Freightliner – Leeds, Trafford Park, Midlands, North West .

DB Schenker – Wakefield, Trafford Park, Scotland.

4.3 Percentage to rail

4.3.1 A further factor to be recognised is the overall percentage of containers handled

by the container terminal being carried by rail. Table 4 predicts the percentage

to rail will gradually increase from current levels of 33% to a maximum of 40%

by 2024. This growth is an established trend and reflects the increase in service

quality now being provided by the railfreight industry through infrastructure and

operational improvements and the policy support encouraging modal shift from

road to rail.

4.3.2 It could be argued that this percentage may increase beyond 40%, however

when taking into account some of the key geographical features that influence

the rail share from Southampton it is not expected that this percentage will be

exceeded within the period being considered. Such factors include:

Economically viable rail distance for rail services from Southampton is unlikely to be reduced below 100 miles.

The competitiveness of road transport will in general be maintained. Road will continue to offer greater levels of flexibility than can normally be

offered by rail. Most of the large volumes of traffic to the London area are unlikely to switch to

rail. 4.3.3 It should be noted that an increase in percentage to rail does not necessarily

reflect an increase in overall container volumes through the ports, in fact the

opposite is often true. When rail services are contracted on a term basis to a

container line, the line takes the risk to fill the train. Therefore if the line’s overall

volumes were to decrease, they still have the incentive to fill the train in order to

utilise the fixed cost of their contracted rail service. The result is that the line is

likely to consequently reduce its use of road transport, and correspondingly the

percentage to rail will increase.


4.4.1 Through their “Strategic Freight Network” programme Network Rail are seeking

to significantly develop intermodal freight capacity and capability throughout the

country. Despite the general reduction in public expenditure, the planned

enhancements identified for the period 2009 to 2014 (known by Network Rail as

their Control Period 4 (2009 - 2014)) received Government support in the recent

Comprehensive Spending Review. Beyond 2014 and into the next Control Period

(CP5 (2014 – 2019)) the situation is still to be determined, but Network Rail is

engaged with industry partners to prioritise their wishes for further freight

enhancements during the next control period.

4.4.2 The current “Strategic Freight Network” programme focuses on three main areas

of enhancement. The first area is in respect of operating longer trains on all the

main routes. This involves the lengthening of passing loops to accept trains of up

to 665 metres by 2014 and 775 metres by 2019. The second area relates to

specific major infrastructure enhancements and the third area is to continue

gauge enhancement to W10 on the remaining routes to the main destinations.

4.4.3 In respect of the first area of enhancement (operating longer trains), works to

accommodate train lengthening to 665 metres by March 2014 will include

extension loops with an anticipated final cost (AFC) of £45m, have been

approved in the following locations of relevance to Southampton:

Southampton Maritime Southampton Western Dock Eastleigh up loop Waller’s Ash up loop Oxford to Wolvercot down loop Dorridge down loop Washwood Heath down goods

4.4.4 In addition, train lengthening to 775m is planned for 2015 after completion of

the Reading area remodelling work and the Oxford resignalling work, which is

further discussed in paragraphs F2.90 and F2.91. This additional train

lengthening is subject to approval in CP 5 for Strategic Freight Network funding

and includes loops at:

Fenny Compton Hatton

Waller’s Ash down loop 4.4.5 In respect of the second area of enhancements (specific infrastructure

enhancements), there are certain major improvements to the network which are

approved and progressing. Most significant is the complete Reading area

remodelling scheme with a cost of £850m. This involves upgrading the station,

building a viaduct, constructing new bridges and embankments, making some

significant alterations to track layout, renewing signalling and building a train

depot. The completion of grade separation at Reading West will significantly

improve freight capacity. Completion is planned for 2015.

4.4.6 In addition, the Oxford area resignalling scheme, planned to complete in 2015,

will close headways between Oxford and Heyford. Furthermore, the Banbury

area resignalling scheme, planned to complete a year later, will close the

headways between Heyford and Banbury.

4.4.7 Gauge enhancement is the third area in which significant enhancements are

planned. As already described, the core route from Southampton to the West

Midlands completed its W10 gauge enhancement in April 2011. It was always

recognised that further robustness to the network was required from

Southampton and plans are already progressing to provide a W10 diversionary

route via Laverstock (near Salisbury) to Basingstoke.

4.4.8 The gauge enhancement on the Laverstock diversionary route is scheduled to be

completed in April 2013 at a cost of £34m. This route avoids Southampton

station and tunnel, providing capacity at weekends when maintenance is being

undertaken and accommodating an extra 6 high cube trains per night.

4.4.9 Further from Southampton, although relevant to some of Southampton’s daily

services, is gauge enhancement to W10 to terminals at Leeds, Wakefield,

Doncaster, Burton-on-Trent and Castle Donnington, via Water Orton. This work

is also under way with a cost of £31m and is programmed to be completed by

April 2014.

4.4.10 Full details of all the committed gauge enhancement schemes are shown on the

map at Figure 3.

4.4.11 All of these various enhancements listed above will increase capacity on routes

from Southampton. Major infrastructure improvements on the network,

particularly at Reading will improve pathing options for freight, improve journey

times and thereby increase overall capacity. Significantly, wherever W10 gauge

becomes available, the removal of low-platform wagons could increase train

capacity on some services by up to 20%.

4.5 Southampton Terminal Capacity

Maritime Terminal

4.5.1 The operator of this terminal recognises that there are current capacity

constraints at this facility, which stem from the craneage and layout of the site

area, and has identified a series of improvements which are to take place.

4.5.2 Investment in new craneage is proposed, and this will have the greatest impact

on the capacity of the terminal. The operator is proposing to replace the current

cranes with three new rail mounted gantry cranes capable of operating at 29

lifts per hour (lph) as compared with the current 16 lph (an 81% increase in

productivity). In addition to new cranes the operator is also seeking to undertake

improvements to the site layout and introduce additional track and working

sidings.

4.5.3 In total, a budget of £9m has been approved for the recraneage and

infrastructure improvements at the terminal. Overall capacity is expected to

increase to 470,000 lifts per annum with 3 cranes.

Millbrook Terminal

4.5.4 There are no plans to further develop the Millbrook Terminal due to the

restrictions of the site. The long term requirement may involve the replacement

of the existing 2 cranes at some stage in the future.

4.5.5 Overall the plan for the Millbrook Terminal is to continue the current operation,

as required and with an annual throughput of around 72,000 lifts per annum.

Possible longer term crane replacement would not significantly increase capacity.

Figure 3: W10 Network as at April 2014

Source: Network Rail Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal Developments 4.5.6 The Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal, will maintain its current mode of operation

with the benefit of longer and better utilised trains. It is considered that the

terminal will be able to service a maximum of 7 trains per day, that would result

in the movement of around 100,000 containers per annum.

Inland terminals

4.5.7 As has already been demonstrated a number of inland rail freight terminals are

currently available. As summarised below several of these terminals are currently

undergoing capacity improvements and several are seeking consent for

development through the planning process or are soon to commence

construction.

Castle Donnington (planning approved) DIRFT 3 (planning application) Rossington (planning approved) Port Salford (planning approved) Trafford Park x 2 (DB Schenker re-opened and Freightliner

improvements being undertaken) Lawley Street (improvements being undertaken) Widnes (improvements being undertaken)

4.5.8 All of the above except DIRFT 3 (which has recently been subject to an

application for planning permission) have either received development consent

or can develop within existing permitted powers.

4.6 Impact Identification and Assessment

4.6.1 The capacity of the Container Terminal at Southampton as a result of the project

is considered to be 2.8m TEU. Based on forecast growth of 3.5% per annum,

this capacity is expected to be reached around 2028. In considering the impact

of this growth on rail resources for inland movement of containers by rail the key

issues revolve around container volume and required train paths.

4.6.2 In assessing the impacts on rail resources the rail growth considered likely to

occur in the future takes account of the predicted growth in container trade at

the Container Terminal of 3.5% per annum and a gradual increase in the

percentage of movements being undertaken by rail mode increasing from a

current level of 33% to 40% in 2024. This results in the number of containers to

rail growing progressively from 318,000 containers in 2011 to 640,000 by 2028.

4.6.3 In considering the potential impacts of this increase in respect of the number of

trains required, the assessment has demonstrated that the FOCs are, and will

continue to, put in place measures to improve the use that is made of each train

in transporting containers.

4.6.4 Table 4 demonstrates that a growth in containers to rail from 318,000 to

640,000 would result in an increase from 19 train paths per day (2011) to 24

paths per day (2028). Table F2.4 and the text which follows the table explains

that this is achieved through the following three main realistic operational

efficiencies which the industry is currently progressing with:

Train lengthening, by increasing from an average of 24 wagons per train to 30 wagons per train.

Improved utilisation, through the use of more space efficient wagons and a better match of wagon lengths to suit the mix of 20ft and 40ft containers.

Increasing all services to operate 6 days per week rather than the current 5 days per week.

4.6.5 These efficiency measures are fully supported by Network Rail and the FOCs as

such efficiencies reflect current railfreight policy of maximising existing resources

and minimising the need for major capital expenditure.

4.6.6 Having identified the number of trains that would be required to serve the rail

freight requirements of the project the assessment has gone on to consider

whether this would generate any significant impacts on rail resources, which

have been broken down into consideration of network capacity, local rail freight

terminal capacity and wider inland rail freight terminal capacity.


4.7.1 The position in respect of network capacity can be summarised as;

Currently, network capacity accommodates 19 intermodal services operating from the Port of Southampton. A further 5 paths are also available but currently unused.

Committed investment in passing loops improvements to allow the deployment of longer trains, which will be completed by 2015.

The improvement of the Laverstock diversionary route to W10 gauge will be completed by 2014.

The major remodelling scheme at Reading will be completed by 2015. Further gauge enhancements to W10 are expected to be completed by 2014

such that high cube containers will be able to be carried to all inland destinations served by the Port on standard wagons, with the exception of Cardiff.

4.7.2 As previously indicated, these improvements referred to above are already at

different stages of being delivered. The assessment concludes that as a result of

the gradual increase in path requirements to the known inland destinations that

is predicted to occur from Southampton over time and the above infrastructure

commitments that are already programmed and in the process of being

delivered, the necessary network capacity can reasonably be expected to be

available to accommodate the pathing requirements that would be generated.

4.8 Southampton Rail Terminal Capacity

4.8.1 The position in respect of rail terminal capacity at Southampton can be

summarised as follows.

The Maritime Terminal currently operates up to 11 services per day. Increased train length and better utilisation (measures which are being taken forward by the FOCs) and the investment in new cranes and improved infrastructure will provide additional capacity such that 470,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum.

The Millbrook Terminal currently operates up to 4 services per day. As with the Maritime Terminal, measures being taken to lengthen trains and improve utilisation will provide some additional capacity such that 72,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum.

At the Herbert Walker Avenue Terminal an increase from 4 to 7 trains per day is forecast as well as increasing train length and better utilisation, such that 100,000 containers will be able to be handled per annum.

4.8.2 Overall the current capacity at the rail terminals at Southampton is sufficient to

accommodate a volume of 340,000 containers per year handled by rail. With the

various future changes described above, the overall capacity provided by the

three existing rail terminals at Southampton will be capable of handling the

projected levels of 640,000 containers on 24 services by 2027/8.

4.8.3 The assessment has demonstrated that the number of containers to rail

predicted to be generated as a result of the berth 201/202 works can be

accommodated by the capacity that will be available at the existing rail terminals

at Southampton.

4.9 Inland Terminal Capacity

4.9.1 In considering the impacts of the project on inland terminal capacity it is clear

that projected growth over a 16 year period, on the specified routes, will be able

to be accommodated at existing, extended and new terminals that will be

available. In total 20 terminals are available in the areas of the 11 destinations

served from Southampton.

4.9.2 Overall and recognising the numerous developments that are taking place to

develop efficient and cost effective solutions for the carriage of railfreight from

the Port of Southampton it is concluded that the timely growth in demand for rail

services generated by container operations at the Port can be met by the inland

intermodal rail terminal capacity that will be available.

4.9.3 Essentially, adequate inland terminal capacity, with a growing portfolio of

options is available throughout the UK for services from Southampton.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 Although port container volumes are forecast to increase year on year and the

percentage of traffic being carried by rail is also forecast to increase, the

capacity of rail resources at the Southampton rail terminals, on the national rail

network and at the inland terminals have been demonstrated to be sufficient to

accommodate the rail requirements generated as a result of the berth 201/202

works

SJT/Rail Traffic Assessment.doc 20th October 2011

Appendix B

MANUAL CLASSIFIED COUNTS

JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

05:00

00

70

190

50

00

132

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH

BOUND

PED

05:00

00

70

190

50

00

132

05:15

00

130

123

30

00

031

05:30

06

420

110

10

01

364

05:45

25

740

102

20

01

197

H/TOT

211

136

052

511

00

25

224

06:00

01

370

280

10

02

675

06:15

05

450

200

40

03

683

06:15

05

450

200

40

03

683

06:30

05

640

180

00

05

799

06:45

14

790

120

20

04

6108

H/TOT

115

225

078

07

00

1425

365

07:00

00

690

201

40

00

599

07:15

01

610

191

21

01

490

07:30

11

580

180

11

00

787

07:30

11

580

180

11

00

787

07:45

04

500

131

00

01

271

H/TOT

16

238

070

37

20

218

347

08:00

10

280

212

21

05

464

08:15

00

220

150

10

01

544

08:30

00

250

200

21

01

453

08:45

00

410

90

20

02

862

H/TOT

10

116

065

27

20

921

223

09:00

10

330

221

20

10

767

09:15

00

290

100

30

10

750

09:30

00

260

190

10

01

1057

09:45

10

240

110

01

13

445

H/TOT

20

112

062

16

13

428

219


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH

BOUND

PED

1000

00

250

170

10

01

953

10:00

00

250

170

10

01

953

10:15

00

230

102

20

01

1149

10:30

10

210

160

01

01

1151

10:45

00

240

200

41

00

1261

H/TOT

10

930

632

72

03

43214

11:00

01

200

153

20

21

246

11:15

12

140

261

00

12

956

11:15

12

140

261

00

12

956

11:30

00

160

200

20

02

444

11:45

00

240

280

10

01

1266

H/TOT

13

740

894

50

36

27212

12:00

00

260

240

02

01

659

12:15

10

300

251

21

15

1076

12:30

00

223

361

00

03

772

12:30

00

223

361

00

03

772

12:45

00

220

360

10

03

1173

H/TOT

10

100

3121

23

31

1234

280

13:00

00

163

330

10

02

560

13:15

00

201

242

40

02

1265

13:30

00

223

270

20

01

560

13:45

10

140

370

11

10

762

13:45

00

30

062

H/TOT

10

727

121

28

11

529

247

14:00

00

180

310

20

11

962

14:15

10

200

462

00

06

580

14:30

00

130

363

10

01

761

14:45

00

120

333

10

22

760

H/TOT

10

630

146

84

03

1028

263


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH

BOUND

PED

1500

00

190

352

11

00

058

15:00

00

190

352

11

00

058

15:15

00

140

322

32

05

664

15:30

00

80

273

21

01

244

15:45

10

120

200

01

03

542

H/TOT

10

530

114

76

50

913

208

16:00

00

130

310

01

02

653

16:15

00

60

311

10

00

140

16:15

00

60

311

10

00

140

16:30

00

80

252

10

01

340

16:45

00

60

223

20

12

541

H/TOT

00

330

109

64

11

515

174

17:00

00

70

100

10

00

422

17:15

01

120

140

10

00

028

17:30

00

240

50

20

03

135

17:30

00

240

50

20

03

135

17:45

10

270

100

20

00

141

H/TOT

11

700

390

60

03

6126

18:00

00

90

140

20

03

129

18:15

00

220

50

00

02

231

18:30

01

330

100

00

11

551

18:45

00

230

60

00

00

332

18:45

00

30

60

00

00

332

H/TOT

01

870

350

20

16

11143

19:00

00

80

70

00

00

015

19:15

00

10

60

00

01

19

19:30

00

20

40

00

00

28

19:45

00

30

80

30

00

115

H/TOT

00

140

250

30

01

447


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH

BOUND

PED

2000

00

30

50

00

01

110

20:00

00

30

50

00

01

110

20:15

00

50

60

10

02

115

20:30

00

30

00

00

01

04

20:45

10

30

20

00

00

06

H/TOT

10

140

130

10

04

235

21:00

00

20

41

00

01

19

21:15

00

10

50

10

00

18

21:15

00

10

50

10

00

18

21:30

00

40

40

10

00

09

21:45

00

40

60

10

00

011

H/TOT

00

110

191

30

01

237

22:00

00

20

40

00

00

06

22:15

00

20

40

00

00

06

22:30

00

20

42

00

00

08

22:30

00

20

42

00

00

08

22:45

00

50

70

10

00

013

H/TOT

00

110

192

10

00

033

23:00

00

00

80

00

00

08

23:15

00

60

20

00

00

08

23:30

00

20

20

00

00

04

23:45

00

40

50

10

00

010

23:45

00

05

00

00

010

H/TOT

00

120

170

10

00

030

00:00

00

20

21

00

00

05

00:15

00

00

21

00

00

03

00:30

00

60

50

00

00

011

00:45

00

10

00

00

00

01

H/TOT

00

90

92

00

00

020


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 1 ‐ SOUTH

BOUND

PED

0100

00

20

10

00

00

03

01:00

00

20

10

00

00

03

01:15

00

10

40

40

00

09

01:30

00

00

10

10

00

02

01:45

00

10

61

00

00

19

H/TOT

00

40

121

50

00

123

02:00

00

30

80

10

00

113

02:15

00

10

20

00

00

03

02:15

00

10

20

00

00

03

02:30

00

10

20

00

00

03

02:45

00

10

50

20

00

19

H/TOT

00

60

170

30

00

228

03:00

00

20

90

30

00

014

03:15

00

00

30

10

00

15

03:30

00

10

20

20

20

07

03:30

00

10

20

20

20

07

03:45

00

20

120

30

00

017

H/TOT

00

50

260

90

20

143

04:00

00

40

100

30

00

017

04:15

00

50

51

10

00

012

04:30

00

40

110

20

00

017

04:45

00

60

140

10

00

021

04:45

00

60

00

00

021

H/TOT

00

190

401

70

00

067

P/TO

T15

371577

101361

49116

1715

96315

3608


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

05:00

00

70

113

00

00

223

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 2 ‐ N

ORT

HBO

UND

PED

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

05:00

00

70

113

00

00

223

05:15

00

30

91

10

00

721

05:30

11

150

262

11

02

453

05:45

00

150

240

00

00

039

H/TOT

11

400

706

21

02

13136

06:00

00

230

260

00

00

251

06:15

00

100

71

20

00

020

06:15

00

100

71

20

00

020

06:30

00

90

90

10

02

021

06:45

00

250

230

40

02

357

H/TOT

00

670

651

70

04

5149

07:00

00

210

183

61

13

457

07:15

01

110

132

30

01

1546

07:30

00

90

212

30

01

1046

07:30

00

90

212

30

01

1046

07:45

00

110

251

50

11

549

H/TOT

01

520

778

171

26

34198

08:00

00

120

100

40

12

332

08:15

00

140

130

50

07

1150

08:30

00

100

151

70

01

337

08:45

00

100

110

20

04

128

H/TOT

00

460

491

180

114

18147

09:00

00

390

80

10

06

458

09:15

00

230

180

50

03

756

09:30

00

350

130

10

15

661

09:45

00

460

120

40

05

774

H/TOT

00

143

051

011

01

1924

249


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 2 ‐ N

ORT

HBO

UND

PED

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

1000

00

390

101

02

05

562

10:00

00

390

101

02

05

562

10:15

00

500

71

10

22

871

10:30

00

620

151

20

04

690

10:45

00

350

90

31

01

958

H/TOT

00

186

041

36

32

1228

281

11:00

00

350

200

00

04

867

11:15

00

340

180

00

00

759

11:15

00

340

180

00

00

759

11:30

10

150

230

00

10

040

11:45

00

140

83

10

10

532

H/TOT

10

980

693

10

24

20198

12:00

00

270

232

20

00

660

12:15

10

360

161

10

10

864

12:30

00

360

90

30

12

657

12:30

00

360

90

30

12

657

12:45

00

250

220

50

01

457

H/TOT

10

124

070

311

02

324

238

13:00

00

190

280

51

08

1071

13:15

00

200

220

40

12

756

13:30

00

270

191

50

00

1163

13:45

00

190

261

30

01

858

13:45

00

90

63

00

858

H/TOT

00

850

952

171

111

36248

14:00

10

301

260

40

02

670

14:15

10

280

310

20

04

571

14:30

00

240

320

40

03

972

14:45

01

231

190

30

01

856

H/TOT

21

105

2108

013

00

1028

269


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 2 ‐ N

ORT

HBO

UND

PED

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

1500

00

360

240

40

13

674

15:00

00

360

240

40

13

674

15:15

02

400

250

50

10

679

15:30

11

380

203

51

00

675

15:45

02

321

330

70

01

278

H/TOT

15

146

1102

321

12

420

306

16:00

01

590

280

80

03

1100

16:15

11

220

141

60

01

147

16:15

11

220

141

60

01

147

16:30

24

980

171

50

10

3131

16:45

00

430

222

40

13

176

H/TOT

36

222

081

423

02

76

354

17:00

03

600

191

60

11

394

17:15

00

340

90

30

02

351

17:30

03

400

180

70

04

072

17:30

03

400

180

70

04

072

17:45

00

380

181

50

02

064

H/TOT

06

172

064

221

01

96

281

18:00

00

500

131

20

00

268

18:15

03

290

100

10

10

145

18:30

10

190

90

50

00

236

18:45

00

250

110

30

03

042

18:45

00

50

03

00

30

42H/TOT

13

123

043

111

01

35

191

19:00

03

180

120

30

00

137

19:15

00

100

121

20

01

329

19:30

00

90

90

10

02

223

19:45

00

80

90

00

00

017

H/TOT

03

450

421

60

03

6106


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 2 ‐ N

ORT

HBO

UND

PED

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

2000

02

60

71

10

01

119

20:00

02

60

71

10

01

119

20:15

00

80

110

00

00

120

20:30

00

70

80

10

00

016

20:45

00

70

70

20

10

017

H/TOT

02

280

331

40

11

272

21:00

00

20

30

00

00

05

21:15

00

30

71

10

01

215

21:15

00

30

71

10

01

215

21:30

00

80

00

10

11

011

21:45

00

60

30

10

00

111

H/TOT

00

190

131

30

12

342

22:00

00

30

10

00

02

06

22:15

00

30

20

10

00

17

22:30

00

60

20

50

00

013

22:30

00

60

20

50

00

013

22:45

00

50

30

30

00

011

H/TOT

00

170

80

90

02

137

23:00

00

30

10

20

00

06

23:15

00

00

40

40

01

110

23:30

00

40

30

10

00

08

23:45

00

10

10

10

00

14

23:45

00

00

00

04

H/TOT

00

80

90

80

01

228

00:00

00

20

00

10

00

03

00:15

00

10

40

20

00

07

00:30

00

10

20

10

00

15

00:45

00

30

00

10

00

04

H/TOT

00

70

60

50

00

119


JOB RE

F:14

820

JOB NAME:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

S

SITE:

1DATE:

23/06/20

11 TO 24/06

/201

1

LOCA

TION:

SOUTH

AMPT

ON DOCK

SDAY:

THURS

DAY TO

FRIDAY

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

1 BOX

CONTA

INER

LO

ADED

2

BOXE

S

CONTA

INER

UNLO

ADED

FLATB

ED

LOADED

FLATB

ED

UNLO

ADED

VEH

ICLE

TRANSPORT

ERALL OTH

ER

HGV'S

TIME

MOVEM

ENT 2 ‐ N

ORT

HBO

UND

PED

PCL

LVPSV

HEA

VY GOODS VEH

ICLES

TOT

0100

00

40

40

00

00

08

01:00

00

40

40

00

00

08

01:15

00

30

51

00

00

110

01:30

00

30

50

00

00

210

01:45

00

20

50

00

00

07

H/TOT

00

120

191

00

00

335

02:00

00

40

00

00

00

04

02:15

10

40

40

20

00

213

02:15

10

40

40

20

00

213

02:30

00

50

00

10

00

17

02:45

00

30

30

00

00

06

H/TOT

10

160

70

30

00

330

03:00

00

40

41

00

00

09

03:15

00

60

70

00

00

316

03:30

00

60

91

00

00

016

03:30

00

60

91

00

00

016

03:45

00

20

90

00

00

112

H/TOT

00

180

292

00

00

453

04:00

00

40

150

10

00

020

04:15

00

100

120

00

00

123

04:30

00

50

160

20

00

023

04:45

00

30

110

00

00

115

04:45

00

30

00

00

015

H/TOT

00

220

540

30

00

281

P/TO

T11

281801

31205

43220

719

117

294

3748

Appendix C

YearTotal Units Handled (Chargeable Units):

2007 1,062,0432008 926,8172009 782,6712010 886,062

2011 - June YTD 426,002

Dwell Time:

Dwell Time Avg Overall N.o Days2004 5.42005 4.92006 4.92007 5.32008 4.92009 4.92010 4.9

2011: June YTD 4.4

Staff Headcount:

Head Count Jun-11Actual DPWS & CNS 584Secondments (excluded from 1Full time 567Part time 17DP World Southampton 563

Mod

al Split: 200

5 ‐ Jun

e 20

11

Ann

ual Figure ba

sed on

tim

e Pe

riod

: April ‐ M

arch

Year

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12 June

YTD

Rail Volum

eFreightline

r23

5,93

922

0,41

221

5,66

920

1,99

117

5,35

521

0,27

456

,380

DB Sche

nker

33,872

39,713

59,286

63,077

55,268

44,800

13,894

Total R

ail V

olum

e26

9,81

126

0,12

527

4,95

526

5,06

823

0,62

325

5,07

470

,274

Feed

er Volum

e56

,280

57,097

86,778

65,872

61,788

75,632

18,936

Road

Volum

e50

4,03

866

0,27

369

2,20

659

9,12

254

4,13

160

3,86

512

3,10

5

Qua

yside Moves

830,12

997

7,49

51,05

3,93

993

0,06

283

6,54

293

4,57

121

2,31

5

Rail ‐ %

of Q

uay Side

Moves:

33%

27%

26%

29%

28%

27%

33%

Feed

er ‐ % of Q

uay Side

Moves:

7%6%

8%7%

7%8%

9%

Road

‐ % of Q

uay Side

Moves:

61%

68%

66%

64%

65%

65%

58%

Note:

In Ja

nuary 20

06 P&O Ned

lLoyd were intergrated into M

aersk which saw

rail volum

e drop

.As of beginning

of Jun

e 20

09 th

e last M

aersk service had called Southampton

.

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

22.0

6 - 0

0.00

281.82

5123

.06 ‐ 0

0.00

171.59

2724

.06 ‐ 0

0.00

281.25

3525

.06 ‐ 0

0.00

241.29

3122

.06

- 01.

0033

1.79

5923

.06 ‐ 0

1.00

281.57

4424

.06 ‐ 0

1.00

281.50

4225

.06 ‐ 0

1.00

222.05

4522

.06

- 02.

0035

1.86

6523

.06 ‐ 0

2.00

311.35

4224

.06 ‐ 0

2.00

261.50

3925

.06 ‐ 0

2.00

281.61

4522

.06

- 03.

0055

1.71

9423

.06 ‐ 0

3.00

381.76

6724

.06 ‐ 0

3.00

311.48

4625

.06 ‐ 0

3.00

251.24

3122

.06

- 04.

0090

1.73

156

23.06 ‐ 0

4.00

451.62

7324

.06 ‐ 0

4.00

511.53

7825

.06 ‐ 0

4.00

271.48

4022

.06

- 05.

0093

1.68

156

23.06 ‐ 0

5.00

751.60

120

24.06 ‐ 0

5.00

521.46

7625

.06 ‐ 0

5.00

151.47

2222

.06

- 06.

0091

1.60

146

23.06 ‐ 0

6.00

951.56

148

24.06 ‐ 0

6.00

611.43

8725

.06 ‐ 0

6.00

171.59

2722

.06

- 07.

0072

1.49

107

23.06 ‐ 0

7.00

851.58

134

24.06 ‐ 0

7.00

461.43

6625

.06 ‐ 0

7.00

231.26

2922

.06

- 08.

0062

1.53

9523

.06 ‐ 0

8.00

781.33

104

24.06 ‐ 0

8.00

501.36

6825

.06 ‐ 0

8.00

171.35

2322

.06

- 09.

0070

1.53

107

23.06 ‐ 0

9.00

491.43

7024

.06 ‐ 0

9.00

541.43

7725

.06 ‐ 0

9.00

191.32

2522

.06

- 10.

0074

1.66

123

23.06 ‐ 1

0.00

711.46

104

24.06 ‐ 1

0.00

561.48

8325

.06 ‐ 1

0.00

231.09

2522

.06

- 11.

0011

61.70

197

23.06 ‐ 1

1.00

881.57

138

24.06 ‐ 1

1.00

971.57

152

25.06 ‐ 1

1.00

141.29

1822

.06

- 12.

0012

01.68

201

23.06 ‐ 1

2.00

132

1.49

197

24.06 ‐ 1

2.00

118

1.42

168

25.06 ‐ 1

2.00

101.40

1422

.06

- 13.

0012

91.66

214

23.06 ‐ 1

3.00

131

1.48

194

24.06 ‐ 1

3.00

124

1.40

174

25.06 ‐ 1

3.00

21.00

222

.06

- 14.

0014

01.71

240

23.06 ‐ 1

4.00

145

1.56

226

24.06 ‐ 1

4.00

132

1.36

179

25.06 ‐ 1

4.00

21.50

3.00

22.0

6 - 1

5.00

144

1.58

228

23.06 ‐ 1

5.00

130

1.45

189

24.06 ‐ 1

5.00

125

1.42

178

22.0

6 - 1

6.00

122

1.65

201

23.06 ‐ 1

6.00

120

1.52

182

24.06 ‐ 1

6.00

103

1.35

139

22.0

6 - 1

7.00

811.56

126

23.06 ‐ 1

7.00

531.45

7724

.06 ‐ 1

7.00

591.41

8322

.06

- 18.

0061

1.74

106

23.06 ‐ 1

8.00

501.52

7624

.06 ‐ 1

8.00

431.37

5922

.06

- 19.

0046

1.63

7523

.06 ‐ 1

9.00

481.52

7324

.06 ‐ 1

9.00

431.47

6322

.06

- 20.

0034

1.85

6323

.06 ‐ 2

0.00

371.70

6324

.06 ‐ 2

0.00

341.44

4922

.06

- 21.

0027

1.59

4323

.06 ‐ 2

1.00

301.53

4624

.06 ‐ 2

1.00

281.18

3322

.06

- 22.

0025

1.68

4223

.06 ‐ 2

2.00

321.25

4024

.06 ‐ 2

2.00

391.08

4222

.06

- 23.

0019

1.79

3423

.06 ‐ 2

3.00

201.30

2624

.06 ‐ 2

3.00

271.26

3417

6740

2929

016

2836

2460

014

5534

2050

026

821

380

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

Time

VBS Ve

hicles

Containe

r vs.

Truck ratio

Boxes

27.06 ‐ 0

0.00

61.33

828

.06 ‐ 0

0.00

331.42

4729

.06 ‐ 0

0.00

231.57

3627

.06 ‐ 0

1.00

41.50

628

.06 ‐ 0

1.00

351.49

5229

.06 ‐ 0

1.00

301.67

5027

.06 ‐ 0

2.00

91.22

1128

.06 ‐ 0

2.00

371.19

4429

.06 ‐ 0

2.00

241.79

4327

.06 ‐ 0

3.00

241.42

3428

.06 ‐ 0

3.00

521.44

7529

.06 ‐ 0

3.00

401.48

5927

.06 ‐ 04

.00

401.30

5228

.06 ‐ 0

4.00

771.62

125

29.06 ‐ 0

4.00

721.57

113

27.06 ‐ 0

5.00

521.27

6628

.06 ‐ 0

5.00

781.45

113

29.06 ‐ 0

5.00

741.72

127

27.06 ‐ 0

6.00

541.30

7028

.06 ‐ 0

6.00

471.47

6929

.06 ‐ 0

6.00

731.55

113

27.06 ‐ 0

7.00

711.35

9628

.06 ‐ 0

7.00

541.46

7929

.06 ‐ 0

7.00

421.74

7327

.06 ‐ 0

8.00

511.59

8128

.06 ‐ 0

8.00

631.44

9129

.06 ‐ 0

8.00

451.44

6527

.06 ‐ 0

9.00

811.54

125

28.06 ‐ 0

9.00

521.48

7729

.06 ‐ 0

9.00

501.38

6927

.06 ‐ 1

0.00

801.53

122

28.06 ‐ 1

0.00

631.54

9729

.06 ‐ 1

0.00

701.37

9627

.06 ‐ 1

1.00

108

1.48

160

28.06 ‐ 1

1.00

103

1.68

173

29.06 ‐ 1

1.00

741.64

121

27.06 ‐ 1

2.00

112

1.59

178

28.06 ‐ 1

2.00

125

1.72

215

29.06 ‐ 1

2.00

106

1.60

170

27.06 ‐ 1

3.00

128

1.65

211

28.06 ‐ 1

3.00

134

1.76

236

29.06 ‐ 1

3.00

107

1.62

173

26.06 ‐ 1

4.00

62.00

1227

.06 ‐ 1

4.00

128

1.63

209

28.06 ‐ 1

4.00

141

1.65

233

29.06 ‐ 1

4.00

133

1.53

204

27.06 ‐ 1

5.00

120

1.52

182

28.06 ‐ 1

5.00

141

1.67

235

29.06 ‐ 1

5.00

143

1.54

220

27.06 ‐ 1

6.00

111

1.60

178

28.06 ‐ 1

6.00

117

1.68

196

29.06 ‐ 1

6.00

104

1.61

167

27.06 ‐ 1

7.00

761.51

115

28.06 ‐ 1

7.00

881.63

143

29.06 ‐ 1

7.00

101

1.55

157

26.06 ‐ 1

8.00

91.56

1427

.06 ‐ 1

8.00

481.75

8428

.06 ‐ 1

8.00

611.70

104

29.06 ‐ 1

8.00

651.66

108

26.06 ‐ 1

9.00

201.50

3027

.06 ‐19.00

541.57

8528

.06 ‐ 1

9.00

331.67

5529

.06 ‐ 1

9.00

471.62

7626

.06 ‐ 2

0.00

101.70

1727

.06 ‐ 2

0.00

401.78

7128

.06 ‐ 2

0.00

401.78

7129

.06 ‐ 2

0.00

341.71

5826

.06 ‐ 2

1.00

91.78

1627

.06 ‐ 2

1.00

381.61

6128

.06 ‐ 2

1.00

381.79

6829

.06 ‐ 2

1.00

521.48

7726

.06 ‐ 2

2.00

111.73

1927

.06 ‐ 2

2.00

491.57

7728

.06 ‐ 2

2.00

291.76

5129

.06 ‐ 2

2.00

411.88

7726

.06 ‐ 2

3.00

31.00

327

.06 ‐ 2

3.00

371.24

4628

.06 ‐ 2

3.00

361.56

5629

.06 ‐ 2

3.00

341.38

470

6811

111

015

2136

2328

016

7738

2705

015

8438

2499

Total V

BSTo

tal H

GV

Total Boxes

Prop

ortio

n of week

22/06/20

11Wed

nesday

1767

3534

2929

21.1%

23/06/20

11Thursday

1628

3256

2460

19.4%

24/06/20

11Friday

1455

2910

2050

17.4%

25/06/20

11Saturday

268

536

380

3.2%

26/06/20

11Sund

ay68

136

111

0.8%

27/06/20

11Mon

day

1521

3042

2328

18.1%

28/06/20

11Tuesday

1677

3354

2705

20.0%

Week

8384

1676

812

963

100.0%

3370

38Wed

nesday

1584

3168

2499

Average weekday

1610

3219

2494

0

Total

Max

Average

Min

AM Peak

PM Peak

Total

Max

Average

Min

AM Peak

PM Peak

22/06/20

11Wed

nesday

1767

144

7419

6281

3534

288

147

3812

416

223

/06/20

11Thursday

1628

145

6817

7853

3256

290

136

3415

610

624

/06/20

11Friday

1455

132

6126

5059

2910

264

121

5210

011

825

/06/20

11Saturday

268

2818

253

656

364

00

26/06/20

11Sund

ay68

2010

313

640

196

00

27/06/20

11Mon

day

1521

128

63.375

451

7630

4225

612

78

102

152

28/06/20

11Tuesday

1677

141

69.875

2963

8833

5428

214

058

126

176

Two Way

Inbo

und

Appendix D

Dra

win

g N

o :

13125-0

9

© C

row

n C

opyright

and D

ata

base

Rig

ht

2010 -

AL 1

000304 1

2

Da

vid

Tu

ck

er

Asso

cia

tes

Tra

nsp

ort

Pla

nnin

g C

onsu

ltancy

Fore

ster

House

, D

oct

ors

Lane, H

enle

y-in

-Ard

en

Warw

icksh

ire, B95 5

AW

Tel: +

44(0

) 1564 7

93598 F

ax:

+44(0

) 1564 7

93983

ww

w.d

tatr

ansp

ort

ation.c

o.u

k

Dra

win

g T

itle

Job T

itle

Clie

nt

Overa

ll Acc

idents

Searc

hABP S

outh

am

pto

n -

Bert

h 2

01 /

202 W

ork

sABP S

outh

am

pto

n

Sca

le :

NTS

NO

RTH

Note

s:

Slig

ht

Serious

Fata

l

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (! (! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (

! (! (

! (

Searc

h E

xte

nt

01/0

7/0

6 -

30/0

6/1

1

! (

! (

! (

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GF GF

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂ _̂

_̂

Dra

win

g N

o :

13125-0

8

© C

row

n C

opyright

and D

ata

base

Rig

ht

2010 -

AL 1

000304 1

2

Da

vid

Tu

ck

er

Asso

cia

tes

Tra

nsp

ort

Pla

nnin

g C

onsu

ltancy

Fore

ster

House

, D

oct

ors

Lane, H

enle

y-in

-Ard

en

Warw

icksh

ire, B95 5

AW

Tel: +

44(0

) 1564 7

93598 F

ax:

+44(0

) 1564 7

93983

ww

w.d

tatr

ansp

ort

ation.c

o.u

k

Dra

win

g T

itle

Job T

itle

Clie

nt

Pedest

rian/C

ycl

e a

nd H

GV A

ccid

ents

ABP S

outh

am

pto

n -

Bert

h 2

01 /

202 W

ork

sABP S

outh

am

pto

n

Sca

le :

NTS

NO

RTH

Note

s:

Slig

ht

Serious

Fata

l

Pedest

rian

Cycl

eH

GV

F( _

Searc

h E

xte

nt

Appendix E

2007

Position

2011

Ann

ualised

Max Cap

acity witho

ut

Project (Do Minim

um)

Max Terminal Cap

acity

with Project (Do

Something

Chan

ge from

200

7 to

existing

cap

acity with

Project

Chan

ge from

DN to DS

Chan

ge from

200

7 to

max terminal cap

acity

with project

Year

2007

2011

2021

2027

2021

2007

‐ 20

27TEU th

roughp

ut of the

Port

1,86

9,80

61,60

0,00

02,30

0,00

02,80

0,00

0Ra

tio TEU

to boxes

1.68

1.66

1.75

1.75

Box throughp

ut of p

ort

1,11

1,03

996

3,17

51,31

4,28

61,60

0,00

0Transhipmen

t9.29

%8.09

%10

%10

%Transhipmen

t Boxes

103,18

977

,947

131,42

916

0,00

0Sub total inland Gen

eration Bo

xes

1,00

7,85

188

5,22

91,18

2,85

71,44

0,00

0Overall % M

oved

by Ra

il26

.09%

33.10%

37%

40%

Rail Bo

xes

289,85

231

8,80

148

6,28

664

0,00

0To

tal Road Ba

sed Bo

xes

717,99

956

6,42

869

6,57

180

0,00

0

Trucks to

Box ratio (V

BS Gate)

1.28

1.29

91.28

1.28

Total V

BS Trucks pe

r year

921,93

173

5,62

089

4,41

71,02

7,22

2Trucks to

Box Ratio (e

xternal)

1.03

1.03

1.03

1.03

Strategic OGV2

moves per year

739,53

958

3,42

171

7,46

982

4,00

0

Average VBS

Trucks pe

r week

18,439

14,712

17,888

20,544

Average Strategic Trucks pe

r week

14,791

11,668

14,349

16,480

Average week to peak day ratio

21

.1%

21.1%

21.1%

21.1%

Average VBS

TRU

CKS ‐ P

eak Day

3,88

63,10

13,77

04,33

0Average DG20

Trucks ‐ P

eak Day

3,56

22,84

33,45

63,96

9Average Strategic Truck ‐ Peak Day

3,11

72,45

93,02

43,47

3

Peak VBS

Trucks

4,16

03,29

54,00

64,60

1‐154

595

441

Peak DG 20 Trucks

3,81

33,02

03,67

24,21

8‐141

545

404

Peak Strategic Trucks

3,33

72,61

33,21

33,69

0‐123

477

354

Total A

nnual

1,86

9,80

6Pe

ak M

onth (O

ctob

er)

166,79

1Average m

onth

155,81

7Average m

onth to

peak mon

th

1.07

0Surveyed

3,93

84,01

4

Appendix F

InOut

Total

InOut

Total

InOut

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

0000

‐0100

3426

6011

1122

1414

2813

1427

1516

312

35

45

92

24

12

301

00‐0200

2741

6818

2038

2226

4822

2547

2529

544

59

79

163

47

23

502

00‐0300

3337

7020

1030

2513

3824

1337

2814

424

37

84

124

25

31

403

00‐0400

6338

101

3531

6644

4084

4239

8148

4593

78

1513

1427

66

125

49

0400

‐0500

106

7317

948

5710

560

7413

458

7112

966

8214

810

1424

1825

439

1119

68

1405

00‐0600

122

111

233

6878

146

8510

118

682

9817

994

112

206

1420

3326

3460

1214

279

1120

0600

‐0700

109

106

215

8573

158

106

9520

110

291

194

117

105

222

1718

3632

3264

1514

2911

1021

0700

‐0800

9612

121

780

102

182

100

132

232

9612

822

411

114

725

716

2642

3145

7514

1933

1114

2508

00‐0900

7612

219

874

6814

292

8818

189

8517

410

298

200

1517

3228

3058

1313

2610

919

0900

‐1000

5690

146

6962

131

8681

167

8378

161

9589

184

1416

3026

2753

1212

249

918

1000

‐1100

7092

162

7250

122

9065

155

8763

149

9972

171

1513

2727

2249

139

2210

716

1100

‐1200

117

8620

398

7317

112

295

217

118

9120

913

510

524

020

1838

3732

6918

1431

1310

2312

00‐1300

123

116

239

126

8421

015

710

926

715

210

525

717

412

129

526

2147

4837

8523

1638

1712

2813

00‐1400

144

121

265

131

114

245

164

148

312

158

143

300

181

164

345

2729

5550

5010

023

2145

1716

3314

00‐1500

135

9322

815

812

127

919

715

735

519

015

134

121

817

439

232

3062

6053

113

2822

5121

1738

1500

‐1600

125

135

260

127

126

253

159

164

322

153

158

310

175

181

356

2632

5748

5510

323

2346

1717

3416

00‐1700

109

147

256

119

108

227

149

140

289

143

135

278

164

155

320

2427

5145

4793

2120

4116

1531

1700

‐1800

6911

618

545

8713

256

113

169

5410

916

362

125

187

922

3117

3855

816

246

1218

1800

‐1900

7591

166

3755

9246

7111

845

6911

351

7913

08

1421

1424

387

1017

58

1219

00‐2000

5096

146

2849

7735

6499

3461

9539

7010

96

1218

1121

325

914

47

1020

00‐2100

3571

106

1438

5217

4967

1748

6419

5574

310

125

1722

37

102

57

2100

‐2200

4549

9423

1740

2922

5128

2149

3224

565

49

97

164

37

32

522

00‐2300

3839

7722

1739

2722

5026

2148

3024

554

49

87

164

37

32

523

00‐2400

2638

6418

1735

2222

4522

2143

2524

494

48

77

143

36

22

512

Hou

r 1,19

51,33

02,52

51,13

61,05

02,18

61,41

91,36

42,78

31,36

71,31

32,68

01,57

01,50

83,07

823

126

349

443

445

889

220

319

539

815

014

529

518

hou

r1,49

81,72

93,22

71,32

61,26

12,58

71,65

71,63

83,29

51,59

51,57

73,17

31,83

21,81

13,64

426

931

658

650

655

01,05

723

723

447

117

617

434

9Daily

1,88

32,05

53,93

81,52

61,46

82,99

41,90

71,90

73,81

31,83

61,83

63,67

22,10

92,10

94,21

831

036

867

858

364

11,22

427

327

354

520

220

240

4

InOut

Total

InOut

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

In

Out

Total

0000

‐010

09

1019

1213

2512

1224

1314

272

24

44

82

24

11

301

00‐0200

1518

3320

2342

1922

4122

2547

44

86

714

33

62

24

0200

‐0300

179

2622

1133

2111

3224

1337

42

67

411

32

52

14

0300

‐0400

3028

5838

3573

3734

7142

3981

76

1312

1124

55

114

48

0400

‐0500

4151

9252

6511

751

6211

358

7213

09

1221

1721

388

917

67

1205

00‐0600

5869

128

7489

163

7285

157

8298

180

1316

2924

2953

1113

238

917

0600

‐0700

7365

138

9383

176

8980

169

103

9219

517

1532

3027

5713

1225

109

1907

00‐0800

6891

159

8711

620

384

112

196

9712

822

516

2137

2837

6613

1729

912

2208

00‐0900

6361

124

8177

158

7874

152

8985

175

1514

2826

2551

1211

239

817

0900

‐1000

5955

114

7570

146

7368

141

8378

161

1413

2624

2347

1110

218

715

1000

‐1100

6244

106

7957

136

7655

131

8763

150

1410

2425

1844

118

198

614

1100

‐1200

8465

149

107

8319

010

380

183

119

9221

019

1534

3527

6115

1227

119

2012

00‐1300

108

7518

313

895

233

133

9222

515

210

625

825

1742

4431

7520

1433

1510

2513

00‐1400

112

101

214

143

130

273

138

125

263

158

143

302

2623

4946

4288

2019

3915

1429

1400

‐1500

135

108

243

173

138

310

166

132

299

191

152

343

3125

5656

4410

025

2044

1815

3315

00‐1600

109

112

221

139

143

282

134

138

272

154

158

312

2526

5145

4691

2020

4015

1530

1600

‐1700

102

9619

813

012

325

312

511

824

314

413

628

023

2245

4240

8219

1836

1413

2717

00‐1800

3977

116

4999

148

4795

143

5410

916

49

1827

1632

487

1421

510

1618

00‐1900

3249

8140

6310

339

6099

4569

114

711

1913

2033

69

154

711

1900

‐2000

2444

6831

5686

2954

8334

6295

610

1610

1828

48

123

69

2000

‐2100

1234

4615

4358

1542

5617

4865

38

115

1419

26

82

56

2100

‐2200

2015

3525

1944

2419

4328

2149

53

88

614

43

63

25

2200

‐2300

1915

3424

1943

2319

4227

2148

43

88

614

33

63

25

2300

‐2400

1515

3120

1939

1919

3822

2143

43

76

613

33

62

24

Daily

1,30

61,30

62,61

31,66

81,66

83,33

71,60

71,60

73,21

31,84

51,84

53,69

030

030

060

053

953

91,07

723

923

947

717

717

735

412

Hou

r 0

00

973

934

1,90

71,24

21,19

32,43

51,19

61,14

92,34

51,37

41,32

02,69

322

321

543

840

138

578

617

817

134

813

212

625

818

hou

r0

00

1,13

51,12

22,25

81,45

01,43

32,88

31,39

61,38

02,77

61,60

31,58

53,18

826

125

851

946

846

393

120

720

541

215

415

230

6

Differen

ce from

1.6m in

201

1 to

2.8m

in 202

1 / 20

27Differen

ce from

Max historic to

max propo

sed

Traffic

Flows at Dock Gate 20

2007

Surveys

2.8m

Capacity

Differen

ce from

Max historic to

max propo

sed

Differen

ce from

1.6m 201

1 to

2.3m

in 202

1

Strategic Traffic

Flows

Diffiren

ce DN Vs DS

Diffiren

ce DN Vs DS

Differen

ce from

1.6m in

201

1 to

2.8m

in 202

1 / 20

2720

11 Surveys DPW

S

Highe

st Historic 20

072.3m

Capacity

Differen

ce from

1.6m 201

1 to

2.3m

in 202

12.8m

Capacity

Base Case (200

7)2.3m

Capacity

Base Case (2

011)

Appendix G

Strategic Distribution

OGV2

Trip Distribution by

Regions

InOut

Average

M27

1M27

, 2 ‐ 3

M27

, 3 ‐ 4

M27

, 5 ‐ 7

M3 (sou

th

of A34

)M3 (north

of A34

)A34

North

Tebo

urba

Way

Wim

pson

Lane

First A

veMillbroo

k Ro

ad W

est

Redb

ridge Ro

adRe

dbridge

Causew

ay

Greater Lon

don

8.8%

19.1%

13.9%

14%

14%

14%

14%

0%0%

14%

0%14

%0%

South East

14.9%

16.2%

15.5%

16%

12%

3%9%

12%

0%0%

16%

0%16

%0%

East

5.1%

9.0%

7.1%

7%7%

7%7%

0%0%

7%0%

7%0%

East M

idland

s22

.4%

5.9%

14.2%

14%

14%

14%

14%

0%0%

14%

0%14

%0%

West M

idland

s16

.3%

10.7%

13.5%

13%

13%

13%

13%

0%0%

13%

0%13

%0%

South West

7.4%

8.6%

8.0%

8%8%

0%0%

8%0%

8%0%

Wales

2.7%

4.4%

3.5%

4%2%

2%2%

2%0%

0%4%

0%4%

0%North W

est

11.1%

10.7%

10.9%

11%

11%

11%

11%

0%0%

11%

0%11

%0%

Yorkshire & Hum

ber

8.7%

11.7%

10.2%

10%

10%

10%

10%

0%0%

10%

0%10

%0%

North East

2.6%

3.6%

3.1%

3%3%

3%3%

0%0%

3%0%

3%0%

Scotland

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

10%

87%

3%84

%55

%33

%0%

0%10

0%0%

100%

0%

Traffic Gen

eration

Future Pos with

works vs Future with

out

E/B

W/B

S/B

N/B

E/B

W/B

W/B

E/B

W/B

E/B

S/B

N/B

S/B

N/B

Am Peak (080

0 ‐ 0

900)

1313

1211

1211

11

1010

00

109

66

Inter Pe

ak (13

00‐140

0)23

2120

1920

192

218

161

117

1611

10Pm

Peak (170

0 ‐ 1

800)

816

714

714

11

612

00

612

48

24 Hou

rs

273

273

239

239

239

239

2323

208

208

77

200

200

130

130

Traffic Gen

eration

The project from 201

1 Ba

seIn

Out

E/B

W/B

S/B

N/B

E/B

W/B

W/B

E/B

W/B

E/B

S/B

N/B

S/B

N/B

Am Peak (080

0 ‐ 0

900)

2625

2625

2625

32

2322

11

2221

1414

Inter Pe

ak (13

00‐140

0)46

4246

4246

425

440

361

139

3525

23Pm

Peak (170

0 ‐ 1

800)

1632

1632

1632

23

1428

01

1327

917

24 Hou

rs

539

539

539

539

539

539

5353

469

469

1717

453

453

294

294

Redb

ridge

Redb

ridge

Route

M27

1M27

, 2 ‐ 3

M27

, 3 ‐ 4

M27

, 5 ‐ 7

M3 (sou

th of A

34)

M3 (north of A

34)

M27

1M27

, 2 ‐ 3

M27

, 3 ‐ 4

M27

, 5 ‐ 7

M3 (sou

th of A

34)

M3 (north of A

34)

Documents

E a S a P S a : B 201/202 W A M T a A Projects... · Port of Southampton, reconstruct the quay walls to both berths and subsequently bring the berths back into deep-sea container