List of Appendices - South Gloucestershire appendices.pdf · List of Appendices List of Appendices Appendix 1 = North Fringe Context Map Appendix 2 = Cribbs/Patchway Transport Package

Aztec West Roundabout

List of Appendices

List of Appendices Appendix 1 = North Fringe Context Map Appendix 2 = Cribbs/Patchway Transport Package Map Appendix 3 = Scheme Drawing. Appendix 4 = North Fringe Hengrove Package Proposals. Appendix 5 = Equality Analysis. Appendix 6 = Letter of Support from the Highways Agency. Appendix 7 = Letter of support from the Local Enterprise Partnership Appendix 8 = Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) Appendix 9 = Risk Register Appendix 10 = Risk Management Strategy Appendix 11 = Draft Transport Report for the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Appendix 12 = Scheme Impacts Proforma Appendix 13 = Appraisal Summary Table Appendix 14 = Project Plan Appendix 15 = Step 0 SDI Assessment.

Appendix 1

North Fringe context map

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Cribbs/Patchway Transport Package map

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Scheme Drawing

Appendix 4

North Fringe Hengrove Package Proposals

Appendix 5

Equality Impact Assessment & Analysis

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS (EqIAA) FORM

Name of Function under consideration:

Aztec West roundabout enhancement

Is this Function ‘Major’, ‘Minor yet likely to have a major impact’ or ‘Neither’

Major

Date(s) of completing the EqIAA:

October 2013

Name and job title(s) of person(s) completing the EqIAA:

Principal Transport Planning Officer, Transport Planning Officer, Corporate Equalities Officer

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION 1. What is the main purpose of the Function?

•••• To submit a bid for ‘Local Pinch Point Funding’ to the Department for Transport.

•••• The scheme which forms the bid modifies the local highway network at A38 Aztec West Roundabout. It eases congestion and improves access to new and existing development in Bristol’s North Fringe. It forms part of a transport package which supports the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood which includes the Filton Enterprise Area and 5,750 houses. It will complement the Council’s and the Highways Agency’s successful bids for Pinch Point Programme funding to modify the adjacent M5 Junction 16 and make appropriate provision for pedestrians and cyclists.

•••• If the bid is successful, the awarded funding will help to support the economy, improve quality of life for sub-regional residents and improve local and national travel.

2. List the main activities of the Function: The West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) recently designated the Filton Enterprise Area as one of the 6 Enterprise Zones/Areas across the West of England area. This is forecast to provide approximately 6,500 new jobs up to 2026 and as the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy identifies - the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) is expected to provide 5,400 new homes in the same period. The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy is currently progressing towards adoption, Policy CS5 of which indicates that a significant proportion of future development should take place in the North Fringe of Bristol. Thus through Policy CS26 the Council is promoting the development of 50 hectares of employment land and 5,400 houses as part of the CPNN. Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy sets out the transport measures required to support the proposed core strategy development. This includes the transport schemes in support of the major housing and economic developments across the Council’s area. The Aztec West Roundabout is located on the A38, an important radial route into Bristol city centre. It provides an intersection between the A38, Bradley Stoke Way and Park Avenue, the access road to the major local employment area at Aztec West Business Park. It lies on the main route between the Filton Enterprise area and other major employment sites in Bristol’s North Fringe and the Strategic Road Network. The A38 makes a junction with the SRN at M5 Junction 16 immediately to the north and the scheme is designed to improve the interaction of these two intersections. To ensure new development has no adverse impact on congestion, it is supported by a holistic and comprehensive multi-modal Transport Package which is designed to give full access to the CPNN without placing reliance on private car use and is promoted by Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy. Nevertheless, it is essential that access can be obtained from the Strategic Road Network. Without this access it will not be possible to deliver jobs and new houses in the area without creating unacceptable levels of congestion. The scheme forming the bid helps to ensure that this access can be effectively provided without generating significant additional congestion.

3. Who are the main beneficiaries of the Function? Primarily existing and future residents and businesses in the North Fringe of Bristol, as well as the local and national economy. In addition, users of the Motorway and local road network within and beyond South Gloucestershire would also benefit. The works will be designed to ensure pedestrian and cycle facilities are improved where possible.

4. How is the overall success of the Function measured? Whether or not the bid is successful is the primary measure of success. The scheme which is the subject of the bid is small in scale and therefore the benefits accruing to the users of the roundabout can only be measured in a limited number of ways. These benefits will manifest themselves as reductions in traffic queues and therefore the journey times of vehicles. As this network enhancement is designed to facilitate development of the CPNN, the full value of these benefits will not be accrued until after this development is complete. This will not take place until after 2026. The forecasts underlying the bid have measured these benefits by examining the change in journey time after completion of the CPNN development. Therefore changes in journey times will be a significant means by which success of the function will be measured. The emerging South Gloucestershire Core Strategy, to which the bid is inextricably linked, has been subject to an EqIAA at each main stage of its preparation. The most recent version of the EqIAA is available in Appendix 3 of the October 2012 Sustainability Appraisal which is available on the Council’s website here: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Pages/Topic%20Pages/Planning%20Transport%20-%20Strategic%20Environment/Planning%20Environment/Core-strategy.aspx?resource=http%3a%2f%2fwww.southglos.gov.uk%2fDocuments%2fProposed+Modifications+SA+Main+Report.pdf That EqIAA identifies the following measures for the implementation of the Core Strategy, which the funding bid is inextricably linked to:

• The preparation and adoption of the Core Strategy in accordance with the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Localism Act 2011.

• The Core Strategy serving as a useful and helpful tool for preparing proposals for development within or affecting South Gloucestershire.

• The Core Strategy serving as a useful and helpful tool in the Local Planning Authority’s determination of proposals for development within South Gloucestershire.

• The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report measures the success and implementation of the Council’s Local Plan documents.

5. What equality monitoring systems are in place to carry out regular checks on the

effects of the Function on equality groups?

If the bid is successful, the scheme will be subject to South Gloucestershire Council’s Consultation Procedure. This will be carried out in accordance with the Council’s ‘Consultation Framework’ (which includes ‘Customer Insight’ equalities guidance and monitors impacts in respect of protected characteristic groups as defined by the Equality Act 2010). A ‘Statement of Reasons’ supplemented by drawings will be prepared and various Stakeholders including Local Members, Parish and Town Councils, Emergency Services, The Cycle Forum, Local Transport Operators, Road Haulage Organisations and other significant interested parties are invited via email to comment. The General Public will also be engaged via road signs and advising interested parties Council’s of the online consultation diary – this includes the South Gloucestershire Equalities Forum. A letter drop to affected residents and commercial organisations will also be undertaken. Monitoring will take place upon scheme completion for three months to review the effects on traffic congestion. This monitoring will only measure traffic levels and is therefore equalities neutral. The emerging South Gloucestershire Core Strategy, to which the bid is inextricably linked, has been subject to an EqIAA. That EqIAA found no disproportionate positive or negative impacts in respect of equality groups have been identified to date. Notwithstanding this, the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report measures the success and implementation of the Council’s Local Plan documents. Customer satisfaction surveys are also carried out on planning policy functions as part of which equalities questions are central and results disaggregated according to protected characteristic group in order to facilitate a robust analysis of impacts at early stages.

6. What are your equality related performance indicators/measure of success for this Function?

The emerging South Gloucestershire Core Strategy has been subject to an EqIAA. That EqIAA identifies the following measures for the implementation of the Core Strategy, which the funding bid is inextricably linked to:

• The preparation and adoption of the Core Strategy in accordance with the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Localism Act 2011 and their associated regulations;

• South Gloucestershire Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (available on the Council’s website at http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Pages/Article%20Pages/Planning%20Transport%20-%20Strategic%20Environment/Planning%20policy/Supplementary-Planning-Documents-2786.aspx?resource=http%3a%2f%2fwww.southglos.gov.uk%2fDocuments%2fPTE080288.pdf) which contains specific guidance and information in relation to the involvement of equalities communities.

• South Gloucestershire Council’s Corporate Consultation Framework which includes comprehensive “Customer Insight” equalities guidance relating to a full diversity of equalities ‘groups’;

• The South Gloucestershire Council Plan; and

• The South Gloucestershire Sustainable Community Strategy;

• The South Gloucestershire Council Equality and Diversity Policy. Monitoring will take place upon scheme completion for three months to review the effects on traffic congestion. The level of reductions in congestion will be a primary measure of success. This measuring will only measure traffic levels and is therefore equalities neutral.

SECTION 2 – INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT 7. Use the following table to indicate where you think that the Function could have a

negative impact on any of the following groups (i.e. it could disadvantage them), where you think that the Function could have a positive impact on any of the groups and contribute to promoting equality of opportunity or improving relations with equality groups, where you think there is no impact or where you are unsure of impact.

Equality Group Negative Impact

Positive Impact

No Impact

Unsure of

Impact

Reason(s)* (at this stage, list the

reason(s) as identified by person(s)

completing this EqIAA)

Women/Girls Men/Boys

Lesbians, gay men & bisexuals

Transgender people

White people (including Irish people)

Asian or Asian British people

Black or Black British people People of mixed heritage Chinese people Travellers (gypsy/Roma/Irish heritage)

People from other ethnic groups

Disabled People: Physical impairment, e.g. mobility

issues which mean using a wheelchair or crutches.

Sensory impairment, e.g.

blind/having a serious visual impairment, deaf/having a serious hearing impairment.

Mental health condition, e.g.

depression or schizophrenia.

Learning disability/difficulty, e.g.

Down’s syndrome or dyslexia, or cognitive impairment such as autistic spectrum disorder.

Long-standing illness or health condition, e.g. cancer, HIV,

diabetes, chronic heart disease or epilepsy.

Other health problems or

impairments.

Older People Children and Young People

Faith Groups

Pregnancy & Maternity

Marriage & Civil Partnership

If the bid is successful it is expected that the scheme would potentially benefit all groups in society by providing a significant improvement in transport facilities in and near to the Bristol North Fringe. The scheme would help to reduce congestion to mitigate the impact of the forthcoming Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN). The CPNN will provide residents with improved access to job opportunities and would also improve access to a wider range of services; for example, education, retail, leisure and healthcare. New infrastructure delivered within the CPNN would be fully compliant with disability access requirements. The CPNN is proposed in the emerging South Gloucestershire Core Strategy which has been subject to a separate EqIAA which has found there to be no negative impacts associated with its proposals, including the CPNN, on any equalities groups.

8. If you have indicated that there is a negative impact on any group, is that impact: Legal?

Yes No

Intended?

Yes No

Level of impact

High Low

No negative impact has been identified:

9. Could you minimise or remove any negative impact - how? (Enter N/A if no negative impact has been identified).

N/A

10. Could you improve a positive impact of the Function - how? (Enter N/A if no positive

impact has been identified). No. If the bid is successful then the schemes will only involve highway engineering works which will maximise benefits for all carriageway users as far as possible.

11. If there is no evidence that the Function promotes equality of opportunity or

improved relations, could it be adapted so that it does - how? (Enter N/A if appropriate).

N/A

12. Any other relevant notes: None.

SECTION 3 – CONSULTATION & RESEARCH IN RELATION TO THE EqIAA 13. What consultation has been conducted with groups and individuals from

groups likely to be affected as well as staff, and what evidence has this provided about equalities impact?

No consultation was undertaken with equalities groups during the preparation of the bid – this is consistent with The Equality Duty as it is necessary for consultation to include sufficient reasons for and details of particular proposals to allow those consulted to give informed consideration and an intelligent response. As already stated under Q5 of this document, if the bid is successful, the schemes will be subject to South Gloucestershire Council’s Consultation Procedure which specifically includes equalities groups and is the appropriate time for this action to take place. Discussions have been held with relevant elected members who agreed which schemes would form the funding bid. If the bid is successful then consultation will be undertaken prior to implementation of the schemes as already stated. The schemes proposed as part of the bid are in line with the objectives of the Joint Local Transport Plan 3 (JLTP3) which has been adopted by the four West of England Local Authorities. As part of the production of the JLTP3, extensive consultation was undertaken and an EqIAA was conducted which was taken into consideration when finalising the document. That EqIAA is available to view here: http://travelplus.org.uk/media/188244/eqia%20-%20final%20report.pdf This EqIAA was produced as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the JLTP3 which was subject to public consultation. In addition, the Core Strategy, to which the funding bid is inextricably linked, has been through multiple rounds of public engagement since its production began in 2007 and has been subject of ongoing EqIAA which has identified no negative impacts in relation to any protected characteristic groups. These public consultations have included exhibitions, workshops and full consultations on draft versions of the document, in accordance with statutory planning procedures. All of the consultation and engagement activities have been well promoted and advertised widely and have included the South Gloucestershire Equalities Forum. The consultation and engagement undertaken throughout the Core Strategy’s production is documented in a number of reports that are available on the Council’s website here: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Pages/Article%20Pages/Planning%20Transport%20-%20Strategic%20Environment/Planning%20policy/Consultation-and-engagement-reports.aspx The Council maintains an extensive planning policy consultation database that includes a large number of stakeholder interest groups, including representative groups of disabled people, minority ethnic groups including Gypsy/Traveller groups and a full range of other communities including groups representing the South Gloucestershire Equalities Forum. This database is used to contact and inform these groups at each stage of consultation on the Core Strategy. Public exhibitions and consultation on the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy was undertaken in 2010 and 2011. The following information provides details of those providing feedback in relation to Core Strategy engagement:

Gender

Group Percentage

Male 48%

Female 31%

Prefer not to say 4%

No Response 17%

100%

Ethnicity

Group Percentage

White British 72%

Any other ethnic group 10%

White Irish 0%

No answer 17%

100%

Age

Group Percentage

18yrs or under 1%

19-24 yrs 0%

25-44 yrs 15%

45-64 yrs 45%

65-74 yrs 16%

75-84 yrs 2%

>85 yrs 0%

Prefer not to say 4%

No answer 17%

100% 14. What relevant research (data, reports, expert opinion etc.) has been conducted

and what evidence has this provided about equalities impact? The scheme proposed as part of the bid is in line with the objectives of the Joint Local Transport Plan 3 (JLTP3) which has been adopted by the four West of England Local Authorities. As part of the production of the JLTP3, extensive consultation was undertaken and an EqIAA was conducted which was taken into consideration when finalising the document. That EqIAA is available to view here: http://travelplus.org.uk/media/188244/eqia%20-%20final%20report.pdf Chapter 1 of the JLTP3’s EqIAA sets out an analysis of the equalities-related social and economic characteristics of the West of England. This analysis informed the impact assessment, which informed the preparation of the JLTP3 which has in turn informed the selection of the schemes which are the subject of the bid. All rounds of public consultation on the Core Strategy, to which the funding bid is inextricably linked, have provided the opportunity for all members of the public to provide the Council with information about equalities issues. The feedback gained shows no adverse equalities issues or impacts having emerged. The Core Strategy is a high level and strategic document. This means that many of the impacts of new development on groups such as disabled people and older people continue to be addressed as a result of specific and detailed proposals for development which the Core Strategy does not contain.

15. What contributions does your function/activity make towards promoting

community cohesion?

If the funding bid is successful, one of the central purposes of the scheme would be to enhance the opportunities for sustainable growth through the better linking of areas of economic and housing expansion with the strategic road network and wider city and region. This would have an impact on promoting community cohesion through the provision of enhanced opportunity and connectivity for all communities.

SECTION 4 – OUTCOMES 16. The evidence that has been collected under Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this form will

need to feed into the decision making process regarding changes to be implemented before any final decisions are taken. There are four possible outcomes of this EqIAA – indicate which outcome below with the reasons and justification for this.

Outcome Your response Reason(s) and

Justification Outcome 1: No major change required.

Outcome 2: Adjustments to remove barriers or to better promote equality have been identified.

Outcome 3: Continue despite having identified potential for adverse impact or missed opportunities to promote equality.

Outcome 4: Stop and rethink.

No negative impacts have been identified in relation to any equalities groups. All other linked schemes have themselves undergone comprehensive EqIAAs. The proposed improvement at Aztec West support both economic and housing growth in Filton. The close location of housing and employment proposed as part of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and the Filton Enterprise Area provides employment opportunities for both new and existing communities. It will also reduce the need to travel and can increase the suitability of sustainable modes of travel for commuting.

17. List the actions you will take as a result of this EqIAA. If the bid is successful, the schemes will be subject to South Gloucestershire Council’s Consultation Procedure. This will be carried out in accordance with the Council’s ‘Consultation Framework’ (which includes ‘Customer Insight’ equalities guidance)

SECTION 5 – EqIAA EVIDENCE 18. List and attach the evidence you have which shows how you have systematically

considered equality impact. The scheme proposed as part of the bid is in line with the objectives of the Joint Local Transport Plan 3 (JLTP3) which has been adopted by the four West of England Local Authorities. As part of the production of the JLTP3, extensive consultation was undertaken and an EqIAA was conducted which was taken into consideration when finalising the document. That EqIAA is available to view here: http://travelplus.org.uk/media/188244/eqia%20-%20final%20report.pdf Chapter 1 of the JLTP3’s EqIAA sets out an analysis of the equalities-related social and economic characteristics of the West of England. This analysis informed the impact assessment, which informed the preparation of the JLTP3 which has in turn informed the selection of the schemes which are the subject of the bid. In addition, the preparation and adoption of the Core Strategy, to which the funding bid is inextricably linked, has been carried out in accordance with:

• South Gloucestershire Council’s Statement of Community Involvement which contains specific guidance and information in relation to the involvement of equalities communities.

• South Gloucestershire Council’s Corporate Consultation Framework which includes “Customer Insight” equalities guidance;

• The South Gloucestershire Council Plan; and

• The South Gloucestershire Sustainable Community Strategy;

• The South Gloucestershire Council Equality and Diversity Policy. The results of all public consultation and engagement on the Core Strategy have been analysed with regard to equalities impacts. Information about the Core Strategy can be accessed at www.southglos.gov.uk/corestrategy If the bid is successful, the scheme will be subject to South Gloucestershire Council’s Consultation Procedure. This will be carried out in accordance with the Council’s ‘Consultation Framework’ (which includes ‘Customer Insight’ equalities guidance). A ‘Statement of Reasons’ supplemented by drawings will be prepared and various Stakeholders including Local Members, Parish and Town Councils, Emergency Services, The Cycle Forum, Local Transport Operators, Road Haulage Organisations and other significant interested parties are invited via email to comment. The General Public will also be engaged via road signs and advising interested parties Council’s of the online consultation diary. A letter drop to affected residents and commercial organisations will also be undertaken.

Appendix 6

Highways Agency letter of support

Appendix 7

Letter of support from the

Local Enterprise Partnership

WestRegis

t of Englandstered No 07

Dear Mr B Local Pin The West the Local support ec Transportcentral to

95 3. O

The schemRoundaboin Bristol’sPatchway houses. IPinch Poinappropriat The Azteccity centrePark. Theimmediatethese two

Steve BerrLocal TranDelivery DDepartmenGreat Mins33 HorsefeLondon SW1P 4DR

Local Enterp7616406

Berry

nch Point

of EnglandPinch Poinconomic g

t infrastructhe delive

5,000 new.4% annuaver £1 billi

me which fout. It wills North FriNew Neig

It will compnt Programte provisio

c West Roue and accee A38 connely to the no intersectio

ry nsport FundDivision nt for Transter Houseerry Road

R

prise Partner

Fund – A

d Local Ennt Fund androwth by m

cture has bery of our k

jobs by 20al growth bion of priva

forms this ease congnge, and fhbourhoodplement th

mme fundinon for pede

undabout isess point tonects with north and tons.

ding, Grow

nsport e

rship Limited

A38 Aztec

terprise Pad the oppomaintaining

een identifkey econom

030 by 2020 ate sector

bid modifiegestion andform part od which inche Council’sng to modifestrians and

s located oo the majothe Strategthe schem

wth and

d

West

artnership ortunity to g essential

fied as onemic objecti

investmen

es the locad improve of a transpcludes the s and the Hfy the adjad cyclists.

on the A38r local empgic Road N

me is also a

Contac

Tel: 01

E mail

Date: 2

Wilder

(LEP) welcsubmit bid links to ke

e of the LEves, name

nt over the

al highway access to ort packagFilton EnteHighways Aacent M5 J

, an imporployment a

Network at imed at im

ct: Paul Wils

117 922272

l: paul.wilso

29 October

House | Wildww

comes the ds for delivey growth

P’s major ply to suppo

next 3 yea

network anew and e

ge which suerprise AreAgency’s sunction 16

rtant radialarea at AztM5 Junctio

mproving th

son

9

n@westofe

2013

der Street | Bww.westofe

additional verable schlocations.

priorities aort:

ars

at A38 Azteexisting devupports theea and 5,75successful 6 and make

l route intotec West Bon 16 whiche interact

englandlep.c

Bristol | BS2 englandlep.co

£55m for hemes that

and is

ec West velopment e Cribbs 50 bids for e

o Bristol Business ch lies ion of

co.uk

8PHo.uk

t

We wouldIf there isapplicatio Yours sinc

Paul WilsoChief Exec

d therefores anything n please le

cerely

on cutive of th

seek yourfurther tha

et me know

he West of

r support foat the LEP w.

f England L

2

or this schcan do to

Local Enter

eme throuillustrate t

rprise Part

gh the Loche importa

nership

cal Pinch Pance of thi

Point Fund.s

Appendix 8

Quantitative Risk Assessment

(QRA)

@RISK Output Report for Totals / Risk Probability Distribution Performed By: nort4506

Date: 23 October 2013 16:50:12

Workbook Name Aztec West Rdb Risk Register v221013_v2.xlsx

Number of Simulations 1

Number of Iterations 10000

Number of Inputs 28

Number of Outputs 15

Sampling Type Latin Hypercube

Simulation Start Time

Simulation Duration

Random # Generator

Random Seed

Statistics Percentile

Minimum -49.90378988 5% 162.2498217

Maximum 1480.094476 10% 231.2541173

Mean 560.4905027 15% 287.2126656

Std Dev 255.043432 20% 331.6917538

Variance 65047.15221 25% 370.3769062

Skewness 0.252487171 30% 409.1477937

Kurtosis 2.668597117 35% 446.1066772

Median 548.3171651 40% 481.4234614

Mode 478.8202993 45% 515.315103

Left X 162.2498217 50% 548.3171651

Left P 5% 55% 582.6761937

Right X 1002.051861 60% 618.8094956

Right P 95% 65% 654.4028675

Diff X 839.8020392 70% 694.8646246

Diff P 90% 75% 736.9568916

#Errors 0 80% 780.3937259

Filter Min Off 85% 833.6624095

Filter Max Off 90% 902.4495809

#Filtered 0 95% 1002.051861

Rank Name Regr Corr

1 Higher than aniticpated utilities costs.0.628 0.649

2 Unforeseen traffic delays during construction further restricting working hours and extending construction duration.0.347 0.334

3 Delay in securing requisite permissions from the Highways Agency.0.297 0.292

4 Higher than anticipated civils construction costs.0.274 0.253

5 Delay in diversion of known utilities0.195 0.181

6 Higher than aniticpated utilities costs.0.186 0.171

7 Delay in securing requisite permissions from the Highways Agency.0.150 0.146

8 Delay in diversion of known utilities0.146 0.142

9 Oppostion to the scheme (Members, Town/Parish Councils, Residents, Stakeholders) opposing the scheme, causing delays and increasing costs.0.129 0.117

10 Cost inflation higher than anticipated0.128 0.118

11 Implications of Delay/ association with NHFP0.127 0.130

12 Adverse

weather slows

0.111 0.114

13 Unforeseen traffic delays during construction further restricting working hours and extending construction duration.0.108 0.098

14 Higher than anticipated civils construction costs.0.091 0.081

Regression and Rank Information for Totals / Risk Probability Distribution

Simulation Summary Information

10/23/13 16:49:43

00:00:22

Mersenne Twister

2143672408

Summary Statistics for Totals / Risk Probability Distribution

RISK_Output

Appendix 9

Risk Register

Pinch Points Bid Aztec West Rdb Oct'13

Prob. Prob.

Ref Description Mitigation

owner

Rating RAG Proximity

(date)

Approach

Avoid,

Accept,

Reduce,

Transfer

Mitigation Measures DATE OF

UPDATE

STATUS Rating RAG Min £k Max £k Likely £k Liklihood

1 Higher than anticipated civils construction costs. Project

Manager

H L L H 5.00 Const Reduce Review and scrutiny of detailed designs as

they progress to implementation.

22.10.13 open M L L M 2.67 75£ 200£ 150£ 50%

2 Higher than anticipated site supervision costs. Project

Manager

M L L M 2.67 Const Reduce Co-ordinate construction programme with any

other sites in the area.

22.10.13 open L L L L 1.00 10£ 30£ 20£ 25%

3 Higher than aniticpated utilities costs. Project

Manager

H L L H 5.00 Prep &

Const

Reduce Early engagement with utility

companies to confirm extent of utility works.

22.10.13 open H L L M 3.33 200£ 450£ 300£ 50%

4 Unforeseen traffic delays during construction further

restricting working hours and extending construction

duration.

Project

Manager

H M L M 4.00 Const Reduce Prepare and implement construction and

traffic management plans; advertise notices of

works before start of works.

22.10.13 open M L L M 2.67 100£ 250£ 200£ 50%

5 Streetcare misses Noticing Procedure booking for

highway resulting in penalties.

Project

Manager

M M L M 3.33 Prep &

Const

Reduce Early programming and discussion

with Traffic Manager.

22.10.13 open L L L L 1.00 10£ 30£ 20£ 25%

6 Adverse weather slows construction. Project

Manager

H H L H 7.00 Const Reduce Programme construction to avoid winter

months; prepare contingency plans.

22.10.13 open H H L M 4.67 -£ 100£ 75£ 50%

7 Delay in diversion of known utilities Project

Manager

H H L H 7.00 Const Reduce Early engagement with utility

companies and booking works well in advance.

22.10.13 open H H L M 4.67 -£ 200£ 100£ 50%

8 Oppostion to the scheme (Members, Town/Parish

Councils, Residents, Stakeholders) opposing the scheme,

causing delays and increasing costs.

Project

Manager

M H L M 4.00 Prep Reduce Early identification of the issues; maintain

ongoing public and stakeholder engagement.

22.10.13 open M H L L 2.00 50£ 100£ 75£ 25%

9 Delay in securing requisite permissions from the

Highways Agency.

Project

Manager

H H L H 7.00 Prep Reduce Early and continuous dialogue with the HA to

secure consents.

22.10.13 open H H L M 4.67 50£ 250£ 175£ 50%

10 Cost inflation higher than anticipated Project

Manager

M L L M 2.67 Const Reduce Forecast outturn costs using appropriate

industry indcies and forecasts.

22.10.13 open M L L L 1.33 50£ 100£ 75£ 25%

11 Changes in design standards for infrastructure. Project

Manager

M L L L 1.33 Prep Accept Apply "freeze" on standards at start of

construction.

22.10.13 open M L L L 1.33 -£ 50£ 25£ 25%

12

Higher than anticipated environmental mitigation costs

Project

Manager

M L L M 2.67 Prep Reduce Early engagement with both statutory and non-

statutory stakeholders to indentify appropriate

mitigation measures.

22.10.13 open M L L L 1.33 25£ 75£ 50£ 25%

13 Higher than anticipated Part 1 claims. Project

Manager

L L L L 1.00 Post-const Reduce 22.10.13 open L L L L 1.00 -£ 20£ 10£ 25%

14 Implications of Delay/ association with NHFP Project

Manager

M M L M 3.33 Prep Reduce Ensure design at early stage is checked on

Topo Survey such that any abortive work is

minimised

22.10.13 open L M L L 1.33 50£ 100£ 75£ 25%

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

#DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Totals 620£ 1,955£ 1,350£

Perf

Impact

Cost Time Cost Time Perf

Impact

G:\T&SP\Strat Trans Pol\TransPolicy\Local PP funding\AZTEC\submission\Aztec_West QRA 29 10 2013 \ risk register

Appendix 10

Risk Management Strategy

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Introduction

This Risk Management Strategy sets out the processes for identifying and managing project risks. A risk workshop has been conducted for the scheme to produce the risk register appended to this application form; this will be used to inform the project and with the risk identification and management process also taken through a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) process.

Although the risk workshop has formed the main reviews of the risk register at the current time, the project risk register will continue to remain a live document. Regular updating and reporting of the risk register will be undertaken through the process of reporting to the Project Board. This continual review is important to ensure that the most appropriate risk managers are allocated to specific risks, that new risks are being identified as appropriate, and that existing (and new) risks are being adequately monitored and actioned as required.

Risk Register

As outlined above, the project risk register is a live document and will continue to be regularly reviewed and updated by the Project Manager. Formal reviews for changes to risk profile will be undertaken as part of reporting to the Board and this will form part of a standard agenda item at such meetings.

The detailed project risk register is attached at Appendix 7; the current top three project risks are:

- Delays in securing permissions from the Highways Agency;

- Delays in diversions to utilities; and

- Adverse weather affecting the construction programme.

The risk register sets out the approach to mitigating these risks.

Quantified Risk Assessment

The Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been determined using the Monte Carlo risk simulation methods and the @RISK software. This risk exposure has been estimated with due regard for the Optimism Bias factors, based on Department guidance. The risk exposure has been included in the economic analysis, to determine an appropriate benefit-to-cost ratio.

QRA is also provided at Appendix 8.

The key results of the QRA in relation to programme indicate that the greatest risk to programme is in ensuring timely Highways Agency consents to the proposed works. This will be managed through close dialogue with the Agency to ensure that the works are effectively integrated with the Agency’s own Pinchpoint schemes.

The key results of the QRA in relation to costs demonstrate that the most significant risks to be managed relate to the costs of utilities diversions, traffic conditions restricting working hours and higher than expected civil engineering construction costs.

Risk Management – Mitigation

An initial assessment of potential mitigation measures is included in the risk register attached at Appendix 7. The Project Team will continue to develop mitigation actions for all identified risks, including the identification of individual risk owners. These plans will be reviewed regularly to ensure the most appropriate course of action is being taken. Mitigation actions will be comprehensive for all risks but more focus will be placed on the highest risks and this will be adjusted as these are reduced and/or resolved.

End.

Appendix 11

Draft Transport Report for the

Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood - Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report South Gloucestershire Council

February 2013

Appendix 11

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 2

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for South Gloucestershire Council’s information and use in relation to the Supplementary Planning Document for the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 54 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: 5115669 Document ref: Transport Report

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Initial Draft GM <Initials> JFC JFC 23/01/13

Rev 2.0 Revised Draft JFC GM GM 03/02/13

Rev 3.0 Final Draft GM JFC 07/02/13

Rev 4.0 4th Revision JFC JFC 14/02/13

Client signoff

Client South Gloucestershire Council

Project Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document

Document title Transport Report

Job no. 5115669

Copy no.

Document reference

Transport Report



Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 1 1.3. CPNN Supplementary Planning Document 1 1.4. Purpose of this Report 2

2. Background Review 3 2.1. Introduction 3 2.2. Transport Modelling 3 2.3. CPNN Transport Package 3 2.4. Summary 8

3. Proposed Development 9 3.1. Introduction 9 3.2. Land Uses 9

4. Transport Analysis 13 4.1. Introduction 13 4.2. Transport Modelling 13 4.3. CPNN Transport Package 16 4.4. Summary 24

5. Walking and Cycling 25 5.1. Introduction 25 5.2. Filton Airfield: A major barrier to movement 25 5.3. Walking and Cycling Audit 26 5.4. Proposals for Off-Site Walking and Cycling Improvements 27 5.5. Proposed Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes for CPNN 29 5.6. Summary 29

6. Bus and BRT Provision 31 6.1. Introduction 31 6.2. Forecast Bus Demand at CPNN 31 6.3. Network Review 32 6.4. Revised Bus Proposals 33 6.5. Implications for infrastructure 35 6.6. Summary 36

7. Rail 37 7.1. Introduction 37 7.2. Existing Rail Services 37 7.3. Future Rail Services 37 7.4. Summary 38

8. Internal Road Layout and Access 39 8.1. Introduction 39 8.2. Development of Layout and Access Strategy 39 8.3. Site Access 39 8.4. Internal Road Layout 40 8.5. Summary 41

9. Highway Impacts and Mitigation 43 9.1. Introduction 43 9.2. Traffic Routings 43



9.3. Key Impacts 43 9.4. Designs of Improvement Schemes 44 9.5. Junction Assessments 44 9.6. Summary 46

10. Conclusions 47

Tables Table 1. CPNN Residential Development Proposals 9 Table 2. Combined Residential and Employment Proposals 10 Table 3. CPNN Zones and Development Details 14 Table 4. TRICS Average Vehicle Trip Rates for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period 19 Table 5. CPNN Zones Trip Generation (Vehicles) Forecasts for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period 20 Table 6. TRICS Average Multi Modal Trip Rates (person trips by mode) for Peak Hours and Daily 12

Hour Period 21 Table 7. TRICS (Multi Modal) Mode Splits 22 Table 8. Private Vehicle / Public Transport Mode Splits from Demand Model 22 Table 9. Mode Splits following adjustments using Demand Model 23 Table 10. Final CPNN Mode Splits 24 Table 11. Estimated Bus Operating Costs for the Modelled Network (2012 prices) 32

Figures Figure 1. Location of CPNN in the context of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area 4 Figure 2. Core Strategy CPNN Framework Diagram 6 Figure 3. SPD CPNN Framework Diagram 11 Figure 4. CPNN Zoning System 14 Figure 5. CPNN Modelled Access Arrangements and Internal Road Layout 15 Figure 6. Derivation of CPNN Trip Generation and Mode Split Targets 17 Figure 7. CPNN Site Location and Key Walking and Cycling Routes 25 Figure 8. Location of Proposed Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements 28 Figure 9. Location of CPNN Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes 29 Figure 10. Potential Schematic Plan for BRT Services in the North Fringe, including CPNN 34 Figure 11. CPNN Access Junctions Location Plan 40



1. Introduction

1.1. Background South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) commissioned Atkins to undertake a programme of work to define the transport package required to support the development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN). This work is required to inform the development of the CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); and builds on earlier high-level analysis undertaken as part of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy.

1.2. South Gloucestershire Core Strategy The South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2006 – 2027 proposes a substantial amount of growth in the Cribbs / Patchway area including 5,700 new homes, approximately 50ha employment land, community facilities and expansion of retail floorspace at Cribbs Causeway. The requirements for the New Neighbourhood are set out in Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy also defines policies related to transport that will enable the Council's spatial strategy to be delivered and strategic objectives to be met. These include:

Policy CS7: Strategic Transport Infrastructure - with specific reference to major infrastructure projects and the associated Transport Package for the North Fringe. The CPNN Transport Package is defined within Policy CS7 and was specifically designed to: - Improve travel choices for current users of the network; - Maximise opportunities for sustainable travel in the New Neighbourhoods; and - Tackle the effects of additional traffic on the network.

Policy CS8: Improving Accessibility refers to accessibility, off-site mitigation, provision and promotion of sustainable travel options and parking. It states that all new development proposals of a sufficient scale will be required to contribute financially or in kind to the schemes set out in Policy CS7.

The Examination in Public (EiP) of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy took place in June / July 2012 and the Inspector provided his initial set of findings, including a set of proposed modifications on 19

th

September. This was followed by a set of errata published on 4th October. The Inspector concluded that the

Cribbs / Patchway area (including the land at Filton Airfield) can make a significant contribution towards satisfying development pressures and assist in delivering a coherent strategy for the North Fringe. He agreed with the Council’s contention that this was best achieved by producing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to cover this area. Conversely, however, the Inspector considered that proposals for expansion of the Cribbs Causeway retail area are premature. As a result, further work will be required to develop the evidence base to demonstrate the need for further retail provision in the area.

1.3. CPNN Supplementary Planning Document The CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out a strategic framework for the New Neighbourhood; identifying key strategic themes for infrastructure and the essential packages of facilities and services that need to be delivered to support the New Neighbourhood. Furthermore the SPD will be used to coordinate individual developers’ proposals and to assist with the submission of planning applications. In transport terms the SPD is expected to:

Ensure the delivery of adequate transport links at CPNN both in terms of access to the surrounding network and connectivity between the different areas within the New Neighbourhood;

Give detail for the overarching movement framework for the area, including internal street layout, routes for pedestrians and cyclists, routings for new bus services, confirmation of the corridor for the Bus Rapid Transit extension and interchange with the proposed new rail station(s) at Filton North and Henbury;

Give detail of the timing and phasing of the required transport infrastructure; and



Develop a strategy for financial contributions taking into account costs for the provision of on- and off-site transport infrastructure and measures to promote sustainable travel.

1.4. Purpose of this Report Additional transport analysis has been undertaken to identify elements of the CPNN package, as defined in the Core Strategy, that are both essential (as opposed to desirable) and deliverable. This analysis reflects current development proposals for CPNN, which take into account emerging proposals from Developers in the New Neighbourhood. Furthermore, CPNN will be developed in phases and the analysis establishes which elements of the package are required to facilitate each development phase. This report describes the work undertaken to define in more detail the transport package for CPNN, to inform the development of the CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a background review of the work that was previously undertaken to develop the Transport Package to support the proposals at the Core Strategy stage;

Chapter 3 describes the current development proposals for the New Neighbourhood, based on ongoing masterplanning and the emerging proposals from individual Developers in the New Neighbourhood;

Chapter 4 explains the approach taken to the modelling and analysis of the transport impacts of the New Neighbourhood, including the strategic modelling tool, trip generation, distribution and assignment;

Chapter 5 describes the proposals for walking and cycling, including both principles for maximising opportunities for walking and cycling within the New Neighbourhood, and improvements on surrounding routes;

Chapter 6 describes the development and assessment of the public transport elements of the package, with a particular focus on assessing the viability of the proposals for new and improved bus routes to serve the area;

Chapter 7 describes existing and planned rail provision to serve the North Fringe area, including the New Neighbourhood;

Chapter 8 sets out the proposed internal road layout and access arrangements, including operational assessment of key junctions;

Chapter 9 explains the package of off-site highway improvements that is proposed to help mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood; and

Chapter 10 sets out the conclusions of this review. A series of appendices (in a separate document) are also provided, as follows:

Appendix A presents concept proposals for the site accesses from the A4018 and A38;

Appendix B presents concept proposals for off-site junction improvements developed to help mitigate the impacts of the increased traffic flows resulting from the New Neighbourhood; and

Appendix C sets out a register of the issues relating to statutory undertakers to be considered, managed and addressed in developing these proposed off-site junction improvements.

A separate report sets out the proposed implementation plan for the transport package, including consideration of the costs of the Transport Package, potential funding sources and an indicative phasing schedule.



2. Background Review

2.1. Introduction A review of the transport work undertaken to inform the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy, in relation to the development of the CPNN proposals, was undertaken at the outset of this study. The review also identified elements of the North Fringe Transport Package that were specific to CPNN. The purpose of this review was two-fold:

To identify and plan the transport modelling and analysis that would be required to support the development of the transport package;

To review the elements of the transport package, both individually and in combination, and to identify the work required to develop these to an appropriate level of detail for this stage in the planning process.

This chapter provides a brief overview of these two aspects of the review.

2.2. Transport Modelling Transport modelling for the Core Strategy was based on the Core Strategy Model (CSM), a strategic multi-modal model. It was constructed using SATURN highway assignment modelling software and is linked to two other models developed on behalf of the West of England local authorities:

the G-BATS3 Public Transport Assignment Model (PTAM); and

the G-BATS3 Demand Model. Together, these models enable forecasts to be made of transport demand and the corresponding highway and public transport flows in the North Fringe. The CSM was used to inform SGC’s position on Core Strategy and develop the North Fringe Transport Package. The North Fringe Transport Package was developed specifically to support the major growth planned in the North Fringe, which will include the two New Neighbourhoods at Cribbs Patchway (CPNN) and East of Harry Stoke (EHSNN). This included specific transport schemes to support the delivery of the two New Neighbourhoods. The CSM provided forecasts of the weekday travel demand and transport network conditions for the following two scenarios:

Reference Case: assumed that the CPNN and EHSNN are not developed and the accompanying transport package would not be provided; and

Do Something Case: assumed that CPNN and EHSNN are developed in line with the Core Strategy and packages of transport improvements would be provided for the two New Neighbourhoods, along with strategic transport infrastructure defined in Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

The modelling work for the Core Strategy used a broad zoning system based on the conceptual site layout, together with indicative access arrangements, internal road layout and indicative routes for public transport services. However, following the subsequent work in developing the site masterplan in support of the SPD, it was necessary to make changes to the model to ensure a more disaggregate zoning system and to reflect the emerging access and movement framework. Chapter 4 of this report explains the process of updating the model to reflect the emerging SPD proposals.

2.3. CPNN Transport Package The location of CPNN, including adjacent transport links, is shown in Figure 1 overleaf.



Figure 1. Location of CPNN in the context of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area

Source: Core Strategy with Post-Submission Changes, Figure 5, Page 140

The North Fringe Transport Package comprised the CPNN Package and EHSNN Package, as described in Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy. The elements of the Transport Package relating specifically to CPNN or elements required to support development in the North Fringe more generally are outlined below.

2.3.1. Smarter Choices The development would be accompanied by a full range of measures to encourage smarter travel choices including:

Travel plans for the residential and employment elements of the New Neighbourhoods;

Travel information packs for homebuyers;

Personalised travel planning for residents of the New Neighbourhoods;

Travel plans for the proposed on-site primary schools;

Provision and promotion of sustainable transport options; and

Incentives to encourage residents to join the South Gloucestershire car share scheme.

2.3.2. Walking and Cycling The Council aims to provide an exemplar network for cycle and pedestrian access to the CPNN. This would include:

All streets designed to facilitate direct, safe and comfortable movement by pedestrians and cyclists, adopting a Homezone approach;

Secure cycle parking provided at key locations;

Connections will be made to the local road network in Southmead / Brentry (in Bristol) via Fishpool Hill (for pedestrians and cyclists only) and Charlton Road (pedestrians, cyclists and buses);

Links provided to the adjacent walking and cycling network at Cribbs Causeway and to routes along the A38 and A4018;

Improvements will be made to cycling infrastructure along both the A38 and A4018 and new pedestrian crossing facilities will help to address the severance currently experienced on both roads; and

CPNN



Improved cycling links will be provided to Parkway Station, including measures to improve provision at the junction between the A38 and B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane.

The development of the New Neighbourhood also offers the opportunity to transform the quality of walking and cycling provision in the Cribbs Causeway, Patchway and Filton areas, which will significantly improve the attractiveness of active travel for shorter journeys within, to and from the area. Chapter 5 of this report describes the more detailed development of these proposals.

2.3.3. Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Services A full range of bus and BRT services would be provided to support this development. This would include the network enhancements set out below. All bus frequencies quoted are proposed daytime Monday-Saturday frequencies (lower frequencies would apply in the evenings and on Sundays).

Route 20 – would be extended from the current northern terminus at Charlton Road into the New Neighbourhood, serving Airfield West and Fishpool Hill (2 buses per hour).

Route C01 – a new route, between Cribbs Causeway and Broomhill via Airfield West, the A4018 corridor and Bristol city centre (2 buses per hour).

Route C02 – a new route, between Cribbs Causeway and Hartcliffe via Airfield East (including the employment zones), then via the A38 corridor and Bristol city centre (2 buses per hour).

Route C03 – a new route linking Airfield West and Cribbs Causeway with Avonmouth and Severnside, via the M5 between junctions 16 and 17 (2 buses per hour).

Route C04 – a new circular route from Cribbs Causeway, along the south side of Charlton Hayes, then via Gipsy Patch Lane, Bristol Parkway, New Road, Great Stoke Way, A4174 Station Road and the A38, then across CPNN and back to Cribbs Causeway via Haw Wood (2 buses per hour in each direction).

Route X90A – a new BRT service, between Cribbs Causeway and Centre via Airfield East (including the employment zones), Gipsy Patch Lane and Bristol Parkway, then via the same route as that proposed in the North Fringe to Hengrove (NFH) Package via UWE and the M32 to the city centre (6 buses per hour). All other BRT routes are as modelled for the NFH Package.

The work in support of the SPD considered these proposals in more detail, assessed the ability of these proposals to attract future demand, estimated future operating costs and refined the proposals to maximise potential demand and minimise the requirement for ongoing subsidy. Chapter 6 of this report summarises our findings and makes recommendations for the configuration of future bus and BRT services.

2.3.4. Infrastructure for Buses and BRT The North Fringe Transport Package incorporates a range of improvements to highway infrastructure that will benefit both existing and new bus / BRT services. These include:

A4018 Corridor – Bus priority measures would be focused on the section between Lysander Road and Crow Lane. The package of measures on this corridor will also include improved pedestrian crossing facilities to enable connections between the new areas of housing on both sides of the A4018.

A38 Corridor – Improvements are proposed to the roundabouts at M5 Junction 16 and Aztec West. There could be scope for the provision of bus priority on the A38 southbound approach to M5 Junction 16 from Almondsbury. On the section of A38 between Filton Avenue and the A4174 Filton Roundabout, an integrated approach will be taken to the management of roadspace. This section of the A38 will also be provided with improved pedestrian crossings to tackle the severance effects of this road in Filton.

BRT Corridor – The North Fringe Transport Package included provision for the extension of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services through the New Neighbourhood, operating along Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road, connecting to the route of the North Fringe to Hengrove Package at Bristol Parkway station. This would require priority measures and high quality BRT stops along Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road.

Gypsy Patch Lane – It will be necessary to address problems caused by the narrow rail bridge on Gypsy Patch Lane. The work for the Core Strategy considered options including replacing the rail bridge to provide sufficient space for BRT vehicles and general traffic, or traffic management on the approaches



to provide priority to buses and BRT vehicles. Given the potential costs of replacing rail bridges, it is likely that the preferred option would be traffic management on the approaches to the bridge.

Flexible ticketing – It is also important to provide a range of flexible ticketing options for people using the bus network. South Gloucestershire Council will therefore seek financial contributions towards the expansion of smart ticketing opportunities for buses.

These proposals have been considered in more detail during the SPD process and recommendations for bus priority measures are set out in Chapter 6 of this report.

2.3.5. Rail There is scope to provide new stations at Henbury (adjacent to the A4018) and Filton North (adjacent to the A38), which would be served by passenger services to be introduced on the Hallen line. These services would run to Bristol Temple Meads, calling at Filton Abbey Wood and local stations within Bristol. These proposals would be taken forward within Phase 2 of the Greater Bristol Metro project that is being jointly promoted by the four West of England authorities. However, the construction of these stations and re-introduction of services along the line would be subject to demonstrating a satisfactory business case. It was also noted that there could be scope to improve waiting facilities at (and links to) Patchway station. The Core Strategy evidence base demonstrated that these rail proposals will support the delivery of the New Neighbourhood but are not essential. Further work (separately commissioned) is currently ongoing to consider options for new services on the Hallen line. However, provision will continue to be made for a new station at Filton North. Further consideration would need to be given to the feasibility of a new station at Henbury. The rail proposals are described in Chapter 7.

2.3.6. Highway Access to CPNN The access arrangements proposed for the Core Strategy are shown in the ‘Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood Framework Diagram’. This is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Core Strategy CPNN Framework Diagram

Source: Core Strategy with Post Submission Changes, Figure 6, Page 154



Four indicative character areas within CPNN were identified, with the following access arrangements: 1. New Charlton (area currently occupied by the western part of Filton Airfield)

- A4018 Wick Beck Road; - A4018 Cribbs Causeway – via existing access at The Laurels; - Merlin Road, between the San Andreas Roundabout and Merlin Road/Lysander Road Roundabout; - Merlin Road at the San Andreas Roundabout; and - Charlton Road (bus only access);

2. Haw Wood (area west of the A4018)

- Creation of a 4th arm on the A4018/B4055 Roundabout; and - A4018 Cribbs Causeway – 4th Arm on the A4018/The Laurels junction.

3. Filton Aerospace Cluster (area currently occupied by the eastern part of Filton Airfield)

- Access onto Hayes Way at the three existing roundabouts (known as Blenheim, Brabazon and Concorde);

- A38, just north of the Hallen Freight Line; and - West Way (internal connection, between new Aerospace cluster and existing BAe site)

1.

4. Cribbs Causeway

- Remodelling of existing road network to support future town centre activities and new residential development on the site of the existing Patchway Trading Estate.

Further work has taken place during the SPD process to develop the detail of the access arrangements, in parallel with ongoing masterplanning work, which is described in Chapter 8 of this report.

2.3.7. Off-site Highway Infrastructure

Stoke Gifford Transport Link

The Stoke Gifford Transport Link (SGTL) is one of the key elements of the North Fringe to Hengrove Package and was identified in the Core Strategy as being essential in supporting the delivery of the two New Neighbourhoods in the North Fringe. The SGTL will be a single carriageway road link between the A4174 Avon Ring Road and the Parkway North Roundabout on Great Stoke Way. It will provide a new route connecting Bradley Stoke to the Ring Road and will provide relief to congested routes in the Stoke Gifford area, including Hatchet Road on the approaches to Bristol Parkway Station. It will be used by the BRT services in the North Fringe and will enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross the railway line. The SGTL is important in addressing the current and future transport challenges in the North Fringe. It will enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross the railway line, and will form one of the key elements of the BRT corridor in the North Fringe to Hengrove Package. It is therefore an essential supporting element to the delivery of CPNN.

Highway Mitigation Package

Highway improvements were proposed to tackle the residual impacts of traffic generated by the CPNN (and EHSNN) developments. Highway mitigation measures were identified for the following junctions:

M5 Junction 17;

A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout (south west of Junction 17);

A4018 Crow Lane Roundabout (within the Bristol City Council boundary);

M5 Junction 16;

A38 / Aztec West Roundabout (just south of Junction 16);

A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction;

A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout; and

B4057 Winterbourne Road / Great Stoke Way Roundabout2.

1 Note: this was not included in the modelling that was used to test the impacts of CPNN – refer to Chapter 4.

2 A westbound to southbound filter lane is proposed at the roundabout. The earlier Core Strategy modelling work

showed that this assisted with the movement of traffic towards the SGTL and EHSNN. This scheme has been included



The package of off-site highway improvements has been considered in detail as part of the work in support of the SPD. This has included strategic modelling of traffic flows, more detailed junction assessments and development of concept proposals for key junctions on the network. The proposals are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9 of this report.

2.4. Summary This chapter of the report provides details of the transport work undertaken to inform the Core Strategy in relation to CPNN and includes details of the transport package proposed to support the development, in line with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy. Additional transport analysis has now been undertaken to identify elements of the CPNN package, as defined in the Core Strategy, that are both essential (as opposed to desirable) and deliverable; and to establish which elements of the package are required to facilitate a phased development of the New Neighbourhood. Chapter 3 describes the development proposals that have been assumed within the SPD process, Chapter 4 describes the modelling and analysis undertaken, and Chapters 5-9 describe the detailed development of each element of the Transport Package to support development at the New Neighbourhood.

as a general forecasting assumption but is not specific to CPNN and does not therefore form part of the CPNN Transport Package proposals.



3. Proposed Development

3.1. Introduction This chapter outlines the current development proposals for CPNN. The proposals were provided by SGC and the individual elements were broadly confirmed with consultants acting for Developers with land interests in the New Neighbourhood.

3.2. Land Uses

3.2.1. Residential It has been assumed that a total of 5,750 residential units would be provided, as set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1. CPNN Residential Development Proposals

Development Area Number of Dwellings

Patchway Trading Estate 1,000

Airfield East and West 2,500

Fishpool Hill 1,200

Charlton Common 50

Haw Wood (west of A4018) 1,000

Total 5,750

SGC has also confirmed that 35% of the housing will be affordable, and 80% of the affordable housing is likely to be rented.

3.2.2. Employment 50ha of employment land was allocated to CPNN in the Core Strategy. For the purposes of modelling of future travel demand, this was assumed to be equivalent to:

160,000 sqm of office development

120,000 sqm of industrial development

Total GFA for the Employment Area: 280,000 sqm Following discussions with stakeholders, these proposals have since been scaled down to reflect current developer aspirations for the Filton Enterprise Area. The revised employment proposals, for the purposes of the SPD transport analyses, were assumed to be as follows:

65,000 sqm of office development

86,000 sqm of industrial development

Total GFA for the Employment Area: 151,000 sqm

3.2.3. Combined Residential and Employment Table 2 overleaf shows the combined residential and employment land uses for CPNN and Figure 3 provides a framework diagram for the New Neighbourhood (as provided by SGC to inform the transport-related analysis).



Table 2. Combined Residential and Employment Proposals

Development Area Dwellings Employment

B1 B2

Patchway Trading Estate 1,000

Airfield East and West 2,500 65,000 86,000

Fishpool Hill 1,200

Charlton Common 50

Haw Wood (west of A4018) 1,000

Total 5,750 65,000 86,000

3.2.4. Local Services and Community Facilities The New Neighbourhood will be served by a range of local services and community facilities. These will include education, health care, leisure, recreational and retail facilities to serve the residential population of CPNN. The four primary schools proposed at CPNN are expected to solely serve the CPNN area. It was assumed that the secondary school will draw 40% of its pupils from the neighbouring Southmead area (in Bristol), with the remaining 60% of pupils coming from CPNN. A 200 bed Hotel and a 10,000sqm Museum is also proposed at CPNN. For the purpose of the SPD, it was assumed that trips associated with the primary schools, local health care and local retail facilities would be contained within the New Neighbourhood. These trips were assumed to remain within the New Neighbourhood and were not therefore assigned to the external network. In the case of the Secondary School, it was assumed that 60% of trips would remain internal to the site, with the 40% balance drawn from the Southmead area. In the case of the Hotel, it was assumed that trips would be drawn from outside the New Neighbourhood. In the case of the Museum, it was assumed that all trips would be generated during off-peak weekday periods and weekends, with no traffic generated during the weekday peaks. This was not, therefore included in the modelling.

3.2.5. Expansion of ‘The Mall’ at Cribbs Causeway Following comments made by the Inspector at the SGC Core Strategy EIP, there remains some uncertainty in relation to the proposed expansion of The Mall at Cribbs Causeway. Nevertheless, for the purpose of the SPD weekday modelling, it has been assumed that the whole of the proposed retail expansion will take place. Therefore, the future year modelling includes an allowance of 35,000 sqm of retail floor area, all of which would be located at The Mall.



Figure 3. SPD CPNN Framework Diagram



This page is intentionally blank.



4. Transport Analysis

4.1. Introduction This chapter describes the work undertaken to enhance the tools used for modelling, analysis and development of the CPNN Transport Package. The modelling, analysis and development of the Transport Package comprised the following elements of work:

CSM Strategic Transport Model Update – an update of the existing model to provide the analytical tools to support the development of the transport package for the New Neighbourhood;

Development / Refinement of the CPNN Transport Package – develop the key principles of the CPNN package, using the CSM strategic transport model and drawing on the principles of the masterplanning of the New Neighbourhood;

Walking and Cycling – maximising opportunities for walking and cycling for more local journeys and to minimise the proportion of these trips made by car. This is particularly important given the close proximity of housing and employment in the North Fringe;

Public Transport – maximising opportunities for travel by bus, BRT and rail, maximising the commercial viability of the proposed services and minimising potential subsidy requirements;

Internal Road Layout and Access Arrangements – development of internal road hierarchy and access arrangements, to maximise the permeability of the site and to ensure streets are people-focused not car dominated;

Off-Site Highway Improvements – whilst the key focus of the CPNN transport package is to maximise opportunities for sustainable travel (to, from and within the New Neighbourhood), it is recognised that significant volumes of vehicle traffic will be generated. The need for off-site highway improvements has therefore been investigated and proposals have been developed and assessed; and

Development Phasing – infrastructure to support phased development in the New Neighbourhood and to maximise use of sustainable modes of travel from the outset.

The remainder of this chapter outlines the work undertaken to update the strategic CSM transport model and the refinement and forecasting of travel demand associated with the CPNN Transport Package

4.2. Transport Modelling The CSM was updated to take into account the following issues:

The latest version of long-term (to 2031) planning assumptions across the four West of England authorities;

Refinement of the specification of the North Fringe to Hengrove Package in preparation for a planning application expected to be forthcoming in 2013; and

More detailed specification of the development proposals and supporting transport package for CPNN. This recently updated version of the CSM has been used to assess the transport impacts of the New Neighbourhood and to refine the transport package required to support the development. For the purpose of this work, the proposed development at EHSNN and accompanying transport package was removed from the previously assessed ‘Do Something’ scenario. The following sections describe the specific updates that were made in the model to reflect the emerging development proposals.



4.2.1. New CPNN Zoning System The CPNN area was previously modelled as four discrete zones. The CPNN area has now been divided into ten zones and encompasses the development proposals outlined in Chapter 3 as follows:

Table 3. CPNN Zones and Development Details

Zone Number Zone Name Number of Dwellings

Employment (sqm)

B1 B2

70010 Airfield East Office (B1) Employment3 65,000

70018 Airfield East Industrial (B2) Employment 86,000

70013 Fishpool Hill 600

70014 Fishpool Hill 600

70017 Patchway Trading Estate 1000

70015 Airfield West 1500

70016 Airfield East 1000

70020 Charlton Common 50

70012 Haw Wood 1000

41683 CPNN Secondary School (850 pupils)4

Total 5,750 65,000 86,000

The proposed expansion of retail floor space at The Mall has been applied to existing zone 43604. A plan showing the layout of the CPNN zoning system is provided in Figure 4 below. The updated zoning system allows improved assignment of CPNN travel demand and facilitates testing of the individual elements of the development. Figure 4. CPNN Zoning System

3 Zone 70010 also includes the proposed 200 bed hotel

4 40% of the secondary school trips were assigned onto the surrounding highway network



4.2.2. Access and Internal Highway Infrastructure Figure 5 shows the network coding for the CPNN access points and internal road network. Figure 5. CPNN Modelled Access Arrangements and Internal Road Layout

Key access and road layout assumptions are set out below.

Access

Ten access points to CPNN have been modelled (reflecting the concepts of the CPNN Masterplan):

A4018 - Wyck Beck Road Signalised Junction - providing access both Fishpool Hill and the Airfield site, - New four-arm signalised junction at The Laurels - providing access to both Haw Wood and the

Airfield site; and - Creation of a 4th Arm on the A4018 / B4055 Roundabout – providing access to the Haw Wood site.

A38 - New At-Grade Signalised Junction - providing access to the Airfield site.

Hayes Way and Merlin Way - Four existing roundabouts on Hayes Way (Blenheim, Brabazon, Concorde and San Andreas) –

providing access to the Airfield site; and - Merlin Road Roundabout – providing access to the Airfield site.

Charlton Road - Bus only access to the Airfield site.

Internal Road Network

The internal CPNN road network has been coded as follows (reflecting the concepts of the CPNN Masterplan):



East – West Spine Road through the Airfield site, connecting the A4018 access junctions at Wyck Beck Road and The Laurels to the new A38 at-grade signalised junction (coded with low traffic speeds, to reflect its status in catering for local movements and to discourage through traffic);

Five links connecting the East – West Spine Road to Merlin Road (via the Merlin Road Roundabout) and Hayes Way (via the San Andreas, Blenheim, Brabazon and Concorde Roundabouts); and

A single bus link connecting the East–West spine road to Charlton Road in the south (forming the 4th arm

of a crossroads in the centre of the Neighbourhood).

4.2.3. Transport Package Assumptions The CPNN Transport Package (described in Chapter 2) was initially tested in the model. However, ongoing development of the detail of the package was taken into account as the model was developed. As noted in Chapter 2, the provision of new rail services on the Henbury line is not critical to the delivery of the New Neighbourhood. For this reason, the new rail services were not included in the core model testing for the SPD work.

4.2.4. Assessment Scenarios Forecasts of the weekday travel demand and transport network conditions in the North Fringe were estimated for a 2031 Design Year, using the updated CSM. This represents a period five years beyond the Core Strategy plan period of 2026. These forecasts can therefore be considered to be conservative as they reflect further potential growth in demand for travel (hence traffic) beyond 2026. This report focuses on the assessments undertaken of the full CPNN development proposals, as set out in Chapter 3. However, testing was also undertaken for alternative scenarios to test the specific impacts of the employment development at Airfield East and retail expansion at The Mall. The key findings from these tests are discussed in relevant parts of this report.

4.3. CPNN Transport Package The refinement of the CPNN Transport Package comprised two elements of work. The first involved a review of the current mode choice assumptions (linked to work undertaken in relation to Bus/BRT and Walking, Cycling and Smarter Choices) whilst the second element considered highway capacity issues and improvements to the wider network. The remainder of this chapter addresses the trip generation and mode choice analysis undertaken prior to assessing the traffic impact of the development and suitability of the proposed mitigation (initially using the CSM SATURN Model and confirmed using junction capacity assessment software). The trip rates adopted in these assessments reflect the specific provision of smarter transport measures, high quality walking and cycling links and public transport facilities associated with this area and vary from those used to assess individual sites at other locations in South Gloucestershire. Different approaches were adopted for the housing and employment uses and the proposed retail expansion at The Mall: these are discussed below.

4.3.1. Retail Uses: Trip Generation As discussed in the preceding chapter, it was assumed that the local retail facilities would have a catchment drawn completely from within the New Neighbourhood, with journeys made primarily by walking and hence no traffic generated on the ‘external’ road network. Provision has also been made for significant future retail expansion in the Cribbs Causeway area. Whilst there is currently uncertainty about the future proposals, a series of assumptions were made for the purposes of transport modelling. It was assumed that the full 35,000 sqm of additional retail floorspace would be located at The Mall. It was considered appropriate to apply a pro-rata increase to existing trips made to The Mall, and not to apply TRICS data. This ensured a more evidence-based approach to estimating future travel demand, which we consider to be a conservative approach to forecasting future trips, for the reasons set out below.



First, evidence indicates that increasing floorspace at existing shopping centres results in both increases in numbers of trips and increased duration of stay (as shoppers take advantage of increased shopping choices and potentially eat and drink during their trip). This evidence suggests that increased duration of stay is the greater effect, and the proportionate increase in trips is less than the increase in floorspace. In the case of The Mall, it has been assumed that the floorspace would increase by 50%, but the evidence indicates that the increase in the number of retail trips would be significantly less than 50%. Second, Cribbs Causeway is characterised by high levels of car accessibility, large quantities of car parking and little incentive to consider alternatives to the car. The future development of this area would include development of a wider range of uses with masterplanning to encourage greater use of sustainable travel modes. Furthermore, there would be a fundamental change in the management of car parking. The physical development of this area would require the use of existing parking areas and future parking provision would require careful consideration, but it is highly likely that future peak traffic demand would be ‘capped’ by the availability of parking. For the purposes of traffic modelling, it was assumed that there would be a 50% increase in traffic generated by The Mall during the AM and PM peak periods. For the reasons discussed above, this assumption is considered to be conservative.

4.3.2. Housing and Employment: Trip Generation and Mode Choice Analysis Figure 6 below summarises the process used to derive trip generation targets for housing and employment land uses in CPNN. The first two steps involve the derivation of ‘vehicle’ and ‘person’ trips forecasts for CPNN, whilst the remaining steps involve adjusting these forecasts to reflect the public transport services on offer (through use of the CSM Demand Model) and walking, cycling and smarter choices initiatives (through manual adjustments). Figure 6. Derivation of CPNN Trip Generation and Mode Split Targets

Step (a): Derive TRICS based ‘Vehicle’ Trip Generation Forecasts for CPNN

Step (b): Derive TRICS based ‘Person’ Trip Generation Forecasts and Mode Splits for CPNN

Step (c): Run CSM Demand Model to adjust Private Vehicle Trips and Mode Splits

Step (d): Adjust Mode Split to reflect Walking, Cycling and Smarter Choices Initiatives

Confirm CPNN Mode Split and Vehicle Trip Generation (for input to the SATURN Highway Assignment Model)

These steps are described in the following sections.

4.3.3. Step (a): Derive Vehicle trip generation forecasts using TRICS Database The first step was to use the TRICS database to derive average vehicle trip generation rates for the proposed development at CPNN. The rates derived were based on a sample covering all of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland regions except for Greater London and only weekday surveys were included (excluding Fridays as travel characteristics tend to vary considerably on a Friday compared to other weekdays). Furthermore, all ‘Town



Centre’ surveys were excluded. Table 4 overleaf shows the average vehicle trip rates for each land use type in the AM Peak (08:00-09:00), PM Peak (17:00-18:00) and for the daily 12-hour period (07:00 to 19:00). This shows, for comparative purposes, trip rates derived using both the ‘Multi Modal’ and ‘Vehicle’ options in the TRICS database. This shows that there are slight differences in the trip rates derived using the two options, which is due to the sites used in the sampling in each case. For consistency purposes, rates derived using the ‘Multi Modal’ option have been used in this study, as these can be cross referenced against the ‘person trip’ forecasts discussed in the following section of this chapter. Table 5 (on Page 19) shows the traffic generation forecasts for the nine CPNN zones based on the ‘Vehicle’ trip rates (Multi Modal) presented in Table 4 and the development zone allocations set out in Table 3. The trips for the school (zone 41683) and hotel (zone 70010) were included in the modelling but are not presented in the table, because no adjustments were made to the trip rates. For the derivation of housing trips, the affordable housing allocation has been reflected by applying the ‘Mixed Non Private Housing’ trip rates to 35% of the dwellings. The ‘Houses Privately Owned’ trip rates were applied to the remaining 65%.

4.3.4. Step (b): Derive Multi Modal trip generation forecasts using TRICS database The next step was to examine the numbers of trips generated by each mode of travel (by car, public transport, walking and cycling). Average ‘multi modal’ trip generation rates were derived from the TRICS database for the proposed development at CPNN using the criteria outlined above. However, as there was insufficient data available in TRICS to derive dependable multi-modal forecasts for the affordable housing element at CPNN, the mode splits for ‘Houses Privately Owned’ were used for CPNN housing in general. Table 6 (multi-modal person trip rates) (on Page 20) summarises the average trip rates by mode for the principal land use types in the AM Peak (08:00-09:00), PM Peak (17:00-18:00) and for the daily 12 hour period (07:00 to 19:00).



Table 4. TRICS Average Vehicle Trip Rates for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period

AM Peak (08:00-09:00)

Vehicle Trip Rates (Multi Modal) Vehicle Trip Rates (Vehicles)

Arrivals Departures Two Way Arrivals Departures Two Way

Houses Privately Owned 0.157 0.410 0.567 0.157 0.410 0.567

Mixed Non Private Housing5 Insufficient sample size available in TRICS 0.076 0.247 0.323

Offices (per 100 sqm) 1.42 0.221 1.641 1.406 0.210 1.616

Industrial (per 100 sqm) 0.350 0.079 0.429 0.327 0.073 0.400

PM Peak (17:00-18:00)




Mixed Non Private Housing Insufficient sample size available in TRICS 0.299 0.179 0.478

Offices (per 100 sqm) 0.168 1.236 1.404 0.160 1.204 1.364


12 Hour (07:00-19:00)




Mixed Non Private Housing Insufficient sample size available in TRICS 2.062 1.966 4.028

Offices (per 100 sqm) 6.779 6.311 13.090 6.619 6.136 12.755


5 Mixed Non Private Housing trip rates used to reflect affordable housing



Table 5. CPNN Zones Trip Generation (Vehicles) Forecasts for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period

Zone Number

Land Use Type

AM Peak (08:00-09:00) PM Peak (17:00-18:00) 12 Hour (07:00-19:00)

Arrivals Departures Two-Way Arrivals Departures Two-Way Arrivals Departures Two-Way

700106 B1 923 144 1067 109 803 913 4406 4102 8509

70018 B2 301 68 369 34 249 283 1293 1358 2651

70013 Housing 77 212 289 209 125 334 1412 1438 2850

70014 Housing 77 212 289 209 125 334 1412 1438 2850

70017 Housing 129 353 482 349 208 557 2354 2397 4751

70015 Housing 193 529 722 524 311 835 3531 3595 7126

70016 Housing 129 353 482 349 208 557 2354 2397 4751

70020 Housing 6 18 24 17 10 28 118 120 238

70012 Housing 129 353 482 349 208 557 2354 2397 4751

Total Mixed 1964 2241 4205 2151 2246 4396 19234 19243 38476

6 This table does not include forecasts for the school based trips modelled in zone 70010



Table 6. TRICS Average Multi Modal Trip Rates (person trips by mode) for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period

AM Peak (08:00-09:00)

Total Person Trips Vehicle Occupants Public Transport Users Cyclists Pedestrians

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Houses: Privately Owned

(per dwelling) 0.237 0.839 1.076 0.190 0.610 0.800 0.002 0.032 0.034 0.004 0.019 0.023 0.040 0.177 0.217

Offices (per 100 sqm)

2.192 0.269 2.461 1.567 0.223 1.790 0.353 0.005 0.358 0.031 0.003 0.034 0.240 0.039 0.279

Industrial (per 100 sqm)

0.427 0.096 0.523 0.387 0.086 0.473 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.009 0.031 0.008 0.039

PM Peak (17:00-18:00)


Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way


(per dwelling) 0.615 0.372 0.987 0.492 0.303 0.795 0.022 0.004 0.026 0.015 0.009 0.024 0.087 0.057 0.144


0.229 1.888 2.117 0.181 1.368 1.549 0.011 0.283 0.294 0.003 0.028 0.031 0.035 0.211 0.246


0.057 0.371 0.428 0.045 0.327 0.372 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.001 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.028 0.036

12 Hour (07:00-19:00)


Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way

Arri-vals

Departures

Two Way


(per dwelling) 4.255 4.507 8.762 3.270 3.513 6.783 0.115 0.115 0.230 0.085 0.089 0.174 0.804 0.794 1.598


11.390 10.915 22.305 7.688 7.132 14.820 1.349 1.384 2.733 0.102 0.105 0.207 2.250 2.295 4.545


2.076 2.231 4.307 1.703 1.777 3.480 0.031 0.054 0.085 0.041 0.051 0.092 0.309 0.358 0.667



Table 7 below shows mode splits based on the data presented in Table 6. This shows significant differences in the proportions of trips made by public transport by land use. Public transport mode split is much higher for offices than industrial land uses, which reflects the typical locations of offices and industrial sites in the TRICS database. The low public transport mode splits for housing also reflect the locations of sites taken from the TRICS database.

Table 7. TRICS (Multi Modal) Mode Splits

Housing Offices Industrial

Mode Share AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr

Pedestrians 20% 15% 18% 11% 12% 20% 7% 8% 15%

Cyclists 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Private Vehicles 74% 81% 77% 73% 73% 66% 90% 87% 81%

PT Users 3% 3% 3% 15% 14% 12% 1% 3% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: figures in table are rounded to the nearest whole number.

4.3.5. Step (c): Run CSM Demand Model to adjust Private Vehicle Trips and Mode Splits The CSM demand model was run to reflect the current CPNN development proposals, new zoning system and proposed public transport services. The demand model provides forecasts of trips by public transport and private vehicles, reflecting the public transport services available. These trip forecasts were converted and input to the SATURN highway assignment model. The demand model was run using the CSM’s default trip rates for housing and employment land uses. The outputs from the demand model were therefore adjusted to reflect the differences in trip rates specific to CPNN (i.e. the ‘vehicle’ trip rates presented in Table 4) prior to input to the SATURN Model. The splits in travel demand between public transport and private vehicles, derived from the Demand Model, are provided in Table 8 below (both pre and post Demand Model splits provided i.e input and output values). The reduction to private vehicle trip generation at CPNN, forecast by the demand model, is provided at the bottom of Table 8.

Table 8. Private Vehicle / Public Transport Mode Splits from Demand Model



Mode Splits Input to the Demand Model

Trips by Private Vehicle

89.8% 91.6% 91.3% 89.2% 92.5% 92.2% 89.4% 91.6% 92.0%

Trips by Public Transport

10.2% 8.4% 8.7% 10.8% 7.5% 7.8% 10.6% 8.4% 8.0%

Mode Splits Output from the Demand Model

Trips by Private Vehicle

86.1% 89.2% 89.8% 85.0% 90.7% 91.1% 87.6% 90.8% 91.5%

Trips by Public Transport

13.9% 10.8% 10.2% 15.0% 9.3% 8.9% 12.4% 9.2% 8.5%

Demand Model – Forecast Private Vehicle Reductions

Reductions in trips by Private Vehicles

4.2% 2.6% 1.6% 4.7% 1.9% 1.2% 2.0% 0.8% 0.6%

Table 8 shows that the public transport mode split for all land uses in the New Neighbourhood would be broadly similar. The specification of high quality public transport to serve the New Neighbourhood also results in adjustments to mode split and hence reductions in the number of vehicles generated by the new development.



The Demand Model addresses the mode split between public transport and private vehicles, but does not consider walking and cycling; further adjustments must therefore be made to take account of active modes. As part of the process to determine the modal split targets for CPNN (and to reflect the CSM modelling), the outputs from the Demand Model have been used to adjust the mode split forecasts derived from the TRICS database (by making adjustments to PT and Private Vehicle person trips). The mode splits adjusted to reflect the Demand Model outputs are provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Mode Splits following adjustments using Demand Model



Active modes (from Table 7)

Pedestrians 20% 15% 18% 11% 12% 20% 7% 8% 15%

Cyclists 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

Private vehicles / PT users (adjusted, from Tables 7 and 8)


PT Users 7% 4% 4% 18% 15% 14% 3% 4% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

This confirms that the application of the mode splits (for the AM and PM Peaks) derived from the CSM Demand Model would result in an overall reduction in vehicle trips from the TRICS default figures shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6, as follows:

Housing - public transport mode split is forecast to be 7% in the AM peak and 4% in the PM peak, compared with 3% in the TRICS database,

Offices - public transport mode split is forecast to be 18% in the AM peak and 15% in the PM peak, compared with 15% and 14% respectively in the TRICS database,

Industrial - public transport mode split is forecast to be 3% in the AM peak and 4% in the PM peak, compared with 1% and 3% respectively in the TRICS database.

4.3.6. Step (d): Adjust Mode Splits to reflect Walking, Cycling and Smarter Choices Initiatives The final step was to make further adjustments to reflect walking and cycling opportunities and the Smarter Choices initiatives that will be implemented at CPNN. The Smarter Choices initiatives outlined earlier will be used to promote sustainable travel behaviour from the outset, with initiatives to promote behaviour change complementing the high quality public transport connections and physical measures to encourage walking and cycling for local trips. The existing mode split data for current employers in the North Fringe demonstrates particularly high levels of cycling for journeys to work, with targets to increase this still further. The planned improvements to walking and cycling provision through the CPNN Transport Package will dramatically improve provision for active travel within this area, and there is therefore a clear case for planning for high levels of walking and cycling, for both residential and employment uses. Hence, the following reductions were applied to the private vehicle trip forecasts at CPNN to reflect opportunities for walking and cycling and behaviour change programmes.

Residential – 5% reduction in private car trips (including the effects of Personalised Travel Planning Measures); and

Office and Industrial – 15% reduction in private car trips (including the effects of Workplace Travel Plan measures).

It was assumed that these reductions in car trips would be due to increased levels of walking and cycling.



Walking and cycling was only assumed to be a viable alternative to travelling by car for trips under 8km. The reductions outlined above were therefore only applied to trips, generated by CPNN, that fall within this category. Smarter choices activity will be used to embed walking and cycling as the preferred choices for local travel for both residents and employees in the New Neighbourhood, complementing the high quality network provision. Smarter choices initiatives will also be used to secure the mode shift to public transport forecast under Step (c) above.

4.3.7. Confirmation of CPNN Mode Splits Following the trip generation adjustments made by the Demand Model and manually to reflect walking, cycling and smarter choices initiatives, the target mode splits for CPNN are outlined in Table 10 below: Trips generated by the secondary school and hotel proposed at CPNN were not included in the Demand Model and therefore no adjustments have been made to these trips.

Table 10. Final CPNN Mode Splits


Mode Split AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr

Pedestrians and Cyclists

26% 21% 24% 23% 24% 31% 22% 23% 30%


PT Users 7% 4% 4% 18% 15% 14% 3% 4% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4.4. Summary This chapter has provided an overview of the work undertaken to define in more detail the transport package for CPNN; and provides details of the initial work undertaken to update the CSM transport model and to refine the CPNN transport package. The following chapters of this report relate to an appraisal of walking and cycling measures for CPNN and the viability of the Bus and BRT proposals. These individual elements underline the assumptions adopted for adjusting mode splits for CPNN and by association the trip generation forecasts taken forward for the SATURN modelling. These trip generation and modal split rates have been specifically derived for use in this strategic assessment of the CPNN and are applicable to this development only. They are average rates which are applicable to the development as a whole. They do not supersede any bespoke rates which may apply to individual sites when viewed in isolation.



5. Walking and Cycling

5.1. Introduction As discussed in the preceding chapter, there are opportunities to promote high levels of walking and cycling in the New Neighbourhood. At present, there are significant barriers to movement by active modes due to the presence of the Airfield and severance caused by major road corridors. Masterplanning of the New Neighbourhood, together with improvements to the wider transport network to better cater for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, offers the opportunity to transform opportunities for active travel in the Cribbs Causeway, Patchway and Filton areas, and hence reduce dependence on the car for more local journeys. This chapter demonstrates the justification for the forecast high levels of walking and cycling that were identified in Chapter 4. It discusses the primary barriers to movement that exist due to the current configuration of the Airfield and the opportunity to address these problems through the masterplanning process. It also presents the findings of a detailed walking and cycling audit, which has identified key problems on the wider network, and concludes with a set of recommendations on measures to address these problems.

5.2. Filton Airfield: A major barrier to movement CPNN will occupy the site of Filton Airfield, which closed in December 2012. The runway is approximately 2.5km in length, running east to west. This creates significant levels of severance between the Filton/Brentry neighbourhoods to the south and Patchway to the north. A Public Right of Way crosses the site around the western perimeter of the runway. However, this is unlit and un-surfaced. The formal north-south pedestrian footways provided on the A4018 to the west and A38 to the east are separated by a distance of approximately 3.5km, as shown in Figure 7 below. Figure 7. CPNN Site Location and Key Walking and Cycling Routes

Map data © 2012 Google

The Airfield also creates significant east-west severance between Filton to the south-east and The Mall Shopping Centre and Patchway Trading Estate to the north-west. Whilst Filton and The Mall shopping centre are approximately 2.3km apart as the crow flies, the journey on foot is approximately 4.2km using

Bristol Parkway Railway Station

Patchway Railway Station

Patchway Trading Estate

Key

CPNN Development

Charlton Hayes Development

Walking Route: Filton to Cribbs Causeway

3.5km

Cribbs Causeway Shopping Centre



existing formalised footways around the Airfield, as shown in Figure 6. At present, footway provision is not continuous along the entire length of Hayes Way. The development of the New Neighbourhood therefore provides opportunities to improve permeability through the airfield site for both pedestrians and cyclists. This provision will link the largely residential areas to the south with the industrial, employment and retail areas to the north, west and east.

5.3. Walking and Cycling Audit An audit of existing pedestrian and cycle provision in the areas surrounding CPNN was undertaken. As part of this audit, consideration was also given to the improvements required to the surrounding network and the on-site infrastructure requirements to encourage sustainable choices for more local travel, by providing attractive facilities to encourage utilisation of walking and cycling.

5.3.1. Audit Summary

Existing Severance Issues

There are existing issues of severance that are caused by the presence of Filton Airfield, with significant implications for pedestrians and cyclists as follows:

Significant north-south severance between the Filton/Brentry neighbourhoods to the south and Patchway to the north; and

Further east-west severance between Filton and The Mall and Patchway Trading Estate.

Development Opportunities

The CPNN development provides an opportunity to increase permeability through the airfield site to encourage journeys on foot or by cycling, particularly between key local destinations including:

Bristol Parkway and Patchway Railway Stations;

The Mall Regional Shopping Centre and Patchway Trading Estate; and

South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (Filton Campus).

Assessment of Existing Provision

The audit identifies the proposed main access points to the CPNN development site and provides details of how they link to existing provision for cyclists and pedestrians in the local vicinity. The regional North Bristol Cycle Route (A38) and NCN4 (A4018) are identified as key routes with which cycle linkages should be sought. Public Rights Of Way are also identified, which connect to and through the site. The audit highlights the importance of integrating these into the proposed pedestrian provision. The audit of existing provision found the following issues that should be addressed:

Poor crossing provision on the A38 – Gloucester Road North;

Confusing and duplicated provision (ie. both on-street and off-street facilities) in certain places;

Lack of signage of shared surfaces in places leading to ambiguity as to the status of sections of footway;

Poor linkages between the CPNN development site and nearby train stations;

Street furniture obstructions which should be rationalised to de-clutter the footway;

Presence of guard-railing in the centre of some sections of carriageway to prevent pedestrians from crossing;

Examples of poor siting of pedestrian crossing facilities, resulting in significant diversions from desire lines; and

Sections of missing footway resulting in discontinuous routes in places.

CPNN Infrastructure – general design related guidance

With regards to the internal layout of the CPNN area, the following recommendations in respect of providing for pedestrians and cyclists are made:

Adoption of Manual for Streets principles to provide streets which are connected and permeable for pedestrians and cyclists both internally and to the wider area;



Provision of legible routes, which allow people to go where they want, unimpeded by street furniture, parking or other obstructions or barriers;

Adoption of Home Zone principles to create usable spaces in the street where people can interact; and

Provision of secure cycle parking and production of school, residential and workplace Travel Plans.

Summary

The analyses undertaken, as part of the walking and cycling audit, indicate that the development will give the opportunity to transform active travel opportunities within the CPNN area (and its surroundings) and can facilitate a step-change in the numbers of people walking and cycling. The series of principles developed for walking and cycling movement within and serving the New Neighbourhood have been used to inform the recommendations for improvements to the surrounding network and the on-site infrastructure requirements at CPNN.

5.4. Proposals for Off-Site Walking and Cycling Improvements The improvements required to the surrounding network to provide attractive facilities to encourage walking and cycling for local journeys are identified below.

Footway / Cycle Links 1. Cycle linkages from A38 (Gloucester Road North) to Bristol Parkway Station; 2. Resurfacing of shared path on western side of A38 (Gloucester Road North) between Cleve Road and

Church Road; 3. Rationalisation of dual cycle provision between:

a. Cleve Road and North Way (northbound) on A38 (Gloucester Road North); and b. Filton Avenue and Station Road (southbound) on A38 (Gloucester Road North);

4. Provision of on-street advisory cycle lane from Callicroft Road to Highwood Road; 5. Improvements on Hayes Way to address pedestrian desire lines; 6. Footway widening on A4018 Cribbs Causeway in proximity to The Laurels; 7. Footway widening on the northern section of A4018 Wyck Beck Road, both east and west sides; 8. Improved footway link to Clifton Rugby Club bus stop; 9. Provision of a footway on the eastern side of Station Road between the Wyck Beck Road junction and

Tormarton Crescent; 10. Footway provision on the B4055 between Station Road and Wyck Beck Road; 11. Provision of a continuous footway on Hayes Way; 12. Fishpool Hill to be improved for cyclists and pedestrians; 13. Provision of continuous footway on Charlton Road

a. New Neighbourhood to Bindon Drive; and b. Standon Way to Strathearn Drive;

14. Footway provision on southern side of Merlin Road.

Pedestrian / Cycle Crossings 1. Conversion of Pelican crossing at A38 (Gloucester Road North) / Filton Avenue junction to ‘Toucan’

provision; 2. Toucan crossing to be provided on southern arm of A4018 near A4018 / Lysander Road at roundabout

junction; 3. Provision of Toucan crossing at existing signals on Cribbs Causeway (A4018) in proximity to The Laurels

junction; 4. Provision of additional signalised / zebra pedestrian crossings on A4018 Wyck Beck Road; 5. Improved Crossing facilities on A38 Gloucester Road North; and 6. Provision of Toucan crossing on Merlin Road between new development and shopping centre.

Provision of Dropped Kerbs 1. Provision of dropped kerbs on the A38 (Gloucester Road North) and Filton Avenue junction to enable

cyclists to access the advance stop lines; 2. Provision of dropped kerb crossings on Hayes Way roundabout junctions to better serve pedestrian

desire lines, at (a) Brabazon, (b) Blenheim and (c) Concorde Roundabouts.

Signage Improvements 1. Signed cycle linkage from A38 (Gloucester Road North) to Patchway Railway Station; and 2. Improved signing of shared surface route on western side of A38 (Gloucester Road North).



Figure 8 below shows the locations of the proposed off-site pedestrian and cycle improvements. Figure 8. Location of Proposed Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements

Imagery © 2012 Bluesky, Inforterra Ltd & COWI A/S, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Getmapping plc, Inforterra Ltd & Bluesky, The GeoInformation Group

Key CPNN Development Charlton Hayes Development

Footway / Cycle Link Pedestrian / Cycle Crossing Provision of Dropped Kerbs Signage Improvements

1

2

3a

3b

4

5

6

7b

8

9

10

7a

11

12 13a

13b

14

1

2

3

4

5a

5c

5b 6

1

2a

2b

2c

1

2

Patchway Station

Bristol Parkway Station



5.5. Proposed Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes for CPNN Figure 9 shows the strategic walking and cycling routes required within CPNN, to provide connections with existing provision on the surrounding network. These links are considered essential in terms of maximising permeability within and through the New Neighbourhood. Figure 9. Location of CPNN Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes

Imagery © 2012 Bluesky, Inforterra Ltd & COWI A/S, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Getmapping plc, Inforterra Ltd & Bluesky, The GeoInformation Group

5.6. Summary This chapter has demonstrated that there are currently major barriers to walking and cycling within the Cribbs/Patchway/Filton area, caused primarily by Filton Airfield, but also with significant problems caused by poor walking and cycling infrastructure on the local road network, including the A38, A4018, Hayes Way and roads around Cribbs Causeway. A walking and cycling audit has been undertaken and has demonstrated that a range of improvements could be delivered, with relative ease, to improve conditions for walking and cycling on the local road network. The development of the New Neighbourhood also offers the opportunity to transform walking and cycling linkages on both north-south and east-west axes through the area, connecting areas that were previously severed. The CPNN Transport Package has been developed on the basis that walking and cycling should be the most attractive options for local travel. Walking should be the most attractive default option for trips up to 1km, and cycling should be an easy and attractive option for trips up to around 8km. The provision of appropriate infrastructure, in line with the recommendations set out above, will be a pre-requisite, which must then be supported by appropriate programmes to encourage these travel options from the outset, for both residents and employees. This will facilitate the delivery of the mode splits proposed in Chapter 4 and will help to reduce short-distance traffic, and hence congestion and environmental impacts on the local network.






6. Bus and BRT Provision

6.1. Introduction New bus services and extensions of existing services were proposed as part of the CPNN Transport Package in the Core Strategy. These services provided connections to key centres, growth areas and transport hubs. For the purposes of the transport work in support of the SPD, the assumptions made for the Core Strategy about new and improved services were taken forward for further analysis and consideration. The previous proposals for new and improved services were used for the purposes of demand modelling (as described in Chapter 4). The efficiency of the proposed services in catering for potential demand was also considered in detail, operating costs were estimated, and the overall viability of the proposed public transport package was assessed. This chapter sets out the levels of forecast demand for the bus services and provides service cost and revenue estimates to assess the viability of the package proposed. It then outlines options for adapting and optimising proposed service patterns to ensure that forecast demand can be met efficiently and to maximise the commercial viability of the proposed service provision.

6.2. Forecast Bus Demand at CPNN The CSM Demand Model was used to estimate annual demand for travel by bus and BRT. This analysis shows that:

Approximately 1.7 million bus trips per year would be generated to, from and within the CPNN;

Just over 30% (0.5m pa) of these trips would be between the Airfield East employment zones (located just west of the A38) and locations outside CPNN;

Around 60% of the trips (1m pa) would be between residential areas and locations outside CPNN; and

8% (0.14m pa) would be trips within CPNN, almost wholly between the residential areas and the employment zones.

This is equivalent to around one third of the 4.9 million forecast bus trips to, from and within the wider North Fringe (including Parkway, Stoke Gifford, Filton, Patchway and Cribbs Causeway). Just under one quarter (23%) of trips to or from CPNN would be to/from the rest of the North Fringe (just under 0.4m pa).

6.2.1. Bus network modelled for CPNN The following bus network enhancements were assumed in the modelling to support CPNN. All bus frequencies quoted are daytime Monday-Saturday frequencies (lower frequencies would apply in the evenings and on Sundays).

Route 20 – would be extended from the current northern terminus at Charlton Road into the New Neighbourhood, serving Airfield West and Fishpool Hill (2 buses per hour);

Route C01 – a new route, connecting Cribbs Causeway and Broomhill via Airfield West, Fishpool Hill, Brentry roundabout, the A4018 corridor and Bristol City Centre (2 buses per hour);

Route C02 – a new route, connecting Cribbs Causeway and Hartcliffe via Airfield East (including the Filton Enterprise Area), then via the A38 corridor and Bristol City Centre (2 buses per hour);

Route C03 – a new route linking Fishpool Hill, Airfield West and Cribbs Causeway with Avonmouth/Severnside, via the M5 between junctions 16 and 17 (2 buses per hour);

Route C04 – a new circular route from Cribbs Causeway, along the south side of Charlton Hayes, then via Gipsy Patch Lane, Bristol Parkway, New Rd, Great Stoke Way, A4174 Station Rd and the A38, then across CPNN and back to Cribbs Causeway via Haw Wood (2 buses per hour in each direction); and

Route X90A – a new BRT service, connecting Cribbs Causeway and Bristol City Centre via Airfield East (including the employment zones), Gipsy Patch Lane and Bristol Parkway station, then via the same route as the X90 proposed in the North Fringe Hengrove (NFH) package via UWE and the M32 to the city centre (6 buses per hour). All other BRT routes (X90, X91 are X93) were as modelled for the NFH Package.



6.3. Network Review

6.3.1. Operating Costs The following approach was adopted for estimating the costs of operating these services:

The peak vehicle requirement (PVR) for each route was estimated, based on the service frequency and bus journey times (with suitable allowances for layover);

Standard annual costs per PVR were applied, depending on the vehicle type. The standard costs were based on those used for the West of England BRT costing study, which considered both BRT and non-BRT services, and are at 2012 prices;

Vehicle types were selected based on the nature of the corridors served. Double deck vehicles were assumed for the busy A38 and A4018 corridors (C01 and C02), and single deckers for the more orbital services (C03 and C04) and route 20 (this currently operates with single deck buses). There is currently no decision on the vehicle type for BRT, so for costing purposes we assumed single deck (hybrid) buses;

The costs include direct operating costs, a contribution to overheads, depreciation of vehicle capital costs, and an allowance for operator profit, and so represent a fully allocated gross cost; and

In practice, route costs will vary to some extent from this, depending on the precise service details and detailed operator cost structure, but these cost estimates are fit-for-purpose for planning over these timescales.

On this basis, estimated costs of the proposed services are set out in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Estimated Bus Operating Costs for the Modelled Network (2012 prices)

Route Assumed vehicle type PVR Annual cost £m

20 (extension) Single deck 1 0.2

C01 (A4018 corridor) Double deck 7 1.3

C02 (A38 corridor) Double deck 8 1.4

C03 (Avonmouth corridor) Single deck 2 0.3

C04 (circular) Single deck 6 1.1

X90A (BRT to city centre) Single deck – hybrid 20 2.8

Total 44 7.1

6.3.2. Viability Overall, the annual bus (including BRT) journeys to, from and within the New Neighbourhood are forecast to total approximately 1.7 million per year. The revenue arising from these journeys would depend on the level and mix of fares, but at current fares would probably be in the range of £2m to £2.5m per annum if made by direct bus links. This revenue would be significantly lower than the cost of the additional resources proposed. However, setting demand against cost is more complex, given various network effects:

The new services would serve markets outside CPNN, and in doing so would both abstract demand from other routes and generate additional demand;

Some of the journeys would be made by taking more than one bus, leading to a higher number of bus boardings; and

Some demand from within CPNN would use existing services in the area, such as those running through Haw Wood along Cribbs Causeway.

The modelled forecast annual demand across the routes and route sections costed above is around 7.3 million passenger boardings per year, of which 45% (3.3 million passengers per year) are on route X90A, 53% on routes C01 to C04 (3.8 million), and the remaining 2% (0.2 million) on the extension to route 20. The large difference between the total route boardings and the number of trips generated by CPNN appears to be due to two principal effects:



Large numbers of passengers using routes C01, C02 and X90A wholly outside CPNN; and

Large numbers of short bus journeys, particularly between points along the (short) axis from Cribbs Causeway via the centre of CPNN to the Filton Enterprise Area (the Airfield East employment area).

The latter point suggests the model may be forecasting high levels of interchange. These may not occur in practice, and also suggests that improvements could perhaps be made to the through-links to be provided. Taking account of these factors, the broad conclusion from the demand forecasts is that, with the development in place, routes C01, C02 and X90A are likely to be commercially viable (based on current fare and cost levels). However, route C03 (to Avonmouth/Severnside) would appear to be marginal and route C04 (circular service) is unlikely to be viable in its current form. It was therefore necessary to undertake further work to explore options for optimising service configuration.

6.3.3. Discussion of options To assess whether the routes (as proposed above) provide the most appropriate network for CPNN, it is important to consider:

Appropriate direct linkages;

Attractive service levels and appropriate levels of comfort;

An efficient and effective relationship with the wider bus and BRT network;

Stopping patterns and locations; and

Overall viability. These issues have been considered and the revised proposals are discussed below.

6.4. Revised Bus Proposals There is potential to improve the network to more closely match the needs of CPNN and a schedule of revised bus proposals has been assessed.

6.4.1. BRT services There is the potential to provide two BRT services through CPNN – the X90A and an extended X91 – with both serving an alignment through the employment zones, but with scope for different routes to the west and east of this common section. Options are as follows:

X90A from Bristol via UWE, Bristol Parkway station and Airfield East to Cribbs Causeway; and

X91 from Emersons Green via UWE, Station Road (A4174), Airfield East, Airfield West and Fishpool Hill. It could then either terminate, or continue to Cribbs Causeway (via Haw Wood) or Brentry (with options to be extended further from here).

Alternatively, at the western end, the X90A could take the route to Airfield West and Fishpool Hill, and the X91 to Cribbs Causeway. This would provide links to Bristol Parkway station and the city centre from Airfield West and Fishpool Hill via BRT, but would reduce the service level to Cribbs Causeway.

The X91 could serve Bristol Parkway instead of UWE, then linking back to Station Road via New Road and Great Stoke Way.

The X90A could operate via Station Road, and the X91 via Bristol Parkway station. This would have the advantage of providing good orbital links on the X91 to Bristol Parkway from both the west and east.

A schematic plan of these options is provided overleaf. Stopping patterns for the X90A would be in line with the principles adopted generally for BRT in the North Fringe, but for the X91 it may be appropriate to allow a denser stopping pattern to provide more local links.



Figure 10. Potential Schematic Plan for BRT Services in the North Fringe, including CPNN To Bradley Stoke Charlton Cribbs Hayes

Causeway Bristol Parkway Gipsy Patch La Airfield West and Fishpool Hill Airfield East Station Rd (A4174) To Emersons Potential BRT routes Green Possible alternative links UWE To City Centre Each option has advantages and disadvantages, but they all provide the key east-west linkages across CPNN. For cost purposes, the first option was assumed. All would be compatible with the currently-envisaged NFH BRT Package (routes X90, X91 and X93). However, it should be borne in mind that the A4174 Station Road is heavily congested and there is limited scope to deliver bus priority measures on this corridor, as discussed in Section 6.5.3 below. Detailed consideration of the impacts of congestion should therefore be given in determining the optimum configuration of BRT services in this area.

6.4.2. Other bus services Any final service pattern needs to be integrated within the wider bus network. This will need dialogue with the bus operators, and must take account of other forthcoming changes to the network in the area. For example, changes to some services will be needed to complement the introduction of the NFH BRT package. These could include:

Revisions to the 73/74/X73 route group, as these are closely related to the X90; and

Revisions to the 24/25 route group, as these would be affected by passengers transferring to the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route south-west of Bristol City Centre.

However, options identified at this stage are set out below.

A4018 corridor

Route C01 could be integrated with the existing Route 1, to provide six buses per hour between Broomhill and Cribbs Causeway via Bristol City Centre and the A4018, with half of these routed north of Brentry Roundabout via Henbury and Haw Wood, and half via Fishpool Hill and Airfield West. The incremental cost of this option, when compared with the current cost of Route 1, is estimated at around £0.5m per annum.

A38 corridor and Avonmouth

Options for these routes include:

Introducing a service that combines the northern end of the C02 with the C03, to provide a route with 3 buses per hour from Horfield to Avonmouth via the A38, Airfield East, Cribbs Causeway and the M5; or

Instead of route C02, one of routes 24 or 25 could be extended from Horfield to Cribbs Causeway (at 3/hour) via the A38 and Airfield East (though these could conflict with other GBBN proposals for these routes), and the C03 could be introduced between Avonmouth/Severnside and Airfield West at 2/hour.

Costs for these two options would be similar, at around £0.8m per annum. The first option provides links across Cribbs Causeway, and may improve the economics of route C03. The second provides better links to



the south. Under either option, the Avonmouth/Severnside service could be routed via Lawrence Weston rather than the M5. This would be slower, but could attract more local demand, particularly if complementary changes are made to Route 40.

Links via Charlton Road

Identifying the best package needs a broader service planning exercise, looking at the routes across Southmead and the wider North Fringe, in consultation with service operators. However, for cost purposes, we have assumed the following:

Extending route 20, as previously proposed, to Airfield West and Fishpool Hill.

A further new route, at 3 buses per hour, from Southmead Hospital, via Southmead, Charlton Road, Airfield East, the south side of Charlton Hayes, and on to Bradley Stoke (particularly those areas of Bradley Stoke remote from the BRT alignment).

This level of resource could alternatively be used, for example, to extend route 76 further north than its current terminus in Henbury, or as part of wider changes to routes 73 and 74, and should be sufficient to meet the needs of CPNN on an alignment from the south and south-west to the north and north-east.

6.4.3. Costs and Revenue The total costs to operate the services outlined above are estimated to be in the region of £5.5.million per annum. Whilst this package has not been tested using the strategic model, it is expected to be viable once development is in place. Revenue from the New Neighbourhood should be in the range of £2m to £2.5m; wider demand on the X90A and X91 should lead to between £2.5m and £3m of further revenue; and a further £1m could be expected from other trips outside the New Neighbourhood on the remaining routes.

6.4.4. Phasing Services could be introduced progressively as the development builds out. In some cases (e.g. route X90A) initial frequencies could be lower, and increased over time. However, pump-priming funding is likely to be necessary to ensure that bus services are in place as occupants start to move in.

6.5. Implications for infrastructure

6.5.1. Access to bus services We propose two general guidelines for bus stop locations:

At key demand attractions (such as shopping, employment, education or leisure destinations), stops should be as close as possible to the destination, to minimise walk time and so ensure the bus service is as attractive as possible; and

In residential areas, all residents should be within a 400m walk of a bus stop. These guidelines should be applied when developing the internal layout of the New Neighbourhood. They should help define the route alignments within the residential areas, for example, in the Airfield West / Fishpool Hill area, a large residential area, there may need to be two route alignments, rather than one that is either circuitous or remote from some areas of housing.

6.5.2. Interchanges, terminals, and bus layover points The original route proposals, and the possible modifications set out in this chapter, envisage a major bus interchange point at Cribbs Causeway. Any relocation or redesign of the bus station should ensure the revised design is as close as possible to demand attractions, has sufficient capacity for future service levels, and is approached by direct routes for buses, protected from traffic congestion. The proposals also require a new terminal point at the western side of the Airfield or in the Fishpool Hill area, and space needs to be allowed for this within the development.

6.5.3. Priority measures To ensure journey times by bus are as fast as possible, there is a need to consider additional priority measures, both immediately around CPNN and in the wider road network, given the increased traffic



pressure in the area forecast over the next 20 years. Key junctions will require particular attention, including the following key access points in the New Neighbourhood:

A38 / Airfield East junction: key access point for both bus and BRT services;

San Andreas Roundabout: access into the Airfield area from Cribbs Causeway, Highwood Road and Merlin Road;

A4018 / Fishpool Hill junction: provision to ensure sufficient priority for buses accessing the Airfield area from the A4018 to the south; and

Bus-only access from Charlton Road to the south. Access arrangements into the New Neighbourhood are considered in more detail in Chapter 8 of this report. In addition, appropriate priority measures should be considered on the following sections of the local road network:

A38 between Airfield East junction and A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout (including making use of existing bus lanes north of the Filton Avenue junction);

A4018 between Fishpool Hill and Crow Lane junction (although it is recognised that roadspace is limited and there is limited scope for significant road widening);

Highwood Road, south-east of Cribbs Causeway, to cater for future bus and BRT services; and

Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road, to cater for future BRT services. In the case of the BRT corridor via Gypsy Patch Lane, Hatchet Road and Bristol Parkway station, it is likely that extensive bus priority will be required to mitigate the effects of traffic congestion on the planned services. In addition, if a decision were made to route BRT or bus services along A4174 Station Road towards the A38/A4174 Filton Roundabout, consideration would need to be given to appropriate priority measures, as this route is heavily congested, with resultant impacts on journey times and reliability. However, limited roadspace and the competing demands of other traffic are likely to significantly constrain the ability to deliver significant priority on this corridor.

6.6. Summary New bus (and BRT) services and extensions of existing services, proposed as part of the CPNN transport package in the Core Strategy, were taken forward for more detailed assessment in this work. Assessments were made of potential demand for the bus services, together with service cost and revenue estimates to assess the viability of the package proposed. Certain services proposed would not be commercially viable and an alternative, more viable package has been identified. The alternative package is shown to better meet forecast demand and is considered to be commercially viable. The package can be delivered by rolling out services linked to the development phasing, with S106 funding to pump-prime the services as occupancy of the development (and so demand) builds up. The alternative proposals have not been assessed using the CSM models. However, it is considered that the alternative package would result in the Demand Model forecasting a greater proportion of trips by public transport (in terms of the public transport and private vehicle splits). This therefore means that the model forecasts are considered to provide a conservative view of potential public transport demand, and hence also a conservative assessment of private vehicle traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood.



7. Rail

7.1. Introduction The New Neighbourhood lies immediately adjacent to the Hallen Line, which is currently used by freight (and occasionally diverted passenger services), but with no regular scheduled passenger services. However, recent studies have demonstrated the scope to introduce new passenger services, with new stations at Henbury (adjacent to the A4018) and Filton North (adjacent to the A38). These proposals will be taken forward within Phase 2 of the Greater Bristol Metro project that is being jointly promoted by the West of England authorities. The Core Strategy evidence base demonstrated that these new rail services will help enhance accessibility to the New Neighbourhood, but are not essential. This chapter discusses the specification of future rail services in this area and the role that they could play in enhancing access to the New Neighbourhood.

7.2. Existing Rail Services The nearest station to the New Neighbourhood is currently at Patchway. This station is served by hourly trains between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads, and therefore offers a potential option for commuting and other journeys (both for local residents and people working at nearby major employers, such as Rolls Royce). However, the station is located to the east of the A38, with poor pedestrian links, and can only be considered to be within walking distance for the easternmost part of the New Neighbourhood. Given the poor walking links and hourly train services, this does not currently offer an attractive option for travel to or from the New Neighbourhood. In addition, Bristol Parkway station, which is located approximately 3km to the east of the A38 via Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road, offers frequent services to London, other major cities and other parts of the West of England. Filton Abbey Wood station, located to the south on the A4174 Ring Road, offers frequent services within the West of England and beyond. Again, these stations are not within walking distance of the New Neighbourhood, but could be accessed by cycling or by connecting bus services and would provide attractive options for longer-distance rail travel.

7.3. Future Rail Services There could be scope to improve waiting facilities at (and links to) Patchway station. However, there are, currently, no immediate plans to increase service frequencies at this station. It is therefore likely that Patchway will continue to have a limited role in catering for travel needs beyond its current immediate catchment, and it will therefore not play a significant role in catering for the travel needs of the New Neighbourhood. As discussed above, the second phase of the Greater Bristol Metro project includes the re-opening of the Hallen Line to passenger services, with new stations at Henbury and Filton North. These services would run to Bristol Temple Meads, calling at Filton Abbey Wood and local stations within Bristol. The current proposal is for hourly train services, operating as a shuttle between Henbury and Bristol Temple Meads. However, it is recognised that wider discussions are taking place between local stakeholders and the Department for Transport over the specification of future services, including potential options for creating a loop service incorporating the Severn Beach Line, and the service configuration is not therefore fixed. Further works and service enhancements will be undertaken as part of Network Rail’s Great Western Main Line Electrification project. These are likely to improve the range and speed of services offered at Bristol Parkway station, meaning that local trains will benefit from improved connections. To enable any of these service enhancements to take place it will be necessary to provide additional network capacity on Filton Bank. It is assumed that this will be provided as part of the works to be undertaken by Network Rail.

7.3.1. Henbury and Filton North Stations The station at Henbury would be adjacent to existing housing in the Brentry area (in Bristol) and the proposed new housing in the Fishpool Hill area. Whilst the station might also be potentially attractive for a



wider geographical market, including Henbury, northern parts of Westbury-on-Trym, Easter Compton and wider areas of the New Neighbourhood, careful consideration would need to be given to avoiding a need for large areas of car parking at the station. The station at Filton North will be closely integrated with the proposals for major employment in the recently designated Filton Enterprise Area. The station will be located a short walk from a large proportion of the employment uses in the area, and it is recommended that higher density B1 office uses should be clustered near to the station. In addition, frequent BRT and bus services will pass near to the station on the main east-west axis through the Airfield site. Opportunities to promote interchange between the rail, BRT and bus modes should therefore be promoted for this area. Again, it will be important to avoid encouraging large volumes of traffic to access the station: careful consideration should therefore be given to future car parking.

7.3.2. Potential Demand The testing using the Core Strategy Model, at the Core Strategy stage of the planning process, indicated that these new stations could attract significant demand. However, this should be seen in the context of hourly services, and hence the capacity to deliver mode shift from the car would be limited by these hourly services. Furthermore, testing suggests that this could be due in part to abstraction of demand from BRT services, particularly for travel to Bristol City Centre. Further work would therefore be required to test in more detail the impacts of different options for rail services, both in terms of the ability to reduce traffic demand and in minimising potential abstraction from proposed BRT services.

7.4. Summary There is, at present, limited rail provision in this area: the existing station at Patchway is unlikely to offer an attractive option for travel to or from the New Neighbourhood. The current proposals for new rail services on the Hallen Line, with new stations at Henbury and Filton North, could play a role in enhancing accessibility to the New Neighbourhood. However, analyses indicate that these proposals are not essential to the delivery of the New Neighbourhood.



8. Internal Road Layout and Access

8.1. Introduction An assessment has been undertaken to determine the internal road layout and access requirements for the New Neighbourhood, using both the CSM SATURN model and stand alone junction capacity assessments. Earlier assessment work undertaken for the Core Strategy, SGC’s framework diagram for CPNN (Figure 3) and discussions with consultants acting for the Developers were used to determine the approach to developing the access strategy and internal movement framework.

8.2. Development of Layout and Access Strategy The transport work in support of the Core Strategy took a strategic approach to the internal layout and access strategy. Whilst this enabled the development of key access principles at the Core Strategy stage in the planning process, much more detailed proposals were required to support the SPD masterplanning. As discussed in Chapter 4, significant attention was given in the transport modelling to developing a more refined zoning system (to reflect the proposed allocations of land uses and development interest) and internal road networks. Internal road networks were therefore coded, reflecting emerging consensus between SGC and Developers, including more significant local distributor roads serving key parts of the New Neighbourhood and public transport links (such as the bus-only link to Charlton Road). These enhancements initially focused on provision of connections from the airfield area to both Wyck Beck Road and The Laurels junctions, and then further internal links were added to provide improved connections between Hayes Way / Merlin Way and the east-west axis through the New Neighbourhood. Transport modelling clearly demonstrated the importance of these links in facilitating efficient routing of traffic into and from the airfield area. CPNN travel demand was shown to be strongly influenced by the strategic distribution of traffic on the wider road network. Maximising access opportunities and providing appropriate traffic routes into and from the airfield site is therefore essential to minimise the impact of CPNN traffic on existing adjacent routes. This requirement underpins the access strategy and internal infrastructure requirements developed for CPNN. Numerous model iterations were performed to determine the conceptual access strategy for CPNN and the strategic routing requirements for the key elements of development in the New Neighbourhood. In terms of the access strategy, the adequacy of the individual access junction proposals was confirmed using stand alone junction capacity software and traffic flow forecasts derived from the SATURN model. Recommendations in terms of the internal road layout and access arrangements required at CPNN are provided in the following sections of this chapter.

8.3. Site Access Details of the access junctions required at CPNN are outlined below and the location of these junctions is shown in Figure 11 overleaf:

A4018 1. Wyck Beck Road Signalised Junction – providing access to the Fishpool Hill / Airfield site only; 2. New four-arm signalised junction at The Laurels – providing access to both Haw Wood and the

Fishpool Hill / Airfield site; and 3. Creation of a 4th Arm on the A4018 / B4055 Roundabout – providing access to the Haw Wood site.

A38 4. New At-Grade Signalised Junction – providing access to the Airfield site.

Hayes Way and Merlin Way – access to the Airfield site (via additional arms) from the following existing roundabouts: 5. Concorde Roundabout (Hayes Way); 6. Blenheim Roundabout (Hayes Way); 7. Brabazon Roundabout (Hayes Way);



8. San Andreas Roundabout (Highwood Road / Merlin Road / Hayes Way); and 9. Merlin Road Roundabout (Merlin Road).

Charlton Road 10. Bus-only access to the main Airfield site.

Figure 11. CPNN Access Junctions Location Plan

Junction capacity assessments were undertaken to confirm the suitability of the proposed access arrangements. Indicative concept layouts are provided in Appendix A for the new junctions proposed on the A4018 (junctions 1 and 2) and the A38 (junction 4). This information should be used to inform the future detailed design of these access junctions.

8.4. Internal Road Layout Travel demand will be strongly influenced by the strategic distribution of traffic on the wider network. The proposed access arrangements provide sufficient opportunities to access the site, whilst the internal links that have been modelled (through the Airfield site) provide adequate connectivity, both to/from the surrounding road network and between the various land uses proposed. It is therefore recommended that the internal layout of the main Airfield site should be designed to include the following key connections:

Provision for local east - west movements through the Airfield site, with primary access routes into the site from the A38 (Airfield East) and two A4018 accesses (Wyck Beck Road and The Laurels). There will be a requirement for east-west movement for traffic internal to the site, to enable efficient routing to the most appropriate access point, but it will be important to avoid movement through the site by traffic external to the site. For example, it will be important to avoid rat-running by through traffic between the A38, A4018 and Cribbs Causeway junctions;

6

1

10

5 8

7

9

3

2

4

Key

Signalised Access Junction Roundabout Access Junction Bus Only Access Point



North – south connections between access points on Hayes Way and the east-west corridor through the Airfield. It is particularly important that the connections from Hayes Way are provided as they will be critical in terms of accommodating employment trips at CPNN. Without these links in place, analysis of the CSM traffic flow forecasts and outputs indicated that the access junction on the A38 would be susceptible to significant levels of delay and queuing; and

Provision for full connectivity by public transport through the New Neighbourhood. This will include connections between Charlton Road, Fishpool Hill, Airfield East and the San Andreas Roundabout.

8.5. Summary This chapter provides details of the assessments undertaken to determine the internal road layout and access requirements for the New Neighbourhood. The requirements set out in this chapter are essential in terms of minimising the traffic impact of the New Neighbourhood on key adjacent routes and providing an internal road network to complement the requirements for sustainable transport modes, as set out in Chapter 5 (for Walking and Cycling) and Chapter 6 (bus and BRT).






9. Highway Impacts and Mitigation

9.1. Introduction A key focus of the CPNN Transport Package is to maximise opportunities for sustainable travel (to, from and within the New Neighbourhood). However, it is recognised that significant volumes of vehicle traffic will be generated by the proposed land uses at CPNN. The need for off-site highway improvements has therefore been investigated and scheme proposals have been developed and assessed. Highway improvements formed a key part of the transport package identified in the Core Strategy, with improvements recommended at a number of junctions in the vicinity of the New Neighbourhood. The analyses undertaken through this most recent work have confirmed that traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood will have a significant impact on the road network and hence there will be a requirement for highway improvements. This chapter first provides an overview of the potential impacts of traffic on the surrounding road network, before identifying the required off-site highway improvements, issues taken into account in developing concept proposals and an overview of the forecast performance of individual junctions with the improvements in place.

9.2. Traffic Routings The analysis of the outputs from the traffic modelling indicates that the additional demand generated by the New Neighbourhood will result in increases in traffic flows on the following corridors:

M5 corridor between Junctions 15 (Almondsbury) and 18 (Avonmouth), including Junctions 16 and 17;

B4055 corridor through Easter Compton towards Severnside;

A38 through Almondsbury to the north;

Routes through Bradley Stoke to the east, including Winterbourne Road / Gypsy Patch Lane, Bradley Stoke Way and Brook Way;

A4174 Ring Road to the east;

A38 Gloucester Road and Filton Avenue towards Horfield and the north of Bristol; and

A4018 Wyck Beck Road / Passage Road and B4055 Station Road through Westbury-on-Trym, Southmead and Henbury.

9.3. Key Impacts The assessments that were previously undertaken for the Core Strategy indicated that the traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood would impact on a number of nearby junctions in the North Fringe area. These junctions were as follows:

M5 Junction 17;

A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout (south west of M5 Junction 17);

A4018 Crow Lane Roundabout (within the Bristol City Council boundary);

M5 Junction 16;

A38 / Aztec West Roundabout (just south of M5 Junction 16);

A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction; and

A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout. Analysis of the SATURN traffic flow forecasts and junction capacity reports, from the current transport analysis, confirms that improvements will be required to mitigate the impacts of increased traffic flows at these junctions. More comprehensive analyses have also been undertaken to identify potential impacts across the wider road network in the North Fringe and the northern parts of Bristol. The forecasts indicate increased traffic flows on a number of routes in the corridors listed above, and the analyses indicate that measures will be required to manage and address the impacts of traffic in the following areas:



Henbury: increased traffic on B4055 Station Road, B4057 Kings Weston Road and Hallen Road. It will be necessary to consider the impacts of traffic through the village and options for managing and routing traffic on Avonmouth Way, Henbury Road and Hallen Road;

Westbury-on-Trym and Southmead: increased traffic on sections of A4018 Falcondale Road, B4056 Southmead Road, Pen Park Road and Eastfield Road. Capacity constraints at key junctions (most notably Southmead Road / Pen Park Road) affect traffic routings through the area, and an integrated approach to the management of traffic in this area will be required;

Bradley Stoke and Little Stoke: increased traffic on B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane, Bradley Stoke Way and Brook Way. Capacity constraints on Gypsy Patch Lane at the rail bridge and adjacent Kingsway junction will significantly affect traffic routings through this area. Again, an area-wide approach should be taken to the management of traffic;

Cribbs Causeway area: significant increases in traffic on Merlin Road, Lysander Road and Pegasus Road. Congestion at the Merlin Road / Lysander Road (‘The Cone’) roundabout and the roundabout giving access to The Mall and The Venue will result in queueing and delays on Merlin Road, affecting traffic routing in the area. In this case, improvements to individual junctions within the Cribbs Causeway retail area are unlikely to address the challenges faced. Instead, a more comprehensive solution to the management of traffic will be required.

9.4. Designs of Improvement Schemes Conceptual scheme layouts have been developed for the improvements to the specific junctions listed above. These layouts take into account the latest forecasts of traffic flows derived from the strategic modelling and more detailed consideration of how best to manage limited roadspace in each case. The conceptual layouts are provided in Appendix B and are consistent with the coding in the CSM SATURN model.

9.4.1. Design Related Risks As part of the outline design process for these schemes, Ordnance Survey information has been used, together with aerial imagery, to identify key physical features and associated constraints. These physical features are naturally proposed to be avoided; however, the outline proposals are subject to detailed design which needs to be based on topographical survey information. Consequently, there remains an element of risk in terms of the deliverability and construction costs for these schemes. The scheme cost estimates provided to SGC include provision for potential third party land requirements and statutory services although these cannot be confirmed until detailed design stage as discussed below. The primary risks to be addressed are in relation to statutory undertakers (utilities) and Appendix C sets out the findings of initial utilities searches in the vicinity of each junction. Utilities will in most cases be affected by proposals for carriageway widening. The costs of any construction works will be similar regardless of where any widening takes place, however, the impact on utilities could be significantly different. Utilities searches have been undertaken although at this stage (prior to detailed design) only ‘C2’ information is available which identifies the services within the vicinity. In order to understand the costs associated with the potential protection or diversionary works, ‘C3’ letters would need to be issued to each of the potentially affected service companies to request for budget cost estimates.

9.5. Junction Assessments Using traffic forecasts from the SATURN model, the schemes have been assessed using stand-alone junction capacity modelling software (LinSig for traffic signals and signalised roundabouts and ARCADY for roundabouts). The results from these assessments have been compared against the Reference Case (without CPNN) scenario to determine whether ‘nil detriment’ or improved operational conditions can be achieved.

9.5.1. M5 Junction 16 Improvements to Junction 16 of the M5 are proposed as part of the Highways Agency Pinchpoint programme, the objective of which will be to help unlock development in the New Neighbourhood. As part of the CPNN Transport Package, further improvements are proposed as follows:



An additional lane on the southbound M5 off-slip (approaching the roundabout) and the A38 southbound exit from the roundabout. This will provide additional capacity for traffic routing towards the Aztec roundabout (particularly from the southbound carriageway of the M5).

Additional lane on the A38 southbound approach to the roundabout.

Additional lane on the northern circulatory of the roundabout (increasing from three lanes to four – to be confirmed following consultation with the Highways Agency)

One additional lane on the northbound M5 on-slip. The proposed arrangement would comprise three lanes exiting the roundabout, merging back to 2 lanes on the slip road itself.

Initial assessments of the junction using LINSIG software indicate that the proposed improvements will assist in mitigating the impacts of the additional traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood.

9.5.2. M5 Junction 17 Improvements to Junction 17 of the M5 will be implemented as part of the Highways Agency Pinchpoint programme, the objective of which will be to help unlock development in the New Neighbourhood. As part of the CPNN Transport Package, further improvements are proposed to the northern part of the roundabout as follows:

Additional lane on the northern circulatory of the roundabout (increasing from four lanes to five – to be confirmed following consultation with the Highways Agency)

One additional lane on the northbound M5 on-slip. The proposed arrangement would comprise three lanes exiting the roundabout, merging back to 2 lanes on the slip road itself.

Initial assessments of the junction using LINSIG software indicate that the proposed improvements will assist in mitigating the impacts of the additional traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood.

9.5.3. A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout The proposed improvements to the Lysander Road roundabout comprise an additional approach lane to the roundabout from the south (A4018 Cribbs Causeway). This provides increased capacity for traffic travelling northbound (along the A4018) through the roundabout towards M5 Junction 17. The analyses indicate that the proposed improvements at the roundabout would provide adequate mitigation against the increased traffic flow forecast as a result of the CPNN development. The results for the ‘Do Something’ scenario show that the roundabout would operate within theoretical capacity during both peak periods in 2031. However, during the PM peak period, the A4018 southbound approach to the roundabout is forecast to be operating above the design capacity threshold (i.e. 85% of the theoretical capacity), nevertheless, the forecast queue along this link is minimal.

9.5.4. A4018 Crow Lane Roundabout (within the Bristol City Council area) As part of the CPNN transport package, the existing Crow Lane Roundabout would be converted to a signalised crossroads. Opposed right turn movements would also be prohibited at the junction apart from the movement from Knole Lane (east) to the A4018 Wyck Beck Road (north). Pedestrian crossings would also be provided across all arms of the junction. The results of testing indicate that the proposed improvements to the Crow Lane junction (i.e. signalisation of the junction with right turn restrictions in place) would provide adequate mitigation against the increased traffic flow forecasts, resulting from the CPNN development. The results for the ‘Do Something’ scenario show that the signals would operate within design capacity (i.e. degrees of saturation (DoS) below 90% on all approach arms), during both peak periods in 2031.

9.5.5. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout (just south of M5 Junction 16) The proposed improvements to the Aztec West roundabout comprise:

An additional approach lane to the roundabout from the north (A38 coming from M5 Junction 16);

An additional exit lane onto the southbound arm of the A38 (towards Filton); and

An additional exit lane onto Bradley Stoke Way (continuing towards the traffic signals with Woodlands Lane).



It is evident from on-site observations that the Aztec West roundabout currently operates well above capacity during both weekday peak periods. Long queues (of varying lengths) tend to form along the Bradley Stoke Way and A38 northbound approaches to the roundabout, during both peak periods. The results from the 2031 ‘Reference Case’ assessments show that the junction would be significantly overcapacity during both peak periods. During the busier AM peak period, large queues (in excess of 100 pcus) are forecast to form along both the Bradley Stoke Way and A38 south approaches. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when interpreting these results, as junction capacity software cannot accurately forecast operational conditions when a junction is shown to be operating considerably above capacity. The results from the ‘Do Something’ assessment similarly indicate that the junction would be operating significantly above capacity during both weekday peaks. Whilst the practical reserve capacities are shown to change considerably (compared to the ‘Reference Case’), the increases in total delay at the junction are relatively minor. Furthermore, the total volume of traffic forecast to be queuing on the approaches to the junction (particularly during the busier AM peak period) is relatively similar in the ‘Reference Case’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios. In summary, the analyses of the Aztec West roundabout indicate that with the proposed improvements in place (and the additional traffic associated with the development of CPNN), there will only be a slight increase in overall queuing and delay at the roundabout.

9.5.6. A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction The proposed improvements to the signalised A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane junction include an additional (left turn) approach lane to the signals from Gypsy Patch Lane. This provides increased capacity for traffic travelling from Gypsy Patch Lane to the southbound arm of the A38, towards Bristol. The testing indicates that the proposed improvements at the Gypsy Patch Lane signals would provide adequate mitigation, against the increased traffic flows forecast as a result of the CPNN development. A considerable reduction in queuing is forecast along the Gypsy Patch Lane approach to the junction.

9.5.7. A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout The proposed improvements to the partially signalised Filton Roundabout include an additional approach lane to the signals from the A4174. For modelling purposes it has also been assumed that, for both the ’Reference Case’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios, the improvements proposed to the A38 northbound approach to the roundabout as part of the committed Airbus Aerospace Campus development would be in place. The testing indicates that the proposed improvements at the partially signalised Filton roundabout would provide adequate mitigation, against the increased traffic flows forecast as a result of the CPNN development.

9.6. Summary This chapter provides details of the improvements required to mitigate the traffic impact of the New Neighbourhood. It specifically relates to the need for off-site junction improvements and the analysis undertaken to determine the suitability and deliverability of the proposals. The analysis undertaken indicates that the proposed off-site junction improvements are deliverable (albeit that certain risks have been identified) and would provide adequate mitigation against the increased traffic flows forecast as a results of the CPNN development.



10. Conclusions

This report provides details of the transport package required to support the development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN). It also outlines the programme of work undertaken to define the transport package, building on earlier high-level analysis undertaken as part of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy. The CPNN Transport Package sets out the infrastructure and service requirements for the New Neighbourhood, in relation to the following:

Walking and Cycling Initiatives (Chapter 5) – including on-site requirements and proposals for off-site improvements;

Bus and BRT Service and Infrastructure requirements (Chapter 6);

Rail (Chapter 7);

Internal Road Layout and Access Strategy for the New Neighbourhood (Chapter 8); and

Surrounding Highway Impacts and Mitigation (Chapter 9). Information in relation to the delivery, phasing, costs and funding of the CPNN Transport Package is provided in the CPNN Implementation Plan Report. The transport package requirements will be used to inform the development of the CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPD sets out a strategic framework for the New Neighbourhood; identifying key strategic themes for infrastructure and the essential packages of facilities and services that need to be delivered to support the New Neighbourhood. Furthermore the SPD will be used to coordinate individual developers’ proposals and to assist with the submission of planning applications.







© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Geraint Morgan Atkins Limited The Hub 500 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ

Telephone 01454 662000

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood - Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices South Gloucestershire Council

February 2013

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 2

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for South Gloucestershire Council’s information and use in relation to the Supplementary Planning Document for the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 28 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: 5115669 Document ref: Transport Report

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Draft JFC JFC 14/02/13

Client signoff

Client South Gloucestershire Council

Project Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document

Document title Transport Report

Job no. 5115669

Copy no.

Document reference

Transport Report



Table of contents

Chapter Pages

Appendix A. Proposed Site Accesses 1 A.1. A38 Airfield East Site Access 3 A.2. A4018 Laurels Site Access 4 A.3. A4018 Fishpool Hill Site Access 5

Appendix B. Proposed Off-Site Junction Improvements 7 B.1. M5 Junction 16 9 B.2. M5 Junction 17 10 B.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout 11 B.4. A4018 Crow Lane Junction 12 B.5. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout 13 B.6. A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction 14 B.7. A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout 15

Appendix C. Assessment of Utilities 17 C.1. M5 Junction 16 19 C.2. M5 Junction 17 20 C.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout 21 C.4. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout 22

Tables No table of contents entries found.

Figures No table of contents entries found.






Appendix A. Proposed Site Accesses






A.1. A38 Airfield East Site Access



A.2. A4018 Laurels Site Access



A.3. A4018 Fishpool Hill Site Access






Appendix B. Proposed Off-Site Junction Improvements






B.1. M5 Junction 16



B.2. M5 Junction 17



B.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout



B.4. A4018 Crow Lane Junction



B.5. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout

Note: DRAFT ONLY: NFH Package to be

included and kerb-lines to be corrected



B.6. A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction

Note: DRAFT ONLY: kerb-lines to be

corrected



B.7. A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout






Appendix C. Assessment of Utilities






C.1. M5 Junction 16 M5 Junction

16

A38 Southbound entry to rdbt M5 Eastbound Off

Slip

M5 Eastbound On

Slip

M5 Westbound Off Slip A38 Southbound

link towards Aztec

West

Northern half of rdbt

Eastern Verge Central Reserve Northern Verge Northern Verge Northern Verge Southern Verge Eastern Verge Southern verge

Affinity - - - - - - C-way crossing into

this verge.

-

BSKYB - - - - - - - -

BT Cables & Joint boxes Cable crosses but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

Cable crosses but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

Cable crosses but

depth assumed to

be sufficient

Cable crosses but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

Cable crosses but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

Cables and joint

boxes within verge

and c’way

Joint box and

distribution point

Cable &

Wireless

- Cables run along

central reserve

Cable crosses but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

- - - - Cable crosses but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

Env Agency Awaiting further

response

“ “ “ “ “ “ “

Genesys

Telecomms

- - - - - - - -

Instalcom - - - - - - - -

South Gloucs

Council

- - - - - - - -

SSE Cable within verge - - - - - Cable within verge -

Traffic Master - - - - - - - Traffic Master Cabinet

Virgin Media Cable within verge Cable along central

reserve

- - - - Cable within verge Cable and chamber

Wales & West

Utilities

- Medium Pressure

mains through central

reserve

- - - - Main within c-way

but chamber /valve in

verge.

Medium pressure main

through central island

Wessex Water Doesn’t cover this area “ “ “ “ “ “ “

WPD HV underground

cables

HV cables cross

central reserve but

depth assumed to be

sufficient

LV cables HV cables cross

verge but depth

assumed to be

sufficient

HV cables cross

verge but depth

assumed to be

sufficient

HV cables cross verge

but depth assumed to

be sufficient

HV and LV cables in

verge

LV cables

Line Search

Esso

Petroleum

- - - - - - - -

Bristol

waterworks

Water main across

central reserve

- - - - - Water main across

central island.

Telent - Cable across central

reserve.

- - - - Cable in verge Cable across central

island

Overview Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that BT, SSE, Virgin Media and WPD would be identified as risk items. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but are likely to be significant. It is noted that no SEWER and Water Main information is provided for this location.



C.2. M5 Junction 17 M5 Junction

17

M5 Eastbound Off

Slip

M5 Eastbound On

Slip

M5 Westbound Off Slip Northern half of

Rdbt

Northern Verge Northern Verge Northern Verge Southern Verge Southern verge

BT Joint boxes and

distribution points

- - - -

Envoy - - - - -

Genesys

Telecomms

- - - - -

Fisher German - - - - -

Virgin Media - - - - -

Wales & West

Utilities

- - - - -

Wessex Water Does not cover this

area

“ “ “ “

WPD LV cables and

chambers

- - - LV cables

Bristol

Waterworks Plc

- - - - -

Environment

Agency

- - - - -

Seabank Power Ltd

- - - - -

South

Gloucestershire

Council

- - - - -

Telent on

behalf of

Teliasonera

- - - - -

TrafficMaster

Plc

- - - - -

Overview Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that BT and WPD would be identified as risk items. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but for BT these may be significant. It is noted that no SEWER and Water Main information is provided for this location.



C.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout Lysander Rd

RDB

A4018 Northbound

approach to rdbt

Western Verge

BT -

Envoy -

Genesys

Telecomms

-

Fisher German -

Virgin Media -

Wales & West

Utilities

-

Wessex Water Foul Sewer in Verge,

but away from widening

proposals

WPD LV cables will be

affected. O/H cables

away from Widening

proposals

Bristol

Waterworks Plc

Water main running

along verge

Environment

Agency

-

Seabank Power Ltd

-

South

Gloucestershire

Council

-

Telent on

behalf of

Teliasonera

-

TrafficMaster

Plc

-

Overview Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that WPD would be identified as a risk item. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but are unlikely to be significant.



C.4. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout Aztec West RDB

Jct & Bradley

Stoke Way

Junction

A38 Southbound link

towards Aztec West

RDB

A38 Southbound link

away from Aztec West

RDB

Bradley Stoke Way

Eastern Verge Eastern verge Northern Verge

Affinity Cable within verge - Cable within verge

BSKYB - - -

BT Cables and joint boxes

within verge

Cables and joint boxes

within verge

Cables and joint boxes

within verge

Cable & Wireless Cable and chamber in

verge.

Cable in verge then c’way Cable within verge but

beyond widening proposal

Env Agency Awaiting further

response

“ “

Genesys

Telecomms

- - -

Instalcom Cables within verge Cables within verge Cables for short distance

in verge

South Gloucs

Council

- - -

SSE Cable within verge - Cables for short distance

in verge

Traffic Master - - -

Virgin Media Cable and chambers

within verge

Cable and chambers

within verge and c’way

Cable and chambers

within verge

Wales & West

Utilities

Main within c-way but

crosses into verge.

Depth assumed to be

sufficient.

Chambers/valves may be

impacted

Main crosses from c-way

to verge on two

occasions. Depth

assumed to be sufficient.

Wessex Water Doesn’t cover this area “ “

WPD HV cables in verge HV cables in verge LV cables in verge

Bristol Waterworks

Plc

- Water main in verge -

Telent Cable in verge - Cable in verge

Overview Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that Affinity, BT, C&W, Instalcom, SSE, Virgin Media and WPD would be identified as risk items. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but are likely to be significant. It is noted that no SEWER and Water Main information is provided for this location.




© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Geraint Morgan Atkins Limited The Hub 500 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ

Telephone 01454 662000

Appendix 12

Scheme Impacts Proforma

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids

Scheme type Scenarios Time period

Key inputs or performance indicators required

for DM and DS scenarios by time period Supporting information (e.g. maps, technical note)

Additional information (optional) for DM and

DS scenarios by time period

Number of highway trips (vehicles) affected Assessment year for the scheme Vehicle trip purpose proportion

Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs)

Traffic data, modelling assumptions, model validation of

key area, cordon location map, traffic impact analysis

showing the effect of proposed scheme within affected

area Vehicle proportion (Car, LGV, OGV1&2, PSV)

Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km)

Observed and modelled traffic flow, queue and delay on

key links/junctions Average speed for car, LGV, HGV & PSV

Total network delays (veh-hrs)

Average observed and modelled journey time and speed

for vehicles passing through each key link/junction













Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes PT trip purpose proportion

Bus journey time on affected routes

Total PT travelled time (passenger-hrs)

Total PT travelled distance (passenger-km)

Number of walking and cycling tripsMode share (number and percentage of trips) in

affected area

e.g. improvements to existing highwayDo-Minimum

Current use and details of the site, vehicle trip

generation and attractionDo-Something (no change in trips

to/from development)

Development details (type, size, phases, year) to be

unlocked by the improvementsDo-Something (including increases in

trips to/from development)

Person trip generation and attraction to the

development

Projected modal splitVehicle trip generation and attraction to the

development







e.g. link roads from highway to siteDo-Minimum Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km)


key links/junctions Average speed for car, LGV, HGV & PSVDo-Something (including increases in

trips to/from development) Total network delays (veh-hrs)














for vehicles passing through each key link/junctionTotal vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) during

construction

Type and duration of traffic management during

constructionTotal vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) during

construction

Total network delays (veh-hrs) during constructionCost of delay during construction (if QUADRO is

used)Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) during

maintenance Frequency of maintenance per yearTotal vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) during

maintenance

Type and duration of traffic management for

maintenance

Total network delays (veh-hrs) during maintenanceCost of delay during maintenance (if QUADRO is

used)

Note:

(1) A base or forecast year model could be used for the assessment of the scheme. This depends on the age of base year model and the availability of a forecast year model for the scheme opening year.

Do-Minimum and Do-Something

Weekday: AM peak hour,

average interpeak, PM

peak hour, 3-hr AM and

PM peak period

conversion factors based

on local highway and PT

data




PM peak period



data


Structural maintenance

(2) Highway and PT trip demand, travelled time and distance matrices should be obtained from the Area of Influence (which may be a set of selected links or cordoned network). Matrix calculation is required by multiplying OD trip demand matrix and time/distance matrix

in order to calculate the highway and PT total travelled time/distance. The PT time matrix should include generalised cost components (in-vehicle time, waiting time etc.)

(3) Public transport modes (bus/BRT, rail) should be presented separately.

Congestion relief road schemes

Congestion relief through public transport, demand management measures and others

Access to development sites




PM peak period



data

e.g. improvements to existing highway

e.g. public transport, alternatives to travel,

sustainable measures

Do-Something during construction


during maintenance

e.g. highways, bridges




PM peak period



data. Weekend peak

hours would be required

for large retail

development.


Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: Aztec West, 2016 opening year assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun

Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00

Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,720 5,942

Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 135 77

Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 871 783

Total network delays vehicle-hours 111 54

Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56

Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips

Bus journey time on affected routes minutes

Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs

Total PT travelled distance passenger-km

PT peak period conversion factor -

Number of walking and cycling trips person trips

Mode share in affected area

- Walking and cycling person trips

- Bus/BRT person trips

- Rail person trips

- Car person trips

- Total person trips



Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 871 783












- Rail person trips

- Car person trips


Not applicable

Unit

Do-Minimum

Do-Something

Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators

Not assessed

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not assessed

Not applicable

Pro Forma 2016

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: Aztec West, 2031 future year assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun

Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00



Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 1,130 966












- Rail person trips

- Car person trips




Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 1,130 966












- Rail person trips

- Car person trips


Not assessed

Not applicable

Not applicable

Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit

Do-Minimum

Do-Something

Not assessed

Not applicable

Not applicable

Pro Forma 2031

For Small Project Bids: Aztec West improvement

For Do-Minimum Scenario For Do-Something Scenario

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr

Vehicle Category Weekday Weekday Weekday Vehicle Category Weekday Weekday Weekday

Car Work 9% 6% n/a Car Work 9% 6% n/a

Car Non-work Commuting 71% 80% n/a Car Non-work Commuting 71% 80% n/a

Car Non-work Other incl incl n/a Car Non-work Other incl incl n/a

Average Car 80% 86% 0% Average Car 80% 86% 0%

LGV 12% 9% n/a LGV 12% 9% n/a

OGV1 8% 5% n/a OGV1 8% 5% n/a

OGV2 incl incl n/a OGV2 incl incl n/a

PSV 0% 0% n/a PSV 0% 0% n/a

All Total 100% 100% 0% All Total 100% 100% 0%

Public Transport Public Transport

Bus Work n/a n/a n/a Bus Work n/a n/a n/a

Bus Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a Bus Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a

Bus Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a Bus Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a

Bus Total 0% 0% 0% Bus Total 0% 0% 0%

Rail Work n/a n/a n/a Rail Work n/a n/a n/a

Rail Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a Rail Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a

Rail Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a Rail Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a

Rail Total 0% 0% 0% Rail Total 0% 0% 0%

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr

Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday

Car 6.4 10.2 n/a Car 11.3 9.2 n/a

LGV 6.4 10.2 n/a LGV 11.3 9.2 n/a

HGV & PSV 6.4 10.2 n/a HGV & PSV 11.3 9.2 n/a

Additional Info Template

Appendix 13

Appraisal Summary table

Appraisal Summary Table 29 Oct 2013

Name John Seddon

Organisation South Glos Council

Role Promoter/Official

Summary of key impacts

Monetary Distributional

£(NPV) 7-pt scale/

vulnerable grp

£7.2m

Wider Impacts High concentration of high value-added industries with strong agglomeration potential. Analyses

indicate that failure to tackle infrastructure constraints would significantly constrain job creation and

housing delivery in this area.

Noise Reductions in queueing traffic will reduce noise levels next to the junction. Small numbers of nearby

receptors: overall impact minor.

Not applicable

Air Quality Reductions in queueing traffic will reduce emissions next to the junction. Small numbers of nearby

receptors: overall impact minor.

Not applicable

Landscape Widening of east side of roundabout results in small loss of vegetated areas.

Townscape No impact.

Heritage of Historic resources No impact.

Biodiversity No impact.

Water Environment No impact.

£65.1m

Journey quality Improved highway alignment will reduce conflicts and ease driver stress.

Security No impact. Not applicable

Access to services Improved access to jobs and retail. Improved traffic conditions will also benefit buses. Not applicable

Affordability No impact. Not applicable

Severance Small impact due to changes to alignment of A38. Considered minor. Not applicable

Option values No impact.

Cost to Broad Transport

Budget

Includes P50 QRA risk allowance.

£1.671 million

Indirect Tax Revenues No assessment made of changes in fuel consumption as assessment has focused on changes in

journey times. A small reduction in fuel consumption would be likely as a result of reduced vehicle

idling hence a small reduction in indirect tax revenues.

Slight Adverse

Pu

blic

Acco

un

ts

Present Value of Costs in 2010 Prices discounted to 2010

Not directly assessed

Neutral

So

cia

l

Slight Beneficial

Neutral

Not applicable

Neutral

Accidents Potential reductions in rear shunt accidents and improved manoeuvring of traffic through

roundabout. Impacts are likely to be minor. Slight Beneficial

£65.1 million

Slight Beneficial

Physical activity No impact: no change in physical activity expected as a result of the junction improvements.Neutral

Reliability impact on

Commuting and Other users

Significant reliability benefits expected for commuters using junction during peak periods. Moderate

Beneficial

Neutral

Neutral

Not applicable

Net journey time changes (£)

0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min

Commuting and Other users Benefits from reduced delays at both junction, focused on AM Peak. Assessment based on

strategic modelling using SATURN and junction assessment using LINSIG. Modelling focused on

AM and PM peaks only and excludes inter-peaks and weekends. Monetary assessment based on

time savings only, and does not include savings in operating costs.

Value of journey time changes(£)

Neutral

Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e)

Slight Adverse

Slight Beneficial Not assessed

Neutral

Moderate

beneficial

En

vir

on

men

tal

Slight Beneficial

Slight Beneficial

Greenhouse gases Reductions in queueing traffic will reduce carbon emissions of idling traffic. Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e)

Capacity improvements at key pinchpoint will significantly improve resilience and enable improved

traffic routing in response to incidents. Improvements will facilitate efficient routing for goods

vehicles accessing Filton Enterprise Area and Cribbs Causeway.

Not a designated Regeneration Area. However, scheme directly serves Filton Enterprise Area,

one of the priority growth areas in the West of England. Neutral

Moderate

Beneficial

Net journey time changes (£)

0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5minLarge Beneficial £7.2 million

Not applicable

Impacts Assessment

Eco

no

my Business users & transport

providers

Benefits from reduced delays at roundabout focused on AM Peak. Assessment based on strategic

modelling using SATURN and junction assessment using LINSIG. Modelling focused on AM and

PM peaks only and excludes inter-peaks and weekends. Monetary assessment based on time

savings only, and does not include savings in operating costs.

Value of journey time changes(£)

Reliability impact on Business

users

Regeneration

Date produced: Contact:

Name of scheme: A38 Aztec West Roundabout Enhancements

Description of scheme: Modifications to local highway network at the Aztec West Roundabout consisting of widening of A38 southbound approach and modifications to the adjacent

circulatory carriageway.

Quantitative Qualitative

Appendix 14

Project Plan

Pinchpont Programme08/10/2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun

APPROVALS Funding offer confirmed

Accept offer of funding

Prepare & secure HA approval for schemes

Stakeholder consultation

Member approval for scheme ♦

Book roadspace

DESIGN Mobilise

Infrastructure design

H&S procedures

Utility confirmation

Stage 1/2 safety audit

TRO TRO Procedures if required

PROCUREMENT Confirm construction resource requirements

CONSTRUCTION Mobilise ♦

Site clearance & earthworks ♦

Drainage & pavement foundations ♦

Pavement & kerbing ♦

Traffic signs & road markings ♦

Street lighting & Signals ♦

Completion ♦

OTHER Stage 3 safety audit

Adoption procedures

Post construction monitorng

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun

♦ Milestones

2014 2015 2016

G:\T&SP\Strat Trans Pol\TransPolicy\Local PP funding\AZTEC\submission\Final versions\App 14 Project Plan AWR PPP feb 13 29/10/2013

Appendix 15

Step 0 SDI Assessment

ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL AND DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACTS (SDIs) OF TRANSPORT INTERVENTIONS Proforma for reporting conclusions of first screening stage (Step 0) This form is intended for use by scheme promoters to capture the considerations, assessment and conclusions of the first screening stage of the SDI analysis (Step 0). For a full description of Step 0 please see WebTAG guidance units 2.13 and 3.17. These initial screening tests are not intended to be onerous and should require no additional data collection or analysis. At this stage promoters are only expected to carry out a qualitative assessment, based on their professional judgement and that of the technical specialists responsible for undertaking assessment of noise, air quality, safety, security, severance, accessibility, personal affordability and user benefits. In identifying what further screening or analysis is required promoters are encouraged to look how they can use existing analysis and data (e.g. as reported in existing business cases, Local Transport Plans) to meet the requirements of the guidance in a proportionate way. Promoters should also note in the final column if it is not possible to undertake the additional analysis/screening required by guidance by 9

th September 2011.

Scheme name: Aztec West Roundabout Enhancements Brief description of scheme:

The scheme being promoted by this bid consists of the widening of the southbound approach to the roundabout on the A38 Gloucester Road to

provide an extra lane (5 in total). Together with the continuation of this widening through the circulatory section of the roundabout into Bradley

Stoke Way and remarking of the eastern side of the circulatory carriageway to provide three clear traffic lanes.

Scheme objectives:

This forms part of a wider package of transport measures designed to prevent increasing congestion and improve access to the North Fringe.

Thereby helping to overcome a significant barrier to growth. It is the increasing congestion in this area which limits access to new housing and

employment land which will be directly addressed by this scheme and by the transport package as a whole.

Impact

(Consider each

separately)

Is social/distributional impact relevant to

stated scheme objectives?

(If yes, provide details)

Could scheme lead to impact on low income

and/or vulnerable groups?

(Provide details)

Can potential negative impacts be eliminated

through design or mitigation?

(Provide details)

Are potential impacts, where

presumed, likely to be 'significant and

concentrated'?

(Provide details)

Next steps: what further screening (Step 1 to 3),

or full SDI analysis (Step 1 to 5) is necessary

and/or proportionate to potential impact?

(Provide rationale for proposal)

User Benefits Yes

The scheme will bring benefits to all groups. The EQiA confirms there will be no negative impact on any equality groups.

The scheme is designed specifically to avoid any negative impacts on users

No

As this scheme has no significant impact on this criterion, no further SDI appraisal will be required.

Noise Yes The scheme is not predicted to have any significant noise impacts.

n.a No


Air Quality Yes

The scheme is not predicted to have any significant air quality impacts.

n.a No


Accidents Yes

The scheme is not predicted to have any significant impact upon accidents.

n.a No


Personal Security

No The scheme is not predicted impact upon personal security.

n.a No


Severance Yes

The scheme is not predicted to create any additional severance issues.

n.a No


Accessibility Yes

The scheme is not predicted to have any significant detrimental impact upon accessibility. Indeed it is designed to improve access to adjoining development areas.

n.a No


Personal Affordability

No

The scheme is not predicted to create personal affordability issues for any group.

n.a No
