West of England Combined Authority

Full Business Case

Programme: Scheme: A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal Scheme

Originated Reviewed Authorised Date Final PRM JL RG 09/03/2020

Executive Summary

Wraxall Road (Woodstock) Roundabout is located on the A4174 Avon Ring Road in South Gloucestershire south-east of Kingswood and north-west of Cadbury Heath. The northeast and southwest arms of the roundabout are the dual carriageway A4174. The side-road arms of Wraxall Road Roundabout are Wraxall Road to the northwest and Tower Lane to the southeast.

The roundabout currently experiences significant levels of congestion, especially during evening peak times, and this is forecast to become more severe in the future. The Joint Transport Study (JTS) includes proposals for a number of interventions along and connecting to the A4174 including a new motorway interchange at M4 Junction 18a, improvements to Hicks Gate and potentially links to Whitchurch Village and Yate, which will create more pressure on Wraxhall Road as traffic grows. There are also multi modal improvements such as metrobus that would also benefit from the reduced congestion the scheme would bring. Whilst these schemes do not form part of the direct case being presented for the Wraxall Road scheme, they have the potential to significantly increase volumes using the A4174. To compensate for this, a proposal has been made to DfT for funding from the major Route Network fund that would provide complementary improvements along the adjacent sections of the route. This scheme includes wraxhall Road as a locally funded core part of the MRN scheme that forms the match funding for the scheme. In addition High levels of employment and housing growth are also expected in the region. Even though this growth may not be placed in the immediate vicinity of the roundabout, it is predicted to result in a general increase in traffic on this major corridor. The main objectives for the scheme are:  To improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms (A4174 south and north);  To improve air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout compared to a Do-Nothing situation;  To improve the road safety performance of the roundabout;  To maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on Wraxall Road and Tower Road side-road arms; and  Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes. The proposed scheme consists of modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement. The total cost of this scheme is estimated £6.98million (base year for costs 2020, including inflation). It is expected that construction will start 2020 and be completed by 2022. The proposed scheme improvements can be accommodated within highway boundaries and can be delivered under existing powers held by South Gloucestershire Council. The economic assessment undertaken has monetised the journey benefits and costs of the scheme and suggested that the total present value of benefits (PVB) will be £25.6 million compared to a total present value of costs (PVC) of £5.3million (values based on 2010 prices). This gives a net present value (NPV) of around £20.3 million and a high benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of around 4.9 SGC undertook a public consultation exercise on the proposed improvements to the roundabout between 6 February and 29 March 2019. 139 (60%) of respondents supported the scheme, while 82 (35%) did not, and the remainder didn’t know. The construction phase of the project will be delivered in accordance with SGC’s project management framework, using experience gained from similar highway improvement schemes.

1 Strategic Case This Strategic Case sets out the rationale for the A4174/Wraxall Road (Woodstock) Roundabout Signal Scheme. It builds upon the information presented in the A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal Scheme Outline Business Case (OBC) which was submitted to the West of England Combined Authorities (WECA) (2018) and the Option Assessment Report (OAR) attached to this Full Business Case (FBC) submission. Whilst there have been changes to the specific assessment tools used for the scheme in response to considerable increase to traffic, as demonstrated in the 2019 counts along the corridor then the underlying assumptions, and traffic flows used for the assessment remains at the same level, although residual capacity of the road limits growth past 2021. As such the economics have changed however the conclusions and proposed scheme assessments from the previous reports remain valid. 1.1 State Aid Considerations South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) is the promoter of the A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal Scheme. The scheme is considered to be state aid compliant in accordance with details provided in the State Aid: The Basics Guide issued by BIS in July 2015. The proposed project is for improvements to an existing roundabout which forms part of the public highway network. This infrastructure is currently in the ownership of the Local Highway Authority and would remain so following improvements. The proposed improvements would benefit the local highway network and increase network resilience. The table below demonstrates that the scheme does not constitute State Aid. 1. Is the assistance granted by the state or • “Granted by the State” means by any public or through state resources? private body controlled by the state (which, in the UK, means national or local Government). YES • “State resources” is broad: any measure with an impact on the state budget or where the state has significant control are included, for example, tax exemptions, Lottery funding and the EU structural Funds. 2. Does the assistance give an advantage to one • An “undertaking” is any organisation engaged or more undertakings over others? in economic activity.

NO - This is about activity rather than legal form, so non-profit organisations, charities and public bodies can all be undertakings, depending on the activities they are involved in.

- An undertaking can also include operators and ‘middlemen’ if they benefit from the funding.

• “Economic activity” means putting goods or services on a market. It is not necessary to make a profit to be engaged in economic activity: if others in the market offer the same good or service, it is an economic activity.

Support to an organisation engaged in a non- economic activity isn’t State aid, e.g. support to individuals through the social security system is not state aid. • An “advantage” can take many forms: not just a grant, loan or tax break, but also use of a state asset for free or at less than market price. Essentially, it is something an undertaking could not get in the normal course of business. 3. Does the assistance distort or have the • If the assistance strengthens the recipient potential to distort competition? relative to its competitors then the answer is likely to be “yes”.

No • The “potential to distort competition” does not have to be substantial or significant: may include relatively small amounts of financial support to firms with modest market share. 4. Does the assistance affect trade between The interpretation of this is broad: it is enough Member States that a product or service is tradable between Member States, even if the recipient does not No itself export to other EU Markets.

1.2 Project Description Wraxall Road Roundabout is located on the A4174 Avon Ring Road in South Gloucestershire south- east of Kingswood and north-west of Cadbury Heath (see below). The northern and southern arms of the roundabout are the dual carriageway A4174. The side-road arms of Wraxall Road Roundabout are Wraxall Road to the west and Tower Lane to the east.

A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout

Figure 1: Wraxall Roundabout Location (Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2019)

To the north the A4174 continues through the A420 Roundabout that provides access to Kingswood and forms a major arterial route into Bristol. Further north the A4174 continues through the East Fringe to the M32 and the A38 beyond that to the west. The A4174 terminates some 3.6km to the south at Hicks Gate Roundabout at the intersection between the A4174 and the A4 with the latter providing a key strategic route into Brislington and Bristol, to the west, and towards Bath in the east. The proposed scheme consists of modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement. Specifically, it comprises the following elements:  Widening of the A4174 approaches to three lanes with four lanes at entry with three lanes providing high capacity for the dominant A4174 through-traffic movement;  Provision of a three-lane highway link for A4174 through-traffic across the middle of the roundabout;  A merge on exit arrangement for A4174 through-traffic from three lanes to two over a distance of circa 100m;  Traffic signals at each entry and conflict point would manage the flow of traffic safely and efficiently. The layout for the scheme is shown on drawings 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0001 and 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR- 0002, included in Appendix 1.1. The total cost of this scheme is estimated £6.98million (base year for costs 2020, including inflation). It is expected that construction will start 2020 and be completed by 2022. The planned scheme improvements can be accommodated within highway boundaries. 1.3 Project Objectives and Case for Change Wraxall Road Roundabout currently experiences significant levels of congestion. According to Tom Tom data collected for journey time validation in 2018, delays during weekday evening peak periods on the A4174 southbound approach are nearly one and half minutes, while those on the other approaches are over one minute. Morning peak periods, according to the same dataset, show lower delays of nearly 30 seconds on the side-road arms. The Joint Transport Study (JTS), which has been prepared with the aim of providing a long-term direction for the transport system within the West of England up to 2036, includes a proposals for a number of interventions along and connecting to the A4174 including a new motorway interchange at M4 Junction 18a, improvements to Hicks Gate and potentially links to Whitchurch Village and Yate, which will create more pressure on Wraxhall Road as traffic grows. There are also multi modal improvements such as metrobus that would also benefit from the reduced congestion the scheme would bring. Whilst these schemes do not form part of the direct case being presented for the Wraxall Road scheme, they have the potential to significantly increase volumes using the A4174. To compensate for this a proposal has been made to DfT for funding from the major Route Network fund that would provide complementary improvements along the adjacent sections of the route. This scheme includes Wraxhall Road as a locally funded core part of the MRN scheme that forms the match funding for the scheme. The JTS also considers high levels of employment and housing growth in the region. Current planned growth, which include the commitments in the local plan of each authority, is 30,600 homes and 21,900 jobs in Bristol, and 22,545 homes in South Gloucestershire. Even higher longer-term growth, to 2036, is also expected by plan. Even though this growth may not be placed in the immediate vicinity of the roundabout, it is predicted by the plan to result in a general increase in traffic. There are also a number of development sites in the North and East Fringe that are either committed or in the planning process, specifically to the north and south of Wraxall Road along the Ring Road. Whilst some distance from the site, the size of these developments could mean that they will still influence traffic volumes and affect travel behaviour in the vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout. Specific developments expected to increase traffic flows through Wraxall roundabout include the Emersons Green (Lyde Green) development. Further south along the A4174, there are multiple development sites within Keynsham, which may impact on flows through Wraxall roundabout as individuals commute along the Ring Road to employment hubs in the North Fringe (see table 1). Wraxall Road Roundabout is part of the strategic route for a number of these developments. The certain or near certain sites are included in the certainty log per the WEBTAG guidance. Table 1: Residential developments with the potential to increase flows through Wraxall Roundabout

Area Planning status Dwelling totals Dwelling totals 2013-2036 2013-2021 SW Keynsham 1 Full permission 285 285 SW Keynsham 2 Full application 266 266 submitted Somerdale Part Outline/ Part 700 350 (Keynsham) full permission East of Keynsham Allocated Site 250 250 SW Keynsham 3 Allocated site 150 150 Emersons (Lyde) Planning 2,300 2,300 Green permission

Collectively, proposals for the wider highway network and future land use developments are therefore likely to give rise to increased demand for travel on the highway network surrounding Wraxall Road Roundabout. At the same time businesses in the area, such as at the Bristol Bath Science Park, have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to function without the cost of traffic congestion unduly affecting their business operation. The proposed intervention to improve and signalise the roundabout is therefore required because Wraxall Road Roundabout is currently congested and is forecast to operate well in excess of capacity, particularly in the weekday peak periods by 2036. This will progressively cause increased levels of congestion at the roundabout with high levels of queueing and delay. This will act as a constraint to housing and employment growth in the area and increase costs to businesses operating within the area. The objectives for the scheme therefore are:  To improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms (A4174 south and north);  To improve air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout compared to a Do-Nothing situation;  To improve the road safety performance of the roundabout;  To maintain capacity, or improve delays where possible, on Wraxall Road and Tower Road side- road arms; and  Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes. The scheme objectives have been based upon work carried out previously as part of the OAR and OBC. It was not considered appropriate to alter the objectives of the scheme for the FBC. However, it is acknowledged that since the development of the OBC, SGC and WECA strategy has altered in reference to Climate Emergency. The work up to this point had not included such an aim. Despite this, the scheme is expected to result in a slight reduction in carbon from both direct improvements and indirect improvements to public transport including proposal considered in other packages. This is due to the scheme design reducing delays to mainline flows through the junction, resulting in journey time reliability improvements for all modes, including bus travel. Whilst and independent case not reliant on any external measures within the assessment, the Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme is closely linked to, and forms the required match funding for the 36m Major Road Network (MRN) scheme that aims to improve a series of adjacent Ring Road junctions on the 4174. The modelling approach used within this FBC was agreed with the DfT in January 2020 and is applicable to both the Wraxall Road scheme and the wider Ring Road MRN scheme. An updated ASR developed for the MRN scheme has now been provided, along with supporting model information from GBATS and the updated scheme VISSIM model which will clarify the overall Wraxall Roundabout project programme and how this relates to the strategy for the MRN schemes. It is inevitable that measures that form a complex transport strategy are brought forward in separate deliverable sections. The approach defined in TAG specifically addresses the likelihood of development and other measures, accepting that it is not the rationale of the scheme to deliver all measures as part of one scheme. Based on this, Wraxall Road is being prioritised over improvements to other junctions along the Ring Road because of the level of congestion here is worse than other parts of the network. In addition, the scheme will provide the required match funding for the larger Ring Road MRN scheme and improve the immediate congestion issues along this section of road, providing additional benefits to both Wraxall Road and the ring road in general. B&NES Council have also proposed major improvement works at Hicks Gate roundabout (south of the proposed scheme) and the Sub Regional Transport Body are developing plans to improve a number of other junctions on the A4174 as part of the Bristol Ring Road MRN scheme. Therefore, it is important that Wraxall Road Roundabout is completed in short order, to avoid the disruption of a large number of conflicting road works taking place along the Ring Road, or delaying growth in the area. In addition, the benefits associated with the Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme i.e. travel time savings and reduced congestion, should help to mitigate the construction impacts of the other proposed Ring Road schemes. 1.4 Rationale for Public Intervention The West of England is failing to meet its economic potential, and housing and economic growth is sluggish, in part due to the need for improved transport infrastructure. The East Fringe of Bristol is a major economic hub within the region with the Bristol and Bath Science Park situated just north of Wraxall Road Roundabout. Wraxall Road Roundabout currently experiences severe congestion during weekday peak hours, particularly during the evening peak, and is forecast to experience severe congestion in future. The A4174, which passes through the roundabout, is a key strategic route in the Greater Bristol area providing a link between the A4 and Bath in the south to the M32 and the M4. The route also provides access to new housing and employment areas such as the Bristol and Bath Science Park. These congestion problems cannot be mitigated solely through private sector projects; public sector investment is needed as well. The increased capacity of critical pinch-points such as Wraxall Road Roundabout is essential to the development of the region’s infrastructure, to meet the housing and economic growth ambitions. It is therefore proposed that the roundabout be improved in order to increase capacity, reduce delays and facilitate economic growth. 1.5 Strategic Fit The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) prepared by West of England LEP outlines how the region will achieve sustainable economic growth over the plan period. Specifically, the SEP was prepared to support the West of England’s attempts to secure government funding to assist economic development in the region between 2015 and 2021 through the Local Growth Deals initiative. Within this context, the SEP aims to facilitate the creation of more than 25,000 jobs and develop an economy worth around £25bn per year (which also contributes some £10bn to the Treasury annually). The LEP vision is to encourage sustainable economic growth and the creation of substantial numbers of new private sector jobs. The SEP positions the West of England as ‘the city region of choice for a sustainable future’, based on the region’s legacy of innovation, world class university and research facilities, strong visitor economy and high quality of life. The SEP highlights that expansion of these sectors will be driven by a number of ‘levers of growth’, including investment and promotion and places and infrastructure. In particular, infrastructure is presented as a key enabler of growth in the region. The Wraxall Road Roundabout capacity improvements would contribute to the LEP vision by improving accessibility and reducing congestion, making the area more attractive to businesses. There are a number of adopted policies in the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy that the Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme is geared towards. These being:  Policy CS1 High Quality design – Developments should respect and enhance the character, distinctiveness and amenity of the site and its surroundings. Flood risk, personal safety and the disposal of waste materials should also be considered.  Policy CS5 Location of development – Most new developments will take place within the communities of North and East fringes of Bristol and the development of existing transport improvements such as the delivery of the Greater Bristol Bus Network and the planning for the WoE transport package and future schemes;  Policy CS2 Green Infrastructure - Seeks to ensure that existing and new Green Infrastructure is planned, delivered and managed as an integral part of creating sustainable communities and enhancing quality of life.  Policy CS7 Strategic Transport Infrastructure – Priority will be given to strategic infrastructure proposals that reduce congestion and improve accessibility by transport modes other than private cars.  The West of England local authorities are developing a new Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP4) for the area. This will cover the period to 2036 and will therefore align with the spatial plans under development. The JLTP4 will consider the recommendations of the Joint Transport Study and develop a long-term transport policy and will develop a long-term investment programme.

In July 2019 both South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) and the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) declared a climate emergency. This confirmed the need for urgent action to tackle the climate crisis and the commitment to significantly reduce carbon emissions within the region. As a result of the climate emergency, SGC have pledged to become carbon neutral by 2030, which will have a knock- on effect on transport across the region. Specifically, one of the priorities of the South Gloucestershire Climate Change Strategy (2018-2023) is to ‘enable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption in homes, transport and businesses in South Gloucestershire’. The proposed scheme has been designed to improve throughflow through the junction, which will reduce traffic congestion and improve journey time reliability for all modes on the ring road, including bus services travelling along this section of road. Increased service and journey time reliability can improve the attractiveness of bus services, enabling modal shift away from private car use. This will contribute to SGC’s carbon goals, by reducing the number of polluting vehicles on the road as individuals swap a proportion of their trips from private vehicles to local bus services. 1.6 Options Appraisal At outline business case stage (OBC), three broad signal-controlled junction types were identified as potentially suitable solutions. These were based on the objectives mentioned above, as well as examination of site opportunities and constraints carried out as part of the option generation process. The options evaluated were:  Fully/partially signalled roundabout;  A signal-controlled intersection/cross-roads; and  A signalled through-about. An initial sifting was carried out that did not identify any ‘showstoppers’ that would prevent delivery. All options were therefore taken forward for further development and refinement. These options were therefore developed to a level of detail such that their ability to meet the scheme objectives could be assessed and to enable appraisal under TAG. Table 1 summarises the four options developed. Table 1: Options considered Option Description Option 1a Introduction of partial signal control with the Wraxall Road arm left uncontrolled Option 1b Introduction of full signal control to all roundabout entry arms Option 2 Replacement of the roundabout with a signal-controlled intersection Option 3 Replacement of the roundabout with a signal-controlled ‘through-about’

OBC Modelling The operational impacts of the proposed improvement options were assessed using a VISSIM micro- simulation traffic model of the Wraxall Road Roundabout and the immediate surrounding highway network. This model simulated the weekday morning and evening peaks, as well as inter-peak period, and is based on 2018 observed traffic flows and conditions (Option 1b was discarded following base year modelling because of similarity to Option 1a but comparatively poor performance in terms of congestion). A 2036 scenario was also run, which was based on traffic flows informed by the GBATS model. This forecasting work used the same flows for the do minimum and do something cases and assumed that some form of improvement would be implemented at both the A4174/A420 and A4174/Marsham Way Roundabouts. An EAST options assessment was carried out during the OBC stage. The outputs are summarised in Table 2 below. The assessment shows that the key differences between the options relate to traffic performance (which is the key issue to meet the objectives), and the economic case.

Table 2: Summary of how the scheme options meet the five cases

Option Strategic case Economic case Financial case Commercial case Management case (£m) Option 1a: Reasonable fit High BCR Financially Has a commercial Has a management case Partial signal with strategic Affordable case with the Wraxall objectives Rd. arm uncontrolled Option 2: Signal Reasonable fit High BCR Financially Has a commercial Has a management case controlled with strategic Affordable case intersection objectives Option 3: Signal Excellent fit High BCR Financially Has a commercial Has a management case controlled with strategic Affordable case ‘through‐about’ objectives

Following examination of the four options, Option 3 signalled through-about was selected to be taken forward at Wraxall Road Roundabout. This option provides the greatest benefit to traffic flow along the A4174 whilst delivering some benefit to the side-roads arm. It resulted in the greatest enhancement in terms of capacity, will facilitate growth better than the other options and provides improvements in journey time reliability and network resilience. This will improve journey time reliability for all modes, including bus services during peak hours. As such, Option 3 meets the strategic objectives of the scheme better than Options 1a and 2 whilst providing a high value for money with a BCR estimated at OBC stage of 9.56. More details of this analysis can be found in the OBC. Further development of Option 3

After securing WECA’s approval for the OBC, option 3 was developed further. Full details on the development of Option 3 and the detailed design activities carried out can be found in the OAR attached to the FBC. The following points briefly present further development of the selected option. Since the OBC, traffic flows on the A4174 have increased substantially more than expected to a point where the 2019 flows are now comparable to those of the Forecast Year in the OBC. As such option 3 now presents the only viable option to accommodate future schemes and developments proposed within the MRN and thus future proof the scheme. Updated Transport Modelling For this FBC assessment an updated modelling approach has been used in line with discussions with the DfT for assessment of the MRN Ring Rd scheme as a whole. It was agreed that Jacobs would supply an updated ASR and further supporting model information from GBATS and the updated scheme VISSIM model to meet DfT requirements for the MRN Ring Rd scheme assessment. This information is appended as follows:  Appendix 1.4 – MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements Outline Business Case Appraisal Specification Report  Appendix 1.5 – MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements GBATS Model Fit  Appendix 1.6 – A4174 MRN 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) This primarily includes an updated AM (06.30 to 09:00) and PM (15.30 to 18:00) peak VISSIM model with extended model coverage. In addition to the section of A4174 between Bromley Heath Roundabout and the A4 Keynsham By-pass, the VISSIM model includes the section of A432 between Nibley Lane and the A4174. The VISSIM model LMVR has further details. Given the nature of the MRN scheme it is important that the scheme assessment should utilise a software package capable of accurately capturing the changes in operational efficiency and providing a reliable estimate of the benefits. The microsimulation modelling software VISSIM is recognised as being able to do this. Scenarios tested are: Do Minimum: current network Do Something: only includes improvements at Wraxall Road Roundabout. Although other schemes are proposed along the ring road these are not included in the model testing and hence the scenarios are TAG-compliant. Road Safety Considerations A safety review was carried out to investigate several existing through-about junctions across the country in order to identify potential safety issues with the proposed design of a through-about junction for Wraxall Road roundabout. Through-abouts place greater demand on wayfinding, as most drivers are not familiar with these types of junctions and cannot depend on intuition to navigate them. There is thus added impetus for the designer and highway authority to install informative and unambiguous signage and line markings as a key part of the scheme. The PIA data indicates that when through-about junctions are installed with reasonably robust mitigating wayfinding measures, the PIA rate is generally lower than in cases when wayfinding is less robust. Provided appropriate mitigation measures are included, it is expected that the proposed through- about will present a level of safety similar to or better than any of the alternative options for the Wraxall Road roundabout scheme. Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audits (RSA) have been carried out for the proposed design. The comments made in the RSAs have either been addressed or require minor changes which will be made before the construction phase. Enquires or recommendations were made on the following topics:  Junction modelling results were requested to ensure queue lengths fit within the allocated lane space.  Recommendations were made regarding signalling to avoid potential accidents.  Street furniture should be passively safe, or a vehicle restrain system should be provided.  Comments were made regarding the safety barriers, requesting further clarifications on their modification to suit the carriageway widening into the central reserve. Public consultation SGC undertook a public consultation exercise on the proposed improvements to the roundabout. More details are provided in section 5.7 below. Detailed design Option 3 has been brought forward for the detailed design (equivalent to RIBA Stage 4 – Technical Design) to have more certainty in relation to practicality and costs of the scheme. The following design items have been covered by the detailed design:  2D and 3D Dimensional highway geometric Model;  Drainage modelling and design;  Street lighting;  Signals, Signs and Road markings;  Utility Searches/ Diversions;  Designer Risk Register; and  Bill of Quantities and costing. 1.7 Environmental Sustainability Considerations Sustainability and environmental considerations for Wraxall roundabout (both opportunities and potential constraints) have been reviewed and have formed a central aspect of the Scheme development. The scheme aims to facilitate and accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes by reducing congestion. This will inevitably result in more people trips from these developments, many of which will be vehicle-based, allowing individuals to access the wide range of destinations that people use as part of their daily lives. However, the scheme will also facilitate bus movement and journey time reliability, which will contribute to the SGC Climate Change Strategy (2018-2023) aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. The Scheme will continue to provide the existing underpasses and pathways for pedestrians and cyclists to utilise, maintaining safe crossing for NMUs of the routes. All SGC member decisions have taken sustainability considerations into account and a high-level environment assessment has been undertaken on the Scheme, as deemed appropriate for the scale of the proposed works. The assessment conclusions include:  Air quality changes have been modelled for receptors in the area. The analysis was carried out for the scheme opening year as this was considered to be the critical year. The results show no changes for most receptors, and a negligible improvement for two. However, according to the traffic modelling undertaken for this project, higher traffic volumes in future years will result in significantly more congestion in the do minimum scenario than in the scheme scenario. It is therefore expected that for those years the scheme will result in an improvement of air quality at Wraxall roundabout.  The Scheme is unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality;  Within the immediate vicinity of the Scheme, there are not predicted to be any significant noise operational impacts;  The Scheme is not expected to result in any significant effects on known cultural heritage assets. Appropriate mitigation is recommended to protect any buried archaeological assets, should they exist within the Scheme boundary;  The Scheme is not considered likely to impact on water resources. As part of the detailed design of the Scheme, the drainage design that has been developed proposes improvements to the drainage network to address the changes in impermeable area and provide increased storage. It has also been ensured that no additional flood risk impact on adjacent residential properties will be caused as a result of the Scheme up to a 100 year event plus a 30% allowance for climate change;  In relation to biodiversity, an extended Phase 1 habitat survey has been undertaken and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented wherever required; and  In relation to landscape, the Scheme will not introduce a new land use into the existing landscape. The Scheme will look to retain existing vegetation as far as practicable and will look to replace any felled trees within the vicinity of the Scheme. It is assumed that where existing screening is required to be removed by the Scheme, this will be replaced with appropriate fencing and vegetation where possible to protect the existing residential properties. Works associated with the Scheme will also seek to mitigate any potential environmental impacts during construction through the implementation of recommended mitigation and best practice measures. 1.8 Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment An SGC Equality Impact Assessment & Analysis (EqIAAs) has been undertaken in respect of the Scheme. The full Equality Impact Assessment and Analysis (EqIAA) - Evaluation Tool is attached in Appendix 1.2. The EqIAA has ensured that the scheme design, as well as public consultation, has complied with all equality requirements including the Equality Act 2010. This shows that it is expected that the Scheme would benefit all groups in society by providing a significant improvement that would benefit residents with improved access. The scheme associated infrastructure would be fully compliant with disability access requirements. Public consultation was undertaken from 6 February to 29 March 2019, the results of which did not indicate that the Scheme proposals will negatively impact on any protected characteristics group. A full technical note titles The Equality & Diversity Impact Assessment and Plan Note has been included as Appendix 1.2. Strategic Case Appendices

Appendix 1.1: Scheme layout Appendix 1.2: Equality & Diversity assessment Appendix 1.3: Options Assessment Report Appendix 1.4: MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements Outline Business Case Appraisal Specification Report Appendix 1.5: MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements GBATS Model Fit Appendix 1.6: A4174 MRN 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

2 Economic Case

2.1 Economic Appraisal The improvements to Wraxall Road Roundabout will increase capacity on a major intersection in the highway network, significantly alleviating highway congestion particularly in the long-term. This will reduce delays, thereby providing economic benefits. With ongoing development in employment and housing in the area, the improvements will stimulate growth and ensure growth occurs that could otherwise be prevented by the presence of a ‘pinchpoint’ of restricted capacity within the highway network. Scheme Testing

The operational impacts of the proposed improvement options were assessed using a VISSIM micro- simulation traffic model of the Wraxall Road Roundabout and the surrounding highway network along the A4174. This model has been extended beyond the scope of the VISSIM model used for the OBC, as reported in section 1.6. Appendix 1.5: MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements GBATS Model Fit shows that the diversion impacts of the full MRN scheme are very limited outside the updated VISSIM model area. Further, BaNES are developing major improvement works at Hicks Gate roundabout for 2022/23 which will remove this as a potential capacity bottleneck. This model simulates the weekday morning and evening peaks and is based on 2019 observed traffic flows and conditions. A 2021 VISSIM Reference model was developed by applying NTEM growth (with adjustment for income and fuel cost changes) as AM: 3.4% and PM: 3.3%. The existing layout and scheme proposal were tested for a 2021 assessment year traffic flows. The GBATS model indicated very limited growth to 2036 without the ring road improvements hence the FBC Wraxall Rd Economic Case assessment has just been undertaken using 2021 flows as a proxy for 2036 traffic levels as a conservative approach. In line with WebTAG guidance a proportionate approach was taken in the derivation of Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) impacts associated with the scheme during the initial stages of scheme development. This approach has been carried forward to the FBC. Costs have increased slightly above the threshold at detailed design stage, but it was considered appropriate to maintain the approach. This is in line with the proposal made at OBC stage and in the Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) as well as the MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements approach as agreed with the DfT. Derivation of scheme benefits was based on the flows / travel time and distance skims obtained from the Do Nothing (Reference Case) and Do Something (scheme Option) VISSIM models and monetised using TUBA. It is important to note that potential network benefits of the increased junction capacity during the weekends were not considered. Vehicle operating cost (TUBA) impacts and accident cost (COBA- LT) impacts have been accounted for in the economic assessment. Construction impacts and the disbenefit they generate have been estimated and included in the BCR calculation. These were derived using inter-peak modelling in GBATS. TUBA was used to annualise scheme impacts. The table below details the annualisation factors used in the assessment. Benefits are estimated for the “average weekday” peak periods only.

VISSIM Model Annualisation Factors

Time Period Modelled Hour Expansion Factor No. days per year Annualisation Factor

AM 07:00- 08:59 1 252 252

PM 16:00- 17:59 1 252 252

The Table below summarises the journey time benefits by time period over the 60 year assessment period. This indicates that the AM peak contributes around 10% of total benefits, whilst the PM peak contributes 90%.

Time Period PVB (£’000, 2010 prices and % Of Total Time Benefits values) AM 2,426 10% PM 21,987 90% Total (AM & PM) 24,413 100%

Annual scheme benefits are estimated to be £646k in 2022 and £500k in 2036 (both 2010 prices and values). It is estimated that cumulative scheme benefits will exceed PVC by 2030. Further details are provided below.

2.2 Value for Money Statement The economic assessment undertaken has monetised the journey benefits and costs of the scheme and suggested that the total present value of benefits (PVB) will be £25.6 million compared to a total present value of costs (PVC) of £5.3million (base price 2010). This gives a net present value (NPV) of around £20.3 million and a level 1 very high benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of around 4.9. To reflect modelling and scheme costing uncertainties a series of sensitivity tests were carried out (increased optimism bias from 3% to 15%, 50% reduction in scheme journey time benefits, 100% increase is scheme construction phase disbenefits). Even in these scenarios the scheme resulted in a “high” BCRs (in the range of 2.4 to 4.7). In addition, a desk-top based economic impact analysis has estimated the scheme impacts on jobs and Gross Value Added (GVA). Land value uplift benefits associated with the roundabout improvements have not been included in this assessment as in accordance with DfT guidance. Total project cost £6.98 million* Grant sought (EDF/LGF/RIF) £6.98 million* Net Quantified Benefits Construction Stage: 98 gross (2020 prices) jobs, gross GVA £3.8m Operation Stage: 51 gross jobs, gross GVA £3.0m VfM indicator** £46.84k per gross job created * Base prices as at 2020. Inflation calculated at 6% over 2 years. Inflation is included in the values shown above. ** Benefit compared to total cost including match funding

The following points briefly summarise the assumptions of the economic case calculations used to derive the Present Value of Benefits (PVB), Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs)  The latest version of Department for Transport’s (DfT) Transport Users Benefit Appraisal (TUBA) program (version 1.9.13) has been used to assess the transport economic efficiency benefits generated from the VISSIM model. This includes deriving the journey time and cost savings to consumer and business users, vehicle operating cost impacts, impacts of the change in greenhouse gas emissions and any scheme impacts on indirect taxation. This is converted into a Present Value of Benefits (PVB) associated with users and providers. TUBA uses data from the two modelled time periods (AM and PM).  Potential network benefits during weekends are not considered;  Scheme opening Year: 2022;  Modelled years: 2021 and 2036;  Appraisal period: 60 years;  Price base year for discounting: 2010;  Discount rate 3.5% for 30 years from scheme opening and 3% thereafter;  Optimism bias added to scheme costs: 3%;  Costs are based on contractual prices as provided by contractor (SGC’s StreetCare);  Maintenance Costs: Annual maintenance cost of crossings assumed to be £1000 p.a;  Equipment renewal rate of £205k assumed to be every 15 years.

Criteria Commentary

Value for Money The scheme offers “Very High” value for money

Core NPV £20.3m

Core BCR 4.9 (very high)

Summary of the 60-year benefits and costs (discounted 2010 prices and values)

Scheme Benefits & Disbenefits – £9.2m of journey time benefits to business users Core scenario £15.2m of journey time benefits to Commuters and Other trip purposes

£1.7m of vehicle operating cost benefits

£542k of construction impact disbenefits.

£0.8m of Indirect Taxation disbenefits

£0.4m of greenhouse gases benefit

£7k of accident disbenefits

Scheme Costs £5.1m of scheme construction cost

£16.8k of scheme operation expenditure

£160.6k of scheme renewal cost (replacement of electrical equipment every 15 years)

Assumes a 3% optimism bias

Sensitivity Tests A sensitivity test was carried out on 3 key variables,

 Optimism Bias changed from 3% to 15%: BCR = 4.3  Construction impact disbenefits doubled: BCR = 4.7  Journey Time delay benefits reduced by 50%: BCR = 2.4  Significant non-monetised Land value uplift benefits associated with the roundabout improvements have not impacts been included in this assessment

Scheme benefits have only been assessed for the AM and PM peak periods and for interpeak periods. Potential weekend benefits have not been included.

Jobs and Gross Value Added (GVA) have been estimated for this scheme but not included in the BCR calculations.

Key risks, sensitivities and Timing of highway works and interaction with other planned local scheme uncertainties underlying the improvements appraisal

Significant social or distributional None impacts

3 Financial Case

3.1 Chief Financial Officer sign off SGC Chief Financial Officer has signed-off this Full Business Case. A letter from the Chief Financial Officer is appended as appendix 3.1 3.2 Scheme Cost

Cost Heading Total projected eligible Amount to be claimed expenditure* Design, Preparation & Feasibility £500,000 £500,000 Project Management: including £447,578 £447,578 site supervision & design support Construction including Stats (inc. £4,475,775 £4,475,775 Inflation) ** Risk £1,530,000 £1,530,000 Monitoring &Evaluation £30,000 £30,000 Total £6,983,353 £6,983,353

* Figures quoted do not include optimism bias ** Base prices as at 2020. Inflation calculated at 6% over 2 years on project management, additional design, construction and risk. Inflation is included in the costs shown above. The main changes affecting scheme costs from OBC to FBC have been the widening of the southern section at Tower Ln all the way to the Craven Way roundabout, and changes in pavement construction due to issues linked to levels. Construction costs have been produced based on bills of quantity, with take-off carried out on a well- developed design. The construction costs were calculated by the SGC StreetCare team, who will be carrying out the works with time risk allowance applied appropriately to construction activities. The preliminary and traffic management costs were derived from prior experience of delivering similar schemes. Evaluation costs of £30k have also been included in the FBC total scheme capital costs, to ensure that there is adequate funding for the evaluation activity in future years. 3.3 Spend Profile and Funding Sources Capital Spend (£000s)

19/20 20/21 21/22 2023+ Total

Feasibility and Development of FBC 500 0 0 0 500 (£000s) Design, project management and 75 239 135 0 449 Monitoring (£000s) Construction funding (£000s) 50 1,955 3,999 0 6,004

Monitoring & Evaluation (£000s) 0 0 0 30 30

Total (£000s) 625 2,194 4,134 30 6,983 *Base prices as at 2020. Scheme opening year is assumed to be 2022. All funding for the scheme is being sought from WECA. Financial Case Appendices

Appendix 3.1: Chief Financial Officer letter.

4 Commercial Case

4.1 Procurement The construction of the scheme will be undertaken by SGC’s StreetCare team. It is SGC’s policy for StreetCare to carry out such work unless there is a clear rationale that the work should be outsourced. StreetCare have an established supply chain for plant, machinery and supplies. There is a framework agreement in place for use of consultants or specialist agency staff where required. The value for money provided by our in-house StreetCare team has been tested in the open market and is regularly benchmarked both nationally and regionally. We have a streamlined process, where internal transaction costs have been removed and the route to delivery is streamlined through direct involvement of the delivery teams in the design process. StreetCare is represented in the project team of the feasibility project and have been closely involved in the development of the design. StreetCare have reviewed the drawings at each stage of the project and provided feedback as required. StreetCare have produced cost and programme estimates for the scheme, refining them at each stage as the design develops. The scheduling of the work has been undertaken by StreetCare in consultation with their supply chain and utilities. StreetCare have suitable and sufficient resources to deliver the scheme in the period 2020/2022. The scheme is already in their forward programme for prospective delivery from 2020 onwards. StreetCare have also been part of the development of the scheme risk register. 4.2 Operation and Financial Viability On completion, the roundabout will be managed and maintained as part of the SGC highway network. No special arrangements will apply to the resulting scheme. The scheme design will seek to minimise future maintenance costs. 4.3 Social Value Act SGC’s StreetCare will be constructing the scheme. The authority wishes to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of the Act and to achieving the top 10 priorities listed below: - 1. Promote the local economy through optimising the use of local suppliers and the voluntary and community sector and creating and sustaining new local jobs and apprenticeships. 2. Contribute to carbon reduction targets to become carbon neutral and to help mitigate climate change, taking account of resilience to climate change and using resources wisely, including energy, land, water and materials. 3. Conserve and enhance the environment, supporting biodiversity, minimising pollution and waste and making best use of the environmental opportunities of work undertaken by our suppliers. 4. Promote the personal and physical health and the mental and emotional well-being of people within South Gloucestershire e.g.: - o Offering initiatives that support social or physical activities, o Tackling social isolation by providing opportunities to reconnect people with activities in their local communities, o Enabling citizens to make a valuable contribution to society, and o Supporting family carers to remain in paid employment. 5. Support schools and colleges e.g. through new work placement schemes, providing mentors or assisting in mock interviews. 6. Increase participation in the Children’s 6. Commissioner Takeover Challenge, find details here: https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/takeover-challenge/ 7. Provide training, workplace experience and/or employment opportunities for: - o People with Disabilities, o People with Learning Difficulties, o Care Leavers, o Young People who are not in Education, Employment or Training, or Others who may find access to employment more challenging or who may be under-represented in the workforce e.g. ex-offenders. 8. Support schools through the provision of business support services. 9. Reduce the health and social care inequalities between our Priority Neighbourhoods and the rest of South Gloucestershire. 10. Achieving a service delivery model which uses, engages or supports the local community and voluntary sector including ideas such as adopting a local voluntary organisation as the provider’s ‘charity of the year’. During the construction of the scheme, it has been agreed that StreetCare will: -  Continue to achieve priority 1 through its procurement framework - any commissions or purchases for this project will make a contribution to priority 1, however these could not be easily quantified  Continue to achieve priority 2 through its day to day operations – meaning that activities under this project will make a contribution to this priority, however these could not be easily quantified  Continue to achieve priority 3 through its day to day operations - so activities under this project will make a contribution to priority 3, however these could not be easily quantified  Achieve a specific contribution to priority 5 by approaching schools with the potential to offer work experience placements, mock interviews and to exhibit to the careers fair.

5 Management Case

5.1 Promoter and Delivery Arrangements The scheme is promoted by South Gloucestershire Council. In terms of delivery arrangements South Gloucestershire Council’s StreetCare division are building all elements of the Scheme. On completion the asset will be taken into the asset register and maintained as part of the SGC highway network. 5.2 Project Governance and Delivery The construction phase of the project will be delivered in accordance with the Environment and Community Services Department project management framework. A project structure will be set up as outlined below, with regular reports to WECA. A Scheme Project Board will consist of the SRO, S151 Officer, Head of Transport and Head of Streetcare and Operations. The Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) is responsible for providing guidance and direction to the Project Manager, and in turn ensures the project progresses in line with the Project Plan and that outputs and agreed milestones. The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for delivering the project in line with agreed controls and procedures and will be supported by a Finance Officer, Communications Officer and the SGC Legal Team. The PM reports and is accountable to the SRO and Scheme Project Board. The primary focus of the PM will be to define the Project Plan and to ensure that the project is delivered on time and within specification and budget, seeking additional financial authorities as necessary. Highlight Reports and change requests will be submitted by the Project Manager to WECA, for consideration and decision by WECA Committee in accordance with change control processes and tolerances.

5.3 Programme Plan

Milestone completion dates Baseline Outline business case Approval February 2019 Public consultation February 2019 Detailed Design November 2019 Submission of full business case January 2020 Full Business Case Approval/Offer letter signed March 2020 mobilisation May 2020 Construction Starts on Site July 2020 Construction Practical/Substantial Completion August 2021 Formal Handover November 2021 Project closure March 2022

Scheme construction is due to commence in July 2020 in order to minimise a number of constraints. Firstly, this will enable much of the scheme construction to take place during the school summer holidays, when traffic flows tend to be lighter, minimising the number of people impacted by the works. In addition, the Council’s Network Management Team, which is chaired by the Traffic Manager, have prioritised the construction of this scheme over other planned road works within the Bristol East Fringe. This includes bringing schemes forward and delaying other road works (including those from Highways England), in order to co-ordinate and manage the disruption caused to the wider network. A delay to approval of the FBC would impact negatively on the planned management of the network during scheme construction, and consequently the Council’s ability to effectively manage the network disruption caused during works. In addition, delay to the FBC may result in the revised start date for construction being delayed by a considerably longer time period than the delay to the FBC. Therefore, it is important that works start in July as planned. For further details see the scheme schedule included in appendix 5.1 5.4 Risks, Constraints and Dependencies Risks

As part of the Business Case for the scheme a Risk Register was produced which identifies all risks affecting the project. This was carried out through a risk workshop, one-on-one discussions, and review meetings which has resulted in a risk register. A copy of the register is included in Appendix 5.2. The main purpose of the QRA is to support the scheme costing by predicting the level of risk contribution, having a defined level of confidence, to cover the construction of the scheme. The QRA process involves four steps. Step 1 is identification of all risks affecting the project through risk workshops and risk reviews resulting in a risk register (the risk register will be continually reviewed and updated). Step 2 is analysis of the various risks by defining their distributions in terms of probabilities, impacts and knock-on effects. This information is also gathered through abovementioned workshops and other interactions. In Step 3, in line with the request from the SRO, a risk allowance is generated using the expected value x probability to assess the risk. This produced a risk allowance of £1,530,000 (P mean). It is acknowledged that other recent business cases have used a p(80) value for risk. However, when factoring in the advanced stage of the design, the direct involvement in pricing from the delivery team and the level of recent and current contract and construction experience in the individuals carrying out the QRA the P(mean) value was considered appropriate for this business case.

The top 5 risks (Grand Total Risk: Financial + Delay) identified by the sensitivity testing are listed below

Rank Risk Ref Description

1 WR Risk 041 Additional structural works required following final assessments of existing structures 2 WR Risk 005 Failure to maintain stakeholder acceptance following release of design options, including objections from environmental or other groups, results in a delay and increased costs. Considering allowance for 3rd party stakeholder mitigation. 3 WR Risk 029 Risks due to restrictions on access, working methods and plant (e.g. working hours, network management requirements, other restrictions), cause additional costs and delay 4 WR Risk 031 Risk of discovering and/or hitting unknown live or abandoned utilities, including clashes between utilities 5 WR Risk 023 Unforeseen ground conditions result in delay and cost increase (e.g. archaeology and mine working)

Constraints No significant constraints have been identified. Dependencies An MRN funding application for improvements on several intersections on the Bristol ring road is dependent on the Wraxall Roundabout improvements being carried out by WECA. MRN funding requires a 15% contribution from local or combined authorities, which in this application would come from the contributions from WECA to the Wraxall Roundabout scheme. The Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme has been put forward to provide match funding for the MRN scheme. Delivery of the Wraxall Road Roundabout and Ring Road MRN schemes will be through the SGC Streetworks team as part of a programme of works. The delivery of this programme will be phased, with the Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme being delivered first, in order to minimise disruption to the network. 5.5 Land Acquisition, Planning and Other Consents 5.5.1 Land Acquisition – none required 5.5.2 Planning Consent – none required as the scheme can be delivered under permitted development. 5.6 Service Diversions Based upon the C3 stage responses to utility investigations, the scheme will not require any utilities diversions. However, further site investigations are being completed to confirm that the scheme would not impact on BT and Bristol Water infrastructure. New connection utility costs have been included within the scheme costs. In addition, the QRA includes an allowance to cover any further, unexpected utilities costs. 5.7 Engagement and Consultation SGC undertook a public consultation exercise on the proposed improvements to the roundabout between 6 February and 29 March 2019. A consultation page was set up to provide the background to the consultation, the Statement of Reasons, consultation scheme drawing, and a link to a consultation survey. Additionally, three public drop-in sessions (attended by SGC officers and representatives from Jacobs consultants) were held in March 2019 to provide people with the opportunity to ask questions about proposed improvements. These were promoted on the council’s main Facebook page, StreetCare Facebook page and Twitter accounts. 154 people attended exhibitions and 231 questionnaires were returned. In addition, 37 e-mails or letters were submitted. In summary 139 (60%) of respondents supported the scheme, while 82 (35%) did not (4% didn’t know). The consultation highlighted a number of concerns amongst the public regarding the proposed scheme. A draft consultation report has been produced, which includes an appendix detailing all of the comments received during the public consultation, alongside the Council’s response. Comments concerning noise, road safety and environmental mitigation issues have all been addressed within the draft consultation report. The final feedback statement from this consultation report, will be finalised and released to the public upon receipt of a WECA decision on the scheme. In addition, a briefing note, summarising the results of the public consultation has been prepared in order to inform senior members of South Gloucestershire Council of public concerns and support for the proposed scheme. A scheme of this scale will inevitably lead to a degree of disruption for all stakeholders, therefore it is important to manage expectations. Temporary traffic management measures will be developed to provide a balanced approach to the needs of local residents and businesses, motorists using the Ring Road and public transport companies. The disruption to non-motorised users based on the current design is likely to be minimal. Additionally, in order to minimise impact on public transport services, SGC has liaised with the Council’s public transport team and have identified the bus services likely to be affected by the works. Furthermore, if the FBC is approved, SGC will begin to provide early engagement opportunities with public transport operators. The project team will follow the usual procedures adopted by SGC to keep relevant stakeholders and the public well informed in relation to construction activities. As part of this process two communications strategies will be produced – a scheme specific as well as an East Fringe strategy, which will be based on examples previously completed for the Bromley Heath Viaduct and the North Fringe road works. These communications strategies will develop clear and up-to-date information regarding temporary traffic management, plans and progress. This information will be distributed through various channels including a scheme specific web page and social media sites.

5.8 Project Assurance The project will be subject to SGC’s own internal audit processes and WECA’s audit processes in accordance with the requirements of the funding stream. The project will report to the ECS Executive Board and will be subject to financial scrutiny by SGC internal audit procedures. Management Case Appendices

Appendix 5.1: Scheme schedule Appendix 5.2: Risk register and QRA

5.9 Monitoring and Evaluation

Scheme background and context

This highway improvement scheme has been proposed to increase capacity at the Wraxall roundabout and alleviate the traffic flow issues with the junction and subsequent local highway network. The A4174, which passes through the roundabout, is a key strategic route in the Greater Bristol area providing a link between the A4 and Bath in the south to the M32 and the M4. The roundabout currently experiences congestion during weekday peak hours, particularly during the evening peak, and is forecast to experience severe congestion in future. Land use developments and proposals for the wider highway network are likely to give rise to increased demand for travel on the highway network surrounding the roundabout. The proposed scheme consists of modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement, at an estimated cost of £6.98m (2020 prices). The scheme includes adding additional lanes on the approaches and widening of some sections. These changes aim to improve current traffic flows, and by increasing capacity, facilitate and accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes.

Milestone completion dates Actual completion Outline business case Approval 2018/19 Submission of full business case 2019/20 Full Business Case Approval 2019/20 Programme Start 2020/21 Programme Scheme Completion 2021/22 Handover, Closure & Final 2021/22 Accounts

Logic Model

Context and Rationale Economic growth and housing growth within the West of England is being constrained due to inadequate levels of transport infrastructure. The Wraxall Road Roundabout improvements have been identified to facilitate the delivery of planned/committed developments within the area.

Wraxall Road Roundabout lies to the South of the Bristol and Bath Science park, within the East Fringe of Bristol, which is a key economic hub. The A4174 arm of the roundabout is a key arterial route that services the Greater Bristol region. The route provides a link between the A4 and Bath, connecting the two to strategic routes such as the M32 and M4. The A4174 facilities access to the Bristol and Bath Science park providing individuals with opportunities to new housing and employment.

The roundabout currently experiences congestion throughout peak hours within the working day; this issue being more prevalent within the evening peak. Transport modelling undertaken forecasts that congestion will be exacerbated once committed development within the vicinity is delivered. The congestion forecasted will act as a constraint to future housing and employment growth in the area and increase costs occurred by businesses operating within the area. Improvements to Wraxall Road cannot be solely funded through the private sector, public sector monies are being sought given the public good nature of the scheme. The improvements will benefit all individuals using the infrastructure. Objectives Resources/ Input Activities Outputs Direct & Indirect Outcomes Impact The aims/ objectives of the scheme are: In order to achieve the set of activities to In order to address the aims and objectives We expect that, once accomplished these We expect that if accomplished these We expect that if accomplished these (Ensure that all aims/objectives are fulfil these aims/ objectives we need the we will accomplish the following activities: activities will produce the following outputs will lead to the following change activities will lead to the following changes SMART) following: (What will the money be used for? e.g. deliverables: e.g. new products or services, skills, in service, organisation or community: (Resources should not be limited to money construction, project management, (Provide measurable outputs e.g. length of behaviour, new business/contracts, etc: (quantitative economic impacts e.g. e.g. grant, match funding, in-kind, project equipment/fit out, etc): new road/cycle path, m2 of space (Ensure that all outcomes are SMART and indirect jobs and/or GVA to be cross- team, specialist support, etc. The inputs constructed/refurbished, number of relevant to the aims/objectives to allow for referenced with FBC as appropriate) define the scope of the project being businesses supported, learners engaged, attribution; distinguish between direct and considered in the logic model ) etc) indirect outcomes)  To improve traffic flow along  Feasibility Support (and M&E Plan) Total scheme costs of £6.4m (2020  Widening of the A4174  Reduced mean network delay during  Journey time savings of £32.8m the A4174 Ring Road and  Consultant support prices) spread across the following approaches to three lanes, with peak periods of around 100 seconds  Support provision of dwellings and reduce delays to these arms;  Scheme funding activities: four lanes at entry and reduced total vehicle delay of planned employment growth of a  To improve air quality in the  Project team (e.g. design, engineering  Design  Provision of a three-lane approximately 400 hours by 2036; gross c. 51 jobs and c. 224 homes vicinity of the roundabout and project management)  Project Management highway link for A4174 across  Reduced queuing and delays on the  Additional indirect jobs associated compared to a Do-Nothing  Stakeholder and public support  Utilities the middle of the roundabout; A4174 of up to eight minutes during with construction of the scheme; 149 situation;  Successful implementation of  Construction Monitoring &  A merge on exit arrangement the busiest peak period gross jobs  To improve the road safety proposed changes to Wraxall road Evaluation for A4174 from three lanes to  A4174 North – South movements PM  Additional indirect gross GVA uplift performance of the roundabout.  Preliminary works, including two over a distance of circa Peaks: 2% reduction in journey times associated with construction of the roundabout; traffic management 100m; in Year 1 from baseline scheme; £3.2m  To maintain capacity, or  Traffic signals at each entry and  A4174 North – South movements PM improve delays where possible, conflict point Peaks: 2% reduction in journey times on Wraxall Road and Tower in Year 5 from baseline Road side-road arms; and  A4174 Side Roads (Tower Lane and  Facilitate/accommodate Wraxall Road) PM Peaks: 25% growth from housing and other reduction in journey times in Year 1 infrastructure schemes.  A4174 Side Roads (Tower Lane and Wraxall Road) PM Peaks: 25% reduction in journey times in Year 5  Improved journey time reliability, as a result of reduction in delays and journey times  Improved traffic flows  Improved air quality  Maintain safety standards, and no increases in accident rates

Evaluation design and methodologies The approach below is set out within DfTs Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes. This has been followed based guidance within the WECA 5 Full Business Case Structure Guidance Note v22 which states “Transport schemes seeking funding of over £5m will follow Monitoring and Evaluation Guidance for Local Authority Major Schemes”. The Wraxall Road Improvements are estimated to cost £6.4m (2020 prices), all of which is being sought from WECA funds.

Please note that this Monitoring and Evaluation Plan has been designed to reflect the delivery of the scheme proposals as a stand-alone intervention. If the MRN proposals come forward during the delivery of the scheme or the scheme’s Monitoring and Evaluation period (years 1 – 5 of scheme operations), the scheme’s Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will need to be updated and subsequently subsumed as part of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the DfT funded MRN proposals.

Item Content “One Year After” Final Report Report (1-2 years (5 years after post scheme scheme implementation) implementatio n) Scheme  Programme/project plan assessment, including measures of Yes build delivery at key milestones (e.g. implementation log)  Stakeholder management approach and any lessons learnt from this;  Risk management effectiveness (assessing impacts from the risk register);and,  Assessment of whether the scheme is on track to deliver the anticipated benefits and details of any benefits realised. Delivered  Full description of implemented scheme outputs including a Yes scheme clear map of the overall scheme and maps of individual elements;  Identification of any changes to the scheme since funding approval;  Identification of any changes to assumptions on provision of services by operators and provision of any evidence and/or analysis available for the reason for any such changes;  An assessment of whether the scheme has reached the intended beneficiaries; and,  Identification of changes to mitigation measures (e.g. on landscape, noise mitigation, etc,) with a clear description of the changes and the reasons for implementation. Out-turn  Outturn investment costs; Yes Yes Costs  Analysis of manifestation of identified risk in the elements of investment costs;  Identification of cost elements where cost savings were achieved and the reasons for cost savings;  Analysis of cost elements with overruns and identification of causes for overruns;  Outturn operating costs; including evidence of differences between outturn and forecasts and identification of any reasons for the differences. Travel and  Travel times at Wraxall Road Roundabout Yes Yes reliability  Journey times for A4174 North – South movements during PM times Peaks

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

 Journey times for A4174 Side Roads (Tower Lane and Wraxall Road) PM Peaks  Qualitative assessment of journey reliability aided by review of changes in journey time

Travel  Road traffic flows at Wraxall Road Roundabout Yes Yes Demand Impacts on  Employment levels within the region Yes Yes the  Housing levels within the region economy Local Air  ‘Modelled’ effect of the scheme on local air quality within the Yes Yes Quality Wraxall Road Roundabout and analysis of the difference between outturn results and scheme forecasts Safety and  Stage 3 Road Safety Audit (completed upon scheme opening) Yes collisions  Stage 4 Road Safety Audit (completed upon end of Year 1 operation of the scheme)  Accident rates at Wraxall Road Roundabout

Audience

The monitoring and evaluation plan generated for the Wraxall Road Roundabout improvement will be of interest to the following:

• West of England Local Enterprise Partnership Board – baseline report, “One Year After” and Five Years After reports

• Stakeholders within South Gloucestershire Council – baseline report, summary of the “One Year After” and Five Years After reports

• Wider public sector bodies – baseline report, summary of the “One Year After” and Five Years After reports

Data requirements For schemes fully or part-funded via the Local Growth Fund only N/A

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

Data collection methods

The data collection methods adopted for the evaluation activities will be a mixture of both primary and secondary. Explicit reference will be made where primary data will be sought to carry out the monitoring and evaluation.

Outturn costs Information around the outturn costs can be obtained from relevant departments within South Gloucestershire Council.

Specifically, outturn cost data will be obtained from primarily from supplier invoices, project manager input and yearly grant claims. Where there are any cost savings/cost overruns the reasons for these will need to be identified and reported within the relevant documentation.

The outturn data collection will cover both the operation costs and the capital cost, the exercise will involve comparing the forecasted costs with the outturn position following the scheme delivery.

This data will be collected throughout the construction stage, until the completion of the scheme. This data will feature within the “One Year After” report and the 5 Years After report. Scheme build

Information around the scheme build activities will be obtained from the relevant departments within South Gloucestershire Council. This will also be presented within the construction programme.

The project programme will contain within it scheme build information, outlining the key milestones. Further, the risk register and benefits realisation plan will be used to report on the scheme build phase. Any benefits that materialise within the construction stage period will also be reported.

This data will be collected throughout the construction stage, until the completion of the scheme. This data will feature within the “One Year After” report.

Delivered scheme Any changes to the final scheme delivered can be identified from the scheme drawings produced, these documents will be readily available from the relevant departments within South Gloucestershire. The scheme drawings produced will also be used to inform the full description of the implemented outputs, both at an overall scheme level and the individual elements.

Given the public good nature of the scheme, being non-excludable, the change in the aggregate journey times will indicate whether or not the scheme reached the intended beneficiaries i.e all road users.

The analysis currently doesn’t make any assumptions around service provision by operators as service provided ,such as maintenance of the asset, will be available from South Gloucestershire Council. The rationale behind the changes from the current assumption will also be explained.

Currently no environmental mitigation measures are required for the scheme; however if any mitigation measures arise during delivery of the scheme these will be recorded in the appropriate documentation and this information will be available from the council.

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

This data will be collected annually throughout the construction stage, until the completion of the scheme.

Transport economic impacts To assess the travel times and reliability impacts in the “One Year After” report and 5 years after scheme implementation report, primary data will be required. This will take the form of TomTom travel time data and mobile phone GPS data at the roundabout will be analysed. In particular, the analysis will focus on the difference between the scheme forecast and the outturn impacts. Further, a queue length survey will also be undertaken. These surveys will provide an indication of changes to travel times and the network reliability.

The impact of the scheme on travel demand will require the traffic flows at Wraxall Road Roundabout to be monitored. The analysis proposed that a traffic count survey is undertaken using video surveillance.

No primary data collection will be carried be carried out to monitor the air quality. The effects of air quality will be modelled through the transport model. This will involve comparison between comparing the ex-ante Do minimum and the ex-post Do Something results of the traffic model.

The data collected through the surveys outlined above will be conducted “One Year After” and in 5 Year After, the scheme demand, travel times and queue length data will be used to update the traffic model to generate a revised BCR.

Wider Economic Impacts The scheme will facilitate/accommodate provision of dwellings and planned employment growth within the vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout. To monitor the delivery of the number of jobs facilitated, the Annual Monitoring Report produced by South Gloucestershire will be used. The report contains details surrounding the number of jobs currently delivered against the local plan requirements. Given that TEMPRO forecasts are driven by the local plan, it would be possible to review the Annual Monitoring Report to monitor the increase in the number of jobs. Furthermore, a desk-based review of data sets such as the Business Register Survey will be undertaken of the area to monitor the number of jobs. The Council Tax register will be monitored to understand how many new homes are registered the within the area.

Consultations will also be undertaken with the Development Control team at South Gloucestershire Council. These consultations will seek to determine the number of units / floorspace of development which could have been conditioned in the absence of the proposed scheme. This will provide further evidence of development based wider impacts enabled by the scheme proposals.

Safety and Collision Stage 3 and Stage 4 Road Safety Audits will be conducted. Secondary data on accident rates will also be collected.

These data collection activities will occur in the baseline, and within the “One Year After” and Five Years After.

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

Data collection and establishing the baseline

Metric Unit Frequen Data source Baseline Reporting (inc. Target) cy (& Responsibility) date to? Inputs Construction Costs £, by Annual Supplier invoices; yearly Q1 2020 Baseline, (forecasts & outturn) source until grant claims – finance One Year scheme officer After completi report and on Five Years After Report Outputs Widening of the Numb Annual Scheme drawings, South Q1 2020 Baseline A4174 approaches er of until Gloucestershire Council and One to three lanes lanes scheme StreetCare Year After completi report on Provision of a three- Annual South Gloucestershire Q1 2020 Baseline lane highway link for until Council and One A4174 through- scheme StreetCare Year After traffic across the completi report middle of the on roundabout A merge on exit Metre Annual South Gloucestershire Q1 2020 Baseline arrangement for s of until Council and One A4174 through- merge scheme StreetCare Year After traffic from three provid completi report lanes to two over a ed on distance of circa 100m Traffic signals at Numb Annual South Gloucestershire Q1 2020 Baseline each entry and er of until Council and One conflict point traffic scheme StreetCare Year After signal completi report s on Outcomes and impacts Vehicle Journey Minut Baseline, TomTom travel time Q1 2020 Baseline, Times es / scheme data/mobile phone GPS One Year KPH opening data After + 1 and report and scheme Five Years opening After +5 Report

Change in traffic AADT Baseline, Video surveys Q1 2020 Baseline, flow at Wraxall Road (vehicl scheme One Year Roundabout es per opening After day) + 1 and report and scheme Five Years

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

opening After +5 Report Queueing at Wraxall Queue Baseline, Queue length surveys Q1 2020 Baseline, Road Roundabout length scheme One Year opening After + 1 and report and scheme Five Years opening After +5 Report Jobs created in the Numb Annual Annual Monitoring Report Q1 2020 Baseline, area er of and Business Register One Year jobs Survey After Consultation with Council’s report and Development Control Five Years Team After Report Housing delivered Numb Annual OpenDataCommunities.or Q1 2020 Baseline, within the area er of g – Housebuilding One Year dwelli completions: South After ngs Gloucestershire & Bristol report and South Gloucestershire Five Years Council After Tax Register Report Consultation with Council’s Development Control Team Local air quality Chang Baseline, Modelled effect Q1 2020 Baseline, e in scheme One Year emissi opening After ons + 1 and report and scheme Five Years opening After +5 Report

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

Delivery plan

The delivery plan to conduct the monitoring and evaluation activities can be seen below. For each criteria evaluated the plan depicts the report the data will feed into. The baseline report will cover criteria identified within section 4.3 of this monitoring and evaluation plan.

Years Year 0 Year C1 Year C2 Year O1 Year O2 Year O3 Year O4 Year 05 Tasks 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Full Business Case

Approval Develop monitoring and

evaluation framework Develop baseline

report Evaluation – scheme build (including benefit “One Year After realisation and Report” program management) Evaluation – “One Year delivered scheme After (outputs) Report” Evaluation – “One Year Five Years After After outturn costs Report” Report Evaluation – “One Year initial wider After economic impacts Report” Evaluation – final Five Years wider economic After impacts Report Evaluation – “One Year initial transport After economic impacts Report” Evaluation – final Five Years transport After economic impacts Report Interim value for “One Year After money Report” Final value for Five Years After money Report

Key Funding approval Monitoring and evaluation tasks which will be

delivered over the years

The initial task as per the delivery plan would be to generate a baseline report. This would be done through sourcing information from reports and data that is readily available within the public domain. Where necessary further analysis will be undertaken to assess the baseline condition.

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

As per the Monitoring and Evaluation Guidance for Local Authority Major Schemes guidance, the scheme build, outturn costs and delivered scheme will be monitored through the delivery stage. Following delivery of the scheme these will be reported on within the “One Year After” report.

Further, the One Year After report will also contain an initial view on the wider economic impacts facilitated by Wraxall road roundabout improvements. Completion of the various traffic surveys will allow for the transport model to be re-calibrated and an initial view on the schemes value for money can be generated. Monitoring at this stage will also cover air quality, this will be observed through air quality receptors within the vicinity of the roundabout.

The Five Year After report will also contain an more detailed view on the wider economic impacts facilitated by Wraxall road roundabout improvements. Traffic surveys will once again be required; these will be used to produce better estimates for benefits realisation and BCR refinement. Air quality will also be monitored through air quality receptors within the vicinity of the roundabout.

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

Resourcing and Governance

The cost associated with the resources required to undertake the Monitoring and Evaluation activities have been built into the project costs. The table below illustrates the breakdown by working days required to undertake the Monitoring and Evaluation.

To undertake the Monitoring and Evaluation it is envisaged that 33 working days will be required.

Baseline “One Five Year Year Evaluation Categories After” After Scheme build 0.5 0.5 Delivered scheme 0.5 0.5 Outturn costs 1 1 1 Wider economic impacts 1 2 2 Transport impacts 1 6 7 Value for money 1 1 1 Reporting 2 2 2 Total Days 7 13 13 Consultant Budget (£’000) 6 12 12 Total Budget (£’000) 30

Consideration will be given to the inclusion of permanent traffic counter loops within the scheme design, in order to provide high quality data for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

A risk management register will be developed to supplement the Monitoring and Evaluation activities. This will be driven through the development and frequent monitoring of a risk register, with a summary of which being disseminated to the project manager and key stakeholders. The project sponsor is Richard Gillingham from South Gloucestershire Council. He will take the responsibility for overseeing the overall project, as well as the monitoring and evaluation plan.

SGC’s Transport Monitoring Team will be responsible for overseeing the management of the M&E activities and quality checks on the data collected and reported. This will be done through the use of South Gloucestershire Council’s own traffic engineers and transport specialists. This will ensure the production of a robust monitoring and evaluation plan.

Named M&E contact from the Council:

Richard Gillingham. MSc. CMILT. Major Projects Senior Responsible Officer South Gloucestershire Council Department for Environment and Community Services Transport and Strategic Projects PO Box 1954 Bristol BS37 0DD

Tel. 01454 864448 (Based at Badminton Road Offices)

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

Dissemination

The findings from the evaluation will be used to shape the designs and delivery mechanisms of future roundabout improvement schemes within the region. Further, data on the impact of the scheme will be used to support the research into the needs of the diverse consumer groups.

Reports produced are to be shared with the West of England Combined Authority. It will be the responsibility of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan lead to circulate the reports produced at various intervals. These reports will include the Baseline report, the “One Year After” and Five Years After Monitoring and Evaluation Reports.

The following key stakeholders will also be provided a summary of the various reports produced:  Stakeholders within South Gloucestershire Council  Wider public sector bodies

The evaluation can also be used a case study from which good practices can be adopted and applied to Monitoring and Evaluation Plans that are conducted within the West of England in the future.

Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

180.0

CUT LINE CUT

190.0

673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0002

200.0 SEE DRAWING SEE

CUT LINE CUT

210.0 220.0

KT 1

230.0 240.0

2.5m wide central reservation to facilitate carriageway widening 250.0 Western carriageway widened to create additional lane

Proposed terminal

2

6

0.0

ONLY

ONLY

C'BURY

ONLY P2

EAST

EAST

MOUNT

EAST A4174

A4174

realigned A4174 270.0 Splitter i widening facilitate carriageway

movement Central allow 00.0

Proposed channelising movement island to facilitate left turn sland realigned to 280.0 SCHEME END straight-ahead Existing parapet to remain

Island realigned to

10.0

290.0 Chainage alignment:

20.0 North Approach

300

.0

Potential asbestos Existing Bridge Deck 30.0

ONLY

C'BURY

ONLY

EAST

ONLY SCHEME END MOUNT

EAST

40.0

A4174

EAST

310.0 Proposed 60.0 A4174 terminal

61.3 ! A4174

KT 1

KT 1 50.0

320.0

C'BURY

P2 A4174 EAST 325.8

A4174 00.0 Water Main Potential asbestos Existing Bridge Deck ! Existing parapet to remain

KT 1 10.0

!

20.0

EAST A4174 New signal maintenance Proposed terminal

bay. To be surfaced in C'BURY

Grass-block, refer to A4174 SGSD/1100/55A Water Main ! P2

Proposed terminal

50.0 30.0

ONLY C'BURY

ONLY

AHEAD

EAST EAST

Right channel of central island Roundabout island central of channel Right WEST

ONLY

AHEAD

A4174 A4174 AHEAD

P2 A4174

40.0 Chainage alignment: Chainage

Embankment High 60.0 KT 1 ! A4174 A4174 A4174 WEST WEST EAST AHEAD Proposed MOUNT AHEAD ONLY terminal

AHEAD ONLY 67.7 ONLY 00.0

P2

Right channel long channel Right island east island Chainage alignment: Chainage 2.5m wide central reservation to facilitate carriageway widening

Underground 10.0 Power Cable KT 1

! A4174

MOUNT A4174 20.0

Existing parapet to remain WEST

30.0

1 1 Potential asbestos Existing Bridge Deck A4174 realigned

WEST A4174 40.0 MOUNT KT 1 ! 115.5 A4174

110.0 A4174 WEST 50.0 Proposed channelising movement island to facilitate left turn A4174 WEST ONLY 100.0 C'BURY WEST ONLY Existing parapet to remain Proposed VRS to tie in with

existing MOUNT ONLY 90.0 60.0 Splitter i facilitate carriageway widening Underground ! DECOMMISSIONING / DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE / CLEANING -Work on or close to high embankments / bridge deck - Implement safety measures for working in - All buried services to be isolated / protected prior - Identify and locate existing services - Ensure adequate segregation of construction activities - As above - As above It is assumed that all works will be carried out by a competent contractor Power Potential asbestos Existing Bridge Deck Cable excavations, confined spaces and traffic areas start of works from users of adjacent live carriageways KT 1 In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with types of

80.0 !

sland realigned to working, where appropriate, to an approved method statement 70.0 Proposed terminal ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION work detailed on this drawing, note the following :

70.0 SAFETY, HEALTH AND 80.0

P2 A4174

Proposed WEST terminal A4174 Proposed terminal

60.0 A4174 WEST ONLY 90.0 ONLY C'BURY WEST Eastern carriageway widened

to create additional lane MOUNT ONLY P2 100.0 P2

50.0

Tie-in point 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0002

110.0

SEE DRAWING SEE

40.0 LINE CUT 120.0

30.0

KT 1 130.0

20.0

140.0 SCHEME END SCHEME

10.0 150.0

Chainage alignment:

FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT South Approach

160.0

SCHEME END SCHEME 00.0 CUT LINE CUT paper copy may be used for your own use. 10. This map has been provided for this drawing and must not be used any other purpose. Only one © Crown copyright and database rights 1. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 0 KEY P01 SCALE 1:1000 (A3) SCALE 1:500 (A1) Rev Drawing Scale: Drawing No. Approved by: Checked by: Drawn by: Drawing Project www.ch2m.com Tel +44 (0)117 910 2580 Fax 2581 1 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6DG CH2M Client 140.0 Levels are in metres above Ordnance Datum (A.O.D.). attention of this department immediately. should This For For proposed traffic sign For proposed highway drainage details refer to 500 Series For Site Clearance details refer to min. of 0.6m in accordance with TD27/05. All dimensions conditions allow. Set-back shall be 1.2m typically. Where site constraints encountered, set-back may be relaxed to details drawings drawings drawings. to W2, however higher working width shall be used if site Working width of the proposed VRS has been specified as For proposed traffic sign For proposed pavement details refer to 1200 Series By OO proposed a

Proposed pedestrian barrier - refer to SGC standard Edging Kerb (KT2) - refer to SGC standard detail Proposed VRS - N2W2 Proposed terminal P1 Proposed terminal P Existing VRS to remain Kerbs SGSD/1100/02 Type EA1 Channels and Edgings detail T99/400/01A Type BB to Proposed drawing Proposed Traffic Signals. See note 8 Post Solutions Ltd). Refer to supplier specifications. Poposed non-illuminated bollard type SP3 sixty (Sign Proposed Traffic Road Gullies. See note 5 C 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-2601 OO

673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0001 hainage (For specific DS refer to be Chkd PF SGC 10 KERBS AND STREET FURNITURE DS 1:500 @ A1 . .

A4174 WRAXALL ROAD used. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Apprvd should

PF

2600 Series standard are in metres unless noted otherwise. drawings s lignments, chainages and cross section

played ROUNDABOUT Any 08/10/19 Date

SHEET 1 OF 2 2013 not ORDNANCE SURVEY

20 discrepancies S Ordnance Survey 100023410.

kerb be NOTES ign For review and comment s and road markings . als detail 2

scaled drawings details refer to .

alignment (KT See note 9

SGSD/1100/01

30

1) drawing and 200 Series

should -

. Description

125mm only chainage refer to 700 Series

)

1250 Series written be Date: Date: Date:

details refer drawings 40

upstand brought

Revision Type

08/10/2019 08/10/2019 08/10/2019 dimensions METRES P01 ,

to r . K efer

B the 50 2

Drawing file path & name : \\brsfpp01\Proj\Consulting\Projects\673847 South Glos - 2016 BCC Framework\BJ.35.01 - A4174-Wraxall Rd Signals Appraisal\Detailed Design and FBC\90_CAD_Drawings\92_Tender\92.3_Highways\ 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0001 General Arangements.dwg Xreference file path : \\brsfpp01\Proj\Consulting\Projects\673847 South Glos - 2016 BCC Framework\BJ.35.01 - A4174-Wraxall Rd Signals Appraisal\Detailed Design and FBC\90_CAD_Drawings\92_Tender\92.3_Highways\ User and Plot Date : czakonl : 28 Oct 2019 - 11:45 am

70.0

SCHEME END SCHEME

80.0

SCHEME END SCHEME

90.0

100.0

110.0

120.0

Right channel - long island west island long - channel Right

Chainage alignment: Chainage

00.0

673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0001 OVERHEAD HV POWER LINE POWER HV OVERHEAD 130.0 SEE DRAWING SEE

T

ie-in

CUT LINE CUT 10.0

point

CUT LINE CUT

140.0

20.0

150.0

30.0

160.0 40.0

Proposed terminal 170.0

P1 50.0

180.0

60.0 190.0 Termination of existing hard strips

KT 1

70.0 200.0 T ie-in Proposed terminal

point

80.0 210.0 P1

Proposed terminal

220.0 90.0

P2

230.0

100.0

island east island

Right channel long channel Right

Chainage alignment: Chainage

240.0 110.0

KT 1

250.0 120.0

2.5m wide central reservation to facilitate carriageway widening

260.0

130.0

270.0 140.0

realigned 280.0

2.5m wide central reservation facilitate carriageway widening 150.0 290.0

Proposed terminal

160.0 300.0

P2 Opening of existing hard strips 170.0

realigned to 310.0 T ie-in

point

180.0 320.0

Proposed terminal

673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0001

SEE DRAWING SEE

190.0

CUT LINE CUT

330.0

P1 LINE CUT

200.0 340.0 T ie-in

point

210.0

Proposed 350.0 terminal Proposed 356.7 terminal

P1 220.0

P2 230.0 DECOMMISSIONING / DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE / CLEANING -Work on or close to high embankments / bridge deck - - - - - As above - As above

It is assumed that all works will be carried out by a competent contractor Implement safety measures for working in Identify and locate existing services

Ensure adequate segregation of construction activities excavations, confined spaces and traffic areas start of works from users of adjacent live carriageways All buried services to be isolated / protected prior In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with types of 240.0 FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT working, where appropriate, to an approved method statement

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION work detailed on this drawing, note the following : SCHEME END SCHEME

SAFETY, HEALTH AND 250.0

ONLY ONLY ONLY

C'BURY

EAST EAST EAST

0.0 6 2

MOUNT A4174 A4174 A4174

SCHEME END SCHEME

270.0

OVERHEAD HV POWER LINE POWER HV OVERHEAD 280.0 paper copy may be used for your own use. 10. This map has been provided for this drawing and must not be used any other purpose. Only one © Crown copyright and database rights 1. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 0 KEY P01 SCALE 1:1000 (A3) SCALE 1:500 (A1) Rev Drawing Scale: Drawing No. Approved by: Checked by: Drawn by: Drawing Project www.ch2m.com Tel +44 (0)117 910 2580 Fax 2581 1 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6DG CH2M Client 140.0 Levels are in metres above Ordnance Datum (A.O.D.). attention of this department immediately. should This For proposed traffic signals details refer to 1250 Series For For proposed traffic sign For proposed highway drainage details refer to 500 Series For Site Clearance details refer to min. of 0.6m in accordance with TD27/05. refer to All dimensions conditions allow. Set-back shall be 1.2m typically. Where site constraints encountered, set-back may be relaxed to drawings. drawings drawings. to W2, however higher working width shall be used if site Working width of the proposed VRS has been specified as For proposed pavement details refer to 1200 Series By OO proposed a

Proposed pedestrian barrier - refer to SGC standard Edging Kerb (KT2) - refer to SGC standard detail Proposed VRS - N2W2 Proposed terminal P1 Proposed terminal P Existing VRS to remain Kerbs SGSD/1100/02 Type EA1 Channels and Edgings detail T99/400/01A Type BB to Proposed drawing Proposed Traffic Signals Post Solutions Ltd). Refer to supplier specifications. Poposed non-illuminated bollard type SP3 sixty (Sign Proposed Traffic Road Gullies. See note 5 C 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-2601 OO

673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0002 hainage (For specific 2600 Series DS be Chkd PF SGC 10 KERBS AND STREET FURNITURE DS 1:500 @ A1 .

A4174 WRAXALL ROAD used. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

Apprvd should

PF

standard are in metres unless noted otherwise. drawings s lignment

played ROUNDABOUT Any 08/10/19 Date

SHEET 2 OF 2013 drawings not ORDNANCE SURVEY

20 discrepancies S Ordnance Survey 100023410.

kerb be NOTES ign For review and comment s and road markings . l detail 2 ayout and cross section details

scaled .

alignment (KT See note 9. .

SGSD/1100/01

30

1) drawing and 200 Series

should -

Description

125mm only chainage refer to 700 Series

)

written be Date: Date: Date:

details refer drawings 40

upstand brought

Revision Type

08/10/2019 08/10/2019 08/10/2019 dimensions METRES P01 ,

to r . K efer

B the 50 2

Drawing file path & name : \\brsfpp01\Proj\Consulting\Projects\673847 South Glos - 2016 BCC Framework\BJ.35.01 - A4174-Wraxall Rd Signals Appraisal\Detailed Design and FBC\90_CAD_Drawings\92_Tender\92.3_Highways\ 673847.BJ.35-CH-DR-0001 General Arangements.dwg Xreference file path : \\brsfpp01\Proj\Consulting\Projects\673847 South Glos - 2016 BCC Framework\BJ.35.01 - A4174-Wraxall Rd Signals Appraisal\Detailed Design and FBC\90_CAD_Drawings\92_Tender\92.3_Highways\ User and Plot Date : czakonl : 28 Oct 2019 - 11:46 am

Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal Scheme FBC

Equality & Diversity Impact Assessment and Plan

Introduction

Wraxall Road Roundabout is a major intersection on the local highway network, connecting residential and employment areas with each other as well as with the regional and strategic transport network. The northern and southern arms of the roundabout are the dual carriageway A4174. The side-road arms of Wraxall Road Roundabout are Wraxall Road to the west and Tower Lane to the east. Wraxall Road Roundabout currently experiences congestion with delays mainly on the side-road arms during the weekday morning peak period of nearly 30 seconds according to journey time data, and delays of over a minute on most approaches during the weekday evening peak period. Delays on the A4174 southbound approach are nearly one and half minutes during this period. There are a number of development sites in the North and East Fringe that are either committed or in the planning process. This includes major development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN), Charlton Hayes and at Harry Stoke. Whilst some distance from the site, the size of these developments could mean that they will still influence traffic volumes and affect travel behaviour in the vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout. In addition, the JSP Plan aims to build approximately 44,000 new homes beyond what has already been committed in the West of England between 2016 and 2036. In order to achieve this, five SDLs have been identified where additional large-scale greenfield development is proposed to occur. There are two SDLs that have potential significance in relation to Wraxall Road Roundabout, namely: • Land at Bath Road Brislington, with 750 new homes and mixed-use development and relocation of the Bath Road Park and Ride to land adjacent to Hicks Gate Roundabout; and, • North Keynsham, with 1,500 new homes and 50 hectares of employment floorspace proposed, new local centre, primary school and mixed tenure marina. This represents a total of 2,250 dwellings and 50 hectares of employment land to be located between two and three miles to the south of Wraxall Road Roundabout which is likely to increase demand for travel through the site. Due in part to the above, by 2036, Wraxall Road Roundabout is forecast to operate well in excess of capacity, particularly in the weekday peak periods. These problems cannot be mitigated solely through private sector projects; public sector investment is needed to enhance access to the local region rather than assigning the scheme to specific individual developments. The increased capacity of critical network pinch points such as Wraxall Road Roundabout is essential to the development of the region’s infrastructure, to meet the housing and economic growth ambitions. The proposed scheme consists of modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement. Specifically, it comprises the following elements: • Widening of the A4174 approaches to three lanes with four lanes at entry with three lanes providing high capacity for the dominant A4174 through-traffic movement; • Provision of a three-lane highway link for A4174 through-traffic across the middle of the roundabout; • A merge on exit arrangement for A4174 through-traffic from three lanes to two over a distance of circa 100m;

• Traffic signals at each entry and conflict point would manage the flow of traffic safely and efficiently. There will be no change to existing footways including the off-road cycleway and footway as part of the scheme. The objectives of the improvement scheme are to: • Reduce the number and severity of collisions at the roundabout; • Improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays on approaches to the roundabout; • Improve air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout; • Maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on the Wraxall Road and Tower Road approaches; and • Enable growth from housing and other development schemes. Equality & Diversity and the WECA Business Plan 2019-20

The public sector equality duty created under the Equality Act 2010 means that public authorities must have due regard to the need to:

- Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimization and other conduct prohibited by the Act. - Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. - Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

The Act explains that having due regard for advancing equality involves:

- Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics. - Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are different from the needs of other people. - Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.

The diagram below shows an overview of Equality and Diversity links to the WECA Business Plan:

Of the four priority areas shown in the diagram, Infrastructure is the key priority area relevant to the Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal scheme. It is also noted that the priority areas of Skills and Business are also indirectly positively impacted through the delivery of improved connectivity. The WECA equality objective for infrastructure is to ensure that infrastructure in the West of England is accessible to a full diversity of people. The table below sets out the Business Plan objectives and actions.

Business Plan Actions Key ‘Protected Infrastructure Objectives Characteristics’

Better links to reduce Introduction of better linking of areas of Disability congestion and connect economic and housing expansion with the Age people. improvement of the cycle network, allowing Improve national and for more sustainable travel patterns international connections. between them and other areas.

Links to Employment spaces to Ensuring that employment spaces meet Disability meet the needs of all accessibility standards. businesses. World-leading digital Supporting groups to access digital Disability connections across the connections. Age region. Race

Of the above objectives, the Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme significantly contributes to ‘Better links to reduce congestion and connect people.’ The identified key protected characteristics for this objective are disability and age.

The proposals are in line with South Gloucestershire Council’s transport strategy, as set out in the JLTP3 (Joint Local Transport Plan) and Core Strategy. The improvements being delivered at this junction are part of a wider transport package covering all modes. Improvements to the operation of the Ring Road will divert vehicles and discourage ‘rat running’ from local roads, to improve them for other users including buses, cyclists and pedestrians. Good levels of accessibility benefit all, regardless of protected characteristic. The scheme will improve access to employment and housing (it supports strategic developments at two sites specifically which will provide 750 and 1,500 houses respectively), leading to increased opportunities regardless of protected characteristic. As a result of the scheme, vehicle emissions will be reduced, delivering a positive environmental impact and improving the sustainability of the road network. Air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout will be improved. Safety will also be improved for all through a reduction in the number and severity of collisions at the roundabout.

There will be no change to existing footways including the off-road cycleway and footway as part of the scheme.

South Gloucestershire Council Equality Impact & Analysis

SGC is committed to ensuring that its policies, procedures and schemes are fair and equitable, offering equality of access and opportunity for all. As a result, teams from across the council monitor and plan for performance in respects of equalities. This is formalised in the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment & Analysis (EqIAA) procedure.

This ensures that equalities considerations are embedded in the work that we do, including the consideration of impacts on protected characteristics groups, including disability and age – key protected characteristics identified by WECA. SGC’s EqIAA process is therefore consistent with the WECA Business Plan equality requirements.

Full and comprehensive EqIAAs have been undertaken in respect of the Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme at key stages throughout its development. the EqIAA process has ensured that the scheme design, as well as public consultation, has complied with all equality requirements.

March 2019 public consultation

SGC undertook a public consultation exercise on the proposed improvements to the roundabout between 6 February and 29 March 2019. A consultation page was set up to provide the background to the consultation, the Statement of Reasons, consultation scheme drawing, and a link to a consultation survey.

Additionally, three public drop-in sessions (attended by SGC officers and representatives from Jacobs consultants) were held in March 2019 to provide people with the opportunity to ask questions about proposed improvements. These were promoted on the council’s main Facebook page, StreetCare Facebook page and Twitter accounts.

154 people attended exhibitions and 231 questionnaires were returned. In addition, 37 e-mails or letters were submitted.

In summary 139 (60%) of respondents supported the scheme, while 82 (35%) did not (4% didn’t know).

Impacts on protected characteristic groups

It is expected that the Wraxall Road Roundabout scheme will benefit all groups in society by increasing capacity on a major intersection in the highway network, significantly alleviating highway congestion in the short- and long-term. This will reduce delays, thereby providing economic benefits, and reduce vehicle emissions, delivering a positive environmental impact and improving the sustainability of the road network. The proposals are in line with South Gloucestershire Council’s transport strategy, as set out in the JLTP3 (Joint Local Transport Plan) and Core Strategy. The improvements being delivered at this junction are part of a wider transport package covering all modes. There will be no change to existing footways as part of the scheme, including the off-road cycleway and footway. However, improvements to the operation of the Ring Road will divert vehicles and discourage ‘rat running’ from local roads, to improve them for other users including buses, cyclists and pedestrians.

Equality Impact Assessment and Analysis (EqIAA) - Evaluation Tool

Name of service / function / Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal Scheme issue under consideration:

Date of the last completed EqIAA relating to the service / function / issue under consideration:

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION

Context: What is the Main purpose of the scheme?

The proposed scheme consists of modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement. Specifically, it comprises the following elements:

• Widening of the A4174 approaches to three lanes with four lanes at entry with three lanes providing high capacity for the dominant A4174 through-traffic movement; • Provision of a three-lane highway link for A4174 through-traffic across the middle of the roundabout; • A merge on exit arrangement for A4174 through-traffic from three lanes to two over a distance of circa 100m; • Traffic signals at each entry and conflict point would manage the flow of traffic safely and efficiently.

The objectives of the improvement scheme are to:

• Reduce the number and severity of collisions at the roundabout; • Improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays on approaches to the roundabout; • Improve air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout; • Maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on the Wraxall Road and Tower Road approaches; and • Enable growth from housing and other development schemes.

Who are the main beneficiaries of the scheme? The improvements to Wraxall Road Roundabout will increase capacity on a major intersection in the highway network, significantly alleviating highway congestion in the short- and long-term. This will reduce delays, thereby providing economic benefits, and reduce vehicle emissions, delivering a positive environmental impact and improving the sustainability of the road network. The proposals are in line with South Gloucestershire Council’s transport strategy, as set out in the JLTP3 (Joint Local Transport Plan) and Core Strategy. The improvements being delivered at this junction are part of a wider transport package covering all modes. There will be no change to existing footways as part of the scheme, including the off-road cycleway and footway. However, improvements to the operation of the Ring Road will divert vehicles and discourage ‘rat running’ from local roads, to improve them for other users including buses, cyclists and pedestrians. With ongoing development in employment and housing in the area, the improvements will stimulate growth and ensure growth occurs that could otherwise be prevented by the presence of a ‘pinchpoint’ of restricted capacity within the highway network. In addition to the support of employment and housing growth described above, the scheme will also directly provide construction jobs. How is the overall success of the scheme measured? After the completion of the scheme, a process evaluation will be undertaken in Year 1. This will cover the construction stage, as well as the project management.

In Year 3, an initial process evaluation of the project management will be undertaken which will look at the benefit realisation process. Within year 3, an initial evaluation of the economic benefits will also occur. The transport impact evaluation will only cover the outputs delivered in year 3.

A more detailed assessment in Year 5 might be undertaken across the following categories, transport and economic development only if deemed necessary. More details are provided in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.

SECTION 2 – INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

Overview of Impacts

Equality Group Negative Positive No Unsure Reason(s) Impact Impact Impact of Impact 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

Is there any indication Age Yes No Don’t Know or evidence (locally or Disability Yes No Don’t Know nationally) that different groups will Gender Reassignment Yes No Don’t Know have different needs, Marriage & Civil Partnership Yes No Don’t Know experiences, issues or priorities in relation Pregnancy & Maternity Yes No Don’t Know to service / function / Race Yes No Don’t Know

issue under DEMAND consideration? Religion or Belief Yes No Don’t Know

NB. Primary source of Sex Yes No Don’t Know evidence should be locally collected evidence; if none is Sexual Orientation Yes No Don’t Know

available, national data can be used in its place. More information is needed

Is there any indication Age Yes No Don’t Know or evidence (locally or Disability Yes No Don’t Know nationally) that different groups will Gender Reassignment Yes No Don’t Know have participation Marriage & Civil Partnership Yes No Don’t Know levels, satisfaction levels or outcomes in Pregnancy & Maternity Yes No Don’t Know relation to service / Race Yes No Don’t Know function / issue under consideration? Religion or Belief Yes No Don’t Know OUTCOMES Sex Yes No Don’t Know NB. Primary source of evidence should be locally Sexual Orientation Yes No Don’t Know collected evidence; if none is available, national data can be used in its place. More information is needed

Describe the evidence and what it tells you. Ensure you cover the following:- • Total number of persons affected and the numbers of protected characteristics within that; The groups most affected by this scheme are local residents, vehicle drivers using that route, cyclists and pedestrians, and bus users/operators. • Trends – is any impact: improving, getting worse, staying the same; Indications are that traffic congestion is expected to worsen in this location if nothing is done to mitigate the growth in traffic. This scheme is expected to help relieve congestion thus reducing air pollution, and improving travel times. • Impact on protected characteristic groups: Impact on protected groups is anticipated to be low but positive. This is due to the anticipated improvements to access, reduction in traffic on other routes for pedestrians and cyclists, and a reduction in air borne pollutants. • Impact on Council reputation (including any public concerns raised): The impact is anticipated to be positive, due to improvements to journey times and reduction in congestion on other routes used by pedestrians and cyclists. • Financial Implications: It is anticipated that the overall financial impact in the local area will be positive as it will help reduce waiting time of buses and other commercial vehicles caught in congestion. The scheme will help support the overall economic growth in eastern Bristol and South Gloucestershire.

Insert your text here and then complete the check boxes below (refer to guidance document for examples)

Impact on Protected Characteristic groups: Positive: Low Moderate Substantial Negative: Low Moderate Substantial Catastrophic

Impact on Council reputation: Positive Negative Neutral

Financial Implications: Small Medium High

Explain why the above check boxes have been selected:

The West of England Joint Spatial Plan supports the delivery of 82,500 new jobs and 105,500 new homes by 2036. Of this, 17,600 homes will be in Strategic Development Locations (SDLs).

Five SDLs are proposed in South Gloucestershire which will provide a total of approximately 8,500 homes. Due to the size of these SDLs, they all stand to alter travel behaviour across the region, though two in particular have a greater significance to Wraxall Road Roundabout. These are:

• Land at Bath Road Brislington, with 750 new homes and mixed use development and relocation of the Bath Road Park and Ride to land adjacent to Hicks Gate Roundabout; and, • North Keynsham, with 1,500 new home and 50 hectares of employment floorspace proposed, new local centre, primary school and mixed tenure marina.

In addition to this, a new motorway junction is proposed on the M4 (Junction 18a), with a road connection to the A4174 Ring Road. This will improve resilience of the network and unlock economic growth in the East Fringe. This scheme will put additional pressure on the Ring Road junctions, including Wraxall Road Roundabout.

The increased capacity of critical pinch points such as Wraxall Road Roundabout is essential to the development of the region’s infrastructure and to meet the housing and economic growth ambitions. This increased capacity scheme will serve a critical access route for the two SDLs and the new motorway junction.

List the Sources of evidence you have used: (refer to guidance document for examples)

West of England Joint Spatial Plan, Joint Transport Plan 3

Considering the evidence and what it tells you about impacts, are there any actions that are currently being taken which mitigate negative impact and/or improve on a positive impact? If so, describe them below – are the actions mitigating impact as expected? How do you know this?

The scheme will seek to maximise benefits to vulnerable road users and will include Road Safety Audits (RSA) and an NMU Audit as part of the design process.

What further actions will be taken? (e.g. Carry out consultation, Conduct a further analysis in 12 months, Stop here)

Respond to the findings of the RSAs and NMU audit.

SECTION 3 – CONSULTATION & RESEARCH IN RELATION TO THE EqIAA

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?

SGC undertook a public consultation exercise on the proposed improvements to the roundabout between 6 February and 29 March 2019. A consultation page was set up to provide the background to the consultation, the Statement of Reasons, consultation scheme drawing, and a link to a consultation survey. Additionally, three public drop-in sessions (attended by SGC officers and representatives from Jacobs consultants) were held in March 2019 to provide people with the opportunity to ask questions about proposed improvements. These were promoted on the council’s main Facebook page, StreetCare Facebook page and Twitter accounts. 154 people attended exhibitions and 231 questionnaires were returned. In addition, 37 e-mails or letters were submitted. In summary 139 (60%) of respondents supported the scheme, while 82 (35%) did not (4% didn’t know).

SECTION 4 – OUTCOMES

Outcome Your Reason(s) and response Justification

Outcome 1: No major No negative impacts have change required. been identified in relation to any equalities group. Outcome 2: Adjustments to One of the central purposes of the scheme remove barriers or to better would be to facilitate the opportunities for promote equality have been sustainable growth through increased identified. capacity on the network. In particular, Outcome 3: Continue development of two SDLs would be despite having identified facilitated. potential for adverse impact The scheme is part of wider improvements missed opportunities to to be implemented as part of JLTP3, and promote equality. would ease congestion on other routes for Outcome 4: Stop and pedestrians and cyclists, and would also rethink. improve air quality.

List the actions you will take because of this EqIAA.

The schemes will be subject to South Gloucestershire’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

List and attach the evidence you have which shows how you have systematically considered equality impact. • JLTP3 EqIAA; • WECA Business Plan; • South Gloucestershire Core Strategy; and • The Equality Act 2010.

Wraxall Road Roundabout Signal Scheme: Option Assessment Report

Prepared for South Gloucestershire Council

September 2018

1 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6DG

Document history

A4174-Wraxall Roundabout Signal Scheme Option Assessment Report

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by 1.0 July 2018 Draft OAR ES LT BS SG CH 2.0 Sept 2018 Forecasting added ES LT BS SG CH 3.0 Nov 2019 Option 3 Further ES PF Development Added SG CH GM

Contents

Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of this report ...... 1 1.1.1 Description of the study ...... 1 1.2 Policy Context ...... 1 1.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 2 1.2.2 Joint Spatial Plan and Local Plans ...... 3 1.2.3 Joint Local Transport Plan ...... 3 1.2.4 West of England LEP Strategic Economic Plan (March 2014) ...... 4 1.2.5 South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006 to 2027 (December 2013) 5 1.3 Approach to Options Assessment Reports ...... 5 1.4 Structure of report ...... 6 2 Understanding the current situation ...... 7 2.1 Description of the study area ...... 7 2.1.1 Transport network ...... 7 2.1.2 Land use, socio-economic and demographic context ...... 7 2.1.3 Physical constraints ...... 10 2.1.4 Environmental constraints ...... 11 2.2 Current travel demands and levels of service ...... 12 2.2.1 Delay and journey time reliability ...... 13 2.2.2 Road Safety ...... 14 2.2.3 Walking and cycling ...... 15 2.2.4 Public transport ...... 15 3 Understanding the future transport situation ...... 17 3.1 Future land uses and policies ...... 17 3.1.1 Existing and future planning consents or applications ...... 17 3.1.2 Joint Spatial Plan proposals ...... 17 3.2 Future changes to the transport system ...... 18 3.2.1 Committed changes ...... 18 3.2.2 West of England Joint Transport Study ...... 18 3.3 Future travel demands ...... 19 3.4 Future transport problems ...... 19 4 Need for intervention, objectives and geographical scope ...... 21 4.1 Summary of current and future problems, impacts and outcomes ...... 21 4.2 Scheme objectives and outcomes ...... 22 4.3 Measures for success ...... 22 5 Generating and initial sifting of options ...... 23 5.1 Approach to option generation ...... 23 5.2 Results of option generation ...... 23 5.3 Approach to option sifting ...... 23 5.4 Results of sifting ...... 24

SECTION PAGE 6 Option development and testing ...... 25 6.1 Approach to option development and assessment ...... 25 6.2 Option Development ...... 26 6.2.1 Option 1a: Partially signalled roundabout ...... 26 6.2.2 Option 1b: Fully signalled roundabout ...... 26 6.2.3 Option 2: Signalled crossroads ...... 26 6.2.4 Option 3: Signalled through-about ...... 27 6.3 Transport modelling ...... 27 6.3.1 Model development and testing ...... 27 6.3.2 Future traffic flows ...... 28 6.3.3 Network performance ...... 28 6.3.4 Modelling Summary ...... 30 7 Option assessment ...... 31 7.1 Early Appraisal and Sifting Tool (EAST) ...... 31 7.2 Strategic Case ...... 35 7.2.1 Scale of impact ...... 35 7.2.2 Fit with wider transport and government objectives ...... 35 7.2.3 Fit with the scheme objectives ...... 35 7.2.4 Key uncertainties ...... 36 7.2.5 Degree of consensus over outcomes ...... 36 7.2.6 Summary of strategic case ...... 37 7.3 Economic Case ...... 37 7.3.1 Approach ...... 37 7.3.2 Other Key Assumptions ...... 39 7.3.3 Land Value Uplift...... 39 7.3.4 Carbon emissions ...... 41 7.3.5 Local environment ...... 41 7.3.6 Socio-distributional and regional impacts ...... 42 7.3.7 Wellbeing ...... 43 7.3.8 Value for money ...... 43 7.3.9 Summary of economic case ...... 44 7.4 Managerial Case ...... 44 7.4.1 Implementation timetable ...... 44 7.4.2 Public acceptability ...... 44 7.4.3 Practical feasibility ...... 45 7.4.4 Quality of supporting evidence...... 45 7.4.5 Key risks ...... 45 7.4.6 Summary of management case ...... 46 7.5 Financial Case ...... 46 7.5.1 Capital cost...... 46 7.5.2 Affordability ...... 46 7.5.3 Revenue costs ...... 46 7.5.4 Cost profile ...... 46 7.5.5 Overall cost risk and other costs ...... 46 7.5.6 Summary of financial case ...... 47 7.6 Commercial Case ...... 47 7.6.1 Procurement ...... 47 7.6.2 Flexibility of option ...... 47

IV CONTENTS Section Page 7.6.3 Funding sources ...... 47 7.6.4 Income generation ...... 47 7.6.5 Summary of commercial case ...... 47 7.7 Summary ...... 47 7.8 Conclusion ...... 49 8 Further Development and assessment of the selected option (n. 3) – TAG appraisal stage 2 .. 50 8.1 Introduction ...... 50 8.2 Further development of Option 3 ...... 50 8.2.1 Throughabout Safety Review ...... 50 8.2.2 SGC Road Safety Audit ...... 51 8.2.3 Public consultation...... 51 11.1.1 Scheme modelling ...... 53 11.1.2 Refinement of scheme cost and VfM ...... 54 11.2 Environmental assessment ...... 60 11.3 Development of FBC ...... 61

Appendices Appendix A – Location and Constraints Plans Appendix B – Outline Options Drawings Appendix C – Local Model Validation Report Appendix D – Option Testing Report Appendix E.1 –Environmental Baseline Report Appendix E.2 – Further Scheme Development – Environmental Appraisal Appendix F – Land Value Uplift Appendix G – Economic Assessment Tables for the Five Scheme Options Appendix H – Further Scheme Development – Throughabout Safety Review Appendix I – Further Scheme Development – RSA 2 Appendix J – Further Scheme Development – Economic Case: GVA and Jobs Created

Tables Table 1-1 JLTP3 objectives Table 1-2 Structure of this report Table 2-1: Demographic breakdown of adjacent wards (Source: 2011 UK Census) Table 2-2: Travel to work modal split of adjacent wards (Source: 2011 UK Census) Table 2-3: Destinations of outgoing commuters – 100 commuters plus (Source: 2011 UK Census) Table 2-4: Origins of incoming commuters – 50 commuters plus (Source: 2011 UK Census) Table 2-5: Self-reported distance travelled to work (Source: 2017 West of England Travel to Work Survey) Table 2-6 Observed AM peak flows in PCUs, 31 January 2018, 08:00 – 09:00am Table 2-7 Observed PM peak flows in PCUs, 31 January 2018, 05:00 – 06:00pm Table 2-8 Mean Speeds and Delay to Wraxall Road Roundabout (Source: TomTom NV)

V

SECTION PAGE Table 2-9 Mean Speed and Standard Deviation Comparison (Source: TomTom NV) Table 2-10 Collisions at Wraxall Road Roundabout by year and number of casualties Table 4-1 current and future transport situations Table 4-2: Measures for success Table 6-1 Options to be considered Table 6-2: Network Performance Statistics, AM Peak Period, 2018 Base Year Table 6-3: Network Performance Statistics, Inter-Peak Period, 2018 Base Year Table 6-4: Network Performance Statistics, PM Peak Period, 2018 Base Year Table 6-5: Network Performance Statistics, AM Peak Period, 2036 Forecast Year Table 6-6: Network Performance Statistics, Inter-Peak Period, 2036 Forecast Year Table 6-7: Network Performance Statistics, PM Peak Period, 2036 Forecast Year Table 7-1 Scale of Impact Table 7-2 Fit against transport and government objectives Table 7-3 Fit against scheme objectives Table 7-4 Anticipated degree of consensus over outcomes Table 7-5 Main Assumptions in Economic Assessment Table 7-6 Economic growth Table 7-7 Carbon Emissions Table 7-8 Local environmental impacts Table 7-9 Social distributional impacts Table 7-10 Impacts on well being Table 7-11 Value for money Category for scheme options Table 7-12 Public acceptability Table 7-13 Practical feasibility Table 7-14 Capital cost, ‘000s (2018 prices) Table 7-15 Summary of how the scheme options meet the five cases

Figures Figure 2-1 Collisions at Wraxall Road Roundabout, October 2012 – September 2017 Figure 3-1: JTS transport proposals for north east area of the West of England (Source: JTS 2017) Figure 6-1: A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout, Option 2, Method of Control Figure 6-2: A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout, Option 3, Method of Control Figure 7-1 EAST summary – Option 1a Figure 7-2 EAST summary – Option 2 Figure 7-3 EAST summary – Option 3

VI

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty BCR Benefit Cost Ratio CPNN Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood CPME Cribbs Patchway MetroBus Extension DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DfT Department for Transport DPD Development Plan Document EAST Early Assessment and Sifting Tool GVA Gross Value Added JLTP Joint Local Transport Plan JSP (West of England) Joint Spatial Plan JTS (West of England) Joint Transport Study LVU Land Value Uplift MCC Manual Classified Count NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NMU Non-Motorised User OAR Options Assessment Report SDL Strategic Development Location SEP Strategic Economic Plan SGC South Gloucestershire Council SPZ Source Protection Zone TAG Transport Analysis Guidance TEE Transport Economic Efficiency TPH Trains Per Hour UWE University of the West of England VfM Value for Money WECA West of England Combined Authorities WoE LEP West of England Local Enterprise Partnership

I

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this report This is the Options Assessment Report (OAR) for a proposed traffic signal scheme at the A4174 Avon Ring Road/Wraxall Road/Tower Lane (‘Wraxall Road’) Roundabout in South Gloucestershire. It describes the process of analysing the transport challenges, defining scheme-specific objectives and identifying and assessing potential interventions to tackle these challenges. This OAR has been structured to comply with best practice for transport studies, as documented in the Department for Transport’s Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG)1. Specific guidance for transport studies is documented in the unit titled ‘The Transport Appraisal Process’2, which sets out a stepped process to analysis of the issues and identification and assessment of potential options. 1.1.1 Description of the study Wraxall Road Roundabout currently experiences congestion during weekday peak hours. Consequently, South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) wish to explore options to introduce signal control at the site with the objective of improving the flow of traffic on the A4174 Ring Road. The A4174 is a key strategic route in the Greater Bristol area providing a link between the A4 and Bath in the south to the M32 and the M4. The route also provides access to new housing and employment areas such as the Bristol and Bath Science Park. CH2M/Jacobs have therefore been commissioned by SGC to carry out the design, modelling and appraisal work necessary to identify an optimum signal controlled improvement scheme at this site and prepare an OAR and Outline Business Case (OBC) for the preferred scheme. The increased capacity at critical pinch-points is essential to the development of the West of England’s infrastructure, to meet the housing and economic growth ambitions. The increased capacity provided by an improvement scheme will serve a critical access route for growth within the North and East Fringe areas of Bristol as well as housing growth in locations such as Keynsham. 1.2 Policy Context This section outlines the national and local transport and planning policies that the scheme needs to consider. The emphasis throughout is to demonstrate the extent that the Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme is aligned to the priorities and policies. National  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and Regional  West of England Joint Local Transport Plan 3;  West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Strategic Economic Plan;

1 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-transport-appraisal-process

1

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION Local  Joint Spatial and Local Plans; and  South Gloucestershire Council Core Strategy. 1.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) sets out the planning policies expected to achieve sustainable development. The NPPF seeks to promote growth whilst creating a high quality built environment underpinned by vibrant communities. This proposal needs to be considered against the following relevant policies within the NPPF:  Promoting sustainable transport (policy 4): This supports development that reduces greenhouse gases and reduces congestion, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport and develops strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure. The Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme will contribute to this policy by reducing congestion in the area. This will allow improvements in journey times and accessibility which can enable an increase in the amount of development that can be produced sustainably.  Requiring good design (policy 7): Good design is seen as a key aspect of sustainable development and indivisible from good planning. The Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme will apply this policy to its design and contribute to the aesthetic appearance of the area. The scheme will allow further development by improving accessibility and reducing congestion, which will help in ensuring that new developments can function well and are created as safe and accessible environments for all. There is a presumption in the NPPF in favour of sustainable development which is underpinned by a number of core principles as follows:  To proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the infrastructure that the country needs;  To support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate;  To contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution; and  To actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. The promotion of sustainable modes of transport is intrinsically linked to the above. The NPPF aims to integrate planning and transport by noting that transport policies can help facilitate sustainable development as well as contributing to wider sustainability, health and economic objectives. Sustainable transport also improves accessibility to consumer and labour markets for businesses and improving access to jobs for the labour force. Additionally, the NPPF aims to reduce pollution and by increasing the capacity of the roundabout should reduce congestion, thereby having the potential to reduce traffic pollution from idling vehicles in this area. Given the scheme represents an enhancement to traffic conditions and improves connectivity across South Gloucestershire it satisfies the requirements of NPPF.

2

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.2.2 Joint Spatial Plan and Local Plans The West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP)3 is a prospectus for sustainable growth to help the region meet its housing and transport needs for the period to 2036. The JSP is the first such joint planning approach in the UK, which takes into account cross-boundary effects within the West of England. The JSP sets out the policies and principles that have been applied in identifying future housing and employment needs and the most sustainable locations for future development. The JSP is a strategic statutory Development Plan Document (DPD) for the West of England. It is being prepared jointly by, and will cover, the four Unitary Authorities of Bristol, Bath and North-East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. On adoption as a DPD it will carry full weight in the planning system and provide the higher level strategic planning policy framework for each authority’s new Local Plan for the period 2016 to 2036. The JSP supports the delivery of 82,500 new jobs and 105,500 new homes by 2036, of which 61,400 homes are existing commitments and the JSP makes provision for 44,200 new homes. Of this, 17,600 homes will be in Strategic Development Locations (SDLs), 16,600 through Urban Living, 6,860 through small windfall sites and 3,400 in non-strategic growth. The SDLs will be brought forward as allocations through each authority’s new Local Plan. New site- specific allocations and policy designations in Local Plans will need to be in conformity with the JSP. Work has commenced on preparing the four Local Plans based on the current JSP proposals, although these will not be finalised until after examination and adoption of the JSP. Local Plan consultations will be undertaken throughout 2018 and will include the proposed transport schemes required to support delivery of the Local Plan allocations, including the SDLs. This OAR demonstrates how the proposed transport interventions of the Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme will support the proposed Local Plan allocations and meet the principles of sustainable travel described in the JSP. 1.2.3 Joint Local Transport Plan The current Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP3) covering period 2011 to 2026 sets out the following five key transport goals for the regions (see Table 1-1 below for more detail):  Reduce carbon emissions  Support economic growth  Promote accessibility  Contribute to better safety, security and health  Improve quality of life and a healthy natural environment The plan outlines the West of England as one of the fastest growing economies in the UK and a critical hub for the South-West’s economy. The plan highlights major transport improvements as a key priority for businesses. It aims to synchronise transport investment with major developments. The West of England local authorities are currently in the process of developing a new Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP4) for the area. This will cover the period to 2036 and will therefore align with the Joint Spatial Plan. The JLTP4 is currently being prepared, with consultation scheduled to take place during autumn 2018.

3 https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/consult.ti/JSPPublication/consultationHome

3

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION The JLTP4 will consider the recommendations of the Joint Transport Study and develop a long-term transport policy framework that is consistent with the Joint Spatial Plan. It will develop a long-term investment programme shaped by a set of objectives. Table 1-1 JLTP3 objectives

Goals Sub-goals

Reduce carbon reduce greenhouse gas emissions emissions promote walking, cycling and public transport

tackle congestion

promote use of alternatives to the car – walking, cycling, public transport and smarter choices Support economic support delivery of and access to houses and jobs growth maintain, manage and make best use of transport assets

increase the capacity and reliability of transport networks

reduce the number of road casualties

Contribute to better encourage more physically active travel – walking, cycling and public transport safety, security and health implement Air Quality Management Areas improve personal security on the transport network

improve access to health and employment Promote accessibility improve access for rural residents and people with mobility difficulties

minimise the impact on natural and historic environment Improve quality of life and healthy natural promote better access to leisure activities and the countryside environment enhance the journey experience

The Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme can contribute to the LEP vision by improving accessibility and reducing congestion. 1.2.4 West of England LEP Strategic Economic Plan (March 2014) The Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) prepared by West of England LEP outlines how the region will achieve sustainable economic growth over the plan period. Specifically, the SEP was prepared to support the West of England’s attempts to secure government funding to assist economic development in the region between 2015 and 2021 through the Local Growth Deals initiative. Within this context, the SEP aims to facilitate the creation of more than 25,000 jobs and develop an economy worth around £25bn per year (which also contributes some £10bn to the Treasury annually). The LEP vision is to encourage sustainable economic growth and the creation of substantial numbers of new private sector jobs. The SEP positions the West of England as ‘the city region of choice for a sustainable future’, based on the region’s legacy of innovation, world class university and research facilities, strong visitor economy and high quality of life. The SEP highlights that expansion of these sectors will be driven by a number of ‘levers of growth’, including investment and promotion and places and infrastructure. In particular, infrastructure is presented as a key enabler of growth in the region. The Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme can contribute to the LEP vision by improving accessibility and reducing congestion, making the area more attractive to businesses.

4

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.2.5 South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006 to 2027 (December 2013) The South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy was adopted in December 2013 and covers the period up to 2027. The main features of the plan focus new development on the Bristol North and East Fringe with employment, housing and key services being located along principal transport networks. The Core Strategy is explicit about reducing congestion and air pollution by improving accessibility. There are a number of adopted policies that the Wraxall Road Roundabout signal scheme is geared towards. These being:  Policy CS1 High Quality design – Developments should respect and enhance the character, distinctiveness and amenity of the site and its surroundings. Flood risk, personal safety and the disposal of waste materials should also be considered.  Policy CS5 Location of development – Most new developments will take place within the communities of North and East fringes of Bristol and the development of existing transport improvements such as the delivery of the Greater Bristol Bus Network and the planning for the WoE transport package and future schemes;  Policy CS2 Green Infrastructure - Seeks to ensure that existing and new Green Infrastructure is planned, delivered and managed as an integral part of creating sustainable communities and enhancing quality of life.  Policy CS7 Strategic Transport Infrastructure – Priority will be given to strategic infrastructure proposals that reduce congestion and improve accessibility by transport modes other than private cars.  Policy CS8 Improving accessibility – This policy lays out the transport principles for new developments with priority given to proposals that promote and provide sustainable travel options; and  Policy CS25 Communities of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area, Cribbs / Patchway New Neighbourhood – The policy makes reference to the principal elements of the 5,700- dwelling Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN).  Policy CS27 Communities of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area, East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood – This policy makes reference to the principal elements of the 2,000- dwelling East of Harry Stoke New Neighbourhood

There is currently a new SGC Local Plan which was recently the subject of public consultation. This Local Plan will cover the period 2018-2036 and will replace the previous Local Plan documents. The new Local Plan will incorporate the policies laid out in the JSP, including the allocation of strategic development sites which have been identified within the JSP, as well as the allocation of sites for non-strategic development. 1.3 Approach to Options Assessment Reports The OAR demonstrates that sufficient consideration has been given to the case for intervention, assessment of options, technical feasibility, costs, benefits, impacts, potential strength of business case and affordability of the proposed transport schemes. The OAR has been structured and prepared in accordance with the good practice set out in WebTAG. This document is not a formal business case, this will be prepared at a later date.

5

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.4 Structure of report Table 1-2 sets out the structure of this report. The table also shows which of the four NPPF tests of soundness (refer to Section 1.2.1) are addressed in the evidence in each chapter. Table 1-2 Structure of this report

NPPF Tests of Soundness

Chapter Contents of chapter Consistent Positively Justified Effective with nat. prepared policy Description of study area Understanding the Yes 2 Current travel demand (evidence on - - - current situation Existing transport problems needs) Future land uses and policies Understanding the Changes to the transport system Yes 3 (evidence on - - - future situation Future travel demand needs) Future transport problems Yes Summary of problems and issues Yes (objectives Scheme objectives and outcomes (objectives 4 Need for intervention - - consistent Measures for success for future with network) Geographical scope policies) Approach to option generation Yes Yes Yes Generating and sifting Approach to option sifting (options to (sifting to 5 (assess and - options Results of option sifting address take account sift options) Approach to next steps objectives) of policies) Yes Approach to option development Yes Yes Yes (appraisal of Option development Options development (assess (appraisal to 6 (analysis of costs, and assessment Options assessment technical take account each mode) benefits, feasibility) of policies) Conclusions impacts) Initial packaging and phasing Yes Yes TAG appraisal stage 1 Strategic and economic cases 7 - - (assess (assess - EAST Management and commercial cases delivery & viability of Financial case funding) schemes)

6

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION 2 Understanding the current situation 2.1 Description of the study area Wraxall Road Roundabout is located on the A4174 Avon Ring Road in South Gloucestershire south- east of Kingswood and north-west of Cadbury Heath. The site location and surroundings are shown in Drawing Nos. 673847.BJ.35.01-001 and 673847.BJ.35.01-002 contained in Appendix A. Land to the south and east of Wraxall Road Roundabout can be broadly described as residential. To the north and west there are areas of open grassland, beyond which are areas of further residential development. Apart from the extensive residential areas nearby, major destinations nearby that are accessible through the roundabout include:  Kingswood High Street and retail centre situated approximately 1.3km to the north-west of Wraxall Road Roundabout.  Longwell Green Leisure and Gallagher Retail Park both location about 1km to the south- west. 2.1.1 Transport network The northern and southern arms of the roundabout are the dual carriageway A4174 Avon Ring Road. To the north the A4174 continues through the A420 Roundabout that provides access to Kingswood and forms a major arterial route into Bristol, and continues through the East Fringe to the M32 and the A38 beyond that to the west. The A4174 terminates some 3.6km to the south at Hicks Gate Roundabout at the intersection between the A4174 and the A4 with the latter providing a key strategic route into Brislington and Bristol, to the west, and towards Bath in the east. The side-road arms of Wraxall Road Roundabout are Wraxall Road to the west and Tower Lane to the east. These are both single carriageway routes providing local access, respectively, to the predominantly residential area south of Kingswood, and to Cadbury Heath and Barrs Court residential area. Both routes also provide linkage to the wider highway network beyond. 2.1.2 Land use, socio-economic and demographic context In the vicinity of Wraxall Road roundabout, the A4174 Avon Ring Road corridor runs roughly northeast–southwest with residential areas on either side. These communities are best described as being suburban in character. To the northwest is Woodstock ward, which forms part of the town of Kingswood, and to the southeast is Parkwall ward, which is within the civil parish of Oldland. Both areas were largely constructed in the 1990s and are predominantly residential with very little commercial or employment space, featuring semi-detached and terraced housing arranged in manner that favours private car ownership with numerous cul-de-sacs and an abundance of private off-street parking. With little employment in the direct area, the nearest sizeable employment centres are the retail parks in Longwell Green, the industrial and business parks on Tower Lane North in Warmley, and the commercial and industrial facilities in Kingswood centre. The region’s foremost employment centres in Bristol city centre and the North Fringe are significantly more distant. Demographically, the population of these areas is typical for suburban communities. Table 2-1 illustrates the proportion of the populations within each age group as recorded in the 2011 UK

7

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION Census. Compared to South Gloucestershire as a whole, there are fewer adults of retirement age in these wards, indicating a higher proportion of families. Indeed, Parkwall in particularly displays a greater proportion of children and lower proportion of elderly adults, which is unsurprising given it lies on the fringe of the Bristol built-up area and is hence more distant from Bristol city centre and other employment areas and hence likely more affordable. Table 2-1: Demographic breakdown of adjacent wards (Source: 2011 UK Census) Woodstock South Age band Parkwall ward ward Gloucestershire 0 to 15 years 18.6% 20.6% 19.0% 16 to 64 years 65.6% 65.5% 64.1% 65 years and greater 15.8% 13.9% 16.9%

The 2011 Census also contains travel to work data. The proportions of employed adults primarily travelling by each mode are illustrated in Table 2-2. It is immediately evident that travel by private vehicle dominates, with rates of car drivers, car passengers and motorcyclists all exceeding the averages for South Gloucestershire. In terms of public transport, travel by train is low, reflecting the fact that the nearest railway station is 2.5 miles away in Keynsham and the nearest station with fast services is Bristol Temple Meads, 4.0 miles away. Travel by bus is high, reflecting the high permeation of services in the area providing connections to Bristol city centre and the North Fringe. A lower-than-average take-up of walking and cycling is evident, with rates decreasing as one moves further outwards from the urban centre of Bristol. Table 2-2: Travel to work modal split of adjacent wards (Source: 2011 UK Census) Woodstock Parkwall South Primary mode of travel ward ward Gloucestershire Car driver 70.0% 72.6% 69.8% Car passenger 6.1% 5.7% 5.1% Motorcycle 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% Bus 7.2% 7.1% 4.9% Train 0.5% 0.7% 1.4% Taxi 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% Foot 8.1% 6.7% 8.2% Bicycle 2.9% 2.6% 3.9% Work from home 3.0% 2.6% 4.7% Other 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Data is also available for origins and destinations. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) groups neighbourhoods into Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA) with a minimum population of 5,000 people for purposes of statistical analysis. The “South Gloucestershire 029” MSOA includes the area around the Wraxall Road roundabout and includes section of Woodstock, Parkwall, and Siston wards, having a population of 10,211 at the time of the 2011 Census. Analysing outgoing commuters (residents of the local area travelling away) and incoming commuters (those employed in the local area travelling from elsewhere) reveals much about the travel behaviour in the area. It is immediately apparent that outgoing commuters outnumber incoming

8

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION commuters but a factor of nearly 3 to 1, which is unsurprising given the residential nature of this area Table 2-3 illustrates the most common destinations for residents of South Gloucestershire 029. While a large number either work from home (466) or are employed in the same MSOA (245), large numbers also travel longer distances to Bristol city centre and the North Fringe. The most common destination is “no fixed place” which by its nature often obliges travel by private vehicle to enable the necessary flexibility of destination. There is therefore a mix of shorter and longer distances being travelled. Table 2-3: Destinations of outgoing commuters – 100 commuters plus (Source: 2011 UK Census) Outgoing MSOA Approximate location commuters n/a No fixed place 487 n/a Mainly work from home 466 Bristol 032 Bristol Centre 360 Bristol 054 Redcliffe / Temple Quarter / St Phillips 302 South Gloucestershire 029 Woodstock / Parkwall / Siston 245 South Gloucestershire 017 Stoke Gifford 231 South Gloucestershire 032 Longwell Green 204 South Gloucestershire 028 South of Kingswood High Street 200 South Gloucestershire 019 Siston / Pucklechurch / Westerleigh 139 South Gloucestershire 011 Patchway Parish and Stoke Lodge Parish 102

On the other hand, incoming commuters are largely from the same MSOA or from adjoining ones, as shown in Table 2-4. This indicates that the employment in the local area is generally accessed by people travelling shorter distances. Table 2-4: Origins of incoming commuters – 50 commuters plus (Source: 2011 UK Census) Incoming MSOA Approximate location commuters South Gloucestershire 029 Woodstock / Parkwall / Siston 245 South Gloucestershire 030 Oldland 209 South Gloucestershire 032 Longwell Green 121 South Gloucestershire 019 Siston / Pucklechurch / Westerleigh 85 South Gloucestershire 028 South of Kingswood High Street 84 South Gloucestershire 027 North of Kingswood High Street 65 South Gloucestershire 024 Rural eastern South Gloucestershire 64 South Gloucestershire 031 Hanham 62

The West of England Travel to Work Survey is conducted annually, including selected major businesses in the region. The 2017 survey includes data on the distance that respondents travel to work. While the survey is not exhaustive, it does provide a reasonably large sample of the local 9

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION population. A total of 707 records were received for the BS15 postcode district (covering Kingswood and Hanham) and 438 for the BS30 postcode district (covering Oldland, Longwell Green and rural areas to the east). Table 2-5 illustrates the commute distance for residents of the two postcode districts, divided into bands of three miles. From this, it is apparent that a low number of residents have a commute of three miles or less – a distance which roughly represents the most an average person would likely be willing to walk or cycle to work. Larger numbers travel four miles or more, though generally not more than 12 miles – distances for which travel by private vehicle or public transport are the only reasonable options for the majority of commuters. Table 2-5: Self-reported distance travelled to work (Source: 2017 West of England Travel to Work Survey) Residents of BS15 Residents of BS30 Distance travelled postcode area postcode area to work (Kingswood) (Oldland) Up to 3 miles 8.4% 7.4% 4 to 6 miles 45.8% 18.9% 7 to 9 miles 27.7% 37.2% 10 to 12 miles 11.2% 30.2% 13 to 15 miles 3.3% 3.6% 16 miles or more 3.6% 2.6%

It is thus apparent that, in general, the area in the vicinity of the Wraxall Road roundabout is characterised by a high dependency on private vehicles, and that this modal choice is one that is frequently made due to employment being beyond the distance most people could be reasonably expected to walk or cycle. Travel by public transport is reasonably well-represented, though this is predominantly by bus as the area is not well served by rail. The attractiveness of bus travel is of course limited by the destinations visited by regular services, and heavily impacted by congestion on the local highway network which affects reliability. The area is thus highly dependent on accessibility to the trunk road network. As the A4174 is the highest capacity route in this area and provides the highest level of connectedness to more distant destinations, the Wraxall Road roundabout is a primary gateway to travel in the area and has a measurable role in its social and economic well- being. 2.1.3 Physical constraints A high-level constraints plan for Wraxall Road Roundabout is provided in Drawing No. 673847.BJ.35.01-002 contained in Appendix A. More localised constraints are indicated on the Outline Options plans (Drawing Nos. 673847.BJ.35.01-004 to 007) contained in Appendix B. These plans indicate:  Highway boundary;  Existing structures;  Extent of existing Vehicle Restrain Systems (VRS);  Existing earthworks/banks.

The constraints plan shows that there is substantial highway land that could potentially be used as a part of the scheme. The most substantial challenges are physical. The land to the north of the A4174 is higher than the A4174 and the Wraxall Road arm passes through a small cutting as it approaches the roundabout. The land to the immediate south of the roundabout slopes sharply down to the existing sub-way structures to the south crossing Tower Lane as well as to the subway to the east

10

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION crossing the A4174 northbound arm. The subway structures represent a constraint to any potential improvement scheme. 2.1.4 Environmental constraints Land use and landscape Current land use within the scheme boundary (as shown on the constraints plan) can be described as highway infrastructure. The immediate land use to the north west can be described as greenfield/ undeveloped land, land to the north east comprises the Kingswood Remembrance Park (an SGC owned cemetery), and to the south the land use can be described as residential. Options for improvements to Wraxall Roundabout are potentially constrained by the proximity of existing residential properties to the south; and by Kingswood Remembrance Park to the north east. These areas are currently set apart from the highway by areas of hedgerow and trees. These vegetated areas provide visual separation and are likely to provide some noise attenuation from traffic. The undeveloped area of land to the north west east could also pose a constraint to development as viewed from google earth there appear to be a number of footpaths that run through this area. There are no National Parks, Heritage Coasts or Special Landscape Areas within the study area; nor does the scheme boundary lie within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Biodiversity The existing roundabout is grassed (and currently mown) with a collection of trees in the centre. There are areas of trees and vegetation on all sides of the roundabout. The areas surrounding Wraxall Road Roundabout have potential to support a protected and notable species. There are no internationally or nationally designated sites or National Nature Reserves, located within 2 kilometres of the Wraxall Road Roundabout. There are four Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCIs) within the 1km study area. This includes the area of undeveloped land to the north west the Roundabout, which runs parallel to the A4174 and is adjacent to the Roundabout at its nearest point. Townscape and historic environment There are no World Heritage Sites or sites included on the Tentative List of Future Nominations for World Heritage Sites (July 2014) within 1 kilometre of Wraxall Road Roundabout. There are two Scheduled Monuments, a Registered Park and Garden and 19 Listed Buildings within 1 kilometre of Wraxall Road Roundabout. There is also a conservation area within 1 kilometre. However, none of these designated assets have indivisibility with the Roundabout and thus are not considered likely to pose a constraint to option development. No residential (or commercial) properties front onto any of the arms of the roundabout and there are substantial hedgerows separating the roundabout from nearby buildings. Water environment The Siston Brook, a main river4 is located approximately 500m to the east of Wraxall Road Roundabout. There is also an open a drain running to the north of the A4174. Data from magic indicates that none of the Scheme Options lie within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ )

4 ‘Main rivers’ are usually larger rivers and streams. The Environment Agency is responsible for maintenance, improvement or construction work on main rivers to manage flood risk. 11

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION Wraxall Road Roundabout lies within Environment Agency Flood Zone 1 (having less than 1 in 1,000- year annual probability of flooding). A review of the surface water flood mapping for the area5 has indicated areas at medium and low risk of of surface water flooding on the existing roundabout. These areas are on A 4174 and on Tower Lane on their approaches to Wraxall Road Roundabout. The presence of existing surface water flooding is not considered to pose a constraint to Options selection as any scheme offers opportunity for improvements. Overall, the water environment is thus not considered to provide a constraint to option development. Other A review of the information held on the Defra Local Air Quality Management website6 has been conducted to identify the closest Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) to the study area. The closest is the Kingswood to Warmley AQMA, which is located approximately 1.1 km to the north west of the scheme. It was designated by SGC, in April 2010 for exceedances of the annual mean NO2 objective, and was later extended in May 2012 and December 2015. Considering the distance from the scheme and the scale of the scheme, it is unlikely that any of the proposed options will have a perceptible effect on any of the identified AQMAs The most dominant noise source on the sensitive receptors within the vicinity of Wraxall Road roundabout are assumed to be from traffic on the existing road network, especially the A4174, Wraxall Road and Tower Lane. Several locations near to Wraxall Road Roundabout have been identified as Noise Important Areas (NIA), the Roundabout itself is an identified NIA. 7 2.2 Current travel demands and levels of service At present, traffic volumes passing through Wraxall Road Roundabout are high, particularly in the weekday AM and PM peak periods. A manual classified count (MCC) of all vehicle movements at the roundabout was undertaken on Wednesday 31 January 2018 between 07:00 and 19:00. The AM and PM peak hour flows in Passenger Car Units (PCUs) are shown in Error! Reference source not found. nd Error! Reference source not found., respectively.

Table 2-6 Observed AM peak flows in PCUs, 31 January 2018, 08:00 – 09:00am Destination Arm A4174 s/b Tower Lane A4174 n/b Wraxall Rd Total A4174 s/b 2 206 1482 164 1854 Tower Lane 267 0 146 235 648 Origin A4174 n/b 1411 128 1 228 1768 Wraxall Rd 123 235 219 0 577 Total 1803 569 1848 627 4847

5 https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map [accessed 05.07.18]

6 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/list

7 Noise Important Areas are where the 1% of the population that are affected by the highest noise levels from major roads are located according to the results of Defra's strategic noise maps 12

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION

Table 2-7 Observed PM peak flows in PCUs, 31 January 2018, 05:00 – 06:00pm Destination Arm A4174 s/b Tower Lane A4174 n/b Wraxall Rd Total A4174 s/b 3 241 1562 159 1965 Tower Lane 178 0 148 218 544 Origin A4174 n/b 1465 146 1 331 1943 Wraxall Rd 90 220 246 0 556 Total 1736 607 1957 708 5008

The figures in Table 2-6 and 2-7 show that, unsurprisingly, the dominant movements are the A4174 through-movements. Turning movements from the A4174 to the side-road arms are relatively small. Volumes on the side roads are also low with the main movements appearing to be between Wraxall Road and Tower Lane, and vice-versa. The morning peak period is characterised mainly by congestion on Wraxall Road and Tower Lane when the dominant A4174 controlling cross-flow flow makes entry to the roundabout difficult due to limited gap opportunities. Queues from the A4174/A420 Roundabout to the north can also extend as far back as Wraxall Road Roundabout on bad days causing localised congestion. During the PM peak period, heavier flows on the A4174 result in queuing and delay on both the A4174 approach arms as traffic demand exceeds the entry capacity of the existing geometry and give-way arrangement. Congestion on the side-road approaches also occurs during spikes in the arrival flow of traffic from these arms. 2.2.1 Delay and journey time reliability Current levels of delay and journey time reliability have been assessed through examination of journey time data obtained from TomTom for validation of the VISSIM model. This data has been obtained from vehicles with TomTom devices in their vehicles on Monday through Thursday weekdays between 15 January 2018 and 8 February 2018. Using the TomTom journey time data, Table 2-8 shows the observed mean AM, IP and PM mean speeds and delay for the four approaches to Wraxall Road Roundabout. The delay figures are estimated from an assumed free flow speed based on the speed limit, namely 50mph on the A4174 arms (although it is note that the limit falls to 30mph close to the roundabout) and 30mph on Tower Lane and Wraxall Road. Table 2-8 Mean Speeds and Delay to Wraxall Road Roundabout (Source: TomTom NV) Arm AM Peak (8:00-9:00am) IP (12:00-1:00pm) PM Peak (5:00-6:00pm) Speed (mph) Delay (s) Speed (mph) Delay (s) Speed (mph) Delay (s) A4174 s/b 49 2 48 3 19 87 Tower Lane 17 26 27 2 9 95 A4174 n/b 54 0 52 0 27 63 Wraxall Rd 18 26 26 3 14 53

The analysis of the TomTom journey time data suggests that delays are relatively low in the AM peak and confined largely to the Tower Lane and Wraxall Road side-arms. Delays are minimal during the IP. During the PM peak, however, the data highlights notable delays on all arms with mean speeds

13

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION well below the defined speed limit for each approach. The approach arms experiencing the most congestion the A4174 southbound and Tower Lane arms. The TomTom data also provides information on the distribution of vehicle speeds. This has been used as an indication of journey time reliability. Table 2-9 compares the mean speeds of each approach along with the Standard Deviation of these values from the TomTom data. A higher Standard Deviation indicates a wider range of values in the data. Table 2-9 Mean Speed and Standard Deviation Comparison (Source: TomTom NV) Arm AM Peak (8:00-9:00am) IP (12:00-1:00pm) PM Peak (5:00-6:00pm) Speed (mph) Std Dev Speed (mph) Std Dev Speed (mph) Std Dev A4174 s/b 49 8 48 9 19 10 Tower Lane 17 7 27 6 9 7 A4174 n/b 54 9 52 10 27 10 Wraxall Rd 18 9 26 9 14 11

The data suggests that speeds, and hence journey times, are more variable in the PM peak hour. This is to be expected since, if this time period is more congested, then journey times are likely to be more erratic. Perhaps surprisingly, the Standard Deviation of inter-peak speeds are similar, or higher, than those during the AM peak hour. It is unclear whether this represents relatively more stable journey times in the AM, or more variable journey times in the inter-peak. 2.2.2 Road Safety The locations of recorded collisions in the vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout in the five-year period from 1st October 2012 to the 30th September 2017 are shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 Collisions at Wraxall Road Roundabout, October 2012 – September 2017 14

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION

Table 2-10 shows the occurrence of collisions by the year and number of casualties. An analysis of the collision statistics suggests the following:

 13 recorded collisions over the period 2012- 2017;  17 Casualties recorded – 13 car occupants, 4 motor cycle riders;  All 13 accidents were classified as ‘slight’.

Table 2-10 Collisions at Wraxall Road Roundabout by year and number of casualties

Year Incidents Total Cyclist casualties Motor cycle rider Car occupant casualties casualties casualties

2012 1 1 - - 1 slight

2013 3 4 - 2 slight 2 slight

2014 5 7 - 1 slight 6 slight

2015 1 1 - 1 slight -

2016 3 4 - - 4 slight

2017 0 0 - - -

Total 13 17 - 4 13

The collision data suggests that there are on average just over two accidents per year at the site which is fairly typical for this type of junction and this, along with the fact that all casualties were slight suggests that there is no significant road safety issue at the site. Indeed, collisions appeared to ‘peak’ in 2014 and there have been no collisions during 2017 up until September of that year. The collision plot in Figure 2-1 shows that collisions occurred mainly at the roundabout entries, although the occurrence is not predominantly at any particular entry. With regard to collision type, seven of the 13 collisions (54 per cent) were ‘shunts’ with the remainder due to ‘poor lane discipline’ (two collisions) or ‘failure to give way’ (one). The other collisions were due to driver error or loss of control. Light and weather conditions were not recorded. The analysis of collision data from Wraxall Road Roundabout suggest that there is no obvious road safety issue at the site. The introduction of traffic signal control, as proposed as part of a signal scheme for the site, has the potential to reduce the number of shunt accidents. However, given the low rate and severity of casualties, it is unlikely that the scheme could be justified on solely on the basis of road safety. 2.2.3 Walking and cycling Walking and cycling routes in the vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout are limited. There are no footways along the most approach arms with a only shared footway/cycleway on the southern side of Wraxall Road. There are pedestrian/cycle subways provided across the A4174 southern arm, connecting the eastern and western sides of the Ring Road, and across the Tower Lane arm. The latter provides continuity for the cycleway that runs parallel along much of the length of the A4174. 2.2.4 Public transport There are limited scheduled bus services that pass through Wraxall Road Roundabout. The number 42 bus service passes locally through Wraxall Road Roundabout between the Wraxall Road and Tower Lane arms in both directions operating between Bitton and Bristol City Centre on a 30-40

15

SECTION 2 – UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT SITUATION minute frequency. As such, Wraxall Road Roundabout does not serve any critical function in terms of local public transport.

16

SECTION 3 – UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE TRANSPORT SITUATION

3 Understanding the future transport situation 3.1 Future land uses and policies 3.1.1 Existing and future planning consents or applications There are a number of development sites in the North and East Fringe that are either committed or in the planning process. This includes major development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN), Charlton Hayes and at Harry Stoke. Whilst some distance from the site, the size of these developments could mean that they will still influence traffic volumes and affect travel behaviour in the vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout. In addition to significant development in the North Fringe area, the following more local committed developments in Council wards in the immediate vicinity of Wraxall Road Roundabout are expected to influence travel conditions at the site:  PK15/4232/RVC – Lyde Green, Emersons Green, planning permission for up to 2,550 dwellings, up to 100,000 sq m B1, B2, B8 and C1 employment floor space, and up to 2,450 sq.m. of small scale A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 uses plus extensive community and recreational facilities  PK10/1057/F – The Former Douglas Motorcycle Works Douglas Road Kingswood, Demolition of existing buildings on site and redevelopment of the land for housing: 306 residential units (including the conversion of Douglas House into 10 flats), a 40-bed nursing home, and 28- bed Sheltered Housing Scheme. Provision of public open space and construction of vehicular access onto Forest Road and Douglas Road  PK15/1363/F – Dorset House Downend Road Kingswood, Demolition of building to facilitate the erection of 9no. mixed use industrial units (Use Classes B1 (b), (c), B2 and B8), conversion of ground floor of Dorset House to business use (Use Class B1a) and conversion of upper floors to 6no. flats.  PK17/2550/F – Kings Chase Shopping Centre Regent Street Kingswood, Demolition of existing multi storey car park to facilitate erection of three storey extension to existing shopping centre comprising of (Class D2) leisure at ground floor level, retail (Class A1) restaurant (Class A3) and flexible use (Class A1) retail, (Class A2) financial, (Class A3) restaurants and cafes and (Class D1) non-residential institutions. Replacement multi storey car park to provide 310 parking spaces;  PK04/2190/R3F– Aspects Leisure Park Longwell Green South Gloucestershire, Erection of leisure centre including swimming pool and fitness suite with car parking and associated works. 3.1.2 Joint Spatial Plan proposals The JSP Plan aims to build approximately 44,000 new homes beyond what has already been committed in the West of England between 2016 and 2036. In order to achieve this, SDLs have been identified where additional large-scale greenfield development is proposed to occur. Five SDLs are proposed in South Gloucestershire with a total of approximately 8,500 homes with two in Bristol and one in Bath and North-East Somerset (B&NES). Due to the size of these SDLs, they all 17

SECTION 3 – UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE TRANSPORT SITUATION stand to alter travel behaviour across the region, though two in particular have a greater significance to Wraxall Road Roundabout. These are:  Land at Bath Road Brislington, with 750 new homes and mixed use development and relocation of the Bath Road Park and Ride to land adjacent to Hicks Gate Roundabout; and,  North Keynsham, with 1,500 new home and 50 hectares of employment floorspace proposed, new local centre, primary school and mixed tenure marina. This represents a total of 2,250 dwellings and 50 hectares of employment land to be located between two and three miles to the south of Wraxall Road Roundabout which is likely to increase demand for travel through the site. 3.2 Future changes to the transport system 3.2.1 Committed changes 3.2.1.1 MetroBus The MetroBus network, which when complete will operate three routes through the Bristol urban area, has recently started operating its first services. Metrobus is designed to fit in with rail and existing bus services and is connected to the city’s traffic light system so that it can move quickly past other vehicles. The NFHP scheme will operate as two routes, the M1 which will run between Cribbs Causeway and Hengrove Park via Bristol city centre and the M3, which will run between the city centre and Emersons Green north of Wraxall Road Roundabout. The M1 includes stops at Great Meadow Roundabout, Great Stoke Way and Harry Stoke, while both routes will service UWE. 3.2.1.2 MetroWest MetroWest involves proposed improvements of railway lines and services across the West of England region, including the proposals for new stations. The proposals have been put forward by the West of England Councils who, working alongside Network Rail, want to see the network proposals brought forward in the next Great Western Franchise. Phase 1 involves service enhancements between Bath, Bristol and Severn Beach, the opening the Portishead railway line to passenger services (with a new station at Portishead and Pill) and improvements to existing railway stations (accessibility and branding). Phase 2 involves opening the Henbury railway line (new stations at Henbury, North Filton and Ashley Down) and increasing service provision to Yate. 3.2.1.3 Severn Crossings In July 2017, the UK government announced their intention to abolish tolls on the Severn Bridge (M48 motorway) and Second Severn Crossing (M4 motorway) by the end of 2018. The tolls initially fell by 20% on the day of transfer to Highways England (because as a public body, tolls are no longer subject to VAT) and by the end of 2018 are expected to be removed completely. At present, the tolls are thought to be a major deterrent to people living and working on opposite sides of the River Severn. When they are removed, it is expected that the number of people using the crossings may increase significantly as businesses expand their operating areas and more people begin to commute from one side to the other. This has the potential to greatly influence traffic in the larger region. 3.2.2 West of England Joint Transport Study To support the JSP, a Joint Transport Study (JTS) has been created with the aim of providing a long term direction for the transport system within the West of England up to 2036. The JTS includes plans for the north-east area (see Figure 3-1 below) from Yate to Bristol, including the following proposals:

18

SECTION 3 – UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE TRANSPORT SITUATION

 A new motorway junction on the M4, Junction 18a, which aims to manage traffic issues at the M4 Junction 19 and M32 Junction 1, and provide relief to the A4174;  New Park & Ride sites on the M32 and A38;  A Winterbourne bypass on the B4058 to improve highway capacity for Metrobus improvements on the A432 between Yate and Bristol;  Improved facilities at Yate railway station; and  Orbital Metrobus connections to expand the existing network with the aim of improving access to employment. The JTS also aims to improve active travel within the area and includes plans for new strategic cycling routes within the Bristol urban area, which will extend to neighbouring towns such as Yate.

Figure 3-1: JTS transport proposals for north east area of the West of England (Source: JTS 2017) 3.3 Future travel demands With thousands of homes currently committed in the North Fringe of Bristol and thousands more planned by 2036, the number of people living and working in the area stands to increase by tens of thousands. This is expected to increase the travel demands on an already strained network. The implementation of new transport infrastructure will aim to alleviate this as much as possible by providing more capacity and encouraging modal shift, but it is nonetheless expected that the demand placed on existing infrastructure will increase across all modes. The GBATS4 model was used to derive future year traffic forecast for the scheme. This model has been used extensively to test other schemes in the local area, including CPME and Junction 18a Strategic Outline Business Case. 3.4 Future transport problems Based on current and anticipated future demand, a number of transport problems are expected to materialise or worsen. There is likely to be increased use of the A174 Ring Road and congestion at

19

SECTION 3 – UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE TRANSPORT SITUATION peak times at Wraxall Roundabout. As the locally strategic routes become more congested, traffic is likely to re-route to less suitable roads causing congestion on these roads and raising road safety problems. Increased congestion will also worsen air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout and its approaches and incur costs in terms of increased travel time to local residents and businesses.

20

SECTION 4 – NEED FOR INTERVENTION, OBJECTIVES AND GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE

4 Need for intervention, objectives and geographical scope 4.1 Summary of current and future problems, impacts and outcomes Sections 2 and 3 outlined the current and future transport situation, this chapter sets out the need for intervention and the objectives. Table 4-1 summarises current and future transport situations in relation to Wraxall Road Roundabout. Table 4-1 current and future transport situations Issue Existing situation Future situation Impact without intervention or mitigation Congestion on the The roundabout is Traffic growth is likely to Increase in emissions. highway network already congested in force the roundabout to Economic and social impact to the PM peak period. operate over capacity in local businesses and residents. There are high traffic future years, increasing flows and significant the level and extent of delays are common. congestion Reliability of the High traffic flows in the Traffic growth is likely to Impacts to driver behaviour. highway network peak periods and the force the roundabout to Economic and social impact to performance of other operate over capacity in local businesses and residents nearby junctions future years, impacting already impact on reliability and resilience reliability. A wide of the network range of travel times have been observed through the site. Safety of the There is no current Traffic growth is likely to Increased level of traffic flow highway network road safety issue in force the roundabout to and vehicle delay may lead to spite of high traffic operate over capacity in higher probability of conflicts flows passing through future years. Added occurring. the site driver stress and frustration. Impacts to public Congestion causes Traffic growth is likely to Travel by bus becomes less transport delay to buses and further delay bus attractive affects the reliability of services and further the small number affect reliability. services passing through the site

In summary, the intervention is required because Wraxall Road Roundabout currently experiences congestion during the weekday PM peak period and is known to be congested also during the AM peak. This congestion is expected to become much worse as housing and employment in the locality grows. Severe queuing and delay will become more prevalent at other times of day, such as the

21

SECTION 4 – NEED FOR INTERVENTION, OBJECTIVES AND GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE morning peak. The increase in journey times and poor journey time reliability resulting from this will increase costs to businesses and travellers. 4.2 Scheme objectives and outcomes The objectives for the scheme have been defined based on the situation summarised above and the guiding policy documents. These objectives are as follows:  To improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms;  To improve air quality in the vicinity of the roundabout compared to a Do-Nothing situation;  To improve the road safety performance of the roundabout;  To maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on Wraxall Road and Tower Road side-road arms; and  Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes. It is against these objectives that options proposals and the outcome of the overall scheme will be evaluated. 4.3 Measures for success Table 4-2 below presents measures for success for each objective.

Table 4-2: Measures for success Objective What do we need to do to achieve this How will we measure our success Improve traffic flow  Reduce journey times and queuing on Reduced modelled mean queue on A4174 the A4174 lengths and journey times

Reduce vehicular  Reduce idling time and improve traffic Reduce modelled queueing and emissions flow improve traffic flow Improve road safety  Design scheme to highest possible Empirical assessment of layout standards of terms of safety options against best practice Side-road arms  Achieve queues and delays no worse Changes in modelled queues than with existing layout and journey times Facilitate growth  Reduce journey times and queuing on Reduced modelled mean queue the A4174 lengths and journey times

22

SECTION 5 – GENERATING AND INITIAL SIFTING OF OPTIONS

5 Generating and initial sifting of options 5.1 Approach to option generation As the assessment is focussed on increasing the capacity of a single junctions, Wraxall Road Roundabout, the option generation process involved determining types of junction improvements that could be implemented. The main criteria for this were that potential signalised options that were appropriate for use at a junction of dual carriageway roads, would be likely to fit in the footprint available and would not cause a significant negative environmental impact. 5.2 Results of option generation In the initial option generation, three broad junction types were identified as potentially suitable solutions:  Fully/partially signalled roundabout;  A signal-controlled intersection/cross-roads; and  A signalled through-about. 5.3 Approach to option sifting TAG provides guidance on the generation and sifting of options. It states ‘it is possible that some options will have identified which do not represent sensible solutions’. As such, it is important to conduct an initial sift of the options, in order to identify any ‘show stoppers’ which are likely to prevent an option progressing at a subsequent stage in the process. Analysis Guidance: The Transport Appraisal Process’8 outlines the approach to be taken for the initial sifting of options. The process involves discarding options that:  ‘would clearly fail to meet the key objectives identified for intervention;  do not fit with existing local, regional and national programmes and strategies, and do not fit with wider government priorities; and  would be unlikely to pass key viability and acceptability criteria (or represent significant risk) in that they are unlikely to be: - deliverable in a particular economic, environmental, geographical or social context e.g. options which would result in severe adverse environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated against or where the cost of doing so is too high; - technically sound; - financially affordable; and, - acceptable to stakeholders and the public.’ The desk based assessment within this study has assisted with the identification of ‘showstoppers’, as referenced in the Transport Analysis Guidance. In particular, whether scheme options are deliverable or would result in potential for significant environmental impact.

8 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/431185/webtag-tag-transport-appraisal-process.pdf 23

SECTION 5 – GENERATING AND INITIAL SIFTING OF OPTIONS 5.4 Results of sifting The initial sifting did not identify any ‘showstoppers’, as all are expected to broadly meet the TAG criteria. All options have been therefore brought forward for further development and refinement. Chapter 6 details the further development and refinement of options, while Chapter 7 provides more detail on assessing the options.

24

SECTION 6 – OPTION DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING 6 Option development and testing 6.1 Approach to option development and assessment In the initial option generation and sifting, three broad signalised junction types were identified as potentially suitable solutions. These generic options have subsequently been developed to four options to a level of detail such that their ability to meet the scheme objectives can be assessed and to enable appraisal under TAG. Table 6-1 summarises the five options developed. Table 6-1 Options to be considered Option Description Option 1a Introduction of partial signal control with the Wraxall Road arm left uncontrolled Option 1b introduction of full signal control Option 2 Replacement of the roundabout with a signal controlled intersection Option 3 Replacement of the roundabout with a signal controlled ‘through-about’

The five options have been developed to a level of detail suitable to ensure their ability to meet the scheme objectives, and to form a suitable base for capacity modelling tools and VISSIM micro- simulation, and to enable appraisal under TAG. The options have therefore been assessed against the defined scheme objectives, and against the five cases reported in a Transport Business Case. These five cases show whether schemes:  are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives – the ‘strategic case’;  demonstrate value for money – the ‘economic case’;  are commercially viable – the ‘commercial case’;  are financially affordable – the ‘financial case’; and  are achievable – the ‘management case’. In developing the options, several variations and combinations have been considered. Conceptual designs have been iteratively checked with junction modelling software – namely LinSIG – in order to arrive at options that would increase the capacity of the junction and could likely handle observed traffic flows. However, it was not considered that junction modelling software in itself would be suitable to assess the performance of the proposed junction designs. This is because of the potential interaction of Wraxall Roundabout with adjacent roundabouts on the A4174 as well as those on the side-road arms. The different software used to assess uncontrol and signalised arrangements also means that a Do-Nothing and signal controlled options cannot be effectively compared using junction modelling software. The operational assessment has therefore been carried out using a VISSIM micro- simulation model. In order to assess options against the five cases, an environmental baseline report has been produced (Appendix E). This report includes details of the environmental baseline and provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts and opportunities associated with the Options under consideration. Topics considered in the Report are: air quality, cultural heritage, landscape,

25

SECTION 6 – OPTION DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING ecology and nature conservation, noise and vibration, people and communities, water resources and geology and soils. The list of options has duly been assessed with respect to the following:  Engineering feasibility;  Cost of construction;  Deliverability;  Key environmental impacts;  Operational assessment;  Value for money through estimation of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). 6.2 Option Development The option development phase produced four options for assessment. Descriptions for each of the options are outlined below with conceptual drawings contained in Appendix B. 6.2.1 Option 1a: Partially signalled roundabout The layout for this option is shown in Drawing No. 673847.BJ.35.01-001 included in Appendix B. This scheme involves the introduction of partial signal control to the roundabout with the Wraxall Road entry remaining uncontrolled. The A4174 northbound and southbound approaches are proposed to be increased to three lanes to provide a nearside left turn flare on both arms of circa 60 metres. 6.2.2 Option 1b: Fully signalled roundabout The layout for Option 2 is shown in Drawing No. 673847.BJ.35.01-002 included in Appendix B. This scheme has the same layout and widening as Option 1a, but comprises the introduction of full signal control to the roundabout with the addition to signal control to the Wraxall Road approach arm. 6.2.3 Option 2: Signalled crossroads The layout for this option is shown in Drawing No. 673847.BJ.35.01-003 included in Appendix B. This scheme involves major works to replace the existing roundabout with a signal-controlled intersection. The scheme includes extensive widening of the A4174 approaches into verge to provide three lanes for the ahead movements. Separate lanes are also provided for the separately phases A4174 right turns.

1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7 3 Min: 7 4 Min: 7

E E E E

DB DB DB DB

A A A A C C C C F F F F

6 55s 7 7s 5 7s 6 7s Figure 6-1: A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout, Option 2, Method of Control

Consultation with the SGC Traffic Signals team confirmed that the preferred Method of Control for this layout option would be for the side roads to run independently in separate stages. Consequently, a four stage Method of Control was devised as shown in Figure 6-1. Cycle time 26

SECTION 6 – OPTION DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING optimisation analysis showed that a cycle time of around 100 seconds was the optimum in both the AM and PM peak hours. 6.2.4 Option 3: Signalled through-about The layout for Option 3 is shown in Drawing No. 673847.BJ.35.01-003 included in Appendix A. This scheme involves major works to convert the existing roundabout into a fully signal controlled through-about arrangement. The scheme includes extensive widening of the A4174 approaches into verge to provide three lanes for the ahead/through movements. For the purposes of modelling, it was assumed that this arrangement would operate using a single controller stream to ensure coordination between controlled ‘nodes’. The assumed Method of Control is shown in Figure 2.2. Cycle time optimisation analysis showed that a short cycle time of around 40 seconds was the optimum in both peak hours.

1 Min: 7 2 Min: 7

I I

E E G H G H J J B B F F L L

D C D C A A

K K

11 14s 8 7s Figure 6-2: A4174/Wraxall Road Roundabout, Option 3, Method of Control 6.3 Transport modelling The primary means of assessing the operational impacts and economic benefit of the proposed options is through modelling using the A4174/Wraxall Road VISSIM micro-simulation model. This is because it was considered that junction modelling software would not be able to robustly assess the potential interaction with other capacity constrained roundabouts on the A4174 to the north and south of Wraxall Road Roundabout which only micro-simulation can properly model. 6.3.1 Model development and testing The model network includes Wraxall Road Roundabout and the adjacent roundabouts, which are in close proximity, to the north, east, south and west. As such, the network includes the A4174/A420 ‘Deanery’ Roundabout, the Wraxall Rod/Grimsbury Road/Cock Road mini-roundabout, the Tower Lane/Craven Way/Birkdale Roundabout and The A4174/Marsham Way ‘Kingsfield’ Roundabout. This model simulates the weekday morning peak period from 7:00 to 9:00am, weekday inter-peak period from 12:00 to 2:00pm, and weekday evening peak period from 4:00 to 6:00pm. It is based to 2018 traffic flows and conditions. Details of the model development and can be found in the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR), issued in April 2018 (see Appendix C). The four scheme options were coded into the VISSIM model network based on the layout drawings contained in Appendix B. MOVA designs and datasets were prepared for each layout. Since PCMOVA is simplistic in its implementation of Special Conditioning, which would be used to ensure coordinated linked-MOVA operation, Options 1a/1b were implemented as single stream

27

SECTION 6 – OPTION DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING arrangement running the A4174 arms concurrently followed by the side-road arms concurrently with flush stages between each. The current layout and four options were run with 2018 base year flows for the AM (7:00-9:00am), IP (12:00-2:00pm), and PM (4:00-6:00pm) with selected options also being tested in the 2036 forecast year. These scenarios were run for 30 seed runs each with the models configured to output network performance statistics, critically total network travel time for use in economic evaluation, as well as journey times along several routes across the model area, and queue lengths at the give- way/stop line at each of the A4174 roundabouts within the model network. Full details of the operational modelling can be found in the Option Testing Report in Appendix D. 6.3.2 Future traffic flows Traffic growth between the base and forecast years has been derived using the GBATS4 SATURN model. Cordon flows matching the VISSIM model area have been extracted from the 2021 and 2036 SATURN runs with the latter including the introduction of M4 Junction 18a. The difference between the 2021 and 2036 cordon SATURN matrices was calculated to estimate growth between the base and 2036 forecast year. To ensure that growth reflected congestion present in the base VISSIM model, the SATURN growth was adjusted using a Congestion Index. The AM and PM base VISSIM models were run to derive mean peak hour speeds at network bottlenecks. This was divided by the free-flow speed to calculate a Congestion Index, which was applied to the growth. The resulting growth was applied to the peak hour and applied pro-rata to the shoulder hours retaining the original in-flow profile from the base models. The 2036 forecasting work also assumed that some form of improvement would be implemented at both the A4174/A420 and A4174/Marsham Way Roundabouts. This was in order to test the Wraxall Road options without capacity constraint at these adjacent roundabouts either limiting the arrival flow of traffic at Wraxall Road Roundabout, or congestion on the approaches extending back to and interfering with a scheme at Wraxall Road. In addition, it was considered that M4 Junction 18a would only be delivered in conjunction with improvements at these sites. 6.3.3 Network performance The network performance results from the simulation runs are presented in Table 6-2 to 6-4 for the AM, IP and PM peak periods in 2018, respectively. The results show that the various options are predicted to slightly reduce overall network performance during the AM and IP. This is expected, since traffic signals are likely to increase stopping and delay during these relatively uncongested periods. During the PM, however, Options 1a, and 3 provided a reduction in mean delay and total time. Option 1b provides comparable performance to the existing layout, and Option 2 is expected to increase delay during the PM.

Table 6-2: Network Performance Statistics, AM Peak Period, 2018 Base Year Statistic Existing Op 1a Op 1b Op 2 Op 3

Mean Delay (s) 61 68 73 87 71

Mean Speed (mph) 32 31 31 29 31

Total time (hrs) 790 817 833 880 824

Journeys Completed 13651 13640 13632 13559 13629

28

SECTION 6 – OPTION DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING

Table 6-3: Network Performance Statistics, Inter-Peak Period, 2018 Base Year Statistic Existing Op 1a Op 1b Op 2 Op 3

Mean Delay (s) 53 58 61 72 63

Mean Speed (mph) 32 31 31 29 31

Total time (hrs) 719 737 748 785 751

Journeys Completed 13659 13645 13643 13605 13645

Table 6-4: Network Performance Statistics, PM Peak Period, 2018 Base Year Statistic Existing Op 1a Op 1b Op 2 Op 3

Mean Delay (s) 109 96 107 124 95

Mean Speed (mph) 26 27 26 24 27

Total time (hrs) 1170 1105 1161 1232 1094

Journeys Completed 16858 16902 16868 16758 16894

Tables 6-5 to 6-7 compare the network performance results for the 2036 forecast year for the AM, IP and PM peak periods, respectively. Option 1b was not assessed in 2036 because of similarity with Option 1a and the fact that Option 1a performed better in 2018. The results show that all options assessed in 2036, including Option 2, are expected to provide some network benefit, even in the IP period. Option 3 is predicted to provide the greatest overall benefit to the network followed by Option 1a.

Table 6-5: Network Performance Statistics, AM Peak Period, 2036 Forecast Year

Statistic Existing Op 1a Op 1b Op 2 Op 3

Mean Delay (s) 210 140 - 147 130

Mean Speed (mph) 20 24 - 24 27

Total time (hrs) 1540 1238 - 1267 1160

Journeys Completed 14727 14960 - 14983 14829

Table 6-6: Network Performance Statistics, Inter-Peak Period, 2036 Forecast Year

Statistic Existing Op 1a Op 1b Op 2 Op 3

Mean Delay (s) 97 82 - 94 84

Mean Speed (mph) 27 29 - 28 29

Total time (hrs) 989 929 - 968 929

Journeys Completed 14621 14616 - 14570 14604

29

SECTION 6 – OPTION DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING Table 6-7: Network Performance Statistics, PM Peak Period, 2036 Forecast Year

Statistic Existing Op 1a Op 1b Op 2 Op 3

Mean Delay (s) 183 98 - 123 87

Mean Speed (mph) 20 27 - 25 29

Total time (hrs) 1582 1167 - 1279 1106

Journeys Completed 17010 17401 - 17267 17467

6.3.4 Modelling Summary The results of the operational modelling, including the detailed results set out in the Option Testing Report in Appendix D show that Options 1a and 3 deliver an improvement in network conditions during the busier and more congested weekday PM peak period in the 2018 base year. This equates to a reduction in mean delay per vehicle of nearly 15 seconds. However, during the relatively less trafficked AM and IP periods, these options all marginally increase queuing and delay at Wraxall Roundabout. The assessment of Option 1a, 2 and 3 in the 2036 forecast year shows that, because of traffic growth and increased congestion, every option tested provides some benefit over the existing layout, even during the IP period. Option 3 appears to perform the best out of all the options tested under forecast traffic delivering reduced queuing and delay on the A4174 arm in all periods, as well as reduced congestion on Tower Lane during the PM. However, this at the cost of increased delays on the side-roads during the AM. Option 1a performs well in the forecast year, particularly with regard to operational conditions on the Wraxall Road approach. However, during the AM queuing and delays A4174 are very high with this option not providing an improvement over the existing layout. Option 2 similarly provides limited benefits for the A4174 southbound approach in the AM. At the same time, this layout is expected to result in significant increases in queuing and delay on the Wraxall Road approach in most of the time periods modelled.

30

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

7 Option assessment 7.1 Early Appraisal and Sifting Tool (EAST) The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Business Case guidance sets out how to write a full business case for a transport investment. This includes the Early Assessment and Sifting Tool, which has been used to short-list options at this early stage of scheme development. The Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) is a decision support tool that has been developed to quickly summarise and present evidence on options to enable an early comparison of options and tools being considered, prior to the more detailed appraisal which will enable recommendations to be made for funding decisions. It has been developed to summarise and present evidence on options in a clear and consistent format and provides decision makers with relevant, high level, information to help them form an early view of how options perform and compare. DfT sets out that the EAST should be used to:  Help refine options by highlighting adverse impact or unanticipated consequences;  Compare options, for example, within or across modes, geographical areas and networks;  Identify trade-offs between objectives aiding package development;  Filter the number of options, i.e. discount non-runners early on to ease the appraisal burden and avoid resources being spent unnecessarily; and  Identify key uncertainties in the analysis and areas where further appraisal efforts should focus. When undertaking an Early Assessment and Sifting Tool appraisal, it is often at a very early stage in the scheme development work and therefore only high-level information is available. Option 1b has been discarded based on similarity with Option 1a and relatively poor performance compared with the latter. The three remaining options have been assessed using the EAST, with results presented in Figure 7-1 to Figure 7-3.

31

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. Op. 1a Partial signal

Date 14/09/2018

Description Introduction of partial signal control with the Wraxall Road arm left uncontrolled Strategic Identified problems and Increased use of the A174 Ring Road and congestion at peak times at Wraxall Roundabout. As objectives a result, traffic is likely to re-route to less suitable roads Objectives: • To improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms • To improve air quality • To improve the road safety • To maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on side-road arms • Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes.

Scale of impact 3 Expected to alleviate congestion and deliver some operational benefit especially in the worst peak (PM peak) in 2018, and benefits in 2036, by reduced queuing and journey time compared to the existing arrangement Fit with wider transport 4 Stimulates growth, ensures resilience, delivers infrastructure and government capacity objectives Fit with other objectives 3 Reasonable fit with scheme objectives

Key uncertainties See key risks

Degree of consensus 3 Design and performance has been discussed with SGC project over outcomes team Economic Economic growth 5. Green Contributes to unlocking the growth potentials, and enhances traffic flow along the A4174 to some degree Carbon emissions 4. Amber/green Reduction of delays improves fuel efficiency Socio-distributional 6. No Impact impacts and the regions Local environment 5. Green Well being 6. No Impact Expected VfM category 1. Very High >4 BCR estimated to be 31.24 Managerial Implementation timetable 5. 2-5 years

Public acceptability 3 No public consultation taken place

Practical feasibility 4 Expected to be permitted development, the option has been tested

What is the quality of 4 VISSIM micro-simulation models the supporting evidence? Key risks Need to secure funding, feasibility of any preferred option to be confirmed in further work, risks associated with the construction, additional environmental mitigation required following further work, relevant consents to be secured, public support unknown, inflated or additional scheme costs, lack of resources (people, material, expertise, not funding) to progress the scheme. Financial Affordability 4 SGC will apply for funding from WECA Capital Cost (£m) 02. 0-5 £1.479m Revenue Costs (£m) Not available Cost profile Not available Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 4 Flexible as no major constraints exists and to be built within highway boundaries Where is funding WECA, Local Major Funding or Local Growth Fund coming from? Any income generated? No (£m)

Figure 7-1 EAST summary – Option 1a 32

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. Op. 2 Fully Signlised junction

Date 14/09/2018

Description Replacement of the roundabout with a signal controlled intersection Strategic Identified problems and Increased use of the A174 Ring Road and congestion at peak times at Wraxall Roundabout. As objectives a result, traffic is likely to re-route to less suitable roads Objectives: • To improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms • To improve air quality • To improve the road safety • To maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on side-road arms • Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes.

Scale of impact 3 Expected to alleviate congestion and are viable and deliver some operational but only in the 2036 forecast year, by some reduced queuing and journey time compared to the existing arrangement Fit with wider transport 4 Stimulates growth, ensures resilience, delivers infrastructure and government capacity objectives Fit with other objectives 3 Reasonable fit with scheme objectives

Key uncertainties See key risks

Degree of consensus 3 Design and performance has been discussed with SGC project over outcomes team Economic Economic growth 5. Green Contributes to unlocking the growth potentials, and enhances traffic flow along the A4174 to some degree Carbon emissions 4. Amber/green Reduction of delays improves fuel efficiency Socio-distributional 6. No Impact impacts and the regions Local environment 4. Amber/green Impact on landscape/visual Well being 6. No Impact Expected VfM category 1. Very High >4 BCR estimated to be 8.83 Managerial Implementation timetable 5. 2-5 years

Public acceptability 3 No public consultation taken place

Practical feasibility 4 Expected to be permitted development, the option has been tested

What is the quality of 4 Vissim microsimulation models the supporting evidence? Key risks Need to secure funding, feasibility of any preferred option to be confirmed in further work, risks associated with the construction, additional environmental mitigation required following further work, relevant consents to be secured, public support unknown, inflated or additional scheme costs, lack of resources (people, material, expertise, not funding) to progress the scheme. Financial Affordability 4 SGC will apply for funding from WECA Capital Cost (£m) 02. 0-5 £4.372m Revenue Costs (£m) Not available Cost profile Not available Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 4 Flexible as no major constraints exists and to be built within highway boundaries Where is funding WECA, Local Major Funding or Local Growth Fund coming from? Any income generated? No (£m) Figure 7-2 EAST summary – Option 2

33

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) - Expanded Print View Option Name/No. Op. 3 Signlised Through about

Date 14/09/2018

Description Replacement of the roundabout with a signal controlled ‘through‐about’ Strategic Identified problems and Increased use of the A174 Ring Road and congestion at peak times at Wraxall Roundabout. As objectives a result, traffic is likely to re-route to less suitable roads Objectives: • To improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms • To improve air quality • To improve the road safety • To maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on side-road arms • Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes.

Scale of impact 5. Significant impact Expected to alleviate congestion and deliver some operational benefit especially in the worst peak (PM peak) in 2018, and benefits in 2036, by reduced queuing and journey time compared to the existing arrangement Fit with wider transport 5. High Stimulates growth, ensures resilience, delivers infrastructure and government capacity objectives Fit with other objectives 5. High Meets all objectives

Key uncertainties See key risks

Degree of consensus 3 Design and performance has been discussed with SGC project over outcomes team Economic Economic growth 5. Green Contributes to unlocking the growth potentials, and enhances flows along the A4174 Carbon emissions 4. Amber/green Reduction of delays improves fuel efficiency Socio-distributional 6. No Impact impacts and the regions Local environment 4. Amber/green Impact on landscape/visual Well being 6. No Impact Expected VfM category 1. Very High >4 BCR estimated to be 9.56 Managerial Implementation timetable 5. 2-5 years

Public acceptability 3 No public consultation taken place

Practical feasibility 4 Expected to be permitted development, the option has been tested

What is the quality of 4 Vissim microsimulation models the supporting evidence? Key risks Need to secure funding, feasibility of any preferred option to be confirmed in further work, risks associated with the construction, additional environmental mitigation required following further work, relevant consents to be secured, public support unknown, inflated or additional scheme costs, lack of resources (people, material, expertise, not funding) to progress the scheme. Financial Affordability 4 SGC will apply for funding from WECA Capital Cost (£m) 03. 5-10 £5.855m Revenue Costs (£m) Not available Cost profile Not available Overall cost risk 3 Other costs Commercial Flexibility of option 4 Flexible as no major constraints exists and to be built within highway boundaries Where is funding WECA, Local Major Funding or Local Growth Fund coming from? Any income generated? No (£m) Figure 7-3 EAST summary – Option 3

34

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

7.2 Strategic Case 7.2.1 Scale of impact Table 7-1 shows the scale of impact of the scheme options. Options 1a, 2 and 3 are expected to alleviate congestion and deliver operational benefit especially in the worst peak period (PM peak) in the 2018 base year by reduced queuing and delay compared to the existing arrangement. By 2036, Option 3 is predicted to provide the greatest benefit to the A4174 with Options 1a and 2 providing limited benefits in the AM, but benefits in other periods.

Table 7-1 Scale of Impact

Option Scale of Impact Justification Option 1a: Partial signal with the Wraxall 3 – Expected to have a reasonably significant impact See scoring in Table 7-3 Rd. arm uncontrolled on the problem Option 2: Signal controlled intersection 3 – Expected to have a reasonably significant impact See scoring in Table 7-3 on the problem Option 3: Signal controlled ‘through‐ 5 – Expected to have a very significant impact on the See scoring in Table 7-3 about’ problem Response options are: 1 – Very small overall impact – would have a very small positive impact, possibly with undesirable consequences 2 – Minor impact – Would have a modest overall impact 3 – Moderate impact – Expected to have a reasonably significant impact on the problem identified 4 – Significant impact – Expected to significantly alleviate the problem 5 – Very significant impact – Expected to alleviate the problem 7.2.2 Fit with wider transport and government objectives Regional objectives are outlined in Chapter 1. Table 7-2 shows how the scheme options fit with the wider transport and government objectives.

Table 7-2 Fit against transport and government objectives

Option Fit objectives Justification

Option 1a: Partial signal with 4 – Good fit Stimulates growth, ensures resilience, delivers infrastructure the Wraxall Rd. arm capacity, resolves some congestion issues. uncontrolled Option 2: Signal controlled 4 – Good fit Stimulates growth, ensures resilience, delivers infrastructure intersection capacity, resolves some congestion issues. Option 3: Signal controlled 5– High fit Stimulates growth, ensures resilience, delivers infrastructure ‘through‐about’ capacity, resolves congestion issues. Response options are: 1 – Low fit, 5 – High fit 7.2.3 Fit with the scheme objectives The scheme options are all seeking to address the same problems and meet the following objectives:  Improve traffic flow along the A4174 Ring Road and reduce delays to these arms;  Improve air quality; 35

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT  Improve the road safety;  To maintain capacity, or reduce delays where possible, on side-road arms;  Facilitate/accommodate growth from housing and other infrastructure schemes. Table 7-3 shows how the scheme options fit with objectives. Option 3 fits the scheme objectives better than other options.

Table 7-3 Fit against scheme objectives

Option Improve traffic Improve air quality Improve the road Side-road arms Facilitate/accomm Overall score flow along the safety odate growth A4174 Option 1a: 3 – Some reduced 3 – Not expected 4- No change to 3 – Reduced Wraxall 3- some capacity 3 – Reasonable fit Partial queuing and to have a NMU facilities, Road queues but some enhancement signals delays on A4174 significant effect better safety increases on Tower facilitates growth on local air expected due to Lane quality. signalisation Option 2: 3 – Some reduced 3- Not expected 4- No change to 1- Expected to 3- some capacity 3 – Reasonable fit Signal queuing and to have a NMU facilities, significantly increase enhancement controlled delays on A4174 significant effect better safety queues and delays facilitates growth intersection on local air expected due to quality. signalisation Option 3: 5 – Notably 4 – A small 4- No change to 3- Increased queuing on 5- good capacity 5 – Excellent fit Signal reduced queuing improvement in NMU facilities, Wraxall but some enhancement controlled and delay on NO2 better safety benefits to Tower Lane facilitates growth ‘through‐ A4174 concentration expected due to about’ signalisation Response options are: 1 – Low fit, 5 – High fit 7.2.4 Key uncertainties At the time of preparing this OAR no uncertainties were identified. The feasibility of any option taken forward would need to be confirmed at a later stage. Key risks are outlined below. 7.2.5 Degree of consensus over outcomes Consultation on the preferred option will need to be carried out at a later stage. Considering that all proposed works are within the highway boundaries, it is not anticipated that the preferred option will be controversial. Table 7-4 shows anticipated degree of consensus over outcome, which reflect current understanding after meeting the SGC project team.

Table 7-4 Anticipated degree of consensus over outcomes

Option Early Assessment and Justification Sifting Tool Response Option 1a: Partial signal with the Wraxall 3 Design and performance has been discussed with Rd. arm uncontrolled SGC project team Option 2: Signal controlled intersection 3 Design and performance has been discussed with SGC project team Option 3: Signal controlled ‘through‐ 3 Design and performance has been discussed with about’ SGC project team Response options are: 1 – Little or no consultation has taken place yet, or consultation has revealed a high level of disagreement about the option’s ability to deliver the stated outcomes 2 – Little consultation and/or strong reasons to suggest the outcomes are controversial. 3 – Some consultation has taken place with some agreement

36

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

4 – Wide consultation and broad agreement on the outcomes, possibly one or two areas of disagreement remaining 5 – Extensive consultation has taken place with a high degree of consensus on the outcomes 7.2.6 Summary of strategic case A review of the headings under the strategic case indicate that Options 1a, 2 and 3 generally fit with the scheme objectives as they are performing options in terms of improving flows on the A4174 and air quality due to reduced queuing and journey time. However, Option 3 provides the best fit due to it superior performance with respect to traffic flows along the A4174. 7.3 Economic Case In line with WebTAG guidance a proportional approach was taken in the derivation of Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) impacts associated with the scheme. Derivation of scheme benefits is based on the travel time savings obtained from the VISSIM model for the weekday AM peak (07:00- 9:00am), interpeak (12:00-2:00pm) and PM peak (4:00-6:00pm) periods. It is important to note that potential network benefits of the increased junction capacity during non-modelled periods, such as weekends, are not considered. Vehicle operating cost savings and accident cost savings have similarly not been accounted for in the economic assessment. 7.3.1 Approach The existing highway network and the proposed schemes were modelled in VISSIM as previously described. This software produced estimates for the total network travel time for current year (2018) and a 2036 forecast year. The following steps were then adopted to convert the VISSIM model output into monetary terms:  Total journey time changes between the Do Minimum and Do Something (Option) scenarios were derived from the VISSIM models;  Journey time changes were split by vehicle type (Car, Light Goods Vehicles LGV, Bus, Other Goods Vehicles OGV) for AM, IP and PM peaks, with the split based upon locally sourced traffic counts;  Car based delay reductions were split across three trip purposes (Employers Business, Commute, Other). This proportional split was based upon WebTAG values;  The LGV based journey time change was split by two trip purposes (work, non-work). This split was again based upon WebTAG values;  Travel time changes were converted to an annual total using an expansion factor of 252; and  Values of Time for trip purposes used current WebTAG values at 2010 prices. This was used to calculate an annual monetary benefit for time savings. The scheme delay benefits were subsequently calculated for 6 user groups (Car - employer’s business, Car - commute, Car - other, LGV - Work, LGV - other, OGV’s). The main assumptions used in the TEE assessment are set out in Table 7-5.

37

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT Table 7-5 Main Assumptions in Economic Assessment

Assumption Source Values

Change in Network VISSIM Model Journey Time Benefit (Reference Case Journey Times compared minus Scheme) to reference case OPT1a OPT2 OPT3 (total vehicle travel hours per time period) 2018 AM -27 -89 -34

2018 IP -18 -66 -32

2018 PM 65 -61 76

2036 AM 303 338 380

2036 IP 61 22 61

2036 PM 415 303 476

Negative number suggests that Do Something travel time exceeds the Reference Case scenario

Traffic Composition Wraxall Road Mode AM IP PM Roundabout MCC Traffic Car 0.81 0.82 0.85 Survey LGV 0.15 0.14 0.13

Buses 0.00 0.00 0.00

OGV 0.03 0.04 0.01

Annualisation Factor Standard TUBA 252 value for weekdays only

Car users – trip purpose WebTAG Table Purpose AM IP PM A 1.3.4 Work 16% 16% 12%

Commuting 44% 12% 41%

Other 39% 72% 47%

LGV users – trip purpose WebTAG Table Purpose Split A 1.3.4 Work 88%

Non – Work 12%

Scheme Costs Estimated Scheme Costs Year OPT. 1a OPT. 2 OPT. 3 and expenditure 2018 52,005 153,670 205,792 profile 2019 846,262 2,500,624 3,348,805

2020 581,510 1,718,306 2,301,134

2021

Total 1,479,777 4,372,599 5,855,731

38

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

Table 7-5 Main Assumptions in Economic Assessment

Assumption Source Values

Maintenance Costs Estimated Annual Maintenance 15 year renewal Cost Maintenance Cost (£) (£) Expenditure Op1a 1,000 63,225 Op1b 1,000 84,476 Op2 1,000 98,010 Op3 1,000 152,091 Annual maintenance cost of crossings assumed to be £1000 p.a Equipment renewal rate assumed to be every 15 years (2035, 2050 and 2065,2080). No additional highway maintenance assumed as this will be a small marginal increase on existing maintenance costs.

7.3.2 Other Key Assumptions The economic appraisal of each option used standard economic parameters as follows:  Scheme opening Year: 2021;  Modelled years: 2018 and 2036;  Appraisal period: 60 years;  Price base year for discounting: 2010;  Discount rate 3.5% for 30 years from scheme opening and 3% thereafter;  Optimism bias added to scheme costs: 44% (as defined in TAG Unit A 1.2 – Table 8); and  Value of Time assumptions WebTAG databook December 2017 (WebTAG Table A 1.3.2).

An opening year of 2021 has been assumed. This is subject to the construction start date of 2018. A more detailed design and construction methodology, will be determined through the scheme development phases and set out in the full business case. 7.3.3 Land Value Uplift A desk-top based economic impact analysis has estimated the roundabout improvement scheme impacts on Land Value Uplift, jobs and Gross Value Added (GVA). DFTs latest guidance states that the analysis presented in terms of jobs, GVA and homes can only be used to inform the strategic case of scheme, whilst the economic case can comprise of the metric Land Value Uplift as a sensitivity test BCR. WebTag unit 2.1 paragraph 4.3.5 states that “the quality of land value uplift as a measure of welfare is considered low and only included as sensitivity analysis within the value for money assessment”. WebTag unit 2.1 paragraph 6.2.10 states “Other assessments, including dependent development, dynamic clustering and the move to more/less productive jobs are subject to greater uncertainty. The guidance states that LVU should not be reported in the initial or adjusted BCR, but can be presented as sensitivity tests”. To generate a land value uplift value, the land value uplift associated with agricultural land being converted to industrial land by commercial properties has been monetised. The analysis also monetises the land value uplift associated with houses being built on greenfield land. Appendix F contains full details of the economic analysis.

39

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

Table 7-6 Economic growth Impact to Option Impact to end Impact to cost of Wider transport Impact to Delivery of Accessibility Overall to end journey travel (time & economic reliability & incidents housing changes RAG time money) impacts resilience Option 1a: Partial Reduced PM Journey time Improved No change to May facilitate Contributes to Enhances Green signal with the delay in 2018 benefits esp in journey time NMU, unlocking the flows along the Wraxall Rd. arm wider benefits 2036 reliability enhanced growth A4174 to some uncontrolled by 2036 safety due to potentials degree signalisation Option 2: Signal Reduced PM Some journey Some No change to May facilitate Contributes to Enhances Green controlled delay in 2018 time benefits esp improved NMU, unlocking the flows along the intersection some wider in 2036 journey time enhanced growth A4174 to some benefits by reliability safety due to potentials degree 2036 signalisation Option 3: Signal Reduced PM Good journey Improved No change to May facilitate Contributes to Enhances Green controlled delay in 2018 time benefits esp journey time NMU, unlocking the flows along the ‘through‐about’ good benefits in 2036 reliability enhanced growth A4174 by 2036 safety due to potentials signalisation

40

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

7.3.4 Carbon emissions The impacts of the scheme options are as follows (shown in Table 7-7):

Table 7-7 Carbon Emissions

Option Vehicle km Significant Lower Fuel per vehicle Non-traded Traded Overall RAG change construction carbon fuel km (diesel, (electric) work petrol and required bio fuel) Option 1a: No Moderate No impact Reduction No change No Amber/green Partial signal significant through reduced change with the change delays Wraxall Rd. arm uncontrolled Option 2: No Significant No impact Reduction No change No Amber/green Signal significant through reduced change controlled change delays intersection Option 3: No Significant No impact Reduction No change No Amber/green Signal significant through reduced change controlled change delays ‘through‐ about’

7.3.5 Local environment Table 7-8 shows the impact of the respective options on the local environment in terms of air quality, natural urban environment and noise. Any scheme that minimises occurrence of traffic congestion is likely to deliver positive impacts. The operational air quality assessment predicted pollutant concentrations below the Air Quality Standard objectives both with and without the proposed scheme for all options. No exceedances were modelled in the Opening Year as a result of the scheme and therefore all of the three scheme options are assessed to be not significant on operational air quality. Any Option progressed would need to meet the aims of the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE). During the operational phase, the potential noise impacts would arise from changes in traffic flows on the highway network. Wraxall Road Roundabout is identified as a no Noise Important Areas; and it is considered likely to be directly affected by all Options under consideration – further work is required to consider the noise impacts associated with any Option taken forward. Landscape refers to both the physical and cultural characteristics of the land. Wraxall Road Roundabout is surrounding by existing vegetation and trees, thus there is a natural ‘screening’ of the Roundabout from surrounding land. The existing land use is highway land and there will be no change to this land use type as a result of any Option. Surrounding land uses include residential (to the south), a cemetery to the north east and undeveloped land (an allocated SNCI) to the north west. It is considered likely all options will result in a loss of some vegetation and possibly some trees. However, there are opportunities for replacement planning and long-term impacts to the landscape are likely to be neutral. Options 2 and 3 would result in the loss of the existing roundabout and therefore it is considered that these options would have a greater impact on the landscape of the area when compared to Option 1a. There are no World Heritage Sites; or Registered Battlefields that would be directly impacted by changes to the junction. Whilst there are a number of designated heritage assets within the area, 41

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT including Scheduled Monuments, a Registered Park and Garden, conservation areas; and 19 listed buildings giving regards to the setting of the Roundabout and scale of works proposed is not considered likely there would be any direct impacts to these assets. There are no internationally or nationally designated sites for biodiversity; nor are there any National Nature Reserves located within 2 km of the Roundabout. There is a however a SNCI direct adjacent to the north of the Roundabout. It is assumed at the time of writing that all works will be limited to the adopted highway and therefore it is unlikely there would be any direct impacts to this designated site, however further consideration of this designation should be given for any Option taken forward. There is an open ditch course to the north of Wraxall Road Roundabout, there could be opportunities for enhancements to the water environment through improved drainage as part of any detailed design works. Options 2 and 3 remove the existing Roundabout therefore are likely to have slightly larger impermeable areas than Option 1a. Based upon the Options presented, overall impacts to the natural and urban environment are considered to be neutral. With mitigation it is considered there is likely to be no change. The land that will be affected by the proposed Options is within the existing adopted highway and is predominantly all existing carriageway, and thus considered to be ‘low’ value. Table 7-8 reflects the results of the WebTAG compliant environmental assessment, the results of which are summarised in the Environmental Baseline Report (appendix E). The overall RAG rating assigned to Options 1a is ‘Green’, while Options 2 and 3 have been scored ‘amber/green’ as they have more impacts on the existing roundabout landscape.

Table 7-8 Local environmental impacts

Option Impact Impact to Is it likely Impact Impact to Environmental Overall RAG to air existing AQMAs scheme to natural and value of land quality will create noise urban affected an AQMA environment Option 1a: Partial signal Positive No significant No No No change Low Green with the Wraxall Rd. arm change to traffic change uncontrolled flows on AQMA Option 2: Signal controlled Positive No significant No No Impact on Low Amber/green intersection change to traffic change landscape/visual flows on AQMA Option 3: Signal controlled Positive No significant No No Impact on Low Amber/green ‘through‐about’ change to traffic change landscape/visual flows on AQMA

7.3.6 Socio-distributional and regional impacts Table 7-9 shows the likely socio-distributional and regional impacts of the options. All of the options are expected to have very limited impacts as it is a modification to an existing roundabout, thus have been scored 6 (no impact).

42

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

Table 7-9 Social distributional impacts Option SDI Justification Option 1a: Partial 6 – No impact The scheme is modification to an existing roundabout, not expected to have considerable signal with the impacts Wraxall Rd. arm uncontrolled Option 2: Signal 6 – No impact The scheme is modification to an existing roundabout, not expected to have considerable controlled impacts intersection

Option 3: Signal 6 – No impact The scheme is modification to an existing roundabout, not expected to have considerable controlled impacts ‘through‐about’

7.3.7 Wellbeing The well-being assessment considers Severance, Physical Activity, Changes to Accidents, Impact to crime/fear of crime and Access to goods, service, people and place. These matters are considered in turn.

Table 7-10 Impacts on well being

Physical Changes Impact to Access to goods, Option Severance Activity to crime/fear of service, people and Terrorism Overall RAG Level Accidents crime place Option 1a: Partial No No change Slight No change No change No change 6- No Impact signal with the change decrease Wraxall Rd. arm uncontrolled Option 2: Signal No No change Slight No change No change No change 6- No Impact controlled change decrease intersection Option 3: Signal No No change Slight No change No change No change 6- No Impact controlled change decrease ‘through‐about’

7.3.8 Value for money The Department for Transport “Value for Money” Framework9 uses six Value for Money categories. The relevant categories are detailed below:  Very Poor – Benefit to Cost Ratio less than 0  Poor – Benefit to Cost Ratio less than 1  Low - Benefit to Cost Ratio between 1 and 1.5  Medium - Benefit to Cost Ratio between 1.5 and 2  High - Benefit to Cost Ratio between 2 and 4  Very High - Benefit to Cost Ratio greater than 4

9 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630704/value-for-money- framework.pdf 43

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT Appendix G contains the standard economic assessment tables for the four scheme options. Table 7-11 details the VfM category for the three scheme options assessed. All options provide limited benefits in the 2018 base year with delay savings only during the PM peak. However, by 2036 the options all provide notable reductions in total vehicle hours, with Option 3 providing the greatest reductions in the forecast year. Even with a scheme cost of £5.855m, this option provides high value for money with a BCR of 9.56 Table 7-11 Value for money Category for scheme options

Option Value for Money Category

Option 1a: Partial signal with the Wraxall Rd. arm Very high uncontrolled Option 2: Signal controlled intersection Very high Option 3: Signal controlled ‘through‐about’ Very high

7.3.9 Summary of economic case Work to date indicates that the best performing scheme is Option 3 which offers high value for money. 7.4 Managerial Case 7.4.1 Implementation timetable All scheme options have the same proposed implementation timetable. A preferred scheme option would need to be delivered in 2021 (Subject to the construction start date – assumed 2018, detailed design and construction methodology, which will be determined through the development phases and set out in the full business case). All scheme options have all therefore been scored 5 (2-5 years). 7.4.2 Public acceptability The scheme is not expected to be controversial. However, consultation on the scheme options presented in this OAR has not taken place. All options are scored 3. These factors are reflected in Table 7-12.

Table 7-12 Public acceptability

Option Level of public Justification acceptability Option 1a: Partial 3 No public consultation taken place signal with the Wraxall Rd. arm uncontrolled Option 2: Signal 3 No public consultation taken place controlled intersection Option 3: Signal 3 No public consultation taken place controlled ‘through‐ about’ Response options are: 1 – Low, 5 – High

44

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

7.4.3 Practical feasibility The assessment of practical feasibility of each of the options has been based on the previous work undertaken to date, in particular a desk-based assessment of constraints. No issues have been identified, all options do not require third party land. All options are expected to be permitted development as options are within highway boundaries with no significant environmental impacts. All options would be delivered, operated and maintained by SGC council, who have a strong track record in delivering major projects. As the options are refined and further technical work is undertaken, the extent and detail of the practical feasibility will be better known.

Table 7-13 Practical feasibility

Option Level of practical feasibility Comments

Option 1a: Partial signal 4 Expected to be permitted development, the with the Wraxall Rd. option has been tested arm uncontrolled Option 2: Signal 4 Expected to be permitted development, the controlled intersection option has been tested Option 3: Signal 4 Expected to be permitted development, the controlled ‘through‐ option has been tested about’ Response options are: 1 – Low, 5 – High 7.4.4 Quality of supporting evidence To date, the scheme options have been developed to establish feasibility. Consideration of options have been informed desktop review and technical work undertaken to date including traffic modelling work outlined in Appendices C and D. The level of detail considered to complete the following has been taken into consideration:  Baseline information – desk based – appropriate for this stage of work;  Costs – high level with considerable levels of risk applied - appropriate for this stage of work;  Feasibility – high level - appropriate for this stage of work;  Impacts – high level - appropriate for this stage of work;  Traffic modelling – fairly detailed – through junction models and VISSIM microsimulation models;  Utilities – fairly detailed – appropriate for this stage of work.

As a result, the quality of supporting evidence for all options has scored 4 overall- good level of supporting evidence (1 – Low, 5 – High). 7.4.5 Key risks The key risks for the project include:  Need to secure funding and include scheme within Local Transport Plans;  Feasibility of any preferred option to be confirmed in further work;  Risks associated with the construction;

45

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT  Additional environmental mitigation required following further work;  Relevant consents to be secured;  Public support unknown;  Inflated or additional scheme costs, including utilities diversion; and  Lack of resources (people, material, expertise, not funding) to progress the scheme.

7.4.6 Summary of management case In summary, scheme options are considered achievable and thus have a ‘management case’. Public consultation on the options has not yet been undertaken. 7.5 Financial Case 7.5.1 Capital cost For the purposes of the EAST appraisal, estimated capital costs for the scheme options are presented in Table 7-14. Costs for the various options have been supplied by SGC.

Table 7-14 Capital cost, ‘000s (2018 prices)

Option Capital costs Option 1a: Partial signal with the Wraxall Rd. arm uncontrolled 1,479 Option 2: Signal controlled intersection 4,372 Option 3: Signal controlled ‘through‐ about’ 5,855

7.5.2 Affordability WECA is expected to fund the preferred option, thus all options have been scored to 4 (1 = Not Affordable, 5 = Affordable). 7.5.3 Revenue costs Revenue costs are not available at this stage. 7.5.4 Cost profile Cost profile information is not available at this stage. 7.5.5 Overall cost risk and other costs Costs of all options are currently estimated at a high level. In general, the scheme costs may be affected by the following risks:  Land purchase: It is not envisaged that any private land will be required for any of the options.  Environmental mitigation: No environmental mitigation is identified/required at this stage.  Environmental, utilities and other constraints – only desk based review to date.  Delays to implementation timetable.  Lack of resources.  Funding secured and timing.

Therefore, all options have been scored to 3 – Medium risk.

46

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

7.5.6 Summary of financial case In summary, all schemes are thought to be financially affordable and thus have a ‘financial case’. The cost of Option 1a is lower compared to the other two options. 7.6 Commercial Case 7.6.1 Procurement The scheme would be delivered by SGC Council, and standard procurement routes would be adhered to. SGC has a strong record in procuring and delivering major infrastructure projects. 7.6.2 Flexibility of option All scheme options are deemed to be flexible as no major constraints exist and all options are to be built within highway boundaries. Scheme options have already been refined to present the most feasible options. All options have therefore been scored 4 (1 being static and 5 being dynamic). 7.6.3 Funding sources Potential funding sources include:  WECA;  Local Major Funding; or  Local Growth Fund.

These funding sources would be applicable for all scheme options. 7.6.4 Income generation None of the scheme options would generate an income. 7.6.5 Summary of commercial case In summary all scheme options are considered commercially viable, thus have a ‘commercial case’. 7.7 Summary The key outcomes of the EAST options assessment are summarised in Table 7-15 below. The assessment shows that the key differences between the options relate to traffic performance (which is the key issue to meet the objectives), and the economic case.

47

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

Table 7-15 Summary of how the scheme options meet the five cases

Option Strategic case Economic case Financial case Commercial case Management case (£m) Option 1a: Reasonable fit High BCR Financially Has a commercial Has a management case Partial signal with strategic Affordable case with the Wraxall objectives Rd. arm uncontrolled Option 2: Signal Reasonable fit High BCR Financially Has a commercial Has a management case controlled with strategic Affordable case intersection objectives Option 3: Signal Excellent fit High BCR Financially Has a commercial Has a management case controlled with strategic Affordable case ‘through‐about’ objectives

48

SECTION 7 – OPTION ASSESSMENT

7.8 Conclusion Following examination of the four options, it is recommended that the Option 3 signalised though- about scheme 3 is taken forward. This option provides the greatest benefit to traffic flow along the A4174 whilst delivering some benefit to the side-roads arm. It provides the greatest enhancement in terms of capacity and will facilitate growth better than the other options and provide improvements in journey time reliability and network resilience. As such, Option 3 therefore meets the strategic objectives of the scheme better than Options 1a and 2 whilst providing a high value for money with a BCR of 9.56.

49

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2

8 Further Development and assessment of the selected option (n. 3) – TAG appraisal stage 2 8.1 Introduction TAG appraisal stage 1 (chapter 7) assessed the options and recommended Option 3 for further development. Chapter 8, TAG appraisal stage 2, briefly presents further development of the selected option and the refinement of modelling and VfM indicators to reflect the impacts of the changes on the BCR. It should be noted that this chapter should be read in conjunction with the Full Business Case (FBC) developed for the scheme as it covers the TAG five business cases for the selected scheme. 8.2 Further development of Option 3 8.2.1 Throughabout Safety Review A safety review was undertaken to investigate several existing throughabout junctions across the country in order to identify potential safety issues with the proposed design of a throughabout junction for Wraxall Road roundabout. Throughabout junctions are an effective means of cutting congestion and the review of publicly available PIA data indicates that they are not necessarily any less safe than other solutions involving signalisation. Throughabouts place greater demand on wayfinding, as most drivers are not familiar with these types of junctions and cannot depend on intuition to navigate them. There is thus added impetus for the designer and highway authority to install informative and unambiguous signage and line markings as a key part of the scheme. The PIA data indicates that when throughabout junctions are installed with reasonably robust mitigating wayfinding measures, the PIA rate is generally lower than in cases when wayfinding is less robust. With this in mind, the study has suggested a series of measures that are considered to be the most effective at providing drivers with a clear understanding of how to navigate the junction. These have been based on the measures found at existing throughabout junctions, with particular attention paid to those with the lowest PIA rates. On aggregate, this study recommends a robust scheme for signage, lining and signalisation to mitigate any potential safety issues arising from wayfinding. As a corollary to this work, analysis of PIA statistics have indicated that the driver familiarisation period in adapting to the construction of a new throughabout junction could be up to five years. However, it is suggested that by implementing the recommended scheme for signage, lining and signalisation which would be more comprehensive than that seen at most other such junctions, this period could be reduced. However, it is recommended that this is also carried through to the scheme’s implementation, with appropriate temporary signage and dissemination of information in order to maximise public awareness of the scheme and maximise safety in the initial period following its opening. Data is limited in regard to PIAs involving pedal cycles at throughabouts, though it is not expected that these junctions are any different than conventional signalised roundabouts or crossroads in that regard. On the whole, and provided appropriate mitigation measures are included, it is expected

50

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2 that the proposed throughabout will present a level of safety similar to or better than any of the alternative options for the Wraxall Road roundabout scheme. 8.2.2 SGC Road Safety Audit Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audits (RSA) have been carried out for the proposed design. The changes are summarised below with more details provided in appendix I, which contains the full RSA reports.  Modelling results were requested to ensure queue lengths fit within the allocated lane space.  Recommendations were made regarding signalling to avoid potential accidents. The possibility of drivers attempting to turn right into the ‘cut-through’ from the circulatory carriageway was highlighted, and measures propose to reduce this risk.  Street furniture should be passively safe, or a vehicle restrain system should be provided. Similar considerations were made regarding a retaining wall.  Comments were made regarding the safety barriers, requesting further clarifications on their design. It was suggested that modifications may be required The comments made in the RSAs have either been addressed or require minor changes which will be made before the construction phase. 8.2.3 Public consultation SGC undertook a public consultation exercise on the proposed improvements to the roundabout between 6 February and 29 March 2019. A consultation page was set up to provide the background to the consultation, the Statement of Reasons, consultation scheme drawing, and a link to a consultation survey. Additionally, three public drop-in sessions (attended by SGC officers and representatives from Jacobs consultants) were held in March 2019 to provide people with the opportunity to ask questions about proposed improvements. These were promoted on the council’s main Facebook page, StreetCare Facebook page and Twitter accounts. 154 people attended exhibitions and 231 questionnaires were returned. In addition, 37 e-mails or letters were submitted. Support for the scheme as a whole Respondents were asked to state if they agree with the principle of the scheme (that they think that that changes should be made but not necessarily in the way that is proposed). The response was: 9 Yes, 139 (60%) 10 No, 82 (35%) 11 Don’t Know, 10 (4%) Improving journeys at the roundabout in future Respondents were asked if, given the information contained in the Statement of Reasons, they think that the scheme will improve the journeys they make here in future years. The response was:  Yes, 107 (47%)  No, 90 (39%)  Don’t Know, 33 (14%)

51

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2 Qualitative Feedback SGC received a total of 37 emails or letters providing comments on the consultation. In addition to this, 84% (195 of 231) of respondents to the questionnaire made use of the comments box. The points most commonly raised (in no particular order) include the following: General Those who expressed their general support for the improvement scheme did so because they:  Recognised the scheme could deliver improvements in congestion and safety;  Felt that the current roundabout was dangerous or difficult to use due to the speed of traffic and problems pulling onto the roundabout;  Had been involved in road traffic accidents at the roundabout in the past;  Recognised that current roundabout does not have the capacity for increased future flows; or  Felt that the scheme was long overdue. Those who did not support the proposed improvement scheme did so because they:  Did not think the scheme was needed or that the current delays are only observed in rush hour periods;  Had issues relating to the scheme design;  Felt that the scheme design was too complicated;  Thought money would be better spent elsewhere including on: promotion of sustainable travel; options; improving current surrounding transport infrastructure or lower cost scheme alternatives;  Were concerned about the programme of works and construction period; or  Felt that highway capacity improvements encouraged more trips. Suggested alternatives to the proposed improvement scheme  Consider bridges or underpasses rather than the proposed improvement scheme;  Consider signalising the existing roundabout;  Consider signalising the existing roundabout but only at peak times;  Consider a signalised crossroads or junction;  Consider removing all traffic lights on the A4174;  Focus on alternatives to driving to reduce the number of car drivers such as public transport improvements, improvements to the cycle path, multiple occupancy lanes, and extension of Metro Bus; and  Motorway style junction with slip roads and a raised roundabout. Proposed improvement scheme design  It was noted that the current roundabout system worked better before the introduction of the safety blanking panels;  Query if the through-about needs to be 3 straight ahead lanes;  Roundabout currently functions fine; and  Design will increase the traffic flow towards other roundabouts on the ring road therefore worsening congestion elsewhere. Safety  Current roundabout design encourages poor driver behaviour including lack of lane discipline and speeding which result in aggressive lane changing and accidents; and

52

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2

 Concern the proposed improvement scheme will cause safety issues due to complicated design and the 3 to 2 lane merge, other concerns included: encouragement of speeding of through traffic, misunderstanding of lane layout leading to collisions. Construction  Concerns regarding construction works. It was noted that there have been many roadworks in this area that take long periods of time to complete; and  Concerns regarding the impact of works on local residents, including the shift of traffic during construction to other routes, delay in journey times and increase in air pollution and noise. Impact on neighbouring roads / areas  Concern about existing and future traffic problems and access issues for local residents on neighbouring roads including Tower Lane and Wraxall Road;  Concern about impact on traffic on Tower Lane, including the mini roundabout, Wraxall Road and Cock Road. Including concerns that residents will experience access issues;  Concern about impact on neighbouring areas including Warmley and Birkdale; and  Difficulty of pulling safely out of driveways. Highway design  Consideration of yellow boxes to prevent blocking back. Traffic signalling  Better phasing of traffic lights along the ring road and at neighbouring roundabouts is needed;  Multiple traffic lights delay journey times, worsen congestion and pollution; and  Travelling through multiple traffic lights will delay travel time for right turning traffic. Environmental concerns  Proposals will increase air pollution, specifically from stop-start traffic;  Concern for the trees on the roundabout;  Concern for the wildlife living on or near the roundabout;  Concern that proposals will increase noise pollution especially during construction; and  Concern about the energy usage of traffic lights. Comments on the consultation  Event times need to be accessible for those that work; and  Consultation material contained an error and attending staff should be better informed about the scheme. Other comments  Scheme requires a more holistic approach and should be considered in a wider context of travel improvements in the area.  Better enforcement of speed limits or stricter speed limits requested. 11.1.1 Scheme modelling No additional modelling was carried out for the detailed analysis of Option 3, as it was considered that the modelling carried out for all the options was adequate. Below are the model outputs for Option 3.

53

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2

Table 8-1: Network Performance Outputs, 2018

AM IP PM

Developed Developed Developed Statistic Do-Nothing Do-Nothing Do-Nothing Option Option Option

Mean Delay (s) 61 71 53 63 109 95

Mean Speed (mph) 32 31 32 31 26 27

Total time (hrs) 790 824 719 751 1170 1094

Journeys Completed 13651 13629 13659 13645 16858 16894

Table 8-2: Network Performance Outputs, 2036

AM IP PM

Developed Developed Developed Statistic Do-Nothing Do-Nothing Do-Nothing Option Option Option

Mean Delay (s) 210 130 97 84 183 87

Mean Speed (mph) 20 27 27 29 20 29

Total time (hrs) 1540 1160 989 929 1582 1106

Journeys Completed 14727 14829 14621 14604 17010 17467

The results show that the option performs particularly well for high volumes of traffic, as seen by the improvements in the 2036 scenario and in the PM peak for the 2018 scenario. A slight lengthening of travel time however is observed for the AM and IP periods of 2018, where volumes are relatively low. These are likely to be due to the introduction of traffic lights at the intersection. These small increases in times are nevertheless largely outweighed by the benefits in the other periods and years in the economic calculations, such that overall the changes are largely beneficial from a vehicle journey time perspective.

11.1.2 Refinement of scheme cost and VfM The economic assessment of the Developed Option 3 follows the same approach as presented in section Error! Reference source not found.. During the OBC stage an Optimism Bias (OB) of 44% on scheme cost estimates was included. This was considered a prudent level given the high-level assessment of costs at the OBC stage. However as a detailed scheme design has now been carried out, it is felt that it is now appropriate to reduce the OB level down to 3%. Table 8-3 details the main assumptions for the FBC economic assessment.

54

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2

Table 8-3 Revised Assumptions for FBC Economic Assessment

Assumption Source Values

Change in Network VISSIM Model Journey Time Benefit (Reference Journey Times compared Case minus Scheme Option) to reference case Developed Option 3 (total vehicle travel hours per time period) 2018 AM -35

2018 IP -33

2018 PM 78

2036 AM 390

2036 IP 59

2036 PM 511

Negative number suggests that Do Something travel time exceeds the Reference Case scenario

Scheme Costs Estimated Scheme Costs Year Developed Option 3 (£’000s and 2019 prices) expenditure 2019/2020 387 profile - SGC 2020/2021 3,798 2021/2022 2,219 2023+ xx Total 6,404

Scheme Opening Year SGC Project 2022 Schedule

Value of Time WebTAG Table As detailed in November 2019 Databook A 1.3.2

Optimism Bias TAG Unit A1.2 3% Table 8

Maintenance Costs Estimated Annual Maintenance 15 year Renewal Maintenance Cost (£’000s 2019 Cost (£’000s 2019 Expenditure prices) prices) Developed Option 3 £17.2k £184.5k Annual maintenance cost of crossings assumed to be £1000 p.a Equipment renewal rate assumed to be £152,091 every 15 years. No additional highway maintenance assumed as this will be a small marginal increase on existing maintenance costs.

55

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2 The developed Option 6 is estimated to have “very high” category (i.e. BCR > 4), based on transport user benefits only. The relevant Standard Economic assessment tables are presented in Appendix J. Refined scheme costs are presented in Table 8-4. Land value uplifts have not been included in this assessment.

Table 8-4. Developed Option 6 costs (£’000s 2019 prices) Utilities £0 *** Construction £3,555 Design and Project Management £443 Environmental Mitigation £0 *** Restricted Working £886 Quantitive Risk Allowance £1530 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan £30 Inflation ** Total £6,404* * Figures quoted do not include optimism bias ** Base prices as at 2020. Inflation calculated at 6% over 2 years. Inflation is included in the costs shown above *** Currently none required but item in QRA to cover unforeseen utilities and environmental mitigation The scheme cost has now been based on a detailed design study, and is higher than the estimate made for the original option 6. This is primarily due to the widening of the southern section at Tower Ln all the way to the Craven Way roundabout, and changes in pavement construction due to issues linked to levels a clearer understanding of the impact of utilities diversions. Detailed design Option 3 has been brought forward for the detailed design to have more certainty in relation to practicality and costs of the scheme. The following design items have been covered by the detailed design. 11.1.3 Two and three Dimensional highway geometric Model

The detailed design consists of modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement. Specifically, it comprises the following elements:  Widening of the A4174 approaches from two to three lanes with additional left-turn lanes at roundabout entries and with three lanes providing high capacity for the dominant A4174 through-traffic movement;  Realignment of central reservation on the A4174 and realignment of the splitter islands;  Provision of two new channelizing islands to support left turn movements filtering;  Provision of a three-lane highway link for A4174 through-traffic across the central island of the roundabout;  New traffic signal maintenance bay within the central island of the roundabout;

56

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2

 A merge on exit arrangement for A4174 through-traffic from three lanes to two over a distance of circa 100m;  Traffic signals at each entry and conflict point to manage the flow of traffic safely and efficiently;  Rearrangement of the whole traffic management (traffic signals, road markings and signs) on the approach to and on the roundabout itself;  Rearrangement of the vehicle restraint systems to suit the new junction layout and replacement of the old and/or corroded safety barriers with new ones;  Modification of the existing highway drainage system to serve the new junction layout;  Provision of a second lane on the southern approach (Tower Lane) to the roundabout;  Modification of the existing and provision of new underground utilities and ducting to serve all proposed infrastructure at the junction. For the design of the upgraded junction, the following were considered:  Safety for straight through movements,  Best vertical and horizontal match at tie-in points areas to minimise pavement works – with regards to pavement overlay cost as well as avoiding unnecessary extra load to existing structures on the western and southern approaches,  Natural, topographical and physical constraints. Proposed pavement works include for new full depth construction at all widened areas, provision of overlay material at areas with revised elevation and finally resurfacing of the existing pavement, providing long term maintenance benefits. The use of HRA 35/14F has been recommended and the proposed materials and thicknesses have been confirmed. Instead of typical High Friction Surface treatment, it is proposed to use 50mm thick Tarmac Ultrigrip product (or similar approved) in place of the HRA surface course over a distance defined by traffic modelling for each approach up to the stop line and over the straight-through section on the central island.

11.1.4 Drainage The proposed works on the existing roundabout result in increased contributing catchment areas, particularly within the circulatory area of the roundabout. An extensive CCTV survey has taken place prior to the detailed design of the scheme, to inform the detailed design and help assess the capacity of the existing drainage networks, using Microdrainage. Any gaps in information have been filled in using Wessex Water asset maps and engineering judgement. There are currently 3 existing drainage networks within the scheme area:  Network A: There is an increase in impermeable areas as a result of the road widening and the central island that was previously grassed. Section of the existing network that were in a good condition have been maintained and some new pipes were introduced where required, as well as two flow controls in the appropriate locations, in order to maximise the capacity of the existing network and prevent flooding.  Network B: The increase in contributing catchment areas for this network was significant. The existing drainage network was reused, where possible, and attenuation was introduced below the circulatory area of the roundabout to store volumes for critical events up to the 100-year return period plus 30% allowance for climate change.

57

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2  Network C: A similar approach has been taken here as with Network A, but with one proposed flow control introduced, just upstream of the network outlet. All networks have been checked for rainfall events up to 100 years plus a 30% allowance for climate change. The scheme has taken the opportunity to provide improvements on the existing drainage network by upsizing pipes where required, adding flow controls in the appropriate locations to maximise storage and introducing an additional 65m3 of storage under the circulatory area of the roundabout. New gullies were also introduced with proposed gully spacing based on the guidance provided in South Gloucestershire Council- Adoptable Highway Specification (Version 21-2015). 11.1.5 Street Lighting Street lighting has been prepared by SGC, following the council’s standards, and has been incorporated within the detailed design of the scheme. 11.1.6 Signals, Signs and Road markings Traffic Signals The proposed improvement to Wraxall Road roundabout is commonly referred to as “hamburgers” or “fly-through roundabouts”. They are usually the result of modifications to existing priority roundabouts where the major through traffic movements is taken out of the circulatory carriageway and is routed directly across the central island of the roundabout on a new highway link. Traffic signal control will be then used at all of the points of conflict.

The resulting benefit is that major traffic movements are removed from some of the conflicts on the circulatory carriageway and this should provide increased capacity. However, the disadvantage is that the junction is less efficient in handling turning movements. The existing grade separated pedestrian and cycling subway facilities will be retained which results in no at grade crossing facilities proposed as part of the improvements.

This type of junction is not very common, and drivers will require clear advance directional signing if they are to appreciate the ‘roundabout’ nature of the right turns from the main through route to the side roads.

Signs and Road markings

The improvement scheme involves works to convert the existing roundabout into a fully signal controlled through-about i.e. a roundabout with lanes running through the middle of it. It includes widening of the roundabout approaches into the verge to provide three lanes for the straight ahead/through movements.

As there is no standard guidance for dealing with through-abouts, we applied the following measures to the design to mitigate the safety concerns, raised in the Road Safety Audit and the Wraxall Road Roundabout Throughabout Safety Review:

Advance direction sign measures With a complex junction such as a throughabout, where the undertaking of the right-hand turns is not as drivers would usually expect, it becomes necessary for a map-type sign to be both immediately understandable and unambiguous to indicates right-turns being undertaken from the left. According to this, the proposed map-type ADSs on the A4174 will be provided well in advance of

58

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2 the junction to ensure drivers intending to turn right have enough time to move into the left-most lane. In addition, use of lane designation signage restricts the amount of information provided to the driver to what they in fact need. So, the proposed lane designation ADSs on the A4174 will be at the points where a lane is gained to plan ahead and force the drivers to make decisions in time. On the other hand, the existing map-type signage on the minor arms (Wraxall Road and Tower Lane) will be maintained, displaying a roundabout without the cut-through carriageway sections. To warn the drivers of the new arrangement, they will be combined with a new supplementary plate ‘Signal controlled junction’.

Road markings measures On the circulatory, the use of right-turn arrows will be avoided at the stop lines that are immediately followed by the cut-through carriageway sections to prevent any right turns onto that area. In general, every circulatory lane will be specified by the destinations on it. At the stop line on the A4174 approaches, the left-most lane will not include any arrows, just with the specific destinations. On the contrary, the straight-ahead lanes will be contrasted by designating the A4174 with ahead arrows. For the lanes in advance of the roundabout, the lane designation markings will be placed on the lanes when a lane is gained to match the proposed lane designation signs.

In conclusion, the signage and lining design is based on those health and safety measures due to the lack of guidance about Throughabouts and the current legislations DMRB TD 50/04 The geometric layout of signal-controlled junctions and signalised roundabouts, Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) and Traffic sings manuals. 11.1.7 Designer Risk Register A Designer Risk Assessment has been prepared and included a comprehensive list of hazards/risks with a rating of the likelihood (1 to 3) and the consequence (1-5) for each item, proposed mitigation measures and any remedial risks for the project. The risks cover all phases of the project, from Technical Design to Construction and Post completion operation and maintenance. 11.1.8 Utility Searches/ Diversions Utilities designs and costs are based C4 utilities returns. 11.1.9 Bill of Quantities and costing The Bill of Quantities for the scheme has been derived using the standard Method of Measurement for Highway Works. They have been determined using a mixture of direct CAD measurements taken from the detailed design drawings and manual take offs. The quantities were then passed to SGC StreetCare Department for rates to be applied, and further addons, and from this the scheme costs have been generated (Section 11.1.2).

11.1.10 Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) As part of the Business Case for the scheme a Risk Register was produced which identifies all risks affecting the project. This was carried out through a risk workshop, one-on-one discussions, and review meetings which has resulted in a risk register.

59

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2 The main purpose of the QRA is to support the scheme costing by predicting the level of risk contribution, having a defined level of confidence, to cover the construction of the scheme.

The QRA process involves four steps. Step 1 is identification of all risks affecting the project through risk workshops and risk reviews resulting in a risk register (the risk register will be continually reviewed and updated). Step 2 is analysis of the various risks by defining their distributions in terms of probabilities, impacts and knock-on effects. This information is also gathered through abovementioned workshops and other interactions. In Step 3, in line with the request from the SRO, a risk allowance is generated using the expected value x probability to assess the risk. This produced a risk allowance of £1,530,000 (P mean).

11.2 Environmental assessment As part of the design development of the Scheme (developed Option 3), further assessment has been undertaken as deemed required to that presented in the Preliminary Environmental Report (Appendix E) to inform the design and confirm any potential environmental impacts of the Scheme. This assessment is reported in more detail within the Preliminary Environmental Report Addendum (Appendix E). The information within this section builds upon that detailed in Section 7.3.5, where applicable. The detailed operational air quality assessment predicted pollutant concentrations of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) at sensitive receptors to e below the Air Quality Standard (AQS) objectives both with and without the Scheme and that the impact of the Proposed Scheme on local air quality is likely to be negligible for the modelled pollutants. For all modelled pollutants, there were no modelled increase in pollutant concentrations as a result of the Proposed Scheme. For all pollutants, there were very little change in modelled pollutant concentrations with the Proposed Scheme and without in the Scheme. For a small number of Receptors, a slight decrease in modelled pollutant concentrations with the Scheme were identified, compared to without the Proposed Scheme (between less than 1% and 2% of the AQO) indicating the Proposed Scheme could result in a very small improvement in air quality at these Receptor locations. In summary, the Proposed Scheme’s operational phase is unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality. During the operational phase, the potential noise impacts would arise from changes in traffic flows on the highway network. The noise assessment undertaken which included noise measurement surveys has concluded that the Scheme will result in a negligible change in noise levels at the properties located on the section of the A4174 between Kingsfield and Wraxall Roundabout. On the section of the A4174 between Wraxall Roundabout and Deanery, there is predicted to be a minor change in noise levels. As such, none of the predicted changes in noise levels as a result of the Scheme are considered to be significant and the Scheme will not introduce a significant change in noise levels within the existing Noise Important Area which the Scheme lies within. As a result, no significant effects from the permanent works are anticipated. In relation to landscape, whilst the Scheme does remove the existing roundabout in part to create a through road, there is no overall change to the current land use proposed as a result of the Scheme. Whilst the Scheme will result in some loss of vegetation and trees, mitigation such as fencing and / or vegetation planting will be explored to be implemented and the existing vegetation that forms screening for the nearby residential properties should retained as far as practicable.

The Scheme will not have any significant effects due to changes in the setting of designated or non- designated cultural heritage assets, or directly impact any known designated archaeological remains. Further consideration has been given to the potential for archaeology to be impacted by the

60

SECTION 8 – FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SELECTED OPTION (N. 3) – TAG APPRAISAL STAGE 2 construction of the Scheme. Due to archaeological remains being identified and removed within the Scheme boundary during the highways original construction, there remains the potential for further unknown archaeological remains to be present within any undisturbed areas within the Scheme boundary, namely within the central reservoir of the roundabout itself. Mitigation has been recommended to be adopted for the construction period to ensure any significant impacts on any unknown archaeology within the Scheme boundary are avoided. In relation to biodiversity, an Extended Phase One Habitat Survey has been undertaken to support the Schemes design development which provides recommendations for mitigation measures to be adopted. Subject to the recommended mitigation measures being implemented, it is considered that the Scheme is expected to be able to be delivered in accordance with relevant environmental legislation. As detailed in Section 7.3.5, the Scheme is not considered likely to impact on water resources. As part of the detailed design of the Scheme, the drainage design developed proposes improvements to the drainage network to better drain the area and provide increased storage. It has also been ensured that no additional flood risk impact on adjacent residential properties will be caused as a result of the Scheme up to a 100 year event plus a 30% allowance for climate change; 11.3 Development of FBC The final Option 3 WebTAG five business cases assessment is reported per WECA’s FBC template. The template includes the following headlines: Strategic Case Management Case State Aid Considerations Promoter and Delivery Arrangements Project Description Project Governance and Delivery Project Objectives and Case for Change Programme Plan Rationale for Public Intervention Risks, Constraints and Dependencies Strategic Fit Land Acquisition, Planning and Other Consents Options Appraisal Service Diversions Environmental Sustainability Considerations Engagement and Consultation Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment Project Assurance Monitoring and Evaluation Financial Case Commercial Case Chief Financial Officer sign off Procurement Scheme Cost Operation and Financial Viability Spend Profile and Funding Sources Social Value Act Economic Case Economic Appraisal Value for Money Statement

This OAR finishes by confirming that the selected option has a VfM after examining the proposed scheme in more details. Aspects related to updating the business case could be found in the FBC.

61

Appendices

63

Appendix A – Location and Constraints Plans

64

Appendix B – Outline Options Drawings

65

Appendix C – Local Model Validation Report

66

Appendix D – Option Testing Report

67

Appendix E.1 –Environmental Baseline Report

68

Appendix E.2 – Further Scheme Development – Environmental Appraisal

69

Appendix F – Land Value Uplift

70

Appendix G – Economic Assessment Tables for the Five Scheme Options

71

Appendix H – Further Scheme Development – Throughabout Safety Review

72

Appendix I – Further Scheme Development – RSA 2

73

Appendix J – Further Scheme Development – Economic Case: GVA and Jobs Created

74 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements Outline Business Case South Gloucestershire Council

Draft Appraisal Specification Report

ASR | 1 February 28, 2020 673847.CJ.61.01

Appraisal Specifica tion R epo rt South Gl oucest ers hire C ouncil

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

0 21 May 19 Draft ASR CM BS/CB BS

1 28 Feb 20 Updated draft following DfT discussion CM CB BS Appraisal Specification Report

MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements - Outline Business Case

Project No: 673847.CJ.61.01 Document Title: Appraisal Specification Report Document No.: ASR Revision: 1 Date: February 20, 2020 Client Name: South Gloucestershire Council Client No: 673847.CJ.61.01 Project Manager: CM Author: CM

CH2M HILL United Kingdom

1 The Square, Temple Quay 2nd Floor Bristol, BS1 6DG United Kingdom T +44 (0)117 910 2580 F +44 (0)117 910 2581 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2019 CH2M HILL United Kingdom. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.

ASR ii Appraisal Specification Report

Contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Project overview ...... 1 1.2 The Major Road Network ...... 2 1.3 Purpose of this Report ...... 2 1.4 Appraisal Structure ...... 2 1.5 Overview of previous work ...... 3 1.5.1 Option Assessment Report...... 4 1.6 Structure of Remainder of this Document ...... 4 2. Scheme Impacts from Options Assessment Report ...... 6 2.1 Objectives ...... 6 2.2 Optioneering ...... 6 2.3 Summary of Key Scheme Impacts ...... 6 3. Transport Modelling ...... 8 3.1 Introduction ...... 8 3.2 Existing models ...... 8 3.3 Future Year Modelling ...... 9 4. Strategic Case ...... 10 4.1 Introduction ...... 10 4.2 Objectives ...... 10 4.3 Likely changes ...... 10 5. Economic Case ...... 11 5.1 Introduction ...... 11 5.1.1 General assumptions ...... 11 5.1.2 Supporting reports ...... 11 5.2 Economic Assessment ...... 11 5.2.1 Transport user benefits ...... 11 5.2.2 Construction impacts ...... 11 5.2.3 Highway accident benefits ...... 11 5.2.4 Highway reliability benefits ...... 11 5.2.5 Active modes benefits ...... 11 5.2.6 Distributional Impacts ...... 12 5.2.7 Wider economic impacts ...... 12 5.2.8 Land value uplift ...... 13 5.2.9 Scheme costs ...... 13 5.3 Value for money VfM ...... 13 5.4 Appraisal Specification Summary Table ...... 14

ASR iii Appraisal Specification Report

5.5 Distributional Impact Appraisal Screening Proforma ...... 14 6. Financial, Commercial, and Management Cases ...... 20 6.1 Introduction ...... 20 6.2 Financial Case ...... 20 6.3 OBC Financial Case ...... 20 6.4 Commercial Case ...... 21 6.5 Output based specification ...... 21 6.6 Procurement strategy and sourcing options ...... 21 6.7 Management Case ...... 22

Appendix A - GBATS Model Fit Report

Appendix B - VISSIM Model LMVR

ASR iv Appraisal Specification Report

1. Introduction

1.1 Project overview

The A4174 is a key strategic route in the Greater Bristol area, providing a link between the A4 and Bath in the south to the M32 and the M4. The route also provides access to new housing and employment areas such as the Bristol and Bath Science Park.

The A4174 Ring Road junctions currently experience congestion and resilience issues during weekday peak hours. These issues are likely to become more severe in future due to traffic growth if no action is taken, constraining the economic potential of the north-east Bristol Fringe.

Emerging proposals including for a new M4 Junction 18a, extension of the ring road to the south of the A4, and additional housing growth, will all contribute to increased congestion and resilience issues on the A4174 Ring Road if no action is taken.

Consequently, South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) wish to explore options to increase capacity at these junctions. Jacobs have therefore been commissioned by SGC to prepare this Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) for an Outline Business Case (OBC) for the A4174 Ring Road Junction Improvement Scheme.

Figure 1.1: Study area

ASR 1 Appraisal Specification Report

1.2 The Major Road Network

The Major Road Network (MRN) is a new programme that will see substantial amounts of new investment available for road enhancement schemes on the most important local authority roads from 2020/21. The MRN will form a middle tier of the country’s busiest and most economically important local authority ‘A’ roads, sitting between the national Strategic Road Network and the rest of the local road network. A specific new funding stream will be dedicated to improvements on MRN roads. At the Budget the Government announced the National Roads Fund would be £28.8 billion between 2020-2025, £3.5 billion of which is expected to be spent on local roads.

The Department for Transport’s contribution for MRN interventions will normally be between £20 million and £50 million. As a general guideline MRN schemes should aim for a local or third-party contribution to be at least 15% of the total scheme costs. For schemes due to start construction in 2020/21 and 2021/22, the schemes need to be at the Outline Business Case stage by summer 2019 for a timely programme entry decision to be made.

The A4174 Ring Road forms part of the MRN, and this Junction Improvement Scheme has been identified as a top ten priority scheme for the Western Gateway Sub-National Transport Body in its Regional Evidence Base.

1.3 Purpose of this Report

This MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements Outline Business Case (OBC) Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) includes: · Proposed approach to modelling and forecasting; · Proposed methodology for assessing each of the sub-impacts presented within the Appraisal Summary Table (AST); and · Proposed level of design or specification to inform the cost estimation, and how better cost information will be obtained.

The main aim of the report is to provide sufficient details of the approach that it is anticipated will be followed in preparing the OBC, in order that local scheme promoters and the DfT satisfy their assurance framework.

1.4 Appraisal Structure

This ASR clarifies the methodology and scope for further appraisal. It is required to set out the methodology for the further scheme appraisal required in Stage 2 (Step 10) of the WebTAG process shown in Figure 1.2.

ASR 2 Appraisal Specification Report

Figure 1.2: Appraisal Process

1.5 Overview of previous work The ASR takes forward the scheme identified in the MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements Option Assessment Report (OAR), setting the scene for a future Outline Business Case (OBC) to be developed. The OAR builds on the findings of the previous Joint Transport Study (JTS)1 and M4 Junction 18a Strategic Outline Business Case and other work developing capacity solutions for the Ring Road.

1 https://www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk/consult.ti/JTSTransportVision

ASR 3 Appraisal Specification Report

The JTS is a high-level strategic study that responded to the current and future connectivity challenges in the West of England and identified strategic mitigation in support of housing growth. JTS traffic modeling suggests that congestion on the A4174 will increase significantly over the coming years if no action is taken. This would result in reduced accessibility to employment opportunities and additional housing sites, ultimately restricting growth. In addition, traffic modelling suggests that the congestion on the A4174 is causing some traffic to re- route to less suitable roads, including Filton Road, Cleeve Road and Bromley Heath Road. The JTS outlined proposals for a new motorway junction along the M4 to the north of Bristol (M4 Junction 18a), as well as a link to and associated improvements to the A4174 ring road. A Strategic Outline Business Case document for M4 Junction 18a was produced in March 2018 and after initial sifting work was carried out, two options were progressed, both of which included associated improvements to the A4174 ring road. A public consultation took place during September 2017 and following the results of this and further analysis, the western option was recommended due to it’s potential to facilitate additional jobs and the lower environmental challenges that it produced. This option could facilitate 5,700 jobs and significantly reduce delay and accidents. The MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements OAR outlines the need for the scheme and set out a number of objectives. A description of the current and future situation in the vicinity of the scheme was provided, including information on current and future travel demand, future changes to land use and the transport system and transport issues within the area. Analysis of the proposed options was undertaken. The OAR was structured to comply with best practice for transport studies, as documented in the Department for Transport’s Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG)2. The OAR recommended a series of junction upgrades, largely comprising the upgrade of signalised roundabouts to through-about “hamburger” junctions.

1.5.1 Option Assessment Report

The MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements OAR demonstrated how the proposed transport intervention will support local policy and the objectives of the MRN. The OBC will draw on the work completed as part of the OAR, it will investigate certain factors in more detail and provide further analysis on each of the options in order to produce evidence on their feasibility. The OAR consists of the following sections: · Introduction; · Understanding the current situation; · Understanding the future situation; · Need for intervention; · Generating and sifting of options; · Option development; and · Option assessment.

Chapter 2 of the ASR sets out the key scheme impacts identified in the OAR.

1.6 Structure of Remainder of this Document

Following this introductory section, this Appraisal Specification Report is structured as follows: · Chapter 2: Scheme Impacts reported in the Option Assessment Report · Chapter 3: Transport Modelling;

2 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag

ASR 4 Appraisal Specification Report

· Chapter 4: Strategic Case; · Chapter 5: Economic Case; and · Chapter 6: Financial, Commercial, and Management Cases.

ASR 5 Appraisal Specification Report

2. Scheme Impacts from Options Assessment Report

2.1 Objectives

A series of objectives for the scheme have been identified. These are: 1. Relieve congestion on the A4174 corridor between Lyde Green roundabout and Kingsfield roundabout 2. Minimise the impact of traffic/infrastructure to the natural environment and, where possible deliver opportunities for environmental enhancement 3. Unlock the economic potential in the north east Bristol Fringe 4. Protect and enhance access for non-car modes 5. Improve safety 6. Improve network resilience and journey time reliability

2.2 Optioneering

The OAR shortlisted a series of options achieving the scheme objectives, including a series of junction improvements. Table 2.1 describes the shortlisted options identified within the OAR.

Table 2.1: Option descriptions

Option Description

Kingsfield Conversion of an existing signalised roundabout to a “hamburger” roundabout junction with the through section serving north-south movements on through-about the A4174. Wraxall Rd Conversion of an existing unsignalised roundabout to a “hamburger” roundabout junction with the through section serving north-south movements on through-about the A4174. Deanery Rd Conversion of an existing signalised roundabout to a “hamburger” roundabout junction with the through section serving north-south movements on through-about the A4174. Siston Conversion of an existing signalised roundabout to a “hamburger” roundabout junction with the through section serving north-south movements on through-about the A4174. . Rosary junction Conversion of existing signalised roundabout to signalised junction. Lyde Green Minor upgrade of existing signalised roundabout, increasing capacity. roundabout

2.3 Summary of Key Scheme Impacts

The package of junction improvements are expected to produce user benefits including reduced journey times, reduced travel cost and improved travel reliability and resilience. The improvement to journey times on this section of the A4174 is likely to unlock economic growth.

ASR 6 Appraisal Specification Report

The scheme will likely result in accident impacts as a result of changed road layouts, changes in traffic flows, and improved walking and cycling facilities. Jacobs have undertaken accident analysis for hamburger junctions implemented in the UK and found inconclusive results in terms of accident impacts, with hamburger junctions typically resulting in similar accident rates to other signalised junctions. There appears to be an initial increase in accident rates following the introduction of a scheme, which then reduces after a period of time once people become accustomed to this relatively unusual junction type for the UK. The junctions studied were generally isolated and the first of their kind in the area which was contributory to the initial accident issues. The proposed scheme involves a large number of hamburger junctions within a short distance and it is likely that that this, and the additional signing proposed, will help people become accustomed to this junction type more quickly.

The scheme includes junction improvements within an AQMA and the air quality impacts will be screened and assessed in line with WebTAG. The introduction of a hamburger junction is likely to decrease the amount of acceleration/deceleration in the immediate vicinity of the junction compared to a signalised roundabout, and this is likely to result in local air quality benefits.

Based on the designs undertaken to date, the scheme can be delivered within the highway boundary and as such the environmental impacts including landscape, townscape, biodiversity impacts are expected to be localised and very limited.

ASR 7 Appraisal Specification Report

3. Transport Modelling

3.1 Introduction

The benefits of converting a signalised roundabout junction to a through-about “hamburger” junction are likely to be most accurately captured using a microsimulation model

The proposed modelling approach uses the 2019 VISIM Ring Road model, which was developed for this project using 2019 traffic counts, as follows:

· Apply NTEM growth (adjusted by income and fuel cost factors in line with TAG Table M4.2.1) to the 2019 VISSIM model to develop a 2021 reference / Do Minimum VISSIM model

· Use the strategic GBATS model to identify reference case traffic growth between 2021 and 2036. Apply this growth to the VISSIM 2021 model flows to develop a 2036 VISSIM reference model

· Use 2021 and 2036 GBATS to test the scheme to identify traffic flow changes. Apply these flow changes to develop 2021 and 2036 VISSIM scheme assessment models.

· Use VISSIM to produce a level 1 scheme benefits assessment (with TUBA)

Accident and greenhouse gases calculations will be assessed using the VISSIM model outputs (with TUBA / COBALT).

Distributional impacts will be assessed by distributing the benefits from the VISSIM model, based on wider trip origins and destinations identified in the strategy GBATS model.

Further details of the proposed modelling approach can be found in the accompanying GBATS Model Fit Report – Appendix A.

This approach means that the scheme impacts on the ring road will be accurately captured, by using the microsimulation model, and the distributional impacts beyond the ring road can be assessed.

3.2 Existing models

There is a 2019 Ring Road VISSIM microsimulation model available for scheme testing. One of the reasons for development of the VISSIM model is that it can more accurately model the benefits of changing from a signalised roundabout junction to a through-about “hamburger” junction, compared to a strategic model. Further details of the model can be found in the 2019 VISSIM Ring Road Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) – Appendix B.

The most up-to-date strategic model is called the GBATS4 Metro Model (GBATS4M), which consists of the following:

· A Highway Assignment Model representing vehicle based movements across the Greater Bristol area for a 2013 autumn weekday morning peak hour (08:00-09:00), an average inter-peak hour (10:00- 16:00) and an evening peak hour (17:00-18:00);

· A Public Transport (PT) Assignment Model representing bus and rail based movements across the same area and time periods; and

ASR 8 Appraisal Specification Report

· A five-stage multi-modal incremental Variable Demand Model (VDM) that forecasts changes in trip frequency and choice of main mode, time period of travel, destination, and sub-mode choice, in response to changes in generalised costs across the 12-hour period (07:00 – 19:00).

The GBATS4M highway model is closely integrated with the GBATS4M PT model. The two models use different software packages (SATURN and EMME, respectively) but are identical in terms of road network structure, and zone system. The bus routes and frequencies in the PT model are used in the highway model.

The GBATS4M highway model is fully integrated within the GBATS4M VDM. The GBATS4M highway model provides highway transport costs to the GBATS4M VDM which, in turn, provides trip matrices for the GBATS4M highway model.

3.3 Future Year Modelling

The proposed future assessment years are, the year of scheme opening and plus 15 years.

The Uncertainty Log will be reviewed to include the most up-to-date housing and infrastructure changes in the Greater Bristol Area to produce a Do Minimum scenario in line with WebTAG guidance, where only ‘near certain’ and ‘more than likely’ developments will be included, with growth constrained to the latest release of NTEM (currently v7.2). The developments will be loaded in appropriate zones and connected to the network so that the trips loading on to the highway network are realistically represented. The Do Minimum model scenario will also be reviewed to ensure that any network delays are realistic and optimised where necessary, in accordance with TAG.

Where constraint to NTEM entails applying further growth beyond that generated by the developments identified in the Uncertainty Log, NTEM growth would be applied on a geographical basis in line with NTEM defined areas and with consideration of areas that are fully built out and hence no further growth would be realistic.

ASR 9 Appraisal Specification Report

4. Strategic Case

4.1 Introduction

A Strategic Case will be further developed to account for: · Changes in scheme; · Changes in the scheme operating/capital costs; · Changes to the project programme or governance; · Changes to project interfaces (stakeholders, other schemes, development context); and · Detailed assessment information being available.

4.2 Objectives

A series of objectives for the scheme were defined. These are: 1. Relieve congestion on the A4174 corridor between Lyde Green roundabout and Kingsfield roundabout 2. Minimise the impact of traffic/infrastructure to the natural environment and, where possible deliver opportunities for environmental enhancement 3. Unlock the economic potential in the north east Bristol Fringe 4. Protect and enhance access for non-car modes 5. Improve safety 6. Improve network resilience and journey time reliability

4.3 Likely changes

The strategic case section of the OBC will develop the following sections, which have been completed as part of the OAR: · Policy context; · Economic context; · Overview of scheme; · Existing transport network and planned changes, including current and future travel demand; · Objectives and measures for success; · Options considered and agreed scope; and · Scheme impacts and outcomes. · Need for intervention – including current and future transport problems in the area; · Impact of not changing; · Constraints; and · Interdependencies with other schemes.

ASR 10 Appraisal Specification Report

5. Economic Case

5.1 Introduction

This section sets out the methodology for the economic case development and provides an Appraisal Specification Summary Table showing how economic case components will be considered. The economic case will be supported by evidence of the assumptions and methodologies of appraisal tools, and therefore either contain evidence or reference specialist reporting. Some of the key assumptions included in the analysis are:

5.1.1 General assumptions · Opening year 2022, construction year(s) 2021-22 (years to be confirmed as the OBC progresses) · Appraisal period = 60 years · Price base year and base year for discounting = 2010 · Discount rate = 3.5% for 30 years from current year then 3% thereafter · The appraisal approach identifies cost items to be inflated above the prevailing inflation rate

5.1.2 Supporting reports

The economic case will bring together the results of analysis and appraisals of options and sensitivity tests. A series of supporting documents will set out the analysis in greater detail where appropriate. The exact titles and content of supporting reports will be determined as the OBC progresses, but it is anticipated they could include an Economic Report, Forecasting Report, and Distributional Impacts Report.

5.2 Economic Assessment

5.2.1 Transport user benefits TUBA DfT software will be used to assess transport user benefits in conjunction with results from the transport models, as described in section 3.

5.2.2 Construction impacts Construction impacts will be reviewed as further detail becomes available regarding any traffic management (TM) required to integrate the schemes into the existing network.

5.2.3 Highway accident benefits

5.2.4 COBALT DfT software will be used to assess transport user benefits in conjunction with results from the transport models, as described in section 3. Highway reliability benefits TAG Unit A1.3 sets out the prescribed approach for assessing Reliability impacts. Further, the unit states “Different methods to estimate reliability impacts have been developed for public transport and private vehicle trips on inter urban motorways and dual carriageways, urban roads, and other roads”. With respect to the schemes under consideration here it is proposed to treat them as ‘urban roads’. As such, the reliability ratio will be applied to the value of time to calculate reliability benefits.

5.2.5 Active modes benefits

Provision of new cycling and pedestrian infrastructure will attract active mode users. DfT’s Tag Unit A5.1 Active Mode Appraisal provides guidance on how to estimate and report the impacts related to walking and cycling. DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit which is based on Tag Unit A5.1 applies the appraisal techniques and best practice assumptions outlined within Tag Unit A5.1. The toolkit thus allows the monetisation of the impacts related to

ASR 11 Appraisal Specification Report

active mode travel. DfT’s active mode toolkit monetises the following impacts in line with guidance from Tag Unit A5.1: · Journey Quality Impacts: Journey quality is an important consideration in scheme appraisal for cyclists and walkers. It includes fear of potential accidents and therefore the majority of concerns are about safety (e.g. segregated cycle tracks greatly improve journey quality over cycling on a road with traffic). Journey quality also includes infrastructure and environmental conditions on a route. TAG Unit A4.1 contains relevant guidance for the calculation of journey quality benefits. DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit captures impacts related to journey quality in the benefit category journey ambience. · Physical Activity Impacts: Physical activity impacts typically form a significant proportion of benefits for active mode schemes. In order to derive the impact, the toolkit requires an estimate of the number of new walkers or cyclists as a result of the scheme; the time per day they will spend active; and mortality rates applicable to the group affected by the scheme. TAG Unit A4.1 provides details on the estimation of these benefits. DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit captures changes in the physical activity benefits through both the category of absenteeism as well as reduced risk of premature death. · Collision Impacts: Collision benefits (or dis-benefits) are calculated from changes in the usage of different types of infrastructure by different modes and the accident rates associated with those modes on those types of infrastructure. Therefore, collision analysis should take account of changes in collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists, resulting from changes in walking and cycling and the infrastructure used, and the impact of mode switch on accidents involving other road users. Collision benefits can be estimated using the Marginal External Cost method. Details can be found in TAG Unit A5.4. As collision impacts are calculated through changes in walking and cycling numbers, said impacts accrue across all beneficiary groups. DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit presents the collision benefits (or dis-benefits) under the category accident. · Environmental Impacts: The environmental benefits from a walk or cycling scheme are achieved through a reduction in motorised traffic and hence a reduction in the associated externalities. Environmental benefits can be estimated using the Marginal External Cost method. Details can be found in TAG Unit A5.4. As environmental impacts are calculated through changes in motorised traffic, environmental impacts accrue across all beneficiary groups. The environmental impacts are presented within DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit through the categories: local air quality, noise and greenhouse gases. · Decongestion and Indirect Tax Impacts: Mode switch from car to active modes will benefit those who continue to use the highways (decongestion benefit) and impact on indirect tax revenues. Decongestion and changes in indirect tax revenue can be estimated using the Marginal External Cost method. Details can be found in TAG Unit A5.4. As these impacts are calculated through changes in motorised traffic, the impacts accrue across all beneficiary groups. DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit presents the changes in decongestion and indirect tax impacts under the categories congestion benefit and indirect taxation respectively. The assessment of the scheme’s impacts resulting from increase in cycling and pedestrian activity will also be undertaken using the DfT’s Active Mode Toolkit. All input assumptions and findings of the analysis, specifically in terms of PVB calculations will be included in the Economic Forecasting Report of the project. The active mode impacts will be used to develop the Level 1 BCR of the scheme.

5.2.6 Distributional Impacts Distributional Impacts would be assessed in line with TAG Unit A4.2. This would initially require a screening process to identify the likely impacts for each indicator, to determine which indicators require further appraisal. This would be followed by an assessment to confirm the impact area and social groups / amenities within the impact area. Finally, relevant impacts would be subject to appraisal and reported in the required appraisal worksheets and AST inputs. Benefits from the VISSIM model will be distributed using trip origin and destinations identified in the strategic GBATS model.

5.2.7 Wider economic impacts Wider Economic Impacts will not be assessed.

ASR 12 Appraisal Specification Report

5.2.8 Land value uplift

No land value uplift will be assumed as a result of the schemes.

5.2.9 Scheme costs The business case requires derivation of the present value of all costs of the proposed intervention. The scheme’s costs will include:

· Capital cost estimates (including fees and contingencies), phased over the construction years · Annual maintenance costs of the new assets delivered, over the appraisal period · Any cyclical asset replacement costs, over the appraisal period. The estimation of the intervention’s present value of costs (PVC), also requires considerations of optimism bias. The selection of the level of optimism bias in the derivation of the PVC will be based on the maturity of scheme design, in line with TAG.

The scheme cost estimates are likely to be prepared in out-turn prices. These will be discounted and adjusted to estimate scheme PVC in 2010 prices and values.

5.3 Value for money VfM

Assessment work carried out to date indicates that there is a good case for the scheme. The Outline Business Case (OBC) will consider elements that will impact on a value for money assessment as set out earlier in this chapter of the Appraisal Specification Report (ASR). These elements will be combined to present Value for Money (VfM) in the form of benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Categories of VfM can be inferred from the BCR, in line with corresponding as is detailed in the “Value for Money Framework” published by the Department for Transport; Table 5-1 illustrates the VfM categories.

Table 5-1. BCR Categories

VfM Category Implied by

Very High BCR greater than or equal to 4

High BCR between 2 and 4 Medium BCR between 1.5 and 2

Low BCR between 1 and 1.5

Poor BCR between 0 and 1 Very Poor BCR less than or equal to 0

While the basic essence of BCR is the ratio of the present values of benefits over the appraisal period to costs, different combinations of benefits can be included to identify different ‘levels’ of BCR, depending on the benefits included. TAG Unit A2.1 Table 2 outlines three Benefit to Cost Ratio’s calculations: · Level 1 – Initial BCR, which includes the main transport-related benefits; · Level 2 – Adjusted BCR, which adds some wider economic impacts; and · Level 3 – which also includes Indicative Monetised Impacts or Non-Monetised Impacts. The BCR calculation that are relevant to the scheme is “level 1”.

ASR 13 Appraisal Specification Report

A Value for Money Statement will be included in the OBC that brings together VfM categories and BCRs and summarises benefits and costs, significant non-monetised impacts, key risks, sensitivities and uncertainties underlying the appraisal and significant social distributional impacts.

5.4 Appraisal Specification Summary Table

The Appraisal Specification Summary Table is shown in Table 5.2. Not all of the appraisals will be undertaken according to the full WebTAG criteria. Some ‘sub-impacts’ that do not materially impact on the overall appraisal of the scheme will be subject to a ‘light touch’ appraisal, as noted in Table 5-2.

5.5 Distributional Impact Appraisal Screening Proforma

The Distributional Impact Appraisal Screening Proforma is presented in Table 5.3.

ASR 14 Appraisal Specification Report

Table 5.2: Appraisal Specification Summary Table

Sub-impacts Estimated Impact Proposed proportionate appraisal methodology Type of Assessment Output (based on OAR / EAST where available) (Quantitative/ Qualitative/ Monetary/ Distributional)

Economy

Business users & Beneficial, as a result of journey time savings. Economic assessment using outputs from VISSIM models and TUBA. Monetised / Distributional transport providers

Reliability impact on Beneficial Reliability ratio applied to value of time savings Qualitative Business users

Economic Narrative that highlights impacts that may arise. Monetised impacts will be Wider impacts Beneficial investigated (imperfectly competitive markets, labour supply and productivity linked to Qualitative static clustering).

Environmental

Limited impact. Some noise impacts due to traffic flow Noise Screening and assessment in line with WebTAG A3 Qualitative changes.

Limited impact. Some air quality impacts due to traffic Air Quality Screening and assessment in line with WebTAG A3 Qualitative flow changes, including changes within an AQMA.

Greenhouse gases Limited impact Screening and assessment in line with WebTAG A3 Qualitative / Monetised

Limited impact. Landscape Landscape will be subject to a ‘light touch’ appraisal.. Qualitative Schemes are within existing highway boundary.

Limited impact Townscape Townscape will be subject to a ‘light touch’ appraisal. Qualitative Schemes are within existing highway boundary.

Limited impact Heritage of Historic Designs should be sympathetic to (and work to restore Historic environment will be subject to a ‘light touch’ appraisal. . Qualitative resources otherwise largely derelict) heritage resources.

Biodiversity Likely to be neutral or slight adverse ‘Light touch’ desktop appraisal referencing local situation around the station. Qualitative

Limited impact Water Environment ‘Light touch’ desktop appraisal. Qualitative All schemes in flood zone 3

Social

ASR 15 Appraisal Specification Report

Commuting and Other Economic assessment using outputs from VISSIM models and TUBA.. TEE tables to be Beneficial Monetised / Distributional users produced. Informs AMCB tables.

Reliability impact on Commuting and Other Beneficial Reliability ratio applied to value of time savings Qualitative users

Likely to be beneficial due to walking and cycling Physical activity DfT Active Travel Toolkit methodology. Qualitative / Monetised improvements

Likely to be beneficial due to walking and cycling Journey quality DfT Active Travel Toolkit methodology. Qualitative / Monetised improvements

Potential impacts due to traffic flow / junction changes Accidents Assessment in line with WebTAG A4.1 using COBALT Monetised and walking and cycling improvements

Security Limited impact ‘Light touch’ desktop appraisal Qualitative

Access to services Limited impact ‘Light touch’ desktop appraisal Qualitative

Beneficial due to journey time savings/reduction in Affordability Economic assessment using outputs from VISSIM/GBATS models and TUBA.. Monetised / Distributional vehicle operating costs.

Likely to be beneficial impacts overall although Severance Assessment in line with WebTAG A4.1 Qualitative severance at some junctions may increase slightly

Option values No impact Not assessed n/a

See Distributional Impacts Distributional Impacts n/a DI assessment will be broadly WebTAG compliant. listed above, and distributional Assessment impact screening proforma

Public Accounts

Cost to Broad Transport Budget Scheme costs and funding commitments, as well as changes to tax will be presented in n/a Monetised Indirect Tax a PA table. Revenues

ASR 16 Appraisal Specification Report

Table 5.3: Distributional Impact Appraisal Screening Proforma

Indicator (a) Appraisal output criteria (b) Potential impact (c) Qualitative Comments (d) Proceed to Step 2

User benefits Demand modelling and marginal economic cost Yes, positive. The scheme will result in positive user benefits for highway Yes methodology has been used in the appraisal; users. the value of user benefits Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table is non-zero

Noise Any change in alignment of transport corridor or Limited impact (TBC) Some impacts due to traffic flow changes, with some noise TBC any links with significant changes ( >25% or <- important areas near to the route, but unlikely to trigger the 20%) in vehicle flow, speed or %HDV content. need for a full assessment. Screening and assessment in line Also note comment in TAG Unit A3. with WebTAG A3

Air quality Any highway links with significant changes in Limited impact (TBC) Some impacts due to traffic flow changes, but unlikely to TBC vehicle flow, speed or %HDV content: trigger the need for a full assessment. One junction within an · Change in 24 hour AADT of >=1000 AQMA. Screening and assessment in line with WebTAG A3 vehicles · Change in 24 hour AADT of HDV of >=200 · Change in daily average speed of >=10kph · Change in peak hour speed of >=20kph

Accidents Any change in alignment of transport corridor (or Yes Impacts due to traffic flow/junction changes and Yes road layout) that may have positive or negative walking/cycling improvements. safety impacts, or any links with significant changes in vehicle flow, speed, %HGV content or any significant change (>10%) in the number of pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists using road network.

Security Any change in public transport Limited Some limited impacts due to walking/cycling improvements. No waiting/interchange facilities including pedestrian access expected to affect user perceptions of personal security.

Severance Introduction or removal of barriers to pedestrian Yes. Impacts due to walking/cycling improvements and junction Yes movement, either through changes to road layout changes crossing provision, or through introduction of new public transport or road corridors. Any

ASR 17 Appraisal Specification Report

areas with significant changes (>10%) in vehicle flow, speed, %HGV content.

Accessibility Changes in routings or timings of current public No No direct impacts to bus services as a result of the scheme No transport services, any changes to public transport provision, including routing, frequencies, waiting facilities (bus stops / rail stations) and rolling stock, or any indirect impacts on accessibility to services (e.g. demolition & re-location of a school).

Affordability In cases where public transport concession Yes, positive The scheme will result in positive affordability impacts for Yes availability changes (where, for example highway users. concession arrangements vary as a result of a move in service provision from bus to light rail or heavy rail, where such concession entitlement is not maintained by the local authority).

ASR 18 Appraisal Specification Report

ASR 19 Appraisal Specification Report

6. Financial, Commercial, and Management Cases

6.1 Introduction

This Section provides details of the level of information to be contained in the Financial, Management and Commercial cases to reported in the Outline Business Case (OBC). The cases presented in the Options Assessment Report (OAR) will be developed to account for: · Changes in scheme; · Changes in the scheme operating/capital costs; · Changes to the project programme or governance; · Changes to project interfaces (stakeholders, other schemes, development context); and · Detailed assessment information being available.

6.2 Financial Case The key costs of the project are: · Project Preparation Costs – These costs include project management, design, environment, planning and legal costs; · Highway Construction Costs – These are the estimated highway construction adjusted to allow for inflation up to the start and during construction; and · Site Supervision & Contract Management Costs – These are costs to oversee the construction phase.

6.3 OBC Financial Case

The OBC Financial Case will set out the scheme affordability.

The case will provide details of the scheme costs based on the design work to be outlined during the development of the OBC. The scheme funding availability will also be profiled, to enable the impact on the balance sheet to be ascertained. Work will be undertaken to provide clarity regarding the allocation of future maintenance costs and liabilities. Also, the allowance for monitoring an evaluation allocation will have to be agreed.

The Financial Case for the scheme will include a QRA, providing that cost estimates are at a sufficiently robust standard to be able to do so effectively.3 The approach to the development of the risk management strategy is described in the Management Case section of the ASR.

The financial case will set out the scheme affordability. The Section of the Outline Business Case will provide details of the scheme costs. The scheme funding availability will also be profiled, to enable the impact on the authority’s balance sheet to be ascertained.

3 It is anticipated that, should a QRA be prepared, calculation of mean cost estimate for the QRA would make use of @RISK software.

ASR Appraisal Specification Report

6.4 Commercial Case This section sets out relevant information for Commercial Case for each scheme. It sets out the key requirements and assumptions for procurement. The content of the Commercial Case will cover the areas outlined in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Content of the commercial case Item Level of detail Output based specification Procurement team to list the specification requirements Procurement strategy Set out the options considered, how they will help/hinder meet the scheme objectives. Conclude with a justification for the preferred procurement approach Sourcing options List the existing contracts/frameworks that could provide/part provide the services required Payment mechanisms Set out the payment mechanism considered, and their impacts to risks/performance management Pricing framework and Set out the incentives, deductions and performance targets, considered, charging mechanisms and those to be included in the procurement strategy Contract length Programme to be provided setting out the details of the contract lengths for the scheme components Contract management Programme to be provided setting out implementation a timescales. Contract management resourcing/ processes to be set out Some of these requirements are expanded upon and in part addressed in the remainder of this section of the ASR.

6.5 Output based specification The Commercial Case for each scheme will describe the skills and services are required to deliver the scheme. The development of the schemes will need to utilising staff resources from a number of sources, including local authority and consultants.

6.6 Procurement strategy and sourcing options The Commercial Case for each scheme will describe SGC procurement expertise, supported by SGC procurement team. The team has a wealth of knowledge and experience with different types of contract. The Procurement Strategy options to implement the scheme will need to deliver value for money by maximizing the likelihood of the project objectives being delivered in full for minimal out-turn cost (and within the budget available). It is recognised that procurement covers much more than the form of contract. Hence the procurement strategy will consider: · Specification of requirements; · Form of contract; · Risk allocation; · Selection of suppliers; · Methods of reimbursement and incentivising; and · Performance management.

ASR Appraisal Specification Report

6.7 Management Case The Management Case for each scheme will set out how they will be delivered. It provides evidence of similar projects and programmes to show that the governance, organisational structure and roles are appropriate. The programme assurance and approval processes oversee delivery to ensure risks are identified and mitigated. The management case is ultimately about delivering the schemes objectives with the benefits being realised and assessed. The content of the Management Case will cover the areas outlined in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2. Proposed content of the management case Item Level of detail Evidence of similar projects Provide details of schemes that are technically similar, contractually similar are of a similar scale to the schemes here Project dependencies Setting out details of scheme interfaces with external dependencies

Governance, organisational structure and roles Organisation chart. Project plan defining resources and reporting/accountability Project plan Gantt chart setting out details of scheme development, consents, implementation and key deliverables/milestones/critical path.

Assurance and approvals plan Assurance plan to be provided

Communications and stakeholder management Provision of communications strategy document setting out details of project and external communication and stakeholder liaison/management

Project reporting Reporting arrangements to be documented

Key issues of work for implementation Risk management process to include consideration of implementation issues

Contract management Provide a summary of the proposed approach to contract management

Risk management strategy Provide a copy of the project risks management strategy, including the latest copy of the QRA calculated using the @risk software Benefits realisation plan Plan setting out how scheme contributes to meeting the stated objectives

Contingency plan Outline details of plans for changes in the implementation programme.

ASR Appraisal Specification Report

Appendix A – GBATS Model Fit

ASR Appraisal Specification Report

Appendix B – VISSIM Model LMVR

ASR

MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements GBATS Model Fit

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR | DRAFT February 2020

South Gloucestershire Council

Opti ons Assess ment Report South Glouc estershire Council

MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Yate Bypasses

Project No: 673847.CH.CI.60.04 Document Title: MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit Document No.: 673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR Revision: DRAFT Date: February 2020 Client Name: South Gloucestershire Council Project Manager: CM Author: SG File Name: MRN_Traffic Modelling

Jacobs Consultancy Ltd. 1 The Square, Temple Quay 2nd Floor Bristol, BS1 6DG United Kingdom +44 (0)1179102580 +44 (0)1179102581 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2020 Jacobs Consultancy Ltd.. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved

0 28 February 2020 First Draft SG JB CB BS

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 1 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Table of contents 1. Introduction ...... 3 Context ...... 3 GBATS Model Overview...... 3 Report Structure ...... 4 2. 2013 GBATS Model fit ...... 5 2.1 Overview ...... 5 2.2 Validation Criteria and Acceptability Guidelines ...... 5 2.3 2013 Traffic Counts on Cordons and Screenlines ...... 6 2.4 2013 Journey Time Validation ...... 14 3. 2021 Forecast Flows versus Current Year Flows ...... 17 3.1 Overview ...... 17 3.2 Comparison of Flow ...... 17 3.3 Commentary ...... 20 4. Proposed Use of GBATS and VISSIM ...... 21 4.1 Overview ...... 21 4.2 Saturn Modelling of Signal Controlled Roundabouts ...... 21 4.3 VISSIM Model ...... 21 4.4 Predicted Changes in Strategic Flow ...... 22 5. Other Impacts ...... 23 6. Conclusion ...... 24

Figures Figure 1: GBATS4M Model Coverage ...... 3 Figure 2: GBATS4M Modelling Overview ...... 4 Figure 3: Calibration Traffic Count Sites ...... 6 Figure 4: Validation Traffic Count Sites ...... 6 Figure 5: GBATS4M Highway Model Journey Time Survey Routes ...... 15 Figure 6: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (AM peak) ...... 19 Figure 7: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (PM peak) ...... 20 Figure 8: Extent of VISSIM model ...... 21 Figure 9: Indicative Scheme Impacts across full GBATS model ...... 22

Tables Table 2-1: DMRB Acceptability Guidelines ...... 5 Table 2-2: Relevant Calibration and Validation Sites ...... 7 Table 2-3 2013 AM Calibration ...... 7 Table 2-4 2013 AM Validation ...... 8 Table 2-5 2013 PM Calibration ...... 10 Table 2-6 2013 PM Validation ...... 12 Table 2-7 2013 GEH Summary ...... 14 Table 2-8: Accuracy of Journey Time Data on key routes ...... 16 Table 3-1: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (AM peak) ...... 17 Table 3-2: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (PM peak) ...... 18 Table 4-1: Scenarios Coded in MRN VISSIM Model ...... 22

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 2 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

1. Introduction

This report has been prepared by Jacobs as part of their commission to support the funding application for a series of junction improvements on the A4174 Ring Road on behalf of the South Gloucestershire Council (SGC). It follows on from a meeting between the Department for Transport (DfT), SGC and Jacobs in January 2020. Context At the meeting in January 2020 the following approach was discussed with the DfT as a way forward:

 Use GBATS 2021-2036 growth to uplift VISSIM base model flows to get future year VISSIM models  Use VISSIM for scheme level 1 benefits assessment  Wraxall Rd component to remain part of the scheme in terms of assessment (i.e. in DS but not DM) since it forms the local funding contribution to the wider scheme Subject to:  Checks of GBATS flow validation in the model area (2013 and 2019 counts vs 21 flows)  Checks of GBATS predicted scheme trip diversion effects in relation to model simulation/buffer area  Demonstration that use of GBATS as above will not omit identification of scheme disbenefits outside the VISSIM model area  Suitable approach for capturing other impacts (GHG/DI/accidents etc)

GBATS Model Overview

The scheme testing has been carried out using data from the latest version of the GBATS model. Figure 1.1 shows the extent of the main model area.

Figure 1: GBATS4M Model Coverage

The updated model is called the GBATS4 Metro Model (GBATS4M). The GBATS4M model consists of:

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 3 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

 A Highway Assignment Model representing vehicle based movements across the Greater Bristol area for a 2013 autumn weekday morning peak hour (08:00-09:00), an average inter-peak hour (10:00-16:00) and an evening peak hour (17:00-18:00);  A Public Transport (PT) Assignment Model representing bus and rail based movements across the same area and time periods; and  A five-stage multi-modal incremental Variable Demand Model (VDM) that forecasts changes in trip frequency and choice of main mode, time period of travel, destination, and sub-mode choice, in response to changes in generalised costs across the 12-hour period (07:00 – 19:00).

The GBATS4M highway model is closely integrated with the GBATS4M PT model. The two models use different software packages (SATURN and EMME, respectively) but are identical in terms of road network structure, and zone system. The bus routes and frequencies in the PT model are used in the highway model.

The GBATS4M highway model is fully integrated within the GBATS4M VDM. The GBATS4M highway model provides highway transport costs to the GBATS4M VDM which, in turn, provides trip matrices for the GBATS4M highway model. The relationship between the elements of the modelling system is shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 2: GBATS4M Modelling Overview

Report Structure

Following this introductory section this report contains:  Section 2 – 2013 Model Fit;  Section 3 – 2021 Forecast vs Current year Flows;  Section 4 – Proposed Use of GBATS and VISSIM  Section 5 – Other Impacts; and  Section 6 – Other Issues

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 4 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

2. 2013 GBATS Model fit

2.1 Overview

The GBATS model was designed and developed using the UK Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG). The relevant guidance at the time was DfT TAG UNIT M3.1 Highway Assignment Modelling, January 2014. The following sections cover the model validation crtieria, the base year traffic count and journey time data and the model fit in the vicinity of the MRN scheme.

2.2 Validation Criteria and Acceptability Guidelines

Highway model validation acceptability guidelines are specified in TAG M3.1. However, TAG M3.1 states if these guidelines are not meet this does not necessarily mean the model is not ‘fit for purpose’, or indeed if they are met that the model is automatically deemed so. If these criteria cannot be fully met, the importance of the relevant locations to overall model validation and assessment of proposed schemes should be reviewed to ensure the model is still fit for purpose. Further, TAG M3.1 states if necessary the impact of matrix estimation should be reduced so that they do not become significant, and a lower standard of validation reported.

The validation criteria and acceptability guidelines as specified in TAG M3.1 are shown in Table 3.1 below. The observed flow and screenline flow criteria are applied to “all vehicles” and “cars/LGVs”. Table 2-1: DMRB Acceptability Guidelines

Criteria and Measure Acceptability Guideline Flow Difference Criteria 1 Total screenline flows (normally > 5 links) to be within +/- 5% All (or nearly all) screenlines

2 Observed (individual) link flow < 700vph Modelled flow within +/- 100vph > 85% of links Observed (individual) link flow 700 to 2700vph Modelled flow within +/- 15% > 85% of links Observed (individual) link flow > 2700vph Modelled flow within +/- 400vph > 85% of links GEH Criteria 3 GEH statistic for individual link flows <5 > 85% of links Journey Time Validation 4 Modelled times along routes should be within 15% (or 1 minute, if higher) > 85% of links

The GEH statistic, included in Table 3.1, is used as an indicator of the extent to which the modelled flows match the corresponding observed flows. This is recommended in the guidelines contained in TAG M3.1 and is defined as:

(M  C) 2 Where: GEH  0.5(M  C) M = modelled flow; and

C = observed flow.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 5 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

2.3 2013 Traffic Counts on Cordons and Screenlines

A wide range of traffic counts, forming a number of calibration and validation screenlines and cordons, across the area were conducted. Screenlines and cordons were selected to capture all the major trip movements.

The calibration screenlines were the inner cordon, South, East, North West Inner, River and Railway sections of the city as shown in Figure 3. The validation screenlines were the Outer, Middle and North West Outer and North East cordons as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3: Calibration Traffic Count Sites

Figure 4: Validation Traffic Count Sites

With regard to the MRN scheme 17 Calibration sites and 27 validation sites were considered relevant. These are detailed in Table 2-2.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 6 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Table 2-2: Relevant Calibration and Validation Sites Calibration Sites (17 Sites) Validation Sites (27 Sites)

E1,E2, E3 O13, O14, O15

E4,E5,E6 O16, O17,O18

E9,NWI11,NWI12 O23, O19,O20

NWI13,NWI14,NWI15 O21, O22, NWO4

RW34,RW35,RW39 NWO5, NWO6, NWO7

RW40,RW41 NE1,NE2,NE3

NE4,NE5,NE6

NE7,NE8,NE9

NE10,NE11,NE12

Table 2-3 to Table 2-6 detail the comparison of modelled and observed traffic flows across for the calibration and validation sites (AM and PM peaks).

Table 2-3 2013 AM Calibration

Ref Road Dir A node B node Obs Obs Total Model Model GEH GEH No. LV PCUs LV Total PCUs PCUs LVs

E1 A4174 IN 9961 9960 1597 1888 1866 2018 3.0 6.5

E2 Downend Rd IN 2385 1066 484 524 493 548 1.1 0.4

E3 Staplehill Rd IN 2383 1071 479 525 439 505 -0.9 1.9

E4 Lodge Hill IN 1079 1078 284 376 303 332 -2.3 1.1

E5 Two Mile Hill Rd IN 1255 2049 306 341 275 326 -0.8 1.8

E6 Nags Head Hill IN 2053 1276 633 678 705 738 2.3 2.8

E9 Bath Rd IN 8053 1406 1347 1593 1352 1460 -3.4 0.1

E1 A4174 OUT 9960 9961 1484 1754 1539 1695 -1.4 1.4

E2 Downend Rd OUT 1066 2385 315 348 303 364 0.8 0.7

E3 Staplehill Rd OUT 1071 2383 298 330 324 360 1.6 1.5

E4 Lodge Hill OUT 1078 1079 136 184 116 147 -2.9 1.8

E5 Two Mile Hill Rd OUT 2049 1255 410 462 423 472 0.5 0.6

E6 Nags Head Hill OUT 1276 2053 477 517 491 540 1.0 0.6

E9 Bath Rd OUT 1406 8053 1072 1268 974 1101 -4.8 3.0

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 7 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

NWI11 Coldhabour Lane IN 1663 1093 320 346 315 353 0.4 0.3

NWI12 Filton Rd IN 3451 3490 1922 2272 1879 2124 -3.2 1.0

NWI13 Hambrook Rd IN 1941 3539 36 43 25 31 -2.0 2.0

NWI14 Winterbourne Rd IN 3529 3528 795 940 793 920 -0.6 0.1

NWI15 M4 IN 3157 3901 4330 5120 3874 4949 -2.4 7.1

NWI11 Coldhabour Lane OUT 1093 1663 897 949 1001 1066 3.7 3.4

NWI12 Filton Rd OUT 3490 3451 985 1165 1051 1209 1.3 2.1

NWI13 Hambrook Rd OUT 1941 2365 463 548 499 546 -0.1 1.6

NWI14 Winterbourne Rd OUT 3528 3529 1452 1716 1392 1500 -5.4 1.6

NWI15 M4 OUT 3910 3138 4039 4776 4072 4984 3.0 0.5

RW34 A4174 IN 2937 3612 1426 1686 1389 1510 -4.4 1.0

RW35 A4175 Keynsham IN 1394 1393 509 538 543 563 1.1 1.5 Road

RW39 A4174 Station Road IN 3693 3471 1337 1581 1393 1616 0.9 1.5

RW40 Gipsy Patch Lane IN 3234 1945 877 1037 911 957 -2.5 1.2

RW41 A38 Gloucester IN 3427 3307 1473 1880 1517 1748 -3.1 1.1 Road

RW35 A4175 Keynsham OUT 1393 1394 482 510 466 508 -0.1 0.8 Road

RW39 A4174 Station Road OUT 3471 3693 1827 2161 2026 2257 2.0 4.5

RW40 Gipsy Patch Lane OUT 1945 3234 651 770 658 757 -0.5 0.3

RW41 A38 Gloucester OUT 3310 3313 711 859 756 824 -1.2 1.6 Road

Table 2-4 2013 AM Validation

Ref Road Dir A node B node Obs Obs Total Model Model Total GEH GEH No. LV PCUs LV PCUs PCUs LVs

O12 Highwood Lane IN 3191 3195 427 505 363 401 -4.9 3.2

O13 A38 Gloucester Rd IN 3162 3410 3126 3495 3439 3785 4.8 5.5

O14 B4427 Old IN 3030 3526 384 454 365 392 -3.0 1.0 Gloucester Road O15 B4057 Beacon IN 3037 3528 1040 1229 1066 1110 -3.5 0.8 Lane O16 M32 IN 3907 3951 3646 4481 3837 4304 -2.7 3.1

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 8 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

O17 B4058 Bristol Road IN 2371 3550 564 667 721 777 4.1 6.2

O18 A432 Badminton IN 4236 3047 671 794 791 935 4.8 4.4 Road O19 Westerleigh Road IN 4237 3685 658 778 658 720 -2.1 0.0

O20 Shortwood Road IN 1125 3055 361 427 336 397 -1.5 1.3

O21 A420 London Rd IN 3761 3760 449 531 544 630 4.1 4.2

O22 A431 Bath Road IN 3798 3772 358 424 506 549 5.7 7.1

O23 A4 Bath Road IN 1408 1407 1031 1161 954 1030 -3.9 2.5

O12 Highwood Lane OUT 3195 3193 202 239 230 259 1.3 1.9

O13 A38 Gloucester Rd OUT 3410 3162 1315 1466 1206 1320 -3.9 3.1

O14 B4427 Old OUT 3526 3030 204 241 259 315 4.4 3.6 Gloucester Road O15 B4057 Beacon OUT 3528 3037 657 776 557 675 -3.8 4.1 Lane O16 M32 OUT 3960 3908 2765 3398 2883 3354 -0.7 2.2

O17 B4058 Bristol Road OUT 3550 2371 297 351 304 331 -1.1 0.4

O18 A432 Badminton OUT 3047 4236 1075 1271 999 1212 -1.7 2.4 Road O19 Westerleigh Road OUT 3685 4237 715 846 696 829 -0.6 0.7

O20 Shortwood Road OUT 3055 1125 457 540 555 590 2.1 4.4

O21 A420 London Rd OUT 3760 3761 880 1040 906 1089 1.5 0.9

O22 A431 Bath Road OUT 3772 3798 789 894 896 987 3.0 3.7

O23 A4 Bath Road OUT 1407 1408 859 1000 791 908 -3.0 2.4

NWO4 Gloucester Rd IN 3496 1651 1507 1793 1697 1963 3.9 4.8 North

NWO5 Great Stoke Way IN 3488 4386 867 1025 963 1068 1.3 3.2

NWO6 M32 IN 3951 3954 1927 2335 2256 2522 3.8 7.2

NWO7 Bristol Rd IN 3487 3560 610 702 838 864 5.8 8.5

NWO4 Gloucester Rd OUT 1651 3496 1044 1234 963 1117 -3.4 2.5 North

NWO5 Great Stoke Way OUT 4386 3488 780 892 704 754 -4.8 2.8

NWO6 M32 OUT 3956 3959 1845 2235 2101 2357 2.5 5.8

NWO7 Bristol Rd OUT 3560 3487 952 1010 907 1000 -0.3 1.5

NE1 Frenchay park Rd IN 2355 1094 797 863 716 778 -2.9 2.9

NE2 Blackberry Hill IN 1094 2393 456 498 485 507 0.4 1.3

NE3 Fishponds Road IN 1985 1062 384 498 315 422 -3.5 3.7

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 9 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

NE4 Berkley Rd IN 1077 2025 507 600 486 503 -4.1 0.9

NE5 Charlton Road IN 2027 1098 361 380 353 477 4.7 0.4

NE6 Lodge Rd IN 1097 1080 302 313 220 232 -4.9 5.0

NE7 Downend Rd IN 1612 2724 285 301 316 336 2.0 1.8

NE8 Syston Way IN 1541 2031 401 419 531 564 6.5 6.0

NE9 Lees Hill IN 2490 2409 202 210 232 236 1.8 2.0

NE10 Pound Rd IN 2405 1685 138 143 127 156 1.1 1.0

NE12 Station Rd IN 1089 1087 516 610 546 574 -1.5 1.3

NE1 Frenchay park Rd OUT 1094 2355 845 962 1048 1097 4.2 6.6

NE2 Blackberry Hill OUT 2393 1094 674 745 677 711 -1.3 0.1

NE3 Fishponds Road OUT 1062 1985 664 737 636 762 0.9 1.1

NE4 Berkley Rd OUT 2025 1077 497 572 442 482 -3.9 2.6

NE5 Charlton Road OUT 1098 2027 598 620 484 562 -2.3 4.9

NE6 Lodge Rd OUT 1080 1097 318 329 331 371 2.2 0.7

NE7 Downend Rd OUT 2724 1612 210 224 251 281 3.5 2.7

NE8 Syston Way OUT 2031 1541 301 339 321 343 0.2 1.2

NE9 Lees Hill OUT 2409 2490 220 229 281 284 3.4 3.9

NE10 Pound Rd OUT 1685 2405 264 268 227 241 -1.7 2.4

NE12 Station Rd OUT 1087 1089 348 412 365 382 -1.5 0.9

Table 2-5 2013 PM Calibration

Ref Road Dir A node B node Obs Obs Total Model Model Total GEH GEH No. LV PCUs LV PCUs PCUs LVs

E1 A4174 IN 9961 9960 1648 1841 1678 1754 -2.0 0.7

E2 Downend Rd IN 2385 1066 358 375 360 407 1.6 0.1

E3 Staplehill Rd IN 2383 1071 403 435 378 404 -1.5 1.3

E4 Lodge Hill IN 1079 1078 234 309 270 285 -1.3 2.2

E5 Two Mile Hill Rd IN 1255 2049 361 384 279 318 -3.6 4.6

E6 Nags Head Hill IN 2053 1276 471 493 480 508 0.7 0.4

E9 Bath Rd IN 8053 1406 1257 1404 1231 1277 -3.5 0.7

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 10 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

E1 A4174 OUT 9960 9961 2563 2863 2808 2902 0.7 4.7

E2 Downend Rd OUT 1066 2385 405 431 412 452 1.0 0.4

E3 Staplehill Rd OUT 1071 2383 500 548 450 470 -3.4 2.3

E4 Lodge Hill OUT 1078 1079 245 325 223 229 -5.7 1.4

E5 Two Mile Hill Rd OUT 2049 1255 519 573 515 553 -0.9 0.2

E6 Nags Head Hill OUT 1276 2053 677 744 771 796 1.9 3.5

E9 Bath Rd OUT 1406 8053 1598 1785 1584 1630 -3.8 0.4

NWI11 Coldhabour Lane IN 1663 1093 584 620 571 610 -0.4 0.5

NWI12 Filton Rd IN 3451 3490 959 1072 803 871 -6.4 5.3

NWI13 Hambrook Rd IN 1941 3539 137 153 187 192 3.0 3.9

NWI14 Winterbourne Rd IN 3529 3528 1237 1382 1303 1342 -1.1 1.9

NWI15 M4 IN 3157 3901 4645 5190 4702 5338 2.0 0.8

NWI11 Coldhabour Lane OUT 1093 1663 352 382 329 384 0.1 1.2

NWI12 Filton Rd OUT 3490 3451 2080 2324 2188 2402 1.6 2.3

NWI13 Hambrook Rd OUT 1941 2365 94 105 94 96 -0.9 0.0

NWI14 Winterbourne Rd OUT 3528 3529 1373 1534 1372 1420 -3.0 0.0

NWI15 M4 OUT 3910 3138 4801 5364 4812 5450 1.2 0.2

RW34 A4174 IN 2937 3612 1861 2079 1834 1858 -5.0 0.6

RW35 A4175 Keynsham IN 1394 1393 569 590 600 624 1.4 1.3 Road

RW39 A4174 Station IN 3693 3471 1573 1758 1593 1718 -0.9 0.5 Road

RW40 Gipsy Patch Lane IN 3234 1945 710 793 717 738 -2.0 0.3

RW41 A38 Gloucester IN 3427 3307 1164 1417 1217 1281 -3.7 1.5 Road

RW35 A4175 Keynsham OUT 1393 1394 606 622 608 638 0.7 0.1 Road

RW39 A4174 Station OUT 3471 3693 1371 1532 1483 1740 5.1 2.9 Road

RW40 Gipsy Patch Lane OUT 1945 3234 852 952 894 907 -1.5 1.4

RW41 A38 Gloucester OUT 3310 3313 513 581 533 575 -0.3 0.9 Road

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 11 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Table 2-6 2013 PM Validation

Ref Road Dir A node B node Obs Obs Total Model Model GEH GEH No. LV PCUs LV Total PCUs PCUs LVs

O12 Highwood Lane IN 3191 3195 506 566 551 585 0.8 1.9

O13 A38 Gloucester IN 3162 3410 1512 1600 1749 1796 4.7 5.9 Rd

O14 B4427 Old IN 3030 3526 144 161 161 165 0.3 1.4 Gloucester Road

O15 B4057 Beacon IN 3037 3528 670 748 643 673 -2.8 1.0 Lane

O16 M32 IN 3907 3951 3240 3926 3595 3824 -1.6 6.1

O17 B4058 Bristol IN 2371 3550 441 476 377 392 -4.0 3.2 Road

O18 A432 Badminton IN 4236 3047 648 691 751 794 3.8 3.9 Road

O19 Westerleigh Road IN 4237 3685 740 818 629 709 -3.9 4.3

O20 Shortwood Road IN 1125 3055 530 592 506 575 -0.7 1.0

O21 A420 London Rd IN 3761 3760 862 900 799 932 1.1 2.2

O22 A431 Bath Road IN 3798 3772 772 863 723 801 -2.1 1.8

O23 A4 Bath Road IN 1408 1407 1003 1086 1137 1159 2.2 4.1

O12 Highwood Lane OUT 3195 3193 512 572 546 581 0.4 1.4

O13 A38 Gloucester OUT 3410 3162 2038 2276 2207 2302 0.5 3.7 Rd

O14 B4427 Old OUT 3526 3030 660 738 635 654 -3.2 1.0 Gloucester Road

O15 B4057 Beacon OUT 3528 3037 888 993 1008 1042 1.6 3.9 Lane

O16 M32 OUT 3960 3908 3522 4319 3606 3966 -5.5 1.4

O17 B4058 Bristol OUT 3550 2371 490 534 357 374 -7.5 6.4 Road

O18 A432 Badminton OUT 3047 4236 919 981 1056 1082 3.1 4.4 Road

O19 Westerleigh Road OUT 3685 4237 829 926 741 825 -3.4 3.1

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 12 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

O20 Shortwood Road OUT 3055 1125 415 463 464 480 0.8 2.3

O21 A420 London Rd OUT 3760 3761 614 656 482 539 -4.8 5.6

O22 A431 Bath Road OUT 3772 3798 306 342 356 385 2.3 2.8

O23 A4 Bath Road OUT 1407 1408 1138 1186 1049 1075 -3.3 2.7

NWO4 Gloucester Rd IN 3496 1651 1184 1365 1555 1616 6.5 10.0 North

NWO5 Great Stoke Way IN 3488 4386 778 869 721 776 -3.2 2.1

NWO6 M32 IN 3951 3954 1936 2379 2106 2285 -1.9 3.8

NWO7 Bristol Rd IN 3487 3560 726 860 779 801 -2.0 1.9

NWO4 Gloucester Rd OUT 1651 3496 1419 1585 1543 1637 1.3 3.2 North

NWO5 Great Stoke Way OUT 4386 3488 686 766 769 809 1.5 3.1

NWO6 M32 OUT 3956 3959 2119 2211 1955 2127 -1.8 3.6

NWO7 Bristol Rd OUT 3560 3487 971 1022 1042 1076 1.7 2.3

NE1 Frenchay park Rd IN 2355 1094 853 935 919 958 0.8 2.2

NE2 Blackberry Hill IN 1094 2393 576 661 641 672 0.4 2.6

NE3 Fishponds Road IN 1985 1062 743 808 675 750 -2.1 2.6

NE4 Berkley Rd IN 1077 2025 391 437 359 366 -3.5 1.7

NE5 Charlton Road IN 2027 1098 423 436 382 390 -2.3 2.1

NE6 Lodge Rd IN 1097 1080 339 368 250 272 -5.4 5.2

NE7 Downend Rd IN 1612 2724 314 324 361 377 2.8 2.6

NE8 Syston Way IN 1541 2031 363 375 359 384 0.5 0.2

NE9 Lees Hill IN 2490 2409 193 204 134 144 -4.6 4.6

NE10 Pound Rd IN 2405 1685 214 218 220 227 0.6 0.4

NE12 Station Rd IN 1089 1087 455 508 521 546 1.6 0.9

NE1 Frenchay park Rd OUT 1094 2355 491 519 480 535 0.7 1.0

NE2 Blackberry Hill OUT 2393 1094 572 593 613 657 2.6 0.9

NE3 Fishponds Road OUT 1062 1985 800 877 795 856 -0.7 1.0

NE4 Berkley Rd OUT 2025 1077 554 593 418 443 -6.6 1.4

NE5 Charlton Road OUT 1098 2027 401 417 307 347 -3.6 1.2

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 13 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

NE6 Lodge Rd OUT 1080 1097 263 269 317 350 4.6 0.8

NE7 Downend Rd OUT 2724 1612 239 246 174 187 -4.1 1.3

NE8 Syston Way OUT 2031 1541 420 444 489 511 3.0 0.9

NE9 Lees Hill OUT 2409 2490 229 239 225 229 -0.6 1.0

NE10 Pound Rd OUT 1685 2405 221 228 90 166 -4.4 1.7

NE12 Station Rd OUT 1087 1089 444 496 482 502 0.3 1.0

Table 2-7 summarises the percentage of sites that have a GEH statistic less than 5 for the 2013 base year model. This indicates that overall the model shows a very good fit across the calibration and validation screenlines at locations most relevant to the MRN Ring Road scheme. Table 2-7 2013 GEH Summary

Number of Links with GEH < 5 Number of Links with GEH < 5 (All vehicles) (Light vehicles)

AM peak (Calibration and 95% 87% Validation Sited Combined)

PM peak (Calibration and 91% 92% Validation Sited Combined)

2.4 2013 Journey Time Validation Observed journey time data was examined using Trafficmaster™ journey time data supplied to the local authorities by the Department for Transport. TAG M3.1 recommends that “journey time routes should cover as wide a range of route types as possible and cover the Fully Modelled Area as evenly as possible. For models developed for the appraisal of specific interventions, routes should include those from which it is expected traffic will be affected by the scheme, as well as covering the scheme itself as appropriate.”

The journey time routes for the full GBATS model are shown in

Figure 5.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 14 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Figure 5: GBATS4M Highway Model Journey Time Survey Routes

With regard to the MRN scheme the following journey time routes are considered most relevant:

 Route 4 - A421;

 Route 6 - A432;

 Route 12 - A4174; All observed data is from October 2013 (excluding school half term), using output from the Trafficmaster™ journey time database. Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows that there is good model fit to observed journey times across all time periods on the above routes within the TAG 15% criteria.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 15 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Table 2-8: Accuracy of Journey Time Data on key routes

AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

Route Description Obs Model % Diff Obs Model % Obs Model % Diff Diff

4 A431 Inbound (Willsbridge to Old Market St) 30.7 33.5 9% 20.4 21.2 4% 22.8 22.6 -1%

4 A431 Outbound (Old Market St Jct to 20.7 23.0 11% 20.9 22.4 7% 25.8 28.6 11% Willsbridge)

6 A432 Inbound (A4174 Badminton Rbt to Old 35.6 34 -4% 23 25.1 9% 23.6 26 10% Market St)

6 A432 Outbound (West St to A4174 Badminton 26.3 28.8 9% 23.4 26.7 14% 26 25.7 -1% Rbt)

12 A4174 Eastbound (Filton Rbt to A4) 28.0 26.4 -5% 22.1 23.5 7% 31.5 27.3 -13%

12 A4174 Westbound (A4 to Filton Rbt) 31.7 36.2 14% 21.1 22.2 5% 26.1 25.3 -3%

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 16 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

3. 2021 Forecast Flows versus Current Year Flows

3.1 Overview

A 2021 forecast year GBATS model has been produced. The operation of this model has been reviewed / enhanced, for example in terms of coding of ring road junctions and nearby parallel routes which has led to improved model fit of 2021 forecast flows to recent (2019) count data.

The following section details the traffic forecasts predicted by the latest version of the GBATS demand model for 2021 and compares this against data recently collected along the A4174.

3.2 Comparison of Flow

Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show the comparison of the 2021 Do Minimum GBATS model flow with observed 2019 flows for AM and PM periods respectively for ring road flows covered by the survey data collected for the development of the VISSIM model used to assess the scheme. The comparison is undertaken for light vehicles (LV) and total vehicles (PCU) in accordance with TAG. Table 3-1: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (AM peak)

Junction Dir’n Obs LV Obs Model Model % Diff % Diff Total LV Total LV PCU PCU PCU

Wick Wick EB in 1562 1844 1644 1791 5% -3%

WB in 1807 2129 1910 2102 6% -1%

Lyde Green NB in 2090 2344 1937 2141 -7% -9%

SB in 1652 1931 1360 1686 -18% -13%

Rosary NB in 2352 2619 2232 2474 -5% -6%

SB in 1932 2231 1951 2311 1% 4%

Dramway NB in 2367 2610 1908 2111 -19% -19%

SB in 1982 2235 1972 2299 0% 3%

Siston Hill NB in 2270 2507 1956 2197 -14% -12%

SB in 2187 2458 2034 2364 -7% -4%

Deanery NB in 2167 2382 2442 2711 13% 14%

SB in 2424 2709 2332 2651 -4% -2%

Wraxall Rd NB in 2195 2421 2071 2277 -6% -6%

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 17 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

SB in 2251 2471 2175 2384 -3% -4%

Kingsfield NB in 1834 2049 1534 1741 -16% -15%

SB in 2336 2544 2058 2261 -12% -11%

All links 81% 88% (15%)

All links 100% 100% (20%)

Table 3-2: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (PM peak)

Junction Dir'n Obs Obs Model Model % Diff % Diff LV Total LV Total LV PCU PCU PCU

Wick Wick EB in 2140 2303 1557 1599 -27% -31%

WB in 1753 1898 1737 1843 -1% -3%

Lyde Green NB in 1679 1793 1777 1885 6% 5%

SB in 2264 2382 1892 2005 -16% -16%

Rosary NB in 1974 2089 1972 2091 0% 0%

SB in 2338 2435 2266 2400 -3% -1%

Dramway NB in 1993 2110 1879 1973 -6% -7%

SB in 2377 2467 2170 2247 -9% -9%

Siston Hill NB in 2058 2175 1957 2045 -5% -6%

SB in 2663 2763 2395 2512 -10% -9%

Deanery NB in 2214 2306 2119 2208 -4% -4%

SB in 2429 2518 2828 2951 16% 17%

Wraxall Rd NB in 2460 2557 2100 2167 -15% -15%

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 18 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

SB in 2310 2387 2328 2426 1% 2%

Kingsfield NB in 2459 2543 2214 2290 -10% -10%

SB in 2335 2417 2317 2415 -1% 0%

All links 81% 75% (15%)

All links 94% 94% (20%)

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the percentage difference between the modelled and observed PCU for the AM and PM peaks respectively. Where modelled flow is greater than the observed traffic this is indicated by red; where modelled flow is less than the observed this is indicated by blue.

Figure 6: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (AM peak)

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 19 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Figure 7: Comparison of 2021 Do Minimum Flow with 2019 observed flow (PM peak)

3.3 Commentary

The predicted flows are generally slightly lower than the observed flows. 81% (LV) and 88% (PCU) of modelled flows are within 15% of observed flows for the AM peak with 81% (LV) and 75% (PCU) for the PM peak. This is slightly outside the TAG criteria of 85%, however this is still considered a good fit for a forecast model present year validation. Further, 100% of AM peaks flows are within 20% of observed flows, whilst 94% of PM flows are within 20% (LV and PCU) demonstrating an overall close fit to the recent count data.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 20 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

4. Proposed Use of GBATS and VISSIM

4.1 Overview

The proposed methodology for assessing the MRN Ring Road scheme is to adopt a hybrid approach utilising both the GBATS strategic model and a corridor specific VISSIM model. The following paragraphs detail reasons why this approach is considered necessary.

4.2 Saturn Modelling of Signal Controlled Roundabouts

Whilst SATURN (the highway assignment package used by GBATS) allows for coding and modelling of junctions within the ‘simulation’ network, it cannot readily model signal-controlled roundabouts and gyratory systems with the same level of detail. There are several reasons for this including:  It cannot differentiate between the lanes available to different traffic movements on the approaches to the signalled roundabout, with this external lane marking and the downstream routing through the internal circulatory sections a key factor governing expected operation in practice;  The effect of ‘excess’ queuing within specific lanes on the circulatory sections is not handled with enough precision, nor can the model parameters be adjusted easily via the optimisation process to ensure timings take a preferential view of the internal circulating section to keep queuing here within defined limits; and  It does not model ‘flared’ approach geometries and capacities well. Given the nature of the MRN scheme it is important that the scheme assessment should utilise a software package capable of accurately capturing the changes in operational efficiency and providing a reliable estimate of the benefits. The microsimulation modelling software VISSIM is recognised as being able to do this.

4.3 VISSIM Model It is proposed that a detailed VISSIM model will be used to operationally assess the MRN scheme in the ‘Reference Case’ and ‘Scheme Case’ scenarios. The microsimulation model will utilise a combination of observed turning counts (from recent MCC surveys), and changes in “sub-area” flows forecast by the GBATS strategic modelling between 2021 and 2036.

Figure 8 shows the extent of the MRN VISSIM network. It covers all the side roads approaches to the MRN section of the A4174 and stretches south towards Hicks Gate roundabout, North towards Yate and West towards Wick Wick Roundabout.

Figure 8: Extent of VISSIM model

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 21 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

Forecast matrices will build on the observed 2019, with Tempro growth being used to estimate “2021”, and flow changes predicted by the strategic model used to develop the 2036 matrices. These are summarised in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Scenarios Coded in MRN VISSIM Model Scenario Network Representation Demand Matrix 2019 Base Case As present Based on 2019 Observed Data 2021 Do Minimum As present Based on 2019 Observed, factored up by local Tempro growth rate 2021 Do Something Scheme Improvements Based on 2021 DM Matrix plus flow changes implied by GBATS model between 2021 DS v DM 2036 Do Minimum As present Based on 2021 Matrix plus growth implied by GBATS model between 2021 and 2036 2036 Do Something Scheme Improvements Based on 2036 DM Matrix plus flow changes implied by GBATS model between 2036 DS v DM

4.4 Predicted Changes in Strategic Flow Previous results from the strategic GBATS model show the forecast traffic impacts of the scheme in the wider area (see Figure 9). This shows that the scheme is likely to facilitate more traffic using the A4174 Ring Road. However it is also evident that the change in flow is primarily restricted to along the MRN corridor. There is little evidence of increased flows outside of the MRN corridor (i.e. along the A4174 west of Wick Wick Roundabout). This is likely to be due to very limited alternative attractive routes to the Ring Road for trips using this facility.

Figure 9: Indicative Scheme Impacts across full GBATS model

This plot indicates that the VISSIM model will be capable of capturing the majority of the scheme impacts and disbenefits.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 22 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

5. Other Impacts For consistency GHGs and accidents will be assessed over the same model area as the scheme TUBA benefit calculations.

DIs will be assessed over a wider area from GBATS in order to allocate trip origins / destinations to the relevant LSOAs.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 23 MRN Ring Road Junction Improvements: GBATS Model fit

6. Conclusion

The 2013 GBATS model shows a very good fit for flows and journey times at locations relevant to the MRN Ring Road scheme.

The updated 2021 forecast model shows a good fit to the 2019 data within 20% at all locations in the AM and all but one location in the PM. 75% to 88% of flows fit within 15% (depending on time period and flow type), which is considered a good fit for a forecast model present year validation and given the limited and controlled use of GBATS in this scheme assessment, it is considered that the fit of the strategic model is sufficiently good to support the proposed combined GBATS / VISSIM assessment methodology.

673847.CH.CI.60.04.OAR 24

A4174 MRN 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Document No. | 0 27 February 2020

South Gloucestershire Council 673827CH

2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) South Gloucester shire Council

Document history and status

Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved

0 Feb 20 Draft Report SG BS BS BS

Distribution of copies

Revision Issue Date Issued to Comments

approved issued

0 BS 3 Mar 20 WECA Issued in support of Wraxhall Road Business case

2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

A4174 MRN

Project No: 673847.CJ.61.01 Document Title: 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) Document No.: Document No. Revision: 0 Document Status: Draft Date: 27 February 2020 Client Name: South Gloucestershire Council Client No: Client Reference Project Manager: Chris Mason Author: Stuart Gibb File Name: A4174 MRN VISSIM local Model Validation Report_270220

www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2019 Jacobs. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.

Document No. i 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Contents Executive Summary ...... iii 1. Introduction...... 4

Appendix A. Full Model Calibration Results

Document No. ii 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Executive Summary

This Local Model Validation Report describes the development of the 2019 Weekday AM and PM Peak A4174 Major Road Network (MRN) micro-simulation model. The model covers the section of A4174 between Bromley Heath Roundabout in the north and the A4 Keynsham By-pass in the south. The model will serve as the primary operational assessment tool for A4174 MRN improvement schemes currently being considered by SGC.

The model has been calibrated and validated against classified count and travel time data from a range of neutral days in March 2019. Based on the average results presented in this report, the model can be shown to display a good fit against the observed data which meets and exceeds criteria including those set out in the TAG unit 3.1.

Based on the average results presented within this report, it is Jacobs opinion that the model developed offers a realistic representation of reality and is thus suitable for its initial purpose; to accurately replicate baseline traffic conditions from which to compare the impacts of a range of MRN schemes against.

Document No. iii 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

Jacobs has been commissioned by South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) to develop a micro-simulation model of the A4174 Major Road Network (MRN) between Bromley Heath Roundabout and the A4 Keynsham By-pass.

The model will serve as the primary operational assessment tool for MRN improvement schemes currently being considered by SGC.

1.2 Report Purpose

This Local Model Validation Report (LMVR describes the development of the MRN model including the results of the calibration and validation exercises. Where necessary, the report identifies any weaknesses in the model and provides an indication of the likely impacts on future use.

It should be noted that this report has been prepared exclusively for SGC and no liability is accepted for any use by third parties.

1.3 Structure of Report

Following this introduction, the report is structured as follows:

 Section 2: Model Development including an overview of software specification, model coverage, durations and any changes made to default software parameters.

 Section 3: Model Calibration including an overview of the data collection and matrix estimation processes and resulting ‘goodness of fit’ of modelled flows.

 Section 4: Model Validation including an overview of the ‘goodness of fit’ of modelled journey times along key routes and sections.

 Section 5: Model Summary including an overview of the model, its overall ‘goodness of fit’ and its suitability for future use.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

2. Model Development

2.1 Software Specification

The MRN model has been developed using PTV VISSIM version 11 service pack 09. The decision to use VISSIM over an alternative simulation package was based on the following considerations:

 The software offers an increased level of flexibility and control when modelling at-capacity networks including junctions which interact with one another;

 The software offers the ability to emulate MOVA controlled traffic signal operation;

 The software offers a high-quality visual output which has been shown in the past to have aided discussions with both technical and non-technical audiences on recent SGC projects; and

 The software is in keeping with other SGC traffic modelling tools developed in recent years.

2.2 Model Extents

In addition to the section of A4174 between Bromley Heath Roundabout and the A4 Keynsham By-pass, the model also includes the section of A432 between Nibley Lane and the A4174.

The extents of the MRN model within the wider West of England region can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: A4174 VISSIM Model Extents

2.3 Model Durations

The MRN model has been developed to simulate traffic during the following peak periods:

 Weekday AM peak between 06.30 and 09:00; and

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

 Weekday PM peak between 15.30 and 18:00.

2.4 Model Assignment

2.4.1 Overview

Whilst essentially of a ‘linear’ corridor, the simulation area includes a small amount of route choice at the A4174 Dramway Roundabout where northbound drivers have the option to use the segregated left-turn filter lane or go via the roundabout.

Whilst one option would have been to fix the turning proportions within a ‘static’ model (or ban the less obvious movement via the roundabout altogether), the decision was made to allow the software to assign vehicles ‘dynamically’ based on an iterative approach whereby the generalised ‘cost’ for the two movements were considered.

2.4.2 Assignment Process

The search for optimum paths in micro-simulation models typically involves generalised costs from previous iterations being used by the software to influence routes in the current run. During early iterations of the process, the software will typically assign large volumes of traffic to a small number of paths; something which if assigning full traffic demand straight away can gridlock the model.

To counter this, the search for paths through Dramway Roundabout has been undertaken across 7 iterations, with the first 4 of these being run at a reduced demand (50% increasing in increments of 10%). Once completed, a further 15 ‘multi seed’ runs are undertaken (with the dynamic path search option turned off and the cost and path files from the 7th iteration read in) to extract model calibration and validation statistics.

2.5 Model Parameters

2.5.1 Software Parameters

In order to keep the total model run time down to a manageable level, a modified simulation resolution of 2 has been used as part of the dynamic path search process described in 2.4.2. Once complete, the default simulation resolution of 10 has been reinstated for the 15 ‘multi seed’ runs used for model calibration and validation purposes.

2.5.2 Driver Behaviour Parameters

The MRN model includes several changes to default driver behaviour parameters in keeping with simulation modelling best-practice recommendations and other recent SGC VISSIM models. A summary of the changes made can be seen in Table 1.

Link Type Driver Behaviour Justification for Change Parameter Car following model: Parameter changed from 2m to 1.5m in line with Average standstill best-practice recommendations made by Highways distance England. Urban: Standard Parameter changed from ‘Green (same as go)’ to Signal Control: Reaction ‘Red (same as stop) in line with best-practice to ‘red-amber’ at signals recommendations made by Transport for London.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Link Type Driver Behaviour Justification for Change Parameter Car following model: Parameter changed from 2m to 1.5m in line with Average standstill best-practice recommendations made by Highways distance England. Dual: Standard Parameter changed from ‘Green (same as go)’ to Signal Control: Reaction ‘Red (same as stop) in line with best-practice to ‘red-amber’ at signals recommendations made by Transport for London. Car following model: Parameter changed from 2m to 1.5m in line with Average standstill best-practice recommendations made by Highways distance England. Lane Change: Safety Parameter changed from 0.6 to 0.3 to facilitate distance reduction factor more aggressive lane change on weaving sections Dual: Increased Lane between junctions. Change Lane Change: Maximum Parameter changed from -3m/s2 to -6m/s2 to deceleration for facilitate more aggressive lane change on weaving cooperative breaking sections between junctions. Signal Control: Reaction Parameter changed from ‘Green (same as go)’ to to ‘red-amber’ at signals ‘Red (same as stop) in line with best-practice recommendations made by Transport for London

Table 1: Link Behaviours

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

3. Model Calibration

3.1 Matrix Development

3.1.1 Overview

Hourly demand has been estimated using SATURN SATME2/SATPIJA (ME2), a rudimentary SATURN model built solely for this purpose and manual classified count (MCC) data collected on Tuesday 19th of March 2019.

3.1.2 Observed Data

MCC data has been collected at the following junctions and used within the ME2 process:

 A4174 / Kingsfield Roundabout;  A4174 / Wraxall Road Roundabout;  A4174 / A420 / Deanery Road Roundabout;  A4174 / Station Road / Siston Hill Roundabout;  A4174 / B4465 / Dramway Roundabout;  A4174 / Rosary Roundabout;  A4174 / Westerleigh Road / Lyde Green Roundabout;  A4174 / A432 / Wick Wick Roundabout;  A432 / Park Lane;  A432 / Down Road / Buffet Road;  A432 / Roundways / Beesmoor Road; and  A432 / Church Road.

3.1.3 Vehicle Classes

MCC data has been processed into light (LV) and heavy vehicles (HV) as indicated in Table 2.

Vehicle Class Vehicle Type Included Cars LV Taxis LGV OGV1 HV OGV2

Table 2: Vehicle Classes

3.1.4 Matrix Profiling

Hourly demand for LV and HV has been estimated using ME2 and then ‘profiled’ into 15-minute intervals using the hourly factors shown in Table 3 and Table 4.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Hour 15-minute Interval Hourly Factor 06:00-06:45 0.22 06:00-07:00 06:45-07:00 0.23 07:00-07:15 0.23 07:15-07:30 0.25 07:00-08:00 07:30-07:45 0.26 07:45-08:00 0.26 08:00-08:15 0.27 08:15-08:30 0.26 08:00-09:00 08:30-08:45 0.24 08:45-09:00 0.23

Table 3: Hourly factors (Weekday AM Peak model)

Hour 15-minute Interval Hourly Factor 15:00-15:45 0.25 15:45-16:00 0.25 16:00-16:15 0.25 16:00-17:00 16:15-16:30 0.25 16:30-16:45 0.25 16:45-17:00 0.25 17:00-17:15 0.25 17:15-17:30 0.25 17:00-09:00 17:30-17:45 0.25 17:45-18:00 0.25

Table 4: Hourly factors (Weekday PM Peak model)

For the avoidance of doubt, a ‘flat’ profile has been modelled throughout the Weekday PM peak model.

3.2 Modelled Flows

3.2.1 Overview

A comparison of average modelled ‘turning’ flows versus the March 2019 MCC data has been undertaken based on 15 simulation seed runs.

3.2.2 Criteria

The GEH statistic has been adopted as the main indicator of the extent to which modelled flows match the corresponding observed values.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

3.2.3 Goodness of Fit

A summary of the ‘goodness of fit’ achieved by the model can be seen in Table 5.

Hour Vehicle Class Turns with GEH<3 GEH<3 with Turns GEH<5 with Turns counts <700 veh/h veh/h <700 counts Turns within 100 veh/h of veh/h 100 within Turns Turns within 15% of counts counts of 15% within Turns between 700 & 2700 veh/h veh/h & 2700 700 between

LV 91% 100% 100% 100% 07:00-08:00 HV 99% 100% 100% 100% LV 90% 100% 100% 100% 08:00-09:00 HV 99% 100% 100% 100% LV 89% 100% 100% 100% 16:00-17:00 HV 99% 100% 100% 100% LV 88% 100% 99% 100% 17:00-18:00 HV 99% 100% 100% 100%

Table 5: Modelled Flow Goodness-of-Fit Summary

A full summary of individual turns can be seen in Appendix A.

3.2.4 Summary

Based on the results presented in Table 5, the MRN model can be shown to display a good fit against the March 2019 observed data which meets and exceeds criteria set out in the TAG unit 3.1.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

4. Model Validation

4.1 Network Travel Times

4.1.1 Overview

A comparison of average modelled travel times against third-party floating vehicle data (FVD) has been undertaken and used to assess the overall robustness of the model.

The observed dataset is based on average TomTom data from nine days in March 2019. These days represent the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays from the week of the MCC, along with the same three days the week before and the week after.

4.1.2 Routes/Sections

Modelled travel times across the following four routes have been validated:

 Route 1: A4174 Northbound between the A4174/A4 Keynsham By-pass and the A4174/A432 Wick Wick Roundabout;

 Route 2: A4174 Southbound between the A4174 Bromley Heath Roundabout and the A4174 Kingsfield Roundabout;

 Route 3: A432 Northbound between the A4174/A432 Wick Wick Roundabout and the A432/Church Road junction; and

 Route 4: A432 Southbound between A432/Nibley Lane junction and A4174/A432 Wick Wick Roundabout.

Within each of the routes, travel times have been broken down into shorter, more meaningful ‘junction to junction’ sections.

A plan showing these sections can be seen in Figure 2.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Figure 2: Travel Time Validation Sections

4.1.3 Criteria

Modelled travel times within 15% or 15-seconds of the corresponding March 2019 FVD have been targeted in at least 85% of cases.

4.1.4 Goodness of Fit

A summary of the ‘goodness of fit’ achieved the model, based on the average of 15 simulation seed runs, can be seen in Table 6 and Table 7.

From To Route Junction Junction Difference Difference %Difference %Difference 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 Average Observed Observed Average Modelled Average

Hicks Gate Kingsfield 114 110 -4 -3% Kingsfield Woodstock 64 58 -6 -9% Woodstock Deanery 61 67 6 10% Route 1 Deanery Siston Hill 70 70 0 0% A4174 NB Siston Hill Dramway 85 79 -6 -7% Dramway The Rosary 39 38 -1 -2% The Rosary Lyde Green 79 70 -9 -11%

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

From To Route Junction Junction Difference Difference %Difference %Difference 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 Average Observed Observed Average Modelled Average

Lyde Green Wick Wick 74 75 1 1% Bromley Heath Wick Wick 96 82 -14 -15% Wick Wick Lyde Green 69 64 -5 -7% Lyde Green The Rosary 70 65 -5 -8%

Route 2 The Rosary Dramway 41 33 -8 -18% A4174 SB Dramway Siston Hill 98 97 -1 -1% Siston Hill Deanery 68 69 1 1% Deanery Woodstock 55 49 -6 -11% Woodstock Kingsfield 68 70 2 3% Wick Wick Down Road 69 64 -5 -7.0%

Route 3 Down Road Park Lane 24 28 4 17.8% A432 NB Park Lane Beesmoor Road 91 85 -6 -6.2% Beesmoor Road Church Road 83 73 -10 -12.5% Nibley Lane Church Road 130 118 -12 -8.9% Church Road Beesmoor Road 88 78 -10 -11.1% Route 4 Beesmoor Road Park Lane 87 89 2 2.0% A432 SB Park Lane Down Road 25 30 4 17.6% Down Road Wick Wick 68 75 7 10.6%

Table 6: Journey Time Validation Results (Weekday AM Peak model)

From To Route Junction Junction Difference Difference %Difference %Difference 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 Average Observed Observed Average Modelled Average

Hicks Gate Kingsfield 116 112 -4 -3% Route 1 Kingsfield Woodstock 80 73 -8 -9% A4174 NB Woodstock Deanery 56 63 7 12%

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

From To Route Junction Junction Difference Difference %Difference %Difference 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 07:00-09:00 Average Observed Observed Average Modelled Average

Deanery Siston Hill 70 69 -1 -1%

Siston Hill Dramway 85 76 -9 -10%

Dramway The Rosary 41 38 -3 -7%

The Rosary Lyde Green 83 72 -12 -14%

Lyde Green Wick Wick 85 74 -11 -13%

Bromley Heath Wick Wick 128 93 -35 -27%

Wick Wick Lyde Green 76 65 -10 -14%

Lyde Green The Rosary 75 70 -5 -7%

Dramway 41 34 -7 -18% Route 2 The Rosary A4174 SB Dramway Siston Hill 104 102 -2 -2%

Siston Hill Deanery 72 73 1 1%

Deanery Woodstock 111 55 -56 -51%

Woodstock Kingsfield 71 74 3 4%

Wick Wick Down Road 66 62 -5 -7% Park Lane 26 29 3 10% Route 3 Down Road A432 NB Park Lane Beesmoor Road 87 85 -2 -2%

Beesmoor Road Church Road 81 72 -9 -11% Nibley Lane Church Road 135 119 -16 -12%

Church Road Beesmoor Road 87 78 -9 -10% Route 4 Park Lane 87 89 2 2% A432 SB Beesmoor Road Park Lane Down Road 27 31 4 13%

Down Road Wick Wick 158 150 -8 -5%

Table 7: Travel Time Validation Results (Weekday PM Peak model)

4.1.5 Summary

Based on the results presented in Table 6 and Table 7, the MRN model can be shown to display a good fit against the March 2019 observed data which meets and exceeds targeted criteria.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

5. Model Summary

5.1 Overview

This LMVR describes the development of the 2019 Weekday AM and PM Peak MRN micro-simulation model. The model will serve as the primary operational assessment tool for MRN improvement schemes currently being considered by SGC.

5.2 Model Calibration

The MRN model has been calibrated against MCC data collected on a neutral day in March 2019. Based on the average results presented in this report, the MRN model can be shown to display a good fit against the observed data which meets and exceeds criteria set out in the TAG unit 3.1.

5.3 Model Calibration

The MRN model has been validated against third-party travel time data from March 2019. Travel times have been validated across 4 routes/28 individual sections. Based on the average results presented in this report, the MRN model can be shown to display a good fit against the observed data which meets and exceeds the targeted criteria.

5.4 Suitability for Use

Based on the average results presented within this report, it is Jacobs opinion that the model offers a realistic representation of reality and is thus suitable for its initial purpose; to accurately replicate baseline traffic conditions from which to compare the impacts of a range of MRN schemes against.

Document No. 2019 VISSIM Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)

Appendix A. Full Model Calibration Results

Document No. A4174 Wraxall Road Throughabout - High Level Construction Programme

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 20 Jul '20 27 Jul '20 03 Aug '20 10 Aug '20 17 Aug '20 24 Aug '20 31 Aug '20 07 Sep '20 14 Sep '20 21 Sep '20 28 Sep '20 05 Oct '20 12 Oct '20 19 Oct '20 26 Oct '20 02 Nov '20 09 Nov '20 16 Nov '20 23 Nov '20 30 Nov '20 07 Dec '20 14 Dec '20 21 Dec '20 28 Dec '20 04 Jan '21 11 Jan '21 18 Jan '21 25 Jan '21 01 Feb '21 08 Feb '21 15 Feb '21 22 Feb '21 01 Mar '21 08 Mar '21 15 Mar '21 22 Mar '21 29 Mar '21 05 Apr '21 12 Apr '21 19 Apr '21 26 Apr '21 03 May '21 10 May '21 17 May '21 24 May '21 31 May '21 07 Jun '21 14 Jun '21 21 Jun '21 28 Jun '21 05 Jul '21 12 Jul '21 19 Jul '21 26 Jul '21 02 Aug '21 09 Aug '21 16 Aug '21 23 Aug '21 30 Aug '21 S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T 1 A4174 Wraxall Road Throughabout - High Level Construction Programme 285 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 27/08/21

2 Phase 1 - A4174 Circulatory 115 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 01/01/21

3 Preliminaries 5 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 31/07/20

4 Site clearance 5 days Mon 03/08/20 Fri 07/08/20

5 Fencing 5 days Mon 10/08/20 Fri 14/08/20

6 Drainage 20 days Mon 17/08/20 Fri 11/09/20

7 Earthworks 20 days Mon 14/09/20 Fri 09/10/20

8 Pavements 15 days Mon 12/10/20 Fri 30/10/20

9 Kerbs 10 days Mon 02/11/20 Fri 13/11/20

10 Street lighting 5 days Mon 16/11/20 Fri 20/11/20

11 Traffic signals 15 days Mon 23/11/20 Fri 11/12/20

12 Traffic signs 5 days Mon 14/12/20 Fri 18/12/20

13 Landscaping 5 days Mon 21/12/20 Fri 25/12/20

14 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 28/12/20 Fri 01/01/21

15

16 Phase 2 - A4174 Central Reservation (East) 95 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 04/12/20

17 Preliminaries 5 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 31/07/20

18 Site clearance 5 days Mon 03/08/20 Fri 07/08/20

19 Fencing 10 days Mon 10/08/20 Fri 21/08/20

20 Drainage 10 days Mon 24/08/20 Fri 04/09/20

21 Earthworks 15 days Mon 07/09/20 Fri 25/09/20

22 Pavements 15 days Mon 28/09/20 Fri 16/10/20

23 Kerbs 10 days Mon 19/10/20 Fri 30/10/20

24 Street lighting 5 days Mon 02/11/20 Fri 06/11/20

25 Traffic signals 5 days Mon 09/11/20 Fri 13/11/20

26 Traffic signs 5 days Mon 16/11/20 Fri 20/11/20

27 Landscaping 5 days Mon 23/11/20 Fri 27/11/20

28 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 30/11/20 Fri 04/12/20

29

30 Phase 3 - A4174 Central Reservation (West) 95 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 04/12/20

31 Preliminaries 5 days Mon 27/07/20 Fri 31/07/20

32 Site clearance 5 days Mon 03/08/20 Fri 07/08/20

33 Fencing 10 days Mon 10/08/20 Fri 21/08/20

34 Drainage 10 days Mon 24/08/20 Fri 04/09/20

35 Earthworks 15 days Mon 07/09/20 Fri 25/09/20

36 Pavements 15 days Mon 28/09/20 Fri 16/10/20

37 Kerbs 10 days Mon 19/10/20 Fri 30/10/20

38 Street lighting 5 days Mon 02/11/20 Fri 06/11/20

39 Traffic signals 5 days Mon 09/11/20 Fri 13/11/20

40 Traffic signs 5 days Mon 16/11/20 Fri 20/11/20

41 Landscaping 5 days Mon 23/11/20 Fri 27/11/20

42 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 30/11/20 Fri 04/12/20

43

44 Phase 4 - A4174 / Wraxall Road (North) 120 days Mon 04/01/21 Fri 18/06/21

45 Approach 80 days Mon 04/01/21 Fri 23/04/21

46 Preliminaries 5 days Mon 04/01/21 Fri 08/01/21

47 Site clearance 5 days Mon 11/01/21 Fri 15/01/21

48 Fencing 5 days Mon 18/01/21 Fri 22/01/21

49 Drainage 10 days Mon 25/01/21 Fri 05/02/21

50 Earthworks 15 days Mon 08/02/21 Fri 26/02/21

51 Pavements 10 days Mon 01/03/21 Fri 12/03/21

52 Kerbs 5 days Mon 15/03/21 Fri 19/03/21

53 Street lighting 5 days Mon 22/03/21 Fri 26/03/21

54 Traffic signals 5 days Mon 29/03/21 Fri 02/04/21

55 Traffic signs 5 days Mon 05/04/21 Fri 09/04/21

56 Landscaping 5 days Mon 12/04/21 Fri 16/04/21

57 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 19/04/21 Fri 23/04/21

58 Departure 40 days Mon 26/04/21 Fri 18/06/21

59 Preliminaries 2 days Mon 26/04/21 Tue 27/04/21

60 Site clearance 2 days Wed 28/04/21 Thu 29/04/21

61 Fencing 3 days Fri 30/04/21 Tue 04/05/21

62 Drainage 3 days Wed 05/05/21 Fri 07/05/21

63 Earthworks 7 days Mon 10/05/21 Tue 18/05/21

64 Pavements 6 days Wed 19/05/21 Wed 26/05/21

65 Kerbs 3 days Thu 27/05/21 Mon 31/05/21

66 Street lighting 3 days Tue 01/06/21 Thu 03/06/21

67 Traffic signals 2 days Fri 04/06/21 Mon 07/06/21

68 Traffic signs 1 day Tue 08/06/21 Tue 08/06/21

69 Landscaping 3 days Wed 09/06/21 Fri 11/06/21

70 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 14/06/21 Fri 18/06/21

71

72 Phase 5 - A4174 / Wraxall Road (South) 120 days Mon 04/01/21 Fri 18/06/21

73 Approach 80 days Mon 04/01/21 Fri 23/04/21

74 Preliminaries 5 days Mon 04/01/21 Fri 08/01/21

75 Site clearance 5 days Mon 11/01/21 Fri 15/01/21

76 Fencing 5 days Mon 18/01/21 Fri 22/01/21

77 Drainage 10 days Mon 25/01/21 Fri 05/02/21

78 Earthworks 15 days Mon 08/02/21 Fri 26/02/21

79 Pavements 10 days Mon 01/03/21 Fri 12/03/21

80 Kerbs 5 days Mon 15/03/21 Fri 19/03/21

81 Street lighting 5 days Mon 22/03/21 Fri 26/03/21

82 Traffic signals 5 days Mon 29/03/21 Fri 02/04/21

83 Traffic signs 5 days Mon 05/04/21 Fri 09/04/21

84 Landscaping 5 days Mon 12/04/21 Fri 16/04/21

85 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 19/04/21 Fri 23/04/21

86 Departure 40 days Mon 26/04/21 Fri 18/06/21

87 Preliminaries 2 days Mon 26/04/21 Tue 27/04/21

88 Site clearance 2 days Wed 28/04/21 Thu 29/04/21

89 Fencing 3 days Fri 30/04/21 Tue 04/05/21

90 Drainage 3 days Wed 05/05/21 Fri 07/05/21

91 Earthworks 7 days Mon 10/05/21 Tue 18/05/21

92 Pavements 6 days Wed 19/05/21 Wed 26/05/21

93 Kerbs 3 days Thu 27/05/21 Mon 31/05/21

94 Street lighting 3 days Tue 01/06/21 Thu 03/06/21

95 Traffic signals 2 days Fri 04/06/21 Mon 07/06/21

96 Traffic signs 1 day Tue 08/06/21 Tue 08/06/21

97 Landscaping 3 days Wed 09/06/21 Fri 11/06/21

98 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 14/06/21 Fri 18/06/21

99

100 Phase 6 - Commissioning 50 days Mon 21/06/21 Fri 27/08/21

101 Install new traffic signal infrastructure 30 days Mon 21/06/21 Fri 30/07/21

102 Circulatory 5 days Mon 21/06/21 Fri 25/06/21

103 Northern approach and departure 5 days Mon 28/06/21 Fri 02/07/21

104 Eastern approach and departure 5 days Mon 05/07/21 Fri 09/07/21

105 Western approach and departure 5 days Mon 12/07/21 Fri 16/07/21

106 Southern approach and departure 5 days Mon 19/07/21 Fri 23/07/21

107 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 26/07/21 Fri 30/07/21

108 Resurfacing 25 days Mon 28/06/21 Fri 30/07/21

109 Circulatory 4 days Mon 28/06/21 Thu 01/07/21

110 Northern approach and departure 4 days Fri 02/07/21 Wed 07/07/21

111 Eastern approach and departure 4 days Thu 08/07/21 Tue 13/07/21

112 Southern approach and departure 4 days Wed 14/07/21 Mon 19/07/21

113 Western approach and departure 4 days Tue 20/07/21 Fri 23/07/21

114 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 26/07/21 Fri 30/07/21

115 Road markings 25 days Mon 05/07/21 Fri 06/08/21

116 Circulatory 4 days Mon 05/07/21 Thu 08/07/21

117 Northern approach and departure 4 days Fri 09/07/21 Wed 14/07/21

118 Eastern approach and departure 4 days Thu 15/07/21 Tue 20/07/21

119 Southern approach and departure 4 days Wed 21/07/21 Mon 26/07/21

120 Western approach and departure 4 days Tue 27/07/21 Fri 30/07/21

121 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 02/08/21 Fri 06/08/21

122 Slot cutting 15 days Mon 26/07/21 Fri 13/08/21

123 Circulatory 2 days Mon 26/07/21 Tue 27/07/21

124 Northern approach and departure 2 days Wed 28/07/21 Thu 29/07/21

125 Eastern approach and departure 2 days Fri 30/07/21 Mon 02/08/21

126 Southern approach and departure 2 days Tue 03/08/21 Wed 04/08/21

127 Western approach and departure 2 days Thu 05/08/21 Fri 06/08/21

128 Time risk allowance 5 days Mon 09/08/21 Fri 13/08/21

129 HFS 20 days Mon 02/08/21 Fri 27/08/21

130 Northern approach and departure 4 days Mon 02/08/21 Thu 05/08/21

131 Eastern approach and departure 4 days Fri 06/08/21 Wed 11/08/21

132 Southern approach and departure 4 days Thu 12/08/21 Tue 17/08/21

133 Western approach and departure 4 days Wed 18/08/21 Mon 23/08/21

134 Time risk allowance 4 days Tue 24/08/21 Fri 27/08/21

Project: Construction Phase Programme Drawn : Shaun Wilson Phase Summary Progress StreetCare Openreach Dynniq Tarmac TBC HW Martin Date: Wed 15/01/20 Checked: Shaun Wilson Revision: - Approved: Shaun Wilson

Page 1 of 1

Memorandum

Burderop Park Swindon SN4 0QD United Kingdom T +44 (0)1793 812 479

www.jacobs.com

Subject Quantitative Risk Assessment Project Name A4174 - Wraxall Road Signals (QRA) Appraisal

Attention Peter Franklin Project No. 673847CH.BJ.35.01

From Anuradha Premathilaka

Date 28th October, 2019

Copies to

Ref Tech Memo SGC Wraxall Road QRA V2 Final 28-10-2019

Introduction

The Wraxall Road Roundabout is located on the A4174 Avon Ring Road in South Gloucestershire, south-east of Kingswood and north-west of Cadbury Heath. This roundabout is currently experiencing congestion during weekday peak hours. This is a critical pinch-point in the A4174 strategic route. The business case proposes to introduce signal control at the site with the objective of improving the traffic flow on the A4174 Ring Road. The improvement scheme involves the widening of the approaches to the roundabout and conversion to a signalised through-about. Currently, the project is at Full Business Case (FBC) stage.

A Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) was undertaken to support the scheme costing by predicting the level of risk contribution, having a defined level of confidence, to cover the cost of the scheme. QRA allows for uncertainty in unplanned additional cost items that cannot be included in the project costs. With design progression and ongoing risk management, the level of confidence of the QRA will be enhanced through greater certainty around specific risks and costs.

The QRA process involves four steps.

• Step 1 is identification of all risks affecting the project through risk workshops and risk reviews. This results in a Risk Register.

• Step 2 is analysis of the various risks by defining their distributions in terms of probabilities, impacts and knock-on effects. This information is gathered through risk workshops and other interactions including stakeholders.

• Step 3 is undertaking the risk modelling using Monte Carlo simulation (in this project @Risk® software was used).

• Step 4 is analysing the results against required contingency needs for the project. For the economics case, the DfT WebTAG guidance is followed.

The quantified risk assessment model has been constructed by Jacobs using Microsoft Excel and @Risk® software. The model uses the Monte-Carlo simulation theory by replicating 10,000 iterations of likely project risk scenarios. Confidence levels relating to the cost of the scheme are obtained from the distribution of the averaged results produced by the simulations.

Jacobs U.K. Limited

Memorandum

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

This technical memorandum presents the results of the FBC stage QRA for this project, in October 2019. It includes brief outlines of the workshops held, risk model inputs and the risk model outputs including the percentile risk values and the top five risks.

QRA Workshops

QRA workshops were undertaken on the project in July 2019 (first iteration), followed by another workshop in October 2019 (second iteration), at Jacobs Offices in Bristol. As part of the workshop all the current identified risks affecting the project were reviewed, and new risks identified, resulting in an up-to-date risk register. As part of the workshop the risks were analysed by defining their distributions in terms of probabilities, impacts and knock-on effects using Low, Medium and High ranges.

The following members of the project team attended and contributed to quantifying the risks the workshop.

• Richard Gillingham (South Gloucestershire Council)

• Paul Macnamara (South Gloucestershire Council)

• Richard Lewis (South Gloucestershire Council)

• Shaun Wilson (South Gloucestershire Council)

• Jo Gillen (South Gloucestershire Council)

• Peter Franklin (Jacobs)

• Lia Kasma (Jacobs)

• Anuradha Premathilaka (Jacobs)

Risk Model Inputs

Baseline Capital Expenditure

The current estimated capital cost of the scheme is approximately £6.404 M, and this value has been cognisant of in determining the extent of risks used in the QRA.

Risk Identification and Categorisation

The risk register has been developed collaboratively by South Gloucestershire Council and Jacobs and updated through a number of discussions and a workshop. The current version (V2 Final) of the Risk Register is included in Appendix 1.

The risks that were modelled in the QRA are taken directly from the updated Risk Register. Each risk is assessed for its Financial Risk and Delay risk.

2 Memorandum

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

The following unit costs of delay (£ per month) have been considered for the various risks that could cause delay to the project:

• £90k/month – used for risks that affect the critical path of project. This is based on the average spend per month of the project based on a typical contractor’s prelim costs

• £17.5k/month – used for risks that do not affect the critical path. This allows for project management costs and considers increase in rates due to inflation

Risk Quantification

Individual risks were defined in terms of their likelihood (probability of occurrence), impacts and knock on effects, minimum, maximum, and likely values, through the workshop.

For each risk, the key inputs required in the QRA model are; Cost Impact Estimate (Minimum, Maximum, and Likely), Delay Impact Estimate (Minimum, Maximum, and Likely), and Likelihood.

The Likelihood of risk occurrence is assigned as a percentage in broad categories of; Almost Certain (95%), Likely (50%), Possible (25%), Unlikely (12.5%), and Rare (5%).

These values were then used in the @Risk model to determine a Mean Outcome and a Risk Exposure for each risk and for each iteration. The Monte Carlo simulation used 10,000 iterations to determine the percentile risk values.

Risk Model Outputs

Risk Value

The table below shows the updated Grand Total Risk value (Financial + Delay) for the project; the @Risk output is shown in Appendix 2. The 50th Percentile risk value, 80th Percentile risk value and the Mean risk value (referred to as P(50), P(80) and P(Mean) respectively) are shown in the table below.

P(50) P(80) P(Mean)

Previous V1 Iteration (July 2019)* £ 2,100* £ 2,763* £ 2,138* Grand Total Risk (Financial + Delay) Updated V2 Final Iteration (October 2019) £ 1,499 £ 1,942 £ 1,530 Grand Total Risk (Financial + Delay)

* For information only, the results of the previous iteration (V1 July 2019) are also included in the table below for comparison. It is normal for the risk value to vary at various stages of a project with ongoing risk management.

This shows that with design progression and ongoing risk management, the level of confidence of the QRA has been enhanced through greater certainty around specific risks and costs, hence the accuracy of the overall risk value has been increased.

3 Memorandum

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

Highest Ranked Risks

The top 5 risks by Grand Total Risk (i.e. Financial + Delay) identified by the sensitivity testing are listed below.

Rank Risk Ref Description

1 WR Risk 041 Additional structural works required following final assessments of existing structures 2 WR Risk 005 Failure to maintain stakeholder acceptance following release of design options, including objections from environmental or other groups, results in a delay and increased costs. Considering allowance for 3rd party stakeholder mitigation. 3 WR Risk 029 Risks due to restrictions on access, working methods and plant (e.g. working hours, network management requirements, other restrictions), cause additional costs and delay 4 WR Risk 031 Risk of discovering and/or hitting unknown live or abandoned utilities, including clashes between utilities 5 WR Risk 023 Unforeseen ground conditions result in delay and cost increase (e.g. archaeology and mine working)

4 Memorandum

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

Appendix 1 – Risk Register

See separate Excel Spreadsheet

5 Memorandum

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA)

Appendix 2 – @Risk Output

6 Risk Register for Wraxall Road Improvements Rev: V2 Final 28-Oct-19 Scheme: Wraxall Road Improvements Milestone: Full Business Case Cost: £6.404 million Before Treatment Risk Approach After Treatment - Residual Risk Impact Prob. (Avoid, Accept, Reduce, Transfer) Impact Prob. QRA Ref Description Category Mitigation Support Cost Time Perf Rating RAG Treatment Mitigation Measures Cost Time Perf Rating RAG DATE OF STATUS owner Type UPDATE WR Risk 001 Change of Central Govt or Local Govt policy resulting in removal of suport STRATEGIC / SGC Jacobs L H L H 5.00 Accept Accept and manage L H L H 5.00 07/06/2019 Closed for the scheme, e.g. more priority given to other MRN schemes and POLITICAL submission of non-compliant OBC/FBC, resulting in overall level of funding being unavailable

WR Risk 002 Scheme development funding not available for future stages - used for FUNDING SGC Jacobs L H L M 3.33 Accept Accept and manage L H L M 3.33 07/06/2019 Closed future BC development WR Risk 003 Local contributions (match funding) are not secured or sufficient, WECA FUNDING SGC WECA H H M M 5.33 Accept Early enagegement with WECA for H H M M 5.33 07/06/2019 Closed funding for Wraxall Road doing forward planning WR Risk 004 Detailed design and business case not completed or approved to STRATEGIC / SGC Jacobs L H H M 4.67 Reduce Effective planning L H H M 4.67 14/10/2019 Open programme POLITICAL WR Risk 005 Failure to maintain stakeholder acceptance following release of design ACCEPTABILITY / SGC Jacobs L M M L 1.67 Reduce Continue to engage with stakholders L M M L 1.67 14/10/2019 Open options, including objections from environmental or other groups, results in OBJECTION and the public as the scheme a delay and increased costs. Considering allowance for 3rd party progresses stakeholder mitigation.

WR Risk 006 Design changes result in land acquisition required Early negotiations, and design it out to 14/10/2019 Open reduce the likelihod of this WR Risk 007 Appropriate governance not in place resulting in key decisions being PROJECT SGC Jacobs H H L H 7.00 Accept Accept and manage H H L H 7.00 14/10/2019 Open delayed affecting programme and scheme confidence MANAGEMENT

WR Risk 008 Lack of SGC staff resources to progress the scheme results in the need to PROJECT SGC Jacobs L M H M 4.00 Reduce Effective planning, early planning L M H M 4.00 14/10/2019 Closed procure external support MANAGEMENT

WR Risk 009 Lack of capacity in terms of staffing, consultants, engineers, contractors PROJECT SGC Jacobs M L M M 3.33 Avoid Plan early M L M M 3.33 14/10/2019 Open with the required skills to progress the scheme, causing delay MANAGEMENT

WR Risk 010 Cost and delay due of statutory undertakers diversions work COSTS SGC Jacobs H H L L 2.33 Reduce Early planning and frequent H M L L 2.00 14/10/2019 Open communication, carry out surveys and investigations early WR Risk 011 Cost inflation different than anticipated, resulting in change in scheme cost COSTS SGC Jacobs M L L L 1.33 Accept Accept and manage M L L L 1.33 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 012 Part 1 Claims estimates are higher than anticipated COSTS SGC Jacobs M M L M 3.33 Avoid Underake appropriate environmental M M L M 3.33 14/10/2019 Open assessment WR Risk 013 Ineffective procurement strategy resulting in costs and delay PROCUREMENT SGC Jacobs H H H M 6.00 Accept Accept and manage H H H M 6.00 07/06/2019 Closed

WR Risk 014 Risk of omissions in contract(s), design changes causing changes to PROCUREMENT SGC Jacobs L L L M 2.00 Accept Accept and manage L L L M 2.00 14/10/2019 Open contract, contractors work is of poor quality requiring re-work, claims conscious contractor, etc. causes delay and additional costs (Relates to structures and parapits elements)

WR Risk 015 Insufficient time and design detail for accurate costing DESIGN SGC Jacobs H L L M 3.33 Reduce Develop designs to appopriate detail H L L M 3.33 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 016 Redesign of schemes required due to changes in traffic growth forecast DESIGN SGC Jacobs M H H L 2.67 Accept Accept and manage M H H L 2.67 14/10/2019 Closed between OBC and FBC, resulting in cost. Re: further development of other schemes in the area (e.g. M4 J18a, Yate Link, Southern Orbital Link) results in higher traffic growth.

WR Risk 017 Further development of other schemes in the area (e.g. M4 J18a, Yate DESIGN SGC Jacobs H H H H 9.00 Reduce Further sensitivity testing at FBC stage, H H H H 9.00 07/06/2019 Closed Link, Southern Orbital Link) results in higher traffic growth. Could result in once proposals for surrounding need to revisit/replace schemes or erode benefits for this or other schemes have developed further schemes.

WR Risk 018 Drainage costs exceed current estimate. Current costs based on DESIGN / SGC Jacobs M M M M 4.00 Reduce Stats searches and engagemetn with M M M M 4.00 14/10/2019 Open assumptions due to lack of information. CONSTRUCTION utilities WR Risk 019 Consents required above those applied for/obtained, inability to meet the DESIGN / SGC Jacobs M M M L 2.00 Reduce Ensure regular updates with relevant L L L L 1 14/10/2019 Closed conditions resulting in delay or cost increase. CONSTRUCTION stakeholders as the construction progresses, early ID of consents WR Risk 020 Potential for contaminated land causes additional costs for mitigation ENVIRONMENT SGC Jacobs M L L L 1.33 Reduce Environmental surveys M L L L 1.33 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 021 Noise pollution/air quality impacts affect sensitve receptors leading to ENVIRONMENT SGC Jacobs L L L H 3.00 Reduce Environmental surveys L L L H 3.00 14/10/2019 Open additional cost of mitigatory measures, e.g. additional noise barriers

WR Risk 022 Environmental legislation changes requiring signficant design changes ENVIRONMENT SGC Jacobs M M M L 2.00 Accept Accept and manage M M M L 2.00 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 023 Unforseen ground conditions result in delay and cost increase (e.g. ENVIRONMENT SGC Jacobs H L L H 5.00 Reduce Environmental surveys H L L H 5.00 14/10/2019 Open archeology and mine working) WR Risk 024 Heritage issues - listed building impacts, settings etc ENVIRONMENT SGC Jacobs L L L L 1.00 Reduce Environmental surveys L L L L 1.00 07/06/2019 Closed

WR Risk 025 Protected species causes delay and additional costs ENVIRONMENT SGC Jacobs L L L L 1.00 Reduce Environmental surveys L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 026 Risk of delay due to other works and interface/clashes with emergency CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L H M M 4.00 Reduce Appropriate governance arrangements L H M M 4.00 14/10/2019 Open utility works in the area and coordination with other projects, early engaement with streetworks teams and roadspcae bookings WR Risk 027 Protestors on site preventing works from going ahead and causing delays CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L M M L 1.67 Reduce Public informed of progress L L L L 14/10/2019 Open and/or bad publicity 1 WR Risk 028 Risks around interfaces with general public, including safety and security CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L L L M 2.00 Reduce Ensure site is secure with good signage L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open and information on construction publicly available WR Risk 029 Risks due to restrictions on access, working methods and plant (e.g. CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs M M M L 2.00 Reduce Early planning and frequent L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open working hours, network management requirements, other restrictions), communication cause additional costs and delay

WR Risk 030 Extreme weather events cause cost and delay to project CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs H M M L 2.33 Reduce Accept and manage L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 031 Risk of discovering and/or hitting unknown live or abandoned utilities, CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs M M M H 6.00 Reduce Undertake statutory inquiries, GPR, trial L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open including clashes between utilities pits, CAT scan by contractor

WR Risk 032 Business interruption claims arising from adjacent or nearby businesses CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs M M M M 4.00 Accept Engage with affected businesses and L L L L 1 14/10/2019 Open identify appropriate constraints to impose upon contractor. WR Risk 033 Noise, dust, vibration and other disturbances to public and other CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L L M M 2.67 Reduce Coordination meetings with Contractors L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open contractors working in the vicinity cause additional cost and delay working in the vicinity

WR Risk 034 Risk of missing Traffic Management Act booking for works and risk of late CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs M M M M 4.00 Avoid Plan early with contractor M L L L 1.333 14/10/2019 Open issue of TTROs by SGC, cause delay to programme

WR Risk 035 Stage 1 and 2 Safety audits find issues causing delay and costs CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L L M L 1.33 Accept Accept and manage L L L L 1 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 036 Stage 3 Safety audits find issues causing additional costs CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L L M L 1.33 Accept Accept and manage L L L L 1 14/10/2019 Open

WR Risk 037 Main contractor goes out of business resulting in increase in costs & delay CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs M H H M 5.33 Accept Accept and manage L M M L 1.667 07/06/2019 Closed to programme WR Risk 038 Vandalism leading to replacement/repair costs CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs L L M L 1.33 Accept Accept and manage L L L L 1 07/06/2019 Closed WR Risk 039 The Smart corridor scheme is poorly defined. Costs and risks not fully DELIVERY SGC Jacobs H H M H 8.00 Reduce Further develop the concept with early H H M H 8.00 07/06/2019 Closed understood contractor engagement WR Risk 040 Additional cost and delay due to UXO CONSTRUCTION SGC Jacobs M M M M 4.00 Avoid Ground investigations, watching brief L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open WR Risk 041 Additional structural works required following final assessments of existing DESIGN SGC Jacobs H H M M 5.33 Avoid Investigation and assessment of existing M M L L 1.67 14/10/2019 Open structures strutures WR Risk 042 DfT approval for non-prescribed signs takes longer causing additional DESIGN SGC Jacobs L L M M 2.67 Avoid Early enagegement L L L L 1.00 14/10/2019 Open consultancy costs and delay to programme

WR Risk 043 Additional surveys required to back of wingwalls for Tower Lane and DESIGN SGC Jacobs M M M M 4.00 Accept Early enagegement L L L L 1.00 25/10/2019 Closed Wraxall Road structures following outcome of initial surveys Cost Summary Series 0100: Prelims including Traffic Management £532,962.03 Series 0200: Site Clearance £174,233.40 Series 0300: Fencing & Steps £0.00 Series 0400: Road Restraint Systems £147,108.52 Series 0500: Drainage £281,732.87 Series 0600: Earthworks £256,955.78 Series 0700: Pavements £1,228,169.63 Series 1100: Kerbs, Footways and Paved Areas £273,611.98 Series 1200: Traffic Signs and Road Markings £94,532.68 Series 1300: Street Lighting and Electrical Works £409,453.43 Series 1700: Structures £0.00 Series 2400: Brickwork, Blockwork and Stone Work £0.00 Series 3000: Landscaping and Ecology £145,859.76 Civils subtotal £3,544,620.07 Inclusive of Time Risk Allowance, Inflation and Overheads

Known utilities (Lump) Lump £0.00 Currently none required but item in QRA to cover unforeseen utilities

Restricted Working 25% £886,155.02 Ecological works 0% £45,000.00 Civils total £4,475,775.09

Design and project management 10% £447,577.51 Quantitive Risk Allowance Lump £1,530,000.00 Based on P (Mean) QRA value Monitoring and evalution £30,000.00 Subtotal £2,007,577.51

Total £6,483,352.59 Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 20/11/2019 Contact:

Name of scheme: Wraxall Roundabout Name Richard.Gillingham Description of scheme: Capacity increase at Wraxall roundabout, comprising modification of the existing uncontrolled roundabout layout to a fully signal-controlled ‘through-about’ arrangement Organisation SGC Role Scheme sponsor Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport The improvements to Wraxall Roundabout will increase capacity on a major intersection in the providers highway network, significantly alleviating highway congestion in the short- and long-term. This will Value of journey time changes( PVB £ 2010) £20.217m reduce delays, thereby providing economic benefits. Net journey time changes (£) N/A £20.217m 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min

n/a n/a n/a

Reliability impact on Business An indicative estimate of reliability is used based on the DfT guidance of taking 10% of the total users time savings. This indicates an expected moderate beneficial uplift in reliability resulting from the Moderate N/A N/A scheme. Reliability benefits are not included in the reported BCR and as such have not been beneficial

Economy monetised. Regeneration A desk-top based economic impact analysis has estimated the scheme impacts on jobs and Gross Value Added (GVA). Land value uplift has not been estimated.These benefits have not been included in the BCR calculation as DfTs latest guidance states that the analysis presented in terms GVA has been estimated at £6.8m (2020 prices). These values however N/A N/A of jobs, GVA and homes can only be used to inform the strategic case of scheme. were not included in the BCR calculations.

Wider Impacts Wider Impacts in terms of agglomeration, output change in imperfectly competitive markets, and N/A Not assessed Not assessed labour supply impacts were not assessed. Noise There are not predicted to be any significant noise operational impacts. N/A Neutral N/A Air Quality Air quality changes have been modelled for receptors in the area. The analysis was carried out for the scheme opening year as this was considered to be the critical year. The results show no changes for most receptors, and a negligible improvement for two. However, according to the traffic modelling undertaken for this project, higher traffic volumes in future years will result in N/A Neutral N/A significantly more congestion in the do minimum scenario than in the scheme scenario. It is therefore expected that for those years the scheme will result in an improvement of air quality at Wraxall roundabout. Greenhouse gases Not assessed. Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) N/A Not assessed Not assessed Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) N/A

Landscape Whilst the Scheme will result in some loss of vegetation and trees, mitigation such as fencing and / or vegetation planting will be explored to be implemented and the existing vegetation that forms N/A Neutral N/A screening for the nearby residential properties should retained as far as practicable.

TownscapeN/A Neutral N/A Historic Environment The Scheme will not have any significant effects due to changes in the setting of designated or non- N/A N/A Neutral designated cultural heritage assets Biodiversity An Extended Phase One Habitat Survey has been undertaken to support the Schemes design development which provides recommendations for mitigation measures to be adopted. Subject to the recommended mitigation measures being implemented, it is considered that the Scheme is N/A Neutral N/A expected to be able to be delivered in accordance with relevant environmental legislation.

Water Environment The Scheme is not considered likely to impact on water resources. As part of the detailed design of the Scheme, the drainage design developed proposes improvements to the drainage network to better drain the area and provide increased storage. It has also been ensured that no additional flood risk impact on adjacent residential properties will be caused as a result of the Scheme up to a N/A Neutral N/A 100 year event plus a 30% allowance for climate change. Environmental Commuting and Other users The improvements to Wraxall Roundabout will increase capacity on a major intersection in the Value of journey time changes(PVB £ 2010) £32.513m highway network, significantly alleviating highway congestion in the short- and long-term. This will Net journey time changes (£) reduce delays, thereby providing economic benefits. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min N/A £32.513m

N/A N/A N/A

Reliability impact on An indicative estimate of reliability is used based on the DfT guidance of taking 10% of the total Commuting and Other users time savings. This indicates an expected moderate beneficial uplift in reliability resulting from the Moderate N/A N/A scheme. Reliability benefits are not included in the reported BCR and as such have not been beneficial monetised. Physical activity The scheme would have no significant impact on physical activity as none of the current crossings are being modified. N/A Neutral N/A

Journey quality The scheme would have no significant impact on journey quality. N/A Neutral N/A

Social Social Accidents A safety review was undertaken to investigate several existing throughabout junctions across the country. The review has shown that these junctions place greater demand on wayfinding. But that, provided appropriate mitigation measures are included, it is expected that the proposed N/A Neutral Not assessed throughabout will present a level of safety similar to or better than the alternative options for this junction. Security The scheme would have no significant impact on security. N/A Neutral N/A Access to services An assessment of accessibility impacts has not been undertaken. N/A Neutral N/A

Affordability The scheme would have no significant impact on affordability. N/A Neutral N/A

Severance An assessment of severance impacts has not been undertaken, but none are expected as no N/A Neutral N/A changes are being made to the pedestrian or cycle crossings. Option and non-use values The scheme would have no significant impact on Option Values. N/A Neutral N/A Cost to Broad Transport The public sector experiences costs associated with Scheme construction, ongoing maintenance PVC=£5.267m (2010 prices) Not required £5.267m Budget and operation of the Scheme. Indirect Tax Revenues Loss of indirect taxation through reductions in fuel duty paid and loss of VAT due to consumers switching expenditure to public transport fares which are zero rated for VAT. Not assessed Not required Public Public Not assessed Accounts