REPORT NO 70020236 HEREFORD TRANSPORT MODEL LOCAL MODEL VALIDATION REPORT
SEPT 2017 Report (3rd Draft)
HEREFORD TRANSPORT MODEL LOCAL MODEL VALIDATION REPORT Herefordshire Council
Project no: 70020236-540 Date: September 2017
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff 2 Tangier Central, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 4AS
Tel: +44 (0) 1823 281 190
www.wsp-pb.com QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION 1ST DRAFT 2ND DRAFT 3RD DRAFT
Remarks
Date April 2017 May 2017 September 2017
Mark Hill Mark Hill Mark Hill Prepared by Glen McAdam Glen McAdam Glen McAdam
Signature
Checked by Marcus Chick Marcus Chick Marcus Chick
Signature
Authorised by Tom Metcalfe Tom Metcalfe Tom Metcalfe
Signature
Project number 70029880-571 70029880-571 70029880-571
Report number 70029880-571\1\1 70029880-571\1\2 70029880-571\1\3
File reference NA NA NA ii
PRODUCTION TEAM
CLIENT
Herefordshire Council Project Mairead Lane Manager
Herefordshire Council Business Jeremy Callard Case Lead Role on Project
Balfour Beatty Living Places Dean Neale Project Manager
Balfour Beatty Living Places Tom Hancock Assistant Project Manager
WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Assistant Transport Planner Glen McAdam
Senior Transport Planner Mark Hill
Associate Tom Metcalfe
Associate Director Marcus Chick
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 CONTENTS Page
1 STUDY OVERVIEW ...... 1
1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1.2 AIMS OF THE LOCAL MODEL VALIDATION REPORT ...... 1
1.3 REFERENCES ...... 2
2 MODEL DESCRIPTION ...... 3
2.1 DEMAND MODELLING SYSTEM ...... 3
2.2 HIGHWAY MODEL INTERACTION ...... 3
2.3 MODEL COVERAGE ...... 3
2.4 SOFTWARE ...... 3
3 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION ...... 5
3.1 OVERVIEW ...... 5
3.2 REFERENCES TO THE HEREFORD TRANSPORT MODEL - REPORT OF HIGHWAY SURVEYS...... 5
3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CALIBRATION DATA ...... 16
3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF VALIDATION DATA ...... 23
4 HIGHWAY MODEL DEVELOPMENT ...... 25
4.1 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT ...... 25
4.2 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT ...... 30
4.3 PRIOR TRIP MATRIX TOTALS ...... 44
4.4 MATRIX ESTIMATION ...... 45
4.5 ASSIGNMENT PROCESS ...... 45
4.6 ASSIGNMENT PARAMETERS ...... 47
5 HIGHWAY MODEL CALIBRATION ...... 48
5.1 NETWORK CALIBRATION ...... 48
5.2 CALIBRATION CRITERIA ...... 48 4
5.3 AM PEAK CALIBRATION PRE-MATRIX ESTIMATION ...... 49
5.6 ME2 CHANGES ...... 54
5.7 MODEL CONVERGENCE ...... 55
5.8 AM PEAK CALIBRATION ...... 55
5.9 INTERPEAK CALIBRATION ...... 61
5.10 PM PEAK CALIBRATION ...... 66
5.11 STRESS TEST ...... 71
5.12 SUMMARY ...... 72
6 HIGHWAY MODEL VALIDATION ...... 73
6.1 OVERVIEW ...... 73
6.2 AM VALIDATION...... 73
6.3 INTERPEAK VALIDATION ...... 76
6.4 PM PEAK VALIDATION ...... 79
6.5 ROUTING VALIDATION ...... 81
7 CONCLUSION ...... 83
7.1 AM PEAK MODEL...... 83
7.2 INTERPEAK MODEL...... 83
7.3 PM PEAK MODEL ...... 83
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 4 5
TABLES
TABLE 3-1: 2016 ROADSIDE INTERVIEW SURVEY LOCATIONS ...... 6 TABLE 3-2: 2016 CAR PARK LOCATIONS ...... 7 TABLE 3-3: 2016 ATC SITES ...... 9 TABLE 3-4: 2016 MCJC SITES ...... 12 TABLE 3-5: ATC SITES NOT USED IN CALIBRATION/VALIDATION PROCESS ...... 17 TABLE 3-6: LINKS COUNTS USED IN CALIBRATION PROCESS ...... 17 TABLE 3-7: MCJC SITES USED IN CALIBRATION PROCESS ...... 22 TABLE 3-8: LINKS COUNTS USED IN VALIDATION PROCESS ...... 23 TABLE 4-1: DEFAULT ROUNDABOUT PARAMETERS ...... 26 TABLE 4-2: ROUNDABOUT SATURATION FLOWS ...... 27 TABLE 4-3: PRIORITY JUNCTION SATURATION FLOWS (PCUS) ...... 27 TABLE 4-4: SIGNALISED JUNCTION SATURATION FLOWS (PCUS) ...... 27 TABLE 4-5: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING MODELLED ...... 28 TABLE 4-6: USER CLASSES, VEHICLE TYPES AND TRIP PURPOSES ...... 32 TABLE 4-7: MATRIX COMPOSITION ...... 33 TABLE 4-8: CAR INTERVIEW TRIP PURPOSES ...... 35 TABLE 4-9: LGV INTERVIEW TRIP PURPOSES ...... 36 TABLE 4-10: SURVEY PERIOD TO PEAK HOUR ALLOCATION ...... 36 TABLE 4-11: RSI INBOUND INTERVIEWS ...... 37 TABLE 4-12: RSI INBOUND TRIPS ...... 37 TABLE 4-13: CAR PARK INTERVIEWS ...... 38 TABLE 4-14: RSI OUTBOUND INTERVIEWS ...... 39 TABLE 4-15: RSI REVERSE TRIP PROPORTIONS ...... 40 TABLE 4-16: TOTAL OBSERVED TRIPS (VEHICLES) ...... 40 TABLE 4-17: WEEK TO DAY FACTOR ...... 42 TABLE 4-18: PERIOD TO HOUR FACTOR...... 42 TABLE 4-19: TOTAL INTERNAL TRIPS (VEHICLES) ...... 43 TABLE 4-20: TOTAL EXTERNAL TO EXTERNAL TRIPS (VEHICLES) ...... 43 TABLE 4-21: TOTAL HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES (VEHICLES) ...... 44 TABLE 4-22: PRIOR MATRIX TOTALS (VEHICLES)...... 44 TABLE 4-23: COMPOSITION OF PRIOR MATRIX (VEHICLES) ...... 44 TABLE 4-24: ASSIGNMENT GENERALISED COSTS ...... 47 TABLE 5-1: AM PEAK – SCREEN LINE FLOWS – PRE ME2 ...... 49 TABLE 5-2: AM PEAK – LINK COUNT CALIBRATION SUMMARY – PRE ME2 ...... 49 TABLE 5-3: AM PEAK – KEY CALIBRATION TURNING MOVEMENTS SUMMARY – PRE ME2 ...... 50 TABLE 5-4: INTERPEAK – PRE-ME2 JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION...... 50 TABLE 5-4: INTERPEAK – SCREEN LINE FLOWS – PRE ME2 ...... 51 TABLE 5-5: INTERPEAK – LINK COUNT CALIBRATION SUMMARY – PRE ME2 ..... 51 TABLE 5-6: INTERPEAK – KEY CALIBRATION TURNING MOVEMENTS SUMMARY – PRE ME2 ...... 51 TABLE 5-7: INTERPEAK – PRE-ME2 JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION...... 52 TABLE 5-7: PM PEAK – SCREEN LINE FLOWS – PRE ME2...... 52 TABLE 5-8: PM PEAK – LINK COUNT CALIBRATION SUMMARY – PRE ME2 ...... 53
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 5 6
TABLE 5-9: PM PEAK – LINK COUNT CALIBRATION SUMMARY – PRE ME2 ...... 53 TABLE 5-11: PM PEAK – PRE-ME2 JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION ...... 53 TABLE 5-10: MATRIX TOTALS – BEFORE AND AFTER ME2 SUMMARY ...... 54 TABLE 5-11: KEY STATISTICS – ME2 CHANGES – LIGHT VEHICLES COMPARISON ...... 54 TABLE 5-12: MODEL STABILITY SUMMARY – POST ME2...... 55 TABLE 5-13: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RSI INBOUND CORDON...... 55 TABLE 5-14: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RSI OUTBOUND CORDON ...... 56 TABLE 5-15: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - CITY CENTRE INBOUND CORDON ...... 57 TABLE 5-16: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - CITY CENTRE OUTBOUND CORDON ...... 57 TABLE 5-17: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RAIL- NORTH EASTBOUND SCREEN LINE...... 58 TABLE 5-18: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RAIL- NORTH WESTBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 58 TABLE 5-19: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RIVER WYE NORTHBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 59 TABLE 5-20: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RIVER WYE SOUTHBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 59 TABLE 5-21: AM PEAK –LINK COUNT CALIBRATION SUMMARY – POST ME2 ...... 59 TABLE 5-22: AM PEAK – KEY CALIBRATION TURNING MOVEMENTS SUMMARY – POST ME2 ...... 60 TABLE 5-23: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RSI INBOUND CORDON...... 61 TABLE 5-24: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RSI OUTBOUND CORDON ...... 62 TABLE 5-25: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - CITY CENTRE INBOUND CORDON ...... 62 TABLE 5-26: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - CITY CENTRE OUTBOUND CORDON ...... 63 TABLE 5-27: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RAIL- NORTH EASTBOUND SCREEN LINE...... 63 TABLE 5-28: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RAIL- NORTH WESTBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 64 TABLE 5-29: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RIVER WYE NORTHBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 64 TABLE 5-30: INTERPEAK - MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RIVER WYE SOUTHBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 65 TABLE 5-31: INTERPEAK – ALL CALIBRATION LINK COUNT RESULTS – POST ME2...... 65 TABLE 5-32: INTERPEAK – ALL KEY CALIBRATION TURNING MOVEMENTS RESULT – POST ME2 ...... 65 TABLE 5-33: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RSI INBOUND CORDON...... 66 TABLE 5-34: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES - RSI OUTBOUND CORDON ...... 67
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 6 7
TABLE 5-35: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – CITY CENTRE INBOUND CORDON ...... 67 TABLE 5-36: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – CITY CENTRE OUTBOUND CORDON ...... 68 TABLE 5-37: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RAIL NORTH EASTBOUND SCREEN LINE...... 68 TABLE 5-38: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RAIL NORTH WESTBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 69 TABLE 5-39: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RIVER WYE NORTHBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 69 TABLE 5-40: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – RIVER WYE SOUTHBOUND SCREEN LINE ...... 70 TABLE 5-41: PM PEAK LINK CALIBRATION RESULT – POST ME2 ...... 70 TABLE 5-42: PM PEAK - ALL KEY CALIBRATION TURNING MOVEMENTS RESULT – POST ME2 ...... 70 TABLE 5-43: STRESS TEST – SUMMARY STATISTICS...... 71 TABLE 5-44: STRESS TEST – LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS – NO. OF LINKS ...... 71 TABLE 6-1: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – INNER CORDON INBOUND...... 73 TABLE 6-2: AM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – INNER CORDON OUTBOUND ...... 74 TABLE 6-3: AM PEAK, POST ME2 MODEL JOURNEY TIMES (MINUTES) ...... 75 TABLE 6-4: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – INNER CORDON INBOUND...... 76 TABLE 6-5: INTERPEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – INNER CORDON OUTBOUND ...... 77 TABLE 6-6: INTERPEAK - POST ME2 MODEL JOURNEY TIMES (MINUTES) ...... 77 TABLE 6-7: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – INNER CORDON INBOUND...... 79 TABLE 6-8: PM PEAK – MODELLED VS OBSERVED VEHICLES – INNER CORDON OUTBOUND ...... 80 TABLE 6-9: PM PEAK - POST ME2 MODEL JOURNEY TIMES (MINUTES) ...... 80 TABLE 6-10: ROUTES FOR ORIGIN-DESTINATION ANALYSIS ...... 82
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 7 8
FIGURES
FIGURE 3-1: 2016 ROADSIDE INTERVIEW LOCATIONS ...... 6 FIGURE 3-2: 2016 CAR PARK LOCATIONS ...... 8 FIGURE 3-3: LOCATION OF ATC SITES...... 11 FIGURE 3-4: LOCATION OF MANUAL CLASSIFIED JUNCTION COUNT SITES ...... 14 FIGURE 3-5: JOURNEY TIME ROUTES ...... 15 FIGURE 3-6: JOURNEY TIME ROUTE 5A & 5B ...... 16 FIGURE 3-7: LINK COUNTS USED IN CALIBRATION PROCESS, HEREFORDSHIRE ...... 19 FIGURE 3-8: LINK COUNTS USED IN CALIBRATION PROCESS, HEREFORD CITY ...... 19 FIGURE 3-9: RSI AND CITY CENTRE SCREEN LINES ...... 20 FIGURE 3-10: RIVER WYE AND RAIL NORTH SCREEN LINES ...... 21 FIGURE 3-11: MCJC SITES USED IN CALIBRATION PROCESS ...... 23 FIGURE 3-12: INNER CORDON USED IN VALIDATION PROCESS ...... 24 FIGURE 4-1: EXTENT OF SIMULATION AREA ...... 25 FIGURE 4-2: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IN THE HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT MODEL ...... 29 FIGURE 4-3: BUS ONLY LINK IN THE HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT MODEL ...... 30 FIGURE 4-4: MATRIX DEVELOPMENT FLOW DIAGRAM ...... 34 FIGURE 6-1: AM PEAK - POST ME2 MODEL JOURNEY TIME GRAPH ...... 75 FIGURE 6-2: INTERPEAK - POST ME2 MODEL JOURNEY TIME GRAPH ...... 78 FIGURE 6-3: PM PEAK - POST ME2 MODEL JOURNEY TIME GRAPH ...... 81
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 8 1
1 STUDY OVERVIEW 1.1 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 In March 2016, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP | PB) were commissioned by Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) on behalf of Herefordshire Council (HC) to build a multi-modal transport model of Hereford. The Hereford Transport Model (HTM) is a combination of a highway assignment model developed in SATURN1, and a supporting mode choice model produced in VISUM.
1.1.2 In order to fulfil the requirements of Unit M3.1 of WebTAG a new highway assignment model, using the SATURN suite of programs, has been created to reflect the highway network of Hereford and the surrounding areas. This will provide the highway assignment element of the Hereford Transport Model (HTM). The reasons for this are documented in the South Wye Transport Package Appraisal Specification Report2 (SWTP ASR).
1.1.3 The primary purpose of the highway assignment model is to assess the package of transport measures that are being proposed within the South Wye Transport Package (SWTP) and the Hereford Transport Package (HTP).
1.1.4 The measures included within the SWTP are:
à A new Southern Link Road (SLR) that links the A49/B4399 Roundabout with the A465; and à Active travel measures (ATMs) that include improvements to walking and cycling facilities in the South Wye area.
1.1.5 The measures included within the HTP are:
à Full bypass to the west of Hereford that is a continuation of the SLR to the A49 north of the A4103 Roman Road; and à Further as yet unidentified ATMs.
1.1.6 The objectives of the highway assignment model are to provide a suitable base from which to forecast traffic growth and assess the likely impact of the SWTP and HTP.
1.2 AIMS OF THE LOCAL MODEL VALIDATION REPORT
1.2.1 The aims of the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) are:
à To describe the transport model; à To summarise the data sources used within the model development; à To detail the methodology behind the trip matrix and network development;
1 SATURN – Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks 2 South Wye Transport Package Appraisal Specification Report – 70020236-540
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 1 2
à To demonstrate the model calibration and validation and compliance with WebTAG Unit M3- 1; and à To demonstrate the model suitability for trip forecasting and scheme appraisal. 1.3 REFERENCES
1.3.1 The following information sources have been referenced in the development of the models:
à Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes - Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 12.1.1; à Transport Analysis Guidance Website, WebTAG; à SATURN, User Manual, (Atkins, 2015); and à Hereford Transport Model Report of Highway Surveys 70020236-1 (WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff, February 2017).
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 2 3
2 MODEL DESCRIPTION 2.1 DEMAND MODELLING SYSTEM
2.1.1 The highway assignment model is a part of the HTM which is a multi-modal model. The highway assignment model represents vehicular demand and assignment and provides travel costs for the mode choice model. The mode choice model is external to the highway assignment model and represents the demand to travel by rail, bus, cycling and walking modes.
2.1.2 The highway assignment model is a strategic macroscopic model, which assigns traffic to routes based of the cost of travel derived by the time taken and the distance travelled.
2.1.3 The highway assignment model only contains vehicular trips representing the standard vehicle classifications as defined in paragraph 2.6 of WebTAG Unit M3-1. This includes Cars, Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs), and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The cars have been split into Commute, Employer’s Business, Other and Education. The Employer’s Business, Other and Education have been further split into non-home based and home-based trips. HGVs are disaggregated into Other Goods Vehicle 1 (OGV1) and Other Goods Vehicle 2 (OGV2) vehicle types. This is to aid with splitting outputs into what is required for future variable demand modelling. Buses are included on fixed routes and frequencies in the assignment for the purposes of modelling the capacity of link and junctions and do not represent person trips.
2.1.4 No other modes of travel are included within the highway assignment model and there is no specific parking model contained within the highway assignment model.
2.2 HIGHWAY MODEL INTERACTION
2.2.1 The highway assignment model will form part of the Hereford Transport Model (HTM). Other components of the model include the non-highway mode choice model that will be developed using VISUM. The highway assignment model will interact with the mode choice model for the purposes of the variable demand model which will be developed using the DIADEM software package.
2.2.2 The highway assignment model does not interact with any land use models, slow mode models or park-and-ride models. The highway assignment does not include a specific parking model but does include specific model parking zones as detailed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2.
2.3 MODEL COVERAGE
2.3.1 The detailed model coverage has been designed to incorporate the proposed schemes within the SWTP and the HTP. This area is described in greater detail in Section 4.1 of this report.
2.4 SOFTWARE
2.4.1 The model was constructed with SATURN version 11.3.12F.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 3 4
2.4.2 SATURN is a suite of flexible network analysis programs developed at the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds and distributed by Atkins Transport Planning of Epsom since 1981. It has six basic functions which are as follows:
à As a combined traffic simulation and assignment model for the analysis of road-investment schemes ranging from traffic management schemes over relatively localised networks (typically of the order of 100 to 200 nodes) through to major infrastructure improvements where models with over 1,000 junctions are not infrequent; à As a “conventional” traffic assignment model for the analysis of much larger networks with up to 6,000 links in the standard version, 37,500 in the largest version; à As a simulation model of individual junctions; à As a network editor, database and analysis system; à As a matrix manipulation package which can be used for the production of trip matrices; and à As a trip matrix demand model covering the basic elements of trip distribution, modal split etc.
2.4.3 This SATURN programme is best tool to use to develop a model for this study area because:
à Junctions within the fully modelled area provide a better representation of junction performance and interaction than other modelling programs such as VISUM; à SATURN’s ability to interact with DIADEM to undertake potential variable demand testing; and à Potential integration of a SATURN highway model with a VISUM mode choice model, with scripting developed to facilitate the transfer of matrices between the models.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 4 5
3 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION 3.1 OVERVIEW
3.1.1 The following section provides an overview of the data collected for the model development, calibration and validation, including:
à Roadside Interview Data (RSIs) à Car Park Interview Data (CPIs) à Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) à Manual Classified Junction Counts (MCJCs) à Manual Classified Link Counts (MCLCs) à Journey Time Data 3.2 REFERENCES TO THE HEREFORD TRANSPORT MODEL - REPORT OF HIGHWAY SURVEYS
3.2.1 The Hereford Transport Model Report of Highway Surveys3 (RHS) gives full detail as to the data collection methodology, results, validity and reliability of all the data sources.
ROADSIDE INTERVIEW DATA
3.2.2 RSI surveys were undertaken at 14 locations on the outskirts of Hereford. These surveys were carried out for 12 hours (from 07:00 to 19:00) in the inbound direction towards Hereford and were accompanied by a MCLCs and ATCs to expand the RSI sample data and to correct for any reassignment of traffic on the day of the survey.
3.2.3 ATC surveys were collected for a two week period before and after the RSI to examine the potential variation in the volume traffic passing the site on the day of the RSI.
3.2.4 The RSI surveys collected information on vehicle type, vehicle occupancy, trip origin, trip destination, return trip data and the reason for travel. The data from these surveys has been used in the matrix development as detailed in Section 4.2.
3.2.5 Further details about the cleaning and processing of the data, and any issues encountered, are provided in the RHS. Table 3-1 summarises the site locations and the dates of the surveys and Figure 3-1 identifies the relative location of the surveys to each other and to the Area of Detailed Modelling.
3 Hereford Transport Model Report of Highway Surveys 70020236-1
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 5 6
Table 3-1: 2016 Roadside Interview Survey Locations SITE NO. SITE NAME DATE RSI 1 A49, west of Aconbury Hill, Northbound Tue 28th June 2016 RSI 2 B4349, The Bines in Clehonger, Eastbound Tue 21st June 2016 RSI 3 A438, Basmati restaurant lay-by, Westbound Tue14th June 2016 RSI 4 A480, Stretton Sugwas roundabout, Southbound Tue14th June 2016 RSI 5 A410, north arm of A4103/A4110 signalised jct, Southbound Thu 7th July 2016 RSI 6 A49, east of Dinmore, Southbound Thu 30th June 2016 RSI 7 A4103, north arm of Ayleston Hill roundabout, Southbound Thu 30th June 2016 RSI 8 A4103, east arm of Ayleston Hill roundabout, Southbound Tue 5th July 2016 RSI 9 A438, Frome Park bus stop, Northbound Tue 5th July 2016 RSI 10 B4224, lay-by near Mordiford, Westbound Tue 12th July 2016 RSI 11 B4399, east of Straight Mile/Chapel Rd rbt, Westbound Tue 28th June 2016 RSI 12 Tillington road, bus stop south of St. Mary’s Ln, Southbound Thu 7th July 2016 RSI 13 Green Crize, Northbound Tue 12th July 2016 RSI 14 A465, lay-by north of Goosepool, Northbound Tue 21st June 2016
Figure 3-1: 2016 Roadside Interview Locations
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 6 7
CAR PARK INTERVIEW DATA
3.2.6 CPI surveys were undertaken at 20 locations across Hereford. These surveys were carried out for 12 hours (from 07:00 to 19:00) and were accompanied by an MCLCs to monitor the sites occupancy and expand the data collected.
3.2.7 The interview surveys collected information on vehicle type, vehicle occupancy, trip origin, trip destination, return trip data and the reason for travel. Further details about the cleaning and processing of the data, and any issues encountered, are provided in the RHS. Table 3-2 summarises the site locations and the dates of the surveys and Figure 3-2 shows the relative locations of the car parks.
Table 3-2: 2016 Car Park Locations Site No. Site Name Date CPI 1 Merton Meadow Tue 19th July 2016 CPI 2 Garrick Multi-Storey Thu 9th June 2016 CPI 3 Maylord Orchards Shopping Centre Thu 9th June 2016 CPI 4 Station Approach Thu 9th June 2016 CPI 5 Bus Station – Commercial Road Thu 9th June 2016 CPI 6 Kyrle Street Thu 9th June 2016 CPI 7 Venns Close/Symonds Street Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 8 Bath Street Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 9 Gaol Street Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 10 West Street Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 11 Friars Street Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 12 Greyfriars Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 13 Wye Street Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 14 St Martins Avenue Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 15 St Martins Avenue (overflow) Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 16 Tesco (Bewell Street superstore) Thu 9th June 2016 CPI 17 Sainsbury’s (Grimmer Road) Tue 14th June 2016 CPI 18 Newton Road Retail Park Tue 5th July 2016 CPI 19 City Walls (Bath Street) Tue 7th June 2016 CPI 20 Hereford Station (Commercial Road) Thu 9th June 2016
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 7 8
Figure 3-2: 2016 Car Park Locations
AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
3.2.8 ATCs were undertaken at 59 locations across the modelled network, including 14 which were used on the RSI sites. 51 of these counts were undertaken by data collection specialists Tracsis for a six week period between Monday 6th June 2016 and Sunday 17th July 2016. Eight sites are managed on a long term basis by HC.
3.2.9 All of the ATC data was subject to accuracy checks and converted into a common month and base year of June 2016. This process is described in detail in the RHS.
3.2.10 Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3 show the location of the ATC sites.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 8 9
Table 3-3: 2016 ATC Sites A49 by Norton 30 Tracsis Brook Farm Agent B4399 Near Ridge ATC Site Site Name 31 Tracsis Covering Hill B4224 by West 32 Tracsis Bridge Sollers Wood 1 Tracsis Near A438 A49 South of A4110 Three Elms Holme Lacey 2 Tracsis 33 Tracsis Road Road, North of Pencroft Road 3 Holmer Road Tracsis A49, north of A4103 Roman 4 Tracsis Grafton Lane, Road by Holmer 34 south of A49 Tracsis A4103 Roman 5 Tracsis junction with Road B4399 6 Aylestone Hill Tracsis A465, north of junction with 7 College Road Tracsis 35 Tracsis Church Road 8 Old School Lane Tracsis (Goose Pool) A438 Kings Acre 9 Tracsis Grafton Lane Road (north), on A49 by approach to 10 Tracsis 36 Tracsis Widemarsh Brook junction with B4359 Newtown 11 Tracsis A49(T), south of Road railway bridge 12 Burcott Road Tracsis Grafton Lane A438 Ledbury (south), on 13 Tracsis Road approach to 37 Tracsis 14A & A438 Newmarket junction with Tracsis 14B Street A49(T) (by A438 Ledbury Renault Garage) 15 Tracsis A438, West of Road 38 HC 16 B4224 Eign Road Tracsis Lugwardine 17A & B4224, Hampton A49 Bridge Tracsis 39 HC 17B Park Road B4399, The Hunderton Road 18 Tracsis Straight Mile, by Hunderton 40 HC North of Dinedor 19 Belmont Road Tracsis Hill A465 Newton B4399, Norton 20 Tracsis 41 HC Coppice Brook Holme Lacy Road A438, By Broomy 21 Tracsis 42 HC by Red Hill Hill 22 The Straight Mile Tracsis 43 Edgar Street HC 23 The Straight Mile Tracsis A438, Opposite 24 Watery Lane Tracsis 44 Maylord Shopping HC Lower Bullingham Centre 25 Tracsis A465, on Crossing Lane 45 HC 26 Hoarwithy Road Tracsis with Railway Line A49 South, West 27 Bullingham Lane Tracsis R1 Tracsis of Aconbury Hill Ross Road (Red 28 Tracsis B4349, The Bines Hill) R2 Tracsis in Clehonger Near Haywood 29 Tracsis Lodge Farmhouse
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 9 10
A438 West of R3 Stretton Sugwas Tracsis Junction Stretton Sugwas R4 Roundabout, Tracsis Northern Arm A4103/A4110 Signalised R5 Tracsis Junction, North Arm A49, East of R6 Tracsis Dinmore Aylestone Hill R7 Roundabout, Tracsis Northern Arm Aylestone Hill R8 Roundabout, Tracsis Eastern Arm R9 A438 Frome Park Tracsis B4224, North East R10 Tracsis of Mordiford B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road R11 Tracsis Roundabout, Eastern Arm Tillington Road by R12 Tracsis Bronte Cottages R13 A438, Green Crize Tracsis A465, North of R14 Tracsis Goose Pool
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 10 11
Figure 3-3: Location of ATC Sites
MANUAL CLASSIFIED JUNCTION COUNTS
3.2.11 MCJCs were undertaken at 66 locations across the modelled network, in addition to the MCLCs conducted in line with RSIs. .
3.2.12 Table 3-4 and Figure 3-4 show the location of all of the MCJC sites. All of the turning count data was subject to accuracy checks as described in detail in the RHS. 12
Table 3-4: 2016 MCJC Sites MCJC SITE MCJC SITE NAME DATE NO. MCJC 1 A480 Stretton Sugwas Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 2 Roman Road/Canon Pyon Road Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 3 Holmer Road/Attwood Lane Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 4 Holmer Road /Roman Road Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 5 Roman Road/Old School Lane Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 6 Roman Road/College Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 7 Roman Road/Aylestone Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 8 A465/A4103 Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 9 Three Elms Road/Grandstand Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 10 College Road/Old School Lane Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 11 A438/A480 by Kings Acre Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 12 Grandstand Road/Yazor Road Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 13 Grandstand Road/Holmer Road Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 14 Edgar Street/Holmer Road Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 15 B459/College Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 16 College Road by College Hill Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 17 Barrs Court Road by Train Station Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 18 Aylestone Road/Barrs Court Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 19 Aylestone Hill/Bodenham Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 20 Aylestone Hill/Folly Lane Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 21 Aylestone Hill/Venn’s Lane Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 22 Folly Lane/Bodenham Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 23 Ledbury Road/Folly Lane Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 24 A438/Hampton Dean Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 25 Edgars Street near Widemarsh Brook Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 26 A438/B4359 Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 27 A438/A465 Commercial Hill Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 28 A438/Kyrle Street Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 29 A438/Symonds Street Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 30 Ledbury Road/Hafod Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 31 Hampton Dene Road/Gorsty Lane Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 32 White Cross Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 33 White Cross by Rylands Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 34 Edgar Street Roundabout Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 35 Whitecross Road/A49 Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 36 Victoria Street/West Street Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 37 West Street/Broad Street Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 38 Breinton Road/Westfailing Street Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 39 Broomy Hill/Barton Road Tue 28th June 2016 MCJC 40 Victoria Street/Barton Road Tue 28th June 2016
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 12 13
MCJC SITE MCJC SITE NAME DATE NO. MCJC 41 St Nicholas Street/Berrington Street Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 42 A438/St Owen Street Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 43 Green Street/Mill Street Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 44 Eign Road/Ledbury Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 45 Eign Road/Outfall Works Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 46 Hampton Park Road/Vineyard Road Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 47 Hampton Park Road/Old Eign Hill Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 48 Hampton Park Road/Sudbury Avenue Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 49 Bartonsham Tue 21st June 2016 MCJC 50 A49/St Martins Street Thu 30th June 2016 MCJC 51 A49/A465 Roundabout Thu 30th June 2016 MCJC 52 Ross Road/Hinton Road Thu 30th June 2016 MCJC 53 Belmont Road/Walnut Tree Avenue Thu 30th June 2016 MCJC 54 Belmont Road/Hunderton Road Thu 30th June 2016 MCJC 55 Walnut Tree Avenue/A49 Ross Road Thu 7th July 2016 MCJC 56 Holme Lacy Road/Hoarwithy Road Tue 14th June 2016 MCJC 57 Holme Lacy Rd/Lower Bullingham Ln Tue 14th June 2016 MCJC 58 The straight Mile by Dinedor Hill Tue 14th June 2016 MCJC 59 Belmont Road/Beattie Avenue Thu 7th July 2016 MCJC 60 Ross Road by Red Hill Thu 7th July 2016 MCJC 61 Newton Brook Roundabout Tue 5th July 2016 MCJC 62 Ross Road/Grafton Lane Thu 7th July 2016 MCJC 63 B4349 by Golden Post Cottage Tue 5th July 2016 MCJC 64 B4349/A465 by Newton Coppice Tue 5th July 2016 MCJC 65 Bullinghope Roundabout Thu 7th July 2016 MCJC 66 Haywood Lane/A465 Junction Tue 5th July 2016
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 13 14
Figure 3-4: Location of Manual Classified Junction Count sites
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 14 15
JOURNEY TIME DATA
3.2.13 Journey time data from HC and Trafficmaster was collected for the four routes which form the Local Transport Plan 2 monitoring programme. The routes are as follows:
à Route 1 (Red Route) – Running between the A49 (at junction for Herefordshire Golf Academy) in the north of Hereford to the A49/Grafton Lane junction in the south of Hereford. à Route 2 (Blue Route) – Running between the A465/Ruckhall Lane junction in the west of Hereford to the A4103/Roman Road roundabout junction to the east of Hereford. à Route 3 (Green Route) – Running between the A438/A480 junction in the west of Hereford to the A438/Rhystone Lane junction in the east of Hereford. à Route 4 (Orange Route) – Running from Tillington Road (just north of the junction with the A4103) in the north of Hereford to the B4224 near Hampton Bishop to the south of Hereford.
Figure 3-5: Journey Time Routes
3.2.14 A comparison between the HC and Trafficmaster data sets showed significant differences. The Trafficmaster data contains a greater number of observations and therefore provides a more statistically reliable estimate. The Trafficmaster data is also better aligned with the modelled peak hours because only observations taken within the modelled hours were used for the model validation. The HC data, whilst probably more detailed, does not have the volume of observations to provide a statistically reliable estimate of the average travel times and the variability of travel times around the average.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 15 16
3.2.15 The TrafficMaster dataset was expanded since the Report of Surveys in order to include a 5th route. This means that all major routes in and out of Hereford have their journey times validated in the LMVR. The fifth route is shown in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-6: Journey Time Route 5A & 5B 3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CALIBRATION DATA ATC DATA
3.3.1 The ATC data set was separated into sites which were to be used in either the calibration or validation of the highway assignment model.
3.3.2 In some cases it was necessary to remove ATC sites from the model development due to uncertainty over the reliability of the count data. Table 3-5 shows the link counts which have been discarded and the rationale for removing them.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 16 17
Table 3-5: ATC Sites not used in Calibration/Validation Process SITE NUMBER SITE NAME RATIONALE Count site inactive for part of the data 13 A438 Ledbury Road collection period. Issue found when comparing to nearby 14 A438 Newmarket Street MCJC Issue found when comparing to nearby 17 A49 Bridge MCJC Hunderton Road not in full simulation 18 Hunderton Road network Issue found when comparing to nearby 39 HC B4224, Hampton Park Road MCJC B4399, The Straight Mile, North of 40 HC Count replicated Dinedor Hill 41 HC B4339, Norton Brook Count replicated A438, Opposite Maylord Shopping Issue found when comparing to nearby 44 HC Centre MCJC
3.3.3 These sites have been suitably replaced by either Webtris (Highways England) data or by using a specific entry/exit from an MCJC site. The final set of calibration data comprises 88 link counts from 44 sites in 2 directions. The link counts used in the calibration of the highway assignment are detailed in Table 3-6 and mapped in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8.
Table 3-6: Links Counts Used in Calibration Process
SITE ID SITE NAME 1 Bridge Sollers near A438 4 A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 5 A4103 Roman Road 10 A49 by Widemarsh Brook 11 B4359 Newtown Road 12 Burcott Road 15 A438 Ledbury Road 16 B4224 Eign Road 19 A465 Belmont Road 21 Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 22 The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 29 Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 30 A49 by Norton Brook Farm 31 B4399 near Ridge Hill 32 B4339, River Wye Crossing 33 A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 34 A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 35 A465, North of Junction with Church Road Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South 36 of railway bridge Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by 37 Renault Garage 38 HC A438, West of Lugwardine
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 17 18
SITE ID SITE NAME 42 HC A438, By Broomy Hill 43 HC A49 Edgar Street 45 HC A465, on crossing with railway line M2 Barton Road (MCJC Link) M3 St Martins Street (MCJC Link) R1 A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill R2 B4349, The Bines in Clehonger R3 A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction R4 Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm R5 A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm R6 A49, East of Dinmore R7 Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm R8 Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm R9 A438, Frome Park R10 B4224, North-east of Mordiford R11 B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm R12 Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages R13 A438, Green Crize R14 A465, North of Goose Pool T7024 A49 Northbound between A40 and A4137 T7028 A49 Southbound between A417 and A4103 T7026 A49 Southbound between B4399 and A466 T7248 A49 Northbound between A465 and A438 near Hereford (South)
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 18 19
Figure 3-7: Link Counts Used in Calibration Process, Herefordshire
Figure 3-8: Link Counts Used in Calibration Process, Hereford City
3.3.4 The link counts are used to form screen lines/cordons across the study area. The following screen lines are to be used in calibration of the model, as viewed in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10:
à RSI à City Centre
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 19 20
à Rail North à River Wye
Figure 3-9: RSI and City Centre Screen lines
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 20 21
Figure 3-10: River Wye and Rail North Screen lines
3.3.5 The rail north screen line shares two count sites with the Inner Cordon which is to be used in the validation. As such, these two sites are reported in the calibration screen line analysis but have not been used in the matrix estimation process. The two sites are:
à ATC Site 8 - Old School Lane à ATC Site 9 - A438 King's Acre Road MCJC DATA
3.3.6 The MCJC data is to be used in the calibration of the highway assignment model and focuses on key turns in the city of Hereford.
3.3.7 The MCJC data used in the calibration of the highway assignment model is detailed in Table 3-7 and shown in Figure 3-11.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 21 22
Table 3-7: MCJC Sites Used in Calibration Process
SITE NO. SITE LOCATION 1 A480 Stretton Sugwas 2 Roman Road/Canon Pyon Road 4 Holmer Road/Roman Road 6 Roman Road/College Road 7 Roman Road/Aylestone Hill 14 Edgar Street/Holmer Road 18 Aylestone Hill/College Road 23 Ledbury Road/Folly Lane 27 A438/A465 Commercial Hill 32 White Cross 34 Edgar Street Roundabout 35 Whitecross Road/A49 40 Victoria Street/Barton Road 42 A438/St Owen Street 48 Hampton Park Road/Sudbury Avenue 51 A49/A465 Roundabout 52 Ross Road/Hinton Road 55 Walnut Tree Avenue/A49 Ross Road 58 The Straight Mile by Dinedor Hill 61 Newton Brook Roundabout 64 B4349/A465 by Newton Coppice 65 Bullinghope Roundabout
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 22 23
Figure 3-11: MCJC Sites Used in Calibration Process 3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF VALIDATION DATA
ATC DATA
3.4.1 The ATC data was allocated into sites which were to be used in either the calibration or validation of the highway assignment model.
3.4.2 The final set of ATC validation data includes 30 link counts from 15 sites in 2 directions. The link counts used in the validation of the highway assignment model are detailed in Table 3-8, and mapped in Figure 3-12.
Table 3-8: Links Counts Used in Validation Process
SITE ID SITE NAME 2 A4110 Three Elms Road 3 A49 Holmer Road 6 Aylestone Hill 7 College Road 8 Old School Lane 9 A438 King's Acre Road 20 A465 Newtown Coppice 23 The Straight Mile (East of Railway Line) 24 Watery Lane 25 Lower Bullingham Lane 26 Hoarwithy Road 27 Bullingham Lane 28 A49 Ross Road (Red Hill) M1 B4224 Hampton Park Road (MCJC Link) M4 A438 Ledbury Road (MCJC Link)
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 23 24
3.4.3 These sites form the Inner Cordon, which can be viewed in Figure 3-12.
Figure 3-12: Inner Cordon Used in Validation Process
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 24 25
4 HIGHWAY MODEL DEVELOPMENT 4.1 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT
DETAILED STUDY AREA
4.1.1 The model is divided into two elements of the network; the simulation network and the buffer network. The simulation network includes the detailed study area that includes the key links and junctions within Hereford and surrounding highway network. The simulation network is to represent the road network as far as Bridge Sollers to the west, the River Wye B3499 Bridge crossing to the east, the A49 South of the A49/B3499 Roundabout and the A49 North near Lugg in the North. The buffer network provides less detail than the simulation network and does not include the modelling of junctions and their impact on travel times. The buffer network becomes coarser the further it is located away from the simulation network. The buffer network extends as far as the M4 in the south, M5 to the East, A470 to Brecon in the West and the A49 as far as Ludlow to the north. The outer buffer network extends as far as to incorporate the entirety of the UK. The outer buffer network is represented by centroid connectors that connect the zone to the buffer network.
4.1.2 The traffic model coverage will include all trips travelling to/from Hereford and within Herefordshire. There is limited coverage for trips between areas located further away from Hereford. i.e. limited coverage for trips travelling from Scotland to London.
4.1.3 The simulation network represents the extent of the detailed study area. The model simulation area is shown in Figure 4-1. A full network diagram is shown in Appendix A.
Figure 4-1: Extent of Simulation Area
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 25 26
LINK CODING
4.1.4 The model network has been built to represent the highway network during the data collection period in June 2016. To accurately code the network, discussions with HC and observations from site visits have been used. Integrated Transport Network (ITN) layer data (by Ordnance Survey, 2015) was used to provide a base network in GIS form to be edited.
4.1.5 Following a detailed inventory of the existing highway network and junction layouts, the primary road network was coded within the assignment model as a series of nodes and links. The SATURN network is presented in Figure 4-1 and in further detail in Appendix A.
4.1.6 Each link was surveyed to determine the link speed, layout and standard of that particular section of road. Node positions were checked using GIS mapping and link lengths checked within the SATURN network building program and validated using GIS.
4.1.7 Within the study area, some of the links are of a substantial length, and the primary source of delay for vehicles along these links is dependent on traffic density and un-modelled junctions. To replicate these delays, key main road and access links were assigned a speed-flow curve. The speed-flow parameters used in the network were based on standard curves contained in the Highway England’s Regional Traffic Model (RTM) Handbook fitted to the formula used in SATURN. The speed flow curves used within the SATURN model are defined in Appendix B. All links within simulation and buffer areas have been assigned a speed flow curve with the exception of stub links and very minor roads.
JUNCTION CODING
4.1.8 Within the base year traffic models there are 2,256 simulated junctions, which include:
à 2,170 priority junctions (type 1); à 60 traffic signals (type 3) of which 31 are pedestrian crossings; and à 26 roundabouts (type 5);
4.1.9 As with the link coding, ITN layer data was used to gain accurate information about the junction.
4.1.10 The saturation flows of the key junctions were estimated using standard formulae for traffic signals and roundabouts that have been developed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL):
à Research Report 67, The prediction of saturation flows for road junctions controlled by traffic signals, (TRL, 1986); à Laboratory Report 942, The traffic capacity of roundabouts, (TRL, 1980); and à Supplementary Report 582, The traffic capacity of major/minor priority junctions, (TRL, 1980).
4.1.11 The default values summarised have been used as a basis for the junctions within the network. These values have been reviewed for the critical junctions within the network and have been altered if deemed appropriate.
4.1.12 The default roundabout parameters used are shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1: Default Roundabout Parameters VERY GEOMETRY MINI SMALL MEDIUM LARGE LARGE Inscribed Diameter (metres) 20 40 60 80 100 Circulation Time (seconds) 6 11 17 23 28
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 26 27
4.1.13 The default saturation flows for the coding of roundabout junctions within the network saturation flows are shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Roundabout Saturation Flows INSCRIBED DIAMETER 20 40 60 80 100 (METRES) Single Lane Narrow 900 950 1000 NA NA <3m, No Flare Single Lane Narrow 1225 1325 1400 NA NA Entry Arm <3m, Flare To 2 Lanes Type Single Lane Normal (Saturation 1050 1075 1150 1200 1250 3.5m, No Flare Flow – Single Lane Normal PCUs) 1475 1550 1625 1700 1800 3.5m, Flare To 2 Lanes Dual No Flare NA 2325 2400 2475 2525 Dual Flare To 3 Lanes NA 2725 2850 2950 3075
4.1.14 The default coding saturation flows for the priority junctions are shown in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3: Priority Junction Saturation Flows (PCUs) SAT FLOW PRIORITY (PCUS) Right Major (give-way) 850 Left Minor (give-way) 750 Straight Minor (give-way) 650 Right Minor (give-way) 650 Unopposed ahead 1960 Unopposed left turn 1960
4.1.15 The default coding saturation flows for the signalised junctions are shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Signalised Junction Saturation Flows (PCUs) ENTRY ARM TYPE LEFT TURN STRAIGHT RIGHT Single Lane Narrow <3m 1650 1900 1700 Single Lane Normal ~ 3.5m 1750 1950 1800 2 Lanes Narrow <6m 3500 3950 3600 2 Lanes Normal ~7m 3600 4100 3700 3 lanes ~10m NA 6200 NA
FLARED LANES
4.1.16 Consideration has been given to the modelling flared lanes throughout the model. Use of the FLAREX parameter has been made to replicate their impact. The parameter adds additional stacking capacity to entry lanes to avoid queued traffic blocking other movements.
4.1.17 This parameter has been applied to both the modelling of designated flared lanes as well as locations where there is an effective road width where vehicles can pass queued vehicles and do not incur a delay. This has been undertaken to align with what is suggested within the SATURN coding manual.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 27 28
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CODING
4.1.18 There are 31 pedestrian crossings located within the modelled area as tabulated in Table 4-5 and mapped in Figure 4-2.
4.1.19 Section 6.4.3.6 of the SATURN manual states that pedestrian crossings (both signalised and zebra crossings) should be coded as a two-arm junction with fixed cycle time and a single red/green stage even though, in practice, it may not operate with such fixed cycles. Site visits informed the extent to which the pedestrian crossings were in use during each modelled time period. The signal timings reflect the information observed.
Table 4-5: Pedestrian Crossing Modelled MAP ID NAME NODE 1 Roman Road (West) 45022 2 Roman Road (East) 40366 3 Three Elms Road 45021 4 Holmer Road (North) 45024 5 Holmer Road (South) 45023 6 College Road 30137 7 Venns Lane 30159 8 Kings Acre Road (West) 45019 9 Kings Acre Road (Centre) 45018 10 Kings Acre Road (East) 45017 11 Whitecross Road Roundabout 40202 12 Yazor Road 45020 13 Westfaling Street 40138 14 Whitecross Road (West) 40190 15 Whitecross Road (East) 40221 16 Eign Street 45016 17 Edgar Street Roundabout, Northbound 45015 18 Broad Street 30179 19 Bath Street 35033 20 St Owens Street 35034 21 Ledbury Road (near Highgrove Bank) 30110 22 Ledbury Road (near Whittern Way) 35038 23 Aylestone Hill 30269 24 Folly Lane 30185 25 Belmont Roundabout (South of River Crossing) 10049 26 Belmont Road (North) 15017 27 Belmont Road (South) 10042 28 Holme Lacey Road (West) 15010 29 Holme Lacey Road (Centre) 20234 30 Holme Lacey Road (East) 20121 31 The Straight Mile 20111
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 28 29
Figure 4-2: Pedestrian Crossing in the highway assignment model
MODELLING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND FREIGHT TRANSPORT
4.1.20 Buses are included in the assignment only for the purposes of modelling the capacity of link and junctions and do not contain any person trips. The bus routes which have been included in the assignment are tabulated in Appendix C.
4.1.21 The only bus priority measure in the highway assignment model is a bus link on the south-east arm of the city centre roundabout. This simulates how bus routes are able to access and egress the Hereford City Bus & Coach station. This is shown in Figure 4-3.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 29 30
Figure 4-3: Bus Only Link in the highway assignment model
4.1.22 Freight transport for Light Good Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles has been included in the matrix composition as detailed in Section 4.2. There are no tolls, variable speed limit links or otherwise specialist links in the study area to consider. Restrictions have been put in place the ban OGV1 and OGV2. The restrictions have been included at the following locations:
à B4224 Wallflower Row – Mordiford (OGV2 banned only) à B4399 Holme Lacy à B4399 near Dinedor à Westfaling Street à Holme Lacy Road – Lower Bullingham à Widemarsh Street - Railway bridge 4.2 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT
ZONE AND SECTOR SYSTEM
4.2.1 The 2016 base model zone plan is initially based on the Census Output Areas. The zones were then aggregated to reflect Middle Super Output Areas (MSOAs) and bigger where they were located outside of detailed study area. The zones were also disaggregated as required to better represent the pattern of travel, for example the explicit modelling of car parks within the City Centre. The Hereford City Centre car parks were assigned separate zones to coincide with the car park survey data.
4.2.2 Where necessary zones are split further to accommodate zone loading onto the modelled network, but zone boundaries never intersect census boundaries. E.g. the modelled zones do not contain elements of different Census Output Areas.
4.2.3 Appendix D illustrates the zoning system used in conjunction with SATURN. There are 657 zones in total, split such that:
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 30 31
à 340 zones are within the RSI cordon. This includes 20 zones which represent car parks in Hereford city centre; à 297 zones are external to the RSI cordon; and à 20 zones are set aside for future development. In the base year model these zones have no trips going to or from them and have ‘dummy’ co-ordinates. These zones have been specified in the base year model to simplify the process for forecasting future years.
4.2.4 The zones each belong to one of the following sectors, which have been mapped in Appendix D:
à Sector 1 - South West Hereford (Belmont) à Sector 2 - South East Hereford (Rotherwas and Green Crize) à Sector 3 - North East Hereford (Tupsley) à Sector 4 - North West Hereford (Broomy Hill and King’s Acre) à Sector 5 - North West Herefordshire à Sector 6 – North East Herefordshire à Sector 7 – South West Herefordshire à Sector 8 – South East Herefordshire à Sector 9 – North Wales à Sector 10 – South Wales à Sector 11 – South West United Kingdom à Sector 12 – South East United Kingdom à Sector 13 – West Midlands à Sector 14 – North & East of the United Kingdom à Sector 15 – Hereford City Centre
DATA SOURCES
4.2.5 WSP | PB has undertaken a comprehensive data collection programme to inform the trip matrix development for the highway assignment model. The data sources have been listed below:
à Roadside Interview data; à Car Park Interview data; à National Trip End Model Data; and à Trafficmaster Origin-Destination Data.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 31 32
4.2.6 The base year observed trip matrices for the car based user classes have been predominantly derived through the use of the 2016 RSI data and 2016 car park data.
4.2.7 Data recorded from RSI and Car Park surveyed directions were assigned movements in relation to the zone plan in Appendix D, whereby a matrix for each of the trip purposes and time periods for Lights (Car and LGVs) were produced, resulting with 378 RSI matrices and 540 Car Park matrices.
4.2.8 As stated in the RHS there were a number of the RSI sites where it was not possible to survey HGVs due to site constraints. Therefore, the HGV matrices generated from the RSI survey data have not been used in the matrix build process.
MATRIX COMPOSITION
4.2.9 This section summarises the process used to generate trip matrices for the 2016 base year highway assignment model.
4.2.10 The trip matrix is disaggregated into multiple trip purposes. The reason for this is to distinguish the trips travelling within the network that have different perceived costs and values of time. This also recognises the fact that the trip purpose is also dependent on the land use type. E.g. trips travelling from a residential zone travelling to an employment zone would have been allocated a commute trip purpose.
4.2.11 Table 4-6 shows how the trip matrices were disaggregated into the following user classes split by trip purpose and vehicle type, in order to address this issue:
Table 4-6: User Classes, Vehicle Types and Trip Purposes
USER CLASS VEHICLE TYPE TRIP PURPOSE 1 Car Commute (HBW) 2 Car Home based Employer’s Business (HBEB) 3 Car Home based Other (HBO) 4 Car Home based Education (HBED) 5 Car Non-home based Employer’s Business (NHBEB) 6 Car Non-home based Other (NHBO) 7 Car Non-home based Education (NHBED) 8 LGV Personal Home based and Non-home based other (Oth) 9 LGV Freight Employer’s business (EB) 10 OGV1 Employer’s business (EB) 11 OGV2 Employer’s business (EB)
4.2.12 Consideration for the transfer of data between the SATURN model and the DIADEM variable demand modelling software and the TUBA economic appraisal software has been considered in setting out the demand segmentation.
4.2.13 The model will be split into three modelled peak hours of an average weekday (Monday to Thursday only) during school term time. The peak periods have been defined as:
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 32 33
à AM Period (7:00am-10:00am) à Interpeak Period (10:00am-3:00pm) à PM Period (4:00pm-7:00pm)
4.2.14 It is proposed to model the peak hour for the AM and PM peak periods. The interpeak will be an average hour between 10:00am and 3:00pm.
4.2.15 The modelled peaks have been listed below:
à AM Peak hour (8:00am-9:00am) à Interpeak hour (average hour for 10:00am until 3:00pm) à PM Peak hour (5:00pm-6:00pm)
4.2.16 The matrix has been split the following areas:
à Internal (within RSI cordon) à Car park à External (outside RSI Cordon)
4.2.17 Table 4-7 shows a matrix that contains the areas of the matrix that represent the movements between the different components of the matrix. The data source used to build each area of the matrix is shown in the table below
Table 4-7: Matrix Composition
Destination Component External External (Not Internal Car Park (Through through Hereford) Hereford)
Car Park Roadside Internal Synthesised Interview Data Interview Data
Combination of Roadside Car Park Car Park Interview + Car Interview Data Park Interview Data Origin Combination of External Roadside Roadside Roadside (Through Interview + Car Interview Data Interview Data Hereford) Park Interview Data External (Not Trafficmaster through Hereford)
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 33 34
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
4.2.18 The methodology used to build the matrices has been summarised in Figure 4-4 below.
Figure 4-4: Matrix Development Flow Diagram
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 34 35
INTERNAL-INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL (THROUGH HEREFORD)
4.2.19 The interview direction trip matrices were generated using the RSI interview direction data. The trip was assigned to the correct matrix using the information recorded from each interview that included:
à time of travel; à origin purpose; à destination purpose; à origin; and à destination.
4.2.20 Table 4-8 and Table 4-9 summarise the user class that each interview was assigned for cars and LGVs respectively. The user classes in the tables refer to Table 4-6 where user classes 1 to 7 are for cars and user classes 8 and 9 are for LGV.
Table 4-8: Car Interview Trip Purposes
DESTINATION PURPOSE
CAR INTERVIEW TRIP Home Work Busi Empl Busi Pers Leis Rec/ Other Educ Friend Visit Hol Shop Tour PURPOSES
Home 31233343333
Work 15566676166 Employers 25566676266 Business Personal 31566676366 Business Recreation 31566676366 / Leisure ORIGIN Other 31566676366 PURPOSE Education 41566676466 Visit 31566676366 Friends Holiday 31233343333 Home Shopping 31566676366
Tourism 31566676366
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 35 36
4.2.21 Table 4-9 below summarises the user classes assigned to the interview for the LGV interviews.
Table 4-9: LGV Interview Trip Purposes
DESTINATION PURPOSE
LGV INTERVIEW TRIP Home Work Busi Empl Busi Pers Leis Rec/ Other Educ Friend Visit Hol Shop Tour PURPOSES
Home 89988888888
Work 99999999999 Employers 99999999999 Business Personal 89988888888 Business Recreation 89988888888 / Leisure ORIGIN PURPOSE Other 89988888888 Education 89988888888 Visit 89988888888 Friends Holiday 89988888888 Home Shopping 89988888888 Tourism 89988888888
4.2.22 The interviews were then assigned to the modelled peak hour matrices based on the time of the interview. All interviews in each modelled time period were used for the modelled hour to make best use of the data collected.
Table 4-10: Survey Period to Peak Hour allocation
SURVEY PERIOD MODELLED HOUR MATRIX
7:00am-10:00am AM Peak (8:00am-9:00am)
10:00am-3:00pm Interpeak (Average hour 10:00am-3:00pm)
4:00pm-7:00pm PM Peak (5:00pm-6:00pm)
4.2.23 Each user class matrix was then stacked to create an interview direction matrix for each RSI site for each modelled hour.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 36 37
4.2.24 The total number of interviews for each modelled hour are summarised in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11: RSI Inbound Interviews
INTERPEAK MODELLED PM PEAK MODELLED USER CLASS AM MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 1 1,483 752 908 2 38 26 25 3 700 2,506 909 4 181 165 87 5 235 493 102 6 167 648 224 7 17 43 14 8 185 163 165 9 117 368 84 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 3,123 5,164 2,518
4.2.25 The RSI interviews were then merged with the car park interviews. This was achieved by assigning car park interview matrices to the network; this identified which RSI site each car park interview travelled through.
4.2.26 At each RSI site, the RSI interviews with a destination in a car park were added to the car park interviews. The resulting number of interviews was factored to equal the original number of RSI interviews for that site with destinations in car parks travelling through the RSI site. This methodology has the benefit of utilising both observed datasets and does not discard data from the matrix entirely.
4.2.27 The matrices were then factored to be equivalent to the total observed trips. They were initially factored to a manual classified count taken on the day of the RSI survey. This was done in order to ascertain the correct car and LGV proportions. The matrix was then factored to match the ATC to ensure an allowance has been made for the possible impact the survey had on the traffic volumes.
Table 4-12: RSI Inbound Trips AM PEAK INTERPEAK PM PEAK USER CLASS MODELLED MODELLED MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 1 2,764 541 1,860 2 73 19 47 3 1,193 1,696 1,653 4 285 107 137 5 472 377 226 6 305 484 434 7 26 26 24 8 373 174 435 9 249 382 231 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 5,740 3,806 5,046
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 37 38
CAR PARK INTERVIEW MATRICES
4.2.28 The car park matrices were built using the same methodology as the RSI matrices. The origin and destination of every interview has been mapped to the HTM network and then assigned to the relevant peak period and user class based on the trip purposes of the origin and destination. The total numbers of car park interviews (CPI) are shown in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13: Car Park Interviews AM INTERPEAK PM PEAK USER CLASS MODELLED MODELLED MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 1 162 110 139 2 9 9 8 3 269 896 298 4 8 9 4 5 4 17 2 6 25 148 61 7 - 4 - 8 9 19 6 9 5 3 3 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 491 1,215 521
4.2.29 The inbound CPI trips that start their journey outside of the RSI cordon (external CPI) or outbound CPI trips that end their journey outside of the RSI cordon (external CPI) have been merged with the RSI matrices due to trips travelling through the RSI cordon being already observed (see section 4.1.14). They have been merged by adding the inbound trips for each car park that has originated (or outbound trips that have a destination outside the RSI cordon) to the RSI trips travelling to/from that specific car park. The total has then been factored to be equivalent to the RSI trips travelling to that car park.
4.2.30 The external CPI trips have been uplifted within the RSI matrix build process. Therefore it was only necessary to apply uplift factors to the car park-internal and internal-car park trips. The factors were calculated by taking into account the already uplifted car park-external and external- car park trips and the observed in/out counts at the car park entrances.
RSI NON-INTERVIEW DIRECTION MATRICES (OUTBOUND)
4.2.31 Each RSI was carried out in a single direction in the inbound (towards Hereford) direction. Each interview contained a question that identifies the peak in which the return trip made in. This data informed the development the non-interview (outbound from Hereford) direction matrix. The return trip was allocated to the corresponding peak hour matrix with the reverse origin and destination zones identified in the interview.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 38 39
4.2.32 The total interviews are summarised Table 4-14.
Table 4-14: RSI Outbound Interviews AM INTERPEAK PM PEAK USER CLASS MODELLED MODELLED MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 1 265 364 1,249 2 18 20 30 3 187 1,577 944 4 51 123 123 5 85 175 179 6 38 312 217 7 4 18 17 8 34 98 145 9 33 89 77 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 715 2,776 2,981
4.2.33 The outbound RSI interviews were also merged with outbound car park interviews using the same method for the inbound trips. They were added together and factored to the number of RSI trips that had an origin in a car park.
4.2.34 Table 4-14 shows that the sample rate on the return trip interviews are skewed towards the PM peak with significantly more interviews recorded. Therefore to uplift these interviews to the observed counts would result in a ‘lumpy’ AM peak outbound matrix.
4.2.35 To ensure a more even sample of interviews were used, the ‘transpose’ of the interview direction from the opposite peak (i.e. AM peak to PM peak, PM peak to AM peak and Interpeak to Interpeak) was factored and added to the non-interview direction interviews. The factor applied to the transpose matrix was calculated so the total number of trips matched the observed MCLC.
RSI Outbound trip matrix = (Return Trips + Transpose Trips * MCLC Factor (so the total equals the MCLC) ) * ATC adjustment factor
4.2.36 This method provided a distribution of trips that utilised more data. It avoids the issue where a low sample rate would cause a lumpy matrix in the AM peak.
4.2.37 As with the inbound direction, the interviews were factored to ascertain the correct car and LGV proportion and then factored again to match the ATC.
4.2.38 To check this method provided a realistic return trip probability, the resulting RSI reverse direction proportions were validated against tour proportions used in Dynamic Integrated Assignment and Demand Modelling v5.0 user manual (DIADEM). DIADEM provides proportions based on National Travel Survey data of trips going out and returning in each time period by trip purpose.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 39 40
4.2.39 Table 4-15 below provides a comparison between the DIADEM tour proportions and the non- interview direction matrices.
Table 4-15: RSI Reverse Trip Proportions REVERSE INTERVIEWED JOURNEY DIADEM RSI DIADEM DIADEM RSI HBEB RSI HBO TIME PERIOD TIME COMMUTE COMMUTE HBEB HBO PERIOD AM 3.7% 7.8% 7.2% 9.4% 27.0% 16.8% IP 20.3% 13.9% 29.6% 20.0% 55.6% 57.1% AM PM 67.6% 64.7% 51.9% 61.9% 16.0% 17.3% OP 8.4% 13.6% 11.4% 8.7% 1.4% 8.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% AM 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.7% IP 26.7% 33.8% 46.8% 48.9% 70.4% 55.8% IP PM 49.5% 37.2% 42.3% 16.5% 25.8% 27.2% OP 23.9% 27.9% 10.9% 33.0% 3.7% 16.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% AM 2.7% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% IP 1.5% 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.9% PM PM 45.7% 39.1% 40.3% 57.9% 57.8% 30.8% OP 50.1% 46.0% 59.7% 42.1% 41.9% 65.2% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4.2.40 The table shows that the DIADEM tour proportions are comparable with the non-interview direction matrices. This shows that they are suitable to be used in the prior trip development.
4.2.41 The tables indicated that an interview for a home based work trip in the morning peak, a commute from home to work, has a 64.7% chance of its return trip occurring in the evening peak period. If an interview for home based work is recorded in the evening period the probability that the “outward” journey was in the morning period is 39.3%.
OBSERVED MATRIX SUMMARY
4.2.42 The RSI and car park trips matrices were then added together to create a trip matrix developed using observed data. The total observed trips generated for each peak hour matrix are summarised Table 4-16.
Table 4-16: Total Observed Trips (Vehicles) AM MODELLED INTERPEAK PM PEAK USER CLASS HOUR MODELLED HOUR MODELLED HOUR 1 4,427 1,074 4,292 2 124 43 119 3 2,596 4,042 3,414 4 431 220 375 5 729 678 605 6 642 1,023 918 7 43 55 49 8 799 315 713 9 500 593 390 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 10,378 8,169 10,893
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 40 41
INTERNAL-INTERNAL (SYNTHETIC MATRIX DEVELOPMENT)
TRIP GENERATION
4.2.43 The elements of the matrix that include only movements between the zones internal to the RSI cordon will be synthesised using trip ends obtained from the National Trip End Model (NTEM) dataset. The trips with an origin or a destination in car park have not been synthesised.
4.2.44 Firstly, average weekly trip end totals for Herefordshire were generated for the following five trip purposes using the National Trip End Model (NTEM):
à Home-based Work (commuting) (HBW); à Home-based Employers Business (HBEB); à Home-based Other (HBO); à Non Home-based Employers Business (NHBEB); and à Non Home-based Other (NHBO).
4.2.45 NTEM input data for the Hereford zones (NTEM/TEMPRO Zones 00GA0 and 00GA1) was split into the 657 model zones using Census and National Land Use Gazetteer data. These areas form a ‘balancing area’ where the total origins and destinations across the area should balance with each other. The trip generation and distribution was undertaken for all zones across the network and then observed movements were removed and replaced with the matrix elements that were derived from observed data.
4.2.46 The trips generated using NTEM datasets need to balance across the specified ‘balancing’ area. This ensures that the gravity model distributes the correct proportion of trips that stay within the RSI cordon to the trips that travel across the RSI cordon. Appendix D illustrates the NTEM boundary and the 340 zones that are internal to the RSI cordon.
4.2.47 The NTEM trips have been combined with census data to calculate the trip purposes generated from each zone based on the levels of housing and employment identified in each zone. The following Census datasets were used at Output Area (OA) level at this stage:
à KS105EQ – Household Composition; à LC4109EW – Car or van availability by age by sex; à LC4609EW – Car of van availability by economic activity; and à QS701EW – Method of Travel to Work.
4.2.48 The following datasets were used to disaggregate the workplace trip end totals:
à WP606EW – Occupation (Minor Codes); and à WP703EW – Method of Travel to Work (at employment place).
4.2.49 Using a GIS package the trip end totals were assigned to the 340 internal zones using weightings derived from the number of relevant addresses in the census and workplace data. Correspondences tables were made to convert the Occupation Codes and the Address Classifications to NTEM land use types. The split inputs were processed using a spread sheet model that replicates the processes that are made within the NTEM Ctripend50.exe program. This produces the calculated origin and destination trip ends by 6 modes, 6 time periods and 15 trip purposes.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 41 42
4.2.50 The relevant trip purposes and trip mode (car driver) and time periods are extracted and further factors are applied to calculate hourly trips on a neutral month weekday from a weekly trip total. The factors applied are as shown in Table 4-17 and Table 4-18.
Table 4-17: Week to Day Factor WEEK DAY FACTOR 1 0.20
Table 4-18: Period to Hour Factor TIME PERIOD HOUR FACTOR AM – 07:00-10:00 0.33 IP – 10:00-15:00 0.20 PM – 16:00-19:00 0.33
4.2.51 These factors reduce the modelled periods to the modelled hours. They have not reflected the proportion of peak hour trips within the peak period. The proportion would have to vary for each location and this would have added a layer of complexity. They have also not reflected the change from average weekday to average weekday period for the same reason. Matrix estimation has been assumed to account for this and therefore these factors have been deemed suitable.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
4.2.52 The trip ends are the primary input for a gravity distribution model. The gravity model distributes the trip ends between model zones using a cost distribution function. This function needs to be calibrated to an existing cost distribution function. This has been obtained from a previous version of a validated model representing Herefordshire.
4.2.53 The gravity model uses a deterrence function to distribute the trip ends between modelled zones. The function chosen is due to a statement in WebTAG Unit M2 stating that the exponential function is the standard one in use and provides the best result when used with a doubly constrained furnessed matrix. The function used for the purposes of this model was:
f(cij) = g-a x e-g x b,
where g is the generalised cost and a and b are the calibration constraints.
4.2.54 The calibration parameters were calculated by analysing the cost distribution function of the previous version of the highway assignment model. This was the model that was updated to a 2014 base year by WSP|PB.
4.2.55 The gravity model essentially creates a utility for every cell in the matrix and then the trip ends are furnessed across the cells. This created the synthesised matrix based on the trip ends generated from the NTEM data.
4.2.56 The gravity model has distributed trips across the entire modelled area. Therefore the observed elements of the matrix have been removed to leave only the unobserved movement that travel within the RSI cordon (Internal to Internal).
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 42 43
4.2.57 Table 4-19 summarises the total number of trips within the internal matrix for each peak hour.
Table 4-19: Total Internal Trips (Vehicles) INTERPEAK PM PEAK AM MODELLED USER CLASS MODELLED MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 1 2,692 735 1,985 2 301 198 275 3 982 2,531 1,879 4 419 317 145 5 406 643 216 6 136 473 306 7 9 12 5 8 329 791 750 9 314 313 269 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 5,588 6,012 5,830
EXTERNAL-EXTERNAL (NOT THROUGH HEREFORD)
4.2.58 The external to external trips that do not travel through the RSI cordon have been developed using the Trafficmaster data. The data has been extracted from the DfT owned dataset made up of trips that have been observed using GPS data. The origin and destinations of each datasets are available and have been mapped to the HTM zone system.
Table 4-20: Total External to External Trips (Vehicles) INTERPEAK PM PEAK AM MODELLED USER CLASS MODELLED MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 1 654 199 622 2 16 7 17 3 310 681 639 4 77 43 60 5 100 130 71 6 71 171 155 7 7 11 10 8 1,528 727 1,524 9 986 1,650 776 10 - - - 11 - - - Total 3,750 3,619 3,875
HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES
4.2.59 Trafficmaster data has been used to generate all trips for user classes 10 and 11. The HGV segment of the matrix was also generated using the Trafficmaster data. This has been undertaken for the entire matrix for user classes 10 and 11. The data included information regarding whether the heavy goods vehicle was OGV1 or OGV2 and allowed the data to be allocated to the correct user class.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 43 44
4.2.60 The totals have been summarised in Table 4-21.
Table 4-21: Total Heavy Goods Vehicles (Vehicles) AM INTERPEAK PM PEAK USER CLASS MODELLED MODELLED MODELLED HOUR HOUR HOUR 10 284 403 176 11 37 37 35 Total 322 440 211
4.3 PRIOR TRIP MATRIX TOTALS
4.3.1 Each element of the matrix was then added together to create the initial ‘prior’ trip matrix. The trip totals for each modelled hour are summarised in Table 4-22 below.
Table 4-22: Prior Matrix Totals (Vehicles) AM PEAK INTERPEAK PM PEAK USER VEHICLE PURPOSE MODELLED MODELLED MODELLED CLASS HOUR HOUR HOUR Car Commute (Com) UC1 7,772 2,008 6,899 Car Home based Employer’s Business UC2 442 247 411 Car Home based Other UC3 3,889 7,254 5,933 Car Home based Education UC4 928 581 580 Non-home based Employer’s Car UC5 1,235 1,451 892 Business Car Non-home based Other UC6 849 1,666 1,380 Car Non-home based Education UC7 59 78 64 LGV Personal Other UC8 2,657 1,833 2,988 LGV Freight Employer’s business UC9 1,801 2,555 1,435 OGV1 Employer’s business UC10 284 403 176 OGV2 Employer’s business UC11 37 37 35 TOTAL 19,954 18,113 20,792
4.3.2 The final composition of the prior trip matrices are summarised in the Table 4-23. It shows that 52% of the AM and PM modelled hour matrices comprise of observed data and 44% of the Interpeak matrix.
Table 4-23: Composition of Prior Matrix (Vehicles) AM PEAK MODELLED INTERPEAK MODELLED PM PEAK MODELLED COMPONENT HOUR HOUR HOUR RSI and CPI 10,294 51.6% 8,042 44.4% 10,875 52.3% SYNTHETIC 5,588 28.0% 6,012 33.2% 5,830 28.0% EXT-EXT 3,750 18.8% 3,619 20.0% 3,875 18.6% HGV 322 1.6% 440 2.4% 211 1.0% TOTAL 19,954 100% 18,113 100% 20,792 100%
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 44 45
4.4 MATRIX ESTIMATION
4.4.1 Matrix estimation was used to further refine the trip matrices to conform the assigned traffic flows to observed counts.
4.4.2 The initial phase of matrix estimation involved manual interventions of the matrix where parts of the matrix were factored to fit with the observed flow. Only trips within cells of the matrix that were generated were modified. This included cells within the RSI cordon that do not travel to or from a car park and external to external movements that do not travel across the RSI cordon. The second phase used the built in SATURN program Matrix Estimation Using Maximum Entropy (ME2) to refine the trips to match observed counts.
4.4.3 All cells which had non-zero values in the observed matrices were frozen to ensure that only non- observed trips were affected by matrix estimation.
4.4.4 The counts used as constraints were input by vehicle class so that the ME2 process would be able to adjust Light (Car and LGV) and HGV (OGV1 and OGV2) trips separately.
4.4.5 Matrix estimation was run as an iterative process with up to 5 iterations completed for each time period.
4.4.6 The XAMAX parameter was used to limit the change that could be made to each cell in the matrix (E.g. a XAMAX value of 1.5 means that the cell value can only change by 50%), between each iteration of matrix estimation. The values were chosen to limit the changes made in order to conform to the matrix change criteria set out by WebTAG Unit M3-1. The XAMAX values used are listed below:
· AM Peak – 1.5
· Interpeak – 2.0
· PM peak – 1.5
4.4.7 Analysis of the impact of the ME2 on the matrix is summarised in section 5.6.
4.5 ASSIGNMENT PROCESS
GENERALISED COST PARAMETERS
4.5.1 The routing algorithms within the traffic model use a generalised cost function as the basis for calculating the varying costs along alternative routes and allocating trips to those routes. The cost of a route is the function of the time taken to travel along that route and the out-of-pocket costs relating to fuel and non-fuel associated with the distance travelled and speed achieved on the route.
4.5.2 Monetary values are attached to these parameters to provide a common unit for this calculation. The resulting model routing algorithm produces a cost for each possible route combining travel time, valued in ‘Pence Per Minute’ (PPM) and travel distance (linked to fuel costs) in ‘Pence Per Kilometre’ (PPK). The algorithm then selects the least cost route(s) for trips for the assignment.
4.5.3 The Pence Per Minute (PPM) model parameter was referenced from the time costs as stated from the TAG data book, worksheet A1.3.5. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/webtag-tag- data-book-july-2016)
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 45 46
4.5.4 The pence per kilometre (PPK) model parameter was based on the time costs from the TAG data book, worksheet A1.3.8. The guidance indicates that vehicle operating costs for economic assessment of schemes are based on a combination of fuel and non-fuel costs.
4.5.5 Generalised cost within a traffic model is used to represent the route choice element in the assignment process. This route choice needs to be based on how the driver perceives the cost of operating the vehicle, and so depends on the perception of these associated costs. Fuel costs are based on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle operating on the network via the following equation:
L = a/v+b+c.V+d.V2
Where;
L = Fuel consumption, expressed in litres per kilometre;
V = average speed, in kilometres per hour; and
a, b, c, d = parameters defined for each vehicle category.
4.5.6 The independent variable within this equation is traffic speed (kph), which is specific to the nature of traffic operating within the study area. Analysis of initial calibration assignments indicated that the study area speeds are as follows:
à AM Peak = 55.5 kph à Inter - Peak = 60.9 kph à PM Peak = 54.8 kph
4.5.7 The resulting fuel consumptions (in litres per kilometre) based on 2010 efficiency improvements taken from WebTAG data book A1.3.10.
4.5.8 The cost of fuel is based on the combination of resource costs, duty and the rate of VAT. This is tabulated in the TAG data book, worksheet A1.3.7.
4.5.9 The resulting costs (pence per km) of fuel for each vehicle type and for work and non-work trips are calculated by utilising the parameters specified above.
4.5.10 Non-fuel operating costs are calculated by vehicle and petrol type. These are calculated in a similar manner to fuel operating costs, whereby, a set of predefined parameters are utilised in conjunction with the following formula;
C = a1 + b1/V Where;
C = cost in ppk (pence per kilometre) travelled; V = average link speed in kilometres per hours; a1 is a parameter for distance related costs defined for each vehicle category, and b1 is a parameter for vehicle capital saving defined for each vehicle category (this parameter is only related to working vehicles)
4.5.11 The parameters in relation to a1 and b1 are stated in the TAG data book, worksheet A1.3.10. To determine the associated non-fuel vehicle costs (pence per km), the initial assignment speeds and non-fuel vehicle cost parameters are applied to the non-fuel operating cost function referenced above.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 46 47
4.5.12 To determine the overall consumption costs respective to our model, the non-fuel operating costs and fuel operating costs are summed and weighted against the vehicle proportions as per fleet proportion data presented in the TAG data book, worksheet A1.3.9. This is representative of the total operating cost (pence per km) respective to the study area.
4.5.13 The generalised costs used in the model assignments are based on the values above and are summarised in Table 4-24 below.
AM PEAK MODELLED INTERPEAK MODELLED PM PEAK MODELLED TRIP MATRIX HOUR HOUR HOUR PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK Car (work) 45.12 13.75 44.22 13.45 41.97 13.80 Car (Commuting) 13.51 11.45 13.24 11.34 12.57 11.46 Car (Other) 16.17 11.45 16.89 11.34 17.60 11.46 LGV (Work) 23.46 18.04 23.46 18.18 23.46 18.03 LGV (Non-Work) 20.07 17.08 20.07 17.12 20.07 17.09 OGV1 21.01 31.07 21.01 30.37 21.01 31.20 OGV2 21.01 58.15 21.01 56.41 21.01 58.43 Table 4-24: Assignment Generalised Costs 4.6 ASSIGNMENT PARAMETERS
4.6.1 Assignment of trips to the highway network was undertaken using Wardrop’s ‘Multiple User Class Equilibrium’ assignment, which seeks to minimise the travel costs for all vehicles in a network. User Equilibrium assignment is based on the following proposition from Section 7 of the SATURN User Manual:
‘Traffic arranges itself on congested networks such that the routes chosen by individual drivers are those with the minimum cost; routes with costs in excess of the minima are not used’.
4.6.2 The cost of travel is expressed in terms of generalised cost, which can be related back to values of time and out-of-pocket costs.
4.6.3 User Equilibrium, as implemented in SATURN, is based on the ‘Frank-Wolfe Algorithm’, which employs an iterative process. This process is based on successive ‘All or Nothing’ iterations to generate a set of combined flows on links that minimise an ‘objective function’. The travel costs are recalculated for each iteration and compared to the previous iteration values. The process being terminated when successive iteration costs do not change significantly.
4.6.4 Convergence of the assignment/simulation loops was achieved when the percentage of assignment links whose assigned flows changed by less than 1% (PCNEAR = 1) and exceeded 98% (RSTOP = 98) for 4 (NISTOP = 4) successive loops.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 47 48
5 HIGHWAY MODEL CALIBRATION 5.1 NETWORK CALIBRATION
5.1.1 The network assessment was undertaken in two stages:
à Utilising the P1X program within the SATURN suite; and à Independent checks.
5.1.2 The initial network validation was done using the P1X program that is a part of the SATURN suite of programs. This provided a list of errors and warnings to check for coding errors to ensure the network was correctly specified. A summary table of residual warnings and errors, and the reason for their retention in the model, has been included in Appendix E.
5.1.3 Independent checks included:
à A review of the input files; à Checking the junction descriptions; à Measuring the link lengths between nodes; à Checking of one-way links; and à Checking of HGV restrictions. 5.2 CALIBRATION CRITERIA REPORTING OF HGVS
5.2.1 HGV’s have not been summarised due to their volume on the road network being minimal, such that they are always likely to pass to flow criteria and fail the screen line criteria. The results for HGVs have been included in Appendix G. The results are therefore tabulated for all vehicles only within this section.
GEH STATISTIC
5.2.2 The GEH statistic has been used to compare observed and assigned flow. The statistic uses the
following formula to calculate a value for the difference between observed (survey data) ( M E )
and modelled ( M G ) (SATURN flow) traffic flow:
2 (ME - MG) GEH Statistic = 0.5(M + M ) E G
5.2.3 The GEH statistic takes account of the fact that when traffic flows are low the percentage difference between observed and modelled flow may be high but the significance of this difference is small and conversely, a small percentage difference on a large base might be important. A GEH value greater than 10 indicates that closer attention is required, as the match between observed and modelled flows is poor, while a GEH less than 5 indicates a very good fit. The aim is to achieve at least 85% links and turns with a GEH less than 5 as specified in TAG Unit M3.1.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 48 49
OVERALL CRITERIA
5.2.4 TAG Unit M3.1 also specifies the following flow validation criteria for links and turns:
· Individual flows within 100 vehicles per hour for flows less than 700 vehicles per hour in more than 85% of cases; · Individual flows within 15% for flows between 700 – 2,700 vehicles per hour in more than 85% of cases; · Individual flows within 400 vehicles per hour for flows greater than 2,700 vehicles per hour in more than 85% of cases; and · Flows across a screen line within 5% of observed. 5.3 AM PEAK CALIBRATION PRE-MATRIX ESTIMATION SCREEN LINE AND CORDON CALIBRATION
5.3.1 Table 5-1 shows the AM peak flow calibration result for all screen lines pre ME2.
Table 5-1: AM Peak – Screen line Flows – Pre ME2 PRE ME2 ALL Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH Diff % DIFF +/- FLOW RSI INBOUND 5,237 5,388 2.1 3% 151 PASS RSI OUTBOUND 4,184 4,155 0.4 -1% -28 PASS TOWN CENTRE INBOUND 6,819 6,140 8.4 -10% -679 FAIL TOWN CENTRE OUTBOUND 5,288 4,651 9.0 -12% -638 FAIL RAIL NORTH EASTBOUND 2,647 2,258 7.9 -15% -389 FAIL RAIL NORTH WESTBOUND 3,663 3,151 8.8 -14% -512 FAIL RIVER WYE NORTHBOUND 2,492 2,579 1.7 3% 87 PASS RIVER WYE SOUTHBOUND 2,188 2,541 7.2 16% 352 FAIL
5.3.2 Table 5-1 shows that the prior matrix provides a reasonable basis to begin matrix estimation. The critical RSI screen line passes at this point which demonstrates that the element of the matrix that has been built using observed data, when assigned to the network, is providing a good representation of total traffic flow entering and exiting the RSI cordon around Hereford.
Link Calibration
5.3.3 A summary for the AM peak flow calibration result for all links pre ME2 (including those not used in the below screen line analysis) is shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: AM Peak – Link Count Calibration Summary – Pre ME2 PRE ME2 ALL GEH OR ALL LINKS GEH < 5 % DFT % % DFT 88 70 80% 68 77% 72 82%
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 49 50
5.3.4 Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 show that the pre ME2 AM peak matrices were replicating link counts to a required standard, such that it was appropriate to proceed with ME2.
TURN CALIBRATION
5.3.5 Table 5-3 shows the AM peak flow calibration result for all key turns pre ME2.
Table 5-3: AM Peak – Key Calibration Turning Movements Summary – Pre ME2 AM - PRE ME2 ALL ALL TURNS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH OR DFT % 271 173 63% 243 89% 243 89%
Note: Counts with observed flows of 0 have been discounted from the analysis.
5.3.6 Table 5-3 shows that the pre ME2 AM peak matrices were replicating turning counts to a reasonable standard, such that it was appropriate to proceed with ME2. The full list of link calibration statistics for the AM peak has been included in Appendix F.
JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION
5.3.7 The journey time validation for the AM Peak Pre-ME2 assignments is shown in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4: AM Peak – Pre-ME2 Journey Time Validation
JOURNEY TIME ROUTES OBS MOD %DIFF PASS
A49 NB - A4137 Jn to Hope under Dinmore - Route 1A 18:22 20:19 11% PASS A49 SB - Hope Under Dinmore to A4317 - Route 1B 14:14 15:18 8% PASS A465 - Belmont Abbey to Lugwardine NB - Route 2A 18:20 20:54 14% PASS A465 - Lugwardine to Belmont Abbey SB - Route 2B 15:51 15:29 2% PASS A438 NB Lugwardine to Swainshill via City Centre - Route 3B 17:23 17:11 1% PASS A438 SB Swainshill to Lugwardine via City Centre - Route 3A 16:35 17:51 8% PASS B4224 Hampton Bishop to Burghill NB - Route 4B 14:17 15:23 8% PASS B4224 Burghill to Hampton Bishop SB - Route 4A 14:27 16:05 11% PASS Grafton to Ross Road via B4399 NB - Route 5A 06:11 06:36 7% PASS Ross Road to Grafton via B4399 SB- Route 5B 06:49 06:45 1% PASS
5.3.8 The table shows that for all routes the modelled journey times are within 15% of the observed. The discrepancies between modelled and observed journey times have been investigated and have been deemed acceptable for this stage of the model calibration. The journey time graphs for the routes have been included in Appendix F.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 50 51
5.4 INTERPEAK CALIBRATION PRE-ME2 SCREEN LINE AND CORDON CALIBRATION
5.4.1 Table 5-5 shows the interpeak flow calibration result for all screen lines pre ME2.
Table 5-5: Interpeak – Screen line Flows – Pre ME2 PRE ME2 ALL DIFF Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH Diff % FLOW +/- RSI INBOUND 3,378 3,563 3.1 5% 185 PASS RSI OUTBOUND 3,279 3,321 0.7 1% 42 PASS TOWN CENTRE INBOUND 5,220 5,102 1.6 -2% -118 PASS TOWN CENTRE OUTBOUND 5,354 5,225 1.8 -2% -130 PASS INNER CORDON INBOUND 2,474 2,512 0.8 2% 38 PASS INNER CORDON OUTBOUND 2,460 2,511 1.0 2% 52 PASS RAIL NORTH EASTBOUND 1,914 2,251 7.4 18% 337 FAIL RAIL NORTH WESTBOUND 1,925 2,280 7.7 18% 355 FAIL RIVER WYE NORTHBOUND 3,378 3,563 3.1 5% 185 PASS RIVER WYE SOUTHBOUND 3,279 3,321 0.7 1% 42 PASS
LINK CALIBRATION
5.4.2 A summary for the interpeak flow calibration result for all links pre ME2 (including those not used in the below screen line analysis) is shown in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Interpeak – Link Count Calibration Summary – Pre ME2 PRE-ME2 ALL ALL LINKS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH OR DFT % 88 67 76% 69 78% 70 80%
5.4.3 Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 show that the pre ME2 interpeak matrices were replicating link counts to a reasonable standard, such that it was appropriate to proceed with ME2. The full list of link calibration statistics for the Interpeak has been included in Appendix F.
TURN CALIBRATION
5.4.4 Table 5-7 shows the interpeak flow calibration result for all key turns pre ME2.
Table 5-7: Interpeak – Key Calibration Turning Movements Summary – Pre ME2 IP - PRE ME2 ALL ALL TURNS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH OR DFT % 274 171 63% 231 85% 233 86% Note: Counts with observed flows of 0 have been discounted from the analysis.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 51 52
5.4.5 Table 5-7 shows that the pre ME2 interpeak matrices were replicating turning counts to a reasonable standard, such that it was appropriate to proceed with ME2.
JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION
5.4.6 The journey time validation for the Interpeak Pre-ME2 assignments is shown in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8: Interpeak – Pre-ME2 Journey Time Validation
JOURNEY TIME ROUTES OBS MOD %DIFF PASS
A49 NB - A4137 Jn to Hope under Dinmore - Route 1A 15:49 13:51 12% PASS A49 SB - Hope Under Dinmore to A4317 - Route 1B 15:42 14:36 7% PASS A465 - Belmont Abbey to Lugwardine NB - Route 2A 16:36 15:29 7% PASS A465 - Lugwardine to Belmont Abbey SB - Route 2B 19:24 15:55 18% FAIL A438 NB Lugwardine to Swainshill via City Centre - Route 3B 19:07 16:47 12% PASS A438 SB Swainshill to Lugwardine via City Centre - Route 3A 18:08 17:09 5% PASS B4224 Hampton Bishop to Burghill NB - Route 4B 15:26 15:05 2% PASS B4224 Burghill to Hampton Bishop SB - Route 4A 14:39 15:01 3% PASS Grafton to Ross Road via B4399 NB - Route 5A 06:10 06:38 8% PASS Ross Road to Grafton via B4399 SB- Route 5B 07:09 06:13 13% PASS
5.4.7 The table shows that for all routes the modelled journey times are within 20% of the observed. The discrepancies between modelled and observed journey times have been investigated. The journey time graphs for the routes have been included in Appendix F.
5.5 PM PEAK CALIBRATION PRE-ME2 SCREEN LINE AND CORDON CALIBRATION
5.5.1 Table 5-9 shows the PM peak flow calibration result for all screen lines pre ME2.
Table 5-9: PM Peak – Screen line Flows – Pre ME2 PRE ME2 ALL Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH Diff % DIFF +/- FLOW RSI INBOUND 4,453 4,519 1.0 1% 66 PASS RSI OUTBOUND 5,037 5,073 0.5 1% 35 PASS TOWN CENTRE INBOUND 5,429 5,339 1.2 -2% -90 PASS TOWN CENTRE OUTBOUND 6,666 6,902 2.9 4% 236 PASS INNER CORDON INBOUND 3,344 2,997 6.2 -10% -347 FAIL INNER CORDON OUTBOUND 2,699 2,586 2.2 -4% -113 PASS RAIL NORTH EASTBOUND 2,374 2,555 3.7 8% 182 FAIL RAIL NORTH WESTBOUND 2,585 3,105 9.8 20% 521 FAIL RIVER WYE NORTHBOUND 4,453 4,519 1.0 1% 66 PASS RIVER WYE SOUTHBOUND 5,037 5,073 0.5 1% 35 PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 52 53
LINK CALIBRATION
5.5.2 A summary for the PM peak flow calibration result for all links pre ME2 (including those not used in the below screen line analysis) is shown in Table 5-10.
Table 5-10: PM Peak – Link Count Calibration Summary – Pre ME2 PRE-ME2 ALL ALL LINKS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH OR DFT % 88 71 81% 71 81% 73 83%
5.5.3 Table 5-9 and Table 5-10 show that the pre ME2 PM peak matrices were replicating link counts to a reasonable standard, such that it was appropriate to proceed with ME2. The full list of link calibration statistics for the PM peak has been included in Appendix F.
TURN CALIBRATION
5.5.4 Table 5-11 shows the PM peak flow calibration result for all key turns pre ME2.
Table 5-11: PM Peak – Link Count Calibration Summary – Pre ME2 PM - PRE ME2 ALL TURNS ALL GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH OR DFT % 274 166 61% 233 86% 234 87% Note: Counts with observed flows of 0 have been discounted from the analysis.
5.5.5 Table 5-11 shows that the pre ME2 PM peak matrices were replicating turning counts to a reasonable standard, such that it was appropriate to proceed with ME2.
JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION
5.5.6 The journey time validation for the AM Peak Pre-ME2 assignments is shown in Table 5-12.
Table 5-12: PM Peak – Pre-ME2 Journey Time Validation
JOURNEY TIME ROUTES OBS MOD %DIFF PASS
A49 NB - A4137 Jn to Hope under Dinmore - Route 1A 18:22 14:26 8% PASS A49 SB - Hope Under Dinmore to A4317 - Route 1B 14:14 15:08 22% FAIL A465 - Belmont Abbey to Lugwardine NB - Route 2A 18:20 14:50 5% PASS A465 - Lugwardine to Belmont Abbey SB - Route 2B 15:51 16:04 18% FAIL A438 NB Lugwardine to Swainshill via City Centre - Route 3B 17:23 17:59 11% PASS A438 SB Swainshill to Lugwardine via City Centre - Route 3A 16:35 16:31 8% PASS B4224 Hampton Bishop to Burghill NB - Route 4B 14:17 15:33 16% FAIL B4224 Burghill to Hampton Bishop SB - Route 4A 14:27 15:17 15% PASS Grafton to Ross Road via B4399 NB - Route 5A 06:11 07:02 20% FAIL Ross Road to Grafton via B4399 SB- Route 5B 06:49 06:13 6% PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 53 54
5.5.7 The table shows that for all routes the modelled journey times are within 25% of the observed. The discrepancies between modelled and observed journey times have been investigated. The journey time graphs for the routes have been included in Appendix F.
5.6 ME2 CHANGES
5.6.1 Trip Length Distribution graphs are included in Appendix I. The graphs demonstrate that the ME2 has mainly introduced short distance trips into the model. This is expected due to the constraints on the ME2 allowing the changes mainly to occur on the synthetic element of the matrix for trips within the RSI cordon. Table 5-13 below summarises the matrix totals of the before and after trip matrices. They demonstrate that the ME2 has had a limited impact on the overall matrix total. The largest increase occurs in the AM peak hour trip matrix with an increase of 2%.
Table 5-13: Matrix totals – Before and After ME2 Summary User AM PEAK INTERPEAK PM PEAK Class Pre Post % Diff Pre Post % Diff Pre Post % Diff UC1 7,772 7,886 1% 2,008 1,996 -1% 6,899 6,845 -1% UC2 442 465 5% 247 265 7% 411 457 11% UC3 3,889 3,971 2% 7,254 7,326 1% 5,933 5,943 0% UC4 928 961 4% 581 583 0% 580 565 -3% UC5 1,235 1,270 3% 1,451 1,484 2% 892 880 -1% UC6 849 856 1% 1,666 1,695 2% 1,380 1,319 -4% UC7 59 59 0% 78 77 -1% 64 67 5% UC8 2,657 2,685 1% 1,833 1,871 2% 2,988 2,976 0% UC9 1,801 1,818 1% 2,555 2,538 -1% 1,435 1,411 -2% UC10 284 288 -6% 403 359 -15% 176 284 44% UC11 37 31 -22% 37 33 -19% 35 48 31% TOTAL 19,953 20,267 2% 18,113 18,195 0% 20,793 20,738 0%
5.6.2 Table 5-14 summarises the results of the statistical tests that are required by WebTAG.
Table 5-14: Key Statistics – ME2 Changes – Light Vehicles Comparison Measure Significance Criteria AM PEAK INTERPEAK PM PEAK R2 in excess of 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.92 Matrix zonal Intercept near zero 0 0 0 cell values Slope within 0.98 and 1.02 1.06 1.02 1.03 R2 in excess of 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.96 Matrix zonal Intercept near zero 0.21 0.38 0.11 row totals Slope within 0.99 and 1.01 1.04 1.03 1.02 R2 in excess of 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.96 Matrix zonal Intercept near zero 0.53 0.12 0.73 column totals Slope within 0.99 and 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.00 Means within 5% 1.4% 3.5% 5.0% Trip length Standard deviations within Distributions 1.0% 2.2% 7.7% 5%
5.6.3 The table shows that the changes that have been made to matrix have failed certain criteria for certain elements of the matrix. However, it can be seen that the statistics are marginally outside of what is required by WebTAG and that the overall changes are minimal.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 54 55
5.6.4 The absolute changes made to the matrix have been summarised on a sector to sector basis in Appendix I. This shows that the ME2 changes have only been made on the movements within the matrix that have not been developed using observed origin-destination data. The tables have been generated for light vehicles only due to the changes made to the HGV element of the matrix being very minor.
5.7 MODEL CONVERGENCE
5.7.1 Table 5-15 summarises the convergence and stability of the highway assignment models and shows that all the modelled time periods meet the required WebTAG criteria.
CRITERIA AM IP PM Assignment/Simulation Loops 17 14 12 Final 98.6 99.6 99.5 % of Flows < 98.6 99.7 99.4 1% Previous 3 98.2 98.3 99.1 (>98%) loops 98.1 98.8 98.6 % Gap (<0.1%) 0.00064 0.00091 0.0010 % Delta (<0.1%) 0.018 0.0011 0.00064 RAAD (<0.1%) 0.08 0.03 0.04 Table 5-15: Model Stability Summary – Post ME2 5.8 AM PEAK CALIBRATION
RSI LINK CALIBRATION
5.8.1 Table 5-16 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows across the RSI cordon in the inbound direction.
Table 5-16: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - RSI Inbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RSI R1 INBOUND 537 612 3.13 75 PASS RSI R2 INBOUND 278 244 2.11 -34 PASS RSI R3 INBOUND 446 332 5.80 -114 FAIL RSI R4 INBOUND 450 545 4.25 95 PASS RSI R5 INBOUND 305 288 1.00 -17 PASS RSI R6 INBOUND 542 491 2.25 -51 PASS RSI R7 INBOUND 252 256 0.26 4 PASS RSI R8 INBOUND 807 834 0.95 27 PASS RSI R9 INBOUND 407 407 0.04 1 PASS RSI R10 INBOUND 477 471 0.28 -6 PASS RSI R11 INBOUND 287 293 0.33 6 PASS RSI R12 INBOUND 193 218 1.75 25 PASS RSI R13 INBOUND 72 88 1.71 15 PASS RSI R14 INBOUND 184 273 5.87 89 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RSI Total INBOUND 5,237 5,351 2.18% 114 PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 55 56
5.8.2 The above table shows that all of the inbound RSI links meet the acceptability criteria with the exception of Site 3 (A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction). The GEH statistic at this site is slightly greater than 5 and narrowly fails the DfT flow criteria by 13 vehicles. The modelled flows across the inbound RSI cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.8.3 The RSI cordon calibration effectively assesses the goodness of fit of the trips within the model assignment that have been developed using the RSI data. This table has demonstrated that this element of the matrix that contains trips built using RSI data has been assigned to the appropriate links.
5.8.4 Table 5-17 summarises the comparison between modelled and observed flows for the RSI cordon in the outbound direction.
Table 5-17: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - RSI Outbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL Screen line ATC Site Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RSI R1 OUTBOUND 528 508 0.86 -20 PASS RSI R2 OUTBOUND 317 233 5.08 -84 PASS RSI R3 OUTBOUND 211 190 1.49 -21 PASS RSI R4 OUTBOUND 363 357 0.31 -6 PASS RSI R5 OUTBOUND 175 178 0.21 3 PASS RSI R6 OUTBOUND 470 468 0.11 -2 PASS RSI R7 OUTBOUND 101 122 2.05 22 PASS RSI R8 OUTBOUND 611 706 3.71 95 PASS RSI R9 OUTBOUND 339 345 0.33 6 PASS RSI R10 OUTBOUND 254 298 2.65 44 PASS RSI R11 OUTBOUND 386 361 1.32 -25 PASS RSI R12 OUTBOUND 115 118 0.22 2 PASS RSI R13 OUTBOUND 55 49 0.84 -6 PASS RSI R14 OUTBOUND 259 246 0.82 -13 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RSI Total OUTBOUND 4,184 4,178 -0.14% -6 PASS
5.8.5 The above table shows that all of the outbound RSI links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound RSI screen line combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 56 57
CITY CENTRE LINK CALIBRATION
5.8.6 Table 5-18 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows across the City Centre in the inbound direction.
Table 5-18: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - City Centre Inbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. CITY CENTRE 10 INBOUND 1,063 1,036 0.84 -27 PASS CITY CENTRE 12 INBOUND 847 863 0.54 16 PASS CITY CENTRE 15 INBOUND 766 701 2.40 -65 PASS CITY CENTRE 16 INBOUND 411 427 0.77 16 PASS CITY CENTRE 42 HC INBOUND 800 733 2.44 -67 PASS CITY CENTRE 45 HC INBOUND 702 702 0.02 0 PASS CITY CENTRE T7248 INBOUND 1,758 1,726 0.77 -32 PASS CITY CENTRE M2 INBOUND 471 404 3.20 -67 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT CITY CENTRE Total INBOUND 6,819 6,591 -3.34% -228 PASS
5.8.7 The AM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the inbound City Centre links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the inbound City Centre cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.8.8 Table 5-19 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows across the City Centre in the outbound direction.
Table 5-19: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - City Centre Outbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. CITY CENTRE 10 OUTBOUND 883 903 0.67 20 PASS CITY CENTRE 12 OUTBOUND 385 382 0.15 -3 PASS CITY CENTRE 15 OUTBOUND 330 335 0.26 5 PASS CITY CENTRE 16 OUTBOUND 246 237 0.55 -9 PASS CITY CENTRE 42 HC OUTBOUND 754 747 0.23 -6 PASS CITY CENTRE 45 HC OUTBOUND 608 607 0.00 0 PASS CITY CENTRE T7248 OUTBOUND 1,603 1,563 1.00 -40 PASS CITY CENTRE M2 OUTBOUND 480 458 1.02 -22 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT CITY CENTRE Total OUTBOUND 5,288 5,233 -1.04% -55 PASS
5.8.9 The AM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the outbound City Centre links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound City Centre cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 57 58
RAIL NORTH LINK CALIBRATION
5.8.10 Table 5-20 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows across the Rail-North screen line in the eastbound direction.
Table 5-20: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - Rail-North Eastbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RAIL NORTH 5 EASTBOUND 335 432 4.92 96 PASS RAIL NORTH 7 EASTBOUND 415 269 7.93 -147 FAIL RAIL NORTH 8 EASTBOUND 327 269 3.40 -59 PASS RAIL NORTH 12 EASTBOUND 385 382 0.15 -3 PASS RAIL NORTH 15 EASTBOUND 330 335 0.26 5 PASS RAIL NORTH 16 EASTBOUND 246 237 0.55 -9 PASS RAIL NORTH 45 HC EASTBOUND 608 607 0.00 0 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RAIL NORTH Total EASTBOUND 2,647 2,531 -4.38% -116 PASS
5.8.11 The AM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that 86% of the links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flow at Site 7 (College Road) does not pass either criterion.
5.8.12 The modelled flows across the screen line combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.8.13 Table 5-21 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows across the Rail-North screen line in the westbound direction.
Table 5-21: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - Rail-North Westbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RAIL NORTH 5 WESTBOUND 485 529 1.95 44 PASS RAIL NORTH 7 WESTBOUND 160 109 4.36 -51 PASS RAIL NORTH 8 WESTBOUND 291 325 1.93 34 PASS RAIL NORTH 12 WESTBOUND 847 863 0.54 16 PASS RAIL NORTH 15 WESTBOUND 766 701 2.40 -65 PASS RAIL NORTH 16 WESTBOUND 411 427 0.77 16 PASS RAIL NORTH 45 HC WESTBOUND 702 702 0.02 0 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RAIL NORTH Total WESTBOUND 3,663 3,656 -0.18% -6 PASS
5.8.14 The AM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the westbound links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the westbound screen line combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 58 59
RIVER WYE LINK CALIBRATION
5.8.15 Table 5-22 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the River Wye screen line in the northbound direction.
Table 5-22: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - River Wye Northbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RIVER WYE 1 NORTHBOUND 203 231 1.87 27 PASS RIVER WYE 32 NORTHBOUND 354 354 0.02 0 PASS RIVER WYE T7248 NORTHBOUND 1,758 1,726 0.77 -32 PASS RIVER WYE M3 NORTHBOUND 177 203 1.88 26 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RIVER WYE Total NORTHBOUND 2,492 2,513 0.84% 21 PASS
5.8.16 The modelled flows across the northbound River Wye screen line combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.8.17 Table 5-23 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the River Wye screen line in the southbound direction.
Table 5-23: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - River Wye Southbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screenline Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RIVER WYE 1 SOUTHBOUND 85 155 6.40 70 PASS RIVER WYE 32 SOUTHBOUND 316 409 4.88 93 PASS RIVER WYE T7248 SOUTHBOUND 1,603 1,563 1.00 -40 PASS RIVER WYE M3 SOUTHBOUND 185 174 0.81 -11 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RIVER WYE Total SOUTHBOUND 2,188 2,301 5.14% 112 FAIL
5.8.18 The modelled flows across the southbound River Wye screen line did not combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows. However, the difference between the total observed and model flows is 112 Vehicles (GEH of 2.4) which is relatively small when compared to the observed flow.
OVERALL
5.8.19 The AM peak flow calibration result for all links post ME2 (including those not used in the above screen line analysis) can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-24 shows a summary of this information.
Table 5-24: AM Peak –Link Count Calibration Summary – Post ME2 POST ME2 ALL ALL LINKS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH or DfT % 88 75 85% 78 89% 79 90%
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 59 60
5.8.20 The overall AM peak link calibration result was that 89% of calibrated links met the acceptability criteria. This demonstrates a robust level of flow calibration for the AM peak model post ME2.
TURN COUNT CALIBRATION
5.8.21 The AM peak flow calibration result for all turns post ME2 can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-25 shows a summary of this information.
Table 5-25: AM Peak – Key Calibration Turning Movements Summary – Post ME2 AM - POST ME2 ALL TURNS ALL GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH or DfT % 274 197 73% 254 92% 255 92%
Note: Counts with observed flows of 0 have been discounted from the analysis.
5.8.22 The overall AM peak turn calibration result was that 92% of calibrated turns met the acceptability criteria. This demonstrates a robust level of turn calibration for the AM peak model post ME2.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 60 61
5.9 INTERPEAK CALIBRATION RSI LINK CALIBRATION
5.9.1 Link flows were calibrated for the 14 inbound movements at RSI sites. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-26 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-26: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - RSI Inbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RSI R1 INBOUND 417 450 1.60 33 PASS RSI R2 INBOUND 210 200 0.72 -10 PASS RSI R3 INBOUND 267 236 1.92 -30 PASS RSI R4 INBOUND 250 250 0.00 0 PASS RSI R5 INBOUND 167 186 1.41 19 PASS RSI R6 INBOUND 442 465 1.09 23 PASS RSI R7 INBOUND 108 127 1.72 19 PASS RSI R8 INBOUND 504 550 2.02 46 PASS RSI R9 INBOUND 219 157 4.49 -62 PASS RSI R10 INBOUND 191 246 3.74 55 PASS RSI R11 INBOUND 202 199 0.17 -2 PASS RSI R12 INBOUND 113 166 4.44 52 PASS RSI R13 INBOUND 48 64 2.09 16 PASS RSI R14 INBOUND 239 225 0.90 -14 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RSI Total INBOUND 3,378 3,523 4.30% 145 PASS
5.9.2 The interpeak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the inbound RSI links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the inbound RSI cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 61 62
5.9.3 Link flows were also calibrated for the 14 outbound movements at RSI sites. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-27 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-27: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - RSI Outbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL Screenline ATC Site No. Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT RSI R1 OUTBOUND 422 466 2.06 43 PASS RSI R2 OUTBOUND 198 181 1.17 -16 PASS RSI R3 OUTBOUND 250 182 4.60 -68 PASS RSI R4 OUTBOUND 228 273 2.89 46 PASS RSI R5 OUTBOUND 159 165 0.49 6 PASS RSI R6 OUTBOUND 421 412 0.40 -8 PASS RSI R7 OUTBOUND 112 123 1.08 12 PASS RSI R8 OUTBOUND 505 590 3.61 85 PASS RSI R9 OUTBOUND 208 148 4.49 -60 PASS RSI R10 OUTBOUND 189 215 1.88 27 PASS RSI R11 OUTBOUND 200 172 2.07 -28 PASS RSI R12 OUTBOUND 112 119 0.71 8 PASS RSI R13 OUTBOUND 47 52 0.80 6 PASS RSI R14 OUTBOUND 231 202 2.00 -29 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RSI Total OUTBOUND 3,279 3,302 0.68% 22 PASS
5.9.4 The interpeak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that all of the outbound RSI links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound RSI screen line combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
CITY CENTRE LINK CALIBRATION
5.9.5 Link flows were calibrated for the 8 inbound movements on the City Centre cordon. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-28 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-28: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - City Centre Inbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. CITY CENTRE 10 INBOUND 834 889 1.88 55 PASS CITY CENTRE 12 INBOUND 585 608 0.92 22 PASS CITY CENTRE 15 INBOUND 330 320 0.54 -10 PASS CITY CENTRE 16 INBOUND 219 213 0.41 -6 PASS CITY CENTRE 42 HC INBOUND 729 635 3.60 -94 PASS CITY CENTRE 45 HC INBOUND 611 514 4.09 -97 PASS CITY CENTRE T7248 INBOUND 1,566 1,547 0.46 -18 PASS CITY CENTRE M2 INBOUND 345 395 2.59 50 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT CITY CENTRE Total INBOUND 5,220 5,122 -1.87% -98 PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 62 63
5.9.6 The modelled flows across the inbound City Centre cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.9.7 Link flows were also calibrated for the 8 outbound movements on the City Centre cordon. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-29 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-29: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - City Centre Outbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. CITY CENTRE 10 OUTBOUND 834 795 1.38 -39 PASS CITY CENTRE 12 OUTBOUND 383 388 0.23 4 PASS CITY CENTRE 15 OUTBOUND 319 288 1.78 -31 PASS CITY CENTRE 16 OUTBOUND 222 220 0.16 -2 PASS CITY CENTRE 42 HC OUTBOUND 711 691 0.77 -20 PASS CITY CENTRE 45 HC OUTBOUND 844 791 1.84 -52 PASS CITY CENTRE T7248 OUTBOUND 1,607 1,537 1.78 -71 PASS CITY CENTRE M2 OUTBOUND 433 475 1.96 42 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT CITY CENTRE Total OUTBOUND 5,354 5,184 -3.18% -170 PASS
5.9.8 The interpeak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the outbound City Centre links met the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound City Centre cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
RAIL NORTH LINK CALIBRATION
5.9.9 Link flows were calibrated for the 7 eastbound movements on the Rail-North screen line. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-30 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-30: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Rail-North Eastbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RAIL NORTH 5 EASTBOUND 281 464 9.50 183 FAIL RAIL NORTH 7 EASTBOUND 231 339 6.40 108 FAIL RAIL NORTH 8 EASTBOUND 194 194 0.02 0 PASS RAIL NORTH 12 EASTBOUND 383 388 0.23 4 PASS RAIL NORTH 15 EASTBOUND 319 288 1.78 -31 PASS RAIL NORTH 16 EASTBOUND 222 220 0.16 -2 PASS RAIL NORTH 45 HC EASTBOUND 844 791 1.84 -52 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RAIL NORTH Total EASTBOUND 2,474 2,684 8.49% 210 FAIL
5.9.10 The interpeak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that 71% of the links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the eastbound Rail-North screen line did not combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 63 64
5.9.11 The modelled and observed screen line flows differ due to the discrepancy between the flows at Sites 5 (A4103 Roman Road) and 7 (College Road). These sites are in close proximity to the calibration screen line and the majority of traffic flow contains observed data and therefore were not modified during the ME2 stage.
5.9.12 Link flows were also calibrated for the seven westbound movements on the Rail-North screen line. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-31 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-31: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Rail-North Westbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RAIL NORTH 5 WESTBOUND 308 535 11.07 227 FAIL RAIL NORTH 7 WESTBOUND 150 219 5.10 69 PASS RAIL NORTH 8 WESTBOUND 255 286 1.88 31 PASS RAIL NORTH 12 WESTBOUND 585 608 0.92 22 PASS RAIL NORTH 15 WESTBOUND 330 320 0.54 -10 PASS RAIL NORTH 16 WESTBOUND 219 213 0.41 -6 PASS RAIL NORTH 45 HC WESTBOUND 611 514 4.09 -97 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RAIL NORTH Total WESTBOUND 2,460 2,697 9.63% 237 FAIL
5.9.13 The modelled flows across the westbound Rail-North screen line did not combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.9.14 As per the inbound direction, the modelled and observed screen line flows differ due to the discrepancy between the flows at Site 5 (A4103 Roman Road). This site is in close proximity to the validation screen line and the majority of traffic flow contains observed data and therefore was not modified during the ME2 stage.
RIVER WYE LINK CALIBRATION
5.9.15 Link flows were also calibrated for the 4 northbound movements on the River Wye screen line. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-32 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-32: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – River Wye Northbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RIVER WYE 1 NORTHBOUND 56 150 9.31 95 PASS RIVER WYE 32 NORTHBOUND 160 192 2.43 32 PASS RIVER WYE T7248 NORTHBOUND 1,566 1,547 0.46 -18 PASS RIVER WYE M3 NORTHBOUND 133 84 4.74 -49 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RIVER WYE Total NORTHBOUND 1,914 1,973 3.09% 59 PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 64 65
5.9.16 The interpeak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the northbound River Wye links met the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the northbound River Wye screen line combines to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.9.17 Link flows were also calibrated for the 4 southbound movements on the River Wye screen line. The links were calibrated using ATC survey data. Table 5-33 summarises the results from the link calibration.
Table 5-33: Interpeak - Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – River Wye Southbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RIVER WYE 1 SOUTHBOUND 62 152 8.72 90 PASS RIVER WYE 32 SOUTHBOUND 158 157 0.11 -1 PASS RIVER WYE T7248 SOUTHBOUND 1,607 1,537 1.78 -71 PASS RIVER WYE M3 SOUTHBOUND 98 174 6.49 76 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RIVER WYE Total SOUTHBOUND 1,925 2,019 4.87% 94 PASS
5.9.18 The interpeak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the southbound River Wye links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the southbound River Wye screen line did not combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
OVERALL
5.9.19 The interpeak flow calibration result for all links post ME2 (including those not used in the above screen line analysis) can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-34 shows a summary of this information.
Table 5-34: Interpeak – All Calibration Link Count Results – Post ME2 POST ME2 ALL ALL LINKS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH or DfT % 88 75 85% 77 88% 78 89%
5.9.20 The overall interpeak link calibration result was that 88% of calibrated links met the flow criteria. 89% of calibrated links meet either the GEH or the Flow criteria.
TURN CALIBRATION
5.9.21 The interpeak flow calibration result for all turns post ME2 can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-35 shows a summary of this information.
Table 5-35: Interpeak – All Key Calibration Turning Movements Result – Post ME2 IP - PRE ME2 ALL TURNS ALL GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH or DfT % 274 199 74% 249 92% 251 93%
Note: Counts with observed flows of 0 have been discounted from the analysis.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 65 66
5.9.22 The overall interpeak turn calibration result was that 92% of calibrated turns met the acceptability criteria. This demonstrates a robust level of turn calibration for the interpeak model post ME2.
5.10 PM PEAK CALIBRATION
RSI LINK CALIBRATION
5.10.1 Table 5-36 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the 14 RSI sites in the inbound direction.
Table 5-36: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - RSI Inbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RSI R1 INBOUND 535 544 0.38 9 PASS RSI R2 INBOUND 293 245 2.92 -48 PASS RSI R3 INBOUND 238 251 0.87 14 PASS RSI R4 INBOUND 330 337 0.39 7 PASS RSI R5 INBOUND 207 167 2.92 -40 PASS RSI R6 INBOUND 584 543 1.70 -40 PASS RSI R7 INBOUND 106 116 0.95 10 PASS RSI R8 INBOUND 664 755 3.40 91 PASS RSI R9 INBOUND 369 348 1.12 -21 PASS RSI R10 INBOUND 277 364 4.88 87 PASS RSI R11 INBOUND 383 354 1.48 -28 PASS RSI R12 INBOUND 114 141 2.38 27 PASS RSI R13 INBOUND 44 56 1.63 11 PASS RSI R14 INBOUND 310 344 1.87 34 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RSI Total INBOUND 4,453 4,565 2.51% 112 PASS
5.10.2 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that all of the inbound RSI links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the inbound RSI cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 66 67
5.10.3 Table 5-37 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the 14 sites on the RSI cordon in the outbound direction.
Table 5-37: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles - RSI Outbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RSI R1 OUTBOUND 569 663 3.80 94 PASS RSI R2 OUTBOUND 310 273 2.15 -37 PASS RSI R3 OUTBOUND 393 385 0.42 -8 PASS RSI R4 OUTBOUND 398 473 3.58 75 PASS RSI R5 OUTBOUND 298 339 2.31 41 PASS RSI R6 OUTBOUND 555 484 3.14 -72 PASS RSI R7 OUTBOUND 207 234 1.78 26 PASS RSI R8 OUTBOUND 720 798 2.84 78 PASS RSI R9 OUTBOUND 342 318 1.30 -24 PASS RSI R10 OUTBOUND 340 312 1.60 -29 PASS RSI R11 OUTBOUND 314 279 2.02 -35 PASS RSI R12 OUTBOUND 182 202 1.43 20 PASS RSI R13 OUTBOUND 75 97 2.33 22 PASS RSI R14 OUTBOUND 334 271 3.64 -63 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RSI Total OUTBOUND 5,037 5,127 1.77% 89 PASS
5.10.4 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that 100% of the outbound RSI links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound RSI cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
CITY CENTRE LINK CALIBRATION
5.10.5 Table 5-38 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the count sites on the City Centre cordon in the inbound direction.
Table 5-38: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – City Centre Inbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. CITY CENTRE 10 INBOUND 890 888 0.06 -2 PASS CITY CENTRE 12 INBOUND 700 664 1.39 -36 PASS CITY CENTRE 15 INBOUND 362 313 2.65 -49 PASS CITY CENTRE 16 INBOUND 234 208 1.73 -26 PASS CITY CENTRE 42 HC INBOUND 798 756 1.50 -42 PASS CITY CENTRE 45 HC INBOUND 500 427 3.40 -73 PASS CITY CENTRE T7248 INBOUND 1,728 1,689 0.94 -39 PASS CITY CENTRE M2 INBOUND 216 215 0.09 -1 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT CITY CENTRE Total INBOUND 5,429 5,161 -4.93% -268 PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 67 68
5.10.6 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that all of the inbound City Centre links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the inbound City Centre cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
5.10.7 Table 5-39 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the City Centre cordon in the outbound direction.
Table 5-39: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – City Centre Outbound Cordon POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. CITY CENTRE 10 OUTBOUND 896 912 0.51 15 PASS CITY CENTRE 12 OUTBOUND 492 457 1.60 -35 PASS CITY CENTRE 15 OUTBOUND 545 540 0.18 -4 PASS CITY CENTRE 16 OUTBOUND 360 362 0.08 2 PASS CITY CENTRE 42 HC OUTBOUND 806 789 0.58 -16 PASS CITY CENTRE 45 HC OUTBOUND 1,055 1,006 1.52 -49 PASS CITY CENTRE T7248 OUTBOUND 1,964 1,948 0.36 -16 PASS CITY CENTRE M2 OUTBOUND 548 593 1.90 45 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT CITY CENTRE Total OUTBOUND 6,666 6,608 -0.87% -58 PASS
5.10.8 The table shows that all of the outbound City Centre links meet the acceptability. The modelled flows across the outbound City Centre cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
RAIL NORTH LINK CALIBRATION
5.10.9 Table 5-40 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the screen line in the eastbound direction.
Table 5-40: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Rail North Eastbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RAIL NORTH 5 EASTBOUND 329 516 9.10 187 FAIL RAIL NORTH 7 EASTBOUND 298 238 3.68 -60 PASS RAIL NORTH 8 EASTBOUND 265 306 2.44 41 PASS RAIL NORTH 12 EASTBOUND 492 457 1.60 -35 PASS RAIL NORTH 15 EASTBOUND 545 540 0.18 -4 PASS RAIL NORTH 16 EASTBOUND 360 362 0.08 2 PASS RAIL NORTH 45 HC EASTBOUND 1,055 1,006 1.52 -49 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RAIL NORTH Total EASTBOUND 3,344 3,426 2.45% 82 PASS
5.10.10 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that 86% of the links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the screen line combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 68 69
5.10.11 Table 5-41 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the Rail-North screen line in the westbound direction.
Table 5-41: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Rail North Westbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RAIL NORTH 5 WESTBOUND 411 503 4.30 92 PASS RAIL NORTH 7 WESTBOUND 175 153 1.73 -22 PASS RAIL NORTH 8 WESTBOUND 316 360 2.36 43 PASS RAIL NORTH 12 WESTBOUND 700 664 1.39 -36 PASS RAIL NORTH 15 WESTBOUND 362 313 2.65 -49 PASS RAIL NORTH 16 WESTBOUND 234 208 1.73 -26 PASS RAIL NORTH 45 HC WESTBOUND 500 427 3.40 -73 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RAIL NORTH Total WESTBOUND 2,699 2,628 -2.63% -71 PASS
5.10.12 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that all of the links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the screen line combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
RIVER WYE LINK CALIBRATION
5.10.13 Table 5-42 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the River Wye screen line in the northbound direction.
Table 5-42: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – River Wye Northbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RIVER WYE 1 NORTHBOUND 99 151 4.65 52 PASS RIVER WYE 32 NORTHBOUND 357 346 0.63 -12 PASS RIVER WYE T7248 NORTHBOUND 1,728 1,689 0.94 -39 PASS RIVER WYE M3 NORTHBOUND 189 127 4.91 -62 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RIVER WYE Total NORTHBOUND 2,374 2,313 -2.55% -61 PASS
5.10.14 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that all of the links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the northbound River Wye screen line combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 69 70
5.10.15 Table 5-43 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the River Wye screen line in the southbound direction.
Table 5-43: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – River Wye Southbound Screen line POST ME2 ALL ATC Site Screen line Direction Ref OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT No. RIVER WYE 1 SOUTHBOUND 170 169 0.04 0 PASS RIVER WYE 32 SOUTHBOUND 294 338 2.48 44 PASS RIVER WYE T7248 SOUTHBOUND 1,964 1,948 0.36 -16 PASS RIVER WYE M3 SOUTHBOUND 156 89 6.03 -67 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT RIVER WYE Total SOUTHBOUND 2,585 2,545 -1.52% -39 PASS
5.10.16 The PM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that 100% of the southbound River Wye links met the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the southbound River Wye screen line combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
OVERALL
5.10.17 The PM peak flow calibration result for all links post ME2 (including those not used in the above screen line analysis) can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-44 shows a summary of this information.
Table 5-44: PM Peak Link Calibration Result – Post ME2 POST ME2 ALL ALL LINKS GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH or DfT % 88 73 83% 80 91% 80 91%
5.10.18 The overall PM peak link calibration result was that 91% of calibrated links met the acceptability criteria. This demonstrates a robust level of flow calibration for the PM peak model post ME2.
TURN VALIDATION
5.10.19 The PM peak flow calibration result for all turns post ME2 can be found in Appendix G. Table 5-45 shows a summary of this information.
Table 5-45: PM Peak - All Key Calibration Turning Movements Result – Post ME2 PM - POST ME2 ALL TURNS ALL GEH < 5 % DFT % GEH or DfT % 274 205 76% 254 94% 255 94%
Note: Counts with observed flows of 0 have been discounted from the analysis.
5.10.20 The overall PM peak turn calibration result was that 94% of calibrated turns met the acceptability criteria. This demonstrates a robust level of turn calibration for the PM peak model post ME2.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 70 71
5.11 STRESS TEST
5.11.1 As part of the assignment calibration, a ‘stress’ test was undertaken on the model assignments. Each modelled hour was tested with an additional 10% and 20% in the trip matrices to highlight junctions within the network that may become over-loaded against expectations. The tests made use of the GONZO parameter that assigns the matrix to the network with additional proportion of trips.
5.11.2 The following tables provide a summary of statistics for each of the scenarios within the stress test.
Table 5-46: Stress test – Summary Statistics PEAK HOUR STATISTIC BASE BASE + 10% BASE + 20% Total Travel Time (per vehicle 1,415 1,453 1,493 AM Peak seconds) Average Simulation Network Speed 42.1 40.6 38.8 (kph) Total Travel Time (per vehicle 1,191 1,331 1,481 Interpeak seconds) Average Simulation Network Speed 43.5 42.6 41.6 (kph) Total Travel Time (per vehicle 1,327 1,490 1,664 PM Peak seconds) Average Simulation Network Speed 44.4 43.4 42.2 (kph)
5.11.3 The summary statistics demonstrate that the network travel times and average speeds are changing as to what is expected when an increase in travel demand is increased.
5.11.4 Further analysis of the traffic models identified whether they are behaving as expected. This involved analysing the amount of links with volume over capacity greater than arbitrary values. Table 5-47 shows that the number of links over a specified value increase when additional trips are assigned to the network. This demonstrates that the models are behaving as expected when additional traffic is assigned to the network.
Table 5-47: Stress test – Link Capacity Analysis – No. of links No. of links AM PEAK INTERPEAK PM PEAK with V/C greater Base 10% 20% Base 10% 20% Base 10% 20% than
>75% 67 84 95 38 51 64 52 69 96 >80% 53 75 89 34 45 51 42 55 73 >85% 44 62 76 23 35 42 32 48 57 >90% 35 46 64 21 25 34 26 37 46 >95% 30 39 50 10 22 26 24 29 37 >100% 27 32 41 8 16 22 20 24 31
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 71 72
5.11.5 The locations within the model where the volume of traffic has exceeded capacity include the:
à A49/A465 Asda Roundabout; à Barton Road/Victoria Street/St Nicholas Street; à A49/A438 Eign Street; à A49 Victoria Street/Edgar Street Roundabout; and à A49 Newtown Road/Edgar Street Roundabout.
5.11.6 This has demonstrated that the location, where the volume of traffic is exceeding capacity is expected to occur based on network observations and journey times, are in line with what the model is showing.
5.11.7 A check has also been undertaken on links where traffic is entering the model from zones and that all traffic has entered the model without unrealistic delay. This is to avoid issues occurring in future models that could have an impact on the forecasting and economic appraisals.
5.11.8 The junctions and nodes where there are existing capacity issues over 85% have also been checked. It has been noted that there is an increase in the number of overcapacity junctions in the 10% and 20% scenarios. This check was undertaken to ensure that increases in delay are occurring at locations where it may be anticipated. This check provides reassurance that the model is not over estimating delay that could have an impact in the future year scenarios.
5.11.9 A plot of the junction delay has been included in Appendix L for the three peak hours.
5.12 SUMMARY
5.12.1 This section has demonstrated that the 2016 base year Hereford SATURN provides a robust representation of the baseline traffic conditions. For the three peak hour models it has shown that 85% of links and turns pass the GEH and flow criteria as specified within WebTAG.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 72 73
6 HIGHWAY MODEL VALIDATION 6.1 OVERVIEW
6.1.1 The model was validated with link counts included the independent dataset, which are detailed in the Section 3.4.
6.1.2 This section also details the journey time validation and the network routeing validation.
6.1.3 Details of each individual link that passes or fails can be seen via the appendices at the end of this report.
6.2 AM VALIDATION LINK COUNTS
6.2.1 Table 6-1 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the inner cordon in the outbound direction.
Table 6-1: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Inner Cordon Inbound POST ME2 ALL ATC Direction Screen line OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT Site No. Ref INNER CORDON 2 INBOUND 482 467 0.69 -15 PASS INNER CORDON 3 INBOUND 996 994 0.08 -2 PASS INNER CORDON 6 INBOUND 528 594 2.80 66 PASS INNER CORDON 7 INBOUND 415 269 7.93 -147 FAIL INNER CORDON 8 INBOUND 327 269 3.40 -59 PASS INNER CORDON 9 INBOUND 437 644 8.91 207 FAIL INNER CORDON M4 INBOUND 484 682 8.19 198 FAIL INNER CORDON 20 INBOUND 315 631 14.53 316 FAIL INNER CORDON 23 INBOUND 254 244 0.59 -9 PASS INNER CORDON 24 INBOUND 13 3 3.44 -10 PASS INNER CORDON 25 INBOUND 9 4 2.14 -5 PASS INNER CORDON 26 INBOUND 71 92 2.37 21 PASS INNER CORDON 27 INBOUND 33 20 2.46 -13 PASS INNER CORDON 28 INBOUND 573 639 2.68 66 PASS INNER CORDON M1 INBOUND 253 294 2.47 41 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT INNER CORDON Total INBOUND 5,189 5,844 12.63% 655 FAIL
6.2.2 The AM peak flow validation result for all vehicles shows that 73% of the inbound inner cordon links met the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the inbound inner cordon do not combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 73 74
6.2.3 The discrepancies between the modelled and observed flows have been analysed in great detail. The modelled and observed traffic flows at Site 20 (A465 Newton Coppice) were analysed. It was decided that the modelled flow could not be altered without making changes to traffic flow at the RSI cordon. The traffic flow at the RSI cordon was deemed to be a higher priority due to the trips through these sites being generated from primary data (RSI) and was therefore preferred.
6.2.4 Table 6-2 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the inner cordon in the outbound direction.
Table 6-2: AM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Inner Cordon Outbound POST ME2 ALL ATC Direction Screen line OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT Site No. Ref INNER CORDON 2 OUTBOUND 271 216 3.51 -55 PASS INNER CORDON 3 OUTBOUND 553 534 0.82 -19 PASS INNER CORDON 6 OUTBOUND 339 407 3.55 68 PASS INNER CORDON 7 OUTBOUND 160 109 4.36 -51 PASS INNER CORDON 8 OUTBOUND 291 325 1.93 34 PASS INNER CORDON 9 OUTBOUND 330 425 4.91 95 PASS INNER CORDON M4 OUTBOUND 408 417 0.42 9 PASS INNER CORDON 20 OUTBOUND 764 686 2.92 -79 PASS INNER CORDON 23 OUTBOUND 599 641 1.67 42 PASS INNER CORDON 24 OUTBOUND 16 5 3.47 -11 PASS INNER CORDON 25 OUTBOUND 10 5 1.90 -5 PASS INNER CORDON 26 OUTBOUND 50 50 0.04 0 PASS INNER CORDON 27 OUTBOUND 10 79 10.33 69 PASS INNER CORDON 28 OUTBOUND 484 494 0.45 10 PASS INNER CORDON M1 OUTBOUND 501 499 0.08 -2 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT INNER CORDON Total OUTBOUND 4,786 4,891 2.20% 105 PASS
6.2.5 The AM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles show that all of the outbound inner cordon links met the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound inner cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 74 75
JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION
6.2.6 Journey times have been validated for the AM and are presented in
6.2.7 Table 6-3 and Figure 6-1.
Table 6-3: AM Peak, Post ME2 Model Journey Times (minutes)
JOURNEY TIME ROUTES OBS MOD %DIFF PASS A49 NB - A4137 Jn to Hope under Dinmore - Route 1A 18:22 18:16 1% PASS A49 SB - Hope Under Dinmore to A4317 - Route 1B 14:14 15:19 8% PASS A465 - Belmont Abbey to Lugwardine NB - Route 2A 18:20 17:11 6% PASS A465 - Lugwardine to Belmont Abbey SB - Route 2B 15:51 15:42 1% PASS A438 NB Lugwardine to Swainshill via City Centre - Route 3B 17:23 18:04 4% PASS A438 SB Swainshill to Lugwardine via City Centre - Route 3A 16:35 17:48 7% PASS B4224 Hampton Bishop to Burghill NB - Route 4B 14:17 16:22 15% PASS B4224 Burghill to Hampton Bishop SB - Route 4A 14:27 16:17 13% PASS Grafton to Ross Road via B4399 NB - Route 5A 06:11 06:41 8% PASS Ross Road to Grafton via B4399 SB- Route 5B 06:49 06:34 4% PASS
6.2.8 The journey time analysis shows that the AM post ME2 models are accurately reproducing journey times for all the journey time routes.
24:00 21:00 18:00 15:00 Observed with 12:00 15% Error Bar 09:00 Modelled 06:00 03:00 Journey Time (In Minutes) 00:00 1A 1B 2A 2B 3B 3A 4B 4A 5A 5B Journey Time Route
Figure 6-1: AM Peak - Post ME2 Model Journey Time Graph
6.2.9 The overall journey time validation for the AM peak shows that all of journey time routes validate to -/+ 15% of the Trafficmaster data, and meet the criteria outlined in WebTAG M3.1.
6.2.10 The distance time graphs have been included in Appendix H. They demonstrate that the journey time routes that are most likely to be impacted by the proposed highway schemes in Hereford provide a good fit to the observed journey times.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 75 76
6.3 INTERPEAK VALIDATION
LINK COUNTS
6.3.1 Table 6-4 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the inner cordon in the inbound direction.
Table 6-4: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Inner Cordon Inbound POST ME2 ALL ATC Direction Screen line OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT Site No. Ref INNER CORDON 2 INBOUND 305 416 5.82 111 FAIL INNER CORDON 3 INBOUND 749 730 0.71 -19 PASS INNER CORDON 6 INBOUND 366 187 10.76 -179 FAIL INNER CORDON 7 INBOUND 231 339 6.40 108 FAIL INNER CORDON 8 INBOUND 194 194 0.02 0 PASS INNER CORDON 9 INBOUND 423 419 0.20 -4 PASS INNER CORDON M4 INBOUND 254 290 2.19 36 PASS INNER CORDON 20 INBOUND 496 497 0.06 1 PASS INNER CORDON 23 INBOUND 352 366 0.72 14 PASS INNER CORDON 24 INBOUND 11 3 3.07 -8 PASS INNER CORDON 25 INBOUND 4 4 0.23 0 PASS INNER CORDON 26 INBOUND 50 68 2.41 19 PASS INNER CORDON 27 INBOUND 12 32 4.35 20 PASS INNER CORDON 28 INBOUND 454 504 2.30 50 PASS INNER CORDON M1 INBOUND 215 236 1.40 21 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT INNER CORDON Total INBOUND 4,116 4,285 4.12% 170 PASS
6.3.2 The interpeak flow validation result for all vehicles shows that 80% of the inbound inner cordon links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the inbound inner cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
6.3.3 The discrepancy between modelled and observed traffic flows has been analysed in great detail. The count Sites 2 and 7 account for the difference the total cordon flows and without other nearby counts failing they could not be improved further.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 76 77
6.3.4 Table 6-5 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the sites on the inner cordon in the inbound direction.
Table 6-5: Interpeak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Inner Cordon Outbound POST ME2 ALL ATC Direction Screen line OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT Site No. Ref INNER CORDON 2 OUTBOUND 221 144 5.69 -77 PASS INNER CORDON 3 OUTBOUND 646 668 0.90 23 PASS INNER CORDON 6 OUTBOUND 360 294 3.67 -66 PASS INNER CORDON 7 OUTBOUND 150 219 5.10 69 PASS INNER CORDON 8 OUTBOUND 255 286 1.88 31 PASS INNER CORDON 9 OUTBOUND 426 412 0.73 -15 PASS INNER CORDON M4 OUTBOUND 236 280 2.77 44 PASS INNER CORDON 20 OUTBOUND 500 484 0.71 -16 PASS INNER CORDON 23 OUTBOUND 337 363 1.41 26 PASS INNER CORDON 24 OUTBOUND 12 3 3.46 -9 PASS INNER CORDON 25 OUTBOUND 4 3 0.96 -2 PASS INNER CORDON 26 OUTBOUND 49 55 0.81 6 PASS INNER CORDON 27 OUTBOUND 11 27 3.88 17 PASS INNER CORDON 28 OUTBOUND 430 528 4.48 98 PASS INNER CORDON M1 OUTBOUND 219 265 2.98 46 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT INNER CORDON Total OUTBOUND 3,856 4,032 4.57% 176 PASS
6.3.5 The interpeak flow validation result for all vehicles shows that 100% of the outbound inner cordon links meet the acceptability criteria. The modelled flows across the outbound inner cordon combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION
6.3.6 Journey times have been validated for the interpeak and are presented in Table 6-6 and Figure 6-2.
Table 6-6: Interpeak - Post ME2 Model Journey Times (minutes)
% JOURNEY TIME ROUTES OBS MOD PASS DIFF A49 NB - A4137 Jn to Hope under Dinmore - Route 1A 15:49 13:35 14% PASS A49 SB - Hope Under Dinmore to A4317 - Route 1B 15:42 13:58 11% PASS A465 - Belmont Abbey to Lugwardine NB - Route 2A 16:36 15:20 8% PASS A465 - Lugwardine to Belmont Abbey SB - Route 2B 19:24 16:27 15% PASS A438 NB Lugwardine to Swainshill via City Centre - Route 3B 19:07 16:43 13% PASS A438 SB Swainshill to Lugwardine via City Centre - Route 3A 18:08 17:32 3% PASS B4224 Hampton Bishop to Burghill NB - Route 4B 15:26 15:14 1% PASS B4224 Burghill to Hampton Bishop SB - Route 4A 14:39 14:39 0% PASS Grafton to Ross Road via B4399 NB - Route 5A 06:10 06:37 7% PASS Ross Road to Grafton via B4399 SB- Route 5B 07:09 06:17 12% PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 77 78
6.3.7 The journey time analysis shows that the interpeak post ME2 models are accurately reproducing journey times on all journey time routes.
24:00 21:00 18:00 15:00 Observed with 12:00 15% Error Bar 09:00 Modelled 06:00 03:00 Journey Time (In Minutes) 00:00 1A 1B 2A 2B 3B 3A 4B 4A 5A 5B Journey Time Route
Figure 6-2: Interpeak - Post ME2 Model Journey Time Graph
6.3.8 The overall journey time validation for the interpeak shows that all of journey time routes validate to -/+ 15% of the Trafficmaster data, and meet the criteria outlined in WebTAG M3.1.
6.3.9 The distance travel time graphs have been included in Appendix H. They demonstrate that the modelled journey times provide a good fit with the observed journey time profiles along the route and have been deemed acceptable.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 78 79
6.4 PM PEAK VALIDATION LINK COUNTS
6.4.1 Table 6-7 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the count sites located on the inner cordon in the inbound direction.
Table 6-7: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Inner Cordon Inbound POST ME2 ALL ATC Direction Screen line OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT Site No. Ref INNER CORDON 2 INBOUND 359 399 2.10 41 PASS INNER CORDON 3 INBOUND 707 666 1.56 -41 PASS INNER CORDON 6 INBOUND 370 397 1.40 27 PASS INNER CORDON 7 INBOUND 298 238 3.68 -60 PASS INNER CORDON 8 INBOUND 265 306 2.44 41 PASS INNER CORDON 9 INBOUND 393 397 0.17 3 PASS INNER CORDON M4 INBOUND 463 439 1.12 -24 PASS INNER CORDON 20 INBOUND 715 729 0.50 13 PASS INNER CORDON 23 INBOUND 537 550 0.54 13 PASS INNER CORDON 24 INBOUND 17 8 2.50 -9 PASS INNER CORDON 25 INBOUND 5 6 0.40 1 PASS INNER CORDON 26 INBOUND 45 54 1.32 9 PASS INNER CORDON 27 INBOUND 17 88 9.71 70 PASS INNER CORDON 28 INBOUND 682 581 4.01 -101 FAIL INNER CORDON M1 INBOUND 368 337 1.67 -31 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT INNER CORDON Total INBOUND 5,241 5,195 -0.88% -46 PASS
6.4.2 The PM peak flow validation result for all vehicles shows that 93% of the inbound inner cordon links met the acceptability criteria. ATC Site 28 (A49 Ross Road – Red Hill morthbound) fails the DfT criteria by a small number of vehicles and has an acceptable GEH value. The modelled flows across the inbound inner cordon combined to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 79 80
6.4.3 Table 6-8 summarises the comparison between the modelled and observed flows for the inner cordon in the outbound direction.
Table 6-8: PM Peak – Modelled vs Observed Vehicles – Inner Cordon Outbound POST ME2 ALL ATC Direction Screen line OBS MOD GEH DIFF +/- DFT Site No. Ref INNER CORDON 2 OUTBOUND 335 328 0.36 -6 PASS INNER CORDON 3 OUTBOUND 777 785 0.28 8 PASS INNER CORDON 6 OUTBOUND 553 555 0.09 2 PASS INNER CORDON 7 OUTBOUND 175 153 1.73 -22 PASS INNER CORDON 8 OUTBOUND 316 360 2.36 43 PASS INNER CORDON 9 OUTBOUND 620 610 0.38 -9 PASS INNER CORDON M4 OUTBOUND 424 527 4.74 103 FAIL INNER CORDON 20 OUTBOUND 647 646 0.07 -2 PASS INNER CORDON 23 OUTBOUND 200 236 2.40 36 PASS INNER CORDON 24 OUTBOUND 8 3 2.30 -5 PASS INNER CORDON 25 OUTBOUND 11 7 1.37 -4 PASS INNER CORDON 26 OUTBOUND 73 92 2.12 19 PASS INNER CORDON 27 OUTBOUND 22 35 2.53 14 PASS INNER CORDON 28 OUTBOUND 493 640 6.19 147 FAIL INNER CORDON M1 OUTBOUND 315 356 2.24 41 PASS OBS MOD % DIFF +/- DFT INNER CORDON Total OUTBOUND 4,971 5,335 7.32% 364 FAIL
6.4.4 The AM peak flow calibration result for all vehicles shows that 86% of the outbound inner cordon links met the acceptability criteria. It has been noted that one site (ATC Site 28 – A49 Ross Road Red Hill southbound) does not pass either criteria.
6.4.5 The modelled traffic flows across the outbound inner cordon do not combine to less than a 5% deviation against the observed flows. However, considering that modelled flow at all but one of the count sites within the cordon pass the WebTAG criteria this has been considered to be acceptable.
JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION
6.4.6 Journey times have been validated for the PM and are presented in Table 6-9 and Figure 6-3.
Table 6-9: PM Peak - Post ME2 Model Journey Times (minutes) % JOURNEY TIME ROUTES OBS MOD PASS DIFF A49 NB - A4137 Jn to Hope under Dinmore - Route 1A 13:23 14:27 8% PASS A49 SB - Hope Under Dinmore to A4317 - Route 1B 12:26 14:09 14% PASS A465 - Belmont Abbey to Lugwardine NB - Route 2A 14:10 14:44 4% PASS A465 - Lugwardine to Belmont Abbey SB - Route 2B 13:36 15:10 11% PASS A438 NB Lugwardine to Swainshill via City Centre - Route 3B 16:13 17:25 7% PASS A438 SB Swainshill to Lugwardine via City Centre - Route 3A 15:14 16:42 10% PASS B4224 Hampton Bishop to Burghill NB - Route 4B 13:28 15:34 16% FAIL B4224 Burghill to Hampton Bishop SB - Route 4A 13:19 15:03 13% PASS Grafton to Ross Road via B4399 NB - Route 5A 05:51 06:53 18% FAIL Ross Road to Grafton via B4399 SB- Route 5B 05:52 06:24 9% PASS
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 80 81
6.4.7 The journey time analysis shows that the PM post ME2 models are accurately reproducing journey times on 8 out of 10 journey time routes. The routes that do fail are only marginally outside the 15% difference outlined by WebTAG.
24:00 21:00 18:00 15:00 Observed with 12:00 15% Error Bar 09:00 Modelled 06:00 03:00 Journey Time (In Minutes) 00:00 1A 1B 2A 2B 3B 3A 4B 4A 5A 5B Journey Time Route
Figure 6-3: PM Peak - Post ME2 Model Journey Time Graph
6.4.8 The overall journey time validation for the PM peak shows that 80% of journey time routes validate to -/+ 15% of the Trafficmaster data.
6.4.9 The distance time graphs have been included in Appendix H. They demonstrate that the journey time routes that are most likely to be impacted by the proposed highway schemes in Hereford provide a good fit to the observed journey times.
6.5 ROUTING VALIDATION
6.5.1 Analysis of the routes taken by vehicles as they travel through the network from specific zones to specific destination along links provides a means of validating the network coding. The ‘tree’ build feature within SATURN produces plots that can be used for this purpose. These plots show where the modal route taken from trips within that user class.
6.5.2 WebTAG suggests that the number of OD pairs to be analysed is
657 (number of zones) ^ 0.25 x 11 (the number of user classes) = 167
6.5.3 However, multiple user classes within this model have the same generalised cost and are not required to be individually analysed. For the purposes of this analysis model there are 4 user classes with different significantly generalised costs. Using this number instead within the formula above means that a number of OD pairs above 60 would be sufficient for this exercise.
6.5.4 8 O-D pairs were considered across 4 user classes, across the 3 modelled peaks. Table 6-10 detail the routes considered. In total 96 route pairing diagrams were considered. These have been chosen to coincide with the key routes on the A49 and A465, pass through scheme impacted areas, and to link in with different compass areas.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 81 82
6.5.5 WebTAG Unit M3.1 suggests that all the route validation occurs across all user classes. In this instance 4 user classes have been chosen as they represent sufficiently different generalised cost functions, such that route choice could be affected. The following user classes were considered:
à UC1 – Car – Commute à UC3 – Car – Home based Other à UC9 – LGV – Employer’s Business à UC10 – OGV1 – Employer’s Business
6.5.6 Table 6-10 details the routes considered.
Table 6-10: Routes for Origin-Destination Analysis
DESTINATION APPROX.JOURNEY ROUTE NO. ROUTE NAME ORIGIN ZONE ZONE TIME (MINS) Route 1 Dorchester Way (Belmont) to Moreland Avenue 1005 3020 14 Route 2 Moreland Avenue to Dorchester Way (Belmont) 3020 1005 12 Route 3 Bramley Court to Ramsden Road (Rotherwas) 4046 2041 16 Route 4 Ramsden Road (Rotherwas) to Bramley Court 2041 4046 17 Route 5 Northolme Road to Chapel Road 1059 2001 12 Route 6 Chapel Road to Northolme Road 2001 1059 13 Route 7 Coldwells Road to Dewsall Court (Callow) 3108 6007 16 Route 8 Dewsall Court (Callow) to Coldwells Road 6007 3108 18
6.5.7 These route pairings were considered with regard to local knowledge and against Google Maps. It should be noted that Google Maps is a reasonable representation of current travel times and therefore route choice but is not considered to be reliable. Travel time from Google Maps was taken on 19/04/2017 for the AM Peak only.
6.5.8 In general, the modelled assigned route for cars and LGVs is sensible. There is variation in chosen routes for route 2 (Dorchester Way to Moreland Avenue) between the modelled peaks. Within the less trafficked interpeak model, vehicles are choosing to route via Barrs Court Road instead of the A438 through the city centre. There is occasional variation from the route recommended by Google, most notably on the route 3 (Bramley Court to Ramsden Road, Rotherwas). This is thought to be within acceptable route modelled choice given the relatively small differences in time and distance between the Goggle recommended route and the modelled route. Where necessary, the ‘forest’ feature was used to check that at least some modelled journeys occur on the path recommended by Google. The ‘forest’ feature shows all of the routes used by trips in the considered user class.
6.5.9 A direct comparison for HGVs may be inappropriate given that Google Maps routing only considers the car. However, these have been included in the analysis and again appear to be broadly sensible.
6.5.10 The route validation analysis can be viewed in full in Appendix J.
6.5.11 WebTAG Unit M3.1 notes that these checks cannot be regarded as true validation as they are based on local knowledge and judgement. Nevertheless, the analysis indicates that the route used by vehicles throughout the network is sensible against both local knowledge and the routing programme provided by Google Maps.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 82 83
7 CONCLUSION 7.1 AM PEAK MODEL
7.1.1 The modelled traffic flows have been demonstrated to provide a good fit with the observed flows with 88% of the calibration and validation links meeting either the flow criteria or GEH criteria. This exceeds the required 85% benchmark of WebTAG.
7.1.2 A notable discrepancy that has been identified in this report is the difference between the total inbound inner cordon modelled and observed flow. This report has identified the individual sites within this screen line that are causing this failure.
7.1.3 This report has demonstrated that 92% of calibrated turns meet either the flow criteria or GEH criteria, which exceeded the required 85% benchmark of the WebTAG. This shows that the model provides a good fit with the observed turning flows at the key junctions within Hereford.
7.1.4 All of the modelled journey times are within +/- 15% of the observed on the key routes. The journey times routes that are critical to demonstrate the likely impact of the proposed schemes provide a very good level of validation when compared to the observed journey times.
7.2 INTERPEAK MODEL
7.2.1 The modelled traffic flows have been demonstrated to provide a good fit with the observed flows with 89% of the calibration and validation links meeting either the flow criteria or GEH criteria. This exceeds the required 85% benchmark of the WebTAG.
7.2.2 94% of validated turns met either the flow criteria or GEH criteria, which exceeded the required 85% benchmark of the WebTAG. This shows that the model provides a good fit with the observed turning flows at the key junctions within Hereford.
7.2.3 All of the modelled journey times were within +/- 15% of the observed on the key routes.
7.3 PM PEAK MODEL
7.3.1 The modelled traffic flows have been demonstrated to provide a good fit with the observed flows with 92% of the calibration and validation links meeting either the flow criteria or GEH criteria. This exceeds the required 85% benchmark of the WebTAG.
7.3.2 The only screen line to fall outside the criteria was the inner cordon outbound screen line. All the other total modelled screen line flows are within 5% of the total observed flows and this demonstrates a good level of calibration throughout the model.
7.3.3 All major turning counts were accurately modelled, and 96% of calibrated turns met either the flow criteria or GEH criteria, which exceeded the required 85% benchmark of the WebTAG. This shows that the model provides a good fit with the observed turning flows at the key junctions within Hereford.
7.3.4 80% of the modelled journey times were within +/- 15% of the observed on the key routes, which does not meet the WebTAG criteria. The routes that do fail are marginally outside the criteria.
Hereford Transport Model - LMVR WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Herefordshire Council Project No 70029880 Sept 2017 83 Appendix A
NETWORK DIAGRAM Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] 2016
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] 2016 Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] 2016
• PROJECT NOTES: • DATE 10/03/2017 DRAWN BY GM Hereford Transport Model - Local Red = Links Model Validation Report • SCALE NTS CHECKED MH Blue = Zone Connectors • FIGURE NUMBER APPROVED MC
• FIGURE TITLE Hereford Transport Model: SATURN Netw ork Appendix B
SPEED FLOW CURVES
LINK SPEED AT SPEED AT CAPACITY POWER DESCRIPTION SFC NO. LANES SPEED LIMIT FREE FLOW CAPACITY (ONE-WAY INDEX PCUS) 2 Lane Motorway 1 2 112 112 45 4860 3.8 3 Lane Motorway 2 3 112 116 45 7500 3.9 Rural All Purpose Dual Carriageway A Road Dual Carriageway 3 3 112 109 45 4520 3.7 Rural All Purpose Dual Carriageway A Road Dual Carriageway 4 2 112 105 45 4360 3.7 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 5 1 96 87 45 1850 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 6 2 96 96 45 2520 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 7 1 80 78 35 1850 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 8 2 80 80 35 2520 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 9 1 64 61 35 1850 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 10 2 64 64 35 2520 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 11 1 48 48 25 1850 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 12 2 48 48 25 2520 2.1 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 13 1 96 87 45 1750 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 14 2 96 96 45 2450 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 15 1 80 78 35 1750 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 16 2 80 80 35 2450 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 17 1 64 61 35 1750 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 18 2 64 64 35 2450 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 19 1 48 48 25 1750 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 20 2 48 48 25 2450 1.8 Rural Single Carriageway Local Street Single Carriageway 21 1 48 48 25 1380 1.2 Rural Single Carriageway Local Street Single Carriageway 22 2 48 48 25 1380 1.2 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 23 1 96 87 45 1650 1.6 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 24 2 96 96 45 1950 1.6 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 25 1 80 78 35 1650 1.6 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 26 2 80 80 35 1950 1.6 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 27 1 64 61 35 1650 1.6 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 28 2 64 64 35 1950 1.6
LINK SPEED AT SPEED AT CAPACITY POWER DESCRIPTION SFC NO. LANES SPEED LIMIT FREE FLOW CAPACITY (ONE-WAY INDEX PCUS) Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 29 1 48 48 25 1650 1.6 Rural Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 30 2 48 48 25 1950 1.6 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 31 1 96 87 45 1850 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 32 2 96 96 45 2520 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 33 1 80 78 35 1850 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 34 2 80 80 35 2520 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 35 1 64 61 35 1850 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 36 2 64 64 35 2520 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 37 1 48 48 25 1850 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway A Road Single Carriageway 38 2 48 48 25 2520 2.1 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 39 1 96 87 45 1600 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 40 2 96 96 45 2250 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 41 1 80 78 35 1600 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 42 2 80 80 35 2250 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 43 1 64 61 35 1600 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 44 2 64 64 35 2250 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 45 1 48 48 25 1600 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway B Road Single Carriageway 46 2 48 48 25 2250 1.8 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Local Street Single Carriageway 47 1 48 48 25 1250 1.2 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Local Street Single Carriageway 48 2 48 48 25 1250 1.2 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 49 1 96 70 45 1550 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 50 2 96 77 45 1750 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 51 1 80 67 35 1550 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 52 2 80 66 35 1750 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 53 1 64 56 35 1550 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 54 2 64 58 35 1750 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 55 1 48 48 25 1350 1.5 Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Minor Road Single Carriageway 56 2 48 48 25 1550 1.5
LINK SPEED AT SPEED AT CAPACITY POWER DESCRIPTION SFC NO. LANES SPEED LIMIT FREE FLOW CAPACITY (ONE-WAY INDEX PCUS) Sub-Urban Single Carriageway Alley 57 1 25 25 10 850 0.8 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 58 1 96 82 45 1850 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 59 2 96 82 45 2520 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 60 1 80 75 35 1850 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 61 2 80 75 35 2520 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 62 1 64 58 35 1850 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 63 2 64 58 35 2520 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 64 1 48 48 25 1850 2.1 Urban - Central A Road Single Carriageway 65 2 48 48 25 2520 2.1 Urban - Central Local Street Single Carriageway 66 1 48 48 25 1150 1.2 Urban - Central Local Street Single Carriageway 67 2 48 48 25 1150 1.2 Urban - Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 68 1 64 61 25 1050 1.8 Urban - Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 69 2 64 61 25 1600 1.8 Urban - Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 70 1 48 47 25 1050 1.8 Urban - Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 71 2 48 47 25 1600 1.8 Urban - Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 72 1 64 61 25 1660 2.1 Urban - Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 73 2 64 61 25 2250 2.1 Urban - Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 74 1 48 47 25 1660 2.1 Urban - Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 75 2 48 47 25 2250 2.1 Urban - Non-Central A Road Single Carriageway 76 1 64 61 25 1730 1.8 Urban - Non-Central A Road Single Carriageway 77 2 64 61 25 2150 1.8 Urban - Non-Central A Road Single Carriageway 78 1 48 47 25 1730 1.8 Urban - Non-Central A Road Single Carriageway 79 2 48 47 25 2150 1.8 Urban - Non-Central Local Street Single Carriageway 80 1 48 48 25 1730 1.2 Urban - Non-Central Local Street Single Carriageway 81 2 48 48 25 2150 1.2 Urban - Non-Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 82 1 64 61 25 1050 1.2 Urban - Non-Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 83 2 64 61 25 1600 1.2 Urban - Non-Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 84 1 48 47 25 1050 1.2
LINK SPEED AT SPEED AT CAPACITY POWER DESCRIPTION SFC NO. LANES SPEED LIMIT FREE FLOW CAPACITY (ONE-WAY INDEX PCUS) Urban - Non-Central Minor Road Single Carriageway 85 2 48 47 25 1600 1.2 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 86 1 80 78 35 1660 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 87 2 80 78 35 2250 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 88 3 80 78 35 2550 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 89 1 64 61 25 1660 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 90 2 64 61 25 2250 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 91 3 64 61 25 2550 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 92 1 48 48 25 1660 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 93 2 48 48 25 2250 2.1 Urban - Non-Central Primary A Road Dual Carriageway 94 3 48 48 25 2550 2.1 Urban - Central Pedestrianised Street 95 1 32 32 15 850 1.2 Urban - Central Alley 96 1 25 25 10 550 1.2
Appendix C
BUS ROUTES AM Peak (0700-1000) Interpeak (1000-1600) PM Peak (1600-1900) Route# Number of Services Average Number of Services Number of Services Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound 32 0 0 0 0 1 0 33 1 2 1 1 1 1 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 71 1 2 0 1 1 1 71A 1 0 1 1 1 1 72 2 2 2 2 1 2 72A 1 0 0 0 0 0 72B 0 1 1 0 0 0 74 5 0 5 0 2 0 74S 1 0 1 0 0 0 75 2 3 2 2 1 1 75S 1 0 0 1 0 0 76 1 0 1 0 0 0 76A 1 0 1 0 1 0 77 0 1 0 1 0 1 77A 0 1 0 1 0 1 77B 0 1 0 1 0 0 78 0 1 0 0 0 1 78A 0 1 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 1 0 0 79A 0 1 0 1 0 2 81 0 1 0 1 0 1 81A 0 1 0 1 0 1 88 0 1 0 1 0 0 88A 0 1 0 1 0 0 405 0 0 1 1 0 0 411 0 0 1 1 0 0 412 1 0 0 0 0 1 413 1 0 0 1 0 0 420 1 1 1 1 1 1 426 1 0 1 1 1 1 436 0 0 1 1 0 0 437 1 1 1 1 1 0 440 0 0 0 0 0 1 441 0 0 1 1 0 0 444 1 0 1 1 0 1 445 0 0 0 0 0 1 446 1 0 1 1 1 1 447 1 0 0 0 0 1 448 1 0 0 1 0 0 449 1 1 1 1 2 1 453 1 1 1 1 1 1 454 1 1 1 1 1 0 457 0 1 1 0 0 0 461 1 1 1 1 1 1 462 0 0 1 1 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 1 0 469 1 0 0 1 0 1 476 1 1 1 1 1 1 477 0 0 0 0 0 1 478 0 0 1 1 0 0 491 0 0 1 1 0 0 492 1 1 1 1 1 1 AM Peak (0700-1000) Interpeak (1000-1600) PM Peak (1600-1900) Route# Number of Services Average Number of Services Number of Services Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound 498 0 0 1 1 0 0 501 0 0 1 1 0 0 502 0 1 0 0 1 0 802 1 0 0 0 0 1 X4 1 1 1 1 1 1 X15A 0 0 1 1 0 0 X39 0 0 1 1 0 0 Total 37 33 41 45 25 32
These figures are rounded to an integer number per hour and we have assumed it is a school day Services that don't run at all during the week or are not within our area of interest have been noted and removed Services that would round to 0 an hour have been noted
33A Service runs Saturdays only
34 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 35 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 39A Service runs Sundays only 39B Service does enter the area of interest 71B Service runs Weekends only 74A Service runs early morning and late at night 132 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 401 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 405 Service is Wednesdays only 406 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 411 Service is Wednesdays only and by request 413 Service does not run on Tuesdays or Thursdays and the Outbound service is on request 426 Service has a variety of conditions; it operates a reduced service Mondays and 436 Service operates on Wednesdays only and Outbound is by request 441 Service operates on Wednesdays only and is Outbound by request
447 Service offers an additional Outbound service by request at PM peak 448 Service operates Tuesdays and Thursdays only and by request 456 Service is Weekends only 457 Service operates on Wednesdays only 478 Service operates on Wednesdays only 491 Service operates on the 1st, 3rd and 5th Wednesdays of the month only 494 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 495 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 496 Service doesn't enter the area of interest 498 Service operates on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month only 504 Service operates Saturdays only 507 Service doesn’t enter area of interest 509 Service doesn’t enter area of interest 802 Service oprates only when Herefordshire CT or Agricultural Collages are open X15 Service operates Saturdays only X15A Service operates Wednesdays only X39 Service runs Wednesdays and Fridays only
Yellow = less than one per hour Appendix D
ZONING DIAGRAM D1) MODELLED ZONES
1) Zones: United Kingdom 2) Zones: Herefordshire
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] 2016
3) Zones: Hereford
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] 2016 Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] 2016
• PROJECT NOTES: • DATE 10/03/2017 DRAWN BY GM 1) Zones: United Kingdom shows Zones 7000-9506 in Sectors 9 - 14. Hereford Transport Model - Local Model Validation Report • SCALE NTS CHECKED MH 2) Zones: Herefordshire shows Zones 5000 - 6085 in Sectors 5 and 6. • FIGURE NUMBER APPROVED MC 3) Zones: United Kingdom shows Zones 1000 -4078 in Sectors 1 - 4 and Sector 15.
• FIGURE TITLE Zones 9901 - 9920 have not been mapped as these are zones allocated for future development. Hereford Transport Model: Zone Plan D2) NTEM ZONES Black Outline= NTEM v6.2 Zones Blue Outline = NTEM v7 Zones Black Outline= NTEM v6.2 Zones Blue Outline = NTEM v7 Zones
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] Contains OS data © Crown 2016 Copyright [and database right] 2016
• PROJECT NOTES: • DATE 10/03/2017 DRAWN BY GM Hereford Transport Model - Local Model Validation • SCALE CHECKED MH Report NTS
• FIGURE APPROVED MC NUMBER
• FIGURE TITLE Hereford Transport Model: NTEM v6.2 / NT EM 7 Hereford Zones (Internal to RSI Cordon) and NTEM 6.2 Zones Hereford Zones (Internal to RSI Cordon) and NTEM 6.2 Zones
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database NTE right] 2016 M- 00GA
Hereford Sectors and NTEM 6.2 Zones
NTE M- 00GA
Contains OS data Contains OS data © Crown © Crown Copyright [and Contains OS data © Crown Copyright [and database right] Copyright [and database right] database right] 2016 2016 2016
• PROJECT NOTES: • DATE 10/03/2017 DRAWN BY GM Hereford Transport Model - Local Model Validation • SCALE CHECKED MH Report NTS
• FIGURE APPROVED MC NUMBER
• FIGURE TITLE Hereford Transport Model: NTEM Boundaries &Modellled Zones / Sectors Appendix E
NETWORK WARNINGS SATURN Warning Number in Network Type Description Notes
3 4 Warning Some but not all turns coded as G from a single link This coding has been checked No counts have been included in 77777. They are specified in the 11 1 Warning Empty data section encountered SATPIJA input file. This has been checked that only one vehicle can wait at the stop at 12 99 Warning More than one give-way turn sharing a single lane; Priority any time due to narrow lane 14 3 Warning Roundabout turn sat flow less than circulation sat flow The coding has been checked. Due to narrow entry arm lane This has been checked. All circ sat flows equal largest turn sat 15 12 Warning Maximum roundabout turn sat flow exceeds circulation sat flo flow. They do not exceed. 16 32 Warning Rather long intergreen time for a stage (> 20 seconds) These are due to pedestrian crossings 23 1 Warning Total upstream sat flow inconsistent with lanes downstream The coding has been checked at these locations. This is acceptable. Free flow speed specified was used as speed 24 1334 Warning Input link time/speed out of range from speed-flow record limit marker and speed flow curve does not always allow vehciles to travel at speed limit due to road widths/urban location 25 253 Warning An input distance of zero replaced by the crow-fly value These will be monitored during forecast year coding. 29 40 Warning Speeds requested but the distance is zero At centroid connectors. This is acceptable. 32 36 Warning Simulation link distances and/or times differ in reverse Each one of these have been checked. 33 447 Warning Suspicious link distance - Input values differ markedly These have been checked 38 1 Warning Not all nodes and zones are given co-ordinates These are the future year blank zones 43 4 Warning A turn is coded as an X turn but is not the last Coding has been checked 49 52 Warning A buffer link has both A and B-node in the simulation This has been checked 65 82 Warning Low (chain) stacking capacity per lane (1.0 < 3.0 PCU) This has been checked 68 2 Warning A priority marker G looks suspiciously like a merge! (M) This has been checked 76 1 Warning Possible underestimated stack capacity > 5 at "XY" nodes This has been checked 79 2 Warning An X-turn at signals is only in unopposed stages - no TAX This has been checked 92 712 Warning A zone coded under 33333 would be better coded under 22222 This has been checked 97 4 Warning Opposing X-turns at signals hook (interfere); intentionally? This has been checked 98 9 Warning Possible opportunity for a Clear Exit Priority Modifier? This has been checked This has been checked. SATURN questions whether nearby 109 160 Serious Links not defined in a strict clockwise order nodes should be connected and be included in clockwise order 111 2 Serious No opposing turns found for a turn with a Priority Marker 126 1 Serious Total intergreen stage times equal zero This is for a ped crossing Lines are spaced out in places to allow for easier reading of 129 4 Serious Blank record read in - and skipped parameters 135 136 Serious 2+ give-way turns in a single lane: Major arm priority jcn. This has been checked 136 221 Serious Suspicious link distance compared to crow-fly distance This has been checked This error has been discussed with MC and also an email has 137 1122 Serious Turn saturation flows per lane differ widely. See 6.4.6.3 been sent to SATURN. The guidance states that this error is a check. 138 5 Serious Saturation flows differ widely between roundabout arms This has been checked 157 53 Serious The mid-link capacity is either >> or << stop-line sat flow This has been checked 183 9 Serious LCY for a node differs from its neighbours This has been checked 186 2 Serious Intergreen equals zero but, eg N-S ends and E-W starts This has been checked 253 1 Non-Fatal Error Too many U-Turns at external sim nodes for SATALL checks ILOVEU parameter has been set to TRUE This error cannot be located. Each node with this error has been 261 39 Non-Fatal Error Suspicious sim link cap restraint record - blanks not found chekced 276 2 Non-Fatal Error A count field has no data entries; re-set MCCS or FREE77? No count data included yet Appendix F
PRE ME2 MODEL CHECKS F1) PRE ME2 CALIBRATION – AM PEAK Direction OBS OBS OBS MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW Site No. Movement No. Site Location Ref LIGHT HEAVY ALL LIGHT HEAVY ALL 1 1 Northbound Bridge Sollers near A438 202 1 203 314 7.0 FA IL 9 3.4 PASS 323 7.4 FA IL 1 2 Southbound Bridge Sollers near A438 84 1 85 281 14.6 FA IL 31 7.3 PASS 312 16.1 FA IL 4 1 Eastbound A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 737 14 751 789 1.9 PASS 2 4.2 PASS 791 1.4 PASS 4 2 Westbound A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 712 22 734 608 4.0 PASS 9 3.4 PASS 617 4.5 FA IL 5 1 Eastbound A4103 Roman Road 326 10 335 452 6.4 FA IL 1 3.8 PASS 453 5.9 FA IL 5 2 Westbound A4103 Roman Road 472 13 485 507 1.6 PASS 9 1.4 PASS 516 1.4 PASS 10 1 Eastbound A49 by Widemarsh Brook 1,038 25 1,063 973 2.1 PASS 42 3.0 PASS 1,015 1.5 PASS 10 2 Westbound A49 by Widemarsh Brook 851 32 883 693 5.7 FA IL 42 1.7 PASS 735 5.2 FA IL 11 1 Eastbound B4359 Newtown Road 579 5 584 521 2.5 PASS 0 2.8 PASS 521 2.7 PASS 11 2 Westbound B4359 Newtown Road 290 4 294 311 1.2 PASS 1 2.3 PASS 312 1.0 PASS 12 1 Northbound Burcott Road 383 2 385 298 4.6 PASS 1 0.8 PASS 299 4.7 PASS 15 1 Northbound A438 Ledbury Road 327 3 330 206 7.4 FA IL 6 1.0 PASS 212 7.2 FA IL 15 2 Southbound A438 Ledbury Road 755 11 766 549 8.1 FA IL 3 2.8 PASS 552 8.3 FA IL 16 1 Eastbound B4224 Eign Road 242 4 246 257 0.9 PASS 1 1.7 PASS 258 0.8 PASS 16 2 Westbound B4224 Eign Road 407 4 411 419 0.6 PASS 8 1.6 PASS 427 0.7 PASS 19 1 Northbound A465 Belmont Road 749 18 766 952 7.0 FA IL 50 5.5 PASS 1,001 7.9 FA IL 19 2 Southbound A465 Belmont Road 570 9 579 635 2.6 PASS 12 0.8 PASS 646 2.7 PASS 21 1 Eastbound Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 403 6 409 233 9.5 FA IL 7 0.6 PASS 240 9.4 FA IL 21 2 Westbound Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 558 12 570 488 3.1 PASS 5 2.3 PASS 493 3.3 PASS 22 1 Eastbound The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 603 4 607 720 4.6 FA IL 2 1.0 PASS 723 4.5 FA IL 22 2 Westbound The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 276 8 284 190 5.7 PASS 3 2.2 PASS 193 5.9 PASS 29 1 Northbound Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 80 1 81 60 2.4 PASS 4 2.0 PASS 64 2.0 PASS 29 2 Southbound Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 301 2 303 163 9.1 FA IL 14 4.3 PASS 176 8.2 FA IL 30 1 Northbound A49 by Norton Brook Farm 805 26 831 692 4.1 PASS 29 0.5 PASS 721 3.9 PASS 30 2 Southbound A49 by Norton Brook Farm 539 26 565 498 1.8 PASS 54 4.4 PASS 552 0.6 PASS 31 1 Eastbound B4399 near Ridge Hill 408 15 423 185 13.0 FA IL 7 2.4 PASS 192 13.2 FA IL 31 2 Westbound B4399 near Ridge Hill 182 18 200 66 10.4 FA IL 1 5.6 PASS 67 11.5 FA IL 32 1 Northbound B4339, River Wye Crossing 351 3 354 316 1.9 PASS 7 1.7 PASS 323 1.7 PASS 32 2 Southbound B4339, River Wye Crossing 315 1 316 480 8.3 FA IL 3 1.7 PASS 483 8.4 FA IL 33 1 Northbound A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 784 24 809 765 0.7 PASS 23 0.3 PASS 788 0.7 PASS 33 2 Southbound A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 537 17 554 498 1.7 PASS 53 6.0 PASS 551 0.1 PASS 34 1 Northbound A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 801 28 828 680 4.4 FA IL 29 0.2 PASS 709 4.3 PASS 34 2 Southbound A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 554 27 581 513 1.8 PASS 54 4.3 PASS 567 0.6 PASS 35 1 Northbound A465, North of Junction with Church Road 405 13 419 442 1.8 PASS 58 7.5 PASS 500 3.8 PASS 35 2 Southbound A465, North of Junction with Church Road 556 22 578 461 4.2 PASS 12 2.5 PASS 473 4.6 FA IL 36 1 Northbound Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South of railway bridge 26 0 26 49 3.7 PASS 1 0.8 PASS 50 3.8 PASS 36 2 Southbound Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South of railway bridge 6 - 6 6 0.1 PASS 0 0.8 PASS 6 0.2 PASS 37 1 Eastbound Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by Renault Garage 49 0 49 9 7.6 PASS 0 0.5 PASS 9 7.5 PASS 37 2 Westbound Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by Renault Garage 11 0 12 2 3.5 PASS 0 0.3 PASS 3 3.3 PASS 38 HC 1 Westbound A438, West of Luwardine 366 11 377 366 0.0 PASS 1 3.9 PASS 367 0.5 PASS 38 HC 2 Eastbound A438, West of Luwardine 596 18 614 588 0.3 PASS 4 4.0 PASS 592 0.9 PASS 42 HC 2 Westbound A438, By Broomy Hill 777 23 800 733 1.6 PASS 12 2.7 PASS 745 2.0 PASS 42 HC 1 Eastbound A438, By Broomy Hill 732 22 754 649 3.1 PASS 18 0.9 PASS 667 3.2 PASS 43 HC 1 Southbound A49 Edgar Street 760 23 783 775 0.5 PASS 45 3.8 PASS 819 1.3 PASS 43 HC 2 Northbound A49 Edgar Street 609 18 627 591 0.7 PASS 45 4.8 PASS 636 0.3 PASS 45 HC 1 Westbound A465, on crossing with railway line 682 20 702 659 0.9 PASS 19 0.3 PASS 678 0.9 PASS 45 HC 2 Eastbound A465, on crossing with railway line 590 18 608 524 2.8 PASS 11 1.7 PASS 535 3.0 PASS R1 1 Northbound A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill 511 26 537 577 2.8 PASS 31 1.0 PASS 608 3.0 PASS R1 2 Southbound A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill 497 31 528 500 0.1 PASS 54 3.6 PASS 554 1.1 PASS R2 1 Eastbound B4349, The Bines in Clehonger 276 2 278 207 4.4 PASS 18 5.0 PASS 225 3.3 PASS Direction OBS OBS OBS MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW Site No. Movement No. Site Location Ref LIGHT HEAVY ALL LIGHT HEAVY ALL R2 2 Westbound B4349, The Bines in Clehonger 311 6 317 234 4.7 PASS 5 0.6 PASS 239 4.7 PASS R3 1 Eastbound A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction 433 13 446 376 2.8 PASS 3 3.3 PASS 379 3.3 PASS R3 2 Westbound A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction 200 11 211 179 1.5 PASS 7 1.6 PASS 186 1.8 PASS R4 1 Northbound Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm 358 5 363 363 0.2 PASS 0 2.9 PASS 363 0.0 PASS R4 2 Southbound Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm 446 4 450 542 4.3 PASS 9 1.8 PASS 551 4.5 FA IL R5 1 Northbound A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm 170 5 175 157 1.0 PASS 2 1.6 PASS 159 1.3 PASS R5 2 Southbound A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm 300 5 305 280 1.2 PASS 5 0.1 PASS 285 1.1 PASS R6 1 Northbound A49, East of Dinmore 452 18 470 405 2.3 PASS 52 5.7 PASS 457 0.6 PASS R6 2 Southbound A49, East of Dinmore 519 23 542 457 2.8 PASS 31 1.5 PASS 487 2.4 PASS R7 1 Northbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm 100 1 101 106 0.6 PASS 1 0.3 PASS 107 0.6 PASS R7 2 Southbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm 251 1 252 273 1.3 PASS 5 2.3 PASS 278 1.6 PASS R8 1 Eastbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm 593 17 611 683 3.6 PASS 4 4.2 PASS 687 3.0 PASS R8 2 Westbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm 788 18 807 789 0.0 PASS 20 0.5 PASS 810 0.1 PASS R9 1 Northbound A438, Frome Park 400 6 407 426 1.3 PASS 2 1.9 PASS 429 1.1 PASS R9 2 Southbound A438, Frome Park 335 4 339 319 0.9 PASS 1 1.5 PASS 320 1.0 PASS R10 1 Eastbound B4224, North-east of Mordiford 252 1 254 290 2.3 PASS 1 0.2 PASS 291 2.3 PASS R10 2 Westbound B4224, North-east of Mordiford 476 1 477 506 1.4 PASS 8 3.3 PASS 515 1.7 PASS R11 1 Eastbound B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm 381 6 386 386 0.3 PASS 2 1.9 PASS 388 0.1 PASS R11 2 Westbound B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm 282 5 287 266 0.9 PASS 6 0.4 PASS 273 0.9 PASS R12 1 Northbound Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages 114 1 115 110 0.4 PASS 7 3.1 PASS 117 0.1 PASS R12 2 Southbound Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages 192 1 193 211 1.3 PASS 13 4.3 PASS 223 2.1 PASS R13 1 Northbound A438, Green Crize 72 1 72 71 0.0 PASS 1 0.1 PASS 72 0.0 PASS R13 2 Southbound A438, Green Crize 55 0 55 54 0.2 PASS 2 1.5 PASS 56 0.1 PASS R14 1 Northbound A465, North of Goose Pool 173 11 184 212 2.8 PASS 41 5.8 PASS 253 4.7 PASS R14 2 Southbound A465, North of Goose Pool 244 14 259 225 1.3 PASS 6 2.4 PASS 231 1.8 PASS T7024 1 Northbound A49 Northbound between A40 and A4137 422 13 435 247 9.6 FA IL 10 0.7 PASS 257 9.6 FA IL T7024 2 Southbound A49 Southbound between A4137 and A40 308 9 318 210 6.1 PASS 12 1.0 PASS 222 5.8 PASS T7026 1 Southbound A49 Southbound between B4399 and A466 551 16 567 498 2.3 PASS 54 6.3 PASS 552 0.6 PASS T7026 2 Northbound A49 Northbound between A466 and B4399 796 24 819 692 3.8 PASS 29 1.0 PASS 721 3.5 PASS T7028 1 Southbound A49 Southbound between A417 and A4103 634 19 653 774 5.3 FA IL 29 2.1 PASS 803 5.5 FA IL T7028 2 Northbound A49 Northbound between A4103 and A417 459 14 472 471 0.6 PASS 41 5.2 PASS 512 1.8 PASS T7248 1 Northbound A49 Northbound between A465 and A438 near Hereford (South) 1,707 51 1,758 1,662 1.1 PASS 63 1.6 PASS 1,725 0.8 PASS T7248 2 Southbound A49 Southbound between A438 near Hereford (North) and A465 1,556 47 1,603 1,503 1.3 PASS 65 2.4 PASS 1,568 0.9 PASS M2 1 Eastbound Barton Road (MCC Link) 469 2 471 412 2.7 PASS 2 0.3 PASS 414 2.7 PASS M2 2 Westbound Barton Road (MCC Link) 477 3 480 376 4.9 FA IL 0 2.1 PASS 377 5.0 FA IL M3 1 Northbound St Martins Street (MCC Link) 175 2 177 200 1.8 PASS 8 2.6 PASS 208 2.2 PASS M3 2 Southbound St Martins Street (MCC Link) 184 1 185 169 1.1 PASS 8 3.3 PASS 177 0.6 PASS F2) PRE ME2 CALIBRATION – INTERPEAK Direction OBS OBS OBS MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW Site No. Movement No. Site Location Ref LIGHT HEAVY ALL LIGHT HEAVY ALL 1 1 Northbound Bridge Sollers near A438 55 1 56 209 13.4 FA IL 16 5.0 PASS 225 14.3 FA IL 1 2 Southbound Bridge Sollers near A438 61 1 62 189 11.5 FA IL 18 5.4 PASS 207 12.5 FA IL 4 1 Eastbound A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 583 16 599 487 4.1 PASS 11 1.4 PASS 498 4.3 FA IL 4 2 Westbound A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 578 17 595 491 3.8 PASS 7 2.8 PASS 498 4.1 PASS 5 1 Eastbound A4103 Roman Road 270 11 281 432 8.6 FA IL 10 0.1 PASS 442 8.5 FA IL 5 2 Westbound A4103 Roman Road 295 12 308 518 11.0 FA IL 2 3.9 PASS 520 10.4 FA IL 10 1 Eastbound A49 by Widemarsh Brook 809 25 834 964 5.2 FA IL 30 1.0 PASS 994 5.3 FA IL 10 2 Westbound A49 by Widemarsh Brook 810 24 834 786 0.8 PASS 19 1.1 PASS 805 1.0 PASS 11 1 Eastbound B4359 Newtown Road 361 2 363 513 7.3 FA IL 2 0.2 PASS 515 7.2 FA IL 11 2 Westbound B4359 Newtown Road 324 5 329 474 7.5 FA IL 3 0.7 PASS 478 7.4 FA IL 12 1 Northbound Burcott Road 382 2 383 412 1.5 PASS 4 1.3 PASS 415 1.6 PASS 15 1 Northbound A438 Ledbury Road 315 3 319 216 6.1 PASS 6 1.3 PASS 223 5.8 PASS 15 2 Southbound A438 Ledbury Road 324 6 330 294 1.7 PASS 5 0.3 PASS 299 1.7 PASS 16 1 Eastbound B4224 Eign Road 219 4 222 261 2.7 PASS 3 0.3 PASS 264 2.7 PASS 16 2 Westbound B4224 Eign Road 216 4 219 274 3.7 PASS 4 0.2 PASS 277 3.7 PASS 19 1 Northbound A465 Belmont Road 825 16 842 749 2.7 PASS 30 2.8 PASS 779 2.2 PASS 19 2 Southbound A465 Belmont Road 785 14 799 794 0.3 PASS 13 0.2 PASS 807 0.3 PASS 21 1 Eastbound Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 398 5 402 165 13.9 FA IL 6 0.8 PASS 172 13.6 FA IL 21 2 Westbound Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 573 6 579 340 10.9 FA IL 12 1.8 PASS 352 10.5 FA IL 22 1 Eastbound The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 356 3 358 338 0.9 PASS 7 1.7 PASS 345 0.7 PASS 22 2 Westbound The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 359 5 364 365 0.3 PASS 7 0.6 PASS 371 0.4 PASS 29 1 Northbound Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 53 1 54 36 2.7 PASS 1 0.3 PASS 37 2.6 PASS 29 2 Southbound Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 70 1 71 63 0.9 PASS 1 0.8 PASS 63 0.9 PASS 30 1 Northbound A49 by Norton Brook Farm 450 32 481 553 4.6 FA IL 16 3.2 PASS 569 3.8 PASS 30 2 Southbound A49 by Norton Brook Farm 441 29 470 575 5.9 FA IL 24 1.1 PASS 599 5.5 FA IL 31 1 Eastbound B4399 near Ridge Hill 125 20 145 77 4.8 PASS 3 5.0 PASS 80 6.1 PASS 31 2 Westbound B4399 near Ridge Hill 141 19 160 82 5.5 PASS 4 4.7 PASS 86 6.7 PASS 32 1 Northbound B4339, River Wye Crossing 158 1 160 186 2.1 PASS 9 3.4 PASS 195 2.7 PASS 32 2 Southbound B4339, River Wye Crossing 157 1 158 156 0.1 PASS 3 1.0 PASS 159 0.1 PASS 33 1 Northbound A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 571 27 598 631 2.5 PASS 14 3.0 PASS 645 1.9 PASS 33 2 Southbound A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 559 31 590 636 3.1 PASS 22 1.7 PASS 658 2.7 PASS 34 1 Northbound A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 446 33 479 557 5.0 FA IL 16 3.3 PASS 574 4.1 PASS 34 2 Southbound A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 442 29 471 583 6.2 FA IL 25 0.8 PASS 608 5.9 FA IL 35 1 Northbound A465, North of Junction with Church Road 427 17 444 402 1.3 PASS 29 2.6 PASS 431 0.6 PASS 35 2 Southbound A465, North of Junction with Church Road 415 16 432 374 2.1 PASS 12 1.0 PASS 387 2.2 PASS 36 1 Northbound Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South of railway bridge 10 0 10 29 4.5 PASS 0 0.3 PASS 29 4.5 PASS 36 2 Southbound Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South of railway bridge 9 0 9 23 3.5 PASS 0 0.3 PASS 23 3.5 PASS 37 1 Eastbound Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by Renault Garage 13 0 13 4 3.0 PASS 0 0.5 PASS 4 2.9 PASS 37 2 Westbound Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by Renault Garage 12 0 13 5 2.6 PASS 0 0.6 PASS 5 2.7 PASS 38 HC 1 Westbound A438, West of Luwardine 231 9 239 246 1.0 PASS 3 2.3 PASS 249 0.6 PASS 38 HC 2 Eastbound A438, West of Luwardine 247 9 257 271 1.5 PASS 2 3.0 PASS 273 1.0 PASS 42 HC 2 Westbound A438, By Broomy Hill 703 26 729 473 9.5 FA IL 15 2.4 PASS 488 9.8 FA IL 42 HC 1 Eastbound A438, By Broomy Hill 686 25 711 740 2.0 PASS 21 0.8 PASS 762 1.9 PASS 43 HC 1 Southbound A49 Edgar Street 691 26 717 933 8.5 FA IL 29 0.6 PASS 962 8.5 FA IL 43 HC 2 Northbound A49 Edgar Street 601 22 623 707 4.2 FA IL 16 1.4 PASS 723 3.9 FA IL 45 HC 1 Westbound A465, on crossing with railway line 590 22 611 265 15.7 FA IL 11 2.8 PASS 276 15.9 FA IL 45 HC 2 Eastbound A465, on crossing with railway line 814 30 844 574 9.1 FA IL 24 1.2 PASS 598 9.2 FA IL R1 1 Northbound A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill 385 32 417 441 2.7 PASS 13 4.0 PASS 453 1.7 PASS R1 2 Southbound A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill 390 32 422 461 3.4 PASS 18 2.9 PASS 478 2.6 PASS R2 1 Eastbound B4349, The Bines in Clehonger 206 4 210 193 0.9 PASS 7 1.4 PASS 201 0.7 PASS Direction OBS OBS OBS MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW Site No. Movement No. Site Location Ref LIGHT HEAVY ALL LIGHT HEAVY ALL R2 2 Westbound B4349, The Bines in Clehonger 192 5 198 172 1.5 PASS 6 0.4 PASS 178 1.4 PASS R3 1 Eastbound A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction 256 11 267 228 1.8 PASS 14 0.8 PASS 241 1.6 PASS R3 2 Westbound A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction 236 14 250 178 4.0 PASS 5 2.8 PASS 183 4.5 PASS R4 1 Northbound Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm 224 4 228 273 3.1 PASS 6 1.0 PASS 278 3.2 PASS R4 2 Southbound Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm 247 3 250 257 0.6 PASS 4 0.4 PASS 261 0.7 PASS R5 1 Northbound A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm 153 5 159 160 0.5 PASS 4 0.5 PASS 164 0.4 PASS R5 2 Southbound A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm 163 5 167 175 0.9 PASS 13 2.8 PASS 188 1.6 PASS R6 1 Northbound A49, East of Dinmore 398 22 421 396 0.1 PASS 13 2.3 PASS 409 0.6 PASS R6 2 Southbound A49, East of Dinmore 419 24 442 450 1.5 PASS 23 0.2 PASS 473 1.4 PASS R7 1 Northbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm 111 1 112 121 1.0 PASS 1 0.2 PASS 122 1.0 PASS R7 2 Southbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm 107 1 108 122 1.4 PASS 5 2.4 PASS 128 1.8 PASS R8 1 Eastbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm 485 20 505 575 3.9 PASS 25 1.0 PASS 599 4.0 PASS R8 2 Westbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm 483 21 504 552 3.0 PASS 4 4.8 PASS 556 2.3 PASS R9 1 Northbound A438, Frome Park 213 6 219 155 4.2 PASS 2 2.3 PASS 157 4.5 PASS R9 2 Southbound A438, Frome Park 204 4 208 146 4.3 PASS 2 1.4 PASS 148 4.5 PASS R10 1 Eastbound B4224, North-east of Mordiford 188 1 189 216 2.0 PASS 4 2.1 PASS 220 2.2 PASS R10 2 Westbound B4224, North-east of Mordiford 190 1 191 244 3.7 PASS 5 2.2 PASS 249 3.9 PASS R11 1 Eastbound B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm 194 7 200 163 2.3 PASS 3 1.8 PASS 166 2.6 PASS R11 2 Westbound B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm 195 6 202 193 0.2 PASS 7 0.1 PASS 200 0.2 PASS R12 1 Northbound Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages 111 1 112 118 0.7 PASS 2 1.0 PASS 120 0.7 PASS R12 2 Southbound Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages 113 1 113 158 3.9 PASS 3 1.6 PASS 161 4.1 PASS R13 1 Northbound A438, Green Crize 48 1 48 64 2.1 PASS 2 1.4 PASS 66 2.3 PASS R13 2 Southbound A438, Green Crize 46 0 47 51 0.6 PASS 2 1.2 PASS 52 0.8 PASS R14 1 Northbound A465, North of Goose Pool 226 13 239 207 1.3 PASS 23 2.4 PASS 229 0.6 PASS R14 2 Southbound A465, North of Goose Pool 219 12 231 197 1.5 PASS 6 1.9 PASS 203 1.9 PASS T7024 1 Northbound A49 Northbound between A40 and A4137 288 11 299 237 3.2 PASS 18 2.1 PASS 255 2.6 PASS T7024 2 Southbound A49 Southbound between A4137 and A40 296 11 307 239 3.5 PASS 25 3.4 PASS 265 2.5 PASS T7026 1 Southbound A49 Southbound between B4399 and A466 450 17 467 575 5.5 FA IL 24 1.6 PASS 599 5.7 FA IL T7026 2 Northbound A49 Northbound between A466 and B4399 458 17 474 553 4.2 PASS 16 0.2 PASS 569 4.1 PASS T7028 1 Southbound A49 Southbound between A417 and A4103 496 18 515 622 5.3 FA IL 19 0.3 PASS 642 5.3 FA IL T7028 2 Northbound A49 Northbound between A4103 and A417 458 17 475 549 4.0 PASS 13 0.9 PASS 562 3.8 PASS T7248 1 Northbound A49 Northbound between A465 and A438 near Hereford (South) 1,510 56 1,566 1,639 3.3 PASS 44 1.7 PASS 1,683 2.9 PASS T7248 2 Southbound A49 Southbound between A438 near Hereford (North) and A465 1,550 57 1,607 1,693 3.5 PASS 33 3.6 PASS 1,726 2.9 PASS M2 1 Eastbound Barton Road (MCC Link) 343 2 345 425 4.2 PASS 2 0.1 PASS 426 4.1 PASS M2 2 Westbound Barton Road (MCC Link) 431 2 433 429 0.1 PASS 2 0.0 PASS 431 0.1 PASS M3 1 Northbound St Martins Street (MCC Link) 132 1 133 140 0.7 PASS 8 3.4 PASS 148 1.3 PASS M3 2 Southbound St Martins Street (MCC Link) 97 1 98 176 6.8 PASS 12 4.4 PASS 188 7.5 PASS F3) PRE ME2 CALIBRATION – PM PEAK Direction OBS OBS OBS MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW Site No. Movement No. Site Location Ref LIGHT HEAVY ALL LIGHT HEAVY ALL 1 1 Northbound Bridge Sollers near A438 98 1 99 283 13.4 FA IL 9 3.6 PASS 292 13.8 FA IL 1 2 Southbound Bridge Sollers near A438 169 1 170 300 8.5 FA IL 9 3.5 PASS 308 9.0 FA IL 4 1 Eastbound A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 687 6 694 612 3.0 PASS 4 0.9 PASS 616 3.0 PASS 4 2 Westbound A4103 Roman Road by Holmer 753 15 768 817 2.3 PASS 11 1.1 PASS 828 2.1 PASS 5 1 Eastbound A4103 Roman Road 324 5 329 525 9.7 FA IL 3 1.0 PASS 527 9.6 FA IL 5 2 Westbound A4103 Roman Road 405 6 411 498 4.4 PASS 7 0.2 PASS 505 4.4 PASS 10 1 Eastbound A49 by Widemarsh Brook 868 22 890 989 4.0 PASS 13 2.2 PASS 1,002 3.6 PASS 10 2 Westbound A49 by Widemarsh Brook 867 30 896 917 1.7 PASS 10 4.4 PASS 928 1.0 PASS 11 1 Eastbound B4359 Newtown Road 315 2 317 429 5.9 FA IL 0 1.3 PASS 429 5.8 FA IL 11 2 Westbound B4359 Newtown Road 367 4 371 500 6.4 FA IL 1 2.1 PASS 501 6.2 FA IL 12 1 Northbound Burcott Road 490 2 492 391 4.7 PASS 1 0.7 PASS 392 4.8 FA IL 15 1 Northbound A438 Ledbury Road 542 3 545 385 7.3 FA IL 4 0.7 PASS 389 7.2 FA IL 15 2 Southbound A438 Ledbury Road 358 4 362 314 2.4 PASS 4 0.0 PASS 318 2.4 PASS 16 1 Eastbound B4224 Eign Road 359 2 360 341 1.0 PASS 1 0.4 PASS 342 1.0 PASS 16 2 Westbound B4224 Eign Road 232 2 234 311 4.8 PASS 2 0.2 PASS 313 4.7 PASS 19 1 Northbound A465 Belmont Road 835 10 845 802 1.1 PASS 15 1.4 PASS 817 1.0 PASS 19 2 Southbound A465 Belmont Road 1,192 26 1,218 1,103 2.6 PASS 14 2.7 PASS 1,117 3.0 PASS 21 1 Eastbound Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 411 3 414 252 8.7 FA IL 1 1.4 PASS 253 8.8 FA IL 21 2 Westbound Home Lacy Road by Red Hill 691 9 700 522 6.9 FA IL 3 2.7 PASS 524 7.1 FA IL 22 1 Eastbound The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 234 1 235 252 1.2 PASS 1 0.1 PASS 254 1.2 PASS 22 2 Westbound The Straight Mile (East of Lower Bullingham Lane) 543 4 548 608 2.7 PASS 2 1.2 PASS 611 2.6 PASS 29 1 Northbound Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 178 0 178 125 4.3 PASS 2 1.6 PASS 127 4.2 PASS 29 2 Southbound Near Haywood Lodge Farmhouse 93 1 94 61 3.6 PASS 1 0.1 PASS 62 3.6 PASS 30 1 Northbound A49 by Norton Brook Farm 554 16 570 547 0.3 PASS 14 0.4 PASS 562 0.3 PASS 30 2 Southbound A49 by Norton Brook Farm 693 19 712 772 2.9 PASS 10 2.2 PASS 782 2.6 PASS 31 1 Eastbound B4399 near Ridge Hill 132 9 141 52 8.4 PASS 0 4.2 PASS 52 9.1 PASS 31 2 Westbound B4399 near Ridge Hill 461 8 469 158 17.3 FA IL 0 3.8 PASS 158 17.6 FA IL 32 1 Northbound B4339, River Wye Crossing 356 1 357 326 1.6 PASS 11 4.1 PASS 337 1.1 PASS 32 2 Southbound B4339, River Wye Crossing 293 1 294 323 1.7 PASS 2 0.9 PASS 325 1.8 PASS 33 1 Northbound A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 730 13 743 605 4.8 FA IL 14 0.3 PASS 619 4.7 FA IL 33 2 Southbound A49 South of Holme Lacy Road, North of Pencroft Road 757 24 781 907 5.2 FA IL 10 3.3 PASS 917 4.7 FA IL 34 1 Northbound A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 549 16 566 557 0.3 PASS 14 0.5 PASS 572 0.2 PASS 34 2 Southbound A49 north of Grafton Lane, South of A49 junction with B4399 687 20 707 764 2.9 PASS 11 2.4 PASS 775 2.5 PASS 35 1 Northbound A465, North of Junction with Church Road 566 12 577 564 0.1 PASS 17 1.6 PASS 582 0.2 PASS 35 2 Southbound A465, North of Junction with Church Road 625 11 636 563 2.5 PASS 13 0.6 PASS 577 2.4 PASS 36 1 Northbound Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South of railway bridge 11 0 11 16 1.6 PASS - 0.3 PASS 16 1.5 PASS 36 2 Southbound Grafton Lane (North), On approach to junction with A49(T), South of railway bridge 14 0 14 34 4.0 PASS 0 0.0 PASS 34 4.0 PASS 37 1 Eastbound Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by Renault Garage 12 0 12 3 3.3 PASS 0 0.2 PASS 3 3.3 PASS 37 2 Westbound Grafton Lane (South), On approach to junction with A49(T), by Renault Garage 28 1 29 5 5.8 PASS 0 0.6 PASS 5 5.8 PASS 38 HC 1 Westbound A438, West of Luwardine 398 8 406 473 3.6 PASS 2 2.6 PASS 475 3.3 PASS 38 HC 2 Eastbound A438, West of Luwardine 358 7 366 424 3.3 PASS 2 2.7 PASS 425 3.0 PASS 42 HC 2 Westbound A438, By Broomy Hill 782 16 798 708 2.7 PASS 9 2.0 PASS 717 3.0 PASS 42 HC 1 Eastbound A438, By Broomy Hill 789 16 806 987 6.6 FA IL 13 0.9 PASS 1,000 6.5 FA IL 43 HC 1 Southbound A49 Edgar Street 674 14 688 817 5.2 FA IL 12 0.4 PASS 830 5.1 FA IL 43 HC 2 Northbound A49 Edgar Street 550 11 561 631 3.4 PASS 9 0.6 PASS 640 3.3 PASS 45 HC 1 Westbound A465, on crossing with railway line 490 10 500 481 0.4 PASS 5 1.8 PASS 486 0.6 PASS 45 HC 2 Eastbound A465, on crossing with railway line 1,034 21 1,055 905 4.1 PASS 18 0.7 PASS 923 4.2 PASS R1 1 Northbound A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill 517 18 535 543 1.1 PASS 14 0.8 PASS 557 1.0 PASS R1 2 Southbound A49 South, West of Aconbury Hill 550 18 569 642 3.8 PASS 10 2.1 PASS 652 3.4 PASS R2 1 Eastbound B4349, The Bines in Clehonger 291 3 293 242 3.0 PASS 7 2.0 PASS 249 2.7 PASS Direction OBS OBS OBS MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW MOD GEH FLOW Site No. Movement No. Site Location Ref LIGHT HEAVY ALL LIGHT HEAVY ALL R2 2 Westbound B4349, The Bines in Clehonger 307 2 310 268 2.3 PASS 4 1.1 PASS 272 2.2 PASS R3 1 Eastbound A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction 232 6 238 253 1.3 PASS 3 1.0 PASS 256 1.2 PASS R3 2 Westbound A438, West of Stretton Sugwas Junction 388 4 393 378 0.5 PASS 8 1.3 PASS 385 0.4 PASS R4 1 Northbound Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm 396 2 398 479 3.9 PASS 0 1.6 PASS 479 3.9 PASS R4 2 Southbound Stretton Sugwas Roundabout, Northern Arm 328 2 330 353 1.3 PASS 4 1.4 PASS 357 1.5 PASS R5 1 Northbound A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm 296 2 298 320 1.4 PASS 5 2.0 PASS 326 1.6 PASS R5 2 Southbound A4103/A4110 Signalised Junction, Northern Arm 205 3 207 166 2.8 PASS 1 1.0 PASS 167 2.9 PASS R6 1 Northbound A49, East of Dinmore 542 14 555 466 3.4 PASS 9 1.5 PASS 474 3.6 PASS R6 2 Southbound A49, East of Dinmore 568 15 584 525 1.8 PASS 11 1.3 PASS 536 2.0 PASS R7 1 Northbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm 207 0 207 234 1.8 PASS 1 1.2 PASS 235 1.9 PASS R7 2 Southbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Northern Arm 106 1 106 108 0.2 PASS 1 0.5 PASS 109 0.3 PASS R8 1 Eastbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm 709 11 720 788 2.9 PASS 12 0.5 PASS 801 2.9 PASS R8 2 Westbound Aylestone Hill Roundabout, Eastern Arm 653 11 664 749 3.6 PASS 6 1.7 PASS 755 3.4 PASS R9 1 Northbound A438, Frome Park 367 2 369 324 2.3 PASS 1 0.8 PASS 325 2.4 PASS R9 2 Southbound A438, Frome Park 339 3 342 310 1.6 PASS 2 0.4 PASS 312 1.6 PASS R10 1 Eastbound B4224, North-east of Mordiford 340 1 340 294 2.6 PASS 2 1.0 PASS 296 2.5 PASS R10 2 Westbound B4224, North-east of Mordiford 276 1 277 355 4.4 PASS 2 1.0 PASS 357 4.5 PASS R11 1 Eastbound B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm 312 2 314 273 2.3 PASS 1 0.9 PASS 274 2.3 PASS R11 2 Westbound B4399, Straight Mile/Chapel Road Roundabout, Eastern Arm 379 4 383 316 3.4 PASS 11 2.7 PASS 327 2.9 PASS R12 1 Northbound Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages 182 0 182 191 0.7 PASS 7 3.5 PASS 198 1.1 PASS R12 2 Southbound Tillington Road by Bronte Cottages 113 0 114 137 2.1 PASS 1 1.0 PASS 138 2.2 PASS R13 1 Northbound A438, Green Crize 44 0 44 57 1.9 PASS 0 0.2 PASS 58 1.9 PASS R13 2 Southbound A438, Green Crize 75 0 75 91 1.8 PASS 0 0.4 PASS 92 1.8 PASS R14 1 Northbound A465, North of Goose Pool 301 9 310 315 0.8 PASS 12 0.9 PASS 327 1.0 PASS R14 2 Southbound A465, North of Goose Pool 326 8 334 267 3.4 PASS 9 0.3 PASS 276 3.3 PASS T7024 1 Northbound A49 Northbound between A40 and A4137 344 7 351 229 6.8 FA IL 19 3.3 PASS 247 6.0 FA IL T7024 2 Southbound A49 Southbound between A4137 and A40 488 10 498 264 11.6 FA IL 13 1.0 PASS 278 11.2 FA IL T7026 1 Southbound A49 Southbound between B4399 and A466 700 14 715 772 2.6 PASS 10 1.2 PASS 782 2.5 PASS T7026 2 Northbound A49 Northbound between A466 and B4399 566 12 578 547 0.8 PASS 14 0.8 PASS 562 0.7 PASS T7028 1 Southbound A49 Southbound between A417 and A4103 628 13 641 687 2.3 PASS 12 0.2 PASS 700 2.3 PASS T7028 2 Northbound A49 Northbound between A4103 and A417 640 13 653 689 1.9 PASS 9 1.3 PASS 698 1.7 PASS T7248 1 Northbound A49 Northbound between A465 and A438 near Hereford (South) 1,694 35 1,728 1,752 1.4 PASS 25 1.9 PASS 1,776 1.1 PASS T7248 2 Southbound A49 Southbound between A438 near Hereford (North) and A465 1,925 39 1,964 2,312 8.4 FA IL 18 3.9 PASS 2,330 7.9 FA IL M2 1 Eastbound Barton Road (MCC Link) 216 - 216 288 4.5 PASS 1 1.2 PASS 288 4.6 PASS M2 2 Westbound Barton Road (MCC Link) 548 - 548 599 2.1 PASS 0 0.4 PASS 599 2.1 PASS M3 1 Northbound St Martins Street (MCC Link) 189 - 189 144 3.5 PASS 6 3.5 PASS 150 3.0 PASS M3 2 Southbound St Martins Street (MCC Link) 156 - 156 133 1.9 PASS 8 4.0 PASS 141 1.2 PASS F4) PRE ME2 JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION 19/04/2017 Dorchester Way, Belmont, Hereford to Moreland Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL - Google Maps
Dorchester Way, Belmont, Hereford to Moreland Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL Drive 3.1 miles, 14 min AM Peak - Taken at 08:12 19/04/2017
Map data ©2017 Google 1 km
via A465 14 min Fastest route, lighter traf c than usual 3.1 miles
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Dorchester+Way,+Belmont,+Hereford/Moreland+Ave,+Hereford+HR1+1BL/@52.0513288,-2.7267509,13z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48704a777931c4b3:0x580fbd8945048c4d!2m2!1d-2.... 1/1 Dorchester Drive 3.1 miles, 14 - 24 min Way, Belmont, Hereford HR2 7ZP to Moreland Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL Interpeak - Taken on 20/09/2017 at 12:09
Map data ©2017 Google United Kingdom 500 m via A465 typically 14 - 24 min Arrive around 12:44 PM 3.1 miles
via A465 and Holmer Rd/A49 typically 20 - 30 min Arrive around 12:50 PM 5.0 miles Dorchester Drive 3.1 miles, 14 - 22 min Way, Belmont, Hereford HR2 7ZP to Moreland Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL PM Peak - Taken on 20/09/2017 at 17:05
Map data ©2017 Google United Kingdom 500 m via A465 typically 14 - 22 min Arrive around 5:42 PM 3.1 miles
via A465 and Holmer Rd/A49 typically 20 - 35 min Arrive around 5:55 PM 4.9 miles
19/04/2017 Moreland Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL to Dorchester Way, Belmont, Hereford - Google Maps
Moreland Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL to Dorchester Way, Belmont, Hereford Drive 3.1 miles, 12 min AM Peak - Taken on 19/04/2017 at 08:13
Map data ©2017 Google 1 km
via A465 12 min Fastest route, lighter traf c than usual 3.1 miles
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Moreland+Ave,+Hereford+HR1+1BL/Dorchester+Way,+Belmont,+Hereford/@52.0513555,-2.7434021,13z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x48704a32d128f1a9:0xb1d8c3e91b9ec253!2m2!1d-2.... 1/1 Moreland Drive 3.1 miles, 12 - 18 min Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL to Dorchester Way, Belmont, Hereford HR2 7ZP Interpeak - Taken on 20/09/2017 at 12:09
Map data ©2017 Google United Kingdom 500 m via A465 typically 12 - 18 min Arrive around 12:38 PM 3.1 miles Moreland Drive 3.1 miles, 14 - 24 min Ave, Hereford HR1 1BL to Dorchester Way, Belmont, Hereford HR2 7ZP PM Peak - Taken on 20/09/2017 at 17:05
Map data ©2017 Google United Kingdom 500 m via A465 typically 14 - 24 min Arrive around 5:44 PM 3.1 miles