Bishopton Park

Transport Assessment

Report

Bishopton Park

Transport Assessment

Report

JMP Consultants Limited Mercantile Chambers 53 Bothwell Street G2 6TS

T 0141 221 4030 F 0800 066 4367 E [email protected]

www.jmp.co.uk

Job No. B063017

Report No. 1

Prepared by IA

Verified GJB

Approved by GJB

Status Final

Issue No. 4

Date 28 October 2008

Bishopton Park

Transport Assessment

Report

Contents Amendments Record

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Status/Revision Revision description Issue Number Approved By Date 1 GJB 30/06/2008 2 GJB 28/08/2008 Final 3 GJB 01/09/2008 Final 4 GJB 28/10/2008

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 General...... 1 Consultation to Date ...... 3 Study Objectives...... 3 Sustainable Transport Policy Framework...... 3 Relationship to STAG Part 2 Study ...... 8 Report Structure ...... 8 2 EXISTING SITUATION...... 9 Walking and Cycling ...... 9 Public Transport (for more detailed information, see separate Public Transport Study report) ...... 9 Existing Road Network ...... 13 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (BISHOPTON PARK) ...... 16 Overview of Proposed Development...... 16 Development Layout Characteristics...... 16 Development Links with Existing Bishopton Settlement ...... 17 Development Access to the Local Road Network ...... 18 Access to the Strategic Road Network...... 18 4 DEVELOPMENT TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS ...... 20 Introduction...... 20 Internal Trips...... 20 Trip Generation...... 24 External Trip Generation ...... 27 Modal Split and Trip Distribution ...... 29 Conclusion...... 37 Traffic Assignment...... 37 5 TRANSPORT INTERVENTIONS ...... 39 Objectives...... 39 Walking...... 39 Cycling...... 40 Bus Measures...... 42 Improvements at Bishopton Rail Station ...... 43 Improvements to Rail Infrastructure ...... 44 Travel Plan...... 45 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT GENERATED TRAFFIC...... 48 Committed Development...... 48 Traffic Modelling (for DMRB Assessment) ...... 48

Junction Assessments...... 49 Local Road Network (in Bishopton)...... 49 Road Network Outwith Bishopton ...... 54 7 M8 J29 ST JAMES ...... 61 8 M8 LINK FLOWS, CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE...... 65 9 LOCAL TRANSPORT ISSUES ...... 68 Background...... 68 Existing Situation – Pedestrian and Cyclist...... 68 Proposed Pedestrian and Cyclist Access Strategy ...... 74 Proposed Local Access Strategy ...... 75 Public Transport ...... 75 Summary of Local Issues ...... 75 10 CONCLUSIONS ...... 77

Tables and Figures

Table 1.1 Proposed Development Construction Stages...... 2 Table 2.1 Existing Bus Services...... 12 Table 3.1 Proposed Development Phasing...... 16 Table 4.1 Likely Number of Secondary School Pupils...... 21 Table 4.2 Residential Trip Composition ...... 22 Table 4.3 Supermarket People Trip Generation ...... 22 Table 4.4 Employees Residing and Working in the Same Ward ...... 23 Table 4.5 Employment Trip Composition...... 24 Table 4.6 Residential People Trip Generation ...... 24 Table 4.7 Employment People Trip Generation...... 25 Table 4.8 Commercial Trip Generation (Supermarket)...... 25 Table 4.9 Education People Trip Generation...... 26 Table 4.10 Peak Hour Trip Generation (total)...... 27 Table 4.11 Peak Hour Trip Discounts (Internal Trips)...... 28 Table 4.12 Peak Hour Trip Generation (Off Site People Trips) ...... 28 Table 4.13 Peak Hour Residential and Employment External Trips...... 29 Table 4.14 Distance Travelled to Work by Bishopton Residents...... 30 Table 4.15 Council Area of Residence and Workplace (1999 - 2002)...... 30 Table 4.16 Proposed Residential Development Trip Distribution (2-way) ...... 31 Table 4.17 Mode Share by Distance Travelled to Work by Bishopton Residents ...... 31 Table 4.18 Residential AM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode...... 32 Table 4.19 Residential PM Trip Distribution by Mode...... 32 Table 4.20 Distance Travelled to Work in Bishopton / ...... 33 Table 4.21 Council Area of Residence and Workplace (`1999-2002) ...... 33 Table 4.22 Proposed Employment Development People Trip Distribution...... 34 Table 4.23 Mode Share by Distance Travelled to Work in Bishopton ...... 34 Table 4.24 Employment Development – AM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode...... 35 Table 4.25 Employment Development – PM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode...... 35 Table 4.26 Combined Residential and Employment AM Peak Trip Distribution...... 36 Table 4.27 Combined Residential and Employment PM Peak Trip Distribution...... 36 Table 4.28 AM and PM Peak Traffic Assignment (No New Junction) ...... 37 Table 4.29 AM and PM Peak Traffic Assignment (With New Junction)...... 38

Table 5.1 Intervention Measures and Modal Shift from Private Car ...... 47 Table 6.1 List of Committed Developments ...... 48 Table 6.2 A8 Road/Station Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 50 Table 6.3 A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 50 Table 6.4 A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road – 2011 Weekday AM Peak...... 51 Table 6.5 A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road (with traffic signals) – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak with full development traffic...... 51 Table 6.6 A8 Greenock Road/Newton Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 52 Table 6.7 Old Greenock Road/Ferry Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 52 Table 6.8 Old Greenock Road/Kingston Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 53 Table 6.9 Greenock Road/Ferry Road Traffic Signal Junction 2011 Base plus Development...... 53 Table 6.10 Ferry Road/Drumcross Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 54 Table 6.11 Old Greenock Road/Drumcross Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 55 Table 6.12 Ferry Road/Compaq – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 55 Table 6.13 Ferry Road/ Park – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 55 Table 6.14 A726/M898 – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 56 Table 6.15 Red Smiddy – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 56 Table 6.16 Red Smiddy – 2011 Weekday AM Peak...... 57 Table 6.17 Red Smiddy – 2011 Weekday AM Peak – with mitigation measures...... 57 Table 6.18 M8 (Junction 31) – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 58 Table 6.19 M8/A8 On Slip – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 58 Table 6.20 M8/A8 Off Slip – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 59 Table 6.21 Southern Access – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 59 Table 6.22 Northern Access – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 59 Table 7.1 2006 Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 61 Table 7.2 2011 Do Minimum Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 62 Table 7.3 2011 Plus Development (No New Junction) Weekday AM and PM Peak...... 63 Table 7.4 2011 Plus Development (With New Junction) Weekday AM and PM Peak ...... 64

Appendices

APPENDIX A Indicative Masterplan APPENDIX B Framework Travel Plan APPENDIX C M8 Link Flows, Capacity and Level of Service APPENDIX D Junction Drawing APPENDIX E Autotrack Diagram

1 Introduction

General 1.1 JMP Consultants Limited (JMP) was commissioned by Redrow to prepare a Transportation Assessment for the Bishopton Park re-development of the Royal Ordnance works at Bishopton, .

1.2 The Royal Ordnance site at Bishopton is of strategic significance in the context of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley region. It extends to around 1000 hectares and is the largest derelict site in .

1.3 The adopted Structure Plan for the region identifies that the site holds long term potential for development. The rationale for selecting this site lies in the exceptional potential for strategic environmental renewal and regeneration together with the potential to link new development with the strategic road and public transport network. These aspects were confirmed through an Examination in Public of the Structure Plan in May 2007.

1.4 The site has played a significant role in the regional economy for almost a century. It has generated considerable levels of employment throughout its existence, peaking at 20,000 employees after the 1939-45 war. In parallel, secondary employment, linked to core activities, has been a considerable feature in the local economy.

1.5 The announcement in 1999 from BAE Systems (the site owner) that manufacturing activity at the Royal Ordnance site would cease was a trigger for the Scottish Executive to establish a Steering Group and Working Group comprising representatives from Trade Unions, BAE Systems, Renfrewshire Council, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise (national and local), Bishopton Community Council and the Paisley and District Chamber of Commerce.

1.6 The purpose of the Working Group was to optimise the potential of the site through remediation and regeneration and that any such potential was developed by working closely with all interested parties, particularly with the local community. The Working Group charged BAE Systems and Renfrewshire Council jointly with determining an appropriate scale and mix of development.

1.7 The masterplan being brought forward for the development comprises a large scale mixed use development. These land uses have now been refined to provide the following key elements that form the nucleus of an application for planning approval to Renfrewshire Council:

• 2500 Residential Units

• 138,000sqm of Employment land

• 12,000 sqm of Community and local service facilities (library, health centre, shops, village hall, parks)

• Primary school

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 1

1.8 It should be noted that when the initial technical analysis for the Transport Assessment was originally undertaken the development was proposed to include 2600 residential units. The assessment analysis was therefore carried out on the assumption that 2600 residential units would be implemented. However, discussions between Renfrewshire Council and Communities Scotland have since led to a reduction in the affordable housing by 100 and as such there are now 2500 residential units but this change did not justify a re-working of the analysis. Consequently, within the text reference will be made to 2500 residential units but the calculations have actually been done for 2600 residential units. This will lead to a slight overestimate of development trips however, we consider this to be appropriate with regard to the design and testing of infrastructure improvements.

1.9 It is envisaged that the proposed development, comprising of the above key elements, will be constructed in 6 separate phases over a 13 year period as indicated in Table 1.1. Until fairly recently the proposed phasing was as per the figures shown in brackets below. However, in response to extensive consultation in respect of the access strategy for the development, this phasing has recently been changed to provide greater protection to the existing village from additional vehicular traffic as the development is constructed and the early phases become operational.

1.10 It is important to note that the phasing of the commercial land at the development has evolved alongside the access strategy. Previously, it had been intended that the development would be constructed from the central area outwards. This method would have been enabled by taking access along existing routes from Bishopton including Rossland Crescent and Newton Terrace. These connections are now for pedestrians and cycles only under the proposed access strategy.

1.11 The access strategy now proposes that a new southern access road will be constructed at the outset of the development. Following this change to the access strategy, the employment land will be available at an earlier stage of the development build out.

1.12 Table 1.1 indicates the prospective dates at which employment land will be made available for use at the development site. It should be noted that any prospective employment usage at the site will require a separate planning application to be submitted and approved. As such, the date at which the employment land is occupied is subject to some variation. However, the land release schedule as indicated by Table 1.1 does forecast when this is likely to be.

Table 1.1 Proposed Development Construction Stages

Output Phases of Development Housing (units) Employment (ha) Community

2010–1012 (2009-2011) 411 (400) 11.77 (---) Health Centre, Village Square, Footway Links 2013-2015 (2012-2013) 491 (394) 14.6 (8.47) Library, Village Hall, Recreation Ground 2016 (2014-2015) 195 (303) --- (3.30) Primary School 2017-2019 (2016-2018) 617 (616) 15.24 (15.90) --- 2020-2021 (2019-2020) 480 (482) 1.84 (15.78) --- 2022- 2023 (2021-2022) 306 (305) 2.58 (2.58) --- Total 2,500 46.03 --- Cass Associates Phasing matrix (previous phasing shown in brackets)

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 2 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Consultation to Date 1.13 JMP has been in consultation with Transport Scotland (and previously the Scottish Executive) and their advisors since 2001 with regard to the transportation implications of developing at Bishopton. A Draft Transportation Assessment was submitted in July 2002 which included proposals for a new motorway junction on the M8 to facilitate access to the strategic road network.

1.14 At that time, the Scottish Executive requested that a STAG assessment be undertaken to assess the appropriateness of the proposed motorway junction. The STAG assessment process was commenced in 2003 resulting in the submission of a STAG Part 1 assessment which was compiled after considerable consultation. The Scottish Executive confirmed their “Approval in Principle” to a new motorway junction in January 2005.

1.15 A STAG Part 2 assessment was submitted in April 2008 and has since been approved although formal written confirmation as to the nature of that approval is still outstanding at August 2008.

1.16 This updated Transportation Assessment has been undertaken in parallel with the STAG Part 2 acitivities to reflect the latest policy guidance and the latest masterplan which has evolved through the consultation process. The TA also reflects the various matters discussed in relation to transport issues at the EIP in May 2007, and also to various discussions held with the local authority, Renfrewshire Council, over the past few years.

Study Objectives 1.17 The objective of this report is to provide supporting information to the planning application for the development and demonstrate to Renfrewshire Council and Transport Scotland (TRNMMD) that transportation matters have been suitably considered with an appropriate level of multi-modal measures brought forward to support the development of the site.

1.18 The study will introduce and describe the development proposals and will go on to assess the travel demand characteristics of the proposals (for the base transport network and with the impact of new infrastructure in place). Consideration will primarily be given to the development of measures to encourage walking, cycling and public transport. The impact of residual car generation will also be given full consideration.

Sustainable Transport Policy Framework National Transport Policy 1.19 The Government White Paper “Travel Choices for Scotland” published in 1998 ushered in a new wave in transport policy involving the reduction in the need to travel through integrating land use and transport planning and the encouragement of alternative transport modes to the private car.

1.20 The framework within which development proposals should be assessed in terms of transport is set out within Scottish Planning Policy 17 (SPP17) “Planning for Transport” and Planning Advice Note 75 (PAN 75) “Planning for Transport” provides guidance on its implementation. Additional guidance on the preparation of Transportation Assessments is provided within the Scottish Executive publication “Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide” published in 2005.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 3

1.21 Paragraph 7 of SPP17 highlights the role of the planning system in providing a pattern of development that:

• Reduces the need to travel

• Enables walking and cycling to local facilities

• Promotes road safety

• Provides high quality public transport access and manages motorised travel

• Facilitates movement by public transport and interchange between modes

• Takes account of identified population and land use change in improving accessibility to public services 1.22 Paragraph 50 identifies that a framework for delivering better integration of transport and land use planning will be a key policy tool. “Such a framework would consist of the following:

• Location policy, ensuring development has regard to national, strategic and local development plan requirements, and controlling the location of significant travel generating uses

• Maximum car parking standards

• Transport Assessment Methodology ensuring that proposed development incorporates maximum feasible sustainable transport access and forming the basis for planning conditions or agreements

• The use of Travel Plans and Planning agreements to promote sustainable transport solutions to development end users” 1.23 Paragraph 51 summarises the requirements that developers must satisfy if their proposals are to be granted planning consent:

“Planning permission should not be granted for significant travel generating uses in locations:

• where immediate links to walking and cycling networks are not available or cannot be made available;

• where access to public transport networks are further than 400 metres by walking;

• which would encourage reliance on the private car;

• which would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the strategic road and/or rail network; or

• where a Transport Assessment does not include any satisfactory mechanism for meeting sustainable transport requirement.”

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 4 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

1.24 SPP17 concludes that a high quality integrated transport system is important in relation to the Scottish Executive’s wider objectives. The aim is to ensure that “…location and design of new development…can support the better integration of land use and transport while helping to reduce the overall need to travel”.

1.25 PAN 75 “Planning for Transport” expands on how the policies of SPP17 may be delivered with the purpose of creating a safe, reliable and sustainable transport system for Scotland. One of the key tools in achieving this is integration and with regard to new developments, the PAN states that:

“The intention is for new developments to be user focused and for the transport element to promote genuine choice, so that each mode contributes its full potential and people can move easily between different modes.”

1.26 Annex D of PAN 75 sets out the new requirements for Transport Assessment which heralds the change from traditional car based assessments towards a more balanced approach of considering person trips and the modes by which they will travel. Para D1 states:

“Transport Assessment concerns person trips, not car trips. It is a comprehensive assessment that should enable all the potential transport impacts of a proposed development or redevelopment to be fully understood. The objective should be to encourage sustainable travel in relation to the transport mode hierarchy”

1.27 Beyond transportation objectives it is clear that the new development will facilitate the realisation of other key aspects of government policy. It will support the comprehensive regeneration and remediation of the largest brownfield site in Scotland to provide a form of sustainable development that will strengthen the community structure of Bishopton. In doing this it will also help to meet the long term needs for development in the sub-region, particularly the needs for employment development – an important component of the economic objectives of government.

Structure Plan Policy 1.28 The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan was prepared by a Joint Committee comprising of eight local authorities and provides a development strategy to the year 2020. The main document was published in 2000 and a Draft Finalised Supplementary Written Statement was published in October 2005. The Structure Plan is in accordance with national transportation guidelines and places an emphasis on the interrelationship between transport and land-use planning.

1.29 The integration of transport and planning is one of the four main aims of the Structure Plan and transport forms a key element of achieving the Plan’s development strategy. The Action Plan indicates that public transport levels should be maintained and increased if possible with double the proportion of the population being given access to dedicated/prioritised public transport routes.

1.30 The Structure Plan identifies Bishopton as one of two preferred locations (the other being Gartcosh) for long term expansion within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Area and its potential to directly link with the existing rail system is recognised. The Greenock to Glasgow corridor (which Bishopton lies within) is identified in the Structure Plan as one of the four main transport corridors within the Plan area.

1.31 An Examination in Public (EIP) was held in May 2007 in respect of the proposed Third Structure Plan Alteration and specifically to further consider contamination and transportation issues in respect of the Royal Ordnance site. The transportation issues covered by this document, and in the updated Public Transport Study and the STAG Part 2 Report include up-to-date clarification of the transport issues discussed at the EIP.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 5

Local Plan Policy 1.32 The Renfrewshire Local Plan was developed in tandem with the Renfrewshire Local Transport Strategy. The key policy with regard to transportation is the “Integration of Planning and Transport”. The Local Plan objectives in relation to transport are as follows:

• Encouraging more sustainable forms of transport

• Assessing the transportation implications of development proposals and ensuring that the provisions made for transport facilities are acceptable

• Making provision for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists

• Providing for freight transport requirements

• Making appropriate allocations of land for transport proposals

1.33 The Local Plan makes specific reference to the Bishopton Site with Policy SS2 setting out the Council’s requirements which include the preparation of a masterplan for the site which can be tested to see if the site is appropriate for mixed use development. The Plan identifies that the masterplan for the site should encompass the following principles:

• Strengthening the existing community of Bishopton by enhancing community infrastructure

• Sustainable development, including minimising private car use, safeguarding high value environmental resources, measures to reduce energy consumption, and sensitivity to resource carrying capacities

• Effective remediation, reclamation and reuse of the entire site, including the sustainable treatment of undeveloped areas for appropriate countryside uses. 1.34 With regard to the assessment of new residential developments, the Local Plan indicates that they must be satisfactory in terms of:

• Access to day-to-day services such as convenience shops, schools, clinics, libraries and community centre, particularly by walking and cycling

• Access to significant urban centres by walking, cycling and public transport

• The internal roads layout must be appropriate to facilitate free movement of children, pedestrians and cyclists

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 6 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

1.35 In terms of Transportation Assessments, The Local Plan indicates that they should demonstrate the following:

• The likely effects of the development proposal on the transport system

• The measures proposed to reduce the level of car use

• Levels of car parking taking account of emerging guidance on maximum car parking standards

• Proposals within and outside the site to encourage access by walking and cycling

• Improvements to public transport and projected impact

• Initiatives to secure sustainable travel by employees and customers, and business, commercial and freight traffic associated with the development. This may be in the form of a Travel Plan

• Agreed mode share targets i.e. the targets for people gaining access to the development using private car, public transport, walking and cycling. Local Transport Strategy 1.36 “A Local Transport Strategy for Renfrewshire” was published by Renfrewshire Council in 2000 and sets out the Council’s policies for the achievement of the overall corporate aims of improved integration and promotion of sustainable transport modes.

1.37 The council’s transportation policies can be summarised as follows:

• The council will adopt strategies which manage the growth of trips by private car and aim to achieve modal shift towards more sustainable modes of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport

• Improve walking routes and extend existing routes to create a comprehensive network

• Increase cycle use in order to double cycle use by 2012

• Increase attractiveness of public transport

• Manage demand for parking

• Provide a transport system which develops opportunities for access to employment, housing and community facilities

• Improve safety on the transport (roads) network 1.38 With regard to community development, the LTS indicates that:

“The Council will seek to provide a transport system which will develop opportunities for access to employment, housing and community facilities in support of the Council’s corporate objectives in terms of social inclusion.”

1.39 The LTS does not make specific reference to the proposed re-development of Bishopton. However, it does identify stress points on the existing road network which should be considered in the context of development proposals at Bishopton. These stress points include M8 junctions 26 to 29 and the Red Smiddy . Since the publication of the LTS, significant works have been undertaken at the Red Smiddy Roundabout which have provided additional capacity at this junction. No other schemes highlighted in the LTS have a direct impact on the development of Bishopton.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 7

Relationship to STAG Part 2 Study 1.40 There is currently no direct access available to the strategic road network (M8) to/from Bishopton from either east or west and various access studies have indicated the requirement for a new motorway junction to serve the existing and new Bishopton settlements. The Scottish Executive issued an “Approval in Principle” to the motorway junction in January 2005 subsequent to a review of the STAG Part 1 study produced by JMP.

1.41 The STAG Part 1 assessment considered a range of transport interventions necessary to support the proposed major mixed use development at Bishopton. These included strategies for walking, cycling, public transport and improvements to the road network. The study concluded that a range of interventions would be required which involved improvements to all these transport modes. The Part 1 study concluded that along with a range of non-car based measures, a new junction between the M8 and A8, located to the east of Bishopton in the form of east facing slips would be an integral part of the strategy. Two transport intervention strategies were carried forward from the STAG Part 1 appraisal with slightly different junction arrangements along this theme of a new motorway junction. This conclusion led to an “approval in principle” from the Scottish Executive regarding this form of road improvement.

1.42 The STAG Part 2 study has been developed in tandem with this Transportation Assessment and the purpose of this document is to investigate the impacts on the wider transport network as distinct from developing a specific access strategy for Bishopton Park.

Report Structure 1.43 Following on from this introductory chapter, the structure of the report is as follows:

• Chapter 2 Existing Situation

• Chapter 3 Proposed Development

• Chapter 4 Development Travel Characteristics

• Chapter 5 Transport Interventions

• Chapter 6 Traffic Impact of Development Generated Traffic

• Chapter 7 Junction Assessments

• Chapter 8 M8 J29 St James Interchange

• Chapter 9 M8 Link Flows, Capacity and Level of Service

• Chapter 10 Conclusions

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 8 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

2 Existing Situation

Walking and Cycling 2.1 The existing Bishopton settlement has a network of footways that provide linkage between the community facilities, shops and the residential development within the area. Formal pedestrian crossing facilities are available on Greenock Road. A pelican crossing is located just to the west of Kingston Road which provides linkage to the community centre, health centre and other local facilities to the south of Greenock Road including the existing transport interchange which is described in detail below. The traffic signals at the Greenock Road / Rossland Crescent junction have a pedestrian phase providing a safe crossing point for residents of the surrounding residential area.

2.2 A “Safe Routes to School” scheme is in operation in the area around Bishopton Primary School with associated signing and 20mph speed limit introduced to create a safe environment for children walking to and from the school.

2.3 The proposed development site is physically accessible by a network of existing footpaths which link to the existing Bishopton settlement. Footpaths will be extended on Newton Road, Rossland Crescent and Station Road between the development and the existing settlement of Bishopton.

2.4 There is no footway provision between the existing settlement and other settlements in the Renfrewshire area due to the distances involved.

2.5 There are currently no formal cycle facilities either within Bishopton or passing close to the site. The nearest formal facility is the Paisley and Clyde Railway Path (National Cycle Network Route 75) which routes through Linwood, passes to the south of Houston and and then on through Port Glasgow to finish at Gourock. National Cycle Network Route 7 connects with this path at Linwood and provides a route to Glasgow and to Irvine. The site is approximately 7km from NCN 75. The nearest formal cycle facilities between Houston (7 km away) and NCN75 is via a connection to the south of Houston.

Public Transport (for more detailed information, see separate Public Transport Study report) Existing Rail Services 2.6 Bishopton train station forms the focal point for the existing public transport interchange, where the provision of a bus stop & turning circle, taxi rank and park & ride facilities affords an opportunity for multi-modal journeys. The system is generally adequate to accommodate the demands of the existing village although it is operating at or around capacity on occasions in the morning peak periods. Rail commuter parking is a regular occurrence on the streets surrounding the station. At the request of Renfrewshire Council in 2006, BAE made some of their land available on the south side of the railway to provide additional parking for rail park and ride. There are approximately 200 spaces provided in total in the two car-parks. Car parking at the station is currently free.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 9

2.7 Bishopton station is located on the Glasgow Central to Wemyss Bay and Glasgow Central to Gourock electric line, providing easy access to the wider rail network. Peak hour services link Bishopton with Glasgow Central at least every 15 minutes, which include two express trains within the hour with limited stops to Glasgow. New Juniper 334 Class rolling stock was introduced to the Glasgow to Gourock line in 2002. The increase in rolling stock meant that some peak hour services could be increased from 3 to 6 carriages to help address the previous capacity problem on the line at peak times. Strategic local areas served by this line are Paisley, Hillington, and Greenock which all have both employment and leisure attractions. The travel time to Glasgow central from Bishopton is 17mins on express services and 23 minutes on all other services.

2.8 Bishopton station is owned by Railtrack and operated by First Scotrail. Currently 1500 passengers per day are using Bishopton station which places it within the top 25 stations in Scotland. At present, the park and ride facilities on the north side of the railway line at the station consist of approximately 100 parking spaces (including 4 reserved spaces for mobility impaired users) with an at-grade segregated pedestrian link to the eastbound platform. The car park has good quality lighting and CCTV cameras have also been provided. An additional 20 car parking spaces are located in front of the station ticket office and some on-street parking also takes place within this area.

2.9 A further 80 car-parking spaces were provided in 2006 on BAE land on the south side of the railway. Passengers are required to cross Station Road to gain access to the station platforms.

2.10 Access to the westbound (Greenock bound) platform is provided by a footbridge over the rail line and by a ramp from Station Road. A bus shelter and bus turning circle are located within the park and ride car park on the north side affording good integration between the two travel modes.

2.11 In discussion with SPT a number of key issues associated with rail travel on the Bishopton line have been identified:

• Improved rolling stock delivered some years ago allows some, but not all, peak hour services to run with 6 carriage capacity.

• The main capacity issue relates to travel on the network between Paisley and Glasgow.

• The proposed Glasgow International Airport Rail Link is currently committed for delivery in 2010/11 and will provide rail network improvements that include improved capacity on the rail section between Paisley and Glasgow plus improved platform capacity at Central Station.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 10 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

2.12 Information provided by SPT has confirmed that (2005 data):

• The capacity of a standard 3 car unit Jupiter Train Class 334 is 285 passengers (183 seated). A 6 car unit has a capacity of 570 passengers (367 seated).

• There are 7 trains towards Glasgow and 6 trains towards Gourock in the AM between 07:30 and 09:00.

• There are 6 trains in both directions in the PM between 16:30 and 18:00.

• At Bishopton, the maximum occupancy is in the AM peak eastbound with in excess of 330 passengers on the 8:08 service to Glasgow (assuming a 6 car unit with capacity for 570 passengers).

• The next highest volume is in excess of 220 passengers on one train during the weekday AM peak.

• The total number of passengers on the busiest 7 AM services in the peak direction towards Glasgow is 1240 passengers.

• The total number of passengers on the busiest 6 PM services in the peak direction from Glasgow is 700 passengers. 2.13 Notwithstanding the above, the key issue with regard to capacity is the passenger demand between Paisley and Glasgow.

2.14 The provision of appropriate capacity to accommodate the likely increase in passenger demand resulting from the Bishopton development will require to be multifaceted, depending on rolling stock capacity, line capacity and Central Station platform capacity. At the Structure Plan EIP in May 2007, Network Rail commented that they did not envisage anything within the currently envisaged improvements to the rail network and rolling-stock that would suggest that the Bishopton development could not be accommodated.

Existing Bus Services 2.15 The railway station is the focal point for public transport in Bishopton. The First ScotRail service from Gourock and Wemyss Bay to Paisley and Glasgow Central provides the principal means of access to the village by public transport. There is a limited network of local bus services providing little more than a local distributor service and a link to Erskine. A summary of the bus services currently serving Bishopton are indicated by Table 2.1.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 11

Table 2.1 Existing Bus Services

Operator Bus No. Route Frequency Frequency Frequency (Mon –Fri) (Sat) (Sun)

Arriva Scotland 23 Bishopton - One AM peak No Service No Service West journey to Glasgow Avondale Coaches 521 Erskine - Erskine Hospital - Every hour Every Hour No Service Bishopton Station Interlink (commuter service) Avondale Coaches 450 / 965 Barnbrock – Ranfurly or Ring ‘n’ Ride Ring ‘n’ Ride Ring ‘n’ Ride Bishopton - Ferry Road area Scottish Travel X24 Greenock – Pollock Centre Every 2 Hours Every 2 No Service (Thursday Hours only) Slaemuir Coaches 520 Bishopton - Bishopton Station Every Hour Every Hour No Service Local Interlink Slaemuir Coaches 521 Erskine - Bishopton Station Every Hour Every Hour No Service Interlink Marbill Coaches 328 Coulport – Erskine - Beith 2 times per No Service No Service day (Monday to Thursday, School days only) McGills Bus 501 Gourock – Bishopton - Inveraray Mondays No Service No Service Service Only; Once a day (Not Bank Holidays) McGills Bus 502 Gourock - Bishopton - Callander Thursdays No Service No Service Service only; Once a day (Not Bank Holidays) McGills Bus 503 Gourock - Bishopton - Wednesdays Once a day No Service Service Only; Once a (Not Bank day (Not Bank Holidays) Holidays) McGills Bus 508 Gourock – Bishopton - Oban Tuesdays and No Service No Service Service Fridays Only; Once a day (Not Bank Holidays)

2.16 Arriva SW operated a commercial service (27) between Bishopton, Erskine, , the Shopping Centre and Glasgow city centre in the daytime on Mondays to Saturdays. That service was withdrawn by Arriva in 2005 as it was not viable. It has been replaced by one weekday morning peak period journey to Erskine, Renfrew, Braehead and Glasgow city centre on Service 23 with no corresponding return journey in the evening peak period.

2.17 SPT provides financial support for two local bus services operated by Slaemuir Coaches in daytime on Mondays to Saturdays using a single accessible vehicle. The two services both operate hourly – Service 520 is the Bishopton Local Service and Service 521 provides a link to the Bridgewater Shopping Centre in Erskine. Last journeys on both services are sufficiently late to cater for commuters returning from Glasgow by train.

2.18 In addition, Service 55 operated by Marbill Coach Services consists of several schooldays only journeys between Beith, Paisley, Erskine and Bishopton. There are also several longer distance coach services operating to different destinations (e.g. Stirling, Inverary).

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 12 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

2.19 Bishopton and Erskine are also served by the SPT Dial-a-Bus demand responsive service provided for people who are unable to use or have difficulty in using mainstream public transport. Eligibility criteria restrict use to people aged over 80 years, blind people, recipients of particular DSS benefits (e.g. attendance allowance, disability living allowance paid at the higher mobility rate), and people with medical evidence of their inability to use buses and trains. The service provides access from home to local facilities.

2.20 The existing bus services operating within Bishopton are indicated by Figure 2 contained within the Figures document accompanying this report.

Existing Road Network Local Road Network - Within Bishopton 2.21 Figure 1 (contained in the Figures Document) indicates the existing road layout and key junctions within the Bishopton area. The primary route through Bishopton is the A8, a 10 metre wide single carriageway distributor road. The road is subject to a 30 mph speed restriction through Bishopton and street lighting is provided through the built-up area. Other main routes in the village include Ferry Road, Old Greenock Road and Kingston Road, all with frontage access and providing for movements to and from the main residential areas.

2.22 Ferry Road (B915) also connects the village with Erskine and is the most direct route to access Junction 1 of the M898 and an alternative route to the M8 via Junction 30. North of the village the road is rural in nature with no lighting and with no continuous footways.

2.23 Station Road, as its name suggests, provides access to the rail station and to part of the proposed development site. The existing road has frontage development along its length including a shop. There are parked cars along most of the length of the road associated with the frontage development. Some of the parking is likely to be associated with park and ride for the rail station when the formal off-street parking facilities are full. There is a rail over-bridge on the access to the development site which has a restricted height and width of 3.2 metres and 4.5 metres respectively. There is no formal pedestrian footway under the bridge at present.

2.24 The rest of the road network in the proximity of Bishopton is of a relatively low standard in road hierarchy terms. The B789 to the south provides access to the village of Houston and the south west sector of Renfrewshire. There is an unclassified road which lies to the west between the site and the Formakin Estate. In comparison to the A8, these routes have a lower standard of geometric characteristics including road widths, vertical and horizontal alignment.

2.25 There are 4 main junctions within Bishopton, namely.

• Greenock Road / Kingston Road, which provides a direct link to Old Greenock Road and the majority of Bishopton in the East.

• Greenock Road / Ferry Road / Rossland Terrace which is the only signalised junction.

• Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road with another side road Newton Road to the south and

• Old Greenock Road / Kingston Road, within the residential area. 2.26 The above junctions currently operate within capacity and enjoy relatively low volumes of traffic. The operational characteristics of these junctions are described in more detail later in this report.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 13

Local Road Network - Outwith Bishopton 2.27 The A8 runs through the existing village. To the west of Bishopton the A8 is of a reasonable standard linking with the M8 at Junction 31 (Bishopton). The link to the motorway junction is not lit and is without full pedestrian facilities. To the east, the A8 provides access to Inchinnan, Erskine and onward to Renfrew. Again the road is not fully lit and does not include full pedestrian facilities.

2.28 The A726 connects with the A8 at Red Smiddy Roundabout and provides the link between the A8 and the M8 motorway at Junction 29 (St James Interchange). Inchinnan Industrial Estate takes its principal access from the A726.

2.29 Red Smiddy Roundabout (A8 / A726) is the principal junction on the local road network and experiences a high level of traffic flows. Road improvements were recently constructed by Renfrewshire Council to improve the roundabout junction and these have lead to a significant increase in the capacity of the junction. Notwithstanding this, the junction currently operates at or above capacity during peak periods.

2.30 These improvements have extended many of the main parameters of the junction to the limits allowed within the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 6 – “The Design of Roundabout Junctions”. Therefore, further increases in entry width at the junction, one of the key determinants of traffic capacity, will not be possible and any significant increases in capacity at the junction could only be achieved by local dualling of critical approaches.

The Motorway Network 2.31 The M8 motorway runs around and close by Bishopton but no direct access is available. The current access options from Bishopton are:

• To the west and join at Junction 31.

• To the north and join at Junction 1 of the M898 and onwards to either the or Junction 30 of the M8 or

• To the east, using the A8 and A726 to access the M8 at Junction 29 (St James Interchange). 2.32 Traffic volumes on the M8 adjacent to Bishopton are relatively low for a 2 lane motorway. On the motorway section between Junction 29 and 30 the two way traffic volumes in 2005 were 4400vph (2-way) during the busiest peak hour. Between Junction 30 and 31 the traffic flows reduce to 2700vph (2-way).

2.33 To the east of Junction 29, on the White Cart Viaduct, M8 traffic volumes are significantly higher as a consequence of the traffic related to , Paisley and into North Ayrshire on the By-Pass.

2.34 With regard to the proposed development, the shortest route (time and distance) to the M8 to the west is via Junction 31 and the shortest to the east is via Junction 29.

2.35 Junction 29 St James Interchange is a grade separated roundabout junction and has recently been subjected to an improvement scheme which has seen the re-introduction of traffic signal control and some local widening to some of the junction approaches.

2.36 Traffic flows at the junction are expected to increase in the future due to extant development consents and growth in airport related traffic.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 14 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

2.37 The principle of the traffic signals is to accommodate the significant traffic movements on the major arms of the junction, including the M8 (East and West bound off ramps), A737 west facing off and on ramps and the A726 to/from Paisley. The A726 to Inchinnan is the least important arm of the junction and the green time that is allocated to this route at the traffic signals is minimal. However, the new improvement scheme has widened this approach to the junction in order that there are two entry lanes to boost the capacity of the arm.

2.38 Clearly, in considering the improvement of overall access to Glasgow International Airport, Transport Scotland may be under pressure to ensure that no net detriment to road based capacity is achieved through this junction.

2.39 The key risks with regard to the motorway network are:

• The lack of available capacity at Junction 29 and the difficulty of providing additional capacity associated with the A726 Inchinnan approach to the junction beyond recent improvements.

• The capacity of the M8 east of St James Interchange which is a critical section of infrastructure serving the West of Scotland.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 15

3 Proposed Development (Bishopton Park)

Overview of Proposed Development 3.1 The proposed development content and land use mix for Bishopton was developed by a working group which included representatives of Renfrewshire Council and the then Scottish Executive.

3.2 The proposed development, known as Bishopton Park, will predominantly consist of residential, employment, commercial and community facilities. It is proposed to construct the development in 6 Phases over a 13 year period, commencing in 2010. Table 3.1 indicates the proposed level of construction at each development stage.

Table 3.1 Proposed Development Phasing

Output Phases of Development Housing (units) Employment (ha) Community

2010–1012 (2009-2011) 411 (400) 11.77 (---) Health Centre, Village Square, Footway Links 2013-2015 (2012-2013) 491 (394) 14.6 (8.47) Library, Village Hall, Recreation Ground 2016 (2014-2015) 195 (303) --- (3.30) Primary School 2017-2019 (2016-2018) 617 (616) 15.24 (15.90) --- 2020-2021 (2019-2020) 480 (482) 1.84 (15.78) --- 2022- 2023 (2021-2022) 306 (305) 2.58 (2.58) --- Total 2,500 46.03 --- Cass Associates Phasing Matrix (previous phasing shown in brackets)

3.3 The development access options considered under the STAG Part 2 assessment are consistent with regard to local walking, cycling and public transport facilities. Therefore, the principle of the access strategy as far as these elements are concerned is not under scrutiny in this report since the key issues will be better informed by the STAG Part 2 Assessment report.

3.4 Again, it is important to note that the phasing of employment land in Table 3.1 relates to the release of this land and not the occupation of it. Individual planning applications will be required for all employment developments at the site. Therefore, in practice there is likely to be some time lag between the release of employment land, the occupation of the site and consequent generation of trips onto the network.

Development Layout Characteristics 3.5 The proposed development masterplan demonstrates the key aspects of the development particularly as they relate to integration and accessibility by all modes of travel. A copy of the indicative masterplan (Land Use Framework) is contained within Appendix A of this report. It should be noted that the built development will extend to around 25% of the total site area, with the balance remediated and reclaimed for open land uses which are generally compatible with the open countryside. The masterplan has been developed in consultation with Renfrewshire Council’s Planning Department.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 16 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

3.6 Integration of the proposed development with the existing settlement is considered to be essential and the masterplan has been developed to ensure that accessibility between the existing village and proposed development and in particular to shared employment, retail, educational and leisure facilities. The proposed development will be centred on the core of the village of Bishopton, represented by the railway station and the neighbouring Recreation Ground around which many of the village’s existing community and retail facilities are already located.

3.7 With regard to transportation accessibility, the principles which are adopted in the masterplan includes for the following:

1. Pedestrian and cycle access via the existing links at Newton Road, Rossland Crescent and Station Road. 2. Throughout the new development there will be direct and if necessary segregated pedestrian and cycle links which provide connections to all adjacent land uses and to the core of the development. These will provide excellent walk and cycle opportunities to the rail station, jobs, shopping and community facilities. 3. A Public Transport Interchange will be developed adjacent to the rail station which will provide cycle parking, car parking and a focal point for bus services, including the necessary number of bus stances. The final form and scale of the facility will be to the satisfaction of SPT. A separate study has been undertaken by JMP to formulate an appropriate layout for the facility and this is included in our Public Transport Study Report. 4. The development roads will provide a loop arrangement to afford good localised public transport access throughout the development. Junction arrangements on the principal distributor roads will take cognisance of the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. 5. Road access into the development will be provided via two new roundabout junctions onto the A8 Greenock Road, one east and one west of Bishopton. These access opportunities will minimise the level of new traffic within the existing Bishopton settlement

Development Links with Existing Bishopton Settlement 3.8 An appropriate access strategy has been developed for the new development area to provide safe, convenient and efficient access to the site while taking full account of the existing Bishopton settlement and its associated local transport network. This access strategy has evolved over a period of time and now reflects the views of the local community expressed through the consultation processes that have been underway for some time.

3.9 Within the context of reflecting the desires of the community and the local authority in terms of “managed” integration, connections and routes will be provided within and between the proposed development to the existing Bishopton settlement. It is the intention that these routes provide a level of accessibility with regard to walking, cycling and public transport. This Assessment will seek to identify measures that will take advantage of and reinforce the existing transport links as well as introducing new measures that are necessary to support the development proposals.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 17

3.10 There are many ways in which the Bishopton Park development will be integrated with public transport networks, pedestrian and cycle routes. In this sense it is highly consistent with the objective of closely integrating land use and transportation. Road transportation, however, needs to be facilitated in a different way. There needs to be adequate local links to and from the existing village but more strategic traffic movement to the east and west (towards Glasgow and Greenock) needs to be accommodated to minimise impact on the local community and the wider local road network.

3.11 The existing transportation interchange at Bishopton railway station sits in the middle of the existing and new settlements and is the natural choice for development as the transportation hub. Following consultation with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and Network Rail to discuss the principles of an expanded interchange facility that will support the existing and new development, the new facility will provide new facilities aimed at encouraging greater use of sustainable transport modes (through integration) while also extending the level of available parking.

Development Access to the Local Road Network 3.12 The proposed access to the local road network does not seek to encourage excessive traffic volumes to access the site via the existing village but does seek to provide an appropriate level of non-car permeability to ensure that the new and existing settlements are integrated and access to community facilities is available.

3.13 The proposed development is to be accessed from the A8 Greenock Road via 3 separate access points. It is proposed that two of these development accesses will be new junctions provided to an appropriate standard to act as the main points of vehicular access to the new development area. These new junctions are proposed as that connect the Northern Access Road and the Southern Access Road to the A8 to the north and south of the existing village.

3.14 These two new access points to the site will provide strong routes for development traffic to access the local road network without impacting on Bishopton. The development distributor roads will also be designed in order to maximise the public transport accessibility potential.

3.15 The third point of access will be via Station Road where vehicle access will be restricted only to the community facilities immediately south of the railway line and to the station’s east car-park for park and ride.

Access to the Strategic Road Network 3.16 At present, there is no direct access to the strategic road network available to Bishopton from either west or east. From the west, the most direct route is via M8 Junction 31 and on to the A8. This route is also available for drivers coming from the east but requires a significant diversion. From the east, drivers can reach Bishopton via M8 Junction 29 (St James Interchange) and then on the A726, linking to the A8.

3.17 An alternative route exists from the east, via M8 Junction 30, where drivers are required to travel along the M898 to the Erskine Bridge and approach Bishopton via the B815. This route is not particularly attractive either due to the increased distance that motorists are required to travel and the standard of the local road network between Bishopton and the Erskine Bridge. Notwithstanding, it is recognised that a proportion of existing traffic uses the B815 alternative, possibly as a consequence of congestion at St James Interchange.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 18 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

3.18 To serve both the new development and the existing Bishopton settlement, it is proposed to construct a motorway junction on the M8 between junctions 29 and 30. The principle of creating this junction has been the subject of a STAG 1 assessment in consultation with the Scottish Executive and they have confirmed their “Approval in Principle” to the creation of the junction subject to certain conditions. The proposed junction (which would allow a west bound off-ramp from the motorway and an eastbound on-ramp to the motorway) is now part of an access strategy that is the subject of a STAG 2 assessment that has recently been approved by Transport Scotland. Subsequent Chapters of this report are informed in part by aspects of this STAG 2 report.

3.19 It is likely that the construction of a new junction at this general location would minimise the impact on the existing Bishopton settlement and relieve some of the peak hour congestion that occurs at St James Interchange, as well as providing development related traffic and trips associated with Inchinnan Business Park and other local developments with an alternative to using St James Interchange. The proposed local access strategy would also provide improved access for bus services to the local and strategic road network with the potential for greater bus patronage by providing a direct link through the development between the two main points of access from Greenock Road.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 19

4 Development Travel Characteristics

Introduction 4.1 The methodology and results of the people trip assessment and trip distribution outlined below have been agreed by both Transport Scoltand (the Scottish Executive) and Renfrewshire Council.

4.2 Trip generation is dealt with in the first section of this Chapter but prior to the distribution of this traffic to the wider network, the trips that will remain within Bishopton are discussed in the Internal Trips section of this report. This allows an accurate assessment of the effect on the local and strategic road network to be established.

4.3 The travel characteristics of the development can be broadly split into three categories which are as follows:

a )Trips from the proposed development

b) Trips from the existing village

c) Trips to employment within proposed development

4.4 There is an element of interaction between these and in particular a significant number of trips within a) and b) remain within the new development. These trips while having an effect on the traffic characteristics within Bishopton, both existing and proposed, will remain within Bishopton and not have an impact on the wider road network.

4.5 Within these internal trips there will also be a number of trips which are made by residents of both the existing village and the proposed development to the new employment and as such will also have an effect on c) above.

4.6 Consequently an examination of the types of trips which are likely to remain within the Bishopton boundary will be identified and quantified to allow their effect on Bishopton to be quantified and to allow a more accurate assessment to be carried out on the wider network.

Internal Trips General 4.7 The trip types require to be examined based on the general land use within the existing village and the proposed development. This will allow an assessment of where the trips start and end so that the trips which are identified as starting and stopping within Bishopton, both the existing village and the new development, can be identified as trips which do not create traffic beyond Bishopton.

4.8 The trips types are considered below and the overall effect on the traffic distribution is discussed for each trip type.

Education 4.9 It is proposed that the Bishopton development site will house a new primary school. For the purposes of assessment, we have been informed that the primary school requirement will be for 550 pupils, a figure provided by Renfrewshire Council’s Education Department. This will be catered for by spare capacity in the existing school for 150 pupils and a new school of 400 pupils being constructed as part of the new development.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 20 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

4.10 It has been assumed that all people trips within the AM period will be arrivals and that 100% (550) of new primary pupil trips will be from within the development area. Consequently, no generated trips for primary school pupils will be considered for the wider road network.

4.11 It has been assumed that all staff trips to the primary school will be external.

4.12 With regard to secondary school education, we have been informed that pupils originating from the residential element of the proposed development will require to travel outwith the development site. The secondary school children from the existing village currently travel by special school bus to Erskine and the children from the new development will do likewise.

4.13 The likely number of secondary school pupils has been determined from Census data, particularly household occupancy figures for Bishopton, which has been applied to the proposed total number of development houses. The results of this calculation are indicated in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Likely Number of Secondary School Pupils No. of Household Total Population of Population Pecentage of Total Pupils Houses Occupancy Household Bishopton Aged 12 Bishopton (based on Factor Population to 15 Population household population) 2,602 2.72 7,077 5,157 278 5.4% 382

4.14 Table 4.1 indicates that the proposed development is likely to generate 382 secondary school pupil trips. Notwithstanding, it should be noted that the number of pupils has been taken from the 12 to 15 age band and therefore does not account for 16 to 17 year olds attending secondary school. We would therefore consider the figure of 382 pupils to be robust in terms of assessment.

4.15 On the basis that Erskine is remote from most of the main destinations from Bishopton it has been assumed that all people trips will be either by the provided bus service or as drop off from other trips with Erskine as a destination. Consequently, no additional generated trips for secondary school pupils will be considered for the wider road network.

Further Education 4.16 There is a large number of trips associated with students that will occur in the peak periods. However, the mode share associated with these trips is significantly different from that of the other residents. As a consequence of this, a separate mode share has been established for students and as a consequence further education student trips require to be deleted from the base trips which are being considered for all other users.

Community Facilities 4.17 There will be a number of Community Facilities within the new development, such as the Health Centre, which will equally serve the new development and the existing community. The isolated nature of Bishopton will lead to extremely low use of the Health Centre from any other locations outwith the existing Bishopton village and the proposed development.

4.18 Consequently, there will be no generated trips for visitors to the Health Centre or other Community Facilities to be considered on the wider road network.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 21

Leisure 4.19 Trip purpose data presented within the Scottish Household Statistics report (TRN/2005/2) indicates that approximately 5-7% of trips made during the peak hour are for entertainment or leisure purposes. Therefore, we have assumed that 5% of the total residential trip generation will be internal trips to the local residential community (i.e. trips from one house to another) and leisure facilities such as the park.

4.20 Internal trips associated with the leisure and community facilities are as shown in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Residential Trip Composition

AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Total 572 2,966 3,539 1,795 1,119 2,914 Residential Generation Leisure Trips 29 148 177 90 56 146 (5%)

4.21 As a result of this analysis it can be assumed that the figures in Table 4.2 can be discounted from the total generated trips for the new development and will therefore not be considered for the wider road network.

Commercial 4.22 It is expected that the majority of the trips generated by the local commercial facilities will also remain within Bishopton due the isolated nature of Bishopton and the nature of the shops which will result in few trips to Bishopton from external locations.

4.23 Most trips which are made to the local shopping facilities (i.e. non food retail elements) within the new development as a separate trip are likely to be outwith the peak periods. Some trips are likely to be made to the shops during peak periods but only as pass by trips for other destinations. Consequently no reduction to the overall trips on the wider network will be made.

4.24 Most trips which are made to the supermarket element are likely to be discrete, as foodstuffs are not a commodity that is likely to be kept in a car for a long period of time. However, on the return journey to Bishopton it is possible that a number of trips may be made to the supermarket on the way home and as such it has been assumed that 30% of the trips will be pass by trips.

4.25 Table 4.3 indicates the people trip generation associated with the 2,500 sqm GFA supermarket. The trip rates used have been obtained from an interrogation of the TRICS database as detailed before. The number of trips has been reduced to account for pass-by and linked trips.

Table 4.3 Supermarket People Trip Generation AM Period PM Period

In Out Total In Out Total

Trip rate (per 100sqm) 5.92 3.74 9.66 11.70 11.52 23.22 People Trips 148 94 242 293 288 581 30% pass-by 44 28 72 88 86 174 Internal People Trips 104 66 170 205 202 407

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 22 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

4.26 It should be noted that although the above calculations have been undertaken for a retail area of 2500 sqm, this has been done purely for transport impact reasons. It is recognised that any retail element greater than 1000 sqm will require its own planning justification as part of a separate process.

Employment 4.27 JMP has analysed travel to work data from the 2001 census in order to determine the number of employees that work and live in the same ward. This analysis has been undertaken in order to estimate the number of internal trips between the employment and residential elements of the site.

4.28 This data is based on the census data for residents and provides a figure for the number of employees with a residential origin and employment destination in the same ward. Consequently the total number of employees who live and work in the same ward can be established and this can then be expressed as a percentage of the total employees within each ward.

4.29 Table 4.4 indicates the number of employees that live in the ward in which they work for the Bishopton and Erskine (South East)/Inchinnan wards which contain similar levels and types of employment to that envisaged at the new site.

Table 4.4 Employees Residing and Working in the Same Ward Ward Total Employed that Number Employed that Residents that live and Reside within Ward Reside and Work Within work in the same ward Ward (excluding self-employed) Erskine SE and 2,374 360 15.2% Inchinnan Bishopton 2,570 470 18.2% Average - - 16.7%

4.30 Table 4.4 indicates that an average of 16.7% of residents are employed in the ward in which they live. In order to produce a robust estimate of external trips, JMP have assumed an internal trip rate of 15% for the employment element of the development i.e. 15% of those employed within the new development site will also live within the Bishopton area.

4.31 This is a lower rate to the 20% figure agreed with the Scottish Executive for the Stirling Major Growth Area project and given the level of employment envisaged for the site. We would therefore consider this value to be robust.

4.32 Internal trips (i.e. trips from residential element to employment on site) associated with the development have an effect on both the generated residential and employment trips.

4.33 This percentage could be applied to either the residential population or the employment population and it was assumed that the percentage should be applied to the employment figure as this will relate to a percentage of the available jobs. If the percentage was applied to the residential figure then a number of jobs would require to be created to meet the demand rather than a percentage of the jobs which are available.

4.34 Consequently, the percentage has been applied to the total employment available within the new development and is indicated in Table 4.5 below.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 23

Table 4.5 Employment Trip Composition

AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Total 1,973 138 2,111 166 1,504 1,670 Employment Generation Internal Trips 296 21 317 25 226 251 (15%) External Trips 1,667 117 1,794 141 1,278 1,419 (85%)

4.35 While this figure demonstrates the number of employment trips which can be discounted as the origin of the trip will be within Bishopton, it must also be remembered that the figure for generated trips from the residential area to employment will also include the trips where the destination of the trip stays within the development employment in Bishopton. Consequently, this discounted figure will require to be discounted against both the residential and employment elements.

Trip Generation Residential Element 4.36 The number of people trips generated by the development has been estimated from the TRICS database as previously presented in the Scoping Report produced by JMP in June 2005. Table 4.6 below indicates the residential trip rates obtained and the resultant people trips associated with the residential element of the proposed development.

Table 4.6 Residential People Trip Generation AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN Out Total In Out Total

Residential Trip Rate (per house) 0.22 1.14 1.36 0.69 0.43 1.12 Residential Trips (2602 Houses) 572 2,966 3,538 1,795 1,119 2,914

Non Residential Element 4.37 There is a significant non residential element (154,179sqm) within the development which is predominantly made up of employment development (138,000 sqm) which accounts for just under 90% of the non residential element. The remainder (16,179 sqm) is a combination of commercial and community uses. For the purposes of the transport impact calculations, commercial uses are assumed to be a mix of general shops and a 2,500sqm supermarket, while the community uses will be made up of facilities such as a primary school and health centre.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 24 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Employment 4.38 As with the residential element above, the employment element has been estimated from the TRICS database as previously presented in the Scoping Report produced by JMP in June 2005. Table 4.7 below indicates the employment trip rates obtained and the resultant people trips associated with the employment element of the proposed development. The trip rates have been applied to the employment element of the development which comprises a business park with a total GFA of 138,000 sqm. Within this floor area the 138,000 sqm will be split as 80% office space (110,400 sqm GFA) and 10% each of industrial and warehousing/distribution (13,800 sqm GFA). For the purpose of assessment, the same trip rate has been applied to all employment GFA.

4.39 People trip numbers based on this site are as indicated by Table 4.7 below and it is proposed to adopt these rates for calculating the number of trips associated with the development’s main employment elements.

Table 4.7 Employment People Trip Generation

Trip Generation Rates (per 100sqm GFA) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Business Park (Based on 138,000 sqm) 1.43 0.10 1.53 0.12 1.09 1.21 Employment People Trips (Based on 138,000 sqm) 1,973 138 2,111 166 1,504 1,670

Commercial 4.40 It is assumed for TA purposes that the Bishopton Park would house a number of small shops and a 2,500sqm GFA supermarket to serve the new development. As stated previously the people trip numbers based on this shop element of the commercial development will not be discounted and consequently have not been calculated. This element also includes the pharmacy in the Health Centre.

4.41 People trip numbers based on a supermarket are as indicated by Table 4.8 below and it is proposed to adopt these rates for calculating the number of trips associated with the development’s supermarket.

Table 4.8 Commercial Trip Generation (Supermarket) Trip Generation Rates (per 100sqm GFA) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Commercial (Supermarket) (Based on 2,500sqm) 5.92 3.74 9.66 11.70 11.52 23.22 Commercial (Supermarket) People Trips 148 94 242 293 288 581 (Based on 2,500 sqm)

4.42 The effect of the pass-by trips has already been discussed in paragraph 4.25 and the figure relating to this is as shown in Table 4.3. The internal trips indicated on Table 4.3 will therefore be discounted from the overall generated trips on the wider road network.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 25

Community 4.43 It is proposed that the community element of the development will contain a Health Centre and a Primary School as well as other as yet unknown facilities.

Health Centre 4.44 The Health Centre will be comprised of Doctor’s and Dentist’s Practices with an associated pharmacy. The Doctor’s practice is assumed to have a floor area of 1,400sqm and the Dentist’s practice will contain a floor area of 200sqm. The floor area of the Pharmacy will be contained within the commercial element of the development as detailed in paragraph above.

4.45 It is assumed that most trips to the Health Centre and other Community Facilities will take place as discrete trips except for a small number as pass-by trips. Consequently no discount will be taken as a result of the Community Facilities and therefore no trip generation figures will be calculated for the Community Facilities.

Primary Education 4.46 It is proposed that the Bishopton development site would house a new primary school and that secondary school pupils would be bussed out to Erskine as discussed in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.15. Consequently the only trip generation figures which will be considered are for staff at the Primary School and the bus trips for the secondary school pupils.

4.47 We would envisage that the majority of staff trips to the site will be external and analysis of a database containing all the schools in the Renfrewshire Local Authority area has revealed the following ratios of full time equivalent (FTE) staff to pupils:

• Primary – 1 FTE staff member to every 20 pupils 4.48 Applying the analysis of staff numbers to the expected capacity of the school reveals the following people trip generation characteristics for staff members.

4.49 Table 4.9 below shows the people trip generation for the primary school staff associated with the proposed development. It has been assumed that all trips in the AM period are arrivals and that all trips in the PM period are departures.

Table 4.9 Education People Trip Generation Pupils Staff Ratio (1 member of staff to number of pupils) Staff Numbers Primary 550 20 28

4.50 Table 4.9 indicates an estimated total of 28 staff. It has been assumed that all people trips associated with staff at the schools are arrivals during the AM peak period. It has been assumed that an additional 8 support staff will be required at the school giving a total of 36 staff.

4.51 The PM peak period for primary schools is highlighted within TRICS as 15:00-16:00 (with the majority of trips in the first half hour of this period), clearly outwith the network peak for this area of Renfrewshire which is 16:45-17:45. However, it has been assumed that this peak relates to pupils leaving at the end of the school day and that staff would depart at a later time. Therefore, it has been assumed that 18 (50%) departures from the school will be made during the PM peak period by staff.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 26 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Secondary Education 4.52 The secondary school trips from outwith the development site would potentially qualify for bus travel to and from the school. Assuming a bus occupancy figure of 50 pupils per bus would equate to a required provision of 8 buses to transport pupils to and from secondary school.

Further Education 4.53 As detailed in paragraph 4.16 further education student trips will be discounted. It is therefore necessary to establish the number of trips associated with students.

4.54 By examining Table CAS218 in the National Census for the Bishopton ward it can be seen that there are 171 full time students in the 16 to 24 age group. Assuming that within this age group, students between 16 and 18 could still be at school. Consequently within the overall age band, two years can be discounted. To compensate for this, only 75% of the total will be considered giving a total of 128 students. Using the same principles for students who are also in employment a figure of a further 137 students is obtained. Additionally, there are another 69 older students which gives a student total of 334 students.

4.55 As a percentage of the total population this equates to 11.2%. By applying this to the calculated trip rate, a trip rate for students can then be calculated and this equates to 296 trips in the AM and 264 trips in the PM.

External Trip Generation 4.56 Table 4.10 indicates the number of people trips generated by the residential and employment elements of the development.

Table 4.10 Peak Hour Trip Generation (total) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Residential 572 2966 3538 1795 1119 2914 Employment 1973 138 2111 166 1504 1670 Education 0 8 8 0 0 0 (Secondary buses) Education Staff 36 0 36 0 18 18 Total 2581 3112 5693 1961 2641 4602

4.57 The internal trips which can be discounted from the external trip distribution have been identified in the previous section on Internal Trips and are summarised in Table 4.11.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 27

Table 4.11 Peak Hour Trip Discounts (Internal Trips) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Leisure 29 148 177 90 56 146 Primary School - 550 550 - - - Education - 296 296 264 - 264 (University/College) Commercial 104 66 170 205 202 407 (Supermarket) Residential to 21 296 317 226 25 251 Employment Employment from 296 21 317 25 226 251 Residential Total 450 1377 1827 810 509 1319

4.58 The trip generation for off site trips can then be adjusted to discount the internal trips and create a figure that represents the actual trips from the development. The results of this are shown in Table 4.12 which is determined by combining Table 4.10 and Table 4.11.

Table 4.12 Peak Hour Trip Generation (Off Site People Trips) AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

Total 2581 3112 5693 1961 2641 4602 Internal 450 1377 1827 810 509 1319 External 2131 1735 3866 1151 2132 3283

4.59 Table 4.12 above indicates that the proposed development is likely to generate a total of 3,866 and 3,283 two-way people trips during the weekday AM and PM Peak periods respectively.

4.60 Table 4.13 indicates a breakdown of the total number of external trips indicated by Table 4.12for the residential and employment elements of the proposed development during both the weekday AM and PM Peak periods. Table 4.13 also identifies how the internal trip deductions have been applied to the respective elements.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 28 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Table 4.13 Peak Hour Residential and Employment External Trips AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

IN OUT Total IN OUT Total

RESIDENTIAL 572 2966 3538 1795 1119 2914 Leisure -29 -148 -177 -90 -56 -146 Primary School - -550 -550 - - - Education - -296 -296 -264 - -264 (University/College) Commercial -104 -66 -170 -205 -202 -407 (Supermarket) Residential to -21 -296 -317 -226 -25 -251 Employment Secondary - +8 +8 - - - Education (Buses) RESIDENTIAL 418 1618 2036 1010 836 1846 TOTAL IN OUT Total IN OUT Total EMPLOYMENT 1973 138 2111 166 1504 1670 Employment from -296 -21 -317 -25 -226 -251 Residential School Staff +36 - +36 - +18 +18 EMPLOYMENT 1713 117 1830 141 1296 1437 TOTAL COMBINED 2131 1735 3866 1151 2132 3283 RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT TOTAL

4.61 Table 4.13 indicates that, of the total 3,866 AM Peak external two-way people trips, 2,036 two-way trips will be generated by the residential element while the remaining 1,830 two-way trips will be generated by the employment element.

4.62 Of the equivalent 3,283 PM Peak total external two-way trips, 1,846 two-way trips will be generated by the residential element while the remaining 1,437 two-way trips will be generated by the employment element.

4.63 The above weekday AM and PM peak total external two-way trip figures indicated by Table 4.13 for both the residential and employment elements of the proposed development consequently form the basis of the following modal split and trip distribution section of the report.

Modal Split and Trip Distribution General 4.64 The people trip methodology is consistent with the guidelines provided by the Scottish Executive in the document, “Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide”, which refer to the use of people trip assessment methods and the use of Census data to determine existing travel characteristics and a potential base for assessing the characteristics of new development.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 29

Methodology for Residential Development 4.65 The general methodology which has been applied is as follows:

• People Trip Generation – Calculated using information from the TRICS database for residential related trips.

• Residential Development People Trip Distribution – Distribution will generally follow existing patterns of Bishopton residents and the wider patterns in Renfrewshire. The existing trip distribution was obtained through analysis of 2001 census travel to work data. The patterns arising from above indicate high proportions of residents working within 5km of Bishopton. It is considered appropriate to continue with this pattern because firstly, there will be a significant number of new jobs in Bishopton, which will encourage synergy between the land uses and secondly, the trip generation relates to all trips, not just trips to work and hence a high degree of non work related trips will occur, for example taking children to school.

• Residential Development People Trip Distribution – The distribution of trips within distance travelled bands has been undertaken using gravity model principles. For the residential development this process is based on the number of jobs within ward areas (these are taken from Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) 2001 (ABI) Statistics)

• Residential Mode Share - The mode share used is that currently occurring in Bishopton again taken from the 2001 census data of Bishopton. The mode share is applied in bands of distance travelled to reflect local walking and at the other end of the scale the high proportion of car trips on longer distances. The impact of the train is also included. However, no adjustment has been made to account for the likely future upgrading of services on the Bishopton line (or on the rail network generally) during the implementation phases of the development which could increase the percentage of travel by train. Key Information Regarding Residential Development People Trip Distribution 4.66 The 2001 Census identified the distance which people from Bishopton currently travel to work and the Scottish Household Survey indicated the Council area of workplace. These are indicated in Table 4.14 and Table 4.15 below.

Table 4.14 Distance Travelled to Work by Bishopton Residents Distance Travelled 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ Percentage 20% 32% 41% 7%

Table 4.15 Council Area of Residence and Workplace (1999 - 2002) Area of Workplace

Area of Residence Glasgow Argyle/Dunbarton Renfrewshire / Others Total Inverclyde

Renfrewshire / Inverclyde 28% 3% 62% 7% 100%

4.67 JMP has combined both of the above data sets to determine an appropriate distribution of travel to work from the proposed development at Bishopton. Table 4.16 indicates the distribution of travel to work by employment location.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 30 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Table 4.16 Proposed Residential Development Trip Distribution (2-way) Distance Percentage by Employment Location AM Trips PM Trips Comments Band Band 0-5km 20% Bishopton (area around main 149 135 settlement) Erskine West 237 214 Erskine Central 22 20 5-10km 32% Glasgow Airport 299 271 St James 77 70 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 76 69 Linwood (East and West) 46 41 Houston/Bridge of Weir/ 93 84 Brookfield/Craigend/ Dumbartonshire / Argyle 61 55 3% 10-20km 41% Paisley 140 125 Johnstone 26 24 Glasgow 586 530 28% Port Glasgow plus part 46 42 Inverclyde Kilmalcolm 6 6 Renfrew / Braehead 63 57 20km+ 7% Remainder of Inverclyde 143 129 Total 100% 2070 1872

4.68 Table 4.16 requires a correction for student trips to both Paisley and Glasgow. The trip generation was discounted as detailed in paragraphs 4.52 to 4.54 to account for student trips. However to account for the limited number of trips which are made by students in the peak hours 32 trips have been added in the AM peak (i.e. 2070 trips) and 27 trips in the PM peak (i.e. 1872 trips). These have been assigned as 50/50 split between Paisley and Glasgow. These student trips are included in Table 4.18, Table 4.19, Table 4.26 and Table 4.27.

4.69 The mode share which has been applied to the above people trips has been taken from the 2001 Census, where mode of travel by distance travelled to work is provided. For Bishopton, the Census details for mode share by distance are indicated by Table 4.17.

Table 4.17 Mode Share by Distance Travelled to Work by Bishopton Residents Percentage Mode Share 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ Walk 14% 2% 0% 0% Cycle 1% 1% 0% 0% Bus 3% 2% 1% 1% Train 3% 12% 26% 10% Car 66% 75% 65% 86% Other 13% 8% 8% 3% All Modes 100% 100% 100% 100%

4.70 The application of the above mode share to the trip distribution identifies the following total trip movements by mode associated with AM and PM peak hour residential development related trips respectively.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 31

4.71 The resulting trip distribution pattern by mode associated with the residential development at Bishopton is indicated by Table 4.18 for the AM peak period and by Table 4.19 for the PM peak scenario.

Table 4.18 Residential AM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode Employment Location People Walk/ Bus Train Car Car Passenger Trips Cycle Bishopton 149 22 0 0 107 19 Erskine West 237 35 11 11 148 31 Erskine Central 22 3 1 1 13 3 Glasgow Airport 299 12 9 53 201 24 St James 77 3 2 14 52 6 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 76 3 2 0 64 6 Linwood (East and West) 46 1 0 0 41 4 Houston/Bridge of Weir/ 93 1 0 0 85 7 Brookfield/Craigend/ Langbank Dumbartonshire / Argyle 61 0 0 11 45 5 Paisley 140 0 1 36 92 10 Johnstone 26 0 0 0 24 2 Glasgow 586 0 6 167 367 46 Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 46 0 0 13 28 4 Kilmalcolm 6 0 0 0 6 1 Renfrew / Braehead 63 0 1 0 57 5 Other Areas 143 0 1 14 123 4 Total 2070 80 34 320 1453 177

Table 4.19 Residential PM Trip Distribution by Mode Employment Location People Walk/ Bus Train Car Car Passenger Trips Cycle Bishopton 135 20 0 0 97 18 Erskine West 214 32 10 10 134 28 Erskine Central 20 3 1 1 12 3 Glasgow Airport 271 11 8 48 182 22 St James 70 3 2 13 47 6 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 69 3 2 0 58 5 Linwood (East and West) 41 0 0 0 38 3 Houston/Bridge of Weir/ 84 1 0 0 77 7 Brookfield/Craigend/ Langbank Dumbartonshire / Argyle 55 0 0 10 41 4 Paisley 125 0 1 33 83 9 Johnstone 24 0 0 0 21 2 Glasgow 530 0 5 152 332 41 Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 42 0 0 12 26 3 Kilmalcolm 6 0 0 0 5 0 Renfrew / Braehead 57 0 1 0 52 5 Other Areas 129 0 1 13 111 4 Total 1872 73 31 292 1316 160

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 32 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Methodology for Employment Development 4.72 The methodology applied to determine the distribution, mode share and assignment of vehicle trips associated with employment development is as follows:

• People Trip Generation – Calculated using information from the TRICS database for employment related trips.

• Employment Development People Trip Distribution - Distribution of development related trips generally follow existing patterns of a similar location, IBM Greenock, where the travel to work patterns to that ward reflect the dominant influence of the IBM plant and its associated rail station. Secondly, this information is considered in tandem with travel to work details for Bishopton and Inchinnan areas and adjusted to provide an appropriate pattern for new development at Bishopton. The patterns arising from the Census indicate that 36% of people who work in Renfrewshire travel no more than 5km to work. It is considered appropriate to continue with this pattern because there will be a significant number of new homes in Bishopton to access the new employment development.

• Employment Development People Trip Distribution - Distribution of trips within distance travel bands has been undertaken using gravity model principles. The process is based on the number of people within ward areas taken from the Census.

• Employment Mode Share - The mode share used is the mode share measured for employment in the Greenock Ward which is dominated by IBM, adjusted to account for the local circumstances measured in Bishopton and Inchinnan. Given that both sites have a strong relationship to a train station the impact of travel to work by train is also included. Key Information Regarding Employment Development People Trip Distribution 4.73 The 2001 Census identified the distance that people working in Bishopton and Inchinnan travelled to work and the Scottish Household Survey indicated the Council area of workplace. These are indicated in Table 4.20 and Table 4.21 below.

Table 4.20 Distance Travelled to Work in Bishopton / Inchinnan Distance Travelled 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ Percentage 27% 21% 32% 20%

Table 4.21 Council Area of Residence and Workplace (`1999-2002) Area of Workplace

Area of Residence Glasgow Argyle/Dunbarton Renfrewshire / Others Total Inverclyde

Renfrewshire / Inverclyde 13% 4% 63% 20% 100%

4.74 By analysis the split between Renfrewshire and Inverclyde can be broken down into 63% Renfrewshire and 8% for Greenock and Gourock within Inverclyde, which has been used in further analysis.

4.75 JMP has combined the above data sets to determine an appropriate distribution of travel to work at the proposed development at Bishopton. Table 4.22 below indicates the distribution of travel to work in Bishopton.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 33

Table 4.22 Proposed Employment Development People Trip Distribution Distance Percentage by Resident Location AM Trips PM Trips Comments Band Band 0-5km 36% Bishopton 280 220 Erskine West 108 85 Erskine Central 106 83 5-10km 22% Shotroods 32 25 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 90 70 Linwood (East and West) 68 54 Bridge of Weir 86 67 Houston/Craigend/ Langbank 36 28 Dumbartonshire / 73 57 4% 10-20km 26% Paisley 176 138 Johnstone 71 56 Glasgow 238 187 13% Port Glasgow plus part 37 29 Inverclyde Kilmalcolm 12 9 Renfrew / Braehead 52 41 20km+ 16% Remainder of Inverclyde and 366 287 other Local Authority Areas Total 100% 1831 1436

4.76 The mode share which has been applied to the above people trips has been taken from the 2001 Census, where mode of travel by distance travelled to work is provided. For Bishopton, the Census details for mode share by distance are indicated by Table 4.23.

Table 4.23 Mode Share by Distance Travelled to Work in Bishopton Percentage Mode Share Total 0-5km 5km-10km 10km-20km 20km+ All Modes 100% 36% 22% 26% 16% Train 4% 0% 1% 10% 10% Bus 19% 21% 28% 13% 13% Car / Taxi 52% 37% 50% 65% 65% Car Passenger 16% 19% 20% 12% 12% Motorcycle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bicycle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Foot 9% 23% 1% 0% 0%

4.77 The application of the above mode share to the trip distribution identifies the following total trip movements by mode associated with AM and PM peak hour employment development related trips respectively.

4.78 The resulting trip distribution patterns by mode associated with the employment development at Bishopton are indicated by Table 4.24 and Table 4.25 for the AM and PM peak scenarios.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 34 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Table 4.24 Employment Development – AM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode Employment Location People Walk/ Bus Train Car Car Passenger Trips Cycle Bishopton 280 64 0 0 162 53 Erskine West 108 25 52 0 10 20 Erskine Central 106 24 52 0 10 20 Glasgow Airport and St James 32 1 16 1 8 6 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 90 2 47 0 23 18 Linwood (East and West) 68 0 0 0 55 14 Bridge of Weir 86 2 45 2 21 17 Houston/Craigend/Langbank 36 0 0 0 29 7 Dumbartonshire / Clydebank 73 0 0 1 57 15 Paisley 176 0 23 23 108 21 Johnstone 71 0 9 0 53 9 Glasgow 238 0 32 31 147 29 Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 37 0 5 5 23 4 Kilmalcolm 12 0 0 0 11 1 Renfrew / Braehead 52 0 7 0 39 6 Remainder of Inverclyde and other 366 0 48 37 238 44 Local Authority Areas Total 1831 118 336 100 994 284

Table 4.25 Employment Development – PM Peak Trip Distribution by Mode Employment Location People Walk/ Bus Train Car Car Passenger Trips Cycle Bishopton 220 51 0 0 128 42 Erskine West 85 19 41 0 8 16 Erskine Central 83 19 40 0 8 16 Glasgow Airport and St James 25 0 13 0 6 5 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 70 1 37 0 18 14 Linwood (East and West) 54 0 0 0 43 11 Bridge of Weir 67 1 35 1 16 13 Houston/Craigend/Langbank 28 0 0 22 6 Dumbartonshire / Clydebank 57 0 0 1 45 11 Paisley 138 0 18 18 85 17 Johnstone 56 0 7 0 42 7 Glasgow 187 0 25 24 115 22 Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 29 0 4 4 18 3 Kilmalcolm 9 0 0 0 8 1 Renfrew / Braehead 41 0 5 0 31 5 Remainder of Inverclyde and other 287 0 37 29 187 34 Local Authority Areas Total 1436 91 262 77 780 223

Full Development Trip Patterns 4.79 The combination of both the residential and development related trip patterns are indicated by Table 4.26 and Table 4.27 below. The assignment of development related traffic will be reflected in part by the analysis later in this report and in the other detailed studies that flow from the STAG Part 2 appraisal.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 35

Table 4.26 Combined Residential and Employment AM Peak Trip Distribution Location People Walk/ Bus Train Car Car Passenger Trips Cycle Bishopton 429 86 0 0 269 72 Erskine West 345 60 63 11 158 51 Erskine Central 128 27 53 1 23 23 Glasgow Airport and St James 331 13 25 54 209 30 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 167 5 49 14 75 24 Linwood (East and West) 144 3 2 0 119 20 Bridge of Weir 132 3 45 2 62 21 Houston/Craigend/Langbank 129 1 0 0 114 14 Dunbartonshire / Clydebank 134 0 0 12 102 20 Paisley 316 0 24 59 200 31 Johnstone 97 0 9 0 77 11 Glasgow 824 0 38 198 514 75 Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 83 0 5 18 51 8 Kilmalcolm 18 0 0 0 17 2 Renfrew / Braehead 115 0 8 96 11 Remainder of Inverclyde and other 509 0 49 51 361 48 Local Authority Areas Total 3901 198 370 420 2447 461

Table 4.27 Combined Residential and Employment PM Peak Trip Distribution Employment Location People Walk/ Bus Train Car Car Passenger Trips Cycle Bishopton 355 71 0 0 225 60 Erskine West 299 51 51 10 142 44 Erskine Central 103 22 41 1 20 19 Glasgow Airport and St James 296 11 21 48 188 27 Erskine SEast and Inchinnan 140 4 39 13 65 20 Linwood (East and West) 123 3 2 0 101 16 Bridge of Weir 108 1 35 1 54 16 Houston/Craigend/Langbank 112 1 0 0 99 13 Dumbartonshire / Clydebank 112 0 0 11 86 15 Paisley 263 0 19 51 168 26 Johnstone 80 0 7 0 63 9 Glasgow 717 0 30 176 447 63 Port Glasgow plus part Inverclyde 71 0 4 16 44 6 Kilmalcolm 15 0 0 0 13 1 Renfrew / Braehead 98 0 6 0 83 10 Remainder of Inverclyde and other 416 0 38 42 298 38 Local Authority Areas Total 3308 164 293 369 2096 383

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 36 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Conclusion 4.80 The residual car trips estimated by the above development travel characteristics process is considered to be the worst case scenario as no account has been taken of measures that will be introduced to reduce car travel. Measures such as the improvement of the public transport interchange and the introduction of other sustainable transport measures and infrastructure will be a primary area of focus in the delivery of the development. Alongside the land use mix, this should have the effect of reducing the need to travel outwith Bishopton and also provide the necessary mode choice when this longer distance travel is necessary. The following Chapter will seek to estimate the impact that new Transport Intervention Measures will have on the development modal split.

Traffic Assignment 4.81 The traffic assignment is based on the assignment figures presented in the STAG part 1 document. These figures only covered an area, as far south and east as M8 J30 (St James Interchange). Therefore, they were extended eastwards to include the M8 and A8 to J25, which also included Renfrew.

4.82 The assignment pattern is shown in Table 4.28 and Table 4.29, for the cases of without and with a new motorway junction, as part of the Development proposals.

Table 4.28 AM and PM Peak Traffic Assignment (No New Junction) Route Locations Included AM Car From To PM From To Trips Devt Devt Car Devt Devt Trips M8 West via J31 Inverclyde 338 231 107 275 133 142 Bishopton Existing Village 522 264 258 541 312 229 A737 via J30 Johnstone, Paisley, Linwood 278 75 203 314 217 97 B790 Houston 231 145 86 134 78 56 A726 South via Paisley 398 245 153 340 186 154 J30 B815 , Clydebank, 224 145 79 169 90 79 Erskine, Glasgow A8 Renfrew, Glasgow 314 207 107 262 132 130 M8 East via J30 Glasgow 142 104 38 61 14 47 Total 2447 1416 1031 2096 1162 934

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 37

Table 4.29 AM and PM Peak Traffic Assignment (With New Junction) Route Locations Included AM Car From To Devt PM From To Trips Devt Car Devt Devt Trips M8 West via J31 Inverclyde 338 231 107 275 133 142 Bishopton Existing Village 522 264 258 541 312 229 A737 via J30 or New Johnstone, Paisley, 278 75 203 314 217 97 Junction Linwood B790 Houston 231 145 86 134 78 56 A726 South via J30 Paisley 398 245 153 340 186 154 or New Junction B815 Dumbarton, Clydebank, 224 145 79 169 90 79 Erskine, Glasgow A8 Renfrew, Glasgow 71 26 45 163 69 94 M8 East via New Glasgow 385 285 100 160 77 83 Junction Total 2447 1416 1031 2096 1162 934

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 38 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

5 Transport Interventions

Objectives 5.1 Given the scale and nature of the new development at Bishopton Park, it is crucial that a coherent strategy of Transport Interventions is brought forward and delivered. Without such interventions, it is likely that the development would be car orientated leading to traffic impact problems on the surrounding network which would be unsustainable in the longer term.

5.2 The traditional approach of “predict and provide” with regard to roads infrastructure is no longer sustainable and instead developers are encouraged to put in place a package of measures that will ensure that car use is reduced and alternative modes of transport are provided.

5.3 This Chapter seeks to identify a package of measures that can be brought forward within a sustainable transport framework to ensure the long-term sustainability of Bishopton. The overall approach will be balanced between providing high quality alternatives to the private car while maintaining appropriate access by car to the surrounding local and strategic road network.

5.4 The measures are presented in such way that they can form the basis of Conditions or Planning Agreements in the context of the Planning Application for the development.

5.5 Given that the proposed development is of mixed use and BAE and Redrow have experience of delivering mixed use developments elsewhere in the UK, it is a realistic assumption that the lessons from elsewhere can be used to further maximise the local interactions and reduce the need for some longer distance travel having to occur.

Walking 5.6 A comprehensive network of pedestrian/cycle routes will be provided within the development site from the outset to provide safe and attractive movement between the various elements of the development. In particular, this network will provide sustainable linkages to the local services, primary education facilities, employment opportunities and the rail station from the residential development.

5.7 The linking of the cycle and pedestrian network to the existing Bishopton settlement is paramount to ensuring that genuine integration is achieved between the new development and the existing settlement. The network of cycle and footways will provide an alternative to the private car for shorter distance trips as well as providing opportunities for leisure trips and will ensure that local facilities will be accessible to all residents of the new and existing settlements.

5.8 In order to link the development with the existing population, it is proposed to utilise the three existing links which cross the railway line in order to provide safe and convenient routes. These are the existing links along Newton Road, Rossland Crescent and Station Road. These existing routes leading from the existing settlement to the site will be enhanced through the provision of adequate lighting to improve the security of pedestrians and cyclists. This provides the permeability between existing and proposed facilities in the area, such as healthcare, retail and other community facilities.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 39

5.9 The utilisation of the three existing accesses to the site will afford a high degree of permeability between the existing and proposed communities and help establish strong links between the two at an early stage of the development. The pedestrian linkages between the new and existing settlements are illustrated by Figure 3 in the accompanying Figures document.

5.10 The pedestrian measures and actions for the site that may be considered in the delivery process can be summarised as follows:

• Encourage and facilitate walking by improving facilities and providing safe environments for pedestrians to increase levels of walking especially for short trips

• Seek to implement 20mph zones covering the residential areas within the development site

• Increase road crossing sites and provide safe crossings at places of amenity

• Provide pedestrian priority to cross roads using intelligent crossing systems (i.e. Puffin Crossing etc.) where appropriate

• Create Home Zones for residential areas designed to give people priority and restrict vehicle speeds to 20/30mph maximum

• Provide street lighting, provide security cameras for pedestrian safety

• Promote the ‘Safer Routes To School’ programme within the overall Bishopton Area Impact of Walking Measures 5.11 It is estimated that the walking measures highlighted above are required to support the proposed development. The target is to try and achieve a 6% modal shift above the currently assumed base modal split value (14% of trips within 0-5km) recorded for the existing Bishopton settlement. This would mean that 20% of trips between 0 and 5km would be assumed to be undertaken by walking – this includes trips made by school children.

Cycling 5.12 Cyclists will be provided with a safe and convenient network of paths, cycle-ways and shared surface routes within the development site. It should also be noted that the development site is very flat which should encourage internal cycle movements between the different land uses within the development.

5.13 The employment element on the site will contain covered and secure cycle parking along with showering and changing facilities to encourage cycling to work. Local facilities will include the appropriate level of cycle parking required by Renfrewshire Council for developments of this type.

5.14 Cycling will be promoted as a highly efficient, quick, convenient, cheap and healthy means of transport and people will be encouraged to use bicycles by continuing to improve cycling facilities.

5.15 With regards to external cycle routes, the key destinations in relation to Bishopton have been identified as Erskine, Inchinnan, Glasgow Airport, Houston, Clydebank and Langbank. It has also been identified that there are currently no formal cycle facilities directly linking Bishopton to these locations.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 40 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

5.16 The possible cycling measures and actions for the site can be summarised as follows:

• Development of a network of safe and convenient routes within the site, linking to the existing Bishopton settlement and to the external network

• Include traffic calming within the design of the road infrastructure for the proposed development in accordance with appropriate design criteria

• Development of key cycle routes to the local facilities and Bishopton Rail Station

• Implementation of priority measures at junctions within the site

• Creation of leisure cycle routes in the Country Park area to the immediate south of the developed part of the overall site.

• Ensure there is sufficient secure cycle parking at all shopping areas and places of amenity

• Produce and distribute pamphlet that publicises existing facilities, shows benefits of cycling and provides advice

• Ensure the production of Travel Plans within the employment element of the development which will encourage cycling External Cycling Measures 5.17 As intimated in Section 2 of this report, the nearest formal facility is the Paisley and Clyde Railway Path (National Cycle Network Route 75) which routes through Linwood, passes to the south of Houston and Kilmacolm and then on through Port Glasgow to finish at Gourock. National Cycle Network Route 7 connects with this path at Linwood and provides a route to Glasgow and to Irvine.

5.18 The development of a network of safe and convenient routes within the Woodland Park element of the site will provide a link from the existing Bishopton settlement to the external network and may provide an opportunity to link the site to NCN 75 via Moss Road, located to the immediate south of Houston Road.

5.19 Moss Road is currently closed to through vehicular traffic at the point at which it crosses the River Gryfe and may therefore provide a suitable on carriageway route for cyclists however, the suitability of the section of Moss Road routing through Linwood and connecting to the A761 will require further investigation.

5.20 Discussions undertaken with Renfrewshire Council have determined that their current internal cycling network does not extend beyond Glasgow Airport however it may be possible to link to this route via Houston Road and Barnsford Road. Again, further investigation would be required to determine the feasibility of this route.

5.21 The proposed cycling measures proposed to support the development are indicated by Figure 4.

Impact of Cycling Measures 5.22 The cycling measures highlighted above are comprehensive and maximise the opportunities for internal and external linkage as well as creating attractive routes that will be convenient and safe. In these circumstances, it is considered that the measures proposed are suitable to achieve the Renfrewshire Council target of doubling cycle usage from 2% to 4%.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 41

Bus Measures Existing Provision 5.23 A separate Public Transport Study was undertaken by JMP and the findings have been reported separately through the STAG process. Notwithstanding this, the following paragraphs contain a summary of the proposals for new services to support the development.

Description of New Measures 5.24 Development of Bishopton Park is proposed to take place in stages over a period of 13 years (2010-2023). Housing completions are expected to take place at a relatively steady rate of approximately 200 units each year – equivalent to an annual population growth of the order of 500 people each year. The residential development, once completed, will have a population of about 6,500 people. Development of the employment site is also incremental over a number of years.

5.25 The distribution of peak hour demand indicates the following:

• The great majority of trips are to and from places to the east of Bishopton – there is very little potential demand for bus travel to or from places to the west of Bishopton -and the railway offers an attractive alternative means of travel.

• A substantial inbound flow to Bishopton of work journeys in the AM peak hour and a corresponding outbound flow in the PM peak hour – a strong tidal flow that is much greater than residential demand for peak hour bus travel.

• A substantial movement of pupils travelling to and from secondary school that will require eight school buses (see Chapter 4).

• A modest level of demand for travel by bus generated by the residential development. 5.26 Several key requirements have been identified for consideration in developing proposals for bus services to serve Bishopton Park:

• Providing all day links between Bishopton and Erskine, Paisley, Renfrew and Glasgow to serve the needs of the resident population.

• Providing peak period links to Bishopton from Erskine, Paisley, Renfrew and Bridge of Weir to cater for travel to and from work in peak periods.

• Connecting the Bishopton Park development site with the existing village of Bishopton to ensure that all residents have access to new facilities in the new development.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 42 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

5.27 The proposals for an extended bus network to serve the existing village of Bishopton and the Royal Ordnance development site when completed are summarised below and illustrated by Figure 5 in the Figures document:

• Extend the existing local services connecting Bishopton with Erskine to serve the new development. At off-peak times this would provide connections with Arriva Service 23 at the Bridgewater Shopping Centre in Erskine to cater for travel to Renfrew, Braehead Shopping Centre and places between Braehead and Glasgow city centre.

• Provide more peak period journeys to/from Renfrew and Glasgow by extending existing journeys on Arriva Service 23 to cover the section of route between Bishopton and Bargarran (Erskine).

• Provide a weekday peak period bus link to the employment in Bishopton from communities in the Linwood, Houston and Bridge of Weir areas. 5.28 Illustrative timetable information on the proposed services is provided within the Public Transport Study Report along with detailed information on patronage and revenue analysis. Proposals for the bus network on completion of each of the six phases of development are illustrated by Figures A1 to A5 and Figure 5 in the Figures document accompanying this report.

Impact of New Bus Measures 5.29 The creation of the new bus services and service enhancements will provide a positive benefit for the existing Bishopton residents as well as residents of the new development. It is fully expected that the new provision will lead to a modal shift in the travel patterns of the existing Bishopton residents.

5.30 As the base modal split for the development was estimated based on existing travel patterns in the Bishopton ward, it is expected that the modal split will change as a result of the proposed bus provision with a shift away from dependence on the private car.

5.31 As a conservative target, it has been identified that there could be an additional 5% of total residential trips made by bus which could be directly drawn from the trips previously assumed to be made by car.

Improvements at Bishopton Rail Station 5.32 The proposed improvements to the rail station and associated Park & Ride facilities are fully detailed in the Public Transport Study report but the following paragraphs provide a summary of the proposals.

5.33 Road access to the expanded village will be via new northern and southern link roads with junctions onto the A8. However, the existing road access beneath the railway (leading from Station Road) will provide a direct, convenient link between the existing village hub and the proposed village centre, for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The remainder of Station Road itself will remain much as it is at present, but with more clearly defined parking and passing places.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 43

5.34 This link will be modified into a structured shared space single carriageway as it passes under the railway, managed either by pavement and footway design or regulated by traffic lights to reduce vehicle speeds and allow the provision of a shared vehicle and pedestrian route beneath the bridge. The intention is to create an “entrance” environment on approaching from the existing village rather than an open thoroughfare. This arrangement will have the advantage of restricting the amount of traffic movement on Station Road, and creating a general traffic calmed environment in which pedestrian movement is both safer and more convenient.

5.35 It is proposed that the existing bus terminal and park and ride car park on the north side of the railway be maintained. The facilities will be given a general facelift, and pedestrian ramps and steps created to provide more direct access to the station platform.

5.36 To the south of the railway line a new park and ride car park and bus terminal are proposed. This mirrors the facilities on the other side of the railway line, and is the most convenient location for access to the station. The car park will accommodate up to around 300 spaces, which can be phased as demand grows (note that the current car-park in this location is approximately 80 spaces).

5.37 The proposed scheme also allows for environmental improvements to the area around the existing station i.e. upgrading of existing surface treatments for pedestrians and vehicles.

Impact of Improvements to Rail Station 5.38 The number of generated residential trips associated with the new development made by train was estimated in Chapter 4 using a base modal split derived from Census data for the Bishopton ward. The improvements outlined above to enhance the facilities at the station will make it a more attractive facility and with increased linkage to the station provided through walking, cycling and public transport enhancements, it is highly likely that there will be an increase in rail usage.

5.39 The purpose of the park and ride expansion and the station improvements is to ensure that the base modal split (that measured for the existing residents if Bishopton) is achieved for the new development. It is estimated that there could be a 4% modal shift towards rail from car usage caused by the improvements to facilities and the integration of transport modes across Bishopton.

Improvements to Rail Infrastructure 5.40 In the period leading up to and during the EIP in May 2007 various discussions have taken place with both Transport Scotland and Network Rail in relation to the ability of current and future rail infrastructure to support the additional traffic generated by the Bishopton Park development. Much of the background is provided in Network Rail’s Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for Scotland. This document forms the context for the future planning and delivery of rail improvements (subject to Government funding) in Scotland.

5.41 It is already understood that the Glasgow Airport Rail Link will bring about significant increases in rail capacity between Glasgow and Paisley and also in platform capacity at . This is planned to start operation in 2011 and will bring noticeable benefits to rail passengers (including those to/from Bishopton) in the Inverclyde and Ayrshire rail corridors.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 44 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

5.42 Given the long lead-in period to the start of development at Bishopton Park followed by the lengthy construction period it is likely that other improvements will take place affecting rail infrastructure. Although it cannot be guaranteed it is expected that new rolling stock will be provided at some time within the next 15 years (due to life-expired existing stock) and the trains will provide more capacity than those currently used on the Inverclyde services.

5.43 It would be impossible for any developer to influence rail service delivery at either a local or strategic level, particularly in the context of the strategic nature of the delivery mechanisms. In the particular case of the Bishopton CGA Network Rail’s evidence at the EIP indicated that there was already a mechanism in place to deal with future provision and that there was nothing in current rail infrastructure provision that should preclude development at Bishopton.

5.44 Set in the above context, the developer’s emphasis in the case of Bishopton and the rail station has been associated in creating good physical links, good intergration through provision of more local bus services, and physical improvements at and around the station.

Travel Plan 5.45 It is normal practice for new large-scale employment related developments to prepare Travel Plans to demonstrate how car-based travel can be minimised. An overall Travel Plan for the employment-orientated development will be prepared for Bishopton and as new employment elements come on-stream, they would “buy-in” to the overall travel plan which would be controlled by a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The travel plan framework for the overall plan is contained within Appendix B of this report and highlights some of the measures that can be brought forward within the travel plan to encourage a reduction in car dependence and single occupancy car journeys.

5.46 In addition to the employment-orientated plan, it may be possible to consider a further Travel Plan for the residential element of the development at Bishopton. The Residential Travel Plan (RTP) could be used to bring forward a package of measures designed to reduce car usage generated by new houses while promoting and supporting more sustainable alternatives and reducing the overall need to travel.

5.47 Residential Travel Plans are a relatively new concept but it is clear that their use could increase significantly as Government Policy focuses on car use reduction and the promotion of sustainable transport. Many of the measures that could be included in the plan have already been identified within this chapter but the Travel Plan would be a suitable mechanism for rolling-up these measures and setting targets for residential travel.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 45

5.48 If a Residential Travel Plan was introduced it could include some of the following measures:

• Site Design – Speed limits, cycle parking, restrictions on car movements, bus infrastructure, bus routing, home zones

• Off-site – Road safety improvements, walking cycling links, bus services

• Reduction in Need to travel – Provision of mixed use development

• Public Transport Improvements – enhanced facilities and services

• Car Club

• Other Services – Taxis, cycle centre, home delivery service

• Welcome Pack – induction sessions, free / discounted travel on public transport, cycling/walking maps, public transport information, community website / travel club, cycle user group Impact of Travel Plans 5.49 Travel Plans are proven to reduce car use and effect modal shift in new developments. Employment based Travel Plans can reduce car use by 10-15%.

5.50 It is possible that a Residential Travel Plan could achieve similar targets especially for short to medium distance trips.

5.51 Given the range of measures being brought forward and the commitment to maximum parking standards, it is estimated that a 15% shift away from private car trips could be achieved for the employment based trips to the site.

5.52 With regard to the residential Travel Plan it is estimated that the car modal split could be reduced by 10% for the internal trips to Bishopton and by 5% for external trips.

Parking Restraints 5.53 One of the key factors that contribute to a successful employment-based Travel Plan is parking restraint. A travel plan contains many “carrot” type measures which are aimed at making alternatives to the car attractive but the only real “stick” measure available is parking restraint. It is recognised that maximum parking standards and possibly even a further reduction in parking provision will be required to ensure that the employment based Travel Plan at Bishopton is successful.

5.54 A key factor influencing the modal split of residents at Bishopton Park will be parking constraints at key attractors such as Glasgow. The continued introduction of Controlled Parking Zones in Glasgow City Centre is likely to bring about a shift in car trips to rail trips for Bishopton residents working in Glasgow.

Overall Impact of Intervention Measures 5.55 The package of sustainable transport measures highlighted in this Chapter all contribute to a modal shift away from the private car for trips made by residents of the new development. Table 5.1 summarises the list of measures proposed and the target modal shift away from car use.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 46 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

5.56 Considerable research has been undertaken in recent years and more is ongoing. This research indicates that much of travel is habit related and that this can be influenced at times of major change in peoples’ lives. Changing job and moving house are two such obvious milestones and this would tend to suggest that, with the appropriate travel planning measures in place in good time, Bishopton Park could be at the forefront of successful travel planning in Scotland.

5.57 It is also worth noting that the cycling and walking initiatives will become increasingly important from a health perspective, further lending weight to an argument for a large-scale well-coordinated travel planning initiative as the development phases are rolled out.

Table 5.1 Intervention Measures and Modal Shift from Private Car Intervention Impact New Walking Measures Walking Trips increase from 14% to 20% for trips within the 0-5km distance band (Residential and Employment trips) New Cycle Measures Percentage of trips by cycle increased from 2% to 4% (employment and residential trips) New Bus Infrastructure and Services 5% increase in bus trips (employment and residential trips) drawn from internal and external trips Improvements to rail station and creation of 4% increase in rail trips directly discounted from external car trips transport hub Employment Travel Plan Employment car trips reduced by 15% Residential Travel Plan Internal Bishopton car trips reduced by 10% External car trips reduced by 5%

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 47

6 Traffic Impact of Development Generated Traffic

Committed Development 6.1 Renfrewshire Council supplied JMP with a list of developments which have to be considered as “committed” for the purposes of assessment. JMP has also taken on board recently and committed infrastructure improvements on the road network. These improvements include the Red Smiddy Roundabout scheme and the signalisation and associated physical improvements at St James Interchange. The list of developments that has been considered in the wider assessment of traffic is indicated by Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 List of Committed Developments Development Name Location Details Braehead Braehead Rolls Royce Inchinnan New manufacturing facility employing 900 people, opened October 2004. Candren M8 Junction 29 Phoenix Finishing Mill Linwood 60 appartments, 2,000 sqm business space, parking facilities plus 75,000 sq ft superstore and 470 space car park, opened September 2005. Barbush Mills Houston 88 flats Glasgow Airport Expansion of Airport Cart Corridor Paisley Along with a joint venture partner, the Council is proposing to redevelop a stretch of the Arkleston extending from Paisley Town Centre towards Glasgow Airport. This project will provide a phased mixed use regeneration of the area over a ten year period. North Renfrew Development Spanley Braehead Hotel and Housing Hillington Frontage Renfrew Town Centre Renfrew Retail Park Abbotsinch 15350 sqm Retail Park

Traffic Modelling (for DMRB Assessment) 6.2 A traffic modelling approach is considered helpful in understanding the consequences of the proposed new motorway junction to be determined in the context of and as a follow-up to the STAG Part 2 assessment that has been prepared in tandem with this Transportation Assessment. JMP has constructed a traffic model in order to assess the operational traffic impact of a new motorway junction (outcome from STAG appraisal) as part of DMRB-based submission.

6.3 A Paramics micro-simulation model of the strategic links within Bishopton and the surrounding area has been developed to support that study. The model encompasses the M8 from Junction 26 to Junction 31 and includes the settlements of Renfrew, Bishopton and Erskine. The model also includes Glasgow Airport and the Erskine Bridge.

6.4 A sub-area of the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS) was used as the basis for the demand matrices and to define the area of network influence to meet the strategic needs of the DMRB assessment. TMfS was developed by MVA on behalf of Transport Scotland (and previously the Scottish Executive). One of the main objectives of TMfS, is to provide consistent strategic information and modelling frameworks to support the development of local models.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 48 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

6.5 The matrices from TMfS were refined within Paramics using a matrix estimation process and then fed into the main model. The model was calibrated and validated for the base year of 2005. Forecast year models for 2011 and 2021 for the scenario of the base with and without the new development and with and without the new motorway junction were used to inform the assessment. This work will be completed in the coming months and submitted as separate report(s). The base model validation has already been reported, audited and approved.

Junction Assessments 6.6 The key measure that has been considered in this report is the creation of a new motorway junction on the M8 between the existing Junctions of St James Interchange (Junction 29) and Erskine (Junction 30). For the purposes of this report it has been be assumed that this would be located at the existing A8 overbridge and would have eastbound directional slips only (i.e. towards Glasgow).

6.7 Until earlier this year, the proposed phasing for the development was predicated on building from the village core outwards towards the areas bounded by the future northern and southern access roads. This allowed the new village facilities to be established early in the development process along with some initial areas of housing. In attempting to deliver better integration with the existing village, it was intended to achieve vehicle access to the initial housing areas using Station Road, Newton Road and Rossland Crescent.

6.8 Through the local consultation process undertaken with the various community groups, it was agreed in advance of the Structure Plan EIP in May 2007 (actually agreed in February 2007) that a change would be made to the access strategy to further reduce the impact of traffic on the existing village. It was decided that whilst the overall building strategy would remain as before, all vehicle access would be taken from the southern access road and then the northern access road from the outset. Newton Road and Rossland Crescent would be only connected for pedestrian and cycle access.

6.9 The change also allowed earlier access to the commercial land use areas. The current phasing therefore reflects the intention to have serviced commercial land available for use much earlier in the development implementation process. The current details for the phasing were provided in Table 3.1.

6.10 Traffic flow diagrams are indicated by Figure 6 in the accompanying figures report. A location plan of the analysed junctions is shown in Figure 7. The location of the development access junctions is indicated by Figure 8.

Local Road Network (in Bishopton) 6.11 The following junctions have been assessed as part of the local road network.

1. Greenock Road (A8)/Station Road 3-arm priority junction; 2. Greenock Road (A8)/Kingston Road 3-arm priority junction; 3. Greenock Road (A8)/Newton Road 4-arm priority junction; 4. Old Greenock Road/Ferry Road 4-arm priority junction; 5. Old Greenock Road/Kingston Road 4-arm priority junction; and 6. Greenock Road/Ferry Road signal controlled junction.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 49

6.12 The above priority junctions have been assessed using the computer software package PICADY while signalised junction has been assessed using the software package LINSIG. Both are considered to be industry standard tools for the assessment of simple priority junctions and signal controlled junctions.

6.13 The results of the assessment undertaken of the above junctions for the 2011 Base plus full development scenario are indicated in the following tables. The analysis is based on applying background traffic growth to take existing flows to a base year of 2011, and then superimposing all development traffic (from full development implementation) on to the 2011 base flow. For presentational reasons, we have not shown existing analyses summaries for all junctions. However where the base plus development analysis for 2011 reveals an operational problem, then the analysis of the existing is shown for comparison.

6.14 This approach results in an assumed uplift in traffic flows of between 8% and 12% in the 2011 assessment flows from 2005 base flow values.

A8 Greenock Road/Station Road Table 6.2 A8 Greenock Road/Station Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement 2011 Base plus Devt

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B - C 0.190 0.167 0 0.653 0.540 2 B - A 0.306 0.254 0 0.707 0.577 2 C - AB 0.648 0.543 4 0.517 0.450 1 A - A8 Greenock Road (East), B - Station Road, C - A8 Greenock Road (West)

6.15 The Table 6.2 results of the assessment of the A8 Greenock Road/Station Road junction indicate that the junction will operate well within recommended capacity limits after the introduction of full development generated traffic for a design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road Table 6.3 A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement 2011 Base plus Devt

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B - AC 1.497 1.304 115 0.493 0.430 1 C - AB 0.497 0.431 2 0.630 0.543 3 A – A8 Greenock Road (West), B – Kingston Road, C – A8 Greenock Road (East)

6.16 As can be seen from Table 6.3, the impact of the development traffic on the junction results in a long queue of traffic on Kingston Road in the AM peak. As a comparison, the 2011 Base without development is shown in Table 6.4.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 50 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Table 6.4 A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road – 2011 Weekday AM Peak

Movement 2011 Base

AM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max)

B - AC 0.944 0.838 9 C - AB 0.140 0.123 0 A – A8 Greenock Road (West), B – Kingston Road, C – A8 Greenock Road (East)

6.17 Without development traffic, Kingston Road is forecast to be close to or over recommended capacity limits for the majority of the AM peak. However, the queue on Kingston Road is significantly less than with the development traffic. Therefore, mitigation measures for the development traffic are needed at this junction.

6.18 Traffic Signals have been tested at this junction using LINSIG. The results are shown below in Table 6.5. As can be seen the impact of the development flows is mitigated by the installation of traffic signals at the A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road junction.

Table 6.5 A8 Greenock Road/Kingston Road (with traffic signals) – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak with full development traffic

AM (90 secs) PM (120 secs)

DoS% (Max) Q (Max) DoS% (Max) Q (Max)

Greenock Rd (West) Left Ahead 61.9 5 39.3 3 Kingston Road 63.3 6 49.0 3 Left Right Greenock Rd (East) 60.8 5 49.6 4 Ahead Right Total Delay 7.9 PCUh 3.4 PCUh

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 51

A8 Greenock Road/Newton Road Table 6.6 A8 Greenock Road/Newton Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement 2011 Base plus Devt

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B - ACD 0.153 0.133 0 0.073 0.064 0 AB – D 0.385 0.342 1 0.532 0.474 1 D – AB 0.063 0.052 0 0.122 0.106 0 D – C 0.617 0.524 2 0.484 0.412 1 CD - B 0.008 0.007 0 0.044 0.039 0 A – A8 Greenock Road (East), B – Newton Road, C – A8 Greenock Road (West), D – Old Greenock Road

6.19 The evaluation presented in Table 6.6 demonstrates that the A8 Greenock Road/Newton Road junction will operate well within capacity for a design year of 2011 with full development traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Old Greenock Road/Ferry Road Table 6.7 Old Greenock Road/Ferry Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement 2011 Base plus Devt

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B - ACD 0.731 0.644 3 0.467 0.414 1 A – BCD 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0 D – ABC 0.768 0.677 3 0.977 0.859 11 C – ABD 0.379 0.335 1 0.401 0.354 1 A – Ferry Road (North), B – Old Greenock Road (East), C – Ferry Road (South), D – Porton Place

6.20 For the Old Greenock Road/Ferry Road junction, Table 6.7 shows that the Porton Place arm is slightly over the recommended capacity limits during the PM peak. However the modelled maximum queue length is considered to be acceptable.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 52 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Old Greenock Road/Kingston Road Table 6.8 Old Greenock Road/Kingston Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement 2011 Base plus Devt

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B - ACD 0.524 0.462 1 0.690 0.608 2 A – BCD 0.020 0.018 0 0.129 0.114 0 D – ABC 0.504 0.447 1 0.697 0.617 2 C – ABD 0.074 0.066 0 0.065 0.058 0 A – Old Greenock Road (East), B – Kingston Road (South), C – Old Greenock Road (West), D – Kingston Road (North)

6.21 The evaluation in Table 6.8 demonstrates that the Old Greenock Road/Kingston Road junction will operate well within capacity for a design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods with full development traffic.

Greenock Road/Ferry Road Signal Controlled Junction Table 6.9 Greenock Road/Ferry Road Traffic Signal Junction 2011 Base plus Development

AM (90 secs) PM (120 secs)

DoS% (Max) Q (Max) DoS% (Max) Q (Max)

Greenock Rd (West) Left Ahead Right 38.9 5 30.3 5 Ferry Road (North) Left Ahead Right 64.9 6 41.7 6 Greenock Rd (East) Left Ahead 37.0 4 37.6 6 Greenock Rd (East) Right 19.2 1 18.1 2 Rossland Cres 6.2 1 4.3 1 Left Ahead Right Total Delay 7.3 PCUh 7.6 PCUh

6.22 Clearly, the results of the LINSIG evaluation have demonstrated that the junction will operate well within capacity for the design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods base plus full development scenarios.

6.23 In addition to considering junction impacts, a review has been undertaken of the roads within Bishopton in order to identify any that may come under unexpected change as a consequence of the Bishopton Park traffic. We have identified one location where this could happen to some extent. Traffic leaving Bishopton Park using the northern access road to then travel to the Erskine Bridge would normally use the A8 and then the B815. There is a possibility that some traffic may choose to use Old Greenock Road rather than the A8 in the southbound direction (there is no access permitted at the southern end of Old Greenock Road for northbound traffic). In the AM peak period it is estimated that up to 145 vehicles could use the northern access road to travel to the Erskine Bridge. If we said that up to 50% would use this “short-cut” this would amount to a maximum of 73 trips. The corresponding PM flow would be 45 vehicles.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 53

6.24 In looking at the other characteristics of Old Greenock Road we noted that there is considerable frontage access and a localised pinch point over the railway. This is likely to act as a deterrent and we believe that it is unlikely that traffic would find this as an attractive alternative route. We could provide a further deterrent by creating say two additional pinch points by creating two pavement build-outs along the length of the road. This will be discussed further with the local authority as part of determining the planning application.

Road Network Outwith Bishopton 6.25 This section of the report considers the traffic impact of the development on the road network junctions outwith Bishopton that have been identified as falling within the area of influence of the proposed development:

7. Ferry Road/Drumcross Road 3-arm priority junction; 8. Old Greenock Road/Drumcross Road 3-arm priority junction; 9. Ferry Road/Compaq 3-arm roundabout; 10. Ferry Road/Erskine Park 4-arm roundabout; 11. A726/M898 3-arm roundabout; 12. Red Smiddy 4-arm roundabout; 13. M8 (Junction 31) 4-arm roundabout. 6.26 The above junctions have been assessed using the computer software packages ARCADY and PICADY, the industry standard tools for the assessment of roundabout and priority controlled junctions respectively.

6.27 Again, for presentational reasons, we have not shown existing analyses summaries for all junctions. However where the base plus development analysis for 2011 reveals an operational problem, then the analysis of the existing is shown for comparison.

Ferry Road/Drumcross Road Table 6.10 Ferry Road/Drumcross Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B – AC 0.708 0.614 2 0.181 0.158 0 C – AB 0.003 0.003 0 0.013 0.011 0 A – Ferry Road (East), B – Drumcross Road, C – Ferry Road (West)

6.28 From the results in Table 6.10 it can be concluded that the Ferry Road/Drumcross Road priority junction will operate well within capacity for a design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the base plus full development scenario.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 54 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Old Greenock Road/Drumcross Road Table 6.11 Old Greenock Road/Drumcross Road – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Movement Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B – AC 0.098 0.087 0 0.494 0.441 1 C – AB 0.247 0.218 0 0.059 0.053 0 A – Old Greenock Road (West), B – Drumcross Road, C – Old Greenock Road (East)

6.29 Table 6.11 shows that Old Greenock Road/Drumcross Road will operate well within capacity for a design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the base plus full development scenario.

Ferry Road/Compaq Table 6.12 Ferry Road/Compaq – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

B815 Ferry Road (West) 0.543 0.490 1 0.450 0.408 1 Compaq 0.060 0.052 0 0.437 0.385 1 B815 Ferry Road (East) 0.494 0.448 1 0.438 0.397 1

6.30 The Ferry Road/Compaq roundabout analysis results in Table 6.12 show that the junction will not experience any problems after the introduction of full development traffic for a design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Ferry Road/Erskine Park Table 6.13 Ferry Road/Erskine Park – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

M898 Off Slip 0.245 0.220 0 0.371 0.333 1 Ferry Road (West) 0.229 0.206 0 0.299 0.266 0 Erskine Park 0.068 0.059 0 0.157 0.135 0 Ferry Road (East) 0.254 0.229 0 0.173 0.156 0

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 55

6.31 The ARCADY assessment results in Table 6.13 indicates that this junction will operate well within capacity for the design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the base plus full development scenario.

A726/M898 Table 6.14 A726/M898 – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

A726 West 0.274 0.248 0 0.460 0.415 1 A726 East 0.464 0.418 1 0.222 0.199 0 M898 S/B On Slip 0.222 0.199 0 0.289 0.261 0

6.32 Table 6.14 results indicate that the junction will operate well within recommended capacity limits for the design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the base plus full development scenario.

Red Smiddy Table 6.15 Red Smiddy – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

Greenock Road (West) 0.735 0.648 2 0.839 0.706 5 Southbar Road 1.062 0.935 57 0.445 0.397 1 Greenock Road (East) 0.339 0.298 1 0.610 0.543 2 A726 0.270 0.247 0 0.440 0.384 1

6.33 As can be seen from the analysis results in Table 6.15 for the Red Smiddy junction the AM peak operates over the recommended capacity limits with the full development and new junction, while the PM peak is satisfactory. As a comparison the 2011 Base junction assessment (using the revised flows) is shown below in Table 6.16.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 56 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Table 6.16 Red Smiddy – 2011 Weekday AM Peak

Arm Base

AM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max)

(Max)

Greenock Road (West) 0.620 0.544 2 Southbar Road 1.027 0.908 39 Greenock Road (East) 0.277 0.244 0 A726 0.249 0.224 0

6.34 As can be seen the impact of the Development at Red Smiddy is greater than the Do Minimum with a maximum queue length of 57 compared to 39 vehicles. Therefore, some mitigation measures may be deemed necessary at this junction.

6.35 A theoretical assessment of capacity suggests that increasing the entry width on Southbar Road from 10m to 11m leads to an improvement in junction operation as shown in Table 6.17.

6.36 This shows that the impact of the development flows at Red Smiddy might be accommodated by a marginal increase in the entry width of Southbar Road. A further more detailed operational investigation may be required in order to ascertain whether or not such an improvement can be achieved.

Table 6.17 Red Smiddy – 2011 Weekday AM Peak – with mitigation measures

Arm Base plus Development

AM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max)

Greenock Road (West) 0.735 0.648 3 Southbar Road 1.013 0.893 32 Greenock Road (East) 0.345 0.299 1 A726 0.270 0.247 0

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 57

M8 (Junction 31) Table 6.18 M8 (Junction 31) – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

North Access Road 0.004 0.005 0 0.010 0.009 0 M8 East On/West Off 0.012 0.011 0 0.013 0.012 0 A8 Greenock Road 0.147 0.134 0 0.140 0.127 0 M8 West On/East Off 0.074 0.082 0 0.208 0.189 0

6.37 The M8 Junction 31 has been demonstrated as working well within capacity during the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the 2011 base plus full development scenario.

New Roads Infrastructure 6.38 The remainder of this section of the report considers the impact and operation of the proposed new infrastructure associated with the proposed development. Therefore, the following junctions have been considered:

14. M8/A8 On-slip 3 arm roundabout; 15. M8/A8 Off-slip 3-arm roundabout; 16. Southern access 3-arm roundabout; and 17. Northern access 3-arm roundabout. M8/A8 On-slip Table 6.19 M8/A8 On Slip – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

A8 (Eastbound) 0.736 0.669 3 0.503 0.457 1 A8 (Westbound) 0.486 0.418 1 0.509 0.452 1 M8 On Slip ------

6.39 The results in Table 6.19 indicate that the proposed M8/A8 On slip will operate well within capacity and with no significant problems during the weekday AM and PM peak periods for the 2011 base plus full development scenario.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 58 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

M8/A8 Off-slip Table 6.20 M8/A8 Off Slip – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

A8 (Eastbound) 0.899 0.815 8 0.561 0.507 1 A8 (Westbound) 0.162 0.147 0 0.361 0.328 1 M8 Off Slip 0.389 0.351 1 0.436 0.389 1

6.40 The Table 6.20 assessment results indicate that the proposed M8/A8 off-slip will operate within capacity for the majority of the weekday AM peak and all of the PM peak for the 2011 base plus full development scenario.

Southern Access Roundabout Table 6.21 Southern Access – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

A8 (East) 0.855 0.743 5 0.369 0.325 1 A8 (West) 0.594 0.536 1 0.679 0.614 2 Southern Access 0.821 0.741 4 0.758 0.677 3

6.41 The ARCADY assessment results in Table 6.21 indicates that the proposed Southern Access roundabout will operate within accepted capacity limits for a design year of 2011 during majority of the weekday AM peak and all of the PM peak.

Northern Access Roundabout Table 6.22 Northern Access – 2011 Weekday AM and PM Peak

Arm Base plus Development

AM PM

RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) RFC RFC (Ave) Q (Max) (Max) (Max)

A8 (East) 0.181 0.163 0 0.265 0.239 0 A8 (West) 0.253 0.229 0 0.260 0.235 0 Northern Access 0.364 0.329 1 0.263 0.237 0

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 59

6.42 The ARCADY assessment results in Table 6.22 indicate that the proposed Northern Access roundabout will operate well within accepted capacity limits for a design year of 2011 during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 60 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

7 M8 J29 St James Interchange

7.1 Junction 29 of the M8, known as St James’ Interchange, is a grade-separated junction and provides links with the A726, A737 and access roads to and from Glasgow Airport. There are five inbound arms to the junction, three of which are signalised. The junction has been analysed using TRANSYT.

7.2 Base models were based on OS mapping data and survey flows, factored to 2006. The survey flows were provided as vehicle counts with no vehicle classification. An inspection of ATC data from the Scottish Road Traffic Database suggested that an HGV proportion of 5% would be appropriate. An uplift of 5% was therefore applied to the vehicle flows in order to obtain estimated flows in PCUs. No queue survey data was available, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the modelled queues are representative of actual queuing at the junction in the model year of 2006. Base year results from TRANSYT are shown below in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 2006 Weekday AM and PM Peak AM PM Link Length Link Arm Number RFC Max Q RFC Max Q Metres PCU

11 64 6 42 2 200 34.8 A726 Barnsford Road 12 64 6 42 2 13 etc 55 1 40 0 55 9.6 21 90 10 86 10 200 34.8 22 90 10 86 10 M8 East 23 etc 70 7 82 10 110 19.1 24 etc 94 15 89 12 31 105 51 101 32 200 34.8 32 105 53 87 11 A726 Paisley 33 etc 91 13 95 18 70 12.2 34 etc 57 6 83 4 41 83 15 99 24 200 34.8 A737 Johnstone 42 80 14 81 6 43 etc 42 0 45 0 70 12.2 51 98 23 71 9 200 34.8 52 97 22 71 9 M8 West 53 etc 55 10 73 15 110 19.1 54 etc 89 25 64 13

7.3 In summary, the interchange is shown to be over-capacity in the Do Minimum, mainly on the A726 Paisley arm which shows an RFC of 105% in the AM and 101% in the PM. In the AM peak the M8 North/West is also over its practical capacity with a RFC of 98%. Queue lengths reach over 50 PCUs per lane in the AM peak on the A726 Paisley arm.

7.4 An inspection of the junction in July 200, revealed there had been recent changes to the geometry of the junction. These included a three-lane approach on the M8 East off-slip and a short flare lane on the A726 arm from Paisley. To accommodate these three-lane entries, the circulating carriageway between the M8 East off-slip and A737 had been re-designated as three lanes. These changes were incorporated into the 2011 Do Minimum network to provide the following results, shown in Table 7.2 overleaf.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 61

Table 7.2 2011 Do Minimum Weekday AM and PM Peak AM PM Link Length Link Arm Number RFC Max Q RFC Max Q Metres PCU

11 75 8 58 5 200 34.8 A726 Barnsford Road 12 75 8 58 5 13 etc 59 1 51 1 55 9.6 21 58 4 90 11 200 34.8 22 58 4 90 11 M8 East 23 etc 75 8 77 7 110 19.1 24 etc 101 40 94 16 25 58 4 90 11 31 96 22 98 27 200 34.8 32 113 105 97 20 A726 Paisley 33 etc 75 11 89 14 70 12.2 34 etc 37 0 62 8 35 36 5 61 8 41 90 20 119 130 200 34.8 A737 Johnstone 42 82 10 78 12 43 etc 45 1 51 1 70 12.2 51 111 78 85 15 200 34.8 52 111 78 85 15 M8 West 53 etc 58 10 86 20 110 19.1 54 etc 97 30 78 18

7.5 By the 2011 Do Min all arms except the A726 Barnsford Road are over capacity. In the AM there are queues of up to 105 PCUs on the A726 Paisley, 20 on the A737 Johnstone arm and 78 on the M8 NW arm, reflecting RFCs of up to 113%. In the PM there are queues of approximately 16 PCus on the M8 East arm and up to 130 PCUs on the A737 Johnstone arm, reflecting RFCs as high as 119%.

7.6 The addition of development traffic in Table 7.3, as might be expected, shows increases in queue lengths on most arms. With no new motorway junction to support the development there are significant increases in RFCs and queue lengths.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 62 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Table 7.3 2011 Plus Development (No New Junction) Weekday AM and PM Peak AM PM Link Length Link Arm Number RFC Max Q RFC Max Q Metres PCU

11 107 76 83 15 200 34.8 A726 Barnsford Road 12 107 75 83 15 13 etc 57 1 48 0 55 9.6 21 63 5 118 85 200 34.8 22 63 5 118 84 M8 East 23 etc 90 15 70 11 110 19.1 24 etc 117 194 102 54 25 63 5 118 84 31 100 33 105 73 200 34.8 32 134 241 112 173 A726 Paisley 33 etc 74 10 94 16 70 12.2 34 etc 40 5 53 7 35 39 5 51 7 41 115 152 119 141 200 34.8 A737 Johnstone 42 80 16 67 6 43 etc 48 2 49 0 70 12.2 51 123 133 113 81 200 34.8 52 123 133 113 80 M8 West 53 etc 83 22 89 22 110 19.1 54 etc 91 22 66 14

7.7 The provision of a new M8 junction as part of the Bishopton development, to the west of St James Interchange, causes some distributional changes through the junction. This produces the results presented in Table 7.4.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 63

Table 7.4 2011 Plus Development (With New Junction) Weekday AM and PM Peak AM PM Link Length Link Arm Number RFC Max Q RFC Max Q Metres PCU

11 51 3 68 7 200 34.8 A726 Barnsford Road 12 51 3 68 7 13 etc 56 1 60 1 55 9.6 21 56 4 96 15 200 34.8 22 56 4 96 15 M8 East 23 etc 93 14 97 24 110 19.1 24 etc 63 6 93 19 25 56 4 96 15 31 120 167 134 302 200 34.8 32 123 171 113 106 A726 Paisley 33 etc 67 6 96 20 70 12.2 34 etc 36 5 53 6 35 34 5 52 8 41 106 87 114 120 200 34.8 A737 Johnstone 42 73 14 64 6 43 etc 44 0 46 0 70 12.2 51 147 259 92 22 200 34.8 52 147 258 92 22 M8 West 53 etc 61 13 91 23 110 19.1 54 etc 90 26 85 19

7.8 The table above indicates severe operational delays and queues if this level of demand was ever reached at the junction. Substantial mitigation measures would be needed to reduce the queues and delays to below the levels of the 2011 Do Minimum. At the present time, there are no obvious measures that might be tested to address this.

7.9 The above comments need to be set in the context of the simplistic assumptions made in the assessment, namely that a significant increase in demand flows can be achieved at this location. The assumption in-built to the analysis is that this increased flow can reach the St James Interchange location uninhibited and that the demand flows can be achieved. Those familiar to the area will be aware that it is already very busy at peak times and it is difficult to envisage how flows could substantially increase within the limits of the current peak hour.

7.10 The above comments in the context of the wider transportation package proposed with the development need further discussion and consideration with both Transport Scotland and Renfrewshire Council as part of the liaison process with the planning application. The operational assessment being undertaken as part of the DMRB submission will address the matter in further detail and will form part of the supporting information for these further discussions.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 64 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

8 M8 Link Flows, Capacity and Level of Service

8.1 This section provides an overview of motorway capacity and level of service issues which will be documented further through the future DMRB submission. The information presented in this report provides both numerical summaries of traffic flow on the M8 and also explains the potential impact of the proposed development in Bishopton on the mainline flows on the M8 between Junctions 25a and 31 ( and Bishopton).

8.2 The analysis is presented in five tables, in Appendix C. Each table deals with the potential for variation in a number of the key parameters which are explained below. (Note; this information was presented to the Structure Plan EIP proceedings in May 2007.)

8.3 There are a number of parameters that need to be considered in the context of the tables included in Appendix C. These parameters are:

• Assumed capacity of M8;

• Level of Service;

• References made to future years;

• Level of Peak Hour Impact of Development Traffic; and

• Assumed level of peak hour growth in base scenario (i.e. before Bishopton development considered). 8.4 Main line M8 flows are generally assumed to have a vehicular capacity of 2000 vehicles per hour per lane. These flows should be achievable at lower speeds (c. 35mph) but are not to be regarded as the absolute values likely to be achievable on the sections of motorway concerned.

8.5 For example, it has been demonstrated on the M25 at Heathrow that increases on these values can be achieved through ATM (Active Traffic Management) and Speed/Flow Control. This technique is also now being applied to the M42 to the east of Birmingham along with selective hard-shoulder running at peak periods. This is a technique that may be considered in the future for this section of the M8.

8.6 In the context of the strategy now being set by the new National Transport Strategy, it is expected that the costs and benefits of this type of approach would be investigated for Junctions 26 to 29 of the M8 before any consideration is given to major road widening schemes. In the detailed tables in Appendix C, Tables 1, 2 and 4 use capacities of 2000 vehs/hr/lane, Table 3 assumes some capacity gains can be made and 2200 vehs/hr/lane is used, and Table 5 assumes a lower value of 1850 vehs/hr/lane as a sensitivity analysis in order to understand any potential variation in conclusions that might otherwise be reached.

8.7 Many of the UK’s traffic engineering techniques and approaches utilise key aspects of American research. The Highway Capacity Manual is recognised as a powerful reference in this regard. They have a particular methodology for considering freeway (motorway) capacity using a Level of Service approach that recognises that the capacity (or maximum throughput) of these types of roads is a reflection of traffic speed, density and flow rate.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 65

8.8 The dynamics of the way the various aspects interact is dependent on the variability of each. ATM referred to above tries to manage this variability so that an optimum speed and headway is achieved to provide optimum throughput.

8.9 The Levels of Service are defined to be:

• Level of Service A; essentially free flow operations. High average speeds. Largely unimpeded manoeuvrability. Small incidents can be absorbed without queues forming and vehicles return to LofS A immediately after passing the incident;

• Level of Service B; also reasonably free-flow conditions with high average speeds. Slight restrictions on manoeuvring. Minor disruption from incidents;

• Level of Service C; flow conditions still stable with fairly high average speed. Approaching range where small increase in flow could cause deterioration in service. Noticeable restrictions on manoeuvring. Queues may occur behind blockage. Driver tension noticeably increased;

• Level of Service D; bordering on unstable flow. Still average speed of c. 45mph but small increases in flow cause substantial drop in service. Freedom to manoeuvre severely limited. Minor incidents can cause substantial queueing;

• Level of Service E; boundary between D and E describes operation at capacity. Operation extremely unstable due to no gaps in traffic stream. Any level of disruption, e.g. vehicle merging at a ramp, will cause disruption wave which propagates through upstream flow;

• Level of Service F; forced flow conditions or flow breakdown due to queuing. 8.10 An analysis of the M8 motorway link flows has been undertaken using the above principles to supplement the specific numerical calculations. Each of Tables 1 to 5 in Appendix C seeks to consider the potential of the development traffic impact in moving any section of motorway from one level of service to another.

8.11 In Tables 1 to 5 all comparative analyses of “with development” and “without development” are undertaken for an “artificial” design year of 2011. Other dates are used in column references in the tables. Any reference to ROF 2011, ROF 2016 or ROF 2022 reflects the specific impact of the Bishopton development in that given year according to the build programme being envisaged prior to the EIP.

8.12 The TMfS 2011 reference relates to the growth embedded in the analysis through an earlier stage of scoping requirements set by TS auditors. It equates to more than 20% in the peak hour between 2005 and 2011.

8.13 For Tables 1, 3, 4 and 5 it is assumed that all peak hour development impact occurs on every link between 0800 and 0900. Table 2 illustrates the potential effect of peak hour spreading.

8.14 As indicated above, the TMfS 2011 reference relates to the growth embedded in the analysis through an earlier stage of scoping requirements set by TS auditors. It equates to more than 20% in the peak hour between 2005 and 2011. Data from SRTDb indicates recent growth of 2% - 2.5% per annum suggesting that the adopted assumptions are very high. When this is considered alongside the fact that structure plan land use allocations are rarely followed through at the assumed rate of development, this further reinforces the likelihood that the assumptions are too high. Tables 4 and 5 consider a potentially lower figure of around half of the core assumption.

8.15 The data presented in each of Tables 1 to 5, in Appendix C, is based on the following assumptions covering the parameters discussed above:

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 66 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

• Table 1; Full Peak Hour Growth per 2011 TMfS, all development impact in single hour, no ATM to enhance capacity;

• Table 2; Full Peak Hour Growth per 2011 TMfS, no ATM capacity enhancement, profile flattening to reflect possible peak hour spread;

• Table 3; Full Peak Hour Growth per 2011 TMfS, all development in single hour, ATM enhancement of 10% capacity;

• Table 4; 50% of 2011 TMfS Peak Hour Growth, all development in single hour, no ATM capacity enhancement;

• Table 5; 50% of 2011 TMfS Peak Hour Growth, all development in single hour, capacity reduction to 1850 vehs/hr/lane. 8.16 The highest levels of impact under all scenarios are identified for sections J29-J30 (St James to Bishopton). In spite of substantial percentage increases in flow, the critical levels of service are not exceeded. This is one of the key areas of the M8 that will be examined in further detail through the DMRB process.

8.17 Other than the section J29-J30, the other sections to be considered from the tables in terms of significance are:

• Table 1; in the am peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS C to D, J27-J26 moves from LoS E to F, and in the pm peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS B to C;

• Table 2; in the am peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS C to D, and in the pm peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS B to C;

• Table 3; in the am peak, east of J25a eastbound moves from LoS C to D;

• Table 4; in the am peak, J26-J27 moves from LoS C to D, east of J25a eastbound moves from LoS C to D, and in the pm peak, west of J30 moves from LoS A to B;

• Table 5; in the am peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS C to D, J27-J28 moves from LoS B to C, J27-J26 moves from LoS D to E, and in the pm peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS B to C, east of J25a eastbound moves from LoS C to D.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 67

9 Local Transport Issues

Background 9.1 This section details the pedestrian, cycle and other local measures that will be provided to link the redevelopment to the existing village of Bishopton. This supplements the existing information in the TA which includes detailed quantitative assessment on potential development traffic impact on the local road network.

9.2 The main focus of this report is therefore to deal with the proposed improvement measures on the local road network influenced by the development. This includes detailing the existing situation and discussing the operation of the transport network with the development in place for pedestrians, cyclists and cars.

9.3 This section describes the existing pedestrian and cycle facilities linking the Royal Ordnance site to the existing village of Bishopton. Following that, the proposed pedestrian and cycle elements of the development access strategy will be detailed. The review of the existing situation has been aided by a site visit undertaken by JMP staff on the 7th May 2008.

Existing Situation – Pedestrian and Cyclist 9.4 Currently the only pedestrian link between the site of the Royal Ordnance factory and Bishopton is at Station Road,. This route also carries vehicular traffic and this includes buses on Station Road. Other potential linkage points to the new development area are at Newton Road and Rossland Crescent. A detailed description of the routes is provided below.

Station Road 9.5 Station Road runs between Greenock Road and the Royal Ordnance site. This route provides access to nearby residential areas, local shops and Bishopton rail station. The southbound approach to the local shops and the rail station is indicated by Figure 9.1.

9.6 This route provides access to the station car park however it carries a relatively low volume of traffic throughout the day. Station Road is tightly bounded by residential properties and retail units for the majority of its length. Therefore, any widening of this route would be problematic and could require the removal of existing buildings. Station Road is approximately 7m width in most places but is only 4.5m in width at the narrow bridge.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 68 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Figure 9.1 Station Road looking South

9.7 A footway exists on the western side of Station Road to the south of the bridge and is 1.5m in width. Footways are present on both sides of Station Road to the north of the bridge and vary between 1.5 and 2m in width. Street lighting is also provided between the station and Greenock Road. Pedestrian facilities on Station Road are indicated by Figure 9.2.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 69

Figure 9.2 Station Road Pedestrian Facilities

9.8 A rail bridge crosses this route as indicated by Figure 9.3 which imposes a width restriction on Station Road and effectively makes the road one-way on its approach to the Royal Ordnance site.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 70 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Figure 9.3 Rail Bridge Over Station Road

Rossland Crescent 9.9 Rossland Crescent connects to Greenock Road on its south side (and to the north of Station Road) and provides access to residential areas.

9.10 Rossland Crescent is approximately 5.7m wide at its northern section with footways on both sides of the road. The footway on the western side of the street varies in width between 1.5m and 1.8m.

9.11 The footway on the eastern side of the street is blocked by fences in certain locations as indicated by Figure 9.4.

9.12 This is a lightly trafficked route as its sole function is to provide access to local residential areas and it does not carry any through traffic. This facilitates a potentially safe and attractive route for both pedestrians and cyclists.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 71

Figure 9.4 Rossland Crescent looking Towards Greenock Road

9.13 Widening of Rossland Crescent at this point would be difficult as residential properties are located to the immediate west of the street and on the eastern side there is a steep gradient down to the rail line.

9.14 Street lighting is provided throughout the length of Rossland Crescent along with some traffic calming measures as indicated by Figure 9.5.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 72 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Figure 9.5 Rossland Crescent Traffic Calming Measures

Newton Road 9.15 Newton Road provides access to residential areas to the south of Greenock Road. The carriageway of Newton Road varies between 5.8m and 6.0m in width. Footways are provided on both sides of Newton Road however, there is a section at the southern end of the street where no footway is present on the western side.

9.16 Footway width on the eastern side of the street is generally 1.2m and on the western side it is approximately 2.4m. Street lighting is provided on Newton Road. Figure 10.6 indicates the section of Newton Road that does not have a footway on the western side.

9.17 Similarly to Rossland Crescent, the function of Newton Road is to provide access to local residential areas and it does not carry through traffic. Therefore, relatively low traffic flows occur on this street. This makes the areas attractive for pedestrians and cyclists.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 73

Figure 9.6 Newton Road Looking South

9.18 Newton Road is tightly bounded by buildings on either side of the street therefore, widening of the street would be problematic and would, in fact, disturb the current character of the road and property setting.

9.19 It should also be noted that there is a blind summit on Newton Road. Therefore, it would not be preferable to reduce the street to a single direction of traffic at or near this point.

Proposed Pedestrian and Cyclist Access Strategy 9.20 It is proposed that Newton Road, Rossland Crescent and Station Road form the pedestrian linkages between the new development areas and the existing village of Bishopton. These routes are well located to undertake these functions and currently cater for pedestrian and cycle traffic. Station Road will afford direct access to the new core area of the redevelopment for the residents of the existing village of Bishopton.

9.21 It is proposed that vehicular access to the development is not afforded to the Royal Ordnance site through Newton Road, Rossland Crescent or Station Road as part of the development access strategy. Therefore, the main functions of these three streets will remain unchanged with the proposed new development in place.

9.22 This means that provisions for pedestrians and cyclists would be the main drivers of any changes proposed to these streets as part of the development access strategy.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 74 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

9.23 Footways are already present on all three routes as is street lighting. These streets provide access to local residential areas but do not cater for through traffic. It is not proposed to provide vehicular access to the redevelopment through any of the streets. Therefore, we do not envisage any increase in traffic in this area due to the redevelopment or the preferred access strategy.

9.24 Given that these streets successfully cater for pedestrians and cyclists and the volume of vehicular traffic will not increase, we do not propose to amend the supporting infrastructure on these routes. Preserving the existing street layouts has the added benefits that no land acquisition or building demolition will have to be considered in these areas. This will ensure that the existing character of these streets is not unduly affected by the proposed access strategy for the redevelopment.

9.25 Proposed pedestrian and cycle access to the Royal Ordnance Redevelopment Site is indicated by the drawing in Appendix B.

Proposed Local Access Strategy 9.26 The layout of the junction after the implementation of signals is indicated by the drawing in Appendix D. The drawing indicates the location of the signal heads and the layout of tactile paving for pedestrians.

Public Transport 9.27 It is proposed that Station Road is used by buses in order to access the public transport interchange that is included within the development access strategy. Details of the proposed public transport interchange are provided as part of the Public Transport Study report submitted as part of the STAG Part 2 submission.

Summary of Local Issues 9.28 It will be important that the proposed Bishopton Park development is interconnected with the existing village of Bishopton in order to maximise accessibility to services. This includes providing for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and cars.

9.29 A site visit of Bishopton identified existing high quality routes for pedestrians and cyclists between the village and the redevelopment site. These are Station Road, Newton Road and Rossland Crescent. All three routes have footways, lighting and relatively low traffic volumes. It is proposed that vehicular access to the redevelopment is not provided through these streets. Therefore, the Bishopton Park access strategy will not lead to an increase in traffic volumes on these routes.

9.30 Given that the three streets already provide for pedestrians and cyclists and that no additional traffic will be generated on these routes, it is proposed that no mitigation measures are implemented in these localities.

9.31 This will help to preserve the character of these areas, cause a minimum of disruption to existing residents and still provide a high level of access to and from the redevelopment.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 75

9.32 Autotrack diagrams have been prepared that indicate a suitable route for buses on Station Road. This ensures a good level of access to the improved transport interchange centred around the existing rail station. It is also important to note that this route currently serves as a bus route. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required on this route in order to accommodate buses. The Autotrack diagram is indicated by Appendix E.

9.33 Detailed analysis of the Greenock Road/Kingston Road junction indicates that it may operate over capacity with redevelopment traffic on the network. In order to accommodate this traffic it is proposed to convert the junction from the existing priority control to signal control. Linsig analysis of the junction indicates that it will operate within capacity after the application of signal control and the addition of traffic associated with the redevelopment. An indicative layout for the junction is shown in Appendix D.

9.34 An examination of traffic routeing from the northern access route to the Erskine Bridge suggests a possibility that some additional traffic may use the section of Old Greenock Road to north of the B815 but in a southbound direction only. It may be necessary to install some pavements build-outs at say two locations to reduce vehicle speed along this section and act as a deterrent for through traffic. This will be the subject of further discussion with the local authority.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 76 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

10 Conclusions

10.1 The proposed development is capable of providing good integration with the existing transportation network and can, in broad terms, deliver a sustainable transport strategy that accommodates safe and accessible walking, cycling and public transport facilities and provide links to the external network.

10.2 The Masterplan for the site has been developed in accordance with key sustainable transport objectives and will encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel within the new development and in linking with the existing community. Train connections are already well established and bus services will be enhanced by the developer to ensure that sustainable alternatives to the car are provided from the outset.

10.3 Development of the public transport provision will be provided by improvements to the station by creating a Public Transport Interchange and enhancements to the passenger facilities. Bus services will be subsidised until they become financially independent.

10.4 The Masterplan has also been designed to ensure that there will be a high level of permeability between the new development and the existing Bishopton settlement while deterring excessive traffic from the existing roads within Bishopton through layout and design. The currently envisaged plan seeks to respond to the requests of the planning authority in the context of the concerns expressed locally.

10.5 In addition to the enhancement of existing sustainable modes of transport, the Masterplan indicates a range of local facilities within the development including local shops, neighbourhood supermarket, school and recreational areas which in accordance with current policy, reduces the need to travel and encourages walking and cycling given the proximity of the facilities.

10.6 Access to the development from the wider road network will be provided via two new access roads one to the north of the development and one to the south. They will connect with the existing A8 at two new roundabouts.

10.7 The road layout within Bishopton Park will be designed in detail in conjunction with Renfrewshire Council to provide a responsible and safe layout in keeping with the latest thinking on road standards, rather than adopt a traditional approach that produces a clinical car-led design as so often developed as part of a new development. The layout and the choice of route along with any associated traffic calming or other design features will discourage drivers from using the existing links and encourage them towards the new link roads.

10.8 Access to the strategic road network will be provided by a new junction on the M8 to the south-east of the development site. This junction will provide access to the development as well as improved accessibility for existing residents of Bishopton. In addition, the new junction will provide an opportunity for some traffic to avoid St James Interchange by providing an alternative for traffic movements associated with the wider area.

10.9 The impact of traffic will be minimised within the existing Bishopton village as much as possible and all junctions within the existing village can cater for any additional traffic that is generated by the new development in the context of the proposed masterplan.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park 77

10.10 The wider network can generally accommodate the additional traffic generated and every effort has been made to minimise the impact of this traffic. St James Interchange will continue to be a major congestion location in the wider network and further discussion with Transport Scotland and Renfrewshire Council will be necessary following the detailed information being made available through the DMRB process. In the meantime, in addition to providing the new motorway junction, the applicant is in discussion with Transport Scotlland with a view to providing a financial contribution towards improvements in the M8 corridor to the south of Bishopton, albeit that the nature of any future improvements will not be identified until after publication of the Ministerial findings in relation to the Strategic Transport Projects Review.

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 78 B063017 1 4 Bishopton Park

Appendix A

Indicative Masterplan

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 3 Bishopton Park A1

Appendix B

Framework Travel Plan

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 3 Bishopton Park B1

1 Introduction

1.1 Given that business and commuting travel accounts for approximately 30% of all car miles travelled, and that 70% of all journeys to work are by car with 80% of these being single occupancy, the government is committed to encourage a change in travel behaviour in favour of more sustainable modes of transport.

1.2 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 17 – Planning for Transport and its associated Planning Advice Note (PAN) 75 – Planning for Transport and Transport Assessment and Implementation: A Guide, have been published by the Scottish Executive. These documents provide good practice advice on integrated land use and transport planning. It is generally now a requirement that new developments are supported by a Travel Plan, demonstrating how the potential traffic impact of the development may be minimised and alternative sustainable transport modes encouraged.

1.3 The objectives of a Travel Plan are to:

o Identify the measures which will promote alternative modes of transport and procure modal shift;

o Examine the existing situation in the location of the site;

o Identify the methodology of the review and reporting process to be implemented, and

o Identify the system of monitoring which will be used to identify both the current modal split and to monitor plan progress;

1.4 The Transport White Paper “Travel Choices for Scotland’, makes it clear that an integrated approach to tackling congestion and poor air quality, and Travel Plans are the expected method by which businesses should address the issue of reducing their own travel impacts.

1.5 A Travel Plan is a package of measures that allow organisations to understand and manage their travel needs in an environmentally sustainable manner. Through a mixture of communications technology, advice, information, incentives and deterrents they reduce the need to travel and encourage the use of alternatives to the car by promoting car sharing, public transport, cycling and walking.

1.6 Travel Plans are not designed to restrict the freedom of car use. Rather, they aim to encourage the use of more environmentally friendly modes of transport for commuting and business journeys by encouraging a range of alternatives to single occupancy car journeys. In fact, a good quality travel plan not only broadens the choice of travel options available to staff and the flexibility of working patterns, it is also a very practical tool with which to alleviate the shortage of parking and worksite congestion which is a serious problem.

1.7 This study has examined the scope for improving access to the proposed employment related element of the development by public transport and by foot, bicycle and car. The primary purpose of the work was to define an appropriate package of measures which could form the basis of a Travel Plan Framework.

1.8 Given the speculative nature of the development this document identifies broad measures for the sustainable management of the transport requirements of potential occupiers. The development will provide opportunities for a wide range of end users therefore, it is appropriate to provide only general objectives and targets. 1.9 The delivery framework for the Travel Plan has been set out in three key sections as follows:

a) Developer’s Responsibility

b) Employment Travel Plan Framework

c) Occupier Travel Plan Guide

2 Developer’s Responsibility

2.1 This section includes the measures to be implemented by the developer prior to site occupation. The main focus of these measures is on providing the necessary infrastructure to encourage more sustainable travel behaviour and to improve accessibility to the site.

2.2 The need to develop a Travel Plan would be written into an agreement between the developer and the occupier when the employment land is purchased or leased. This would include a commitment for a representative from the occupying company to meet on an annual basis to discuss the operation of the Travel Plan. Developer Commitments Walking Measures 2.3 A comprehensive network of pedestrian routes will be provided within the development site which will provide a safe and direct link between the residential, employment and commercial areas of the development.

2.4 These routes will encourage pedestrian movements between the various elements of the development.

Cycling Measures 2.5 The developer has committed to supplying a range of on-site facilities for cyclists by providing a network of cycleways and shared surface routes within the development site

2.6 This comprehensive network of cycle routes will provide a safe and direct link between the residential, employment and commercial areas of the development and encourage cycling movements between the various elements of the development.

Public Transport 2.7 The developer is committed to providing improvements to the existing public transport provision within Bishopton which are discussed in detail in a separate Public Transport Study.

2.8 These will generally provide enhanced facilities for passengers on Public Transport at an integrated Public Transport Interchange.

2.9 Subsidies will also be provided to enhance the bus service provision for the new development and the existing village until the development grows to such an extent that the services become economically self supporting.

3 Employment Travel Plan Framework

3.1 The employment element of the development is speculative, at this time, with no specified end user. As such, the following is a proposed travel plan framework which future tenants will be required to follow. Travel Plan measures will be selected to meet the individual needs and requirements of the end-user, while meeting the aims of transport sustainability.

3.2 If a Travel Plan is to be effective, it is normally prepared with the needs of the occupier in mind and that the organisation plays an active role in developing and implementing that Travel Plan. However, in these circumstances where there are a number of end users none of whom are known, a Travel Plan might consist of some or all of the elements set out below

3.3 Consequently, a toolkit of possible measures, together with a suggested administrative framework such as that set out within the document “Travel Plan Resource Pack for Employers” is set out below in order to indicate the types of initiatives that may be introduced on this site to reduce reliance on the private car.

Administration of the Travel Plan 3.4 The first key step towards developing the travel plan strategy is to ensure that there is an identified contact for any liaison required. Traditionally, a Travel Plan Co-ordinator would be appointed and a Travel Plan Steering Group involving occupiers formed to oversee the development and implementation of the Travel Plan.

3.5 The Travel Plan Co-ordinator would also be required to liaise with any wider Travel Plan forum that is established. This would enable integration with any wider initiatives to be developed, such as a car sharing scheme for the whole site, or with the development of a strategy to improve wider public transport, walking or cycling links to the site.

Travel Plan Measures 3.6 It will be for occupiers to decide on the exact measures that they wish to implement depending on their particular requirements. The measures set out below therefore provide a toolkit of initiatives that will be given to the occupier to allow them to choose the most appropriate measures for their needs, in order to meet the overall objectives and targets for the site. It is important that the travel plan measures include both “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage changes in travel behaviour. However, the focus should be on the incentives for staff and visitors to travel more sustainability, rather than lots of disincentives to travel by car.

3.7 For the purposes of the occupier Travel Plans, it is necessary to differentiate between staff and visitors. Staff will be travelling to the site on a regular basis from particular destinations. As their employers, the occupiers will be in a stronger position to influence travel behaviour. However, visitors will be a much more fluid and diverse group, coming from a wide range of different origins, on a less frequent basis than the staff. Whilst information and improved infrastructure can be provided for visitors, it is much more difficult to directly influence the way that they travel to the site. The main focus of the Travel Plan will therefore be on staff travel. There would be much greater potential to address visitor travel through the implementation of a site-wide travel plan for the whole of the proposed development. 3.8 A fundamental element of any successful travel plan is the provision of up-to-date, comprehensive information about the range of travel options available to both staff and visitors. Public Transport Providers provide a wide range of useful information, in the form of paper and web-based maps and timetables on public transport services in the area. Such information, together with maps highlighting walking and cycling routes to the site, will be provided at a prominent information point within the proposed units, so that it is available to both visitors and staff. This information will be kept up-to-date by ensuring that the occupiers are added to timetable mailing list so that they are automatically supplied with new editions.

3.9 If the occupiers have a website, they should also place links to the appropriate public transport information in a prominent position on their WebPages. Maps of how to reach the site by all modes of transport should also be provided. This would be included in any publicity material for the site.

Staff Information 3.10 It will be important that all the staff on the site are fully aware of the travel plan before they start working in the units, and before travel behaviour becomes too entrenched. Thus, travel issues should be discussed at staff inductions/interviews, to ensure that the staff are provided with up-to-date information on the range of different travel options that are available to them, such as walking, cycling, public transport initiatives and car sharing, as early as possible.

3.11 Walking should be encouraged for journeys under 2 kilometres, both on the journey to/from work, business travel and for lunchtime/leisure activities. The following measures would be included within the occupier travel plan to encourage walking:

o Providing information at the information points on:

- Health benefits of walking;

- Safe walking routes to/from the site, including maps of local facilities etc;

- Pedestrian safety;

o Ensuring that visitors are also aware of pedestrian routes to the site, via leaflets displayed at the store information points and on the occupier websites, if appropriate; and

o The occupier should consider providing free personal alarms and/or umbrellas to staff that walk to work.

3.12 Cycling would be encouraged for staff living within 5 kilometres of the workplace, although considerably longer distances can be covered comfortably by bicycle. Cycling would also be promoted to staff as a good way to get regular exercise and to reduce the cost of travel to work. Visitors are less likely to cycle to the site, particularly if they are planning to do large amounts of bulky shopping. However, sheltered cycle parking will be provided on the site to encourage as many staff and visitors to cycle to the site as possible. Examples of other measures that would be developed to encourage cycling include:

o Providing information at the in-store information points on:

- Health and cost benefits of cycling;

- Safe cycle routes to/from the site;

- Cycle safety and security;

o Ensuring that visitors are also aware of cycle routes to the site, via leaflets displayed at the store information points and on the occupier websites, if appropriate;

o Shower and changing facilities will also be provided within the retail units, for use by staff cycling to work; o Occupiers could also consider providing pool bicycles for staff to use during the day, or on the journey to work, or to provide subsidised protective clothing/safety gear for cyclists;

o They might wish to offer staff financial incentives to cycle e.g. interest- free cycle loans, etc; and

o A Bicycle Users’ Group (BUG) can be formed where cyclists can discuss key issues and potential improvements to the cycling environment. “Cycle to work” days could also be held as a park-wide initiative. A comprehensive cycle strategy should also be developed to identify potential improvements to cycle infrastructure.

3.13 Public transport should be encouraged for travel to the site by staff and visitors. The introduction of new, or re-routed, services will help to improve the attractiveness of travel by bus to the site. Key measures for encouraging greater public transport use could include:

o Providing up-to-date public transport information on routes, times, prices etc. This would be provided by Public Transport Service Providers and displayed at information points and on the website, if appropriate, to ensure it is available to both staff and visitors;

o Many public transport service providers have established ticketing schemes to encourage public transport use – these should be promoted to staff. The occupiers might also wish to consider approaching bus companies to negotiate subsidised/ discounted travel. This would allow employees discounts of up to 15%. Occupiers could consider paying for the staff travel passes for the first month of opening to encourage travel by public transport; and

o Service providers also provide substantial discounts on monthly/ annual season tickets for employers. Occupiers may wish to consider interest free loans for this incentive as part of their travel plan.

3.14 Another effective method of reducing the numbers of cars travelling to sites is to encourage car sharing and, given the nature of this site, this is likely to be an important initiative, particularly for staff. By encouraging two or more people to travel together in one car, congestion, parking requirements and travel costs can all be reduced. Methods for encouraging car sharing include:

o Given the size of the proposed units, it is likely that a formal car sharing scheme could be established from the outset, whereby staff travelling from the same areas could be encouraged to travel together. Such opportunities could be identified by the Travel Plan Co-ordinator.

o However, in the longer term, consideration should be given to establishing a Park-wide car share database to identify potential sharers and to put them into contact with each other across the retail and business park to increase the pool of potential sharers.

o Providing a guaranteed lift home for car sharers in emergencies.

o Providing priority parking for car sharers, close to building entrances, as part of a site car parking management strategy.

3.15 In addition, other measures to address car travel issues should include developing a car park management strategy to make better use of car parking space and to discourage unnecessary car travel e.g. parking permit scheme. Once the occupiers are known, then the staff parking requirements can be established. Parking spaces for staff should be limited to only make provision for those with no alternative and for those car sharing. Permits could be allocated for these spaces.

Marketing 3.16 It will be important for the occupiers to market the travel plan effectively to their staff. Staff should therefore be encouraged to participate in the development of the travel plan and information on the plan should be disseminated using notice boards, emails, the internet, leaflets and so on. It is also important to ensure that up-to-date information on different travel modes is provided to all employees, including public transport timetables, and so on.

3.17 In the longer-term, it is hoped that a site-wide travel plan forum and strategy is developed, which would allow a much more comprehensive marketing strategy to be developed. This would be particularly useful for visitors who are likely to be visiting a number of the different retail and leisure units on the site. Public transport providers could provide a road show trailer for the site once a site-wide travel plan has been established, with an exhibition promoting public transport.

Monitoring 3.18 In order to ensure the Travel Plan’s ongoing success, it will be important for the occupiers to monitor the outcomes. This can be done simply by analysing use of car parking spaces and uptake of specific measures, such as a car sharing scheme. However, periodically it is also useful to undertake full or “snapshot” surveys of staff travel behaviour, to assess mode share. These could be done in line with target dates or on an annual basis.

3.19 It is suggested that occupiers undertake a questionnaire survey of staff and visitors within the first few months of opening and at least in years 3 and 5 after opening, to link in with target dates. This information should be analysed and reported back to Renfrewshire Council to ensure the accuracy of the results. This will help to inform Renfrewshire Council on the progress of the travel plan. 3.20 This monitoring procedure would allow the success of the travel plan to be reviewed, and where necessary, adjusted to ensure that objectives and targets are met. This process could be tied in with an annual progress meeting with Renfrewshire Council. 4 Occupier Travel Plan Guide

Occupier Responsibility 4.1 Having provided a framework for the occupier travel plan, it is important to provide further guidance on how this strategy should be developed and implemented once the end users of the site are known. Thus, we have set out below a phased implementation programme to assist the occupiers in the development of the final strategy.

Prior to Occupation 4.2 There are a number of issues which will require clarification prior to the retail units being occupied. These include:

o Assign a senior staff member as travel plan co-ordinator; o Review Travel Plan framework provided above to discuss what is relevant to the occupiers’ operational needs; o Liaise with service providers to discuss public transport information provision and potential ticketing initiatives; o Develop car parking management strategy – decide how many staff spaces should be provided and how they should be allocated; o Ensure that showers/changing facilities and secure cycle storage are provided within the units for staff who cycle to work; o Raise travel issues within staff interviews/inductions and ensure that are aware of the range of travel options available to them, including public transport services, and walking and cycling routes. Discuss car parking management, car sharing and the issuing of permits, in order to discourage single occupancy car travel from the outset; o Establish travel information point within unit – through co-operation with public transport service provider. Consider the need for information on the occupier’s website, if appropriate; and o Include travel information for all modes within publicity material for retail units.

Within 1 Month of Opening o Undertake travel survey of staff and visitors. This will have allowed travel patterns to have stabilised. Review travel plan framework mode share targets and objectives on the basis of this information; o Undertake car park and cycle parking surveys to assess level of use of parking facilities; and o Meet with Renfrewshire Council to agree final travel plan strategy and revised objectives/targets.

Annual Review o Monitor success of travel plan on an annual basis; o Undertake parking surveys every year; o Undertake questionnaire surveys in 3rd and 5th year after opening – should be checked by an independent 3rd party to guarantee validity of results; o Meet with Renfrewshire Council on an annual basis to discuss travel plan progress and the need to review any elements of the strategy; and o Participate in any site-wide strategy co-ordinated by Renfrewshire Council – liaise with other site occupiers as appropriate.

Appendix C

M8 Link Flows, Capacity and Level of Service

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 3 Bishopton Park C1

GLASGOW AND THE CLYDE VALLEY JOINT STRUCTURE PLAN 2006 EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC OF MATTERS RELATING TO THE FORMER ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY SITE AT BISHOPTON IN RENFREWSHIRE

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT 2.6 ON BEHALF OF BAE SYSTEMS AND REDROW

MOTORWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE

Cass Associates

JMP Consultants Limited

1

Context

As mentioned in Supporting Document 2.8, the proposed CGA and its supporting transport and accessibility package with associated infrastructure are required to go through a number of technical and audit processes prior to delivery. These processes are conducted through the planning process. This note represents an overview of work in progress in relation to motorway capacity considerations that will inform both the TA and DMRB processes. The detailed nature of this work means that it is unlikely to be an important consideration within the STAG process.

Objective of this Supporting Document

This document provides an overview of motorway capacity and level of service issues. It provides both numerical summaries of traffic flow on the M8 and also explains the potential impact of the proposed Bishopton CGA on the mainline flows on the M8 between Junctions 25a and 31 (Clyde Tunnel and Bishopton).

The analysis is presented in 5 tables at the back of this document. Each table deals with the potential for variation in a number of the key parameters which are explained in the following sections.

Parameters for Consideration

There are a number of parameters that need to be considered in the context of the tables included within this document. These parameters are:

o Assumed capacity of M8 o Level of Service o References made to future years o Level of Peak Hour Impact of Development Traffic o Assumed level of peak hour growth in base scenario (i.e. before Bishopton development considered)

Assumed Capacity Values for M8

Main line M8 flows are generally assumed to have a vehicular capacity of 2000 vehicles per hour per lane. These flows should be achievable at lower speeds (c. 35mph) but are not to be regarded as the absolute values likely to be achievable on the sections of motorway concerned. It has been demonstrated on the M25 at Heathrow that increases on these values can be achieved through ATM (Active Traffic Management) and Speed/Flow Control. This technique is also now being applied to the M42 to the east of Birmingham along with selective hard-shoulder running at peak periods. In the context of the strategy now being set by the new NTS, we would expect the costs and benefits of this type of approach to be investigated for Junctions 26 to 29 of the M8 before any consideration is given to major road widening schemes.

In the detailed tables at the end of the report therefore, Tables 1, 2 and 4 use capacities of 2000 vehs/hr/lane, Table 3 assumes some capacity gains can be made and 2200 vehs/hr/lane is used, and Table 5 assumes a lower value of 1850 vehs/hr/lane as a sensitivity analysis in order to understand any potential variation in conclusions that might otherwise be reached.

2

Level of Service

Many of the UK’s traffic engineering techniques and approaches utilise key aspects of American research. The Highway Capacity Manual is recognised as a powerful reference in this regard. They have a particular methodology for considering freeway (motorway) capacity using a Level of Service approach that recognises that the capacity (or maximum throughput) of these types of roads is a reflection of traffic speed, density and flow rate. The dynamics of the way the various aspects interact is dependent on the variability of each. ATM referred to above tries to manage this variability so that an optimum speed and headway is achieved to provide optimum throughput.

The Levels of Service are defined to be:

Level of Service A; essentially free flow operations. High average speeds. Largely unimpeded manoeuvaribility. Small incidents can be absorbed without queues forming and vehicles return to LofS A immediately after passing the incident.

Level of Service B; also reasonably free-flow conditions with high average speeds. Slight restrictions on manoeuvring. Minor disruption from incidents.

Level of Service C; flow conditions still stable with fairly high average speed. Approaching range where small increase in flow could cause deterioration in service. Noticeable restrictions on manoeuvring. Queues may occur behind blockage. Driver tension noticeably increased.

Level of Service D; bordering on unstable flow. Still average speed of c. 45mph but small increases in flow cause substantial drop in service. Freedom to manoeuvre severely limited. Minor incidents can cause substantial queueing.

Level of Service E; boundary between D and E describes operation at capacity. Operation extremely unstable due to no gaps in traffic stream. Any level of disruption, e.g. vehicle merging at a ramp, will cause disruption wave which propagates through upstream flow.

Level of Service F; forced flow conditions or flow breakdown due to queuing.

An analysis of the M8 motorway link flows has been undertaken using the above principles to supplement the specific numerical calculations. Each of Tables 1 to 5 seeks to consider the potential of the development traffic impact in moving any section of motorway from one level of service to another.

Future Years

In Tables 1 to 5 all comparative analyses of “with development” and “without development” are undertaken for an “artificial” design year of 2011. Other dates are used in column references in the tables. Any reference to ROF 2011, ROF 2016 or ROF 2022 reflects the specific impact of the Bishopton development in that given year according to the build programme.

The TMfS 2011 reference relates to the growth embedded in the analysis through an earlier stage of scoping requirements set by TS auditors. It equates to more than 20% in the peak hour between 2005 and 2011.

3

Development Peak Demand

For Tables 1, 3, 4 and 5 it is assumed that all peak hour development impact occurs on every link between 0800 and 0900. Table 2 illustrates the potential effect of peak hour spreading as further explained in Supporting Document 2.7.

Assumed Peak Hour Growth between 2005 and 2011

As indicated above, the TMfS 2011 reference relates to the growth embedded in the analysis through an earlier stage of scoping requirements set by TS auditors. It equates to more than 20% in the peak hour between 2005 and 2011.

Data from SRTDb indicates recent growth of 2% - 2.5% per annum suggesting that the adopted assumptions are very high. When this is considered alongside the fact that structure plan land use allocations are rarely followed through at the assumed rate of development, this further reinforces the likelihood that the assumptions are too high. Tables 4 and 5 consider a potentially lower figure of around half of the core assumption.

Tables 1 to 5; Explanation of Contents

The data presented in each of Tables 1 to 5 is based on the following assumptions covering the parameters discussed above:

o Table 1; Full Peak Hour Growth per 2011 TMfS, all development impact in single hour, no ATM to enhance capacity. o Table 2; Full Peak Hour Growth per 2011 TMfS, no ATM capacity enhancement, profile flattening to reflect possible peak hour spread. o Table 3; Full Peak Hour Growth per 2011 TMfS, all development in single hour, ATM enhancement of 10% capacity. o Table 4; 50% of 2011 TMfS Peak Hour Growth, all development in single hour, no ATM capacity enhancement. o Table 5; 50% of 2011 TMfS Peak Hour Growth, all development in single hour, capacity reduction to 1850 vehs/hr/lane.

Summary of Tabulated Results

The highest levels of impact under all scenarios are identified for sections J29-J30 (St James to Bishopton). In spite of substantial percentage increases in flow, the critical levels of service are not exceeded. This is one of the key areas of the M8 that will be examined in further detail through the DMRB process.

Other than the section J29-J30, the other sections to be considered from the tables in terms of significance are:

o Table 1; in the am peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS C to D, J27-J26 moves from LoS E to F, and in the pm peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS B to C. o Table 2; in the am peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS C to D, and in the pm peak, J28- J27 moves from LoS B to C. o Table 3; in the am peak, east of J25a eastbound moves from LoS C to D. o Table 4; in the am peak, J26-J27 moves from LoS C to D, east of J25a eastbound moves from LoS C to D, and in the pm peak, west of J30 moves from LoS A to B.

4

o Table 5; in the am peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS C to D, J27-J28 moves from LoS B to C, J27-J26 moves from LoS D to E, and in the pm peak, J28-J27 moves from LoS B to C, east of J25a eastbound moves from LoS C to D.

5

6

TABLE 1 (Full peak hour growth per TMfS, all development impact in single hour, no enhancement to motorway capacity (e.g. ATM))

IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS ON M8 MAINLINE FLOWS LofS LofS AM Peak 0800-0900 Prac Capacity 2005 SRTDb 2011 TMfS ROF 2011 dev/2011 % ROF 2016 dev/2011 % ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C no dev 2011 V/C full dev

west of J30 eastbound 4000 1335 1615 10 0.62 39 2.41 107 6.62 0.40 B 0.43 B west of J30 westbound 4000 1387 1678 22 1.31 84 5.01 231 13.76 0.42 B 0.48 B J31-J30 eastbound 4000 J30-J31 westbound 4000 J30-J29 eastbound 4000 1845 2232 69 3.09 264 11.83 726 32.52 0.56 C 0.74 C J29-J30 westbound 4000 2586 3129 50 1.60 191 6.10 525 16.78 0.78 D 0.91 D J29-J28 eastbound 6000 J28-J29 westbound 6000 J28-J27 eastbound 6000 3628 4390 38 0.87 147 3.35 404 9.20 0.73 C 0.80 D * J27-J28 westbound 6000 2714 3284 15 0.46 56 1.71 153 4.66 0.55 C 0.57 C J27-J26 eastbound 6000 4680 5663 38 0.67 147 2.60 404 7.13 0.94 E 1.01 F * J26-J27 westbound 6000 4074 4930 15 0.30 56 1.14 153 3.10 0.82 D 0.85 D J26-J25a eastbound 6000 J25a-J26 westbound 6000 east of J25a eastbound 6000 4098 4959 40 0.81 154 3.11 422 8.51 0.83 D 0.90 D east of J25a westbound 6000 4395 5318 18 0.34 68 1.28 187 3.52 0.89 D 0.92 D

PM Peak 1700-1800

west of J30 eastbound 4000 1289 1585 14 0.88 53 3.34 142 8.96 0.40 B 0.43 B west of J30 westbound 4000 1224 1505 13 0.86 49 3.26 133 8.84 0.38 B 0.41 B J31-J30 eastbound 4000 J30-J31 westbound 4000 J30-J29 eastbound 4000 2263 2783 76 2.73 281 10.10 759 27.27 0.70 C 0.89 D * J29-J30 westbound 4000 2188 2691 58 2.16 214 7.95 576 21.40 0.67 C 0.82 D * J29-J28 eastbound 6000 J28-J29 westbound 6000 J28-J27 eastbound 6000 2627 3231 24 0.74 89 2.75 240 7.43 0.54 B 0.58 C * J27-J28 westbound 6000 4702 5783 23 0.40 85 1.47 229 3.96 0.96 E 1.00 E J27-J26 eastbound 6000 3581 4405 24 0.54 89 2.02 240 5.45 0.73 C 0.77 C J26-J27 westbound 6000 5447 6699 23 0.34 85 1.27 229 3.42 1.12 F 1.15 F J26-J25a eastbound 6000 J25a-J26 westbound 6000 east of J25a eastbound 6000 3806 4681 30 0.64 113 2.41 304 6.49 0.78 D 0.83 D east of J25a westbound 6000 5535 6808 32 0.47 117 1.72 316 4.64 1.13 F 1.19 F

Notes; 1. Practical Capacity in this table taken to be 2000 vehs/hr/lane 2. 2005 M8 Link flows taken from Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb) 3. TMfS link flows are based on applying growth of the order of 20%+ to the 2005 SRTDb flows; reflecting the effects of all structure plan commitments contained in the Transport Model for Scotland. (NOTE; very high peak hour assumptions inherent in this analysis.) 4. ROF 2011 is actual change in link flow arising out of component of Bishopton development completed in 2011; ditto for 2016 and 2022. 5. dev/2011% represents the percentage of Bishopton traffic in that year relative to 2011 TMfS link flow. 6. 2011 V/C ratio is the ratio of (2011 TMfS flow + full Bishopton Development)/Capacity; this ratio is shown with and without development. 7. LoS value is Level of Service as per Highway Capacity Definition for 70mph design speed. 8. A * in the extreme right-hand column indicates a change in LoS as a consequence of the impact of full development traffic.

1

TABLE 2 (Full peak hour growth from TmfS, no enhancement to motroway capacity (e.g. no ATM), skew=reduction in development traffic to reflect flattening of peak period de

IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS ON M8 MAINLINE FLOWS LofS LofS LofS LofS 10%skew 20% skew 30% skew AM Peak 0800-0900 Prac Capacity 2005 SRTDb 2011 TMfS 2011 V/C no dev ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C full dev ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C full dev ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C full dev

west of J30 eastbound 4000 1335 1615 0.40 B 96 5.96 0.43 B 86 5.30 0.43 B 75 4.64 0.42 B west of J30 westbound 4000 1387 1678 0.42 B 208 12.39 0.47 B 185 11.01 0.47 B 162 9.63 0.46 B J31-J30 eastbound 4000 J30-J31 westbound 4000 J30-J29 eastbound 4000 1845 2232 0.56 C 653 29.27 0.72 C 581 26.02 0.70 C 508 22.76 0.69 C J29-J30 westbound 4000 2586 3129 0.78 D 473 15.10 0.90 D 420 13.42 0.89 D 368 11.74 0.87 D J29-J28 eastbound 6000 J28-J29 westbound 6000 J28-J27 eastbound 6000 3628 4390 0.73 C 364 8.28 0.79 D * 323 7.36 0.79 D * 283 6.44 0.78 D * J27-J28 westbound 6000 2714 3284 0.55 C 138 4.19 0.57 C 122 3.73 0.57 C 107 3.26 0.57 C J27-J26 eastbound 6000 4680 5663 0.94 E 364 6.42 1.00 E 323 5.71 1.00 E 283 4.99 0.99 E J26-J27 westbound 6000 4074 4930 0.82 D 138 2.79 0.84 D 122 2.48 0.84 D 107 2.17 0.84 D J26-J25a eastbound 6000 J25a-J26 westbound 6000 east of J25a eastbound 6000 4098 4959 0.83 D 380 7.66 0.89 D 338 6.81 0.88 D 295 5.96 0.88 D east of J25a westbound 6000 4395 5318 0.89 D 168 3.16 0.91 D 150 2.81 0.91 D 131 2.46 0.91 D

PM Peak 1700-1800

west of J30 eastbound 4000 1289 1585 0.40 B 128 8.06 0.43 B 114 7.17 0.42 B 99 6.27 0.42 B west of J30 westbound 4000 1224 1505 0.38 B 120 7.95 0.41 B 106 7.07 0.40 B 93 6.19 0.40 B J31-J30 eastbound 4000 J30-J31 westbound 4000 J30-J29 eastbound 4000 2263 2783 0.70 C 683 24.55 0.87 D * 607 21.82 0.85 D * 531 19.09 0.83 D * J29-J30 westbound 4000 2188 2691 0.67 C 518 19.26 0.80 D * 461 17.12 0.79 D * 403 14.98 0.77 C J29-J28 eastbound 6000 J28-J29 westbound 6000 J28-J27 eastbound 6000 2627 3231 0.54 B 216 6.69 0.57 C * 192 5.94 0.57 C * 168 5.20 0.57 C * J27-J28 westbound 6000 4702 5783 0.96 E 206 3.56 1.00 E 183 3.17 0.99 E 160 2.77 0.99 E J27-J26 eastbound 6000 3581 4405 0.73 C 216 4.90 0.77 C 192 4.36 0.77 C 168 3.81 0.76 C J26-J27 westbound 6000 5447 6699 1.12 F 206 3.08 1.15 F 183 2.73 1.15 F 160 2.39 1.14 F J26-J25a eastbound 6000 J25a-J26 westbound 6000 east of J25a eastbound 6000 3806 4681 0.78 D 274 5.84 0.83 D 243 5.20 0.82 D 213 4.55 0.82 D east of J25a westbound 6000 5535 6808 1.13 F 284 4.18 1.18 F 253 3.71 1.18 F 221 3.25 1.17 F

Notes; 1. Practical Capacity in this table taken to be 2000 vehs/hr/lane 2. 2005 M8 Link flows taken from Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb) 3. TMfS link flows are based on applying growth of the order of 20%+ to the 2005 SRTDb flows; reflecting the effects of all structure plan commitments contained in the Transport Model for Scotland. (NOTE; very high peak hour assumptions inherent in this analysis.) 4. ROF 2022 is actual change in link flow arising out of component of Bishopton development completed in 2022 (90%, 80% and 70% to reflect 10%, 20% and 30% skew) 5. dev/2011% represents the percentage of Bishopton traffic in that year relative to 2011 TMfS link flow. 6. 2011 V/C ratio is the ratio of (2011 TMfS flow + Bishopton Development)/Capacity; this ratio is shown for 90%, 80% and 70% development to reflect 10%, 20% and 30% skew. 7. LoS value is Level of Service as per Highway Capacity Definition for 70mph design speed. 8. A * in the extreme right-hand column indicates a change in LoS as a consequence of the impact of full development traffic.

2

TABLE 3 (Full peak hour growth per TMfS, all development in single hour, with ATM achieving 10% increase in cpacity; i.e. Table 1 with higher capacity values)

IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS ON M8 MAINLINE FLOWS LofS LofS AM Peak 0800-0900 ATM Capacity 2005 SRTDb 2011 TMfS ROF 2011 dev/2011 % ROF 2016 dev/2011 % ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C no dev 2011 V/C full dev

west of J30 eastbound 4400 1335 1615 10 0.62 39 2.41 107 6.62 0.37 B 0.39 B west of J30 westbound 4400 1387 1678 22 1.31 84 5.01 231 13.76 0.38 B 0.43 B J31-J30 eastbound 4400 J30-J31 westbound 4400 J30-J29 eastbound 4400 1845 2232 69 3.09 264 11.83 726 32.52 0.51 B 0.67 C * J29-J30 westbound 4400 2586 3129 50 1.60 191 6.10 525 16.78 0.71 C 0.83 D * J29-J28 eastbound 6600 J28-J29 westbound 6600 J28-J27 eastbound 6600 3628 4390 38 0.87 147 3.35 404 9.20 0.67 C 0.73 C J27-J28 westbound 6600 2714 3284 15 0.46 56 1.71 153 4.66 0.50 B 0.52 B J27-J26 eastbound 6600 4680 5663 38 0.67 147 2.60 404 7.13 0.86 D 0.92 D J26-J27 westbound 6600 4074 4930 15 0.30 56 1.14 153 3.10 0.75 C 0.77 C J26-J25a eastbound 6600 J25a-J26 westbound 6600 east of J25a eastbound 6600 4098 4959 40 0.81 154 3.11 422 8.51 0.75 C 0.82 D * east of J25a westbound 6600 4395 5318 18 0.34 68 1.28 187 3.52 0.81 D 0.83 D

PM Peak 1700-1800

west of J30 eastbound 4400 1289 1585 14 0.88 53 3.34 142 8.96 0.36 B 0.39 B west of J30 westbound 4400 1224 1505 13 0.86 49 3.26 133 8.84 0.34 A 0.37 B J31-J30 eastbound 4400 J30-J31 westbound 4400 J30-J29 eastbound 4400 2263 2783 76 2.73 281 10.10 759 27.27 0.63 C 0.81 D * J29-J30 westbound 4400 2188 2691 58 2.16 214 7.95 576 21.40 0.61 C 0.74 C J29-J28 eastbound 6600 J28-J29 westbound 6600 J28-J27 eastbound 6600 2627 3231 24 0.74 89 2.75 240 7.43 0.49 B 0.53 B J27-J28 westbound 6600 4702 5783 23 0.40 85 1.47 229 3.96 0.88 D 0.91 D J27-J26 eastbound 6600 3581 4405 24 0.54 89 2.02 240 5.45 0.67 C 0.70 C J26-J27 westbound 6600 5447 6699 23 0.34 85 1.27 229 3.42 1.02 F 1.05 F J26-J25a eastbound 6600 J25a-J26 westbound 6600 east of J25a eastbound 6600 3806 4681 30 0.64 113 2.41 304 6.49 0.71 C 0.76 C east of J25a westbound 6600 5535 6808 32 0.47 117 1.72 316 4.64 1.03 F 1.08 F

Notes; 1. Practical Capacity in this table taken to be 2200 vehs/hr/lane 2. 2005 M8 Link flows taken from Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb) 3. TMfS link flows are based on applying growth of the order of 20%+ to the 2005 SRTDb flows; reflecting the effects of all structure plan commitments contained in the Transport Model for Scotland. (NOTE; very high peak hour assumptions inherent in this analysis.) 4. ROF 2011 is actual change in link flow arising out of component of Bishopton development completed in 2011; ditto for 2016 and 2022. 5. dev/2011% represents the percentage of Bishopton traffic in that year relative to 2011 TMfS link flow. 6. 2011 V/C ratio is the ratio of (2011 TMfS flow + full Bishopton Development)/Capacity; this ratio is shown with and without development. 7. LoS value is Level of Service as per Highway Capacity Definition for 70mph design speed. 8. A * in the extreme right-hand column indicates a change in LoS as a consequence of the impact of full development traffic.

3

TABLE 4 (50% of TMfS growth, full development impact in single hour, no enhancement to motorway capacity; i.e. Table 1 but with only 50% of TMfS base growth.)

IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS ON M8 MAINLINE FLOWS 50% growth LofS LofS AM Peak 0800-0900 Prac Capacity 2005 SRTDb 2011 TMfS ROF 2011 dev/2011 % ROF 2016 dev/2011 % ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C no dev 2011 V/C full dev

west of J30 eastbound 4000 1335 1475 10 0.68 39 2.64 107 7.25 0.37 B 0.40 B west of J30 westbound 4000 1387 1533 22 1.44 84 5.48 231 15.07 0.38 B 0.44 B J31-J30 eastbound 4000 J30-J31 westbound 4000 J30-J29 eastbound 4000 1845 2039 69 3.38 264 12.95 726 35.61 0.51 B 0.69 C * J29-J30 westbound 4000 2586 2858 50 1.75 191 6.68 525 18.37 0.71 C 0.85 D * J29-J28 eastbound 6000 J28-J29 westbound 6000 J28-J27 eastbound 6000 3628 4009 38 0.95 147 3.67 404 10.08 0.67 C 0.74 C J27-J28 westbound 6000 2714 2999 15 0.50 56 1.87 153 5.10 0.50 B 0.53 B J27-J26 eastbound 6000 4680 5171 38 0.73 147 2.84 404 7.81 0.86 D 0.93 D J26-J27 westbound 6000 4074 4502 15 0.33 56 1.24 153 3.40 0.75 C 0.78 D * J26-J25a eastbound 6000 J25a-J26 westbound 6000 east of J25a eastbound 6000 4098 4528 40 0.88 154 3.40 422 9.32 0.75 C 0.83 D * east of J25a westbound 6000 4395 4856 18 0.37 68 1.40 187 3.85 0.81 D 0.84 D

PM Peak 1700-1800

west of J30 eastbound 4000 1289 1437 14 0.97 53 3.69 142 9.88 0.36 B 0.39 B west of J30 westbound 4000 1224 1365 13 0.95 49 3.59 133 9.75 0.34 A 0.37 B * J31-J30 eastbound 4000 J30-J31 westbound 4000 J30-J29 eastbound 4000 2263 2523 76 3.01 281 11.14 759 30.08 0.63 C 0.82 D * J29-J30 westbound 4000 2188 2440 58 2.38 214 8.77 576 23.61 0.61 C 0.75 C J29-J28 eastbound 6000 J28-J29 westbound 6000 J28-J27 eastbound 6000 2627 2929 24 0.82 89 3.04 240 8.19 0.49 B 0.53 B J27-J28 westbound 6000 4702 5243 23 0.44 85 1.62 229 4.37 0.87 D 0.91 D J27-J26 eastbound 6000 3581 3993 24 0.60 89 2.23 240 6.01 0.67 C 0.71 C J26-J27 westbound 6000 5447 6073 23 0.38 85 1.40 229 3.77 1.01 F 1.05 F J26-J25a eastbound 6000 J25a-J26 westbound 6000 east of J25a eastbound 6000 3806 4244 30 0.71 113 2.66 304 7.16 0.71 C 0.76 C east of J25a westbound 6000 5535 6172 32 0.52 117 1.90 316 5.12 1.03 F 1.08 F

Notes; 1. Practical Capacity in this table taken to be 2000 vehs/hr/lane 2. 2005 M8 Link flows taken from Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb) 3. TMfS link flows are based on applying growth of the order of 10%+ to the 2005 SRTDb flows; reflecting the effects of half of all structure plan commitments contained in the Transport Model for Scotland. (NOTE; peak hour base growth assumptions inherent in this analysis are half of those applied in Table 1.) 4. ROF 2011 is actual change in link flow arising out of component of Bishopton development completed in 2011; ditto for 2016 and 2022. 5. dev/2011% represents the percentage of Bishopton traffic in that year relative to 2011 TMfS link flow. 6. 2011 V/C ratio is the ratio of (2011 TMfS flow + full Bishopton Development)/Capacity; this ratio is shown with and without development. 7. LoS value is Level of Service as per Highway Capacity Definition for 70mph design speed. 8. A * in the extreme right-hand column indicates a change in LoS as a consequence of the impact of full development traffic.

4

TABLE 5 (50% of TMfS growth, full development in peak period, capacity reduced to 1850 vehs/hr/lane and no ATM)

IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS ON M8 MAINLINE FLOWS 50% growth LofS LofS AM Peak 0800-0900 Prac Capacity 2005 SRTDb 2011 TMfS ROF 2011 dev/2011 % ROF 2016 dev/2011 % ROF 2022 dev/2011 % 2011 V/C no dev 2011 V/C full dev

west of J30 eastbound 3700 1335 1475 10 0.68 39 2.64 107 7.25 0.40 B 0.43 B west of J30 westbound 3700 1387 1533 22 1.44 84 5.48 231 15.07 0.41 B 0.48 B J31-J30 eastbound 3700 J30-J31 westbound 3700 J30-J29 eastbound 3700 1845 2039 69 3.38 264 12.95 726 35.61 0.55 C 0.75 C J29-J30 westbound 3700 2586 2858 50 1.75 191 6.68 525 18.37 0.77 C 0.91 D * J29-J28 eastbound 5550 J28-J29 westbound 5550 J28-J27 eastbound 5550 3628 4009 38 0.95 147 3.67 404 10.08 0.72 C 0.80 D * J27-J28 westbound 5550 2714 2999 15 0.50 56 1.87 153 5.10 0.54 B 0.57 C * J27-J26 eastbound 5550 4680 5171 38 0.73 147 2.84 404 7.81 0.93 D 1.00 E * J26-J27 westbound 5550 4074 4502 15 0.33 56 1.24 153 3.40 0.81 D 0.84 D J26-J25a eastbound 5550 J25a-J26 westbound 5550 east of J25a eastbound 5550 4098 4528 40 0.88 154 3.40 422 9.32 0.82 D 0.89 D east of J25a westbound 5550 4395 4856 18 0.37 68 1.40 187 3.85 0.88 D 0.91 D

PM Peak 1700-1800

west of J30 eastbound 3700 1289 1437 14 0.97 53 3.69 142 9.88 0.39 B 0.43 B west of J30 westbound 3700 1224 1365 13 0.95 49 3.59 133 9.75 0.37 B 0.40 B J31-J30 eastbound 3700 J30-J31 westbound 3700 J30-J29 eastbound 3700 2263 2523 76 3.01 281 11.14 759 30.08 0.68 C 0.89 D * J29-J30 westbound 3700 2188 2440 58 2.38 214 8.77 576 23.61 0.66 C 0.82 D * J29-J28 eastbound 5550 J28-J29 westbound 5550 J28-J27 eastbound 5550 2627 2929 24 0.82 89 3.04 240 8.19 0.53 B 0.57 C * J27-J28 westbound 5550 4702 5243 23 0.44 85 1.62 229 4.37 0.94 E 0.99 E J27-J26 eastbound 5550 3581 3993 24 0.60 89 2.23 240 6.01 0.72 C 0.76 C J26-J27 westbound 5550 5447 6073 23 0.38 85 1.40 229 3.77 1.09 F 1.14 F J26-J25a eastbound 5550 J25a-J26 westbound 5550 east of J25a eastbound 5550 3806 4244 30 0.71 113 2.66 304 7.16 0.76 C 0.82 D * east of J25a westbound 5550 5535 6172 32 0.52 117 1.90 316 5.12 1.11 F 1.17 F

Notes; 1. Practical Capacity in this table taken to be 1850 vehs/hr/lane 2. 2005 M8 Link flows taken from Scottish Roads Traffic Database (SRTDb) 3. TMfS link flows are based on applying growth of the order of 20%+ to the 2005 SRTDb flows; reflecting the effects of all structure plan commitments contained in the Transport Model for Scotland. (NOTE; very high peak hour assumptions inherent in this analysis.) 4. ROF 2011 is actual change in link flow arising out of component of Bishopton development completed in 2011; ditto for 2016 and 2022. 5. dev/2011% represents the percentage of Bishopton traffic in that year relative to 2011 TMfS link flow. 6. 2011 V/C ratio is the ratio of (2011 TMfS flow + full Bishopton Development)/Capacity; this ratio is shown with and without development. 7. LoS value is Level of Service as per Highway Capacity Definition for 70mph design speed. 8. A * in the extreme right-hand column indicates a change in LoS as a consequence of the impact of full development traffic.

5

Appendix D

Junction Drawing

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 3 Bishopton Park D1

Appendix E

Autotrack Diagram

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page B063017 1 3 Bishopton Park E1