A30 St Austell Link Feasibility Study

Options Appraisal Report

EDG0717-R001 Revision No. 03 Date: 24/08/2015

CORMAC Consultancy

CORMAC Western Region,

Radnor Road, Scorrier, Redruth, Cornwall, TR16 5EH.

A30 St Austell Link Feasibility Study

Options Appraisal Report

Issue & Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checked Authorised Purpose of Issue Nature of Change CA / DB / 01 30/07/15 AO AJA First Draft Original AJA CA / DB / 02 11/08/2015 AO AJA Final AJA CA / DB / Inclusion of Existing 03 24/08/2015 AO AJA Final AJA Traffic Flows

If you would like this report in another format, please contact

CORMAC Solutions Ltd Head Office Castle Canyke Road Bodmin Cornwall PL31 1DZ

Prepared by Tel: 01872 323 313 Engineering Design Group Email: [email protected] www.cornwall.gov.uk/cormac

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Cormac Solutions Ltd being obtained. Cormac Solutions Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purposes agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Cormac Solutions Ltd for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Cormac Solutions Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

CORMAC Solutions Ltd Head Office, Castle Canyke Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 1DZ

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Scope 1 1.3 Report Structure 1 2 NEED FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 3 3 FEASIBILITY STUDY BACKGROUND 5 3.1 Scheme History 5 3.2 Existing Conditions 6 3.3 Road Safety and Collision Data 6 3.4 Utility Information 8 3.5 Geotechnical Information 9 3.6 Environmental Information 10 4 ENGINEERING APPRAISAL 11 4.1 Scope 11 4.2 Exclusions 11 4.3 Constraints 11 4.4 Assumptions 12 4.5 Stakeholders 12 4.6 Issues 13 4.7 Option Assessment 14 5 BUGLE OPTION 1 – 2001 PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION 17 5.2 Benefits expected 18 5.3 Risks and Issues 18 5.4 Junctions and Roundabouts 19 6 BUGLE OPTION 2 21 6.2 Benefits expected 22 6.3 Risks and Issues 22 6.4 Junctions and Roundabouts 22 7 ROCHE OPTION 1 25 7.2 Benefits expected 26 7.3 Risks and Issues 26 7.4 Junctions and Roundabouts 26 8 ROCHE OPTION 2 27 8.2 Benefits expected 27 8.3 Risks and Issues 28 8.4 Junctions and Roundabouts 28 9 ROCHE OPTION 3 31 9.2 Benefits expected 32 9.3 Risks and Issues 32 9.4 Junctions and Roundabouts 32 10 ROCHE OPTION 4 33 10.2 Benefits expected 34 10.3 Risks and Issues 34 10.4 Junctions and Roundabouts 34 11 ROCHE OPTION 5 35 11.2 Risks and Issues 36 12 TRANSPORT APPRAISAL 37 12.1 Introduction 37 12.2 Traffic Modelling Methodology 37 12.3 Traffic Flow Changes 40 12.4 Journey Time Changes 47 12.5 Estimated Economic Benefits 50 13 APRRAISAL SUMMARY 51 14 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53 15 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 15.2 Conclusion Error! Bookmark not defined.

Drawings

EDG0717_F_001 Roche Location Plan and Study Area EDG0717_F_002 Bugle Location Plan and Study Area EDG0717_D_201 Bugle Option 1 EDG0717_D_202 Bugle Option 2 EDG0717_D_100 Roche Option 1 EDG0717_D_101 Roche Option 2 EDG0717_F_215 Roche Option 3 EDG0717_F_216 Roche Option 4 EDG0717_F_106 Bugle Option 2 Development Land EDG0717_F_107 Roche Option 1 Development Land EDG0717_F_108 Roche Option 3 Development Land EDG0717_F_110 Roche Option 4 Development Land EDG0717_F_207 Roche Option 2 Development Land

Appendices

A Collision Data B GI Assessment C Environmental Assessment D Webtag Assessment E Bugle Option 1 Cost Estimate F Bugle Option 2 Cost Estimate G Roche Option 1 Cost Estimate H Roche Option 2 Cost Estimate I Roche Option 3 Cost Estimate J Roche Option 4 Cost Estimate K Traffic Data L Forward Programme

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 1 July 2015

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 2 July 2015

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 This Options Appraisal Report (OAR) has been commissioned by Cornwall Council to identify a strategic road improvement linking St Austell with the A30. Two study areas have been considered, Roche and Bugle, and these are shown on Drawing No.s EDG0717_F_100 and 101.

1.2 Scope

1.2.1 For each route option a ‘high level’ engineering and transport appraisal has been undertaken identifying the benefits, constraints, risks, opportunities and costs of each scheme.

1.3 Report Structure

1.3.1 This OAR contains :-

1. Introduction

2. Need for Feasibility Study

3. Feasibility Study Background

4. Engineering Appraisal

5. Bugle Option 1

6. Bugle Option 2

7. Roche Option 1

8. Roche Option 2

9. Roche Options 3

10. Roche Option 4

11. Roche Option 5

12. Transport Appraisal

13. Appraisal Summary

14. Conclusion and Recommendations

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 1 July 2015

2 NEED FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

2.1.1 There has been a long held aspiration to create a strategic link road between St Austell and the A30, as St Austell is Cornwall’s only large town not currently served by an adequate route from the A30. The A391 continues to be seen as the major block to the economic growth for the St Austell area. With the Carluddon A391 road improvement currently under construction, improvements to the A30 at Temple, further investment in the Newquay Enterprise Zone and regeneration improvements in the St Austell and the China Clay Area there is likely to be further increases in pressure on the existing routes, renewing focus on this strategic route.

2.1.2 More localised concerns have been raised through the Neighbourhood Plan process over the level of traffic routing through Roche, particularly abnormal loads, and the impact of this along with future housing growth. Resident’s concerns are around congestion, air quality and the pedestrian environment for vulnerable users.

2.1.3 There are limited improvements that can be made to the existing A391 through the villages of Bugle and Stenalees or to the B3274 through Roche.

2.1.4 In particular both of the existing routes have their drawbacks. The A391 trunk road which travels through the Bugle study area is the main road that connecting St Austell with the A30. Consequently, the village suffers from a high volume of traffic and HGVs that possibly results in air and noise pollution. The route also suffers from a poor collision history due to the high traffic volumes and number of potential conflict points within the village (accesses and junctions).

2.1.5 The existing route through Roche is the B3274 road which has many narrow sections along its length, coupled with sharp bends and steep gradients. Also, the B3274 is a heavily trafficked road being used not only by cars but also HGVs generated by the nearby IMERYS quarry. As a result, this situation has led to high levels of air and noise pollution and some 182 collisions in and along the road.

2.1.6 By identifying a suitable strategic link between the A30 and St Austell it would be possible to improve safety, increase journey time reliability, reduce delays and congestion, minimise impacts of air quality and noise in the local villages and bring benefits for the local economy.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 3 July 2015

3 FEASIBILITY STUDY BACKGROUND

3.1 Scheme History

Introduction

3.1.1 Ten years ago, a feasibility study was undertaken for a by-pass route around the Roche and Bugle villages. However, the scheme was halted at an early stage due to loss of RDA funding.

Bugle

3.1.2 A high quality route linking St Austell with the A30 trunk road at Innis Downs’s junction was proposed in 1991. The scheme was estimated to cost £28.5m at 1991 prices.

3.1.3 The people of villages north of the proposed scheme opposed the proposals, instead suggesting a bypass for the villages of Bugle, Stenalees and Penwithick. The initial study was carried out in 1992 by planning consultants, Land Use Consultants Ltd (LUC). The proposed by-pass followed the existing A391 though Caerloggas Downs, following the B3274, and then crossing the Newquay - Par railway before passing through Molinnis and again following the A391 towards Lockengate and Innis Downs.

3.1.4 In 1993 the Cornwall Council commissioned an appraisal report to identify potential routes for a link between the A30 and St Austell. The developed proposal was estimated to cost at £22.8m at 1993 prices. The identified route was found to have beneficial environmental effects as well as providing the strategic link required (with the assumed traffic, air quality, and noise and capacity benefits). However, the proposal did not attract government funding and as a result the bypass proposal did not progress further.

Roche

3.1.5 The identification of two possible by-pass routes in the area around Roche was assessed in 2003. The suggested routes were estimated to cost approximately £44.7-£43.7m according to 2003 prices.

3.1.6 This 2003 assessment was carried out to develop a Major Scheme Bid to Government. This suggested a by-pass for Roche separated into two routes; a dual carriageway that would follow the line of the existing B3274 road commencing from the roundabout of Carluddon Tip and join the two routes in one before Stenalees following again B3274 in the roundabout just north of Singlerose. At this point, the route became one with the existing road until Higher Trezaise. After that point, both of the routes continued following the landform and passing through the Bugle-Roche road east of Roche Rock, crossing the Newquay-Par railway before reaching the A30 roundabout at Mount Pleasant junction.

3.1.7 Both of those suggested by-pass routes aimed to minimise the air pollution from traffic and noise impact in the Roche village and Roche Rock.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 5 July 2015

3.1.8 The traffic assessment predicted that the traffic in Roche village would see a moderate increase but the traffic in Penwithick village would be reduced by 25% due to the junction strategy at Stenalees. Furthermore, the predictions of this route were for minimum impacts in Roche.

3.1.9 As for the Bugle by-pass route, funding could not be identified to support the scheme.

3.2 Existing Conditions

3.2.1 The aspiration to create a strategic link between St Austell and A30 has grown in importance over several years as the town is now the only large Cornish urban area that is not served by an adequate link route from A30. The A391 still remains a major block to the economic growth of the St Austell area.

3.2.2 The existing roads in the area are the A391, which connects St Austell with the A30 running through Bugle, and the B3274, which connects the villages of Roche and Stenalees with the A30 and St Austell.

3.2.3 The A391 is connected with the A30 at Innis Down junction and continues south towards the Bugle village and then west from the Rock Dryers pit, ending east of Stenalees roundabout. The existing geometry of the A391 single carriageway from Innis Down junction to Stenalees roundabout is well below highway design standards for a 96Kph road as defined in DMRB Volume 6, Section 1, Part 1;TD9/93 – 1.5 paragraph.

3.2.4 The B3274 is connected with the A30 at Victoria junction. The B3274 is a route used by both travellers and commuters from St Austell to Newquay. The existing geometry of the B3274 starts from North of Roche continues south through Trezaise and Higher Trezaise, ending in Stenalees village at the existing roundabout just to the south of the village.

3.3 Road Safety and Collision Data

3.3.1 The recorded personal injury accidents (PIAs) for the latest 5 year period (January 1st 2009 to January 1st 2014) have been reviewed to identify whether there is a history of collisions in and around the study area. A summary report for the study area is shown in Appendix A. Statistics from within the study area have been obtained from Cornwall Council based on accidents reported to the Police STATS19 system.

3.3.2 The numbers of collisions reported is as follows:

Link Damage Only Slight Serious Fatal

Bugle Study Area 35 51 7 2

Roche Study Area 28 42 15 2

TOTAL 63 93 22 4 Table 3.1 Road Collision Data Summary

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 6 July 2015

Bugle

3.3.3 The collision analysis shows that there have been collisions within and around the study area but none of the sites are considered to be major cluster locations.

3.3.4 There have been 9 Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) collisions within the study area within the last 5 years. From the collision data analysis it was found that the main factors that contributed to these accidents where a drivers failure to react or bad weather conditions.

3.3.5 From the analysis the 95 collisions have been broken down into the following prominent types of collision:

• 19 Rear end shunt collisions;

• 25 Right angle junction collisions;

• 26 Loss of control;

• 12 Head on collisions; and

• 13 Other.

3.3.6 This data shows a predominant number of right angle junction and loss of control collisions. Most of the right angled junction collisions have been caused by cars trying to access minor roads or driveways along the A391. This is also the predominant cause of rear end shunt collisions. If a proposed bypass was to be built this would divert through traffic away from the current high number of accesses along the A391 through Bugle and therefore decrease the number of these types of collisions.

3.3.7 Another type of collision that is prominent within the study area is loss of control collisions. This could be helped by the proposed scheme by designing the scheme to standard which would improve visibility and drainage. From the collisions that occurred, 9 involved Slight Injuries to Non-Motorised Users (2 cyclists and 7 pedestrians). The causes of the collisions were isolated incidents.

Roche

3.3.8 The collision analysis shows that there have been collisions within and around the study area but none of the sites are considered to be major cluster locations. There have been 17 Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) collisions within the study area within the last 5 years. From the collision data analysis it was found that the main factors that contributed to these accidents where a drivers failure to react or bad weather conditions.

3.3.9 From the analysis the 87 collisions have been broken down into the following prominent types of collision:

• 21 Rear end shunt collisions;

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 7 July 2015

• 25 Right angle junction collisions;

• 32 Loss of control;

• 2 Head on collisions; and

• 7 Other.

3.3.10 This data shows a predominant number of right angled junction and loss of control collisions. Most of the right angled junction collisions have been caused by cars trying to access minor roads or driveways along the A391. This is also the predominant cause of rear end shunt collisions. If a proposed bypass was to be built this would divert through traffic away from the current high number of accesses along the A391 through Bugle and therefore decrease the number of these types of collisions.

3.3.11 The other type of collision that is prominent within the study area is loss of control collisions. This could be helped by the proposed scheme by designing the scheme to standard which would improve visibility and drainage. From the collisions that occurred, 10 involved Injuries to Non-Motorised Users (3 cyclists and 7 pedestrians). The causes of the collisions were isolated incidents.

3.4 Utility Information

3.4.1 NRSWA C2 requests were made to the utility companies for the Bugle study area with the following returns:

Utility Company Comment

Ericsson No apparatus in area

South West Water The water distribution running alongside the A391 trunk road and through the Bugle study area.

BT Openreach Cables running alongside the A391 through the villages surrounding. Wales & West Utilities No apparatus in area

Western Power Distribution Underground cables passing through the village of Bugle. Overhead cable alongside the local road and fields.

Vodaphone No apparatus in area

Cornwall Council Asset Management No apparatus in area Instalcom No apparatus in area

Verizon No apparatus in area

Table 3.2 Utility Information – Bugle Area

3.4.2 The presence of Western Power Distribution electrical supply equipment to the north of Bugle and Lockengate village should be considered in any design development due to the cost of diverting the cables.

3.4.3 NRSWA C2 requests were made to the utility companies for the Roche study area with the following returns: EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 8 July 2015

Utility Company Comment

Ericsson No apparatus in area

South West Water Water main running alongside the A30 trunk road north of the Roche study area.

BT Openreach Cables running alongside B3274 through the villages around.

Wales & West Utilities No apparatus in area

Western Power Distribution Underground cables passing through the villages of Roche, Trezaise and Stenalees. Overhead cable alongside the local road and fields.

Vodaphone No apparatus in area

Cornwall Council Asset Management Road signage & drainage on local roads in the villages of Roche, Trezaise and Stenalees.

Instalcom No apparatus in area

Verizon No apparatus in area

Table 3.3 Utility Information – Roche Area

3.4.4 The presence of South West Water and Western Power Distribution equipment north of the Stenalees village, as well as gas pipes along the old A30 should be considered carefully in any design development.

3.5 Geotechnical Information

3.5.1 Ground Investigation (GI) for a Preliminary Sources Study Report (PSSR) desk study was provided for both study areas in March 2015.

3.5.2 The approach taken in preparing the PSSR is based on the guidance continued within the Highways Agency document, ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 4, Section 1, Part 2 HD 22/08 Managing Geotechnical Risk’, August 2008.

3.5.3 For both study areas, ground similarities have been identified during the desk study such as: alluvium pockets in deposits associated with shallow river valleys, significant thickness of made ground (backfilled and tips) associated with china clay extraction, mica dams and possibly presence of made ground. Alluvium pockets should be considered due to the possibility of compressible or unstable ground presence in those areas. Finally, in both study areas the investigation has identified several watercourses and designated areas categorised as Secondary A (minor) aquifers.

3.5.4 The PSSR provides only a desk study assessment for the study areas and further ground investigation will need to be undertaken should any routes identified be taken forward for further development.

3.5.5 A copy of the PSSR can be found in Appendix B.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 9 July 2015

3.6 Environmental Information

3.6.1 Existing environmental records and assessments for the Roche and Bugle preferred routes have been reviewed. This information has formed the basis for a high level environmental investigation for the various options which indicates that the study area may contain both protected species (bats, dormice, reptiles, amphibians, otters, nesting birds and badgers) and habitats (heathland, woodland, wetland and bracken).

3.6.2 The full results of this exercise are reported within the Appraisal Reports for the Roche and Bugle study areas EDG0717_AR01 and ED0717_AR02, respectively, in Appendix c.

3.6.3 Although the routes have been designed to avoid environmental impacts where possible, the reports indicate possible impacts from the proposed routes on a number of receptors and recommends further assessment at later stages of the scheme should any routes identified be taken forward for further development.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 10 July 2015

4 ENGINEERING APPRAISAL

4.1 Scope

4.1.1 The existing roads that connect St Austell with the A30 are in need of upgrading due to their poor alignment and limited capacity. Both the A391 and B3274 are low expectation routes that do not enable potential development in the St Austell area.

4.1.2 Also, inward investment is being made in the area including development of the China Clay Area, the Eco-communities projects, the Carclaze Business Park north of St Austell etc. These investments need to be supported by a long term infrastructure investment. Such further improvements in the area may increase capacity demand on the existing network and with increased flows this may result in the need to traffic calm the surrounding villages that face abnormally heavy load of Heavy Good Vehicles (HGVs). This is causing concern to local residents who have raised issues with the current situation; the air pollution, the conjunction and the noise.

4.1.3 A junction strategy for all assessing routes will be developed. This report will assess seven (7) by-pass options; two (2) for Bugle study area and five (5) for Roche study area. Each option will be assessed at a high level considering the benefits, risks and issues of each of the options. These options will also be assessed for value for money, land take and development prospects in the area.

4.2 Exclusions

4.2.1 This is a high level desk base assessment so commissioning of new surveys / investigation has not been undertaken. Further issues have been excluded from consideration in the development of the by-pass routes design:

• No consultations have been carried out;

• Reduction of Greenhouse Gases as a result of using the suggested routes; and

• Further technological improvements to the suggested routes over those that assumed might be used for cycle/walking/ equestrian lanes during use of preferred route.

4.3 Constraints

4.3.1 The following constraints will be considered in the development of the proposed options:

• The capacity of the existing A391 & B3274 roads, so as to decide the type of carriageway;

• Current design standards;

• Ground conditions;

• Cost;

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 11 July 2015

• Visual Impact;

• The environmental impact of the by-pass routes;

• Environmental mitigation;

• Buildability of the routes;

• Existing collision records for the A391 & B3274;

• Potential to development land; and

• Future maintenance liabilities in association with the suggested routes.

4.4 Assumptions

4.4.1 This report is based on existing data in both study areas. Assumptions are necessary so as to provide a base idea of the indicative routes, costs, land take and high value for money assessment. The following assumptions have been made in the development of the different options:

• The costs of the schemes do not include land costs or the costs associated with the protection or diversion of utility equipment;

• Junctions and roundabouts have not been designed in detail and thus the associated costing are high level estimations only;

• Optimism Bias has been included at a rate of 44% in accordance with the Treasury Green Book on investment appraisal;

• The air quality and environmental impacts have been estimated based on existing data for a nearby AQMA (West Carclaze Residential project);

• Severing minor roads has only been considered at a very high level at this time given the limited transportation modelling available at this stage data. It is assumed that in later stages of assessment and scheme development a full transport assessment will provide evidence of side road utilization enabling fully informed decisions to be made.

4.5 Stakeholders

4.5.1 The following stakeholders would need to be consulted should scheme options be developed further:

• Cornwall Council;

• Luxulyan Parish Council;

• Treverbyn Parish Council;

• Highways England (HE);

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 12 July 2015

• Statutory bodies and other internal groups;

• Business organisations and bodies in Cornwall ;

• Landowners;

• Transport providers and organisations; and

• Emergency services.

4.6 Issues

4.6.1 As the A30 is the main gateway to Cornwall both for local commuters and residents, any traffic problems and congestion to get to the A30 has raised concerns. The local residents are particularly concerned about the high traffic flow of HGVs travelling through the villages of Bugle and Roche which has been aligned to the Council’s intention.

4.6.2 The adoption of a bypass route both in Roche or Bugle area will potentially remove the traffic problems and decrease the noise levels and collision incidents inside and around those villages.

4.6.3 The following table highlights the existing problems faced in the villages of Roche and Bugle and suggests the potential solutions.

Problem Solution

Capacity of the current A391 & Design road layouts to standards that can meet capacity issues. B3274 road layouts.

Visual Impact Choose a solution that sits within the landscape – make use of the contours and where it is possible to align with already existing roads so as to avoid visual impacts.

Safety / collision reduction Reduce risks. Choose a solution that removes sharp blind bends.

Impact on environment Carry out environmental survey and detailed assessments so as to minimise impacts and develop suitable mitigation.

Noise There will be reduction of noise in the villages of Bugle, Roche and Stenalees. Assess impact of new route on adjacent property.

Air Quality Air quality will be marginally improved through reducing the number of cars and HGVs travelling through the villages of Roche, Bugle and Stenalees.

Presence of Utilities Carry out further detailed surveys to select a solution that avoids or minimises the disturbance to the utilities, for example change the route alignment slightly to avoid utilities. This consideration would provide significant savings if it is possible.

Unsuitable ground conditions Carry out further and more detailed Ground Investigation of the area surrounding the recommend routes.

Archaeological impact Detailed surveys of the route and design route to avoid archaeological monuments and listed buildings. For Roche route options 1 and 2 removal, storage and relocation of the milestone in Stenalees roundabout could be an option.

Watercourses / rivers Carry out a flood risk assessment and consider culverts and sustainable drainage systems in the design.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 13 July 2015

Land take / Land ownership Private land will be required for all of the suggested options being investigated. Seek to minimise land take wherever possible & maximise the amount of land that can be returned to the landowner.

Steep gradient in parts of road Consider introducing climbing lanes or adjustment to the route layout alignments.

Impact on adjacent structures No existing structures are affected by the route options.

Inconvenience to local residents The local residents and commuters will benefit from each of the and commuters. options preferred due to the reduction in collisions, traffic congestion, noise and air pollution in the villages as well as quicker journey times.

Table 4.1 Scheme Development Issues

4.7 Option Assessment

Method / Approach

4.7.1 For each of the route options produced, a high level qualitative assessment was undertaken based upon the criteria highlighted in the Department for Transport’s ‘Transport Analysis Guidance’ from January 2014.

4.7.2 The previous A391 Route Studies have been considered when identifying routes for assessment and only the preferred Bugle Bypass option has been taken forward into this report. The other routes were not considered to be viable following the initial filtering exercise.

4.7.3 This criterion was taken from Appendix A, Option Assessment Framework, Table A.2 Value for money, Sections A to D of the Department for Transport’s ‘Transport Analysis Guidance. Further categories based upon the technical benefits and cost of each option was also assessed.

4.7.4 A workshop was held on 4th March 2015 involving relevant officers from CORMAC Solutions to assess each of the options against the defined criteria. The findings of the workshop can be found in Appendix D.

Assessment Criteria

4.7.5 The assessment criterion was based upon the following topics:

Criteria Comments

Business User & Transport Providers Reliability Impact on the economy Regeneration Wider Impacts.

Noise Air Quality Landscape Impact on the environment Greenhouse Gas Historic Environment Ecology Water Environment

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 14 July 2015

Non – Business users

Physical Activity

Journey Quality

Accidents

Impact on Society Security Access to Services

Affordability

Severance

Option Values

Transport Option Values Accessibility Severance (communities) Transport System (without car)

Capacity (local / strategic) Use of the Existing Geometry / Road Corridor Meeting Design Standards Impact on Existing Structures Land Take Requirements Technological Requirements Technical Durability / Lifespan Implementation Timescale CDM – Construction Risks CDM - Maintenance Risks Buildability Open Land for Development

Project Costs (Works & Preparation) Costs Cost in Use Risk Value

Table 4.2 Assessment Criteria

4.7.6 The completed assessment for each of the options can be found in Appendix D.

4.7.7 Chapters 5 to 10 summarise the findings of the engineering assessment for each of the route options for both Roche and Bugle study areas.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 15 July 2015

5 BUGLE OPTION 1 – 2001 PREFERRED ROUTE OPTION

5.1.1 This is a historic proposal developed through the early to mid 1990’s by Land Use Consultants Ltd (LUC) and Cornwall Council. The developed proposal was estimated to cost £22.8m according to 1993 prices and has been updated to today’s values for this assessment.

Figure 5.1 Bugle Bypass Option 1

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 17 July 2015

5.1.2 The current suggested scheme comprises an offline single carriageway, 7.5km long with grade-separated interchanges as shown in Figure 5.1. This by-pass route includes a 3m wide cycle / walking lane on the one side of the road for a distance of 2.5km. The rest of the 5km of the cycle/walking lane will be accommodated by the surrounding minor roads. Structures that are required for this option are a bridge with a 60m span that crosses over the railway line from Par to Newquay between ch.3000 and 3500 and several (16) culverts which will accommodate the river streams that exist in the area. The route crosses a total of 4 of side roads which are assumed to be accommodated by bridges / underpass or upgrade junctions. This suggested option covers an approximately of 17.9ha of land.

5.1.3 The total scheme cost is estimated in approximately £63.8m according to current rates. A copy of the full cost estimate can be found in Appendix E.

5.2 Benefits expected

• Improve the capacity of the transportation links between St Austell and the A30. However to what extent the capacity will be improved depends if the project has single or dual carriageway, which will be decided later on.

• The driver will benefit from both quicker journey times due to less congestion and better road safety by minimising the current risk of associated road accidents due to driver frustration and taking risks to overtake slower vehicles by removing traffic from the villages.

• Development land in the area which can be created although this is limited. Due to historic mine use, existing woodland, China Clay Consultation areas and County Wildlife Sites (CWS) areas as well as land affected by well-known local barriers to use. See Drawing No EDG0717_F_207.

• New cycling facilities will encourage more modal shift, permeability and physical activity.

5.3 Risks and Issues

• Early traffic modelling indicates junction capacity could create severance of side roads in the lower part of the suggested route.

• Offline route means that some land will be severed from farms requiring potentially long diversion routes.

• At this early stage of the study all the minor roads are assumed to remain connected which increases the cost but maintains the permeability of the side road network.

• Consideration from cost perspective should be given to relocation of utilities in the area. Bugle route option 1 requires possible relocation of gas pipes, which will necessitate liaising with IMERYS, who are the potential end user.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 18 July 2015

• The study area contains deep alluvium pockets that may contribute to instability and thus increase costs.

• Risk of flooding in Mollinis area should be taken into consideration.

5.4 Junctions and Roundabouts

• 5 accommodation accesses have been considered for this option. Figure 7.1 shows the approximate location of the junctions (see numbered red circles). The accommodation access will be located in positions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8. Several other accommodation accesses have been considered so as to provide accesses in properties.

• 2 roundabouts have been considered for this option which, are located in position 4 and 6 on Figure 7.1.

• Position 5 on Figure 7.1 relates to an overbridge proposed to accommodate the continuity of the road over the Newquay branch line.

5.4.1 The layout for the suggested route option 1 can be seen in Drawing No. EDG0717_D-201.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 19 July 2015

6 BUGLE OPTION 2

6.1.1 Figure 6.1 shows the alignment of Bugle Bypass Option 2.

Figure 6.1 Bugle Bypass Option 2

6.1.2 Bugle option 2, which is 5.5km long, provides a less complicated alignment with few junctions than the 2001 preferred Option route. For the northern part of the route a 3m wide cycle / walking route is provided alongside the carriageway. The route reuses the A391 road in the north part of the route, some sections from Rosevear to the Penwithick junction existing routes might be employed as cycling facilities, allowing reduction of new highway width and costs for the southern section.

6.1.3 The road footprint is estimated to require 20.8 ha. The cost of the estimate scheme is £89.9m.

6.1.4 A copy of the full cost estimate can be found in Appendix F.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 21 July 2015

6.2 Benefits expected

• Improve the capacity of the transportation links between St Austell and the A30. However to what extent the capacity will be improved depends if the project has single or dual carriageway, which will be decided later on.

• The driver will benefit from both quicker journey times due to less congestion and better road safety by minimising the current risk of associated road accidents due to driver frustration and taking risks to overtake slower vehicles by removing traffic from the villages.

• Easier construction relative to Bugle Option 1.

• New cycling facilities will encourage more permeability and encourage the physical activity.

6.3 Risks and Issues

• It is assumed at this early design stage that existing footpaths and side roads will be accommodated by overpass/underpass options so as to avoid severance of communities and maintain permeability.

• Very limited development land potential exists in the area due to historic mine use, existing woodland, China Clay Consultation and County Wildlife Sites (CWS) areas and land affected by well-known local barriers to land use.

• Ground condition considerations may cause issues for the design; such as the stability of the slopes, the excavation through granite ground.

• Greater amount of earthworks are required in comparison to Bugle Option 1.

• There is a risk of flooding around Mollinis area.

• A bridge over the Par to Newquay railway line with span of 45m is required for this option.

• Several (8) culverts are required to cross river streams in the area.

6.4 Junctions and Roundabouts

• 5 priority junctions have been considered for this option. Fig.8.1 shows the areas position in which those junctions would be located. Junctions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 indicated by the number in red circle on the map show where accommodation accesses and side roads to maintain connectivity after the construction of the road.

• 3 roundabouts are proposed in locations 1, 5, 6 (number 5, 6 include also junctions nearby which have not appeared with different circle number for visual reasons) to provide links between villages and for junction 1 to connect the new road with the existing A391 to maintain connectivity.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 22 July 2015

• 1 bridge structure at location number 4 has been considered for this option which will accommodate the railway line of Newquay branch.

6.4.1 The layout of this option is shown on Drawing No. EDG0717_D_202.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 23 July 2015

7 ROCHE OPTION 1

7.1.1 Figure 7.1 shows the alignment of Roche Bypass Option 1.

Figure 7.1 Roche Bypass Option 1

7.1.2 Roche option 1 comprises a 6km single carriageway with a 3m cycling/walking route along the one side of the road. It provides an offline alignment from the north part of the Roche towards the south between Hensbarrow Downs and Stenalees.

7.1.3 At this stage of this study it has been considered that the side roads will not be severed from the new route as accommodation will be made for them. Utilising an offline route means that some land will be severed by surrounding farms requiring potentially long diversions alongside roads. This route option requires approximately a 28.3ha of land take and would cost approximately £167.5m according to current rates.

7.1.4 A copy of the full cost estimate can be found in Appendix G.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 25 July 2015

7.2 Benefits expected

• Improve the capacity of the transportation links between St Austell and the A30. However to what extent the capacity will be improved depends if the project has single or dual carriageway, which will be decided later on.

• New cycling facilities will encourage more permeability and encourage the physical activity.

• The driver will benefit from both quicker journey times due to less congestion and better road safety by minimising the current risk of associated road accidents due to driver frustration and taking risks to overtake slower vehicles by removing traffic from the villages.

• There is a considerable potential for opening up development land opportunities between the west of Roche and the proposed route, approximately 113ha of land. See Drawing No. EDG0717_F_106.

7.3 Risks and Issues

• Early traffic modelling indicates junction capacity could create severance in side roads in the lower part of the route.

• Poor ground conditions could increase costs as there is great potential of the road corridor cutting through areas of deep fill or embankments on fill.

• A significant construction issue could result from the deep areas of alluvium that may be unstable particularly between Higher Trezaise and Stenalees areas.

• A significant amount of earthworks are required to achieve this option.

7.4 Junctions and Roundabouts

• 4 priority junctions have been considered for this option at locations 1, 3, 4, 6 shown on Figure 7.1. The locations 3, 4 provide accommodation for housing access to the new proposed road. Whereas the junction at location 1 provides new access from the old A30 to the new proposed road and a right turn to those that travelling towards Newquay.

• 3 roundabouts at location 2, 5, 7 have been considered to accommodate the link roads between Roche- Newquay 2 and Roche - St Dennis 5. The roundabout south of Stenalees is proposed to be upgraded to accommodate the new road 7.

7.4.1 The layout of this option can be found in Drawing No. EDG0717_D-100.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 26 July 2015

8 ROCHE OPTION 2

8.1.1 Figure 8.1 shows the alignment of Roche Bypass Option 2.

Figure 8.1 Roche Bypass Option 2

8.1.2 This option is a single carriageway option providing a 6km single carriageway and 3m cycling / walking lane (used in both directions) at the one side of the suggested route. Although this route, especially in the east of Stenalees is on either large embankments or cuttings this should not adversely the affect views from the village due to the alignment having been fitted into the surrounding landscape. Finally, this suggested option is estimated to require approximately 16.1 ha of land take, with a cost approximately £41.3m.

8.1.3 A copy of the full cost estimate can be found in Appendix H.

8.2 Benefits expected

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 27 July 2015

• Improve the capacity of the transportation links between St Austell and the A30. However to what extent the capacity will be improved depends if the project has single or dual carriageway, which will be decided later on.

• The driver will benefit from both quicker journey times due to less congestion and better road safety by minimising the current risk of associated road accidents due to driver frustration and taking risks to overtake slower vehicles by removing traffic from the villages.

• At this stage it is assumed that the side roads will not be severed from the new route as accommodation will be made for them.

• The suggested route encourages a higher level of physical activity due to new cycling and walking facilities which may encourage more permeability.

• Views from the village of Stenalees and from the west of the road will not be seriously affected due to the fact that the route in this location is designed to minimise the existing road levels so landscape impact is considered to be minimal.

• Reuses a very limited section of the existing route to the north of Stenalees avoiding great earthworks and potentially instability of old clay waste in Hensbarrow Downs (Roche option 1).

• There is considerable potential to open up development land opportunities between the west of Roche and the proposed road, approximately 114ha of land. See Drawing No. EDG0717_F_107.

• Significant savings are achieved by the use of reduced side road works, optimised earthworks and use of compact junctions and roundabouts.

8.3 Risks and Issues

• Offline route means that some land will be severed from surrounding farms, requiring potentially long diversions along side roads as well as in the lower part of the route junction capacity could create severance according to early traffic modelling.

• Where the alignment follows the B3274, it may be necessary to divert high voltage power line / poles, which could increase the cost.

8.4 Junctions and Roundabouts

• 4 prority junctions have been considered for this option. In locations 1, 3, 4 and 6 junctions have been proposed to accommodate the surrounding villages and properties that require access to the new road. Fig 10.1 shows approximately the location of these junctions.

• 3 roundabouts are proposed along the route at locations 2, 5, 7 of the new road, to accommodate the links between the villages nearby Roche. Also, the EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 28 July 2015

roundabout in location 7 has been considered as an upgrade of the existing one so as to facilitate the new road.

8.4.1 The layout of this option is shown on Drawing No. EDG0717_D_101.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 29 July 2015

9 ROCHE OPTION 3

9.1.1 Figure 9.1 shows the alignment of Roche Bypass Option 3.

Figure 9.1 Roche Bypass Option 3

9.1.2 Option 3 is a single carriageway option providing 2.2km of single carriageway and 3m cycling / walking lane (used for both directions) along one side of the route. It is proposed as an interim scheme to facilitate phased implementation of a solution should funding not be initially sufficient to implement fuller options. Option 3 follows a similar alignment to Route Option 2 for the first 680m of the route. It then continues from the junction with the B3274 southwards until connecting into the C0085 Cleers Hill near Dyehouse (chainage 2250.0m). From this point users would follow the existing highway network. The cost of Option 3 is estimated to be £8.1m.

9.1.3 A copy of the full list of the prices for this option can be found in Appendix I.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 31 July 2015

9.2 Benefits expected

• Improve the capacity of the local road network . However to what extent the capacity will be improved depends if the project has single or dual carriageway, which will be decided later on.

• The driver will benefit from both slightly quicker journey times due to less congestion and better road safety by minimising the current risk of associated road accidents due to driver frustration and taking risks to overtake slower vehicles by removing traffic from Roche village.

• At this stage if the scheme, the side roads will not be severed from the new route as accommodation will be made for them.

• Although of limited length in comparision to other options, the 2.2 km of new cycling and walking facilities will encourage more permeability and encourage the physical activity.

• There is considerable potential to open up development land opportunities between the west of Roche and the proposed road. See Drawing No. EDG0717_F_108.

9.3 Risks and Issues

• There is a risk of poor ground conditions which could increase costs as there is potential of the road corridor cutting through areas of deep fill or embankments on fill.

• Little of no strategic benefits are generated for capacity (the option is an interim solution only).

9.4 Junctions and Roundabouts

• 4 main junctions are proposed for this option at locations 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown in Fig 9.1. Also an accommodation access is proposed at location 4 which mainly provides access to surrounding properties.

• Junctions 1 and 2 have been designed with the intention to encourage drivers to use the new road and avoid the Roche village. Traffic calming for Roche’s centre will be suggested so as to become friendly for the pedestrians, cyclists and school children and to discourage through traffic.

• The proposed closure of the existing junction at location 2, which connects the west of the village with the old A30, is designed to encourage use of the new route, and continued use of the B3274 through Roche for some destinations.

9.4.1 The layout of this option can be found by viewing Drawing No EDG0717_F_216.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 32 July 2015

10 ROCHE OPTION 4

10.1.1 Figure 10.1 shows the alignment of Roche Bypass Options 4.

Figure 10.1 Roche Bypass Options 4

10.1.2 Option 4 is a single carriageway route providing 4km of single carriageway and 3m cycling / walking lane (used for both directions) along one side of the route. It is proposed as an interim scheme to facilitate phased implementation of a solution should funding not be initially sufficient to implement fuller options. It follows the same alignment as route Option 3 until its connection into the C0085 at Dyehouse, where it continues, following the existing road that passes behind the unused Gilleys Mica Dam quarry re-joining the existing B3274 near the village of Coldvreath. The estimated cost of Option 4 is estimated at £15.4m.

10.1.3 A copy of the full list of the prices for Option 4 can be found in Appendix J.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 33 July 2015

10.2 Benefits expected

• Improve the capacity of the transportation links between St Austell and the A30. However to what extent the capacity will be improved depends if the project has single or dual carriageway, which will be decided later on.

• The driver will benefit from both quicker journey times due to less congestion and better road safety by minimising the current risk of associated road accidents due to driver frustration and taking risks to overtake slower vehicles by removing traffic from the villages.

• At this stage if the scheme, the side roads will not be severed from the new route as accommodation will be made for them.

• New cycling and walking facilities will encourage more permeability and encourage the physical activity.

• Reuses the existing route of B3274 to the north of Stenalees and close to the Coldvreath village avoiding earthworks and reducing costs and impact.

• There is considerable potential to open up development land opportunities between the west of Roche and the proposed road. See Drawing No. EDG0717_F_110.

• Significant savings are achieved by the use of reduced side road works, optimised earthworks and use of compact junctions and roundabouts and reuse of existing B3274 for the southern half of the route.

10.3 Risks and Issues

• Poor ground conditions close to unused quarries could increase costs as there is potential of the road corridor cutting through areas of deep fill or embankments on fill.

10.4 Junctions and Roundabouts

• 5 main junctions are proposed for this option at locations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as shown in Fig 11.1. Also an accommodation access is proposed at location 4 which mainly provides access to surrounding properties.

• Junctions 1 and 2 have been designed with the intention to encourage drivers to use the new road and avoid the Roche village. Traffic calming for Roche’s centre will be suggested so as to become friendly for the pedestrians, cyclists and school children and to discourage through traffic.

• The proposed closure of the existing junction at location 2, which connects the west of the village with the old A30, is designed to encourage use of the new route, and continued use of the B3274 through Roche for some destinations.

10.4.1 The layout of this option can be found in Drawing No. EDG0717_F_215.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 34 July 2015

11 ROCHE OPTION 5

11.1.1 Figure 11.1 shows the alignment of Roche Bypass Option 5.

Figure 11.1 Roche Bypass Options 5

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 35 July 2015

11.1.2 This option suggested a single carriageway which follows the same alignment as option 1, 2 and 3 in the north part from the A30 junction to ch. 4500 near Higher Trezaise, then following an alignment through Nanpean and running between two IMERYS’s china clay pits and crossed outside Carthew, ending up to the south of Stenalees’ roundabout.

11.1.3 The option was rejected at an early stage as it did not meet the aims of the scheme. It was considered to be an expensive option which was not viable due to its potential ground conditions from the perspective of crossing between two large areas of China Clay pits. In addition the routes length would be unattractive to users and it would have been unlikely to attract users away from the existing route. As a result, the option was not assessed further.

11.2 Risks and Issues

• Exposure to risk (steep slope, road that crosses through area of potential clay resource, narrow route, constant oncoming HGVs quarry lorries) when making a crossing or turning manoeuvre at grade.

• Deep alluvium areas located within this route. Consequently, issues might be occurred during construction.

• Potential requirements for excavation within areas of granite bedrock could introduce significant costs.

• Long route which requires long journey times would in all likelihood cause frustration and would be very unlikely attract users from the alternative existing village routes.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 36 July 2015

12 TRANSPORT APPRAISAL

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 A key part of this project is to understand the traffic impacts associated with each of the route options developed in this report.

12.1.2 The overall aim of the project is to provide a high capacity, quicker route from St Austell to the A30(T), which will enable the economy of St Austell to prosper. In addition, the routes seek to minimise traffic impact on existing communities that lie between St Austell and the A30, such as Penwithick, Stenalees, Roche, and Bugle. A third aim of this project is to identify potential development land that could improve the overall economic benefit of a new road between St Austell and the A30.

12.1.3 The routes being considered in this report all assume a connection to the recently opened A391 road improvement at Carluddon and then follow various alignments to reach the A30 at Innis Downs or Victoria. What has not been considered is whether or not the road network between St Austell and the improvement at Carluddon is appropriate for higher traffic volumes associated with an improved local economy.

12.2 Traffic Modelling Methodology

12.2.1 The traffic modelling has been undertaken using the St Austell Strategic Transport Model, developed by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2011 using the SATURN software package. This model provides AM and PM peak period traffic volumes and link and junction capacity ratios throughout the St Austell area, including routes to the A30 at Innis Downs, Victoria and Highgate Hill.

Future Year Forecasting

12.2.2 Future year forecasting includes planned future developments, background TEMPRO growth and future year network improvements.

12.2.3 One future year demand scenario has been used for the option testing. The traffic flow comparison is therefore based on the end date of the Local Plan, 2030 and has not considered current conditions or interim periods.

Future Year Developments

12.2.4 The model has assumed all currently committed developments within the St Austell area plus the assumed Local Plan allocation at Trewhiddle Farm, including the Pentewan Link Road and the Eco-Community at West Carclaze. For the latter two developments planning applications have been submitted but not yet determined by Cornwall Council.

12.2.5 The developments to be included in the future year matrices have been agreed with Cornwall Council. EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 37 July 2015

12.2.6 A full list of the developments included in the 2030 matrix is provided in Table 11.1.

Residential Employment Other Land Development Name Units GFA (m2) uses GFA (m2) (dwellings)

Technology Park 0 9396 0

Land at Sea View 3 0 0

Land North of Sea Ways 69 0 0

Cornwall College 61 0 0

Trenance Mill 18 0 0

1 Trevone Crescent 14 0 0

12 Belmont Road 10 0 0

Duporth Holiday Village 118 0 0

Land West of Porthpean Road 126 0 0

Foundry Parc Phase 3 29 0 0

Crinnis Beach 511 0 0

19 Alexandra Road 30 0 0

111/113 Charlestown Road 10 0 0

Town Centre Retail (Old Vicarage Place site next to White River Place) 0 0 4388

SAUE 4 Residential Development Area 170 0 0

SAUE1 Residential Development Area (Trewhiddle) 400 9000

West Carclaze 1200 0 12150

Par Docks Development 250 0 0

Completions included in Forecast

Golphin Farm 107 0 0

Land at Mt Stamper 12 0 0

Foundry Parc Phase 2 0 0 0 Table 11.1: Future Year Developments

Background Traffic Growth

12.2.7 Background traffic growth has been calculated using TEMPRO growth forecasts. Table 11.2 shows the growth factors that have been applied.

AM Growth PM Growth Year Factor Factor

2015 – 2030 1.2302 1.2419 Table 11.2: Background Traffic Growth

Future Year Network

12.2.8 A number of network updates have been included to represent planned future highways works. The following network changes have been included in the 2030 future year mode:

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 38 July 2015

• Realignment of the A391 including a new bus only link and the diversion of the A391 around the Carluddon double mini-roundabout;

• Access to the West Carclaze development from the A391;

• Trewhiddle Farm accessed from the new Pentewan Link Road;

• The Slades Road / Sandy Hill double mini roundabout has been converted from traffic signals to a double mini-roundabout;

• The A390 / Pentewan Road double mini-roundabout has been converted to a large single roundabout; and

• Edgcumbe Triangle has been converted to a roundabout and includes a new arm to the Pentewan Link Road.

Trip Generation and Distribution

12.2.9 Trip Generation has been calculated using trip rates supplied by CORMAC for use in the West Carclaze Transport Assessment. Trip rates for the Trewhiddle Farm development have used the rates used in the Trewhiddle Farm Transport Assessment.

12.2.10 Trip Distribution has been applied using the distribution from existing similar SATURN zones.

Trip Assignment

12.2.11 The SATURN model aims to minimise the generalised cost for a trip between an origin and destination. This takes into account travel time due to distance and also any congestion effects on junctions or links.

12.2.12 Where there are multiple routes between origin and destination the model converges to an equilibrium state where the overall generalised cost between the origin and destination are minimised. Changes to the network therefore can bring about significant changes in vehicle routeing due to the changes in which sections of highway are utilised when liking the trip origins and destinations.

Modelling Scenarios

12.2.13 The modelling scenarios undertaken are as follows:

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Existing Network (includes A391 Carluddon improvement);

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Bugle Option 1;

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Bugle Option 2;

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Roche Option 1;

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 39 July 2015

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Roche Option 2;

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Roche Option 3; and

• 2030 Base + Committed + Local Plan + West Carclaze – Roche Option 4.

Modelling Outputs

12.2.14 This report has taken a ‘high level’ view of the modelling outputs, which are summarised below, to provide an initial indication of potential benefits of the bypass options. To develop scheme options for public consultation, leading to a Business Case submission for a preferred route would require a significantly greater level of detail with regard to traffic modelling and economic appraisal.

12.2.15 More detailed modelling could change the results being presented in this report and different conclusions could be reached.

12.3 Traffic Flow Changes

12.3.1 Appendix K contains the detailed tables that show the AM and PM peak hour traffic flow changes for key links within the study area and summarise the actual and percentage change between the 2030 Existing Network Scenario and the road improvement option scenarios.

12.3.2 The following section of the report extracts and discusses key data from these tables.

Impact on Bugle and Stenalees

12.3.3 Table 11.3 and 11.4 summarise the AM and PM peak hour changes in traffic volume associated with each route option when compared against the 2030 development scenario and existing road network.

2 Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche Roche3 Roche4

A391 Innis Downs to NA 1643 1640 1598 1681 1681 1670 1677 Bilberry

A391 Bilberry to Bugle 917 1253 1386 1448 1483 1489 1398 1400 Crossroads

A391 Bugle Crossroads to 546 980 497 949 1015 1001 998 1005 Singlerose

Bypass Option NA 1421 411 559 942 570 937 Table 11.3 2030 AM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – Bugle and Stenalees

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 40 July 2015

Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche2 Roche3 Roche4

A391 Innis Downs to NA 1903 1934 1911 1825 1924 1961 1849 Bilberry

A391 Bilberry to Bugle 945 1365 1107 1394 1278 1380 1404 1305 Crossroads

A391 Bugle Crossroads 564 1159 598 990 1081 1168 1154 1079 to Singlerose

Bypass Option NA 1387 208 834 1294 305 1133 Table 11.4 2030 PM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – Bugle and Stenalees

12.3.4 North of Bilberry traffic volumes do not change significantly and the reported variation reflects the minor capacity changes identified by the traffic model as it minimises the cost of travel for all origin-destination pairs.

12.3.5 Between Bilberry and Bugle crossroads only Bugle Bypass option 1 reduces traffic volumes on the existing A391. All other bypass options result in similar flow levels to the Do Minimum scenario.

12.3.6 Between Bugle crossroads and the Singlerose roundabout in Stenalees the Bugle Bypass options significantly reduce traffic volumes on the existing A391 with option 1 providing the greatest level of benefit.

12.3.7 When comparing the traffic volumes on the various Bypass options it can be seen Bugle option 1, Roche options 2 and 4 divert the greatest amount of traffic.

12.3.8 The difference between Bugle options 1 and 2 is related to the proximity of the villages of Bugle, Stenalees and Penwithick to the bypass options.

12.3.9 Bugle option 1 represents the previous preferred alignment of the Bugle bypass and is located close to the eastern boundary of Bugle and Stenalees. As a consequence, the bypass option performs two roles: it carries traffic between St Austell and the A30 and it also carries local traffic to the north of St Austell.

12.3.10 Bugle option 2 is located significantly further east of Bugle and Stenalees and proves to be less attractive for both strategic and local traffic.

12.3.11 The SATURN model has assumed a level of ‘traffic calming’ within Bugle as part of this assessment, and this has been simulated by reducing the vehicle speeds within the village to 10mph. This has still enabled traffic to drive through the village, which may not be totally representative of the future road option, should a Bugle bypass be constructed. A refinement of the ‘traffic calming’ measures could be undertaken for any future, more detailed assessment work, and this may result in a greater volume of traffic transferring to a Bugle bypass even if located further east of the villages.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 41 July 2015

Impact on Roche

12.3.12 Table 11.5 and 11.6 summarise the AM and PM peak hour changes in traffic volume associated with each route option when compared against the 2030 development scenario and existing road network.

Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche2 Roche3 Roche4

A30 Junction to Hotel NA 1019 1035 1031 1045 1048 1019 1041 Junction

Old A30 Hotel Junction to NA 588 588 589 710 556 486 943 Winnards Perch Shortcut

Old A30 Hotel Junction to 601 529 645 542 158 179 206 178 Roche mini-roundabout

Winnards Perch Shortcut 423 629 643 635 153 331 479 327 to Roche mini-roundabout

Roche mini-roundabout to 862 1022 1051 1041 266 661 895 655 Rock mini-roundabout

Rock mini-roundabout to NA 673 697 684 78 504 623 485 Trezaise

Trezaise to Singlerose 553 1391 1421 1400 1398 1424 1354 1398

Harmony Road to NA 577 558 571 262 57 120 61 Coldvreath

Coldvreath to Trezaise NA 765 756 748 943 143 823 145

Rock mini-roundabout to 210 386 384 382 339 364 372 361 Bugle crossroads

Bypass Option NA 1421 411 559 942 570 937 Table 11.5 2030 AM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – Roche

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 42 July 2015

Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche2 Roc he3 Roche4

A30 Junction to Hotel NA 764 752 766 792 809 743 772 Junction

Old A30 Hotel Junction to NA 411 410 411 705 470 348 439 Winnards Perch Shortcut

Old A30 Hotel Junction to 684 469 460 472 136 174 254 168 Roche mini-roundabout

Winnards Perch Shortcut 452 721 715 715 131 387 601 367 to Roche mini- roundabout

Roche mini-roundabout 873 1620 1608 1622 250 798 1368 757 to Rock mini-roundabout

Rock mini-roundabout to NA 1334 1314 1334 27 699 1217 660 Trezaise

Trezaise to Singlerose 856 1949 1964 1963 1767 2028 1908 1820

Harmony Road to NA 753 740 754 387 111 385 102 Coldvreath

Coldvreath to Trezaise NA 603 638 707 986 188 762 189

Rock mini-roundabout to 194 349 368 336 277 318 333 317 Bugle crossroads

Bypass Option NA 1387 208 834 1294 305 1133 Table 11.6 2030 PM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – Roche

12.3.13 The only scheme options that impact on Roche and Victoria are the Roche options, with options 1 and 2 being full bypass options linking A391 Singlerose roundabout in the south with the old A30 in Victoria. Options 3 and 4 are partial routes to understand the benefits of developing a route incrementally.

12.3.14 The full bypass options significantly reduce traffic volumes on all local roads in Roche, whereas options 3 and 4 only have a positive impact on the local roads to the north of the village.

12.3.15 The Roche bypass options do not have any impact on the volume of traffic travelling between Roche and Bugle as the bypass options are all located to the west of Roche.

Impact on Whitemoor, Nanpean and St Dennis

12.3.16 Table 11.7 and 11.8 summarise the AM and PM peak hour changes in traffic volume associated with each route option when compared against the 2030 development scenario and existing road network.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 43 July 2015

Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche2 Roche3 Roche4

Nanpean to Whitemoor NA 449 439 447 452 448 452 450

Whitemoor to Coldvreath NA 1261 1247 1251 1412 1400 1288 1412

Nanpean to St Dennis 213 234 234 235 235 233 234 234

St Dennis Village 212 234 234 235 235 233 234 234

St Dennis to Highgate NA 682 670 675 824 812 698 815

Bypass Option NA 1421 411 559 942 570 937 Table 11.7 2030 AM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – Whitemoor, Nanpean and St Dennis

Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche2 Roche3 Roche4

Nanpean to Whitemoor NA 382 379 385 374 402 390 379

Whitemoor to Coldvreath NA 1301 1323 1317 1319 1507 1300 1370

Nanpean to St Dennis 253 386 378 384 357 384 399 367

St Dennis Village 269 386 378 384 357 384 399 367

St Dennis to Highgate NA 1072 1092 1086 1039 1252 1075 1090

Bypass Option NA 1387 208 834 1294 305 1133

Table 11.8 2030 PM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – Whitemoor, Nanpean and St Dennis

12.3.17 Traffic volumes in Whitemoor, Nanpean and St Dennis areas do not change significantly with the inclusion of the Bugle or Roche bypass options and therefore there are no benefits to these communities from any of the bypass options.

Impact on St Austell

12.3.18 Table 11.9 and 11.10 summarise the AM and PM peak hour changes in traffic volume associated with each route option when compared against the 2030 development scenario and existing road network.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 44 July 2015

1 Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche Roche2 Roche3 Roche4

A391 Scredda to Carclaze NA 2167 2363 2261 2190 2186 2206 2201

A391 Carclaze to Menear NA 2251 2331 2263 2278 2293 2238 2272

A391 Menear to Boscoppa NA 1745 1817 1767 1762 1780 1767 1739

A391 Boscoppa to A390 850 1642 1701 1681 1675 1698 1666 1681

B3274 Singlerose to 443 1065 1108 1150 1074 1068 1056 1071 Trinity Street

Scredda to Tregonissey 555 1044 1070 1049 1070 1058 1070 1077 Lane Ends

Slades Road 482 1333 1354 1333 1354 1348 1356 1360

Tregonissey Road past 666 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 College

A390 east of A391 2062 3489 3528 3525 3488 3481 3490 3491

A390 Between A391 and 1612 2688 2663 2670 2645 2648 2695 2655 Mount Charles roundabout

A390 Between Mount NA 1920 1987 1963 1913 1907 1927 1894 Charles roundabout and B3273 Pentewan Road

A390 Penwinnick Road 1874 2737 2743 2164 2727 2728 2737 2725 and A3058 Edgcumbe Triangle

A390 West of A3058 1066 1905 1912 1913 1874 1874 1906 1876 Edgcumbe Triangle

Truro Road east of A3058 NA 885 887 899 855 855 890 866 Edgcumbe Triangle

A3058 North of Edgcumbe 824 1343 1347 1346 1326 1322 1355 1328 Triangle

Bypass Option NA 1421 411 559 942 570 937 Table 11.9 2030 AM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – St Austell

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 45 July 2015

Existing DM 2030 Bugle1 Bugle2 Roche1 Roche2 Roche3 Roche4

A391 Scredda to Carclaze NA 1266 1327 1257 1246 1348 1243 1256

A391 Carclaze to Menear NA 1599 1516 1594 1607 1673 1585 1594

A391 Menear to Boscoppa NA 1245 1194 1230 1224 1276 1231 1204

A391 Boscoppa to A390 996 1671 1582 1651 1634 1682 1664 1619

B3274 Singlerose to 620 899 960 908 783 847 886 773 Trinity Street

Scredda to Tregonissey 683 1246 1272 1259 1161 1265 1246 1170 Lane Ends

Slades Road 571 1484 1502 1496 1351 1511 1479 1368

Tregonissey Road past 529 270 270 270 254 270 270 249 College

A390 east of A391 2335 3876 3788 3863 3695 3884 3875 3692

A390 Between A391 and 1937 3214 3193 3204 3074 3210 3217 3083 Mount Charles roundabout

A390 Between Mount NA 2068 2086 2087 1874 1981 1858 2094 Charles roundabout and B3273 Pentewan Road

A390 Penwinnick Road 2113 2346 2345 2344 2159 2195 2246 2187 and A3058 Edgcumbe Triangle

A390 West of A3058 1214 1806 1794 1802 1720 1780 1808 1711 Edgcumbe Triangle

Truro Road east of A3058 NA 984 972 974 896 957 990 909 Edgcumbe Triangle

A3058 North of Edgcumbe 918 1783 1768 1772 1719 1753 1801 1710 Triangle

Bypass Option NA 1387 208 834 1294 305 1133 Table 11.10 2030 PM Peak Traffic Flow Summary – St Austell

12.3.19 In general, options for bypasses of Bugle or Roche have limited impact on traffic volumes within the St Austell urban area.

12.3.20 There are three principal routes between St Austell and the A391 and these are:

• A391 North East Distributor Road;

• B3274 Bodmin Road; and

• Slades Road / Tregonissey Road.

12.3.21 The A391 North East Distributor Road, which connects to the A390 at Cuddra, maintains a consistent traffic volume for all bypass options. This route is not the direct route from St Austell to the north as the majority of St Austell’s employment and retail development is located in the west of the town.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 46 July 2015

12.3.22 B3274 Bodmin Road, which travels from Trinity Street in St Austell town centre, through Ruddlemoor and Carthew to reach the A391 at the Singlerose roundabout is the principal route for light vehicles travelling to and from the A30. Again, traffic volumes remain fairly consistent for all bypass options but the Singlerose roundabout is the southern connection of the full Roche Bypass options.

12.3.23 The third north-south route into St Austell links the A391 Scredda roundabout with Tregonissey Road and Slades Road. The SATURN modelling has shown limited variation in traffic flows on this route when assessing the bypass options.

Traffic Flow Impact Summary

12.3.24 The traffic modelling has shown that the sections of the road network most impacted on by the bypass options are those sections closest to the bypasses. As traffic is currently travelling from the St Austell area to Clay Country and the A30 the strategic traffic flows remain constant and switch to the most appropriate bypass options.

12.3.25 The two bypass options that provide the greatest relief for the communities through which the A391 passes are Bugle Bypass Option 1, which due to its close proximity to existing communities acts as both a strategic route and a local distributor road, and the full Roche Bypass options.

12.4 Journey Time Changes

12.4.1 The SATURN modelling has also enabled an analysis of journey times to be undertaken between St Austell and the A30 and the AM and PM peak hour results are summarised in Table 11.11 below.

12.4.2 A review of the modelling for each option has identified that traffic flows between St Austell and the A391 junctions at Scredda and Singlerose are broadly similar as the network hasn’t changed between scenarios. The typical journey times for trips between Trinity Street and Tesco in St Austell and the Singlerose and Scredda junctions in the AM and PM peak is summarised in Table 11.11 below.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 47 July 2015

Route AM Journey Time PM Journey Time (seconds) (seconds)

Trinity Street, St Austell to Singlerose 510 529

Trinity Street, St Austell to Scredda 606 467

Tesco, St Austell to Singlerose 626 736

Tesco, St Austell to Scredda via local roads 401 464

Tesco, St Austell to Scredda via A390 and A391 263 347

Singlerose to Trinity Street, St Austell 490 468

Singlerose to Tesco, St Austell 867 785

Scredda to Trinity Street, St Austell 615 618

Scredda to Tesco, St Austell via local roads 522 509

Scredda to Tesco, St Austell via A391 and A390 373 325 Table 11.11 2030 AM and PM Peak Journey Times – St Austell to A391 Singlerose and Scredda.

12.4.3 Tables 11.12 and 11.13 below summarise the AM and PM peak journey times between Scredda and Singlerose and the A30 junctions at Innis Downs, Victoria and Highgate Hill for all bypass options considered.

12.4.4 The percentage change relative to the 2030 Do Minimum scenario has been colour coded as follows:

• >5.0% red shading – significant worsening of journey time;

• +2.5% to +5.0% orange shading – slight worsening of journey time;

• +2.5% to -2.5% yellow shading, neutral change in journey time;

• -2.5% to -5% light green shading – slight improvement in journey time; and

• <-5.0% dark green shading – significant improvement in journey time.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 48 July 2015

AM Peak DM Bugle 1 Bugle 2 Roche 1 Roche 2 Roche 3 Roche 4 Route JT (secs) JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff

Scredda - Innis Downs 739 619 -16.24% 792 7.17% 744 0.68% 725 -1.89% 746 0.95% 745 0.81% Scredda - Victoria 696 699 0.43% 708 1.72% 600 -13.79% 600 -13.79% 691 -0.72% 661 -5.03% Scredda - Highgate 1002 1006 0.40% 1013 1.10% 1008 0.60% 1002 0.00% 1049 4.69% 1037 3.49% Singlerose - Innis Downs 516 497 -3.68% 511 -0.97% 518 0.39% 498 -3.49% 525 1.74% 519 0.58% Singlerose - Victoria 474 474 0.00% 474 0.00% 377 -20.46% 380 -19.83% 514 8.44% 434 -8.44% Singlerose - Highgate 780 781 0.13% 779 -0.13% 784 0.51% 778 -0.26% 829 6.28% 813 4.23% Innis Downs - Scredda 957 793 -17.14% 892 -6.79% 1023 6.90% 1030 7.63% 980 2.40% 1040 8.67% Innis Downs - Singlerose 615 672 9.27% 607 -1.30% 690 12.20% 684 11.22% 633 2.93% 689 12.03% Victoria - Scredda 852 848 -0.47% 867 1.76% 944 10.80% 944 10.80% 900 5.63% 913 7.16%

Victoria - Singlerose 509 486 -4.52% 510 0.20% 610 19.84% 597 17.29% 552 8.45% 562 10.41%

Highgate - Scredda 1263 1289 2.06% 1275 0.95% 1198 -5.15% 1204 -4.67% 1253 -0.79% 1173 -7.13% Highgate - Singlerose 920 926 0.65% 918 -0.22% 862 -6.30% 858 -6.74% 904 -1.74% 822 -10.65%

Table 11.12 2030 AM Peak Journey Time Comparison Summary

PM Peak DM Bugle 1 Bugle 2 Roche 1 Roche 2 Roche 3 Roche 4 Route JT (secs) JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff JT (secs) % Diff Scredda - Innis Downs 837 720 -13.98% 754 -9.92% 840 0.36% 833 -0.48% 847 1.19% 845 0.96% Scredda - Victoria 785 813 3.57% 775 -1.27% 695 -11.46% 723 -7.90% 820 4.46% 748 -4.71% Scredda - Highgate 1236 1263 2.18% 1219 -1.38% 1195 -3.32% 1215 -1.70% 1269 2.67% 1240 0.32%

Singlerose - Innis Downs 529 497 -6.05% 506 -4.35% 521 -1.51% 488 -7.75% 551 4.16% 545 3.02%

Singlerose - Victoria 478 476 -0.42% 478 0.00% 378 -20.92% 380 -20.50% 525 9.83% 449 -6.07% Singlerose - Highgate 929 926 -0.32% 922 -0.75% 877 -5.60% 871 -6.24% 974 4.84% 941 1.29% Innis Downs - Scredda 768 686 -10.68% 788 2.60% 759 -1.17% 769 0.13% 769 0.13% 768 0.00% Innis Downs - Singlerose 602 690 14.62% 608 1.00% 601 -0.17% 598 -0.66% 604 0.33% 594 -1.33% Victoria - Scredda 815 769 -5.64% 780 -4.29% 859 5.40% 949 16.44% 819 0.49% 905 11.04% Victoria - Singlerose 648 513 -20.83% 598 -7.72% 690 6.48% 778 20.06% 653 0.77% 730 12.65% Highgate - Scredda 1337 1317 -1.50% 1329 -0.60% 1258 -5.91% 1210 -9.50% 1359 1.65% 1164 -12.94% Highgate - Singlerose 1170 1057 -9.66% 1142 -2.39% 1090 -6.84% 1038 -11.28% 1193 1.97% 990 -15.38% Table 11.12 2030 AM Peak Journey Time Comparison Summary

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 49 July 2015

12.4.5 Due to the dispersed nature of traffic movements in the wider St Austell area, ie, not at all journeys have an origin or destination at Innis Downs, Victoria, Highgate or areas within St Austell, the results of the journey time analysis not conclusive.

12.4.6 Bugle Bypass Option 1, and Roche Bypass Options 1 and 2 provide a degree of benefit for journeys between Scredda and Singlerose and the A30.

12.4.7 Roche Options 3 and 4 provide limited benefit due to the short length of the routes, and these two options have been included to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing a Roche Bypass in phases.

12.4.8 Bugle Option 2 shows some journey time benefit but when traffic volume changes are also considered the route attracts very little in the way of bypassing traffic.

12.5 Estimated Economic Benefits

12.5.1 Detailed Transport Economics have not been undertaken for this project but considering the predicted traffic flow and journey time changes derived from the SATURN model it is possible to estimate the potential economic benefits of each scheme for use in the overall scoring of each option.

12.5.2 The two options providing the greatest overall transport benefit are Bugle Option 1 and Roche Option 2. These options divert a significant volume of traffic onto their respective bypass options, which should translate into journey time, vehicle operating cost and road safety benefits. The villages of Bugle and Roche would also gain benefit in terms of reduced pollution, improved road safety and improvements to social benefits, such as community severance.

12.5.3 Roche Option 3 or 4 are interim schemes to lead into Roche Option 2 and would allow for some local benefits around the village to be realised should funding not be sufficient to construct Option 2 initially.

12.5.4 A value hasn’t been derived for development potential but Roche Option 2 clearly has potential for development within both Roche and Victoria to provide housing and employment growth. These additional economic benefits would suggest that Roche Option 2 may have a more favourable economic outcome than Bugle Option 1 where developable land is not readily available.

12.5.5 Further detailed traffic modelling and economic appraisal, in accordance with WebTAG will need to be undertaken should Cornwall Council wish to pursue a road improvement linking the A391 with the A30.

12.5.6 The following section of the report will combine the outcomes of the engineering and transport appraisals to identify route options which should be considered in greater detail in the future.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 50 July 2015

13 APRRAISAL SUMMARY

13.1.1 Appendix D contains the WebTAG assessment criteria for evaluating scheme options and the scoresheet for each of the route options considered within this report. Table 12.1 below summarises the appraisal scores for each of these options.

5

4 Bugle Bugle Roche Roche Roche Roche Roche Option Option1 Option2 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option

Appraisal Score 120 116 120 129 117 117 0

Weighted Score 333 314 331 372 328 326 0

Rank 2 6 3 1 5 4 N/A Table 13.1 WebTAG Scheme Appraisal Scoring

13.1.2 Table 12.2 summarises the indicative scheme cost for each option, excluding the value of land and utility protection and diversion costs. As the schemes are pre- programme entry in terms of Business Case Maturity, Optimism Bias of 44% has been applied to the scheme costs.

5

4 Bugle Bugle Roche Roche Roche Roche Roche Option Option1 Option2 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option

Cost Estimate £44.3m £62.4m £116.4m £28.7m £5.6m £10.7m £28.6m

Optimism Bias £19.5m £27.5m £51.1m £12.6m £2.5m £4.7m £12.6m

Total Cost £63.8m £89.9m £167.5m £41.3m £8.1m £15.4m £41.2m Table 13.2 Scheme Costs

13.1.3 Options Bugle Option 1 and Roche Option 2 emerge as the overall preferred options following the WebTAG appraisal and provides the greatest benefit to the local community. Roche Option 4 should not necessarily discounted at this stage if a phased funding and construction programme is envisaged.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 51 July 2015

14 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14.1.1 This Options Appraisal Report (OAR) has assessed potential options to provide a strategic road improvement linking St Austell with the A30 for two study areas, Roche and Bugle.

14.1.2 For each Option a ‘high level’ engineering and transport appraisal has been undertaken identifying the benefits, constraints, risks, opportunities and costs of each scheme.

14.1.3 The results are summarised in the table below:

5

4 Bugle Bugle Roche Roche Roche Roche Roche Option Option1 Option2 Option1 Option2 Option3 Option

Rank 2 6 3 1 5 4 N/A Table 14.1 WebTAG Scheme Appraisal Rankings

14.1.4 Options Bugle Option 1 and Roche Option 2 emerge as the overall preferred options following the WebTAG appraisal and provides the greatest benefit to the local community. Roche Option 4 should not necessarily discounted at this stage if a phased funding and construction programme is envisaged.

14.1.1 Bugle Option 1 is estimated to cost £63.8m and Roche Option 2 to cost £41.3m.

14.1.2 Should Cornwall Council decide to develop these options further and produce an Outline Business Case the work required has been programmed at a high level, assuming an October 2015 commencement date. The programme is included as Appendix L but states that an Outline Business Case could be submitted to Government by approximately March 2017. Beyond this, assuming funding is available, the design and planning process would take 2-3 years, resulting in a construction start date of 2020 and the road opening to traffic in approximately 2022.

EDG0717-R001 A30 St Austell OAR 53 July 2015