Cambridge City Council ID:10030344

From: Patsy Dell [mailto:Patsy.Dell@cambridge.gov.uk] Sent: 15 June 2015 08:58 To: A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Cc: Philip Doggett; 'Jeremy Procter' Subject: A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon DCO Examination - Submission of Representations from Cambridge City Council ID:10030344

Please find enclosed Cambridge City Council’s written representations on the three matters set out below. A further submission in relation to the Cambridge Crematorium is being sent to you separately. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge safe receipt.

I also confirm that four hard copies of each of the above documents are also on their way to you.

Our representations consists of: Matter 1 – Air Quality Statement of Representation ID:10030344/CCC1 Appendices: • J2A and Cambridge City Council meeting note 29 January 2014 • Cambridge City Council Air Quality Note – 8 May 2015

Matter 10 Noise and Vibration Statement of Representation ID:10030344/CCC2

Matter 12 – Transportation and Traffic Statement of Representation ID:10030344/CCC3 Appendices: • Traffic Monitoring report • TN01 A14 - Systra Consultants 2015 Forecasted Impacts on local Road Network

At this stage the City Council also wishes to notify you of its wish to attend any issue specific hearings relating to Air Quality and Transportation and Traffic.

Yours sincerely,

Patsy Dell

Patsy Dell Head of Planning Services Cambridge City Council The Guildhall CAMBRIDGE CB2 3QJ

01223 457103

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may

contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this e-mail?

______

The information in this email may be confidential and legally privileged.

You are advised to scan attachments for viruses before opening them.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015 ID: 10030344/CCC/2

June 2015

Examination of application by Highways England for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme

Matter 10 – Noise and Vibration

Examination Statement by Cambridge City Council

June 2015

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Contents Page List of Abbreviations 3 Introduction 4 Responses to Inspectors Questions 6

Appendices 1. References 15

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Abbreviations

CCC Cambridgeshire County Council CCiC Cambridge City Council CRTN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise DCO Development Consent Order DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (HD213/11) ES Environmental Statement IAN Interim Advise Note SCDC South Cambridgeshire District Council

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Introduction

1. This statement sets out the response from Cambridge City Council in response to the Examination Matter 10 in relation to Noise and Vibration.

2. This document needs to be read alongside the Examination Statement for Transport Assessment and Traffic Modelling submitted by Cambridge City Council (ID10030344/CCC/4)

3. This statement sets out the response from Cambridge City Council in relation to Noise and Vibration issues arising from the Highway England’s Environmental Statement of December 2014 and the CHARM2 Traffic Modelling associated with the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

4. The documents referred to in this statement are listed in Appendix 1. Examination document reference numbers are used throughout for convenience.

5. This Document was prepared by Adam Finch, Senior Technical Officer, Environmental Quality and Growth Team, Cambridge City Council. He is an Experienced and Qualified officer with degree level qualifications in Environmental Science and discrete post graduate qualifications in acoustics, air quality and contaminated land. He has over 12 years of experience in both public and private sector roles consulting on the environmental impacts of development.

Overview

Officers from South Cambridgeshire District Council have provided separate commentary on the Inspectors Questions with regards to the potential impacts of noise and vibration. We are in agreement with those comments and much has been echoed in the documentary provided below.

Chapter 14 of the ES concludes that a greater number of dwellings will benefit from improved noise levels than will be impacted adversely, However, there remains a significant element of uncertainty within the modelled noise output. This specifically relates to the CHARM 2 traffic forecasting model which has yet to be agreed with Cambridgeshire County Council.

These issues are summarised below and the Noise and Vibration issues explored in more detail with reference to the specific questions raised by the inspector in this examination statement. The transport issues are addressed in

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

detail in the Transport Assessment & Traffic Modelling Examination Statement.

1. Traffic forecasting:

a. Traffic modelling presented in the ES is subject to a number of uncertainties identified by the County Council transport officers, in the CHARM 2 Traffic Model. Further work is being undertaken by HE with CCC and CCiC to address these. b. Traffic forecasts for the local road network in the north of Cambridge are of particular concern to Cambridge City Council. c. All of the presented in the ES Noise and Vibration forecasting is based upon those traffic forecasts.

2. Noise and Vibration Modelling

a. The noise modelling exercise has not recognised all relevant receptors. Coverage of receptor locations such as parks and external amenity spaces is lacking. b. With the exception of various receptor locations, there is no provision of modelled outputs for the impacts of the scheme on a wider scale (i.e; where there is no receptor selected, it is not possible to accurately determine the impacts). c. Since the submission of the ES, new guidance (IAN185/15) has been issued providing details on more accurate modelling of road traffic “links”. d. The noise modelling assessment is focussed largely on the day-time impacts. There is little discussion of the impacts at night. e. Assessment of noise from borrow pits has been incorporated into the wider assessment of construction noise and vibration rather than being assessed under the National Planning Policy Guidance. f. For the City Council we have specific concerns about noise impacts on the Amenity of the City Council owned Crematorium near Madingley from changes to the road layout within the scheme.

Responses to specific questions set out by the Examining Panel

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.1

Question:

Does the assessment of noise effects in ES chapter 14 consider all appropriate residential receptors along the route, taking account of individual dwellings and

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015 communities?

Response:

Chapter 14 of the ES does largely consider the majority of residential receptors (including individual dwellings and communities). However, there is little or no discussion on other important receptors that are potentially impacted by the proposed scheme. One such receptor is the Cambridge City Crematorium (including the Gardens of Remembrance) which Is potentially impacted by a new local access road to its rear in addition to the impacts from the widening of the A14.

There are various receptor locations identified (within the Crematorium, this is R747) for which the existing noise climate is considered. R747 is located to the front of the Crematorium where the noise climate is undoubtedly influenced by the A14 and not representative of the Gardens of Remembrance.

Chapter 14 of the ES provides contour plots of the modelled noise output for the scheme without mitigation and contour plots for the scheme with mitigation. There is no provision of modelled output for the actual impact on existing noise levels. As such, it is difficult to assess the impact of the scheme at locations not identified as receptor locations (such as the rear of the Crematorium). This appears to be in conflict with the requirements of DMRB for which contour/modelled output is required for the impacts at all individual receptors and so allowing an assessment of the significance of the impact against the existing noise climate.

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.2

Question:

Was the baseline data for the noise assessment agreed with local authorities? Please identify any matters where agreement was not reached and explain why.

Response:

The baseline data has been agreed with CCC. After discussions with the noise consultants, it was agreed that the model performs well along the Cambridge Northern Bypass when compared to the monitored noise levels at specified locations.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.3

Question:

Significant impacts from noise and vibration during construction are predicted to impact on both residential and non-residential receptors. How would site specific noise controls be agreed with the local authorities?

Response:

The applicant is to provide a detailed Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). The CoCP contains the details as to how construction noise and vibration will be managed and mitigated against. Section 61 consents under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be sought from relevant Local Authorities; given that none of the works fall within the Cambridge City boundary, this will be SCDC and HDC.

In addition to the CoCP, the applicant is to provide Local Environmental Management Plans (LEMPs) in order to provide finer detail on mitigation and noise and vibration management required for specific local areas.

Mitigation measures for consideration should include, but not be limited to:

 Control of noise at source with use of Best Available Techniques,  Screening,  Hours of work,  Additional mitigation for night-time working,  Site contacts,  Monitoring and environmental logging,  Liaison with the relevant Local Authorities,  Contractor commitments and  Management of complaints.

It is unclear as to the timing of the release of these documents. However, it is recommended that the DCO imposes a requirement for them to be submitted and agreed by the LA prior to being implemented.

Discussions are ongoing with respect to the treatment of the proposed borrow pits. At present, noise from borrow pit activities is included within the draft CoCP. Borrow pits are covered separately within the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). It is understood that SCDC and HDC are continuing discussions with HE and the acoustic consultants with regards to noise from borrow pits.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.4

Question:

IAN185/15 has been published since the submission of the DCO application. Could different outputs have occurred had the assessments been made on the basis of the new advice?

Response:

IAN185/15 was issued in January 2015, after the submission of the DCO to the relevant Authorities. The IAN includes updated traffic, air quality and noise advice on the assessment of link speeds and generation of traffic data into speed-bands for users of DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality (HA207/07) and Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 ‘Noise’ (HD213/11).

The Interim Guidance provides the details necessary to describe the impacts of congested conditions within air quality and noise assessments, previously not achievable with a high level of accuracy.

The advice contained within IAN 185/15 is relevant to this project and has the potential to give rise to changes in the forecast noise levels already provided within the DCO. However, significance of those potential impacts is not possible to quantify unless the modelling work is reproduced with account taken of the advice contained within the IAN.

It is the opinion of CCiC that the IAN should be given consideration when taking this project forwards, either as an Annex to the existing ES or as Technical Summary.

Author: Adam Finch Question Reference: Q1.10.6 Question: Paragraph 14.2.91 of the ES notes that given the infrequent, irregular and short duration of maintenance work, this phase of the proposed development is unlikely to give rise to significant noise or vibration effects. What is the basis of this conclusion? How would any short term significant effects be mitigated? Response: Infrequent, irregular and short-term maintenance work is unlikely to significantly impact on residents of Cambridge City although proposed committed developments such as the Darwin Green development, will introduce City receptors closer to the A14.

It is expected that from the planning stage to the start of any maintenance works,

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Best Practicable Means (BPM) will be incorporated (that is, Section 72 of Control of Pollution Act {COPA} 1974 and Section 80:7 of Environmental Protection Act {EPA} 1990), when carrying out work.

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.8

Question:

Noise mitigation during the operational phase of the scheme is proposed through various means, as described in Table 14.21 of the ES. How would the installation of noise barriers be secured through the draft DCO?

Response:

Chapter 20.4.2 provides details of the mechanism of securing mitigation, including:

“specific mitigation obligations in key topic areas such as landscaping, drainage and contaminated land; and the scheme design shown on the plans submitted with the DCO.”

Chapter 20.4 continues to give commitments to placing “a contractual responsibility on detailed design and construction contractors to comply with the DCO requirements”.

Table 14.21 within Chapter 14 of the ES provides some detail of the proposed noise barriers/bunds at specified locations. The detail includes an indicative barrier length, barrier height and basic description. The suitability of the barrier can only be determined at the detailed design stage.

Many factors need to be considered in the detailed design of noise barriers. Acoustical design considerations will include barrier material, barrier locations, dimensions and shapes.

In addition to the acoustic adequacy of the barriers, non-acoustic aspects will also need to be considered such as visual blight, maintenance difficulties and lack of maintenance access due to improper barrier design.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.9

Question:

Paragraph 18.1.4 of the ES indicates that the traffic model which underpins the noise assessment has been agreed with the local planning authorities. Can the local authorities confirm that this is correct?

Response:

The noise modelling has been carried out using the CHARM 2 traffic model and in line with the CRTN and DMRB modelling procedures.

CCiC are awaiting the outcome of ongoing discussions regarding the suitability of the CHARM 2 traffic model between CCC, the traffic modellers and HE.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.10

Question:

Paragraph 14.1.31 of the ES describes the consultation with local authorities regarding the approach to noise and vibration assessment, including the need to measure night time noise and suggested baseline noise measurement locations. Are these suggestions being taken on board?

Response:

Night time noise measurements focus largely on short-term (construction) impacts. There is little discussion within the ES on the longer-term (operational) impacts and the potential for receptors to exceed (or further exceed) the target external night-time noise level of 55dB (Lnight) . It is understood that SCDC have requested further, finer detail on this aspect of the project.

Baseline noise measurement locations selected have not targeted the location of the new local access route to the rear of the City Crematorium or existing local routes into the City. As such, the potential noise impacts on the Gardens of Remembrance or on amenity within the City boundary are more difficult to quantify.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Adam Finch

Question Reference: Q1.10.12

Question:

ES section 14.15 makes reference to noise mitigation measures such as noise barriers and bunds.

Please explain the design approach for both of these measures, with particular reference to their height.

Response:

Detailed acoustic performance of the proposed noise barriers and bunds should be provided through the requirements of the DCO. At present, the ES provides details of height and indicative length. On provision of the final heights and lengths and the remainder of the technical detail, officers will be in a position to review suitability and adequacy of the proposed mitigation.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Appendix 1: List of Reference Documents

National policy:  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (RD/NP/010)  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)(RD/NP/020)

Other documents  CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL - NOISE TECHNICAL NOTE – J2A 8th may 2015 (attached)

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015 ID:10030344/CCC/1

Examination of application by Highways England for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme

Matter 1 – Air Quality

Examination Statement by Cambridge City Council

June 2015

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Contents Page List of Abbreviations 3 4 Introduction

Responses to Questions form Inspector 7 Appendix 1 - References 23

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Abbreviations

AAP Area Action Plan AoMC Area(s) of Major Change AQMA Air Quality Management Area HE Highways England DCO Development Consent Order CCiC Cambridge City Council CCC Cambridgeshire County Council SCDC South Cambridgeshire District Council AQAP Air Quality Action Plan

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Introduction

1. This statement sets out the response from Cambridge City Council to the Inspector’s Matter 1 in relation to Air Quality.

2. This document needs to be read alongside the Examination Statement for Transport Assessment and Traffic Modelling submitted by Cambridge City Council (ref:10030344/CCC/3)

3. This statement sets out the response from Cambridge City Council in relation to the Highway England’s Environmental Statement of December 2014 and the CHARM2 Traffic Modelling associated with the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

4. The documents referred to in this statement are listed in Appendix 1. Examination document reference numbers are used throughout for convenience.

5. This Document has been prepared by Jo Dicks, Environmental Quality and Growth Manager on behalf of Cambridge City Council. He is Team Manager for the Environmental Quality and Growth team who are responsible for panning consultation on environmental impacts and statutory duties relating to local air quality management, contaminated land, noise, lighting, dust and odour. He is qualified to degree level in law and master’s degree level in environmental technology and contaminated land Management and has more than 17-years experience of consulting on the environmental impacts of development. He is an experienced professional, trained in air quality modelling and assessment and is an member of The Institute of Environmental management and Assessment (IEMA)

Overview

1. Chapter 8 of the ES concludes that ‘the scheme does not have a significant impact on air quality and does not affect the UK’s ability to achieve compliance with the EU air quality directive. However, Cambridge City Council feel there is sufficient uncertainty in the air quality assessment submitted to question the certainty of those conclusions. 2. There are a number of fundamental reasons for this uncertainty and these can be divided in to two distinct areas:

a. Issues relating to the CHARM 2 model traffic forecasting model and: b. Assumptions made in the presented air quality assessment in the December 2014 Environmental Impact Statement.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

These issues are summarised below and the Air Quality issues explored in more detail with reference to the specific questions raised by the inspector in this examination statement. The transport issues are addressed in detail in the Transport Assessment & Traffic Modelling Examination Statement.

1. Traffic forecasting:

a. Traffic modelling presented in the ES is subject to a number of uncertainties identified by the County Council transport officers and the City Council’s retained consultants WSP, in the CHARM 2 Traffic Model. Further work is being undertaken by HE with CCC and the City to address these. b. Traffic forecasts for the local road network in the north of Cambridge, south of the A14, in particular feeder roads and the inner ring road, are of particular concern to Cambridge City Council. c. All of the presented in the ES Air Quality modelled forecasting is based upon those traffic forecasts.

2. Air Quality Modelling:

Assessments should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development proposed and the level of concern about air quality, and because of this are likely to be locationally specific. The scope and content of supporting information is therefore best discussed and agreed between the local planning authority and applicant before it is commissioned.

Air quality assessments undertaken for development that falls within the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations will need to recognise the requirements of these Regulations, in respect of the need to define likely significant effects and identify mitigation. (IAQM 2015) a. The geographic scope of the presented Air Quality Modelling is not as agreed between HE and the City and District Council at preliminary meetings and does not show the potential impact on the Cambridge AQMA. b. Model outputs were only presented as a limited number of discrete receptor locations whereas Cambridge City Council had requested that continuous contour plots of outputs were provided. Such contoured outputs would highlight the inadequacies of the verification work carried out as outlined below in c. c. Verification of the presented modelled outputs is inconsistent, with three different verification factors used on the same modelled output for three discrete regions of the development area. This suggests a wide

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

range of uncertainty in the model outputs presented. This would not be considered best practice in our professional opinion. d. The use of future year emission factors in the Air Quality modelling presented is not as agreed in preliminary meetings. LAs had requested that no future year emission reductions be used in forecast modelling as there is a considerable body of local and national evidence that these are unduly optimistic (Carslaw & Tate et al, DEFRA 2011). The use of current year emission factors was agreed to provide a worst case scenario output for air quality modelled forecasts. In the event a moderately optimistic set of future year emission factors has been used optimistic against what. Whereas, this may be justifiable, there is insufficient explanation of the choice of emission factors used in the December 2014 ES. e. The conclusion presented that there are likely to be no significant impacts on air quality as a result of the scheme in operation, are wholly dependent on future improvements to the emissions of vehicles using the new road and affected network to offset the considerable increases in traffic volume forecast. In areas affected by the proposed scheme which currently do not meet EU limit values for prescribed air pollutants, any increase in traffic volume has the potential to delay legal compliance, regardless of the rate of fleet emission improvements. Would this amount to a significant effect?

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Response to Panel questions set out in the Rule 8 letter 20th May 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.1

Question:

Has agreement over the establishment of the baseline for the air quality assessment been reached with CCC, HDC and SCDC? If so, please give the relevant reference. If not, why not?

Response:

Baseline conditions, monitoring results, year of initial assessment (2014) and traffic year (2014) were agreed at a series of meetings from late 2013 onwards. Agreement was documented at a meeting on the 29th January 2014 attended by officers for Cambridge City, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Councils as well as representatives from Arup for HE. The proposed baseline conditions for air quality assessment were formally documented by in the Highways Agency Environmental statement Scoping Report Dated January 2014 at Chapter 6.

We were in broad agreement with the proposed baseline for Air Quality Assessment subject to agreement of the geographic scope of the assessment being extended to show the impact on the Cambridge AQMA; agreement on the use of emission factors, additional background PM10 monitoring and contour mapping of model outputs where populated areas could be affected as discussed at the meeting on 29th January 2014.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.2

Question:

The assessment of air quality is based on DMRB, Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance and Interim Advice Notes (IAN). Since the submission of the application IAN185/15 has been published. What are the implications for the application of IAN 185/15 and if it had been in place before the application was accepted for examination, in what ways would this have influenced the outputs from the air quality assessment?

Response:

This IAN provides supplementary advice to users of DMRB Volume 11, SECTION 3, PART 1 (HA207/07- Air Quality) and PART 7 (HD213/11- Noise). Advice is provided on the assessment of link speeds and generation of speed-band vehicle emissions to reflect the fact that noise and air quality models may under predict. This includes advice regarding the modelling speeds to be used in the vicinity of junctions experiencing varying degrees of congestion.

This is a Highways England advice note and was only issued a number of weeks after the submission of the DCO IAN 185/15 although published in January 2015 slightly after the submission of the A14 ES in very late December 2014 is a highly pertinent document for this development as it provides a methodology for assessing the significantly varying magnitude of polluting emissions from vehicles travelling within different speed bands. It is a way of accounting for the differences in emissions during free flow, reduced speed or congested traffic flows. Whilst it is based on currently unpublished HA /HE research IAN 185/15 is the best formal UK guidance available currently to assess these affects. Given that the effect of speed on emissions can be very significant according to this guidance note there is a high likelihood that consideration of the guidance could give significantly different results to the assessment employed in the ES submitted for the DCO. As this document has not been considered in the air quality assessment it adds further uncertainty to the current conclusions for air quality impacts proposed in the ES. We would like to see HE undertake a review of the scheme proposals using this advice and issue an addendum to the DCO submission to take in to account the impact on the assessment of scheme of this important guidance document.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.3

Question:

The methodology for the assessment of air quality effects is set out in the ES at 8.2.21ff. Para. 8.2.68 states that the overall approach and methodology to assess air quality effects was agreed with the local authorities. What was agreed and with which local authorities? Please provide details.

Response:

The methodology for assessment of air quality effects was set out in the Environmental Statement Scoping Report Chapter 6 and Preliminary Environmental Information Report as part of the draft scheme consultation in Spring 2014. The Council considered that these were broadly satisfactory in terms of the baseline data used, the year of assessment and the use of the ADMS Roads dispersion model. Also agreed was the use of local representative meteorological data with an accompanying sensitivity analysis of several recent years data (s.8.2.36 ES).

However a number of issues agreed at a series of meetings from late 2013 onwards and in a documented agreement at a meeting on the 29th January 2014 attended by officers for Cambridge City, South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire Councils as well consultants from Arup representing HE, were not adhered to in the assessment of air quality in the ES and subsequently submitted as part of the DCO.

The main issues of concern were

1. the failure to extend the geographic scope of the assessment to show the impact on the Cambridge AQMA; 2. no agreement on the use of 2014 emission factors in the dispersion modelling to identify the maximum likely impacts; 3. no additional background PM10 monitoring carried out north of Cambridge ahead of the assessment and; 4. contour mapping of model outputs where populated areas could be affected

Whilst these issues may not significantly alter the final outcome of the assessment they would significantly add to the understanding of the uncertainties in the assessment which has been carried out and as a result give greater confidence to residents and local authorities that all likely outcomes have been properly considered in the conclusions reached. Moreover, a better understanding of the significant uncertainties in the Air Quality Assessment submitted would allow for a well-informed discussion of any necessary mitigation that may be needed in the future.

The City Council have been working with the Applicant to address these concerns, and a number of technical notes have been produced which we are currently

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015 considering. We are not aware that the DCO ES has been updated to include these.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.5

Question:

Please explain when, how and where air quality would be monitored or why no monitoring is proposed with particular reference to NOx, NO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5.

Response:

Currently HE are not proposing any post construction monitoring of pollutants of concern as the ES concludes that the scheme has no significant impacts on air quality in the operational phase.

It is the view of Cambridge City Council that given the current issues with the CHARM 2 traffic forecast model combined with the issues raised on the scope (q1.1.1 &1.1.3) and verification (q1.1.14) of the air quality assessment that a proposal for monitoring during the construction and operation of the scheme will need to be agreed with all affected local authorities. This is essential to verify or otherwise the conclusions of the assessment that there will be no significant air quality impacts. If an unacceptable impact is subsequently shown by monitoring, a plan for mitigating the effects will need to be agreed with reference to the most recent Cambridge City Council AQAP and implemented.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.8

Question:

Please explain how the assessment of air quality has taken into account the proximity of the proposed road scheme to sensitive receptors including housing and schools and the mitigation measures proposed during the operational phase in such locations? Where and how would these measures be secured?

Response:

HE have relied upon the guidance in (DMRB HA207/07) to define the affected road network (ARN) and have assessed a 200m corridor either side of this. The details are stated in s.8.2.5-8.2.8 in the ES. Again definition of the ARN is dependent upon the traffic forecast. This is a standard approach but more certainty could have been provided by encompassing a wider area including the north Cambridge local road network in the dispersion model and providing contour plots of modelled pollutant concentrations as requested by Cambridge City Council.

No mitigation for the operational phase of the scheme has been proposed by HE in the ES as it is concluded that there are no significant air quality impacts. Cambridge City Council remains concerned that there is not sufficient certainty in the output of the assessment presented in the ES to support this conclusion.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks Question Reference: Q1.1.10 Question: Table 8.12 of the ES concludes that during the operational phase the overall scheme would have no significant impacts on air quality. Can the applicant explain further how it has reached its conclusion of no significant air quality impacts? Response: Not-withstanding issues relating to the CHARM2 Transport model, Cambridge City Council do not have confidence in this conclusion based on the air quality assessment presented in the ES. Sufficient uncertainty remains in a number of areas:

1. The assessment doesn’t consider the impact on the Cambridge AQMA; 2. The emission factors used for future years isn’t sufficiently justified in the ES; 3. No additional background PM10 monitoring carried out north of Cambridge ahead of the assessment and; 4. Contour mapping of modelled pollutants, where populated areas could be affected, has not been provided.

In addition to the points above we have concern over the use of three different verification factors used to transform the modelled results for pollutants at different locations along the route (s8.5.13 – s8.5.16 ES, Dec 2014). This would not be considered best practice and may mask uncertainty in the modelled output. Whilst it is acknowledged that getting good agreement between modelled and monitored concentrations over such a large area is difficult, open and candid discussion about the uncertainty in the model is preferable to data manipulation to fit the monitoring data.

We would request that HE submit an addendum to the DCO submission to tackle these issues of uncertainty in a robust and transparent way.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.12

Question:

Para 8.2.24 states that with regard to air quality the opening year of the scheme (2020) is predicted to be the worst case scenario as vehicle emission factors and background pollutant concentrations are anticipated to decrease overtime due to improvements in fuel technologies. If anticipated fuel technologies do not emerge, how would the forecast increases in traffic between 2020 and 2035 affect this conclusion?

Response:

It is well acknowledged in the Air Quality field nationally and locally (Carslaw, Tate et al DEFRA 2011), that anticipated improvements in vehicle technology expected to improve pollutant emissions over the last 10 years, has not delivered. This is most apparent for the key vehicle pollutant Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in relation to diesel engine vehicles. A local DEFRA funded study the ‘Cambridge Real Emission Project’, commissioned by Cambridge City Council has shown a wide range of in operation emissions which fall far short of the expected EURO standards for the vehicles studied. (Tate, J. 2013)

It is largely because of the consensus in the Air Quality community on this issue that HE had been asked by Cambridge City Council to assess the air quality impact of the scheme using base year (2014) emission factors to show what could happen if anticipated improvements are not met, as has been the case in the past. Unfortunately this has not been presented in the ES.

Cambridge City Council would like to see an addendum to the DCO submission to address the uncertainties that this issue presents.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.14

Question:

Have the results of the air quality assessment been agreed with Interested Parties and if so, by whom and if not, why not?

Response:

Cambridge City Council has not agreed the results of the air quality assessment in full due to the issues detailed in the response to q1.1.10 (See above)

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.15

Question:

What effect, if any, does the Supreme Court judgment on the Air Quality Directive (R (on the application of ClientEarth) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent) Judgment Given on 29 April 2015) have on the proposed scheme? In responding, please make reference to the National Networks NPS.

Response:

This Judgment is unlikely to have a direct impact on the proposed scheme unless it can be shown that the scheme will delay compliance with the EU air quality objectives.

Delay in compliance is actually reasonably foreseeable for sections of the scheme where increases in traffic volume are expected. Not-withstanding improvements in vehicle emissions any increase in traffic volume will generate greater local polluting emissions unless this can be offset by a more favourable speed/emission profile for that greater volume of traffic. As the ES has not taken in to account IAN185/15 (see response to q1.1.2), there remains sufficient uncertainty in the presented assessment to question this point.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.16

Question:

With the existing NO2 annual mean objective in Cambridge already being exceeded (ES8.8.3) how would the proposed scheme improve this position?

Response:

The proposed scheme does not in and of itself does not show any improvement in the air quality for Cambridge City. Where exceedances occur within the Cambridge AQMA no detailed assessment has been presented in the ES. Air quality improvements referred to in the ES fall in to two categories, those where the route is moved thus removing traffic from existing AQMAs such as in Huntingdonshire and those which are reliant on improving vehicle emissions over time (everywhere else)

Moreover increases in traffic volume along the existing transport corridor north of Cambridge and on certain Cambridge feeder roads is acknowledged to worsen predicted NO2 concentrations in the summary table 8.9

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Author: Jo Dicks

Question Reference: Q1.1.17

Question:

Dust from construction is identified as a significant effect which could be mitigated through best practice measures implemented via the Code of Construction Practice. If best practice measures are not followed by contractors or prove to be ineffective, what further action can be taken by local authorities to control these effects?

Response:

It is uncertain if LAs can take enforcement action against dust from construction activities.

Under s.79 (1) of the Environmental Protection At 1990 every local authority is placed under a duty to ensure their area is inspected from time to time to detect any statutory nuisance. LAs therefore have a duty to investigate alleged statutory nuisances including “any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance”. This can include dust from construction sites.

The dust must interfere materially with the personal comfort of residents in the sense that it materially affects their well-being even though it might not be prejudicial to their health. If dust only affects property or possessions e.g. dust falling on vehicles or in a garden might be an inconvenience to their owners but unlikely to be considered a statutory nuisance.

S.80 of the EPA provides that where a local authority is satisfied a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur, it must serve an Abatement Notice which will require abatement or prohibit or restrict its occurrence or recurrence and may require the execution of work or taking of steps for such purposes, specifying the time within which compliance is required.

However construction work on the highway because of their location may not qualify as a statutory nuisance, as generally the activity is not on ‘premises’ Borrow pits are likely to be considered premises.

It is noted that the Planning Act 2008 appears to provide a general absolute defence to action in respect of statutory nuisance. Essentially a defence of statutory authority to a nuisance claim exists in the case of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects such as the A14 Improvement Scheme.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

This is why the Infrastructure Planning Regulations require that the issue of potential common law nuisance and statutory nuisance must be considered and duly addressed within the DCO including any proposals by the applicant to mitigate or limit them.

However the submitted draft DCO section 39 Defence to proceedings in respect of statutory nuisance only refers to noise not dust or air quality.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Matters that Cambridge City Council requests the Examining Panel to secure through the DCO process

Because of the above uncertainties around the identification of significant effects upon local roads within Cambridge that the City Council has identified, the council requests that Highway England commits to the following actions:

1. The Applicant agrees to implement an agreed programme of monitoring of traffic flow and air quality on local roads within the City of Cambridge (The scope, specification and timing of implementation of which will have been agreed with the City and County Councils before commencement of the A14 improvement scheme construction). The local roads to be monitored shall include: c. A1303 Madingley Road; d. A1307 Huntingdon Road; e. B1049 Histon Road; f. A1309 Milton Road; g. B1047 Horningsea Road; h. A1303 Newmarket Road; and i. Cambridge inner “ring road”. j. Storeys Way; k. Girton Road; l. Kings Hedges; and m. Arbury Roads.

2. The agreed monitoring outputs to be submitted to the City and County Councils annually from first implementation in a format to be agreed with the Councils. Within 2 months of annual submission of the outputs to the councils, Highways England or its successors to meet with the councils to review the monitoring outputs against the relevant outputs set out in the final DCO submission.

3. The Applicant to agree to fund an agreed programme of minor transport works (which are not limited to road but across all modes of travel) if necessary to mitigate impacts of the A14 (to those set out in the final DCO), should monitoring suggest any greater adverse impacts as a consequence of the scheme than those projected by the model and associated TA.

Construction Impact Mitigation

1. A Construction Monitoring scheme including locations, equipment specification, recording, timing of and length of provision, sharing of monitoring results, mitigation measures which is compliant with the provisions in Chapter 8 of the IAQM, Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction. (IAQM 2014) shall be presented and agreed with the City and County Councils prior to the commencement of scheme

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

construction, including any enabling works. All agreed works and equipment shall remain in place, maintained in full operative order for the duration of the agreed monitoring period.

Operational Impact Monitoring

1. An Operational Monitoring scheme including locations, equipment specification, recording, timing of and length of provision, sharing of monitoring results and any mitigation measures shall be presented and agreed with the City and County Councils prior to the commencement of scheme construction. All agreed works and equipment shall remain in place and be maintained in full operative order thereafter.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Appendix 1: List of Reference Documents

National policy:  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (RD/NP/010)  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)(RD/NP/020)

Local Planning Policy

 Cambridgeshire County Council (2011) Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2031 (http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20006/travel_roads_and_parking/66/transport_pl ans_and_policies)

 Cambridgeshire County Council (2014) Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/2722/2014- 01-23_tscsc_strategy_-_v40_jstspg_changes_post_jst_and_spgpdf

 Cambridge City Council (2015) Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan 2015-25 (http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=177&MId=2570&Ver=4)

 Cambridgeshire County Council (2015) Cambridgeshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) on Transport and Health http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CommitteeMinutes/Committees/AgendaItem.aspx?a gendaItemID=11446

 Cambridgeshire County Council (revised 2015) Long Term Transport Strategy http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20006/travel_roads_and_parking/66/transport_pla ns_and_policies/5

Other documents  Carslaw, Tate , et al 2011: Trends in NOx and NO2 emissions and ambient measurements, David Carslaw, Sean Beevers, Emily Westmoreland and Martin Williams King’s College London James Tate University of Leeds Tim Murrells, John Stedman, Yvonne Li, Susannah Grice, Andrew Kent and Ioannis Tsagatakis (Defra version 18th July 2011)  Tate (2013) Vehicle Emission Measurement and Analysis - Cambridge City Council https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/documents/Cam_VEMS _ProjectReport_v1.0.pdf  IAQM 2015: Land use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality: http://www.iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/air-quality-planning-guidance.pdf  IAQM 2014: Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Constuction: http://iaqm.co.uk/text/guidance/construction-dust-2014.pdf  Note for Meeting with ARUP 29th January 2014 (attached)  CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL - AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL NOTE – J2A 8th may 2015 (attached)

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

ID:10030344/CCC/3

June 2015

Examination of application by Highways England for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme

Matter 12 – Transportation & Traffic

Examination Statement by Cambridge City Council

June 2015

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Contents Page List of Abbreviations 2 Introduction 3 Overview 3 Transport Modelling 4 Transport Assessment 7 City Council comments on Examination Questions that it wishes to 9 have considered by the Panel Matters that Cambridge City Council requests the Examining Panel to 10 secure through the DCO process Appendix 1 12

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Abbreviations

AQMA Air Quality Management Area CCC Cambridge County Council CHARM Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model CSRM Cambridge Sub-Regional Model HE Highways England TA Transport Assessment NMU Non-Motorised Users WSP|PB WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Introduction

1. This statement sets out the response from Cambridge City Council in relation to the Inspector’s Matter 12 - Transportation & Traffic.

2. Specifically this statement sets out the response from Cambridge City Council in relation to the Highway England’s Transport Assessment (TA) of December 2014 (Document 7.2) and the CHARM2 Traffic Modelling associated with the current assessment of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

3. The documents referred to in this statement are listed in Appendix 1. Examination document reference numbers (where applicable) are used throughout for convenience.

4. This document has been prepared by Adrian Hames, Technical Director at WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB), working on behalf of Cambridge City Council. He is the Manager of the WSP|PB’s transportation team based in their Cambridge office and has a broad experience of Transport Planning in both the public and private sector. He is qualified to a degree level in Civil Engineering (BEng Hons) and Masters degree level in Transport Planning (MSc). He is a professional with more than 24 years’ experience in the Cambridge area covering all aspects of Transport Planning and is a Member of The Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (MCIHT).

Overview

5. Para 7.5.19 of the TA summarises that, “the overall impact of the scheme on Cambridge City is little or no change in the overall traffic within Cambridge City”. Para 7.5.20 of the TA states that “Traffic forecasts suggest that there would be limited change in the volume of traffic using the key radial routes into Cambridge from the A14 as a result of the proposed A14 improvement scheme”. However, Cambridge City Council feels that there is sufficient uncertainty in the CHARM 2 transport modelling and TA submission to question the certainty of these conclusions.

6. The fundamental reasons for this uncertainty are summarised below and explored in more detail under the two headings of ‘Transport Modelling’ and ‘Transport Assessment’. Comments are also provided in relation to examination questions, which the City Council wishes to have considered by the Panel. At the end of this submission, as a result of this review, Cambridge City Council has identified key matters it requests the Examining Panel to secure through the DCO process.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Transport Modelling

7. Highways England has developed a traffic model (CHARM – Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model) which is based, in part, on the SATURN component of the County Council’s CSRM (Cambridge Sub-Regional Model). Highways England has adjusted and developed the CSRM SATURN model to create a new bespoke traffic model for forecasting the impact of the proposed A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme on both the strategic and local road network.

8. The version of the model used in support of the DCO application is termed CHARM2. CHARM2 has been developed from CHARM1, which, in turn, has been developed from CSRM. The City Council is aware that there is a now a further refined CHARM3A model, and will comment on this after Highways England has submitted their traffic update report to examination.

9. Cambridge City Council is broadly content with the modelling work undertaken by Highways England in regard to the strategic road network, and that the traffic modelling approach is, in this regard, sound and appropriate on the A14 corridor. However, Highways England has, in the opinion of the City Council, given insufficient consideration in the traffic modelling to the assessment of impacts on local roads.

10. The City Council has appointed consultants WSP|PB to review transport impacts of the A14 scheme on the local road network as predicted by Highway’s England’s modelling. This has in turn been informed through joint working with the County Council who have themselves appointed consultants SYSTRA to assist in understanding the methodology assumptions used in the modelling, and to assess the impacts of the proposed scheme on the local road network, particularly outside the immediate vicinity of the proposed scheme.

11. The results of the work undertaken by SYSTRA are set out in a technical note (TN01 – Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network) which is included in Appendix 1. This work has been used by WSP|PB to help inform their advice to the City Council in regard to the CHARM2 transport model and the predicted effects of the A14 scheme on the local road network.

12. Following the work undertaken by SYSTRA, WSP|PB and the City Council the key concerns with the CHARM2 model, upon which the application is based, can be summarised as:

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

 Validation of local City roads in the base year model fails to meet WebTAG thresholds of 85%, and in many cases achieves less than 50%, which in turn brings into question confidence in the Air Quality Assessment and Highway England’s EIA conclusion that there are no significant effects on the City’s AQMA;  The model does not exhibit the levels of delay or congestion on the approaches to Cambridge which is commonly accepted as taking place, which may indicate that the capacity modelled on these roads is effectively higher than in reality. The City Council therefore requests that Highways England provide further technical evidence to give confidence the model reflects reality;  The model predicts very high growth in traffic entering Cambridge for the period 2014-2035 in the ‘Do minimum’, and comparatively little impact from the A14 itself. It is not clear at present how realistic the former can be given current constraints on the road network in Cambridge, which calls into question the latter;  The ‘Do Minimum’ baseline modelling includes schemes within Cambridge that are not committed schemes. These include the closure of roads in Cambridge which have an impact on trip distribution in and around Cambridge (Mill Road & East Road);  There has been a lack of written narrative to explain and support the projected impacts of the scheme on local City roads and the switching of traffic between Cambridge City radials as a result of the A14 scheme.

13. The view of the County Council and Cambridge City Council is that CHARM2 does not robustly predict traffic flow changes in Cambridge, and the model shows sizeable growth in vehicle trips into central Cambridge which is counter to the accepted position of both Councils. This is evidenced by the County Council’s annual traffic survey data (from both the outer and inner cordons – see Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 - Appendix 1) which indicates that growth in traffic to Cambridge City Centre has not changed significantly in the last 10 years.

14. Further, the changes in Cambridge on specific radial routes are affected by the presence in the model of uncommitted local schemes that influence traffic distribution in Cambridge. This is compounded by the lack of validation within the Cambridge urban area. Highways England has validated on a screen line around the urban area of Cambridge, but has not validated key roads within the City.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

15. The County Council and City Council believe that the use of median rather than mean journey times on the A14 has resulted in the potential over estimation of capacity and underestimation of delay on the A14 in the base year. This is a valid approach to ensure that the economic benefits of the proposed scheme are not over-estimated. However, the use of the median journey times means that the model does not fully take into account the impact that congestion on the A14 has on journey times. Hence the City Council has concerns that the level of reassignment from the local roads, as a result of the A14 improvements, may be under-estimated and therefore the City Council questions the level of confidence it can have in the current patterns of reassignment being shown within CHARM2, on the City’s radial routes.

16. The lack of validation on local roads, in the opinion of the County Council and City Council, makes it difficult to fully assess the projected impacts on the local road network as a result of the A14 improvement scheme. The City Council seeks to have a greater level of confidence in the projected level of change, particularly in relation to their understanding of significant effects and impacts on the City’s local road network. This in turn leads the City Council to question the level of confidence it can have in the air quality assessment and the EIA conclusion that there are no significant air quality effects of the A14 Scheme on local City roads.

17. The County Council and City Council have both been working with Highways England to address the above concerns. Highways England has advised the Councils that it will be submitting updated work from a CHARM3A model which the County Council and City Council will need to examine and comment upon in July.

18. In addition the City Council and County Council is also actively working with Highways England in undertaking and evaluating ‘Local Impact Testing’ which will be reported to the Examining Authority on the 2nd August 2015. The City Council will then make comments on Highways England’s report on ‘Local Impact Testing’ (in September), to advise the examining authority of the conclusions the City Council has reached on impacts to the local road network and its confidence in the final traffic modelling of the local road network. From discussions with Highways England, to date, it is expected that the ‘Local Impact Testing’ will provide further analysis in regard to:

 Further clarification of CHARM3A’s levels of base year validation on Cambridge City’s local roads;  Correction of zoning anomalies;

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

 Correction/removal of non-committed schemes included within the ‘Do Minimum’ Scenario;  Clarification of the re-routing effects on local roads, as a result of the scheme, contrasting the potential benefits of improved orbital movements and reduced rat-running with any negative impacts where residents become more likely to drive within Cambridge;  Clarification regarding the growth of trips into the City, identifying to what extent the growth in trip-ends is contained within the new developments around the City edge;  Clarification on the level of base year delay in the model.

19. The City Council are seeking sufficient comfort from the above ‘Local Impact Testing’ such that it can provide sufficient certainty on the likely impacts of the A14 proposals, on local City roads, in order to resolve and address their current concerns which have been raised through analysis of CHARM2.

Transport Assessment

20. The Transport Assessment contains anomalies which the County Council and City Council have sought to bring to the attention of Highways England. The Transport Assessment (Document 7.2) is based on the outputs of the CHARM2 model.

21. Section 4 of the Transport Assessment considers Road Safety. It is expected that the proposed A14 improvement scheme will enhance road user’s safety along the A14. However, it is a concern of the City Council that road accident injury analysis has not been provided on Cambridge City’s local link roads, which feed the A14, and which would experience a change of traffic flows as a result of the scheme.

22. The City Council has specific concerns that the A14 scheme will have a potential impact on the road safety of NMUs commuting into Cambridge from the northern side of the A14, particularly at junctions which will experience higher traffic flows and on local roads which will experience higher flows as a result of the A14 scheme and traffic reassignment within the City.

23. No accident analysis has been provided within the Transport Assessment on arterial links in Cambridge which will be affected by the A14 Improvement Scheme. The City Council requests that accident analysis is undertaken by Highways England on the following key local roads within Cambridge City:

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

 A1303 Madingley Road;  A1307 Huntingdon Road;  B1049 Histon Road;  A1309 Milton Road;  B1047 Horningsea Road;  A1303 Newmarket Road;  Cambridge inner “ring road”;  Storeys Way;  Girton Road;  Kings Hedges; and  Arbury Road.

24. Section 7.5 of the Transport Assessment considers traffic flow changes on local roads. While many of these are identified as beneficial, by reducing traffic, the extent of the reporting of changes is selective and not fully representative. In order to assess the impact of the A14 on local roads a more comprehensive assessment is needed, not just one point on each route, of which the actual location is not clear.

25. The Transport Assessment considers wider impacts of the scheme (Section 7.9) by applying a threshold to identify junctions with a percentage flow increase of more than 30% in the short term as a consequence of the A14 scheme. The County Council and City Council considers this threshold to be too high. This threshold is set for assessing environmental implications and is not considered appropriate for assessing the potential significance of traffic impacts.

26. Whilst the use of a percentage increase is no longer used in the assessment of transport development impact, the use in this instance seems reasonable. However, the County Council and City Council considered that the threshold should be set at 5% in congested areas and 10% in non-congested areas. As a result of the level set in the TA, only 4 locations on the local road network were identified for further assessment. These were:

 Middle Watch/ Ramper Road, near Swavesey;  Boxworth Road / Rose and Crown, near Swavesey;  Scotland Road / High Street, Dry Drayton; and  A14 Junction 26 (A1096/B1040)

27. The County Council and City Council considers that this is an inadequate assessment of the impact of the scheme on local roads. Additional junctions the City Council would also like to see assessed by Highways England,

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

should these fall within the acceptable percentage change detailed above, include:

 A1307 Huntingdon Road / B1049 Histon Road / A1134 Victoria Road;  B1049 Histon Road / Gilbert Road;  A1309 Milton Road / Cambridge Science Park;  A1309 Milton Road / Cambridge Business Park;  A1309 Milton Road / Green End Road / Kings Hedge Road;  A1309 Milton Road / Arbury Road / Union Lane;  A1309 Milton Road / A1134 Elizabeth Way; and  A1303 Newmarket Road / Fen Ditton Road.

City Council comments on Examination Questions that it wishes to have considered by the Panel

Author: Adrian Hames

Question Reference: Q1.12.33

Question:

Whilst the relationship between the A14 and local roads is said to be complex and therefore much harder to predict with certainty on individual routes, what briefly are the reasons thought to be for the indicated % changes in the context of revised trip routes for each of the road sections identified as a result of the scheme? (Document 7.2. Table 7.6) Comments:

The City Council would also like to highlight that this lack of a narrative on the impact of the A14 scheme on local City roads has also been repeatedly raised with Highways England, in regard to the Transport Assessment (Document 7.2).

The following data, on local roads within Cambridge, has been extracted from Document 7.2 Tables 7.4, 7.5 & 7.6 of the Transport Assessment. This data is summarised within Table 1 below:

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Table 1: AADT Forecast on “Local City Roads” and expected A14 Scheme Impact (Source: Highway England’s Transport Assessment (December 2014 - Document 7.2))

2020 Opening Year 2035 Forecaster Year Links 2014 Without With % Without With % Scheme Scheme Change Scheme Scheme Change A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 13,300 14,400 14,700 2.1% 17,100 16,900 -1.2% A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 15,800 16,800 16,500 -1.8% 19,800 18,200 -8.1% A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14) 10,600 10,800 12,000 11.1% 13,500 16,700 23.7% Cambridge Road (through Girton) 5,100 6,100 5,500 -9.8% 9,200 7,800 -15.2%

B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 18,900 19,700 20,300 3.0% 21,100 20,300 -3.8% B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 16,200 21,600 22,300 3.2% 24,900 25,400 2.0% A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 21,000 21,900 21,800 -0.5% 22,400 22,500 0.4% A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 30,200 31,400 30,900 -1.6% 32,600 34,500 5.8% A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 25,700 26,800 27,100 1.1% 27,700 27,700 0.0%

Note: A ‘traffic light’ system has been used to show the increase of traffic, from “Do-Minimum” scenario and the “Do-Something” as follows: red above or equal to a 5% change, amber above or equal to 0% and below 5%, and green for a negative change.

The Local Road AADT data provided within the Transport Assessment identifies significant changes on the Huntingdon Road and Milton Road as a result of the scheme, however no narrative is provided within the Transport Assessment to explain and support these projected impacts on local City roads. The City Council questions how Huntingdon Road can accommodate a 24% increase given the road is observed as already at capacity during peak periods. Further clarification of this issue is requested from Highways England.

Matters that Cambridge City Council requests the Examining Panel to secure through the DCO process

Traffic Flow and Air Quality Monitoring of Local City Roads:

28. The City Council requests Highways England agrees to implement an approved programme of monitoring of traffic flow and air quality on local roads within the City of Cambridge (The scope, specification and timing of implementation of which will have been agreed with the City and County Councils before commencement of the A14 improvement scheme construction). The local roads to be monitored shall include:

a. A1303 Madingley Road; b. A1307 Huntingdon Road; c. B1049 Histon Road; d. A1309 Milton Road;

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

e. B1047 Horningsea Road; f. A1303 Newmarket Road; g. Cambridge inner “ring road”. h. Storeys Way; i. Girton Road; j. Kings Hedges; and k. Arbury Roads.

29. The agreed monitoring outputs to be submitted to the City and County Councils annually from first implementation in a format to be agreed with the Councils. Within 2 months of annual submission of the outputs to the Councils, Highways England or its successors to meet with the Councils to review the monitoring outputs against the relevant outputs set out in the final DCO submission.

30. Highways England to agree to fund an agreed programme of minor transport works (which are not limited to road but across all modes of travel) if necessary to mitigate impacts of the A14 (to those set out in the final DCO), should monitoring suggest any greater adverse impacts as a consequence of the scheme than those projected by the CHARM model and associated TA.

Construction Impact Mitigation:

31. A Construction Monitoring scheme including locations, equipment specification, recording, timing of and length of provision, sharing of monitoring results, mitigation measures which is compliant with the provisions in Chapter 8 of the IAQM, Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction. (IAQM 2014) shall be presented and agreed with the City and County Councils prior to the commencement of scheme construction, including any enabling works. All agreed works and equipment shall remain in place, maintained in full operative order for the duration of the agreed monitoring period.

Operational Impact Monitoring:

32. An Operational Monitoring scheme including locations, equipment specification, recording, timing of and length of provision, sharing of monitoring results and any mitigation measures shall be presented and agreed with the City and County Councils prior to the commencement of scheme construction. All agreed works and equipment shall remain in place and be maintained in full operative order thereafter.

Statement by Cambridge City Council June 2015

Appendix 1: List of Reference Documents

National policy:  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (RD/NP/010)  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)(RD/NP/020)

Local Planning Policy  Cambridgeshire County Council (2011) Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2031 (http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20006/travel_roads_and_parking/66/transport_pl ans_and_policies)

 Cambridge City Council (2015) Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan 2015-25 (http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=177&MId=2570&Ver=4)

 Cambridgeshire County Council (revised 2015) Long Term Transport Strategy http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/info/20006/travel_roads_and_parking/66/transport_pla ns_and_policies/5

Other documents  SYSTRA (2015) Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network (TN01)  CCC (2013) Traffic Monitoring Report

J2A Note

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL - AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL NOTE

Date 08 May 2015

Authors/ Compiler James Bellinger, Michael Bull

Subject Sensitivity testing of future year emission factors

Introduction

Following receipt of the environmental statement (ES) for the Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement scheme the environmental health team at Cambridge City Council (CCC), along with transport and planning colleagues reviewed the findings. There were two main areas of interest for air quality, the first was the traffic data around the north of Cambridge, which is being addressed in separate documents. The second was related to sensitivity testing for future year emission factors.

A meeting was held on 30 April 2015 with J2A air quality and the environmental health officers at CCC. Issues related to sensitivity analysis for future year reductions were discussed and the following two actions were noted for J2A to respond to in order to allow CCC to progress their Local Impact Report. This note will address these actions.

1. Review the emission factors used in the AQ assessment and provide a note for Cambridge City. 2. Carry out some sensitivity analysis having regard for assumed difference between 2014 baseline emission factors and those used for 2035

Long term projection factors for annual mean NO2 and NOx

The assessment of air quality in the ES followed the guidance set out in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 1 ‘Air Quality’ (HA207/07) along with associated Interim Advice Notes (IANs). There is an IAN which has been specifically written to deal with emissions of future NO2 concentrations based on the latest scientific analysis of monitoring results and predicted changes to future vehicle fleets (IAN170/12 v3, Updated air quality advice on the assessment of future NOx and NO2 projections for users of DMRB).

The IAN was written in response to Defra’s analysis of long term trends in NOx and NO2 concentrations which noted that the reduction in NO2 concentrations stabilised between 2004 and 2010 with little or no reduction being seen. The consequence of this stabilisation in long term NO2 concentrations resulted in a gap between the current projected vehicle emission reduction and projections on the annual rate of improvements in ambient air quality as previously published by Defra.

Note (Continued) Page 2 of 5

Figure 1 Long Term Roadside NO2 profile (source Defra Trends in NOx and NO2 emissions and ambient measurements in the UK 2011)

Due to this gap between the observed reduction and anticipated improvements in the Emission Factors Toolkit (EFT) Highways England produced IAN 170/12 v3. This contains the gap analysis methodology for predicting future year NO2 concentrations based on a pessimistic assumption of future vehicle fleet technology improvements.

The IAN 170/12 v3 notes that the long term trends (LTT) factors based on emerging evidence may be too pessimistic. As such a revised set of projection factors was provided to take into account the expected improvements in ambient air quality as a result of Euro VI/6 vehicles. These interim factors were provided in Note on HA’s Interim Alternative Long Term Annual Projection Factors (LTTE6) for Annual Mean NO2 and NOx concentrations between 2008 and 2030.

Chapter 8 of the ES in section 8.5.17 provides the justification for using the LTTE6 projection factors in the assessment of overall significance.

To reiterate this justification, it should be noted that the LTTE6 factors are not the most optimistic view of the benefits of Euro 6/VI vehicles. They do not include the benefits of Euro 6/VI vehicles having an immediate benefit upon emissions but are considered to represent likely improvements in the future. Highways England note that the LTT scenario is an ‘improbable outcome’ as it would imply a complete failure of the Euro 6/VI emission standards and any other subsequent standards.

The ES is required to assess the ‘likely’ impacts of a scheme. Therefore the LTTE6 emission factors were used to assess the impacts and significance of the scheme. Figure 2

Note (Continued) Page 3 of 5 shows how the LTTE6 factors compare with the pessimistic LTT trends and the optimistic ABE6 and EFT trends. Highways England recognise the difficulty in precisely defining the LTTE6 trend line on a timescale as far away as 2030 and they note this information will be updated based on any new evidence on the performance of Euro 6/VI vehicles and their penetration into the fleet.

Figure 2 Rate of change in modelled NO2 concentrations

1.10

1.00

0.90 LTT

0.80

0.70 LTTE6

0.60

0.50 ABE6 0.40

0.30 EFT v5.2c

0.20

0.10

0.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2008 EFT v5.2c Assumed Benefits from Euro 6 Vehicles only LTT Midpoint

Early testing of Euro 6/VI vehicles indicates there is evidence for improvements compared with Euro 5 vehicles1. The improvements in Euro 6/VI vehicles from early testing indicate the Highways England LTTE6 factors would be representative of the expected improvements.

Therefore the information used in the assessment represents the best available information at the time of writing based on the most up to date research and predictions for future fleet improvements.

Application of alternative long term trend factors to the ES results

As required in the IAN 170/12 v3 both the Defra factors (optimistic Euro 6/VI improvements) and the factors chosen for assessment of significance which in this case were the LTTE6 (realistic Euro 6/VI improvements) factors as discussed, were presented in the ES.

1 APRIL (Air Pollution Research in London) Transport Group meeting 24th February 2015, Emission Analytics, Imperial College London, PEMS measurements of Euro 6 diesel car exhaust emissions & comparison with COPERT

Note (Continued) Page 4 of 5

Not presented in the ES are results of sensitivity analysis undertaken using the LTT (pessimistic Euro 6/VI improvements). As described above the LTTE6 trend is the most appropriate to be used. However the assessment results were calculated using the LTT to check if any significant impacts would occur in this most pessimistic scenario.

The results of the LTT scenario sensitivity analysis indicated with the CHARM2 traffic data there would be no receptors predicted to exceed the air quality objectives with the scheme in place in 2020 or 2035. Therefore even with the more pessimistic results there would be no change to the overall conclusion of the ES.

This LTT sensitivity analysis was additionally carried out for C3A traffic data (see separate note on results of C3A air quality data). No change in conclusions would result between the ES and the findings using the C3A traffic data. No exceedances of the air quality objectives were predicted using the C3A traffic data and the most pessimistic LTT Euro 6/VI improvements.

Further sensitivity of long term trends requested by CCC

In discussion with the EHOs at CCC they indicated that they have observed the same trend in NO2 concentrations as observed across the rest of the UK, with only a marginal reduction in annual mean NO2 recorded over the past seven years. This trend is observed despite efforts to reduce NO2 concentrations by improving their bus fleet to include a higher proportion of Euro 5 vehicles. However as recorded in various tests Euro 5 vehicles did not reach the level of expected emission improvements in real world driving conditions. This coupled with local growth and narrow congested roads in the centre of Cambridge have resulted in continued exceedances of the annual mean objective for NO2.

Figure 3 Trends in annual mean NO2 concentrations measured at automatic monitoring sites (source CCC Annual Progress Report 2014)

Note (Continued) Page 5 of 5

The EHOs have questioned the impact if the Euro 6/VI vehicle improvements do not meet the expected emission levels during real world driving conditions as happened for the Euro 5 vehicles.

Keeping emission factors for 2035 the same as 2014 is the most pessimistic option available for assessing this. This is highly unlikely to provide a realistic set of results as it would assume no improvement results from the introduction of Euro 6/VI vehicles or any other air quality improvement measures over the following 20 years. Also this pessimistic option would go against the long term trends monitored in Cambridge where improvements in annual mean NO2 have followed national patterns.

As discussed in the Charm3A note2, screening of the traffic data did not result in many roads in the north of Cambridge being included in the affected road network. Therefore the impact upon air quality would be predicted to be negligible in most areas of north Cambridge and within the AQMA. Sensitivity testing has been undertaken by running the EFT with 2035 traffic flows based on 2014 emission rates.

The average ratio between the 2035 (based on 2030 EFT emissions) and 2014 emission rates in g/km/s using the Charm 2 traffic data is 1.9. Based on this highly pessimistic and unlikely scenario modelled receptors in the north of Cambridge would experience an increase in annual mean NO2 concentrations, however they would continue to be below the air quality objective in 2035. The impact on the Cambridge AQMA is still predicted to be negligible as this area is not included in the affected road network, which indicates that traffic changes in this area are not significant as a result of the scheme. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis using the most pessimistic assumptions still shows that the air quality impacts are not significant in the north Cambridge area.

Conclusion

The ES air quality chapter has used the IAN 170/12 v3 method to assess risk related to future predictions of NOx and NO2. The LTTE6 factors were used in the assessment. Based on emerging evidence this continues to represent the most realistic and ‘likely’ set of results for air quality.

Analysis of long term trends in Cambridge was undertaken. Annual mean NO2 trends have followed the national pattern with a stabilisation in the downward trend of concentrations over the past 7 years. Given this downward trend in concentrations, it would not be expected that over the following 20 year there would be no further decrease in concentrations. This is especially true following recent developments in air quality, which resulted in Defra being required to initiate a national plan to improve air quality over a quicker time frame than originally expected.

Sensitivity testing based on highly pessimistic assumptions has concluded there would be no exceedances at modelled receptors in the ES as a result of the A14 scheme. Additionally the scheme would continue to have a negligible impact upon the AQMA.

2 J2A, Charm 3A Air quality technical note – May 2015

J2A Note

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement

NOISE TECHNICAL NOTE

08 May 2015 Date

Authors/ Colin Cobbing, Peter Mumford Compiler

Subject Noise baseline data reported in the ES.

Introduction J2A met with officers of Cambridge City Council on the 30th April 2015 to discuss noise and air quality issues. This note addresses the action taken by J2A to provide further information about the baseline noise levels reported in the ES and, in particular, consider the differences between measured and calculated noise levels.

Comparison of measured and predicted noise levels

A baseline noise survey was undertaken to characterise the existing noise environment at receiver locations potentially affected by the proposed scheme. The baseline noise survey was reported in Appendix 14.2 of the ES.

Cambridge City Council has raised a query about the differences between the measured and predicted levels reported in Appendix 14.2 of the ES. Two tables are presented: Table 4.1 reports the baseline information for measured noise levels dominated by road traffic noise. Table 4.2 reports the information for ambient noise not dominated by road traffic noise.

Table 4.1 shows differences between measured and predicted levels for 6 measurement locations: 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Locations 8, 9 and 10 are most relevant to Cambridge City Council as these longer term measurement locations were located within the vicinity of the Cambridge Northern Bypass. At these three locations the differences between predicted and measured levels range between: 0.1 dB and 2.8 dB during the day and between -1.3 and -2.6 dB at night.

Table 4.1 highlights a significant difference at L1, which is a receptor at the outskirts of Brampton, in the vicinity of the existing A1 road. At this location the differences are -7.9 during the day and -12.5 at night.

It is worth noting that the purpose of the baseline noise survey was not to undertake a validation exercise for the CRTN method. The CRTN is a well validated method that predicts road traffic noise under specified downwind conditions. It is the official calculation method that is adopted within the DMRB. In addition it is a requirement of the National Policy Statement for national Networks that “the prediction of road traffic noise should be based on the method described in Calculation of Road Traffic Noise.”

The measured levels taken to characterise the existing noise environment represent ambient noise levels from all sources of noise, including road traffic noise, under the meteorological Note (Continued) Page 2 of 2 conditions prevailing during the time of the surveys. It is likely that the measured noise levels would have been influenced, if not dominated, by other sources of ambient noise. It follows therefore that the measured ambient noise levels cannot be used to check the validity of the predictions, with any degree of accuracy, which relate solely to road traffic noise under specific meteorological conditions.

At most of the locations dominated by road traffic noise there is reasonably good agreement between predicted and measured levels. However, at L1 the clear difference between the measured and predicted level was identified in the environmental statement. Paragraph 4.2.6 of the environmental statement explains that at L1:

“The measured noise levels are 8dB higher than predicted road noise level in the daytime and 12dB higher at night. The measurement location was close to trees and the meteorological data indicate that there was a west south westerly wind blowing during the survey, including a period of high wind speed up to 11m/s, which could have created additional noise due to the wind noise from vegetation and would have also elevated road traffic noise from A1. The lower predicted noise levels have therefore been used in this area as they would result in a worst case assessment.”

Notes

Project title A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Job number 233193-80

Meeting name and number Consultation with Local Authorities File reference 4-08

Location South Cambridgeshire Council, Cambourne Time and date 1.30 29 January 2014

Purpose of meeting Discuss air quality, noise and vibration assessments

Present Anita Lewis, Joe Dicks (Cambridge) Greg Kearney, Kenny Abere (S Cambs) Tony Lewis (Huntingdon) James Bellinger, David Hiller (Arup)

Apologies Vicky Whitelaw (Cambridge)

Circulation Those present Vicky Whitelaw (Cambridge) J2A DCO team

Action The following records the main points discussed in relation to noise, vibration and air quality assessments for the proposed A14 upgrade EIA 1. Noise and vibration 1.1 Traffic noise will be assessed according to DMRB – using noise mapping to identify changes in noise levels for do minimum and do something. 1.2 Construction noise will be assessed using the BS5228 ABC method. Include site compounds and access routes 1.3 Noise survey will combine continuous loggers at some locations recording over period of days with spot readings at critical times 1.4 Night time noise impacts to be assessed (as required by DMRB) 1.5 Ensure reference is made to all relevant current guidance – NPPF, etc 1.6 Suggested noise monitoring locations to be indicated on a map and DH circulated to meeting attendees for discussion and agreement. 1.7 Re-use of earlier (Ellington to Fen Ditton) EIA data was discussed. It AL was considered likely to be still valid, but traffic count data will be reviewed to see if there have been major changes since 2006. 1.8 ES to consider impacts on public realm/tranquil – locations to be AL/JD/GK/KA/TL

Prepared by David Hiller, James Bellinger Date of circulation 31 January 2014 Date of next meeting

M:\MANDELA5\DATA\A14 2014 PROPOSALS AND 2015 DOCUMENTATION ETC\DCO APPLICATION FOLDERS\NOTE OF MEETING WITH ARUP 29_01_14.DOCX

Arup | F0.5 Page 1 of 2

Notes

Project title Job number Date of Meeting A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon 233193-80 29 January 2014

Action advised by Local Authorities 1.9 Existing noise barrier at Orchard Park alongside A14 to north of Cambridge is alleged by residents to be causing noise to be reflected towards Impington. Need to be aware of sensitivities in this location. 1.10 Brampton is potentially a politically sensitive area, where it would be good to be seen to do a survey. Also Alconbury and caravan park (name/location to be advised) TL 1.11 Has new railway station trip generation been allowed for in the traffic DH flow data? Check with traffic modellers. Link to site giving new station details to be circulated GK 1.12 Consider impacts on confirmed development at Darwin Green (NIAB site) and at travellers’ site north of Cambridge. Also future development at Girton 1.13 Effects on wildlife – will be part of the ecology assessment 1.14 Vibration – no major concerns, but may be high tech industry to north of Cambridge, alongside A14 2. Air Quality 2.1 Contour mapping at specific locations of dense urban populations, has been requested by the councils, contour mapping to be carried out in northern Cambridge and Huntingdon was agreed. 2.2 Cambridge City council requested sensitivity analysis of future year reduction was carried out. Assume no future year reductions. 2.3 Requested sensitivity analysis of meteorological data – given the schemes wide coverage to remove room for questioning, three met stations should be considered – Mildenhall, Mareham and Wattersham. 2.4 Agreed ADMS – roads is appropriate.

2.5 PM10 monitoring should be added in order to inform current understanding of PM10 concentrations along the A14 north of Cambridge.

M:\MANDELA5\DATA\A14 2014 PROPOSALS AND 2015 DOCUMENTATION ETC\DCO APPLICATION FOLDERS\NOTE OF MEETING WITH ARUP 29_01_14.DOCX

Arup | F0.5 Page 2 of 2

TECHNICAL NOTE 1 A14 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REVIEW FORECASTED IMPACTS ON LOCAL ROAD NETWORK

IDENTIFICATION TABLE

Client/Project owner Cambridge County Council

Project A14 Traffic Assessment Review

Title of Document Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network

Type of Document Technical Note 1

Date 12/06/2015

Reference number 103176

Number of pages 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 BACKGROUND 3

1.2 SYSTRA INVOLVEMENT 3

2. BACKGROUND TO CHARM2 4

2.2 CSRM AND CHARM2 COMPATIBILITY 4

3. CHARM2 BASE YEAR MODEL 4

3.1 OVERVIEW 4

3.2 GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT OF CHARM2 5

3.3 MODEL ZONES 5

3.4 MODEL NETWORK 6

3.5 VALIDATION AND CALIBRATION 6

3.6 FORECASTED IMPACTS 8

4. AREA ASSESSMENTS 10

4.1 APPROACH TO AREA ASSESSMENTS 10

4.2 AREA 1: ALCONBURY, LITTLE STUKELEY, GREAT STUKELEY 13

4.3 AREA 2: HUNTINGDON, BRAMPTON, HARTFORD AND GODMANCHESTER 15

4.4 AREA 3: HOUGHTON, WYTON, ST IVES, HEMINGFORD, FENSTANTON AND FEN DRAYTON 21 Registered Office SYSTRA Ltd, Dukes Court, Duke Street, Woking, Surrey, GU21 5BH. Registered Number 3383212 Page 1/45 4.5 AREA 4: SWAVESEY, OVER 24

4.6 AREA 5: ELSWORTH, BOXWORTH AND KNAPWELL 25

4.7 AREA 6: PAPWORTH EVERARD AND HILTON 28

4.8 AREA 7: BAR HILL, LONGSTANTON, WILLINGHAM, OAKINGTON AND NORTHSTOWE 31

4.9 AREA 8: DRY DRAYTON AND MADINGLEY 34

4.10 AREA 9: GIRTON, HISTON AND IMPINGTON, COTTENHAM AND MILTON 38

4.11 AREAS 10: CAMBRIDGE 40

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 2/45 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 SYSTRA Ltd has been commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) to provide support on the transport modelling and to review the traffic assessment work for the A14 Cambridge – Huntingdon Improvement Scheme.

1.1.2 Highways England (HE) has submitted a Development Consent Order (DCO) application for a £1.5bn scheme to improve the A14 Trunk Road between Huntingdon and Cambridge, over approximately 25 miles. The scheme is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and is expected to relieve congestion on one of the busiest stretches of the strategic road network between the West Midlands and the east coast ports. It will also enable local businesses to operate more effectively, and allow a number of major residential developments to proceed.

1.1.3 The scheme is supported by Cambridgeshire County Council, but as it is expected to have considerable impacts on the local road network, they need to have confidence that the transport modelling underpinning the application is robust.

1.1.4 The transport modelling was undertaken by the consultants Jacobs, Arup and Aecom (J2A) using the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model 2 (CHARM2).

1.2 SYSTRA involvement

1.2.1 SYSTRA have been appointed by Cambridgeshire County Council to review relevant DCO transport modelling documentation and provide advice to the council to assist them in making a representation to the DCO examination process.

1.2.2 The purpose of the review is to identify whether the modelling presented as part of the application accurately represents local network conditions and is capable of producing robust and reliable forecasts for the local highway network. The modelling has been undertaken using the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model (CHARM2). This is a SATURN highway model, validated to a base year of 2014.

1.2.3 SYSTRA have been commissioned to review the following notes:

 CHARM2 Local Highway Model Validation Report (dated 5th November 2014);  Forecasting Report (dated 17th November 2014).

1.2.4 The review of the above documents, along with analysis of the model files, also identifies the requirement for any additional modelling, sensitivity tests, or further explanatory work which is required from Highways England and their consultants in order to provide reassurance that the potential local highway impacts of the A14 scheme have been accurately assessed and mitigated.

1.2.5 This note, Technical Note 01, presents a summary of the projected impacts on the highway network. The performance of the base year model and the forecasted impacts were assessed by grouping the model into ten sub areas based on key population centres and key roads.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 3/45 2. BACKGROUND TO CHARM2

2.1.1 The Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model (CHARM) is the highway element of the Cambridge Sub Regional Model (CSRM) suite. Since the CSRM suite has a base year of 2006 and the CHARM model is validated to 2006, it was not considered to be the most appropriate and robust tool for undertaking the A14 assessment.

2.1.2 Updates to the CHARM model (CHARM1 and CHARM2) have therefore been undertaken by J2A, acting on behalf of Highways England, in order to create a robust model capable of assessing the A14 scheme. A Present Year Validation exercise was undertaken on CHARM in 2011 (CHARM1). This highway model was subsequently used for the A14 Scheme Design Freeze 1 and 2. The CHARM1 model however was not WebTAG compliant which prompted the development of an updated highway model with a base year of 2014 (CHARM2). This CHARM2 model has been taken forward and used to forecast the highway impact of the proposed A14 scheme.

2.2 CSRM and CHARM2 Compatibility

2.2.1 We note that no improvements to the CSRM have been made during the transport modelling for this application and the LMVR acknowledges that the CHARM2 highway model is now ‘out-of-step’ with the CSRM (para 4.13.1). Any forecasting undertaken in the CSRM will therefore not take account of the improvements made to the highway network or matrices during the CHARM1 or CHARM2 upgrades.

2.2.2 The inclusion of the changes to the wider CSRM suite will involve a significant amount of work. Whilst Highways England and their consultants have overcome this issue for the A14 assessment it is advised that these changes are reviewed and incorporated into the wider CSRM suite before significant further use of the model. 3. CHARM2 BASE YEAR MODEL

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 CHARM2 is a SATURN highway model with a base year of 2014. It has been developed in SATURN v11.3.03 and possesses the following characteristics:

 Geographical coverage extending from east Cambridge to the A1//A14 junction west of Huntingdon (depicted in Figure 1)  384 zones  Three time periods:

 AM Peak: 08:00 – 09:00  Inter Peak: average hour 11:00 – 16:00  PM Peak: 17:00 – 18:00

 Pre-peak hour modelling which allows queues to be passed to the start of the peak hour.  Four user classes:

 Cars with non-business purposes (1 car = 1 pcu)  Cars on business (1 car = 1 pcu)  LGVs (1 LGV = 1 pcu)

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 4/45  HGVs (1 HGV = 2.3 pcus)

 Generalised costs, values of time and vehicle operating costs calculated using the Jan 2014 edition of the WebTAG databook.

3.1.2 A significant amount of new data was obtained for the development of CHARM2. The matrices for the model were generated from mobile phone data, ANPR data and a mixture of Automatic Traffic Counts and Classified Turning Counts from 2014 were used during the calibration and validation processes of CHARM2. In addition, observed journey times were collected for five routes using data from TomTom in 2013.

3.2 Geographical Extent of CHARM2

3.2.1 Section 4.1 of the LMVR describes the extent of the modelled area. The model covers all of the villages and towns along the A14 corridor. The majority of the villages and towns (including Huntingdon, Brampton, Godmanchester and St Ives) are contained in the Area of Detailed Modelling and as such are represented with detailed junction coding.

Figure 1. CHARM2 Geographical Area

3.3 Model Zones

3.3.1 Section 4.2 of the LMVR summarises the creation of the CHARM2 zone system. The zone system is broadly consistent with CHARM and CHARM1 however it is noted that several large zones have been disaggregated into smaller zones. The approach adopted to disaggregation and the resultant 384 CHARM2 zone system appears reasonable.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 5/45 3.3.2 A GIS based zone plan and base year demand matrices have been provided to CCC by Highways England. Whilst the review of the zone plan indicates the size of zones and the level of disaggregation appears sensible, there are apparent anomalies in the demand going into and out of some zones which have possibly occurred due to the process of creating the matrices through mobile phone data.

3.3.3 We have undertaken a series of logic checks on the base year matrices and examined the geographical distribution of demand. This process identified a series of zones where the generations appear to misrepresent the impact on the local road network. It is envisaged that the Local Impact Testing will examine these anomalies on the local road network. The key issues that the Local Impact Testing will address include;

 The use of median rather than mean journey times and the resulting underestimation of congestion and delay on the A14;  The zoning anomalies and the resulting lack of trips on parts of the local road network; and  The erroneous schemes within the City of Cambridge;

3.3.4 The Local Impact Testing is due to report the examining authority on the 3rd of August.

3.4 Model Network

3.4.1 The network coverage across the local area appears sensible. In addition to the strategic road network, the model includes all A-Roads, B-Roads, key residential roads and main unclassified routes including known rat-runs. The coding of any non-strategic likely vehicle routes has been reviewed and enhancements made to the network around St Ives, Cottenham, Fen Drayton, Swavesey, Oakington and Landbeach. We note that junctions within the Fully Modelled Area have been modelled in detail and external areas coded as buffer. This is standard practice and considered acceptable.

3.4.2 During the development of CHARM2 the network outside of Cambridge was reviewed by Highways England’s consultants (J2A) and coding was adjusted in line with a standard coding manual. We understand from J2A that the coding within Cambridge City has not been altered and reflects the coding contained in CSRM.

3.4.3 The model uses speed flow curves on all links within the model with the exception of the urban areas of Cambridge, Huntington, Brampton and Godmanchester where the fixed speeds have been applied. Speed flow curves mimic the reduction in link speeds expected to occur as traffic flow increases. The characteristics of the road determine the nature of the speed flow and it is common for a model to have different speed flow curves for different types of road.

3.5 Validation and Calibration

3.5.1 The DfT guidelines for the calibration and validation of highway models are based on those laid out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 12, Section 2, Part 1, Chapter 4. In respect of the count comparisons presented in this section, there are two separate sets of criteria against which the counts and modelled flow comparisons should be measured these are GEH and DMRB. In both cases the criteria are expected to be met in 85% of cases.

3.5.2 As per WebTAG Unit 3.19, link flows that meet either of the two specific criterion should be

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 6/45 regarded as satisfactory. This allows links where only one of the criteria has been met to be considered acceptable for overall flow validation purposes. As a result we have concentrated on a combined statistic for this assessment which identifies links where either of the criteria is achieved.

3.5.3 WebTAG recommends that a separate set of counts are omitted from the calibration process with the intention of being used for independent validation. This independent comparison provides confidence that the model replicates the flows across the network. It also instils confidence that the trips within the model have not been altered in a manner which unrealistically skews their attributes, in order to produce the required calibration flows.

3.5.4 Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the location of counts used in the calibration and validation processes, and the performance of these counts. Green lines indicate locations where model meets calibration and validation criteria. Red lines indicate locations where the model does not meet either DMRB or GEH criteria and the modelled flow exceeds the observed flow. Blue lines indicate locations where the model does not meet either DMRB or GEH criteria and the modelled flow is below the observed flow.

3.5.5 Individual link validation for the whole of CHARM2 is reported in Table 11.3 of the J2A Local Model Validation Report (LMVR). This demonstrates that, 64% of the morning peak counts meet WebTAG criteria. The inter peak (75%) and evening peak (71%) performance is better. However, the performance of all peaks fall short of the WebTAG acceptability guideline of 85%.

3.5.6 There is an absence of counts within the urban areas of Huntingdon, Cambridge City and St Ives. The performance of the model in these areas is consequently difficult to objectively determine.

Figure 2. Performance of Counts – Morning Peak

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 7/45 Figure 3. Performance of Counts – Evening Peak

3.6 Forecasted Impacts

3.6.1 The Traffic Model includes assessment of the impacts of the proposed scheme in 2020 (the opening year) and 2035. For the purposes of this analysis the impact of the proposed scheme was reviewed in 2035 for the AM and PM peaks. This is because 2035 is considered to be the worst case scenario.

3.6.2 The Do Minimum (DM) Scenario was compared against the Do Something Plus (DS+) Scenario which included the proposed A14 scheme an also Phase 2 of the Northstowe development near Longstanton.

3.6.3 Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the flow changes between the 2035 DM and 2035 DS+ scenarios for the morning and evening peaks. The blue lines indicate a reduction in flow and the red lines represent an increase in traffic flow.

3.6.4 In both peaks there is a clear reduction in traffic along the de-trunked A14 through Huntingdon and some smaller reductions along parallel routes to the A14 such as the A1123. There is a corresponding increase in traffic along the new A14 and along the A1 between Brampton and Alconbury. This area wide analysis suggests that the impact on the local road network is limited and the majority of traffic diversion forecast to occur is associated with the direct transference of trips from the existing A14 to the new road.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 8/45 Figure 4. Flow Changes 2035 DM v 2035 DS+ Scenarios – Morning Peak

Figure 5. Flow Change 2035 DM and 2035 DS+ Scenarios – Evening Peak

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 9/45 4. AREA ASSESSMENTS

4.1 Approach to Area Assessments

4.1.1 The performance of the base year model and forecasted impacts of the scheme were assessed by dividing the model into ten sub areas based on key population centres. These areas, shown in Figure 5, were agreed with Cambridgeshire County Council and form the basis of this review.

4.1.2 The sub areas, shown in Figure 5 include:

 Area 1: Alconbury, Little Stukeley, Great Stukeley;  Area 2: Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester;  Area 3: Houghton, Wyton, St Ives, Hemingford, Fenstanton and Fen Drayton;  Area 4: Swavesey, Over;  Area 5: Elsworth, Boxworth, Knapwell;  Area 6:Papworth Everard, Hilton;  Area 7: Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willingham, Oakington and Northstowe;  Area 8: Dry Drayton, Madingley;  Area 9: Girton, Histon and Impington, Cottenham, Milton;  Area 10: Cambridge

Figure 6. Sub areas based on population centres

4.1.3 The counts used in CHARM2 were plotted in GIS and assigned to one of the 10 sub areas. Counts along the strategic highway network have been omitted from the analysis as these have been seen to validate and the scope of this review is to examine the performance of the local highway network.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 10/45 4.1.4 Although WebTAG acceptability guidelines state that > 85% of sites have to meet the DMRB or GEH criteria, for the purposes of this review it was decided that if >70% of sites matched this would be an acceptable level of validation as it is difficult for all model flows to match the count data in all areas.

4.1.5 The performance of the base year model and the forecasted impacts on each area were considered together and comparisons were made to identify areas of high and low impact. The level of impact was based on how well the area validated and the forecasted impacts of the scheme based on model flow change in each area. High impact areas were considered to have large changes in traffic flow. Areas were considered low impact if they had few flow changes. The impact was rated on a scale of 1 to 11, with 11 representing the highest impact and 1 representing the lowest.

4.1.6 A summary of this predominantly subjective analysis is shown in the graphs below for morning and evening peaks.

4.1.7 The above graphs help in identifying the most sensitive areas. The upper right quadrant of the graph shows locations which have good validation but significant forecasted traffic impacts. The upper left quadrant shows locations with poor validation and significant forecasted traffic impacts. These are areas which are considered areas for more detailed consideration. The lower left quadrant contains locations which have below acceptable validation but minimal forecasted traffic impacts. The lower right quadrant shows areas which have good validation and minimal forecasted impacts..

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 11/45 4.1.8 Areas which have acceptable validation and high levels of impact a result of the scheme include:

 Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willington and Oakington and Northstowe  Dry Drayton, Madingley

4.1.9 The following areas have acceptable validation and low levels of impact as a result of the scheme:

 Alconbury, Great Stukeley and Little Stukeley  Houghton, Wyton, St Ives, Hemingford Fenstanton and Fen Drayton  Papworth Everard, Hilton

4.1.10 The following areas have below acceptable validation and high levels of impact of the scheme as a result of the A14 scheme:

 Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester  Cambridge

4.1.11 The following areas have below acceptable validation but are forecast to have low levels of impact as a result of the A14 scheme:

 Swavesey, Over  Girton, Histon and Impington, Cottenham and Milton  Elsworth, Boxworth, Knapwell

4.1.12 The following sections provide more detail on each area. Traffic flows on local roads in and around each area have been extracted from CHARM2 for the 2014 Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something+ scenarios. The following sections present an overview of:

 the level of 2014 base year validation in each area  flow changes between the 2014 Base Year and 2035 Do Minimum (representing a situation which would occur regardless of the A14 scheme)  flow changes between the Do Minimum and Do Something+ scenarios. This shows the impact of the scheme and the additional Northstowe traffic generations.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 12/45 4.2 Area 1: Alconbury, Little Stukeley, Great Stukeley

Base Year Validation

4.2.1 Table 1 shows the validation performance for Area 1 in the morning and evening peaks. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 1. Area 1 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 12 12

Validation Level 83% 75%

4.2.2 In the Alconbury, Little Stukeley and Great Stukeley sub area 12 validation counts were used in the validation process. This is a reasonable number of counts for this area, as it is relatively small.

4.2.3 The morning and evening peak validation is below the 85% threshold but above 70%. Whilst the area does not meet the DfT criteria the model is considered to have a generally good correlation with observed flows for this sub area and therefore the model can be assumed to reasonably represent traffic flow conditions in this area.

Forecast Impacts

4.2.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 1 is shown in Table 2. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 7.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 13/45 Figure 7. Area 1 Traffic Flow Locations

Table 2. Area 1 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound -1,606 -1,815 446 889 A14, North of Spittals A1.1 Roundabout Southbound -1,281 -1,633 933 687

Northbound 22 36 -140 143 Ermine Street, South of Great A1.2 Stukeley Southbound -30 -28 110 -63

4.2.5 There is forecast to be a significant reduction in traffic along the A1 spur in both peaks and a corresponding increase in traffic along the mainline A1. This is a logical movement and a direct impact of the scheme as one of the objectives is to move traffic away from the de- trunked A14 through Huntingdon onto the new route of the A14.

4.2.6 There is little change in traffic flow along Ermine Street between the DM and DS+ scenarios. Where flow changes do occur they are less than 50 movements and are local vehicles from Alconbury. This indicates that the A14 scheme has little impact on Ermine Street. The traffic flow changes between the Base and the Do Minimum are, however, more pronounced as the Alconbury development and associated mitigation removes strategic traffic from Ermine Street. The flow changes shown south of Great Stukeley are a consequence of the extra development at Alconbury which contributes to the increases in southbound traffic in the

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 14/45 morning peak and northbound traffic in the evening peak.

4.3 Area 2: Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester

Base Year Validation

4.3.1 Table 3 shows the validation performance for Area 2 in the morning and evening peaks. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 3. Area 2 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 47 47

Validation Level 43% 40%

4.3.2 A total of 47 validation counts were used in the validation process which is a reasonable number of counts considering the size of this area. However, as Figures 2 and 3 indicate, there are few counts on the local roads which are likely to be significantly affected by the proposals.

4.3.3 The morning and evening peak validation is significantly below the 85% threshold and is also below 70%. This means that the model does not correlate well with observed flows within this area.

Forecast Impacts

4.3.4 The impact of the A14 scheme is likely to differ across the area and consequently this section provides an overview of the forecasted impacts on Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester separately. The roads selected for the analysis are shown in Figure 8.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 15/45 Figure 8. Area 2: Traffic Flow Locations

Huntingdon

4.3.5 The results of the analysis undertaken in Huntingdon are presented in Table 4. This indicates the de-trunked A14 through Huntingdon, there is forecast to be a significant reduction in traffic. This is a direct result of the scheme as traffic moves from the existing A14 to the proposed scheme.

4.3.6 The modelling indicates that the removal of strategic traffic from Spittals roundabout and A14 alters the routings of local traffic and makes the A141 a more attractive route for local Huntingdon and Brampton traffic. Local traffic on the A141 and connecting roads consequently increases and replaces the strategic traffic which moves off the road. This results in little overall net change.

4.3.7 Comparisons to the base year flows indicate a significant increase in traffic flow along Stukeley Road and St Peters Road compared to the existing situation as a result of the additional traffic generated by the Alconbury development which use Stukeley Road to access Huntingdon.

4.3.1 The introduction of Edison Bell Way in the Do Minimum scenario is forecast to draw more traffic onto Brampton Road in both peaks compared to the 2014 base year but reduce traffic flow using the Huntingdon Inner Ring Road.

4.3.2 With the A14 scheme in place there is forecast to be a general reduction in traffic flow along Brampton Road (west of Hinchingbrooke) in both peaks. The A14 scheme is forecast to reduce congestion at Spittals Roundabout which in turn encourages local traffic to move away from Brampton Road and back onto the de-trunked A14 and A141.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 16/45 4.3.3 Between Hinchingbrooke and Edison Bell Way there is forecast to be an overall increase in eastbound traffic along Brampton Road in the morning peak. This increase is caused by the addition of Views Commons Link which provides an alternative route into Huntingdon and Brampton for local traffic and consequently draws local traffic onto this section of Brampton Road in both peaks. In the morning peak the volume of traffic drawn to Brampton Road is greater than the reductions from the local traffic moving to A14 and A141 and consequently there is an overall increase in trips.

4.3.4 The transport modelling forecasts a significant reduction in traffic in the heart of Huntingdon, as local traffic uses more direct routes, particularly the de-trunked A14 and A141.

Table 4. Area 2 Traffic Flow Changes in Huntingdon

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY v 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound 85 126 -54 -314 A2.1 A141, East of Spittals Roundabout Westbound 26 -179 -185 268

Northbound 119 -105 300 532 A2.2 Stukeley Road Southbound -43 202 303 102

Northbound -11 -17 55 289 A2.3 St Peter's Road Southbound 39 3 234 112

Northbound -3,732 -3,033 625 440 A2.4 A14, South of Spittals Roundabout Southbound -2,524 -3,111 577 556

Eastbound 313 -196 201 661 A2.5 B1514 Brampton Road, west of Edison Bell Way Westbound -63 -98 256 360

A2.6 B1513 Nursery Road Eastbound -270 -290 135 193

Eastbound -2,645 -2,661 577 587 A2.7 A14 River Great Ouse Bridge Westbound -2,639 -2,731 625 440

Eastbound -117 -238 -69 24 A2.8 B1514 Brampton Road, East of Edison Bell Way Westbound -621 -595 -42 50

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 17/45 Observation: Inter-Peak flows along de-trunked A14

4.3.5 A series of investigations were undertaken to identify where strategic and local traffic was routing through and around Huntingdon with the scheme in place. One such route was for traffic travelling between the A1(M) to the north of the A1(M)/A14 junction at Alconbury and A14 junction near Buckingway Business Park.

4.3.6 In the morning and evening peaks there is a clear shift of strategic traffic onto the Huntingdon Southern Bypass. However the inter peak shows that there is forecast to be a similar level of traffic on the de-trunked A14 as on the Huntingdon Southern Bypass. Subsequent information provided by J2A in Technical Note 64 indicates that this issue is related to the absence of a HGV penalties through Huntingdon in the DS+ networks, which allowed HGVs to use roads which should be restricted. We have been advised by J2A that this issue has been rectified in CHARM3A.

Brampton

4.3.7 Table 5 presents the traffic flow changes along four roads in Brampton. The modelling indicates that there is forecast to be a significant increase along High Street within Brampton as a result of the scheme. This is partly due to traffic from Brampton Park using the High Street to access the A14 (and subsequently the A141 or the A1) at the Brampton Racecourse interchange. In addition to this local rerouting, around 100 movements originating from the A1 south and destined for north-west Huntingdon, route along High Street. The route though Brampton becomes more attractive in the Do Something+ scenario due to changes to the layout of the A1/Brampton Road junction.

4.3.8 There is forecast to be significant reductions in traffic flow along the B1514 Huntingdon Road, Thrapston Road and Buckden Road in the majority of the peak hours as a result of the scheme. In both peaks this reduction is due to local Brampton and Huntingdon traffic moving onto, or staying on, the de-trunked A14 and Spittals Way as a result of reduced delays along this route (at Spittals roundabout in particular). The exceptions to this are small increases in westbound traffic on Thrapston Road and northbound on Buckden Road in the morning peak, due to minor rerouting of local traffic.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 18/45 Table 5. Area 2 Traffic Flow Changes in Brampton

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound -282 -267 43 224 A2.9 B1514 Thrapston Road Westbound 122 -47 57 -123

Eastbound 87 97 -5 -30 A2.10 Brampton High Street Westbound 194 170 7 -24

Northbound 7 -11 69 27 A2.11 B1514 Buckden Road Southbound -122 -265 -51 86

Eastbound -465 -472 120 401 A2.12 B1514 Huntingdon Road Westbound -333 -618 82 200

Hartford

4.3.9 Table 6 presents the traffic flow changes in Hartford. The flow changes along the A141 and the B1514 Hartford Road are small with the scheme in place. Compared to the 2014 base there are significant increases in traffic through this area indicating growth.

Table 6. Area 2 Traffic Flow Changes in Hartford

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound 0 -2 205 73 A2.13 B1514 Hartford Road Westbound 24 -11 197 230

Eastbound 43 26 225 67 A2.14 A141, North of Hartford Westbound 49 61 155 240

Northbound 0 -2 205 73 A2.15 A141, South of B1090 Southbound 24 -11 197 230

Godmanchester

4.3.10 Table 7 presents the traffic flow changes in Godmanchester. This indicates that there will be a significant reduction in strategic traffic using the de-trunked A14 as this traffic switches to the Huntingdon Southern Bypass. Furthermore, the addition of another route into Huntingdon via Views Commons Link reduces the amount of local traffic expected to use the Avenue and Cambridge Road.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 19/45 4.3.11 An increase in traffic travelling westbound along B1043 West Street is forecast to occur once the A14 scheme is in place. Approximately 150 movements originating from the Huntingdon and Hartford area are forecast to use the road to access the A1 south at Buckden. This is due to the increased capacity and reduced delays along the inner ring road through Huntingdon which makes the route marginally more attractive than alternative routes. Whilst we consider this to be an anomaly arising within the modelling, we advise that the traffic levels along this road are monitored by Highways England.

Table 7. Area 2 Traffic Flow Changes in Godmanchester

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound -608 -651 301 338 A2.16 B1044 The Avenue Southbound -29 -89 63 117

Eastbound 10 -154 65 363 A2.17 B1043 West Street Westbound 122 175 50 32

Eastbound -21 -131 66 92 A2.18 B1044 Cambridge Road Westbound -267 -386 10 97

Eastbound -2,113 -2,489 526 671 A2.19 A14, East of Godmanchester Westbound -2,316 -2,389 381 226

Buckden and The Offords

4.3.12 Traffic flow changes in Buckden, Offord Cluny and Offord D’Arcy are presented in Table 8.

4.3.13 The A14 scheme is forecasted to result in a significant reduction traffic along Mill Road in the evening peak. Without the scheme (DM scenario) strategic traffic is forecast to avoid the A14 by travelling through Buckden, Offord Cluny and Offord D’Arcy in order to access the A428. The road is also used as an alternative access to Godmanchester and Huntingdon for local traffic.

4.3.14 The large reduction in the Do Something+ scenario is a combination of the local Godmanchester and Huntingdon traffic moving back onto the de-trunked A14 and also strategic traffic moving using the new A14 scheme.

4.3.15 The traffic modelling forecasts an increase in southbound traffic along the B1043 through Offord Cluny. Approximately 150 movements originating from the Huntingdon and Hartford area are forecast to use the road to access the A1 south at Buckden. This is due to the increased capacity and reduced delays along the inner ring road through Huntingdon which makes the route marginally more attractive than alternative routes. Whilst we consider this to be an anomaly arising within the modelling, we advise that the traffic levels along this road are monitored by Highways England.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 20/45 Table 8. Area 2 Traffic Flow Changes in Buckden and The Offords

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound -86 -399 18 382 A2.20 Mill Road Westbound 2 56 136 77

Northbound 10 -154 65 363 A2.21 B1043, North of Offord Cluny Southbound 122 175 50 32

Northbound 76 -21 77 354 A2.22 B1043 Paxton Road Southbound -6 67 72 46

4.4 Area 3: Houghton, Wyton, St Ives, Hemingford, Fenstanton and Fen Drayton

Base Year Validation

4.4.1 An overview of the validation performance of Area 3 is presented in Table 9. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 9. Area 3 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 25 25

Validation Level 76% 84%

4.4.2 Table 9 shows that 25 validation counts were utilised in Area 3. Although this is a good number of counts for an area of this size it should be noted that there are no counts within, or around, St Ives. This makes it difficult to assess the performance of the model in St Ives.

4.4.3 The validation in both peaks falls short of the 85% DfT threshold but is above 70%. Therefore, although the counts do not meet the DFT criteria the model has a good correlation with observed conditions for this area.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 21/45 Forecast Impacts

4.4.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 3 is shown in Table 10. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Area 3 Traffic Flow Locations

4.4.5 Table 10 indicates that traffic flow changes as a result of the scheme are generally minimal across Area 3. The largest change occurs on the de-trunked A14 which is forecast to experience a net reduction in traffic as strategic movements move onto the new A14 alignment. The lower traffic flows along this section of the A14 increases the ability of local traffic from side roads to join the A14 and consequently draws traffic onto The A1096 London Road (A3.5). This traffic previously routed through Fenstanton (A3.10) to access the A1.

4.4.6 The modelling forecasts that the scheme will result in an increase in traffic along Cambridge Road (A3.7) however the coding of the scheme in this area within CHARM2 is based on a previous version the scheme design and the model represents the Cambridge Road/A14 junction as an all movements junction rather than a set of on/off slip roads. The modelled flows are therefore unrepresentative of the likely impacts of the current scheme at this particular location. We understand that this anomaly has been identified and rectified in subsequent modelling (CHARM3A).

4.4.7 There is forecast to be minimal impact on traffic flows within St Ives, which is surprising as anecdotal evidence suggests that local traffic uses the route through St Ives as a rat run to avoid the congestion the A14. With the relief in the congestion as a result of the A14 scheme this traffic would divert back onto the main road network.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 22/45 Table 10. Area 3 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound -18 -26 94 36 A3.1 A1123 Huntingdon Road Westbound -17 -61 71 93

Northbound 18 28 61 9 A3.2 Sawtry Way Southbound -7 0 24 95

Eastbound -61 -61 -14 -16 A3.3 A1123, North of Needingworth Westbound -24 -56 -42 72

Eastbound -68 -55 111 143 A3.4 A1123 Houghton Road Westbound -43 -61 129 76

Northbound 6 -6 231 100 A3.5 A1096 London Road Southbound 0 28 25 321

Eastbound -2,169 -2,471 560 584 A3.6 A14, West of A1096 Westbound -2,342 -2,422 423 258

Northbound 20 61 -17 -14 A3.7 Cambridge Road Southbound 357 387 -13 0

Eastbound -2,205 -2,450 515 821 A3.8 A14, East of Fen Drayton Westbound -2,566 -2,488 507 178

Eastbound -6 -40 2 98 A3.9 St Ives Road Westbound -57 -18 12 -13

Eastbound -46 -146 44 367 A3.10 High Street, Fenstanton Westbound -113 -191 123 60

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 23/45 4.5 Area 4: Swavesey, Over

Base Year Validation

4.5.1 The base year validation performance for Area 4 is shown in Table 11. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 11. Area 4 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 14 14

Validation Level 50% 57%

4.5.2 In both the morning and evening peaks, a total of 14 counts were used in Area 4. This is a good number of counts for an area of this size.

4.5.3 The morning and evening peak validation is significantly below the 85% DfT threshold and also below the 70% level considered acceptable for this assessment. This means that the model does not correlate well with observed flows within this area.

Forecast Impacts

4.5.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 4 is shown in Table 12. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Area 4 Traffic Flow Locations

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 24/45 4.5.5 The forecast impacts of the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge scheme on the Swavesey and Over sub area is presented in Table 12. This shows that the A14 scheme does not have a significant impact on the flows north of Swavesey (A4.1 and A4.4). However, significant changes are forecast along Ramper Road (A4.2) and Buckingway Road (A4.3) in both peaks. These increases are primarily due to the addition of the Northstowe development which is forecast to add approximately 500 two-way trips to Ramper Road and approximately 300 two-way trips to Buckingway Road. The distribution of the Northstowe development, and the impact on the local highway network, is described further in Section 4.8.

Table 12. Area 4 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound 6 -9 -3 47 A4.1 Station Road Southbound -6 14 46 6

Eastbound -54 -125 202 347 A4.2 Ramper Road Westbound 117 36 86 138

Northbound 95 79 102 147 A4.3 Buckingway Road Southbound 81 66 -47 -28

Northbound 21 -3 9 20 A4.4 Longstanton Road Southbound 25 14 29 29

4.6 Area 5: Elsworth, Boxworth and Knapwell

Base Year Validation

4.6.1 The validation performance of Area 5 is shown in Table 13 for the morning and evening peaks. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 13. Area 5 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 4 4

Validation Level 50% 50%

4.6.2 For the morning and evening peaks Area 5 contains just 4 validation counts. This is a small number of counts, however, the area is rural with few roads therefore this levels of count data is sufficient for the purposes of validating the strategic model.

4.6.3 Morning and evening peak validation is significantly below the 85% threshold and is also below 70%. However, the counts that do not match are located at the access to the Boxworth service station and it is difficult for a model to match counts at such locations.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 25/45 Forecast Impacts

4.6.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 5 is shown in Table 14. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11. Area 5 Traffic Flow Locations

4.6.5 There is forecast to be significant changes in flows between the 2014 base year and 2035 Do Minimum scenarios, particular in the evening peak. These changes arise from planned infrastructure changes and trip growth in the area and are not a result of the A14 scheme.

4.6.6 The most significant increases in flow between the base year and Do Minimum occur as a result of extra trips generated by the developments south of the A428 and strategic traffic seeking to avoid congestion along the A14 by routing though this area to access the A42. This rat-runing is illustrated in Figure 12 which shows the route taken by eastbound traffic passing point A and point B. The increases in flow through Elsworth (A5.2 and A5.3) arise due to significant delay at the Caxton Gibbet roundabout on the A428 (shown by the red circle) which prompts traffic to avoid this junction and travel along more minor routes to access the A428.

4.6.7 The introduction of the A14 scheme has a positive impact on flows compared to the Do Minimum. It provides an alternative route for trips which avoid the A14 in the Do Minimum resulting in an overall net reduction in flow along High Street (A5.2), Brockley Road (A5.3) and Connington Road (A5.5) between Do Minimum and Do Something+ scenarios.

4.6.8 The scheme is forecast to have minimal impact on flows along Elsworth Road (A5.1) and High Street, Boxworth (A5.4).

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 26/45 Figure 12. Area 5 Traffic passing through Elsworth

Table 14. Area 5 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound 20 -63 80 120 A5.1 Elsworth Road Westbound -52 -58 68 149

Northbound -7 -211 94 323 A5.2 High Street, Knapwell Southbound -35 -143 89 440

Northbound -8 -236 12 380 A5.3 Brockley Road Southbound -50 -196 158 581

Northbound 23 6 77 51 A5.4 High Street, Boxworth Southbound -52 9 64 78

Northbound 16 -99 53 247 A5.5 Conington Road Southbound 44 -81 52 351

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 27/45 4.7 Area 6: Papworth Everard and Hilton

Base Year Validation

4.7.1 Table 15 shows the validation performance for Area 6 for the morning and evening peaks. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 15. Area 6 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 6 6

Validation Level 86% 67%

4.7.2 A total of 6 validation counts were used within Area 6. This is a small number of counts, however, the area is rural with few roads therefore this levels of count data is sufficient for the purposes of validating the strategic model.

4.7.3 In the morning peak shows the validation exceeds the 85% threshold. The performance of the evening peak is below the 85% DfT threshold and also just below the 70% threshold adopted for this assessment. However, the model has a generally good correlation with observed flows around Papworth Everard and Hilton.

Forecast Impacts

4.7.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 6 is shown in Table 16. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 13.

4.7.5 The scheme is forecast to significantly affect traffic flows along the A1198. North of Lattenbury Bridge (A6.6) two-way flows are forecast to increase by around 250 movements in the morning peak and 300 movements in the evening peak. This is traffic which is drawn to the new A14 scheme, partly due to the new A14 junction west of Hilton which increases route options to and from this area. Strategic bound traffic originating from settlements south of the A428 is encouraged to use this road and access the strategic network at an earlier point rather than accessing travelling through Buckden which is the preferred route in the Do Minimum scenario.

4.7.6 Whilst significant increases in flow are projected along Rogues Lane (A6.1), Toseland Road (A6.12), Offord Road (A6.13) and Barnfield Lane (A6.10) between the 2014 base and 2035 Do minimum scenarios the A14 scheme reduces the traffic flow along these roads, thus providing a positive benefit to these areas.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 28/45 Figure 13. Area 6 Traffic Flow Locations

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 29/45 Table 16. Area 6 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Eastbound -39 -208 105 630 A6.1 Rogues Lane Westbound -13 -293 1 390

Northbound -107 110 488 -69 A6.2 A1198 St Ives Road Southbound 27 132 -22 -143

Northbound 0 0 0 0 A6.3 Ermine Street Southbound 0 0 0 0

Northbound -152 10 367 4 A6.4 A1198, South of Papworth Everard Southbound -39 52 122 -112

Northbound -5 -90 79 54 A6.5 B1040, South of Hilton Southbound -51 28 -7 -13

Northbound 153 144 516 236 A6.6 A1198, North of Lattenbury Bridge Southbound 94 169 72 242

Northbound -22 20 130 71 A6.7 B1040 Potton Road Southbound -26 78 47 42

Eastbound 50 -51 -59 219 A6.8 A428, West of Cambourne Westbound -190 204 803 -310

Northbound 11 -9 173 128 A6.9 B1040 Southbound 2 23 -17 -1

Eastbound 105 -169 153 429 A6.10 Barnfield Lane Westbound -8 -34 67 104

Eastbound -77 -1 36 91 A6.11 High Street, Toseland Westbound -3 13 -1 -8

Northbound 54 4 238 199 A6.12 Toseland Road Southbound -17 -107 109 281

Northbound -27 -353 22 373 A6.13 Offord Road Southbound -127 -149 134 139

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 30/45 4.8 Area 7: Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willingham, Oakington and Northstowe

Base Year Validation

4.8.1 The validation performance for Area 7 for the morning and evening peaks is shown in Table 17. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 17. Area 7 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 41 41

Validation Level 76% 76%

4.8.2 A total of 41 validation counts were used across Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willingham, Oakington and Northstowe. This is a good number of counts for an area of this size.

4.8.3 Whilst both the morning and evening peak validation are below the 85% threshold they are above 70% and therefore modelled flows are considered to have a good correlation with observed flows within this area.

Northstowe Development

4.8.4 Phase 1 of the Northstowe development is included in the Do Minimum models. This comprises 1,500 houses. The Do Something+ models includes the additional development associated with Phase 2. Phase 2 is considered to be ‘more than likely’ should the A14 scheme come forward, and results in an additional 3,500 households, additional jobs provision and development of an important town centre for the sub-region.

4.8.5 The Northstowe Phase 2 development has the following associated infrastructure improvements which have been included in the modelling.

 Severance of Airfield Road;  New ‘through’ road serving Northstowe development related traffic;  A new signalised junction with the B1050 north of Longstanton;  A dual carriageway link to the B1050 south of Longstanton; and  Dualling of the B1050 between the southern site access to Northstowe and the A14 Bar Hill junction.

4.8.6 The distribution of Northstowe trips in the Do Something+ models is shown in Figure 14 for the morning peak and Figure 15 for the evening peak. The site is expected to have a wide distribution, with trips using both the strategic and local road network. The following roads are forecast to experience a significant number of Northstowe development trips:

 B1050;  Ramper Road;  Local Access Road;  Scotland Road, Dry Drayton;  A14; and,  M11.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 31/45 Figure 14. Northstowe Development Distribution: Morning Peak

Huntingdon

Northstowe

Cambridge

Figure 15. Northstowe Development Distribution: Evening Peak

Huntingdon

Northstowe

Cambridge

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 32/45 Forecast Impacts

4.8.7 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 7 is shown in Table 18. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Area 7 Traffic Flow Locations

4.8.8 The traffic flow changes experienced in this area are heavily linked to the additional development at Northstowe and therefore the impacts of the A14 scheme cannot be individually identified. As the trip distribution plots (Figures 14 and 15) illustrate, the Northstowe development traffic uses the Hatton’s Road adding over 1,000 two-way trips to the network (A7.5).

4.8.9 There are noticeable reductions in flow through Longstanton (A7.4) as a result of the new ‘through’ road proposed as part of the infrastructure for Northstowe. This is expected to be used by Northstowe Phase 1 and Phase 2 development traffic, consequently drawing traffic away from the centre of Longstanton compared to the Do Minimum scenario.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 33/45 Table 18. Area 7 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound -36 146 212 32 A7.1 B1050 Station Road Southbound 158 -3 -18 216

Eastbound -56 88 109 12 A7.2 Rampton Road Westbound 39 -37 44 150

Eastbound -19 -63 341 234 A7.3 B1050 Northern Bypass Westbound 31 39 218 233

Northbound -58 -167 222 100 A7.4 B1050 Western Bypass Southbound -176 -209 235 317

Northbound 708 826 246 173 A7.5 B1050 Hatton's Road Southbound 693 296 271 150

Northbound 3 -88 78 349 A7.6 Dry Drayton Road Southbound 34 190 121 161

Northbound -20 -77 146 368 A7.7 Oakington Road Southbound -16 -13 159 282

4.9 Area 8: Dry Drayton and Madingley

Base Year Validation

4.9.1 The validation performance for Dry Drayton and Madingley for the morning peak and evening peak is shown in Table 19. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 19. Area 8 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 6 6

Validation Level 100% 100%

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 34/45 4.9.2 A total of 6 validation counts were used within Dry Drayton and Madingley. This is considered a small number of counts for an area of this size and importance strategically. Furthermore the counts that have been used are on the approaches to the A14 Dry Drayton junction; there are no validation counts along High Street or The Avenue in Madingley and Scotland Road or Oakington Road through Dry Drayton.

4.9.3 Whilst Table 19 demonstrates a very good level of validation in this area, the validation is based on a small number of counts and the absence of counts in Madingley and Dry Drayton means it is difficult to determine whether the flows on these roads are representative of observed conditions, both in terms of volume of traffic and type of traffic.

Forecast Impacts

4.9.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 8 is shown in Table 20. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Area 8 Traffic Flow Locations

4.9.5 The traffic changes on local roads within this area is expected to be significant, as Table 20 illustrates. The scheme (in particular the local access road) results in a change of routing of local Madingley trips into and out of the village between the Do Minimum and Do Something. Figure 18 shows the change in distribution of Madingley trips between the Do Minimum and Do Something+. Red lines indicate increases in traffic, green lines indicate a reduction in traffic.

4.9.6 Figure 18 illustrates that local trips within an origin or destination in Madingley which use Oakington Road and Madingley Road in the Do Minimum scenario are forecast to move onto the Local Access Road and The Avenue in the Do Something+ scenario.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 35/45 4.9.7 Additionally, a small number of trips from Bar Hill, Huntingdon and Longstanton are forecast to use the A14 and the eastern part of the local access road to access Madingley. In the Do Minimum these trips route via the A14, exiting at the Dry Drayton junction and using Oakington Road and Madingley Road to access Madingley.

4.9.8 The traffic modelling also forecasts a shift in traffic routes used between Madingley and Cambridge with Figure 18 showing a clear movement of trips from Madingley Road onto Huntingdon Road, this becomes a valid route choice in the Do Something+ as a result of the local access road.

Figure 18. Change in the Distribution of Madingley Trips

4.9.9 Table 20 shows that flows on The Avenue (A8.3) are forecast to increase as a result of the scheme. The majority of this increase is due to the changes in routings to and from Madingley but the addition of the local access road as part of the A14 scheme also draws in trips which originate from settlements west of the M11 and are destined for Girton and north Cambridge. Through trips from Dry Drayton Road north of A14 to villages to the south are also forecast to use the Avenue.

4.9.10 Traffic flows along the High Street in Madingley (A8.6) are not forecast to be significantly affected by the scheme. Any change in flows along High Street are forecast to be associated with trips passing through the village rather than trips with an origin or destination in Madingley.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 36/45 4.9.11 The scheme is forecast to change traffic flows through Dry Drayton (A8.1 and A8.2). The road becomes a preferred route between settlements south of the A428 and Longstanton, Northstowe and Oakington. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate that approximately 250 movements (two-way) associated with the Northstowe development pass through Dry Drayton. Further investigation indicates that the modelled DS+ distance between Dry Drayton and Oakington is around 814m shorter than the DM. This network anomaly could be making the route through Dry Drayton unrealistically attractive. We have advised J2A of this issue and have been advised they will address this in the ongoing model re-runs.

Table 20. Area 8 Traffic Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound 69 208 232 36 A8.1 Oakington Road Southbound -95 39 274 253

Northbound 89 187 206 68 A8.2 Scotland Road Southbound 108 152 135 208

Northbound 146 165 25 82 A8.3 The Avenue Southbound 181 38 38 144

Eastbound -44 -93 88 194 A8.4 Cambridge Road Westbound 42 91 31 109

Eastbound -131 -509 596 991 A8.5 A428, East of Hardwick Westbound -227 -423 721 787

Northbound 80 108 13 81 A8.6 High Street Southbound 2 -62 127 170

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 37/45 4.10 Area 9: Girton, Histon and Impington, Cottenham and Milton

Base Year Validation

4.10.1 The validation performance for Area 9 is shown in Table 21 for the morning and evening peaks. The table shows the number of validation counts within the sub area along with percentage of counts that validate. The statistics represent the total vehicle validation.

Table 21. Area 9 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 10 10

Validation Level 60% 70%

4.10.2 A total of 10 validation counts were used in this area. This is a reasonable number of counts for an area of this size and importance strategically.

4.10.3 Both the morning and evening peak validation falls below the 85% DfT threshold. The evening peak matches the lower 70% threshold however just 60% of counts in the morning peak match. This indicates that the model may not be providing a representative picture of highway movements within the area.

Forecast Impacts

4.10.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 9 is shown in Table 22. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 19.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 38/45 Figure 19. Area 9 Traffic Flow Locations

4.10.5 There are forecast to be few significant changes in flow in Cottenham, Impington and Milton as a result of the proposed scheme, as shown in Table 22. However, there is forecast to be an increase in northbound traffic along Oakington Road (A9.2) but a reduction in the southbound direction.

4.10.6 The increase in northbound traffic is a result of the proposed local access road running between the B1050 and Dry Drayton Road which acts as an alternative to the A14 for traffic from settlements north of the A14. The increase in traffic along Oakington Road northbound is due to traffic from Histon travelling to Huntingdon, Northstowe and Longstanton which travel along Oakington Road in order to access the local access road.

4.10.7 The severance of the Airfield Road as part of the Northstowe development results in a reduction in southbound flow on Oakington Road in both peak hours. This traffic, originating from the Swavesey area and destined for Cambridge, switches to the local access road and improved A14.

4.10.8 The inclusion of the local access road as part of the A14 scheme provides a connection between The Avenue, Madingley and Huntingdon Road which is not present in the Do Minimum and changes the preferred routes to and from Girton. It provides a more direct route to north Cambridge and Girton and thus improves the accessibility of the area from Madingley and settlements west of the M11. The traffic modelling indicates that with the local access road in place traffic from these areas are more likely to travel through Madingley along the Avenue to access the local access road, Huntingdon Road and ultimately Girton Road.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 39/45 Table 22. Area 9 Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound -2 85 92 96 A9.1 B1049 Twenty Pence Road Southbound 49 -84 36 319

Northbound 82 168 46 -52 A9.2 Oakington Road Southbound -205 -366 36 491

Northbound -5 -9 71 79 A9.3 B1049 Cottenham Road Southbound -4 10 -18 79

Northbound 2 -55 6 -254 A9.4 B1049 Bridge Road Southbound 11 -85 70 261

Northbound 6 -206 307 -58 A9.5 A10 Western Bypass Southbound -20 86 130 -137

4.11 Areas 10: Cambridge

Base Year Validation

4.11.1 The validation performance for Cambridge is shown in Table 23 for morning and evening peaks, and shown graphically for the morning peak in Figure 20. The table presents the validation figures for total vehicles and reports all validation counts within Area 10 along with the percentage of these counts that validate.

Table 23. Area 10 Validation Performance

MORNING EVENING

Validation Counts 41 41

Validation Level 49% 63%

4.11.2 In total, 41 counts were utilised during the CHARM2 validation process. This is a small number of counts for an area as populated and strategically significant as Cambridge. As Figure 20 indicates these counts are on radial routes on the edge of the city; there are no counts within the city centre or on orbital routes.

4.11.3 Morning and evening peak validation is below the 85% threshold in both peaks and is just above the 70% acceptable level in the evening peak. In the absence of count data or journey time validation we cannot be confident that the model has a good correlation with observed flows in and around Cambridge.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 40/45 Figure 20. Area 10 Validation Counts

Forecast Impacts

4.11.4 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 10 is shown in Table 24. The roads selected for this analysis are shown in Figure 21.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 41/45 Figure 21. Area 10 Location of Flow Points

4.11.5 Table 24 indicates that the scheme affects traffic flows along radial routes in the north. Whilst the amount of traffic using each road remains relatively consistent between the Do Minimum and the Do Something+ scenarios there is a shift in the characteristic of traffic using the radials, particularly Histon Road, Milton Road and Huntingdon Road.

4.11.6 The A14 scheme junctions widens the A14 between the Histon and Milton junctions. This extra capacity this generates alters the routing of traffic from the Cambridge Science Park. In the Do Minimum scenario the preferred route between the A14 and Science Park was along King Hedges Road and Histon Road. In the Do Something+ scenario traffic switches to Milton Road due to the extra capacity provided along the A14 in both directions.

4.11.7 Huntingdon Road, north of Girton Road, is forecast to experience an increase in traffic due to the additional traffic drawn into the corridor from the Local Access Road. Traffic flows south of Girton Road are not forecast to change significantly.

4.11.8 However, we cannot be confident in the forecasted impacts currently presented using CHARM2 for Cambridge for the following reasons:

 Less than desirable levels of peak hour base year validation.  inclusion of several aspirational highway infrastructure schemes which are likely to be artificially affect the routing of traffic in the future year scenarios.

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 42/45 Table 24. Area 10 Flow Changes

2035 DM V 2035 DS+ 2014 BY V 2035 DM LOCATION LOCATION DIRECTION NUMBER AM PM AM PM

Northbound 242 224 157 295 A10.1 Girton Road Southbound 31 -220 151 520

Northbound 45 -74 502 468 A10.2 B1049 Histon Road Southbound 12 94 252 223

Northbound 62 183 42 -279 A10.3 A1309 Milton Road Southbound -18 57 26 151

Eastbound 42 44 235 187 A10.4 A1307 Huntingdon Road Westbound -54 -14 191 107

Eastbound -23 -83 -34 154 A10.5 A1303 Madingley Road Westbound -22 116 -110 -180

Eastbound 1 -66 247 150 A10.6 A1134 Victoria Road Westbound -58 6 78 112

Eastbound -31 -312 -9 236 A10.7 A1134 Milton Road Westbound -33 33 138 107

Eastbound 18 32 694 18 A10.8 A1303 Newmarket Road Westbound -13 25 -293 207

Northbound -7 0 399 72 A10.9 A1134 Queen's Road Southbound 31 19 299 264

Eastbound 0 0 -613 -936 A10.10 A603 East Road Westbound -7 -21 -1,140 -443

Northbound -5 -82 -36 106 A10.11 A1134 Barnwell Road Southbound -42 21 59 70

Northbound 0 -147 -367 165 A10.12 B1047 Horningsea Road Southbound 21 43 202 218

Northbound -29 -84 489 -220 A10.13 A1134 Southbound 4 22 54 504

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 43/45 Eastbound 2 -34 107 29 A10.14 A603 Barton Road Westbound 11 -9 87 -129

Northbound -26 8 459 70 A10.15 A1134 Trumpington Road Southbound 13 -5 -19 433

Northbound -11 7 -74 -235 A10.16 A1307 Hills Road Southbound -5 -11 -98 11

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 44/45 APPROVAL

Version Name Position Date Modifications

Author Rhian Turgoose Senior Consultant 23/04/2015 1 Version 1 Approved by Duncan Irons Director 23/04/2015

Author Rhian Turgoose Senior Consultant 12/06/2015 2 Version 2 Approved by Duncan Irons Director 12/06/2015

Forecasted Impacts on Local Road Network 103176 Page 45/45 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Summary

SUMMARY

Rural Traffic

1. The number of motor vehicles recorded crossing the County Screenline in 2013 was 5% higher than in 2012, although over the past ten years the underlying trend has been fairly flat.

2. The A14 remains the busiest road in the county, with an average annual daily flow of over 85,000 vehicles between Dry Drayton and Cambridge.

3. The highest growth since 2002 on trunk roads within the County has occurred on the A428 (22%), which is related to the development of Cambourne. On the County’s principal road network, the greatest growth in traffic over the past ten years has occurred on the A10 (22%).

4. Traffic density on Cambridgeshire’s rural trunk ‘A’ roads is almost twice the national average, and is 41% above average on other rural ‘A’ roads.

5. The density of HGV traffic on Cambridgeshire’s trunk ‘A’ roads is almost three times the national average, and on non-trunk main roads it is 78% above the national average.

Cambridge

6. In 2013, there were just over 190,00 motor vehicles entering and leaving Cambridge per 12-hour day (7am to 7pm). This represents a small increase of 1.2% compared with 2012, although the long-term trend over the past 17 or 18 years remains relatively flat.

7. At just over 60,000, per 12-hour day, the number of motor vehicles crossing the River Cam bridges within Cambridge last year was 3% more than in 2012, but 14% less than 10 years ago.

8. There were about 3.7 million Park and Ride journeys in 2013, representing an increase of 77,000 compared with 2012.

Other Urban Areas

9. The numbers of motor vehicles entering and leaving nine market towns per 12-hour day in 2012 were: Huntingdon 72,500, Wisbech 58,500, St. Neots 54,800, St. Ives 45,800, Ely 40,700, March 33,500, Whittlesey 29,300, Ramsey 18,500 and Chatteris 17,800.

Cycling

10. There was a 2.3% reduction in cycle trips in 2013 compared with 2012, although numbers of cyclists are likely to have been adversely affected by the extremely cold weather in March. There has been significant growth of 32.8% from the 2004-05 average baseline.

Cambridgeshire Guided Busway

11. During 2013 there were 3.24 million passenger journeys on the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway.

1 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Contents

CONTENTS Page

1 Introduction 3 Purpose of the Traffic Monitoring Report Variability in Traffic Counts

2 Rural Traffic 4 Introduction Traffic Growth Across County Screenline Traffic by Time of Day Traffic Density on ‘A’ Class Roads Route Specific Growth

3 Cambridge City 9 Introduction River Cam Screenline Radial Cordon Bus Passengers Park and Ride

4 Town Monitoring 15 St. Neots Huntingdon St Ives Wisbech March Ely Chatteris Ramsey Whittlesey

5 Urban Area Comparisons 33

6 Continuous Traffic Information 35

7 Cycle Monitoring 43

8 The Busway 44

Appendix 1 - Definitions 47

Appendix 2 - Traffic Flows 49

Contact for Further Information 53

2 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Traffic Monitoring Report

1.1 The County Council, as Highway Authority, is responsible for all public roads within the county, except for the motorway and trunk road network, which is the responsibility of the Department for Transport, (DfT). In order to fulfil its functions, the County Council requires up to date information on vehicle flows, flow composition, vehicle occupancy and overall trends. This information is used:-  to identify and justify transport schemes;  to assist in the priority ranking of schemes ;  for strategic planning;  for development control purposes;  in road maintenance assessments;  in road safety investigations;  in the environmental assessment of schemes;  for the monitoring of targets;  to provide a database of information.

1.2 This report examines traffic and travel trends for both rural and urban roads within the county. Where appropriate, trends are compared with national statistics.

Variability in Traffic Counts

1.3 Much of the information in this report is based on twelve-hour manual traffic counts.

1.4 Due to the random nature of traffic flow, even if counted under identical conditions the number of vehicles recorded in these samples will fluctuate. The associated uncertainty reduces (in percentage terms) as the number of vehicles increases.

1.5 More serious, and much harder to quantify, is potential systematic variation due to differing circumstances when counts are carried out. Three examples are:-

 Roadworks, accidents or other incidents causing vehicle diversions;  Changes in travel mode due to weather;  Unusual events (e.g. sport or entertainment events) causing untypical traffic patterns.

1.6 Care is taken to minimise the potential for systematic variation, but, inevitably, there is no guarantee that it is completely eliminated.

1.7 Because of random and possible systematic variation, caution is needed when interpreting observed changes in traffic from one year to the next.

3 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Rural Traffic

2. RURAL TRAFFIC

Introduction

2.1 A programme of 12-hour manual classified traffic counts conducted at the same time each year, along two imaginary screenlines, determines traffic growth statistics for the rural areas of Cambridgeshire. These screenlines, illustrated in Figure 2.2, run north-south and east-west across the county, intersecting to the south of Chatteris.

2.2 The following tables illustrate figures for Cambridgeshire, together with the equivalent national statistics, which are published by the Department for Transport (DfT).

2.3 Additional information from automatic traffic counting equipment is summarised in Chapter Six.

Traffic Growth Across County Screenline

2.4 The growth in all vehicle traffic crossing the rural county screenline is shown in Table 2.1 below. The number of motor vehicles recorded crossing the screenline in 2013 was 5.3% higher than in 2012, although as this is based on a one-day count the numbers do fluctuate from one year to the next. Over the past ten years the underlying trend has been fairly flat, which is in line with national trends.

Table 2.1 All Vehicle Traffic Growth by Road Category INDEX (2004= 100) Change Road Type 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 12 to 13 Trunk 100 99 102 103 102 108 5.9% County Primary 100 107 105 105 105 109 3.9% Other Roads 100 95 93 92 89 94 5.2% All Roads 100 99 100 100 99 104 5.3% National Rural 100 100 99 99 99 100* 1.3% *Provisional figure

2.5 Table 2.1 also illustrates the variation in growth between the different classes of road that form the screenline and it can be seen that growth over the past ten years has been highest on main roads in the county. The average figures shown in Table 2.1 hide considerable variation between individual routes.

4 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Rural Traffic

Table 2.2 Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic Growth INDEX (2004=100) Change Road Type 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 12 to 13 All Roads 100 88 91 93 85 91 6.9% National* 100 90 90 87 85 86* 1.3% *Provisional figures

2.6 Last year there was a 6.9% increase in HGV traffic, although the numbers can fluctuate year on year. There has been a 9% decrease in HGV traffic in Cambridgeshire since 2004. Over the same period the decrease nationally is 14%.

2.7 Figure 2.1 shows all vehicle and HGV growth across the screenlines together with national growth.

Figure 2.1 Rural Traffic Growth 2004-2013

110

100 Cambridgeshire - All Vehicles 90

National - All Vehicles 80

Index (2004=100) Index Cambridgeshire 70 - HGV Traffic

60 National - HGV Traffic

50 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

5 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Rural Traffic

6 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Rural Traffic

Traffic by Time of Day

2.8 Figure 2.3 shows variation in flows across the screenline by time of day, and illustrates the peak hour flows between 7 and 9 am and between 5 and 6 pm

Figure 2.3 Traffic by Time of Day 35,000

28,000

21,000

14,000

7,000 Number ofVehicles 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Hour Starting

Traffic Density on ‘A’ Class Roads

2.9 The latest available national statistics show that the average traffic flow on Cambridgeshire’s rural ‘A’ roads is higher than that in Great Britain. The average traffic flow on urban ‘A’ class roads is less than the national average.

Table 2.3 Average Daily Traffic Flow 2012 Trunk Non-Trunk ‘A’ Rural ‘A’ Rural ‘A’ Urban Cambs 37,530 11,515 14,295 Great Britain 19,630 8,188 18,676 Ratio (Cambs / GB) 1.91 1.41 0.77

2.10 The average HGV flow on the County’s non-trunk ‘A’ class rural roads, as shown in Table 2.4, is 78% above the national average. The Cambs:GB ratio for trunk roads is even greater. The average HGV flow on urban ‘A’ roads in the County is 23% less than the average for Great Britain.

Table 2.4 Average Daily HGV Flow 2012

Trunk Non-Trunk ‘A’ Rural ‘A’ Rural ‘A’ Urban Cambs 4,778 708 435 Great Britain 1,726 397 565 Ratio (Cambs / GB) 2.77 1.78 0.77

7 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Rural Traffic

Route Specific Growth

2.11 Traffic flows for specific routes are summarised in Appendix 2.

2.12 The A14 remains the busiest road in the county, with an average annual daily flow of over 85,000 vehicles between Dry Drayton and Cambridge

2.13 The highest growth since 2004 on national routes within the County has occurred on the A428 (22%), which is related to the development of Cambourne. On the county principal road network, the highest growth over the past ten years has occurred on the A10 (22%).

2.14 The A14 has the greatest volume of HGV traffic, followed by the A1(M). 19% of all traffic on the A14 at Swavesey is HGVs.

8 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cambridge City

3. CAMBRIDGE CITY

Introduction

3.1 Traffic flows have been monitored comprehensively in Cambridge since 1978 using two screenlines.

3.2 The first screenline runs along the River Cam, with vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists crossing all bridges in the city centre being counted in the Spring of each year.

3.3 The second screenline is a radial cordon, with vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on every entry and exit route counted in the Autumn. Eight sites are also monitored to count cyclists and pedestrians on paths between the radial routes.

3.4 Chapter Five contains a comparison of traffic and travel patterns in Cambridge and nine market towns. Additional information from automatic traffic counting equipment in the city is summarised in Chapter Six, and Chapter Seven includes further data on cycling.

River Cam Screenline

3.5 Vehicles and pedestrians crossing the River Cam urban screenline in March 2013 are shown in Table 3.1. The figures include cycle and pedestrian traffic on the City’s River Cam cycle and pedestrian bridges.

Table 3.1 Vehicles Crossing the River Cam - March 2013

VEHICLES

Vehicle Type 12 Hour Modal Flow Split Motor Cycles 670 1% Cars & Taxis 50,159 44% Light Goods 6,756 6%

Heavy Goods 881 1% Bus & Coach 1,685 1% All motor vehicles 60,151 53% Pedal cycles 26,248 23%

Pedestrians 27,233 24%

Total (All modes) 113,632 100%

3.6 Traffic trends across the River Cam since 2004 are shown in Table 3.2.

9 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cambridge City

Table 3.2 Traffic Growth on the Urban River Cam Screenline Vehicle Type INDEX (2004=100) Change 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 12-13 Motorcycles 100 98 87 82 90 61 -32% Cars 100 87 85 87 83 87 5% Light Goods 100 93 86 93 94 91 -4% Heavy Goods 100 62 67 57 56 52 -9% Bus & Coach 100 110 102 104 104 99 -5% All motor vehicles 100 88 85 88 84 86 3% Pedal Cycles* 100 127 120 143 147 143 -3% * Pedal cycle growth is based on 2-day average figures.

3.7 The number of motor vehicles observed crossing the River Cam last year was 3% more than in 2012 and 14% less than ten years ago.

3.8 The number of buses was 5% less in 2013 compared with 2012, although the total is similar to ten years ago.

3.9 Year-to-year variation can be expected in the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians observed, as these can be influenced significantly by prevailing weather conditions on the day of the survey. The number of cyclists last year was 43% higher than ten years ago. The reduction compared with 2012 is likely to be related to the extremely cold weather in March when the surveys were undertaken.

Figure 3.1 Motor Vehicle Traffic Crossing River Cam

70,000

65,000

60,000 Number of Vehicles

55,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year

3.10 Figure 3.2 below shows flows by time of day. The morning and evening peaks are less pronounced than on the Cambridge radials (shown in Figure 3.4).

10 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cambridge City

Figure 3.2 River Cam Screenline flows by Time of Day 2013

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

Number of of Number Vehicles 1,000

0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00

Hour Starting

Cambridge Radial Cordon

3.11 Table 3.3 records the numbers of vehicles crossing the Cambridge radial cordon. Table 3.3 includes 4,201 pedal cyclists and 2,389 pedestrians on paths between the radial routes.

Table 3.3 Vehicles Crossing the Cambridge Radial Cordon - October 2013 VEHICLES Vehicle Type 12 Hr Flow Modal Split Motor Cycles 1,870 1% Cars & Taxis 160,478 78% Light Goods 22,436 11% Heavy Goods 3,628 2% Bus & Coach 2,166 1% All motor vehicles 190,578 93% Pedal cycles 10,437 5% Pedestrians 3,552 2% Total (All modes) 204,567 100%

3.12 Changes in traffic on the City’s radial routes are recorded in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.3. The number of buses was 11% higher than in 2004.

3.13 In 2013, there were just over 190,00 motor vehicles entering and leaving Cambridge per 12-hour day (7am to 7pm). This represents a small increase of 1.2% compared with 2012, although the long-term trend over the past 17 or 18 years remains relatively flat.

11 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cambridge City

Table 3.4 Traffic Growth on the Cambridge Radial Cordon INDEX (2004=100) Change Vehicle Type 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 12-13 Motorcycles 100 103 84 111 79 87 10% Cars 100 100 100 100 100 102 2% Light Goods 100 104 103 107 110 109 -0.4% Heavy Goods 100 78 69 89 78 75 -4% Bus & Coach 100 115 112 105 111 106 -4% All motor vehicles 100 100 99 101 101 102 1% Pedal cycles 100 120 127 155 161 178 11%

3.14 There was an increase of 11% in cyclists crossing the cordon in 2013 compared to 2012, and overall growth of 78% over the past ten years.

Figure 3.3 Motor vehicles entering and leaving Cambridge

195,000

190,000 185,000

180,000 Actual 175,000 3-year average

170,000 165,000 No. of motor vehicles 160,000 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Year

3.15 Figure 3.4 shows flows by time of day. The morning and evening peaks are more pronounced than on the River Cam Screenline

Figure 3.4 Cambridge radial traffic by time of day 2013

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000 Number of Vehicles of Number 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Hour Starting

12 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cambridge City

13 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cambridge City

Park and Ride

3.16 Passenger journey numbers are shown in Figure 3.6 and Table 3.5

3.17 There were 3.755 million Park and Ride passenger journeys in 2013: an increase of 2.1% on the 2012 figure.

Table 3.5 Annual Journey Figures

Site 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Madingley 1,415,641 1,406,038 1,394,289 1,340,131 1,407,276 Rd/Newmarket Rd Milton*/ 1,513,309 1,538,475 1,534,463 1,419,964 1,439,653 Babraham Rd Trumpington Road 896,088 871,817 934,019 917.491 907,852 Total (All Sites) 3,825,038 3,816,330 3,862,771 3,677,322 3,754,781 *Formerly Cowley Road

Figure 3.6 Park and Ride Passenger Journeys 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 (Millions)1.0 0.5 No. of Journeys Journeys of No. 0.0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Year

3.18 The figures in Figure 3.6 and Table 3.5 above exclude children (who make up approximately 3.5% of passengers on a normal weekday and about 16% on a Saturday).

14 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

4. TOWN MONITORING

Introduction

4.1 The market town monitoring programme was extended in 2004 to include three more towns: Chatteris, Ramsey and Whittlesey.

4.2 For each town there is an outer cordon. The total number of vehicles crossing the cordon provides an estimate of traffic entering and leaving the town.

4.5 Results are presented for each town, and Chapter Five contains a summary and comparison between towns.

St. Neots

4.6 The locations of the monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.1 and the results are summarised in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

4.7 About 55,000 motor vehicles, 1000 pedal cycles and 3,000 pedestrians enter and leave St. Neots between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.1 Vehicles Entering & Leaving St. Neots

Vehicles

Vehicle Type VEHICLE INDEX 2013 2013 12 Hour Modal 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow Split

Motor Cycles 100 65 58 58 54 63 196 0.3% Cars & Taxis 100 96 100 98 101 108 46,850 80% Light Goods 100 95 110 108 105 105 6,623 11% Heavy Goods 100 55 59 62 57 50 701 1% Bus & Coach 100 106 99 89 90 84 459 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 95 100 98 100 106 54,829 93% Pedal cycles 100 80 80 99 123 102 832 1% Pedestrians 100 86 62 71 132 113 3,069 5% Total (All modes) 100 94 98 97 101 106 58,730 100%

15 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

16 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

Huntingdon

4.8 The locations of the monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.2 and the results are summarised in Table 4.2.

4.9 About 72,500 motor vehicles, 1,300 pedal cycles and 1,500pedestrians enter and leave Huntingdon between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.2 Vehicles Entering & Leaving Huntingdon Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 113 105 131 86 113 473 1% Cars & Taxis 100 100 97 96 94 92 61,937 82% Light Goods 100 224 100 102 94 102 8,185 11% Heavy Goods 100 74 68 72 69 71 1,280 2% Bus & Coach 100 84 72 61 73 71 584 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 112 96 96 94 92 72,459 96% Pedal cycles 100 117 113 121 109 107 1,265 2% Pedestrians 100 124 111 123 143 128 1,516 2% Total (All modes) 100 112 97 97 94 93 75,240 100%

17 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

18 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

St. Ives

4.10 The locations of the outer cordon monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.3 and the results are summarised in Table 4.3.

4.11 About 45,500 motor vehicles, 1,000 pedal cycles and 2,400 pedestrians enter and leave St. Ives between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.3 Vehicles Entering & Leaving St. Ives Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 84 105 148 101 93 221 0.5% Cars & Taxis 100 93 95 92 89 92 38,182 78% Light Goods 100 88 98 105 97 104 5,566 11% Heavy Goods 100 89 84 82 71 70 1,047 2% Bus & Coach 100 93 91 105 115 124 714 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 93 95 93 90 93 45,730 93% Pedal cycles 100 113 171 437 256 226 977 2% Pedestrians 100 120 144 160 156 149 2,351 5% Total (All modes) 100 94 97 98 93 96 49,058 100%

19 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

20 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

Wisbech

4.12 The locations of the outer cordon monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.4 and the results are summarised in Table 4.4.

4.13 About 58,500 motor vehicles, 290 pedal cycles and 750 pedestrians enter and leave Wisbech between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.4 Vehicles Entering & Leaving Wisbech Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 99 86 92 95 99 309 1% Cars & Taxis 100 90 96 92 94 93 45,428 76% Light Goods 100 98 99 102 95 98 8,880 15% Heavy Goods 100 73 77 73 75 72 3,286 6% Bus & Coach 100 83 93 87 87 72 554 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 90 95 92 92 92 58,457 98% Pedal cycles 100 101 95 103 121 120 284 0.5% Pedestrians 100 102 112 137 211 164 765 1% Total (All modes) 100 90 95 93 93 92 59,506 100%

21 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

22 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

March

4.14 The locations of the monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.5 and the results are summarised in Table 4.5.

4.15 Just under 33,500 motor vehicles, about 700 pedal cycles and 1,200 pedestrians enter and leave March each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.5 Vehicles Entering & Leaving March Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 93 76 90 99 103 207 1% Cars & Taxis 100 99 97 95 95 96 27,422 78% Light Goods 100 86 89 91 91 93 4,638 13% Heavy Goods 100 61 67 62 60 66 812 2% Bus & Coach 100 79 83 72 77 88 407 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 95 95 93 93 94 33,486 95% Pedal cycles 100 104 108 103 103 108 684 2% Pedestrians 100 151 184 197 188 235 1,209 3% Total (All modes) 100 96 96 94 94 96 35,379 100%

23 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

24 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

Ely

4.16 The locations of the outer cordon monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.6 and the results are summarised in Table 4.6.

4.17 About 40,700 motor vehicles, 900 pedal cycles and 1,800 pedestrians enter and leave Ely between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.6 Vehicles Entering & Leaving Ely Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 86 77 86 99 133 280 1% Cars & Taxis 100 98 99 95 94 100 34,546 80% Light Goods 100 99 99 91 102 97 4,727 11% Heavy Goods 100 72 74 62 60 68 823 2% Bus & Coach 100 86 73 61 68 70 365 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 97 98 93 94 98 40,741 94% Pedal cycles 100 127 144 148 168 195 900 2% Pedestrians 100 109 120 99 108 133 1,771 4% Total (All modes) 100 98 99 94 95 100 43,412 100%

25 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

26 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

Chatteris

4.18 The locations of the outer cordon monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.7 and the results are summarised in Table 4.7.

4.19 About 18,000 motor vehicles, 50 pedal cycles and 270 pedestrians enter and leave Chatteris between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.7 Vehicles Entering & Leaving Chatteris Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 290 129 268 228 205 84 0.5% Cars & Taxis 100 104 101 101 106 107 14,384 79% Light Goods 100 102 92 97 107 98 2,720 15% Heavy Goods 100 78 59 73 87 72 417 2% Bus & Coach 100 120 109 114 110 117 221 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 103 98 100 106 105 17,826 98% Pedal cycles 100 260 133 193 222 170 51 0% Pedestrians 100 204 138 154 254 298 274 2% Total (All modes) 100 104 99 100 107 106 18,151 100%

27 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

28 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

Ramsey

4.20 The locations of the outer cordon monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.8 and the results are summarised in Table 4.8.

4.21 About 18,500 motor vehicles, 50 pedal cycles and 180 pedestrians enter and leave Ramsey between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two- way flows).

Table 4.8 Vehicles Entering & Leaving Ramsey Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 96 52 88 91 60 90 0.5% Cars & Taxis 100 97 95 94 95 97 15,097 81% Light Goods 100 91 94 93 93 90 2,631 14% Heavy Goods 100 55 52 50 60 57 493 3% Bus & Coach 100 103 91 87 86 71 156 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 95 93 92 93 93 18,467 99% Pedal cycles 100 73 64 83 69 55 47 0% Pedestrians 100 89 115 82 94 109 175 1% Total (All modes) 100 94 93 92 93 93 18,689 100%

29 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

30 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

Whittlesey

4.22 The locations of the outer cordon and inner screenline monitoring points are shown in Figure 4.9 and the results are summarised in Tables 4.9.

4.23 About 29,000 motor vehicles, 140 pedal cycles and 170 pedestrians enter and leave Whittlesey between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm each day (two-way flows).

Table 4.9 Vehicles Entering & Leaving Whittlesey Vehicles 2013 VEHICLE INDEX 2013 Vehicle Type 12 Modal Hour Split 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Flow

Motor Cycles 100 70 90 70 80 61 137 0.5% Cars & Taxis 100 98 93 92 92 92 22,434 76% Light Goods 100 95 87 83 87 88 5,065 17% Heavy Goods 100 80 77 76 79 73 1,375 5% Bus & Coach 100 101 91 82 73 73 261 1% All Motor Vehicles 100 97 91 89 90 90 29,272 99% Pedal cycles 100 94 84 128 100 101 140 0.5% Pedestrians 100 130 127 207 159 138 170 1% Total (All modes) 100 97 91 90 90 90 29,582 100%

31 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Town Monitoring

32 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Urban Area Comparison

5. URBAN AREA COMPARISONS

Vehicles Entering and Leaving Cambridge and the Nine Towns

5.1 Table 5.1 shows the maximum vehicle flows along the roads making up the outer cordon of Cambridge and each town.

Table 5.1 Maximum Motor Vehicle Flow Per Outer Cordon Road in 2013

Motor No. of Maximum vehicles roads Flow Cambridge 190,578 17 25,667 St. Ives 45,730 5 16,822 Huntingdon 72,459 5 15,805 Wisbech 58,457 7 16,225 St. Neots 54,829 6 14,213 Ely 40,741 7 11,647 Whittlesey 29,272 6 9,717 March 33,486 9 9,786 Chatteris 17,826 5 6,441 Ramsey 18,467 6 6,360

5.2 The busiest urban cordon road is in Cambridge (Hauxton Road) with 25,667 motor vehicles per day. The least busy cordon roads surround Chatteris and Ramsey.

5.3 Figure 5.1 shows the numbers of motor vehicles, pedal cyclists and pedestrians entering and leaving Cambridge and the nine market towns, with Table 5.2 showing the distribution.

5.4 Cars make up between 76% and 82% of the vehicles + pedestrians entering and leaving the urban areas monitored. Figures for goods vehicles range between 12% for St Neots and 22% for Whittlesey.

33 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Urban Area Comparison

Figure 5.1 Numbers of Motor Vehicles, pedal cyclists and pedestrians entering and leaving Cambridge and nine market towns in 2013

225000 Pedestrians 200000 175000 Pedal Cycles 150000 125000 Bus and 100000 Coach 75000 50000 Goods Vehicles 25000 12 hour two-way 12 flow 0 Cars & Taxis

Ely Motor Cycles March St. Ives Ramsey Wisbech Chatteris St. Neots Whittlesey Cambridge Huntingdon

Table 5.2 Distribution of Motor Vehicles, Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists Entering and Leaving in 12 hours in 2013

Modal Split Vehicle Type St. St. Whittle Cambridge Hunting Wisbech March Ely Chatteris Ramsey Neots -don Ives -sey Motor Cycles 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 9.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Cars & Taxis 78% 80% 82% 78% 76% 78% 80% 79% 81% 76% Goods vehs 13% 12% 13% 13% 20% 15% 13% 17% 17% 22% Bus & Coach 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% All Motor Vehs 93% 93% 96% 93% 98% 95% 94% 98% 99% 99% Pedal cycles 5% 1% 2% 2% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% Pedestrians 2% 5% 2% 5% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

34 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

6. CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC INFORMATION

Introduction

6.1 Traffic flows are counted automatically at a number of permanent sites in Cambridgeshire. The equipment can collect data 24 hours a day. Continuous monitoring enables manual count data to be verified, hourly conversion factors to be calculated and seasonal and daily variations to be observed.

Rural Traffic

6.2 Tables 6.1 and 6.2 below records vehicle flows at monitoring points on the rural and urban road network in terms of 24-hour annual average daily traffic (AADT). The locations of the monitoring sites are shown in Figure 6.1

Table 6.1 Rural ATC Sites – All Vehicle Traffic 24 hr AADT Flow Change Road Location (7 Day Average) 2012 to No . 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 M11 between Junctions 9 and 10 42,062 40,655 42,128 40,909 - - M11 Between Junctions 10 and 11 50,910 49,370 50,955 49,437 50,050 1.2% M11 Grantchester Junctions 11–12 61,534 62,783 63,575 62,982 63,637 1% A1 Alconbury to Brampton Hut 28,945 29,682 - - - - A1 Southoe 40,555 41,987 42,042 42,576 - - A11 Worsted Lodge 36,098 36,565 36,810 36,296 36,656 1% A11 Stump Cross 28,495 28,289 28,275 27,909 - - A14 Catworth Hill 40,569 40,127 39,427 37,723 37,552 -0.5% A14 Huntingdon Racecourse 46,684 46,020 46,204 - - - A14 Dry Drayton to Cambridge 87,467 86,931 87,435 86,382 85,696 -0.8% A14 Girton Jnc 31 – 32 61,720 61,394 61,764 59,913 - - A14 Milton Jnc 33 – 34 56,759 56,796 57,034 56,691 57,856 2.1% A47 Wisbech Bypass 16,.890 16,958 - 16,971 - - A428 Caxton to Cambourne 24,486 24,738 25,476 26,185 26,751 2.2% A428 Cambourne to Hardwick 26,186 27,168 28,287 28,986 29,583 2.1% A141 Wyton Airfield 16,161 15,828 15,642 - 14,386 - A142 Fordham 16,779 17,177 16,965 16,911 17,231 1.9% A505 Dottrell Hall 16,126 15,762 15,644 15,417 15,960 3.5%

Table 6.2 Urban ATC Sites – All Vehicle Traffic 24 hr AADT Flow Change Road Location (7 Day Average) 2012 to No. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 U/C Cambourne from A428 14,032 15,078 15,198 15,383 16,178 5.2% U/C Cambourne from A1198 3,252 3,338 3,470 3,472 3,490 0.5% B1514 Huntingdon Ring Road - - 22,587 22,193 21,499 -3.1%

35 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

36 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

Cambridge

6.3 Table 6.3 shows vehicle flows at the urban ATC sites in Cambridge, with the locations recorded in Figure 6.2.

Table 6.3 Cambridge Urban ATC Sites – All Vehicle Growth

24 hr AADT Flow Change Road Location (7 day Average) 2012 to No. 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 A1309 Trumpington High Street 23,386 22,650 - - 21,131 - A1309 Milton Road 21,437 20,970 21,274 - 20,590 - A1307 Hills Road 12,967 13,608 13,212 12,517 12,482 -0.3% A1307 Huntingdon Road - 15,353 14,555 15,184 15,633 3% A603 East Road 21,541 - 18,029 - 20,673 -

Monthly Variation

6.4 Traffic flows exhibit monthly variation, with different types of road showing different patterns. Continuous ATC data averaged over three years have been used at selected sites to produce Figures 6.3 to 6.6, which illustrate the variations that have occurred on particular motorway, trunk, county primary and urban primary roads. In these graphs October flow is taken as the base index of 100.

6.5 The M11 exhibits a steady growth in traffic from January to July, flows then level off before falling between October and December. On the A14 the pattern is similar. The trend on Trumpington High Street is flatter , and there is a noticeable dip during August.

Daily Variation

6.6 Traffic flows also vary throughout the week, and again different roads exhibit slightly different patterns. Daily flows during May and October were averaged over a three-year period on the same road links used to calculate monthly variations. The weekly profiles are shown in Figures 6.7 to 6.10, where Wednesday flow is taken as the base index of 100.

6.7 Traffic flows are highest on a Friday on the A14, M11 and A142. On Trumpington High Street the level of traffic is similar between Monday and Friday. Traffic flows at the weekend are lower at all sites.

37 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

38 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

Figure 6.3 Monthly Variation – Motorway (M11)

120 100 80 60 40 20

Index (October - 100) - (October Index 0 Jul Apr Jun Jan Oct Feb Mar Aug Sep Nov Dec May

Figure 6.4 Monthly Variation – Trunk Road (A14 )

120 100 80 60 40 20 Index (October = 100) = (October Index 0 Jul Apr Oct Jan Jun Feb Mar May Aug Sep Nov Dec

Figure 6.5 Monthly Variation – County Primary (A142)

120 100 80 60 40 20

Index (October = = 100) (October Index 0 Jul Apr Jan Jun Oct Feb Mar Aug Sep Nov Dec May

Figure 6.6 Monthly Variation-Trumpington High Street

120 100 80 60 40

Index (October 100) = 20 0 Jul Apr Jun Jan Oct Feb Mar Aug Sep Nov Dec May

39 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

Figure 6.7 Daily Variation – Motorway (M11)

120 100

60 40

Index (Wed = 100) = (Wed Index 20

0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Figure 6.8 Daily Variation – Trunk Road (A14 )

120

100

60 40

100) = (Wed Index 20 0

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Figure 6.9 Daily Variation – County Primary (A142)

120

100

40 =Index (Wed 100) 20

0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Figure 6.10 Daily Variation-Trumpington High Street

120 100 80 60

Index (Wed = 100) = (Wed Index 20

0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 40 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

Traffic Flow Conversion Factors 6.8 Manual classified counts are usually counted over 12 hours duration on any weekday except Fridays. Factors have been calculated for all permanent ATC installations, where data are available, to convert 12 hour Annual Average Weekday Flows (AAWF) to 16 hour AAWF, 24 hour AAWF and 24 hour Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) averaged over seven days. These conversion factors are recorded in Tables 6.4 to 6.7 below.

Note: 16 hour AAWF is the average Monday to Friday flow throughout the year.

24 hour AAWF is the average Monday to Friday flow throughout the year.

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic is the average flow on an average day (Sunday to Saturday inclusive), throughout the year, and is expressed as a 24-hour flow.

Table 6.4 Trunk Road Traffic Flow Conversion Factors Conversion 12 hr AAWF to Road 16 hr 24 hr 24 hr Location No. AAWF AAWF AADT (5 day) (5 day) (7 day)

A1 Alconbury to Brampton Hut 1.166 1.262 1.172 A1 Southoe 1.166 1.254 1.183 A11 Worsted Lodge 1.169 1.262 1.189 A11 Stump Cross 1.170 1.265 1.202 A14 Catworth Hill 1.179 1.282 1.178 A14 Huntingdon Racecourse 1.176 1.271 1.161 A14 Dry Drayton to Cambridge 1.177 1.279 1.188 A14 Girton Jnc 31 – 32 1.157 1.237 1.131 A14 Milton Jnc 33 – 34 1.154 1.228 1.120 A47 Wisbech Bypass 1.147 1.220 1.170 M11 between junctions 9 and 10 1.195 1.329 1.259 M11 Between junctions 10 and 11 1.175 1.289 1.211 M11 Between junctions 11 and 12 1.165 1.260 1.175

Average (All Sites) 1.169 1.264 1.180

41 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Continuous Traffic Information

Table 6.5 County Road Traffic Flow Conversion Factors Conversion 12 hr AAWF to Road 16 hr 24 hr 24 hr Location No. AAWF AAWF AADT (5 day) (5 day) (7 day)

A141 Wyton Airfield 1.163 1.234 1.140 A142 Fordham 1.158 1.247 1.162 A505 Dottrell Hall 1.145 1.212 1.110

Average (All Sites) 1.155 1.231 1.137

Table 6.6 Cambridge Urban Traffic Flow Conversion Factors Conversion 12 hr AAWF to Road 16 hr 24 hr 24 hr Location No. AAWF AAWF AADT (5 day) (5 day) (7 day)

A1309 Trumpington High Street 1.171 1.243 1.190 A1309 Milton Road 1.200 1.302 1.236 A1307 Huntingdon Road 1.178 1.262 1.203 A1307 Hills Road 1.191 1.284 1.197 A605 East Road 1.227 1.359 1.339

Average (All Sites) 1.193 1.290 1.233

Table 6.7 Other Urban Traffic Flow Conversion Factors Conversion 12 hr AAWF to Road 16 hr 24 hr 24 hr Location No. AAWF AAWF AADT (5 day) (5 day) (7 day)

U/C Cambourne from A428 1.146 1.187 1.083 U/C Cambourne from A1198 1.176 1.230 1.139

Average (All Sites) 1.161 1.209 1.111

42 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Cycle Monitoring

7. CYCLE MONITORING

7.1 The numbers of cyclists using particular routes over the past ten years is shown in Table 5 in Appendix 2.

7.2 Automatic cycle counting loops have been installed at a number of sites in the County. Average daily flows are recorded in Table 7 in Appendix 2. The conversion of all pedal cycle counters to telemetry is now complete. This enables permanent data collection at all sites.

Growth in Cycling

7.3 Cycling growth is measured by the overall increase across a number of automatic and manual count points located throughout Cambridgeshire, giving a large, robust sample.

7.4 There was a 2.3% reduction in cycle trips in 2013 compared with 2012. Overall growth from the 2004-05 average baseline is 32.8%, which remains better than the Council's target of 32.3%.

7.5 The River Cam bridge surveys undertaken in March are a major component of the index, and in 2013 numbers of cyclists are likely to have been adversely affected by the extremely cold weather in March. Data from the Met Office shows that March 2013 was the coldest since 1962 and the second coldest since 1910. There was actually a 2.5% increase in cyclists counted across the County at other times of the year.

Table 7.1 Cambridgeshire Cycle Flows at Selected Locations

Increase from 2004 - Year 05 average baseline 2010 19.6 % 2011 33.2 % 2012 35.8 % 2013 32.8 %

Journey to Work by Pedal Cycle

7.6 Data from the 2011 national census shows that 30% of journeys to work by Cambridge residents are by pedal cycle. For Cambridgeshire as a whole the figure is 9.7%, which is much higher than the average 3% for England.

7.7 Data from the 2013 Cambridgeshire Travel for Work survey shows that 25% of journeys to work on weekdays were by pedal cycle, in 2012 the figure was 29%. In 2013 the average distance cycled to work was 3.6 miles. Further details can be accessed via the following link: http://www.tfw.org.uk/Survey%202012/documents/OverallTfWandTP.pdf

7.8 Data from the Sport England Active People survey, published by DfT, shows that in the 12 months ending October 2013 21% of adults in Cambridgeshire cycled at least once a week. The corresponding figure for Cambridge is 49%, which is the highest in the country www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for- transport/series/walking-and-cycling-statistics

43 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 The Busway

8. THE BUSWAY

Introduction

8.1 The Busway opened on 7 th August 2011. This chapter contains some data about use of the Busway, including numbers of bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians, as well as changes in traffic on surrounding roads.

Passenger Journeys

8.2 During 2013 there were 3.25 million bus passenger journeys on the Busway. The upward trend is shown in Figure 8.1 below

Figure 8.1 Guided Busway Passenger Journeys 12-Month Rolling Total 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 No. of passengers of No. 0 Apr-13 Jun-13 Oct-12 Oct-13 Feb-13 Feb-14 Aug-12 Dec-12 Aug-13 Dec-13 12 months ending

Cyclists and Pedestrians Using the Busway Maintenance Track

8.3 Table 8.1 below shows numbers of cyclists and pedestrians using the maintenance track beside the Busway per 12-hour day (between 7am and 7pm).

Table 8.1 Cyclists and pedestrians using the maintenance track St. Ives Park Under A14, Trumpington and Ride Site Impington Cyclists 153 1,091 815 Pedestrians 45 209 187

8.4 Cyclists using the maintenance track contributed to a 12% increase in cycling across the Cambridge radial cordon in the autumn of 2013 compared with autumn 2012. There were 11,252 cycle journeys (two- way) across the cordon per day between 7am and 7pm.

8.5 There was a 33% increase in cyclists entering and leaving St. Ives in 2013 compared with 2010, with 977 cyclists in total crossing the cordon per day between 7am and 7pm.

44 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 The Busway

Changes in Traffic on the A14

8.6 Data from Highways Agency automatic traffic counters on the A14 and other trunk roads are summarised in Table 8.2 below. Annual Average Weekday flows for 2013 are compared with the 12 months preceding the Busway opening (August 2010 – July 2011)

Table 8.2 24-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic Flow (AAWF) on A14 and other Trunk Roads

Aug 2010 Sept 2012 Change to Jul 11 to Aug 13 % A14 West of Huntingdon A14 Catworth Hill 43,830 41,045 -6.4% A14 Junction 20 Ellington 46,063 43,868 -4.8%

A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge Junctions 23 to 24 - 75,405 74,093 -1.7% A14 Spittals to Godmanchester A14 South of Dry Drayton jnc 94,778 92,313 -2.6%

A14 Cambridge Northern Bypass A14 Milton 63,265 63,921 1.0% A14 Quy 38,171 38,059 -0.3%

A14 Suffolk A14 Junction 55, Suffolk 26,375 27,117* 2.8% A14 Trimley Heath, Suffolk 36,343 36,290* -0.1%

M11

M11 Junctions 10 to 11 53,907 Busway Opened 53,294 -1.1% M11 Junctions 11 to 12 69,269 68,292 -1.4%

A11 A11 Between A505 and A1301 29,547 28,982 -1.9% Between A1307 and 38,844 38,620** -0.6% A11 A1304

A1 & A1(M) A1(M) Alconbury to Sawtry 70,360 77,157 1.1%

A428 A428 Caxton to Cambourne 28,341 29,726 4.9% A428 Cambourne to Hardwick 31,082 32,916 5.9% * November 2012 to October 2013 (latest available data) **September 2013 to August 2013 (latest available data)

8.7 Between these two time periods there was a reduction of 2.6% (just over 2500 vehicles per day) on the section of the A14 between Dry Drayton and Cambridge, which is a section of road that would be expected to see a decrease in traffic due to people using the Busway. This reduction is larger than on any of the other sections of road in Table 8.2 with the exception of the A14 west of the A1.

45 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 The Busway

8.8 The increase on the A14 west of the A1 is correlated with completion of the dualling of the A421 between Bedford and the M1. This occurred in Dec 2010 and completed the creation of a dual carriageway between the A1 and M1 via the Bedford bypass. Prior to Dec 2010 there were extensive roadworks and disruption on that section of the A421.

8.9 Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show traffic flows over time at both Dry Drayton and Catworth with the openings of the Busway and the A421 shown respectively. It would appear that the Busway has had an impact at Dry Drayton and the A421 at Catworth.

Figure 8.3 24-hour Annual Average Weekday Flows on A14 Sth of Dry Drayton junction: 12-month rolling average

Busway

Figure 8.4 24-hour Annual Average Weekday Flows on A14 at Catworth Hill: 12-month rolling average

A421

46 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Definitions

APPENDIX 1 DEFINITIONS

General

Traffic Flow The number of motor vehicles in a given period of time, expressed as a two-way total.

12 hour flow Traffic flow in the period between 7 am and 7 pm. This is the usual period observed for manual traffic surveys.

16 hour flow Traffic flow in the period 6 am to 10 pm

18 hour flow Traffic flow in the period 6 am to midnight; traffic surveys over this period are used for environmental and traffic noise studies.

24 hour flow Traffic flow over the entire 24-hour period.

12 hour AAWF Annual Average Weekday Flow (Monday to Thursday inclusive) throughout the year. This is usually based on counts carried out during the Spring and Autumn months.

16 hour AAWF The Annual Average Weekday Flow (Monday to Friday inclusive) throughout the year.

24 hour AAWF The Annual Average Weekday Flow (Monday to Friday inclusive), throughout the year.

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic is the average flow on an average day, i.e. Sunday to Saturday inclusive, throughout the year and is expressed as a 24-hour flow.

ATC Automatic Traffic Counters are battery powered wire loop detectors operating from permanent loops cut into the road. The loops create a magnetic field, which is disturbed when a vehicle passes over it.

MCC Manual Classified Count is a traffic count undertaken by manual observation, recorded and classified by vehicle type and time period.

Screenline An imaginary line drawn across a transport corridor (often following a physical barrier such as a river or a railway line) used to determine net flows between the areas on either side.

Note : It is generally accepted that the 24 hour Annual Average Daily Traffic flow is the same as (or very similar to) the 16 hour Annual Average Weekday Flow.

47 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Definitions

Vehicle Classifications

Motor Cycles Motor cycles, mopeds, scooters and motor cycle combinations.

Cars Cars, taxis, estate cars, light goods vans with side windows to the rear of the driver’s seat, three wheeled cars and motor invalid carriages.

LGV Light Goods Vehicles are goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight. This category includes all transit style vans, and small pickup vans.

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles are goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight. This category includes both rigid and articulated vehicles.

Buses All buses and coaches, including works buses.

All Vehicles All motor vehicles.

Route Classifications

Motorways National routes with restricted access for which the Department for Transport is the Highway Authority.

Trunk Roads National routes for which the Department for Transport is the Highway Authority.

Primary Roads Important through routes of regional significance, including all trunk roads and a number of strategic routes for which the County Council is the Highway Authority.

Distributor Roads County roads which link major settlements with primary routes.

Access Roads All other county roads.

Principal Roads All non trunk ‘A class’ roads.

Rural Roads Those with a speed limit of more than 40 mph.

Urban Roads Those with a speed limit of 40 mph or less.

48 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Traffic Flow Summaries

APPENDIX 2 TRAFFIC FLOWS

Table 1: County Screenline - 12 Hour Flows

2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Road Location No Total Total Total Total Total Total HGV HGV HGV HGV BUS HGV Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs HGV Vehs Vehs B660 Winwick 720 28 761 39 800 37 821 46 769 31 794 8 23 A1 South of Sawtry 49,362 8,183 49,574 8,138 49,507 8,183 48,226 8,875 48,766 7,574 51,598 243 8,145 B1043 Sth Sawtry Relief Rd 2,906 142 2,679 171 2,421 194 2,339 150 2,210 161.5 2,569 54 126 C111 Upwood 4,223 51 4,042 32 4,374 34 4,201 24 3,906 20 4,163 26 26 B1040 Warboys - Ramsey 6,786 222 6,986 263 6,921 213 6,191 168.5 6,121 178.5 6,190 72 181 A141 Chatteris - Warboys 8,054 943 8,165 759 8,203 910 8,295 919.5 8,316 769.5 7,935 35 746 B1050 Chatteris - Somersham 2,126 124 1,694 59 1,781 57 1,653 36.5 1,682 47 1,720 31 34 A142 Chatteris - Mepal 10,429 1,425 9,559 1,144 10,104 1,168 10,531 1,198 10,453 718 11,167 85 1292 B1411 Ely - Little Downham 4,403 236 3,905 139 3,947 150 4,016 107 4,017 119 4,215 37 104 A10 Ely Littleport Bypass 9,164 899 10,531 918 9,715 923 9,713 824 9,746 833 9,860 70 943 C315 Chettisham 3,640 151 4,442 194 3,076 105 3,149 78.5 2,743 70 2,975 34 63 C134 Queen Adelaide 2,769 145 2,952 200 2,996 88 3,120 78.5 2,997 69 3,322 8 114 A1101 East of Littleport 3,154 301 3,056 266 2,940 329 2,905 303.5 2,751 264 2,871 39 261 A47 Thorney Toll 13,440 2,127 15,218 1,899 14,112 1,878 15,409 2,004 15,204 1,861 15,614 125 1,963 A605 Coates 4,597 489 3,886 338 4,399 359 3,972 317.5 4,203 284 3,994 28 290 B1093 Doddington - Benwick 1,385 101 1,660 87 1,563 74 1,631 104 1,587 50.5 1,583 15 64 C85 Carters Bridge 4,177 444 3,504 227 3,548 248 3,371 211 3,545 244.5 3,532 30 204 B1086 Somersham 6,641 201 6,040 31 5,989 137 5,654 104.5 6,234 108 6,338 85 88 A1123 Bluntisham 8,144 629 7,899 511 7,733 366 7,993 363 6,433 262 7,902 41 329 A14 Swavesey 58,718 11,860 54,788 10,316 58,819 11,365 58,234 11,453 57,593 11,327 61,236 182 11,540 A428 Bourn Airfield 22,976 1,762 23,147 1,404 24,468 1,192 26,384 1,482 26,173 1,234 27,974 133 1,484 B1046 Bourn 3,245 66 2,432 67 2,481 59 2,618 53 2,472 54 2,809 47 33 A603 Orwell 8,793 363 8,296 249 8,486 212 8,321 188 8,612 201 8,303 46 267 C269 Meldreth 1,965 67 1,916 36 1,892 56 1,945 25.5 1,836 20.5 1,881 16 27 C320 Melbourn Village 4,551 111 4,188 52 3,972 67 4,278 78.5 3,893 59 4,294 38 103 A10 Melbourn Bypass 9,742 579 11,393 382 10,779 402 11,038 392 11,060 343 11,872 51 378 A505 West of Flint Cross 12,417 1,437 13,417 1,127 13,533 1,289 12,590 1,136 12,811 1,153 13,618 29 1,174

TOTAL 268,527 33,086 266,130 29,048 268,559 30,095 268,591 30,719 266,127 28,054 280,329 1,608 30,002

Table 2: River Cam Screenline - 12 Hour Flows 2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Road Location No Total Total Total Total Total Total HGV HGV HGV HGV HGV BUS HGV Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs

A1134 Elizabeth Way 26,051 901 25,101 705 23,485 542 23,353 474 25,371 543 22,340 194 410 C292 Victoria Avenue 12,677 245 12,808 224 11,891 156 11,630 244 10,820 162 10,901 500 184 C290 Bridge Street 2,596 75 2,381 60 2,393 33 2,016 32 2,141 41 2,180 715 72 C294 Silver Street 10,342 139 3,854 28 3,975 42 3,824 32 3,495 45 3,742 230 54 A1134 Fen Causeway 17,875 349 19,335 279 19,140 284 18,544 355 19,033 186 19,517 138 244 TOTAL 69,541 1,709 63,479 1,296 60,884 1,057 59,367 1,137 60,860 977 58,679 1,776 963

49 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Traffic Flow Summaries

Table 3: Cambridge Radials - 12 Hour Flows

2004 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Location Total Total Total Total Total Total HGV HGV HGV HGV HGV Bus HGV Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs Vehs Histon Road 20,478 342 20,954 448 21,219 295 20,901 369 21,511 288 20,313 151 311 Milton Road 26,092 1,152 26,368 907 25,552 759 25,872 1128 24,382 914 24,698 332 761 Horningsea Road 15,064 289 13,292 164 13,075 97 13,906 1523 13,291 101 12,683 50 132 Newmarket Road 18,988 652 20,893 502 20,861 444 20,812 603 20,216 642 20,125 146 578 High St Teversham 2,918 69 2,888 79 2,898 48 2,798 45 2,724 44 2,925 25 49 Fulborn Road 10,685 143 8,700 116 9,428 98 9,280 84 9,409 107 9,088 113 132 Wort’sC’way (adj) 1,022 11 965 18 1,184 22 982 23 1,003 18 1,021 0 1 Lime Kiln Rd (adj) 7,460 45 6,764 27 6,720 15 6,020 30 6,005 18 6,523 28 14 Babraham Road 11,377 253 12,753 190 12,521 223 13,113 233 12,798 250 12,799 161 215 Granhams Road 3,681 45 3,668 43 4,031 42 2,942 13 3,020 34 3,260 7 24 Shelford Road 8,651 362 8,178 171 8,797 176 9,691 183 9,849 239 10,151 89 176 Hauxton Road 19,040 657 19,304 507 18,410 505 22,503 885 23,110 605 25,667 217 694 Coton Road 3,730 35 3,257 41 3,629 27 2,943 29 2,999 301 3,083 32 10 Barton Road 10,151 204 10,021 160 10,342 145 9,740 141 9,876 154 10,289 111 112 Madingley Road 13,347 303 15,115 166 13,397 235 13,620 185 14,096 179 13,692 238 215 Huntingdon Road 10,211 229 9,710 204 9,273 170 9,034 165 9,292 141 9,470 173 169 Girton Road 4,627 68 4,765 40 4483 48 4,410 35 4583 22 4,572 74 35 Guided Busway ------183 - 216 - 219 219 - Total 187,522 4,859 187,595 3,783 185,820 3,349 188,745 4,301 188,375 3,782 190,578 2,166 3,628

Table 4 – Cambridge Cycle Route Monitoring – 12 Hour Flows Location 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Newnham 1,533 1,779 1,736 2,024 1,897 2,042 1,755 Comberton 225 218 259 318 272 178 278 Toft 99 100 70 137 95 69 242 Dry Drayton 67 66 70 69 81 83 57 Oakington 256 304 299 351 345 238 142 Milton 757 955 785 918 752 933 697 Fulbourn 150 209 179 241 190 168 150 Teversham 200 225 205 211 243 251 145 Coldham’s Lane 1,285 1,273 1,433 1,651 1,506 1,527 1,455 Carter Cycle Bridge 2,738 3,141 3,052 2,793 2,972 2,735 2,759 A1301 through Gt. Shelford 694 727 709 824 703 661 718 Hills Road 2,566 2,893 2,821 3,452 3,207 2,685 2,366 Long Road 828 995 950 968 1010 748 924 Jubilee Way 738 600 629 746 669 594 637 Cambridge Road, Sawston 265 321 284 530 426 313 399 Swaffham Bulbeck - Prior 92 105 59 89 91 65 66 A1303 Quy to Bottisham 111 147 150 194 186 142 144

50 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Traffic Flow Summaries

Table 5: 2012 ATC Monthly Average Daily Traffic Flow - 24 Hour AADT ROAD Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M11 Between junctions 9 and 10 35,372 36,689 39,883 41,305 41,062 43,281 44,222 43,813 45,201 41,882 39,402 38,796 M11 Between junctions 10 and 11 41,204 42,692 49,292 49,975 50,310 52,200 53,352 52,328 54,974 51,382 49,565 45,964 M11 Between junctions 11 and 12 56,613 58,999 63,499 63,130 64,409 65,620 67,639 66,618 69,362 64,945 58,926 56,026 A1 Alconbury-Brampton Hut ------A1 Southoe 39,664 41,954 44,672 41,734 43,104 41,711 44,660 43,577 45,347 42,948 42,443 39,097 A11 Worsted Lodge 31,738 33,026 35,637 36,181 37,390 37,805 39,147 40,025 38,739 37,453 35,803 32,611 A11 Stump Cross 24,477 25,499 27,313 27,665 28,648 29,218 29,741 30,291 29,730 28,861 27,603 25,864 A14 Catworth Hill 25,315 35,975 37,818 38,073 34,853 39,246 40,708 39,971 41,920 39,440 38,194 35,761 A14 Huntingdon Racecourse 38,117 ------A14 Girton jnc 31 - 32 55,924 58,009 61,548 60,113 59,255 ------A14 Dry Drayton to Cambridge 76,325 77,486 83,498 85,114 86,808 88,224 93,715 89,879 92,380 91,315 88,631 83,207 A14 Milton jnc 33 - 34 51,710 53,747 57,225 55,915 57,535 56,827 58,848 57,780 61,222 58,592 54,282 56,610 A47 Wisbech Bypass 14,419 - - 17,082 17,655 17,298 18,795 19,146 18,002 16,782 15,827 14,701 A428 Caxton to Cambourne 24,432 26,066 27,039 25,024 26,125 25,718 27,556 26,987 28,076 26,794 26,562 23,837 A428 Cambourne to Hardwick 27,271 28,869 29,927 27,423 28,904 29,207 29,588 29,298 31,121 29,643 29,596 26,984 A141 Wyton Airfield ------A142 Fordham 16,175 16,333 17,282 16,554 17,265 16,765 17,367 16,894 17,572 17,336 17,250 16,141 A505 Dottrell Hall 13,912 14,413 15,512 15,370 15,882 15,738 16,548 16,457 16,281 15,852 15,475 13,560 B1514 Huntingdon Ring Road 22,689 22,017 22,953 21,660 22,566 21,696 22,680 21,375 22,425 22,447 22,633 21,169 A1309 Trumpington High St. ------A1309 Milton Road ------A1307 Hills Road 12,999 13,171 13,148 12,019 12,849 12,994 12,387 11,143 12,797 11,855 12,923 11,915 A1307 Huntingdon Road 13,469 14,839 15,452 14,929 15,399 15,719 15,771 14,716 15,809 15,809 15,727 14,564 U/C Cambourne from A428 15,663 15,223 - 15,398 13,332 - 15,809 15,159 - 16,262 16,219 - U/C Cambourne from A1198 3,397 3,384 3,628 3,387 3,562 3,460 3,556 3,306 3,744 3,513 3,572 3,160

Pedal Cycle ATC Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec AADT Cambridge Road, Fulbourn 97 86 126 104 137 122 142 138 166 133 105 74 119 Barton Road, Cambridge 1018 951 1184 973 1252 1171 1117 1005 1224 1180 653 748 1040 A1303 Airport Roundabout 126 - - 77 241 216 233 256 256 193 169 76 184 A1303 Quy to Bottisham 77 60 104 101 139 93 - - 78 113 59 38 72 Witchford to Ely 57 53 86 65 82 82 87 110 108 84 69 47 78 Hinchingbrooke School 239 203 303 211 311 285 306 263 390 311 272 177 272 Brook Road, St. Neots 146 143 189 186 202 192 202 228 207 178 151 110 178 The Causeway, March 83 63 100 73 101 102 100 86 100 72 34 58 81 B1046 Comberton Road 121 97 148 119 163 156 143 151 208 191 163 100 147 Thompson’s Lane 327 316 376 318 397 394 387 370 402 424 385 258 363 Cutter Ferry Bridge 1,373 1,251 1,308 1,414 1,486 1,399 1,184 1,191 1,531 1,750 1,615 880 1,365 Stourbridge Common 1,636 1,594 2,112 1,808 2,312 2,300 1,881 1,398 1,765 2,015 1,882 1,487 1,849 Penny Ferry 216 199 199 218 237 226 206 120 161 249 283 99 201 Clayhythe 84 72 139 105 164 132 143 160 143 93 73 36 112 Riverside Bridge 1,589 1,451 1,605 1,546 1,532 1,482 1,435 1,404 1,761 1,970 1,887 1,449 1,592 Carter Bridge 1,192 1,920 2,149 1,926 2,096 1,992 1,982 1,807 2,447 2,663 2,477 1,711 2,030 Swaffham Bulbeck Lode 12 11 20 21 29 27 24 35 30 20 13 7 21 Stripley Path, Granhams Rd 451 465 667 546 628 598 634 650 852 733 588 348 597 Jubilee Path 1,730 1,490 1,751 1,724 1,728 1,533 1,276 963 1,424 1,637 1,662 1,262 1,515 Tin’s Path 551 492 - - 439 574 591 557 638 632 601 451 550 Garrett Hostel Lane 2,170 2,755 2,418 1,783 2,741 2,114 1,518 1,386 1,620 3,398 3,612 1,234 2,229 Coton Path 1,351 1,659 1,534 1,217 1,635 1,365 1,371 1,297 1,404 1,986 1,956 937 1,476 Burwell Fen 13 13 25 28 36 33 45 68 49 23 14 8 30 Babraham P&R 178 159 315 257 391 249 231 189 299 346 343 213 256 Whittlesford Church 37 37 58 51 72 71 77 84 85 49 38 - 60 New Bit 554 634 750 618 805 670 508 239 418 620 493 292 550

51 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Traffic Flow Summaries

Table 6: 2013 ATC Monthly Average Daily Traffic Flow - 24 Hour AADT ROAD Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec M11 Between junctions 9 and 10 ------M11 Between junctions 10 and 11 40,648 45,338 48,036 50,444 51,282 52,957 54,405 53,714 52,839 51,976 50,109 49,049 M11 Between junctions 11 and 12 53,511 61,125 61,567 64,171 64,874 67,194 68,579 67,124 66,933 66,154 65,978 56,433 A1 Alconbury-Brampton Hut ------A1 Southoe ------A11 Worsted Lodge 29,223 34,257 34,655 36,824 38,171 39,236 40,907 40,560 - - - - A11 Stump Cross ------A14 Catworth Hill - 37,103 36,222 37,958 38,167 39,362 41,600 40,287 39,792 37,919 37,840 34,263 A14 Huntingdon Racecourse ------A14 Girton jnc 31 - 32 - - - 64,992 63,740 64827 66969 66008 66821 64333 63465 56990 A14 Dry Drayton to Cambridge 72,170 83,143 83,735 87,046 87,441 88,606 90,919 89,474 90,849 87,641 86,335 80,808 A14 Milton jnc 33 - 34 - - - - 58,429 59,888 59,596 60,583 61,244 59,247 58,884 52,573 A47 Wisbech Bypass ------A428 Caxton to Cambourne 22,560 25,689 25,710 26,577 26,790 28,217 28,691 28,043 - 27,927 27,803 24,954 A428 Cambourne to Hardwick 25,198 28,585 28,611 29,230 29,395 31,183 31,566 30,356 31,016 31,069 31,070 27,718 A141 Wyton Airfield - - 16,928 17,115 17,072 17,607 17,859 16,971 17,371 17,126 17,123 15,651 A142 Fordham - - - - 18,235 19,717 19,502 18,924 19,468 19,443 19,268 17,411 A505 Dottrell Hall 14,247 16,406 16,521 17,296 17,670 18,312 18,833 18,676 18,574 18,441 18,277 15,814 B1514 Huntingdon Ring Road 22,287 23,787 23,611 23,382 23,313 24,238 24,118 22,143 23,664 23,463 23,700 21,927 A1309 Trumpington High St. - 22,395 26,675 - - 19,759 22,143 20,887 22,819 22,118 22,316 20,442 A1309 Milton Road 20,452 21,951 22,009 21,649 21,953 22,478 22,631 20,619 21,936 22,117 22,049 20,276 A1307 Hills Road 12,783 13,837 13,924 13,077 13,389 14,372 12,825 - - - 13,447 12,338 A1307 Huntingdon Road - 15,745 16,416 16,155 16,246 17,239 16,686 15,589 16,738 16,824 16,927 15,863 U/C Cambourne from A428 16,032 16,035 - - 14,664 16,795 - - 16,652 16,779 16,920 15,550 U/C Cambourne from A1198 3,039 3,409 3,420 3,415 3,575 3,743 3,598 3,288 3,594 3,616 3,717 3,464

Pedal Cycle ATC Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec AADT Cambridge Road, Fulbourn 91 125 134 145 152 195 185 157 176 156 145 100 147 Barton Road, Cambridge 840 1326 1258 1261 1578 - - - - - 925 1024 1,260 A1303 Airport Roundabout 67 163 176 211 288 301 325 302 298 233 223 150 228 A1303 Quy to Bottisham 14 80 106 134 156 196 123 43 121 - 115 93 98 Witchford to Ely 57 68 67 83 90 112 127 114 120 99 94 61 91 Hinchingbrooke School 226 - - - 309 396 385 292 436 336 316 241 252 Brook Road, St. Neots 115 145 150 195 202 232 279 263 229 198 170 115 191 The Causeway, March 52 72 80 89 94 120 128 119 131 105 96 73 96 B1046 Comberton Road 109 148 160 177 207 260 220 180 239 225 215 145 190 Thompson’s Lane 81 322 369 369 441 486 489 424 413 244 169 306 343 Cutter Ferry Bridge 455 1,354 1,478 1,542 1,756 1,803 1,359 1,275 1,439 1,648 1,489 850 1,371 Stourbridge Common - 2,169 1,766 2,014 2,332 2,824 2,916 2,525 2,423 2,258 2,074 1,591 2,239 Penny Ferry 118 252 184 218 296 367 308 212 220 247 227 - 230 Clayhythe 28 59 65 110 159 182 195 136 132 - - - 105- Riverside Bridge 1,631 1,894 1,829 1,810 1,799 1,884 1,521 1,365 1,832 2,045 2,235 1,772 1,801 Carter Bridge 1,948 2,421 2,459 2,356 2,574 2,846 2,526 2,265 2,881 3,009 3,059 2,217 2,547 Swaffham Bulbeck Lode - 9 9 18 49 31 39 50 27 16 9 5 23 Stripley Path, Granhams Rd 387 562 665 747 827 648 389 - - 817 812 249 644 Jubilee Path ------Tin’s Path 540 650 635 685 698 819 811 693 798 821 818 619 716 Garrett Hostel Lane 2,411 3,615 2,757 2,274 3,168 2,720 1,990 1,682 1,922 3,721 4,069 1,913 2,687 Coton Path 1,766 2,211 1,818 1,682 2,065 2,001 1,887 1,732 1,873 2,908 3,145 1587 2,056 Burwell Fen 6 6 7 18 47 32 42 68 21 14 6 4 23 Babraham P&R 329 365 351 335 346 355 260 227 380 417 430 302 342 Whittlesford Church 37 37 58 51 72 71 77 84 85 49 38 - 60 New Bit 554 634 750 618 805 670 508 239 418 620 493 292 550

52 Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 Contact

Further information can be obtained from:

Graham Amis Economy, Transport and Environment Cambridgeshire County Council Box CC1307 Castle Court Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 OAP

Telephone: 01223 715931 E-mail: [email protected]

If you would like a copy of this document on audio Cassette or in Braille, large print or other languages Please contact us on 01223 715931