Local Pinch Point Fund Application Form

Guidance on the Application Process is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport/series/local-pinch-point- fund

Please include the Checklist with your completed application form.

The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 25-35 pages including annexes would be appropriate.

One application form should be completed per project.

Applicant Information

Local authority name(s)*: South Gloucestershire Council

*If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority

Bid Manager Name and position:

Leigh James, Design and Operations Manager, Street Care.

Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed scheme.

Contact telephone number: 01454 864025 Email address: [email protected]

Postal address: South Gloucestershire Council Design and Operations, Street Care PO Box 2081, The Council Offices Castle Street, Thornbury BS35 9BP

When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to.

Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: www.southglos.gov.uk/transportfundingbids

SECTION A - Project description and funding profile

A1. Project name: M5 Junctions 16 and 17 Local Road Improvements

A2. Headline description:

Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme (in no more than 100 words)

This package of two schemes modifies the local highways at M5 Junctions 16 and 17. Their purpose is to ease congestion and improve access to new and existing housing and employment in Bristol’s North Fringe and form part of a Transport Package for the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood which includes the 50ha of employment land within the Filton Enterprise Area and 5,750 houses. They will take place on the circulatory carriageway and will complement the Highways Agency’s successful bid for Pinch Point Programme funding to modify the slip-roads at these junctions. These provide for pedestrians and cyclists.

A3. Geographical area:

Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 100 words)

Located in a part of the North Fringe of greater Bristol known as Cribbs Patchway, the M5 Junctions 16 and 17 form an important connection point between the local and Strategic Road Networks. Junction 16 makes an interchange with the A38 and Junction 17 with the A4018, both important radial routes into Bristol city centre. Both junctions provide access to the Filton Enterprise Area and the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood. Junction 16 also gives access to existing major employers e.g. at Aztec West Business Park and adjoining areas, whilst Junction 17 gives access to the regional shopping centre at Cribbs Causeway.

OS Grid Reference: M5 Junction 16: ST 357 181 M5 Junction 17: ST 360 183

Postcode: M5 Junction 16: BS10 M5 Junction 17: BS32

Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc.

Appendix 1: North Fringe Context Map. Appendix 2: Cribbs/Patchway Transport Package Map. Appendix 3: M5 Junction 16 Scheme Drawing. Appendix 4: M5 Junction 17 Scheme Drawing.

A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box):

Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £1m and £5m) Scheme Bid  Structure Maintenance Bid

Large project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m) 2 Scheme Bid Structure Maintenance Bid

Note: Scheme and Structure Maintenance bids will be assessed using the same criteria.

A5. Equality Analysis

Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty?  Yes No

A6. Partnership bodies

Please provide details of the partnership bodies (if any) you plan to work within the design and delivery of the proposed scheme. This should include a short description of the role and responsibilities of the partnership bodies (which may include Development Corporations, National Parks Authorities, private sector bodies and transport operators) with confirmatory evidence of their willingness to participate in delivering the bid proposals.

These schemes will be delivered in partnership with the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency is tasked with delivering their own Pinch Point schemes which alter the slip roads at each of these junctions so as to increase their capacity. The Council’s schemes are designed to be complementary to those being progressed by the Agency and so close co- operation will be required. They would also be statutory consultees for this work. A letter of support is attached as Appendix 5.

Although these schemes take place on the local highway network, it is necessary to continue the setting back of the kerbline onto the M5 northbound on-slip to ensure that the proposed modification meets current design standards. Initial liaison with the Highways Agency about this matter has already taken place. This is indicated by the letter from the Agency attached as Appendix 6.

A7. Local Enterprise Partnership / Local Transport Body Involvement

It would be beneficial (though not essential) if the relevant LEP or LTB (or shadow(s)) have considered the bid and, if necessary, prioritised it against other bids from the same area. If possible, please include a letter from the LEP / LTB confirming their support and, if more than one bid is being submitted from the area, the priority ranking in order of growth significance.

Have you appended a letter from the LEP / LTB to support this case?  Yes No

A letter of support from the LEP is attached as Appendix 7.

SECTION B – The Business Case

You may find the following DfT tools useful in preparing your business case:

 Transport Business Cases  Behavioural Insights Toolkit  Logic Mapping Hints and Tips

B1. The Scheme - Summary

Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by evidence in the Business Case). Please select all categories that apply.

 Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create housing  Improve access to a development site that has the potential to create jobs  Improve access to urban employment centres Improve access to Enterprise Zones Maintain accessibility by addressing the condition of structures  Ease congestion / bottlenecks  Other(s), Please specify – To improve access to Filton Enterprise Area.

B2. The Strategic Case

This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence on the strategic fit of the proposal. It should also contain an analysis of the existing transport problems, identify the barriers that are preventing growth, explain how the preferred scheme was selected and explain what the predicted impacts will be. The impact of the scheme on releasing growth potential in Enterprise Zones, key development sites and urban employment centres will be an important factor in the assessment process.

In particular please provide evidence on the following questions (where applicable): a) What is the problem that is being addressed, making specific reference to barriers to growth and why this has not been addressed previously?

Rationale and strategic fit:

The North Fringe of Bristol has demonstrated strong growth in the last two decades and is one of the strongest performing economies in the UK, with demonstrable potential to drive growth in the wider region. However, the area is characterised by high levels of congestion and delays and an infrastructure deficit. Recent research for the West of England authorities (Atkins/WEP Dec 2012) has identified that accessibility challenges are causing major concerns for the business community and impacting on the competitiveness of this area and will constrain future potential jobs growth.

M5 Junctions 16 and 17 are congested at peak times and there is a blocking back onto the local road network. At peak times blocking back can also extend onto the Strategic Highway Network. The Council’s forecasts suggest these problems will be exacerbated by the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) development. Hence, the proposed improvements are designed to improve the efficiency of the operation of these junctions, thereby helping to mitigate the impact of the CPNN development and improving access to the site.

The North Fringe is an existing area of housing and major employment which is a key economic driver for the West of England sub-region (which comprises the Unitary Authorities of Bristol City Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, North Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council). Existing employment includes a cluster of aerospace industries including Airbus, Rolls Royce and GKN as well as other major employers like Hewlett Packard, the MOD and the University of the West of England.

4 In addition, the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) recently designated the Filton Enterprise Area as one of the 6 Enterprise Zones/Areas across the West of England area. This is forecast to provide approximately 6,500 new jobs up to 2026 and as the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy identifies - the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) is expected to provide 5,400 new homes in the same period (see Appendix 1: North Fringe Context Map).

The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy is currently progressing towards adoption. To this end an Examination in Public took place in June 2012. The Inspector’s recommendations are now awaited but his early comments suggest that he is broadly supportive of the Council’s development strategy as set out in Policy CS5. This policy indicates that a significant proportion of future development should take place in the North Fringe of Bristol. Thus through Policy CS26 the Council is promoting the development of 50 hectares of employment land and 5,400 houses as part of the CPNN.

To ensure the new development has no adverse impact on congestion, it is supported by a holistic and comprehensive multi-modal Transport Package which is designed to give full access to the CPNN without placing reliance on private car use and is promoted by Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy. Nevertheless, it is essential that access can be obtained from the Strategic Road Network. Without this access it will not be possible to deliver jobs and new houses in the area without creating unacceptable levels of congestion. The schemes forming part of this package ensure that this access can be effectively provided without generating significant additional congestion (see Appendix 2: Cribbs/Patchway Transport Package Map).

During the development of the Cribbs/Patchway transport package, the Council worked up a full implementation programme. This included identifying the delivery timescale and priority for each component. This work indicated that the improvements at M5 Junctions 16 and 17 must be delivered within the first phase (within the first 5 years of the Core Strategy).

Costings and a funding plan for the Transport Package have also been worked up. After taking account of developer contributions such as Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), this highlighted a funding gap of approximately £12m. This Bid for the local highway improvements at M5 Junctions 16 and 17 will help lower the funding gap and kick start the infrastructure delivery for the CPNN, a strategically important development for both South Gloucestershire and the whole of the West of England sub region.

Summary:

The highway improvements at M5 Junctions 16 and 17, which form this Bid, are part of a wider package of transport measures designed to prevent increasing congestion and improve access to the CPNN and Filton Enterprise area. The significant barrier to growth of congestion which limits access to new housing and employment land will be directly addressed by the schemes at Junctions 16 and 17 and by the transport package for the CPNN as a whole.

This scheme has not been implemented previously because it is only now that the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy’s finalised development proposals are emerging. Failure to tackle these problems will materially jeopardise the growth potential of this area. b) What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected?

These schemes are part of a holistic and comprehensive multi-modal Transport Package which is designed to give full access to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) 5 by all modes. During the development of this package a number of alternative measures were examined but excluded from the final selection.

This process employed four criteria which were: - their deliverability, - their compliance with Joint Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2026) goals, - their ability to contribute to the meeting the challenges raised by and release the opportunities created by the CPNN and, - their ability to assist in providing sustainable access to the area.

The final complete CPPN Transport Package is shown at Appendix 2: Cribbs/Patchway Transport Package Map. The selected schemes were able to satisfy the above criteria.

A second stage in the sifting process was used to select which of the components of the CPNN Transport Package could be submitted for funding to the Local Pinch Point Fund. This was based on whether or not the schemes met the criteria set out in the guidance particularly in relation to purpose, cost and delivery timescales. Application of these criteria, with cross party support from our Lead elected Members for Planning, Transport and Strategic Environment, resulted in the selection of the schemes now being promoted for this funding.

Alternative authority wide schemes were also considered for inclusion but rejected because they did not meet the guidance criteria for this fund. c) What are the expected benefits / outcomes? For example, job creation, housing numbers and GVA and the basis on which these have been estimated.

As noted the North Fringe of Bristol has been one of the UK’s strongest growing areas for over two decades, as a result it is characterised by traffic congestion and without mitigation this congestion will limit access to new housing and employment land including the Filton Enterprise Area. A holistic transport package for the CPNN has been developed by SGC which will directly address these problems. These schemes form an integral part of this package and are targeted at relieving congestion at M5 Junctions 16 and 17 which provide access to the Strategic Road Network.

The schemes and the comprehensive Multi-modal Transport Package, of which they form part, are designed to give full access to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood and materially assist in the delivery of 50 hectares of employment land and 5,400 houses.

To determine the contribution made by this package, a consultant study to assess the potential of transport schemes to unlock the GVA and job potential of priority growth locations in the West of England was commissioned. This study estimated that only 1,200 of the 6,500 jobs in the Filton Enterprise Area could be delivered without further transport intervention. Thus this scheme materially contributes to unlocking this potential and closing this gap. d) What is the project’s scope and is there potential to reduce costs and still achieve the desired outcomes? For example, using value engineering.

The schemes promoted by this bid consist of the following (see Appendix 3: M5 Junction 16 scheme drawing and Appendix 4: M5 Junction 17 scheme drawing):

At M5 Junction 16 – At this junction it is planned to provide additional carriageway space on the northern side of the circulatory carriageway and on the northern approach to the junction. 6 It will be necessary to continue the setting back of the kerbline onto the M5 northbound on- slip to ensure that the proposed modification meet current design standards.

At M5 Junction 17 – At this junction it is planned to provide additional carriageway space on the northern side of the circulatory carriageway Once again, it is necessary to continue the setting back of the kerbline onto the M5 northbound on-slip to ensure that the proposed modification meets current design standards.

In both cases these works are designed to accommodate pedestrian, cycle and public transport movements and will take place on land within the highway boundary or on land under the ownership of the highway authorities. Care has been taken to ensure that they dovetail seamlessly with the pinchpoint schemes promoted at these junctions by the Highways Agency.

It is considered that the scheme costs are realistic. However, as the scheme progresses we will investigate opportunities to reduce these where possible. e) Are there are any related activities, that if not successfully concluded would mean the full economic benefits of the scheme may not be realised. For example, this could relate to land acquisition, other transport interventions being required or a need for additional consents?

The highway schemes at M5 Junctions 16 and 17 do not require any land acquisition. This is because the land required is in the ownership of the relevant highway authorities (either the Council or the Highways Agency). These improvements will take place within the existing highway curtilage, therefore they do not require formal planning permission which would introduce delay. It will of course be necessary to obtain full agreement from the Highways Agency before commencing construction. To this end liaison about this project has already commenced.

The local contribution element of this Bid is part of the Section 106 funding for the Charlton Hayes development (Filton Northfield). This contribution has been made in respect of ‘highway improvements’ to support this development. As Charlton Hayes lies immediately north of the eastern part of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (see Appendix 1: North Fringe Context Map) it will directly benefit from the proposals which form the subject of this funding bid. The Section 106 is agreed and funding has been received by the Council.

These schemes form part of a holistic and comprehensive multi-modal Transport Package which is designed to give full access to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood, but each component of the package is designed to be delivered as an individual stand alone project with its own benefits. Hence, the schemes which are the subject of this Bid are not directly dependent upon any other scheme. Indeed, these improvements could if required be delivered without the Highways Agency’s adjacent slip-road schemes. f) What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)?

If Pinch Point Programme funding is not secured for these schemes then their delivery will be delayed until funding can be obtained from other sources. There is not a lower cost alternative which could be delivered instead. As these schemes are required to facilitate access to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood from an early stage, any delay in their implementation may in turn delay the delivery of the houses and jobs inherent in these development proposals.

7 In order to examine the benefits accruing from these detailed testing of the junctions has been undertaken. This has been accomplished by extracting traffic forecasts for ‘with’ and ‘without development’ scenarios from the strategic model covering this area (see Section B6) and using these in bespoke local models covering each of these junctions. These tests have indicated that it is essential that these proposals are carried out, otherwise delivery of the residential, retail and employment development could not take place.

What is the impact of the scheme – and any associated mitigation works – on any statutory environmental constraints? For example, Local Air Quality Management Zones.

An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was declared at Cribbs Causeway (adjacent to M5 Junction 17) in 2010. Further assessment of this AQMA revealed that levels of nitrogen dioxide were in fact below the government target in 2010. Further monitoring in 2011 and 2012 showed air quality in this location remains below the threshold for declaring an AQMA and South Gloucestershire Council proposes to revoke the AQMA in early 2013.

Implementation of the proposed highway scheme at M5 Junction 17 will make the operation of this junction more efficient, thereby minimising the impacts on air quality. We will continue to monitor air quality in this location to ensure an AQMA designation remains unnecessary.

No other environmental constraints will be affected by the proposed schemes at M5 Junctions 16 and 17.

B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs

Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution.

Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10).

Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms)

£000s 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Total DfT funding sought 553.9 1,126.1 1,680.0 Local Authority contribution 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 Third Party contribution 362.8 308.7 28.4 700.0 TOTAL 936.7 1,434.9 28.4 2,400.0 N.B. Totals have been subject to rounding

Table B: Cost estimates (Nominal terms)

Cost heading Cost (£000s) Date estimated Status (e.g. target price) Engineering Works £1,251.2 19/02/2013 Target Price Site Supervision £50.0 19/02/2013 Target Price 8 Preliminaries £155.2 19/02/2013 Target Price (Set up site etc) Part 1 Claims £25.0 19/02/2013 Target Price Preparatory cost £125.1 19/02/2013 Target Price (design fees, consultation etc) Project Management £22.5 19/02/2013 Target Price Scheme Evaluation £3.8 19/02/2013 Target Price Inflation £164.2 19/02/2013 Target Price Risk £602.9 19/02/2013 Target Price

Notes: 1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2014-15 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 30% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required. 3) Costs in Table B should be presented in outturn prices and must match the total amount of funding indicated in Table A.

B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding

Please provide information on the following points (where applicable):

a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme promoter. If the scheme improves transport links to a new development, we would expect to see a significant contribution from the developer. Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.

The local contribution element of this Bid will be derived form the Section 106 funding associated with the Charlton Hayes development (Filton Northfield) ; see Appendix 1: North Fringe Context Map for location. It will directly benefit from the proposals which form the subject of this funding bid.

This contribution has been made in respect of ‘highway improvements’ to support this development. However, the terms of the S106 require the Council to seek authority from the developer to allow the highways contribution to be used for schemes at M5 junction 16 and 17. This agreement has not yet been secured in writing – this will be secured as soon as possible following submission of this Bid.

b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk.

Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes  No N/A

The Council will seek to secure this letter as soon as practically possible following the submission of this Bid. c) The Department may accept the provision of land in the local contribution towards scheme costs. Please provide evidence in the form of a letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land.

Have you appended a letter to support this case? Yes No  N/A d) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection.

Not applicable.

B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk

This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register / QRA – see Section B11).

Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.

Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost?

A risk allowance was established by the QRA which applied the P50 value. An allowance of £602,933 has been made. See QRA attached at Appendix 8. b) How will cost overruns be dealt with?

The risk budget was established through the QRA, derived from the risk register which included risks associated with increased costs and risks to delivery timescales. This budget will be used for any cost overruns. We understand that the DfT funding will be capped and is only available to March 2015. The local contribution will be used for all funding required after that date.

In the unlikely event there are cost overruns above the risk allowance we understand these will be required to be met by the Council. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost?

A full risk register (Appendix 9) and risk management strategy (Appendix 10) have been undertaken for these two schemes. In summary the following risks and uncertainties that might affect project delivery timescales are:

- Unforeseen traffic problems cause closure of the works delaying delivery of the on-site works. - Adverse weather delays the completion of the on-site works. - Delays in securing approvals and/or road space allocation prevents mobilisation for project construction. - Unexpected objections to these proposals delay the programme. 10 - Unforeseen utility diversions are required increasing the projects cost and/or delaying its delivery. - Unexpected design changes required increasing the projects cost and/or delaying its delivery.

A strategy to mitigate these risks has been developed and this is included in the Risk Register (Appendix 9) and the QRA (Appendix 8). d) How will cost overruns be shared between non-DfT funding partners (DfT funding will be capped and will not be able to fund any overruns)?

Cost overruns will be managed solely by the Council.

B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money

This section should set out the full range of impacts – both beneficial and adverse – of the scheme. The scope of information requested (and in the supporting annexes) will vary according to whether the application is for a small or large project.

Small project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of less than £5m) a) Please provide a description of your assessment of the impact of the scheme to include:

- Significant positive and negative impacts (quantified where possible); - A description of the key risks and uncertainties; - A short description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

Scheme Impacts The junction modifications forming the subject of this bid are designed to mitigate the impact of additional traffic arising from the CPNN upon the operation of M5 Junctions 16 and 17. This will reduce delays at these locations. This is illustrated by the strategic model’s forecast impact upon travel times at these locations as shown in the Table below.

Our assessments indicate, that by materially improving the operational efficiency of these junctions the Council’s schemes will not only benefit traffic at these two locations but will also have benefits for other users including pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

Risks and uncertainties A full risk register (Appendix 9) and risk management strategy (Appendix 10) have been undertaken for these two schemes. In summary the following risks and uncertainties are identified:

11 - Higher than expected costs arise during the implementation of the scheme. The potential sources of increased cost indentified in the Risk Register are associated with civil engineering, inflation Part 1 and environmental mitigation. - Unforeseen traffic problems cause closure of the works delaying delivery of the on-site works. - Adverse weather delays the completion of the on-site works. - Delays in securing approvals and/or road space allocation prevents mobilisation for project construction. - Unexpected objections to these proposals delay the programme. - Unforeseen utility diversions are required increasing the projects cost and/or delaying its delivery. - Unexpected design changes required increasing the projects cost and/or delaying its delivery.

A strategy to mitigate these risks has been developed this is included in the Risk Register (at Appendix 9) and the QRA (at Appendix 8).

Modelling approach As stated these schemes form part of a larger package of transport measures designed to facilitate the delivery of a wide range of development opportunities which together comprise the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood. Modelling of these schemes was undertaken in a holistic an comprehensive manner. This package was developed and assessed using the Greater Bristol Area Transport Study (GBATS) suite of models.

The GBATS model is fully webTAG compliant and was developed on behalf of the West of England local authorities including South Gloucestershire Council. It was specifically designed to examine strategic transport and development issues in all parts of the greater Bristol area. During this evaluation procedure the model was enhanced, updated and revalidated so that it could accurately assess the impact of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood.

Full details of the GBATS model and its enhancements can be found in the attached documents listed below. However, in summary it consists of demand and assignment models as shown below. It was used to carry out the testing of a variety of scenarios including that for 2031 where all of the Core Strategy’s development proposals are in place as is the complete transport package and has been fully reviewed on behalf of the Highways Agency. In the analysis supporting this bid this scenario has been compared with a similar situation but without the transport package.

This study is fully described in the following documents:

- The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Local Model Validation Report May 2012 (available on the Council’s website at https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/251202/7112901.1/PDF/- /RD43%20Local%20Model%20Validation%20Report.pdf ).

- The South Gloucestershire Core Strategy Forecasting Report, May 2012 (available on the Council’s website at https://consultations.southglos.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/251202/7112997.1/PDF/- /RD44%20Transport%20Forecasting%20Report.pdf )

- The Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document, Draft Transport Report, February 2013 (attached at Appendix 11).

In summary the appraisal adopted to examine the schemes subject to this bid was as follows: 2011 and 2031 AM and PM peak hour assigned traffic flows at M5 Junctions 16 and 17 without and with the Pinchpoint schemes were obtained from the GBATS SATURN Core Strategy Model. These were used in detailed operational assessments to calculate the total vehicle delays for the AM and PM Peaks in both years. Estimates for 2016 (the opening year) were obtained by interpolating between the 2011 and 2031 results.

The LINSIG tests demonstrated that the Pinchpoint schemes would result in significant delay savings at both junctions. The forecast annualised delay savings are shown in the table below.

A series of annualisation factors were then employed to estimate the total delay savings for two 2-hour peak periods on 240 working days per year in both 2016 and 2031. This enabled forecast monetary benefits in these years to be estimated using values of time obtained from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6. The results are shown below.

The benefits were then frozen at 2031 values to provide a 60-year appraisal period using a 3.50% discount rate over the whole appraisal period. Finally, these values were used to generate a stream of discounted benefits and to calculate the Present Value of Benefits (BVBs). The resulting PVB estimates are as follows

Junction 16: £36.6 million Junction 17: £47.9 million Total: £84.5 million

It is recognised that the forecasts of benefits are strongly influenced by the large annual delay savings that were forecast for 2031. Thus the CSM outputs indicate that there will be high levels of congestion in 2031 and that modest junction improvements have the potential to significantly improve future operating conditions.

Consequently, a further test was undertaken which assumed that future reductions in delay would be ‘frozen’ at 2016 levels. In 2016, it is estimated that there will be substantial growth from the 2011 baseline, with increased traffic resulting from new development in the Cribbs/Patchway area. Using these more conservative assumptions, the resulting PVBs would be as follows:

Junction 16: £11.7 million Junction 17: £17.0 million Total: £28.7 million

* Small projects bids are not required to produce a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) but may want to include this here if they have estimated this. b) Small project bidders should provide the following as annexes as supporting material:

- A completed Scheme Impacts Pro Forma which summarises the impact of proposals against a number of metrics relevant to the scheme objectives. It is important that bidders complete as much of this table as possible as this will be used by DfT – along with other centrally sourced data – to form an estimate of the BCR of the scheme. Not all sections of the pro forma are relevant for all types of scheme (this is indicated in the pro forma).

- A description of the sources of data and forecasts used to complete the Scheme Impacts Pro Forma. This should include descriptions of the checks that have been undertaken to verify the accuracy of data or forecasts relied upon. Further details on the minimum supporting information required are presented against each entry within the pro forma.

Has a Scheme Impacts Pro Forma been appended?  Yes No N/A

A completed Scheme Impacts Proforma is contained in Appendices 12a and 12b. Appendix 12a - Scheme Impacts Proforma for M5 Junction 16. Appendix 12b - Scheme Impacts Proforma for M5 Junction 17.

Has a description of data sources / forecasts been appended?  Yes No N/A

See Appendix 11. 14

- A completed Appraisal Summary Table. Bidders are required to provide their assessment of all the impacts included within the table and highlight any significant Social or Distributional Impacts (SDIs). Quantitative and monetary estimates should be provided where available but are not mandatory. The level of detail provided in the table should be proportionate to the scale of expected impact with particular emphasis placed on the assessment of carbon, air quality, bus usage, sustainable modes, accessibility and road safety. The source of evidence used to assess impacts should be clearly stated within the table and (where appropriate) further details on the methods or data used to inform the assessment should be attached as notes to the table.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended?  Yes No N/A

A completed Appraisal Summary Table is contained in Appendix 13.

- Other material supporting the assessment of the scheme described in this section should be appended to your bid.

Further details of the studies supporting these schemes are contained in the following documents appended to this report:

- The Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document, Draft Transport Report, February 2013 (attached at Appendix 11).

* This list is not necessarily exhaustive and it is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the analysis supporting the economic case is fit-for-purpose.

Large project bids (i.e. DfT contribution of more than £5m) c) Please provide a short description of your assessment of the value for money of the scheme including your estimate of the BCR. This should include:

- Significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits; - A description of the key risks and uncertainties and the impact these have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including (but not limited to): appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied; and - A description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and the checks that have been undertaken to determine that it is fit-for-purpose.

Not applicable. d) Detailed evidence supporting your assessment – including a completed Appraisal Summary Table – should be attached as annexes to this bid. A checklist of material to be submitted in support of large project bids has been provided.

Has an Appraisal Summary Table been appended? Yes No N/A

- Please append any additional supporting information (as set out in the Checklist).

*It is the responsibility of bidders to provide sufficient information for DfT to undertake a full review of the analysis.

B7. The Commercial Case

This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. a) Please provide evidence to show the risk allocation and transfer between the promoter and contractor, contract timescales and implementation timescales (this can be cross-referenced to your Risk Management Strategy).

No risk transfer as it is proposed to deliver the schemes using the Council’s in-house workforce supported by the Council’s highway works supply chain frameworks. b) What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme and how and why was this identified as the preferred procurement route? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope.

The value of the schemes is under the OJEU threshold for capital schemes. Therefore an OJEU notice is not required. Existing contracts are in place and capability already exists within South Gloucestershire Council to deliver the schemes.

The intention is to use the in-house South Gloucestershire Council workforce and Supply Chain framework contracts to deliver these schemes.

The Supply Chain contracts were procured through restricted OJEU procedure in 2010 and will run until at least 2015. As these framework contracts were procured through a competitive process they have demonstrated value for money.

The scheme value of £2.4m represents less than 15% of estimated Supply Chain Framework contract spend and is in the range for contract size undertaken by the Council. Schemes have already been successfully completed for similar highway layout construction works as part of the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme at Coldharbour Lane and A4174 Avon Ring Road (Coldharbour Lane to M32). c) A procurement strategy will not need to form part of the bid documentation submitted to DfT. Instead, the Department will require the bid to include a joint letter from the local authority’s Section 151 Officer and Head of Procurement confirming that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best value for money outcome.

Has a joint letter been appended to your bid? Yes No NA - A procurement strategy is not needed because the Council’s existing in-house workforce and supply chain will deliver the schemes.

The Council’s S151 officer is also head of Procurement and in signing this Bid he confirms the commercial case set out above. 16

*It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required.

B8. Management Case - Delivery

Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) A detailed project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included, covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained. Resource requirements, task durations, contingency and float should be detailed and easily identifiable. Dependencies and interfaces should be clearly outlined and plans for management detailed.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid?  Yes No

A Project Plan is attached at Appendix 14. b) If delivery of the project is dependent on land acquisition, please include a letter from the respective land owner(s) to demonstrate that arrangements are in place in order to secure the land to enable the authority to meet its construction milestones.

Has a letter relating to land acquisition been appended? Yes No  N/A

The land required to deliver this scheme is entirely within the ownership of South Gloucestershire Council or the Highway Agency. Hence, no land acquisition is required for the scheme. However, please see additional letter from the Highways Agency in this respect (see Appendix 6): c) Please provide summary details of your construction milestones (at least one but no more than 5 or 6) between start and completion of works:

The following construction milestones have been identified:

- Mobilise – Commence mobilisation of construction workforce, order materials etc. - Site clearance & earthworks - Commence work on clearing the site and undertaking earthworks. - Drainage & foundations - Commence work on the drainage and pavement foundations. - Pavement & kerbing - Commence work on the pavement and kerbing. - Traffic signs & road markings - Commence work on the traffic signs and road markings. Street lighting & signals - Commence work on the street lighting and signals Completion – Completion of construction.

Each of these items is included in the project plan attached as Appendix 14. This programme embraces the moratorium on construction works at M5 Junction 17 in the retail peak period before Christmas (December).

Table C: Construction milestones 17

Estimated Date Start of works Nov 2013 Mobilise Nov 2013 Site Clearance and earthworks Feb 2014 Drainage and foundations Mar2014 Pavements and kerbing Jun 2014 Traffic signs and road markings Sept 2014 Traffic signals and street lighting Sept 2014 Opening date Jan 2015 Completion of works (if different) na d) Please list any major transport schemes costing over £5m in the last 5 years which the authority has delivered, including details of whether these were completed to time and budget (and if not, whether there were any mitigating circumstances)

South Gloucestershire Council implemented the Greater Bristol Bus Network (GBBN) major scheme jointly with Bristol City Council. The South Gloucestershire Council element of DfT funding was £18.1m, and £24.7m in total. GBBN was delivered to time and budget.

B9. Management Case – Statutory Powers and Consents a) Please list separately each power / consents etc obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them. Any key dates should be referenced in your project plan.

It is not necessary to secure powers or consents to deliver these proposals. It will however be necessary to reach agreement with the Highways Agency to allow these proposals to go ahead. As can be seen from the letter attached at Appendix 6, we have already commenced this process and have been in liaison with the Agency about these matters. b) Please list separately any outstanding statutory powers / consents etc, including the timetable for obtaining them.

Not applicable.

B10. Management Case – Governance

Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and responsibilities of those involved, and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. Details around the organisation of the project including Board accountabilities, contract management arrangements, tolerances, and decision making authorities should be clearly documented and fully agreed.

18 The project management arrangements for the schemes at M5 Junction 16 and 17 will mirror arrangements already in place to manage the Council’s LTP capital programme. The Governance structure is set out in the chart below:

The project manager will report progress to the SRO who will report exceptions on financial and scope change (with a variation of 10%) to the Project Board (which will meet on a quarterly basis at the same time as the Capital Programme Board). An exceptional meeting of the Project Board will be called if the project manager identifies a significant matter to the SRO which requires authority from the Board. The project will be managed by the project manager through the Council’s PRIME project management system (which is similar to PRINCE 2).

B11. Management Case - Risk Management

All schemes will be expected to undertake a thorough Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) and a detailed risk register should be included in the bid. The QRA should be proportionate to the nature and complexity of the scheme. A Risk Management Strategy should be developed and should outline on how risks will be managed.

Please ensure that in the risk / QRA cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value.

Has a QRA been appended to your bid? Yes No

Has a Risk Management Strategy been appended to your bid?  Yes No

A QRA is attached at Appendix 8. A Risk Register and Risk Management Strategy are attached at Appendices 9 and 10.

B12. Management Case - Stakeholder Management -

The bid should demonstrate that the key stakeholders and their interests have been identified and considered as appropriate. These could include other local authorities, the Highways Agency, statutory consultees, landowners, transport operators, local residents, utilities companies etc. This is particularly important in respect of any bids related to structures that may require support of Network Rail and, possibly, train operating company(ies). a) Please provide a summary of your strategy for managing stakeholders, with details of the key stakeholders together with a brief analysis of their influences and interests.

As noted this scheme forms part of a package of transport measures to support the development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood for residential, commercial and retail purposes. This development is included in the Council’s emerging Core Strategy which was subject to an Examination in Public in June 2012.

In the run up to the Examination in Public a wide range of consultation exercises were carried out. Particular emphasis was placed on engaging the stakeholders with interests in Bristol’s North Fringe. This included the stakeholders with interests linked to the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN) where Steering Groups were set up to oversee and manage planning and transport matters. During this process the stakeholders broadly approved the concept and contents of the CPNN Transport Package.

These Steering Groups remain in place and have continued to provide the Council with guidance related to these transport and development proposals. It is intended that they will also advise on the Pinchpoint schemes.

The schemes will also be subject to South Gloucestershire Council’s Consultation Procedure. This will be carried out in accordance with the Council’s ‘Consultation Framework’. A ‘Statement of Reasons’ supplemented by drawings will be prepared and various Stakeholders including Local Members, Parish and Town Councils, Emergency Services, The Cycle Forum, Local Transport Operators, Road Haulage Organisations and other significant interested parties are invited via email to comment. The General Public will also be engaged via road signs and advising interested parties Council’s of the online consultation diary. A letter drop to affected residents and commercial organisations will also be undertaken. b) Can the scheme be considered as controversial in any way? Yes  No If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words) c) Have there been any external campaigns either supporting or opposing the scheme?

Yes No

If yes, please provide a brief summary (in no more than 100 words)

d) For large schemes please also provide a Stakeholder Analysis and append this to your application.

Has a Stakeholder Analysis been appended? Yes No N/A

20 e) For large schemes please provide a Communications Plan with details of the level of engagement required (depending on their interests and influence), and a description of how and by what means they will be engaged with.

Has a Communications Plan been appended? Yes No  N/A

B13. Management Case - Assurance

We will require Section 151 Officer confirmation (Section D) that adequate assurance systems are in place.

For large schemes please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around planned health checks or gateway reviews.

Not applicable.

SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation

C1. Benefits Realisation Please provide details on the profile and baseline benefits and their ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme.

The schemes which are the subject of this bid are small in scale and therefore the benefits accruing to the users of these junctions can only be measured in a limited number of ways. These benefits will manifest themselves as reductions in traffic queues and therefore the journey times of vehicles travelling through these junctions. As these network enhancements are designed to facilitate development of the CPNN, the full value of these benefits will not be accrued until after this development is complete. This will not take place until after 2026.

The forecasts underlying this bid have measured these benefits by examining the change in journey time after completion of the CPNN development. These forecasts are as follows:

These reductions in journey time are forecast to lead to these schemes accruing the following benefits:

Junction 16: £36.6 million Junction 17: £47.9 million Total: £84.5 million

21 It is recognised that these forecasts are strongly influenced by the large annual delay savings that were forecast for 2031 where modelling indicates that there will be high levels of congestion in 2031 and that modest junction improvements have significant potential improve future operating conditions.

Consequently, a further test was undertaken in which it was assumed that future reductions in delay would be ‘frozen’ at 2016 levels and using these more conservative assumptions, the resulting PVBs would be as follows:

Junction 16: £11.7 million Junction 17: £17.0 million Total: £28.7 million

C2. Monitoring and Evaluation

Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful.

Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme

As noted in Section C1, a full examination of the operational efficiency of the schemes proposed in this bid has been undertaken and forecasts produced for the ‘with’ and ‘without’ works scenarios. Given the small scale of the works undertaken under this bid, it is proposed to carry out an appropriate level of monitoring for these schemes. Moreover, the full effect of these schemes will not become available until after 2026. In the meantime, it will be of value to examine the interim results of these works.

Therefore it is proposed that once these schemes have been fully implemented the traffic flows and queues at M5 Junctions 15 and 16 will be recounted. This will enable the Senior Responsible Officer to revise the economic case and review the success of these proposals.

This programme would be as follows:

- Undertake traffic and queue surveys – 3 months after opening of scheme (March 2015). - Review and report on scheme outcomes – Within 2 months of completion of survey.

A fuller evaluation for large schemes may also be required depending on their size and type.

SECTION D: Declarations

D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for M5 Junctions 16 and 17 Local Road Improvements I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of South Gloucestershire Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that South Gloucestershire Council will have all the necessary statutory powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name: Richard Gillingham Signed: 22

Position: Strategic Transport Policy Manager

D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for South Gloucestershire Council I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that South Gloucestershire Council:

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution - accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and (subject to written confirmation from the Charlton Hayes developer) the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties - accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no DfT funding will be provided after 2014/15 - confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and, for smaller scheme bids, the authority can provide, if required, evidence of a stakeholder analysis and communications plan in place

Name: Signed:

Zulfiqar Darr

Submission of bids:

For both small bids and large bids the deadline is 5pm, 21 February 2013

One hard copy and a CD version of each bid and supporting material should be submitted to:

Steve Berry Local Transport Funding, Growth & Delivery Division Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR

23 An electronic copy should also be submitted to [email protected]

24 Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 6 Appendix 7

Steve Berry Date: 7 February 2013 Local Transport Funding, Growth and Delivery Division Contact: Jane Middleton Department for Transport Great Minster House Email: Jane.Middleton@westofengla 33 Horseferry Road ndlep.co.uk London Telephone: 0117 922 2729 SW1P 4DR

Dear Mr Berry

Local Pinch Point Fund – M5 Junction 16 and 17 Local Road Improvements

The West of England Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) welcomes the creation of the £170m Local Pinch Point Fund and it’s focus on deliverable schemes that support economic growth by reducing congestion and improving links to key growth locations.

Enhanced transport infrastructure has been identified as one of the LEP’s major priorities and is central to the delivery of the our key economic objectives, namely to support:

• 95,000 new jobs by 2030 • 3.4% annual growth by 2020 • Over £1 billion of private sector investment over the next 3 years

The LEP have designated six growth locations in the West of England as Enterprise Zones or Areas, one of which is located in Filton where it is expected that 6,500 jobs will be created by 2026. Filton Enterprise Area has the potential to be promoted as an internationally important opportunity for businesses to locate directly alongside existing successful enterprises, with a focus on the following activities:

• Aerospace design, research and manufacture • Defence • Advanced manufacturing • Emerging materials technologies (working closely with the National Composite Centre located at the Bristol and Bath Science Park) • Information technology, maximising the potential of superfast broadband • Micro electronics research and design

www.westofenglandlep.co.uk C/o West of England Office, Wilder House, Wilder Street, Bristol, BS2 8PH Appendix 7

Transport infrastructure is key to unlocking the Filton Enterprise Area to ensure it delivers its full potential. The proposals included within the Pinch Point Fund application, to increase capacity at M5 junction 16 and 17, will improve access to the Filton Enterprise Area from the motorway network, and reduce congestion on adjacent local roads improving the attractiveness and growth potential of this location.

We would therefore seek your support for this important scheme through this funding opportunity. If there is anything further that the LEP can do to further illustrate the importance of this application please let me know.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Middleton Director of the West of England Local Enterprise Partnership

2 www.westofenglandlep.co.uk C/o West of England Office, Wilder House, Wilder Street, Bristol, BS2 8PH QRA Appendix 8 Risks out

M5 Junction 16 and 17 Improvements

Impact Minimum Cost Most Likely Cost No Description Likelihood Maximum Cost (£) Result Random On / Off Cost Impact Cost Time (£) (£) 1 Higher than anticipated civils construction costs. 50.0% M N/A £100,000.00 £200,000.00 £250,000.00 £183,333 91% 0 £0 2 Higher than anticipated site supervision costs. 25.0% M N/A £10,000.00 £20,000.00 £30,000.00 £20,000 31% 0 £0 3 Higher than aniticpated utilities costs. 50.0% M N/A £250,000.00 £375,000.00 £500,000.00 £375,000 11% 1 £375,000 4 Unforeseen traffic delays during construction further restricting 50.0% M N/A £100,000.00 £200,000.00 £250,000.00 £183,333 46% 1 £183,333 working hours and extending construction duration. 5 Streetcare misses Noticing Procedure booking for highway 25.0% M N/A £10,000.00 £20,000.00 £30,000.00 £20,000 33% 0 £0 resulting in penalties. 6 Adverse weather slows construction. 50.0% M N/A £0.00 £75,000.00 £100,000.00 £20,000 69% 0 £0 7 Delay in diversion of known utilities 50.0% M N/A £0.00 £100,000.00 £200,000.00 £100,000 69% 0 £0 8 Oppostion to the scheme (Members, Town/Parsh Councils, 25.0% M N/A £50,000.00 £75,000.00 £100,000.00 £75,000 39% 0 £0 Residents, Stakeholders) opposing the scheme, causing 9 Delay in securing requisite permissions from the Highways 50.0% M N/A £50,000.00 £175,000.00 £250,000.00 £158,333 100% 0 £0 Agency. 10 Cost inflation higher than anticipated 25.0% M N/A £50,000.00 £75,000.00 £100,000.00 £75,000 75% 0 £0 11 Changes in design standards for infrastructure. 25.0% M N/A £0.00 £25,000.00 £50,000.00 £25,000 27% 0 £0 12 Higher than anticipated environmental mitigation costs 25.0% M N/A £25,000.00 £50,000.00 £75,000.00 £50,000 81% 0 £0 13 Higher than anticipated Part 1 claims. 25.0% M N/A £0.00 £10,000.00 £20,000.00 £10,000 84% 0 £0 £645,000.00 £1,400,000.00 £1,955,000.00 £1,295,000.00 £558,333.33 Note: Highlighted figures are results of a single outcome from the uncertainty and risk sections of the scheme model. Monte Carlo analysis uses 1000 iterations and the full range of possible outcomes is graphed on the attached S-curve. In accordance with HA Guidance Note GN 02/03, the 50% Confidence Level figures from this analysis are to be used to set budget estimate figures.

\\FGBD101001.wsatkins.com\GBCFA_Home$\MORG9680\Desktop\J16_Jn17_Level 1 Est_@Risk_Outputs_180213.xlsx 18/02/2013 Model out

M5 Junction 16 and 17 Improvements

Uncertainty Risk Baseline Minimum Most Likely Maximum Result Risk Risk + Uncertainty Distribution Prelims (100 Series & TM) £410,593.27 £390,063.60 £410,593.27 £451,652.59 £417,436.49 Triangular Site Clearance (200 Series) £11,631.49 £11,049.91 £11,631.49 £12,794.64 £11,825.35 Triangular Fencing & Environmental Barriers (300 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Safety Fencing (400 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Drainage (500 Series) £51,507.40 £48,932.03 £51,507.40 £56,658.14 £52,365.86 Triangular Earthworks (600 Series) £73,614.77 £69,934.03 £73,614.77 £80,976.25 £74,841.69 Triangular Main Carriageway Pavement (700 Series) £190,465.79 £180,942.50 £190,465.79 £209,512.37 £193,640.22 Triangular Kerbs etc. (1100 Series) £18,279.45 £17,365.48 £18,279.45 £20,107.39 £18,584.11 Triangular Traffic Signs & Road Markings (1200 Series) £296,734.24 £281,897.52 £296,734.24 £326,407.66 £301,679.81 Triangular Road Lighting Columns etc. (1300 Series) £22,005.57 £20,905.29 £22,005.57 £24,206.12 £22,372.33 Triangular Electrical Work for Lighting (1400 Series) £17,437.34 £16,565.47 £17,437.34 £19,181.07 £17,727.96 Triangular Motorway Communications (1500 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Structural Concrete (1700 Series) £1,224.16 £1,162.95 £1,224.16 £1,346.58 £1,244.56 Triangular Waterproofing (2000 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Parapets (2200 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Bridge Joints (2300 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Special Structures (2500 Series) £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Landscaping & Ecology (3000 Series) £1,421.91 £1,350.81 £1,421.91 £1,564.10 £1,445.61 Triangular Ancillary Costs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular SU Costs £300,000.00 £285,000.00 £300,000.00 £330,000.00 £305,000.00 Triangular Land: i) Acquisition Costs £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Land: ii) Part 1 Claims £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Preparation & Supervision Costs £181,339.00 £172,272.05 £181,339.00 £199,472.90 £184,361.32 Triangular Retail Price Index Fluctuations £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Triangular Fluctuation between Contractors Rates £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Uniform Compensation Events £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Uniform

Total £1,576,254.37 £1,497,441.66 £1,576,254.37 £1,733,879.81 £1,602,525.28

£1,602,525.28 £323,333.33 £1,925,858.61

Note: Highlighted figures are results of a single outcome from the uncertainty and risk sections of the scheme model. Monte Carlo analysis uses 1000 iterations and the full range of possible outcomes is graphed on the attached S-curve. In accordance with HA Guidance Note GN 02/03, the 50% Confidence Level figures from this analysis are to be used to set budget estimate figures.

\\FGBD101001.wsatkins.com\GBCFA_Home$\MORG9680\Desktop\J16_Jn17_Level 1 Est_@Risk_Outputs_180213.xlsx 18/02/2013 Outputs

Risk + Baseline Risk Uncertainty 50th %ile Uncertainty 0% £1,576,254.37 1,551,022 0 1,532,513 £2,179,187.00 5% £1,576,254.37 1,760,684 157,749 1,569,943 £2,179,187.00 10% £1,576,254.37 1,834,909 233,181 1,576,615 £2,179,187.00 15% £1,576,254.37 1,890,020 290,415 1,580,932 £2,179,187.00 20% £1,576,254.37 1,940,184 338,656 1,584,971 £2,179,187.00 25% £1,576,254.37 1,984,785 385,318 1,588,138 £2,179,187.00 30% £1,576,254.37 2,025,814 424,476 1,590,873 £2,179,187.00 35% £1,576,254.37 2,064,140 462,112 1,593,769 £2,179,187.00 40% £1,576,254.37 2,102,053 499,855 1,596,456 £2,179,187.00 45% £1,576,254.37 2,141,255 536,300 1,599,224 £2,179,187.00 50% £1,576,254.37 2,179,187 576,992 1,601,688 £2,179,187.00 55% £1,576,254.37 2,216,872 613,794 1,604,498 60% £1,576,254.37 2,250,966 651,095 1,607,307 65% £1,576,254.37 2,292,263 688,893 1,610,165 70% £1,576,254.37 2,335,865 734,228 1,612,931 75% £1,576,254.37 2,377,362 774,406 1,615,986 80% £1,576,254.37 2,422,856 818,261 1,619,442 85% £1,576,254.37 2,470,635 865,683 1,623,572 90% £1,576,254.37 2,530,852 926,439 1,628,869 95% £1,576,254.37 2,612,855 926,439 1,637,058 100% £1,576,254.37 2,954,627 1,364,020 1,682,250

£2,288,146 P50 £602,932.63 P100 1,378,373

\\FGBD101001.wsatkins.com\GBCFA_Home$\MORG9680\Desktop\J16_Jn17_Level 1 Est_@Risk_Outputs_180213.xlsx 18/02/2013 Outputs

M5 Junction 16 and 17 Improvements

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% Percentile (%) 30%

20%

10%

0% £1,500,000.00 £1,590,000.00 £1,680,000.00 £1,770,000.00 £1,860,000.00 £1,950,000.00 £2,040,000.00 £2,130,000.00 £2,220,000.00 £2,310,000.00 £2,400,000.00 £2,490,000.00 £2,580,000.00 £2,670,000.00 £2,760,000.00 £2,850,000.00 £2,940,000.00 Cost (£) Baseline Cost £1,576,254.37 Risk Allowance £602,932.63 Baseline Risk + Uncertainty Uncertainty 50th %ile Total Project cost 2,179,187

\\FGBD101001.wsatkins.com\GBCFA_Home$\MORG9680\Desktop\J16_Jn17_Level 1 Est_@Risk_Outputs_180213.xlsx 18/02/2013 @RISK Output Report for Cell H35 Performed By: David Boddy Date: 13 February 2013 18:05:21

Simulation Summary Information Workbook Name J16_Jn17_Level 1 Est_@Risk_120213.xlsx Number of Simulations 1 Number of Iterations 10000 Number of Inputs 38 Number of Outputs 3 Sampling Type Monte Carlo Simulation Start Time 2/13/13 18:04:38 Simulation Duration 00:00:23 Random # Generator Mersenne Twister Random Seed 705588940

Summary Statistics for Cell H35 Statistics Percentile Minimum £1,551,022.26 5% £1,760,684.34 Maximum £2,954,626.55 10% £1,834,908.84 Mean £2,181,543.91 15% £1,890,019.89 Std Dev £262,248.58 20% £1,940,183.62 Variance 68774317687 25% £1,984,785.02 Skewness 0.068060918 30% £2,025,814.00 Kurtosis 2.381395655 35% £2,064,139.56 Median £2,179,186.96 40% £2,102,052.38 Mode £2,023,398.86 45% £2,141,255.14 Left X £1,760,684.34 50% £2,179,186.96 Left P 5% 55% £2,216,871.74 Right X £2,612,854.93 60% £2,250,966.01 Right P 95% 65% £2,292,262.71 Diff X £852,170.58 70% £2,335,864.89 Diff P 90% 75% £2,377,362.27 #Errors 0 80% £2,422,856.29 Filter Min Off 85% £2,470,635.32 Filter Max Off 90% £2,530,851.58 #Filtered 0 95% £2,612,854.93

Regression and Rank Information for Cell H35 Rank Name Regr Corr 1 N/A / Result 0.097 0.089 2 N/A / Result 0.086 0.081 3 N/A / Result 0.075 0.065 4 N/A / Result 0.069 0.061 5 Prelims (100 Series0.059 & TM) 0.057/ Result 6 N/A / Result 0.059 0.050 7 Traffic Signs & Road0.058 Markings 0.055 (1200 Series) / Result 8 SU Costs / Result 0.045 0.042 9 N/A / Result 0.035 0.033 10 N/A / Result 0.000 0.018487252 11 N/A / Result 0.000 0.014796145 12 N/A / Result 0.000 -0.014268522 13 N/A / Result 0.000 0.013490047 14 N/A / Result 0.000 0.012427586 Risk Register Appendix 9 Pinch Points Bid M5 J16 and J17 Feb'13

Risk Assessment Residual Risk Impact Prob. Impact Prob. Ref Description Mitigation Cost Time Perf Rating RAG Proximity Approach Mitigation Measures DATE OF STATUSCost Time Perf Rating RAG Min £k Max £k Likely £k Liklihood owner (date) Avoid, UPDATE Accept, Reduce, Transfer

1 Higher than anticipated civils construction costs. Project H L L H 5.00 Const Reduce Review and scrutiny of detailed designs as 12/02/2013 open M L L M 2.67 £ 100 £ 250 £ 200 50% Manager they progress to implementation. 2 Higher than anticipated site supervision costs. Project M L L M 2.67 Const Reduce Co-ordinate construction programme of the 12/02/2013 open L L L L 1.00 £ 10 £ 30 £ 20 25% Manager two sites. 3 Higher than aniticpated utilities costs. Project H L L H 5.00 Prep & Reduce Early engagement with utility 12/02/2013 open H L L M 3.33 £ 250 £ 500 £ 375 50% Manager Const companies to confirm extent of utility works.

4 Unforeseen traffic delays during construction further Project H M L M 4.00 Const Reduce Prepare and implement construction and 12/02/2013 open M L L M 2.67 £ 100 £ 250 £ 200 50% restricting working hours and extending construction Manager traffic management plans; advertise notices of duration. works before start of works. 5 Streetcare misses Noticing Procedure booking for Project M M L M 3.33 Prep & Reduce Early programming and discussion 12/02/2013 open L L L L 1.00 £ 10 £ 30 £ 20 25% highway resulting in penalties. Manager Const with Traffic Manager. 6 Adverse weather slows construction. Project H H L H 7.00 Const Reduce Programme construction to avoid winter 12/02/2013 open H H L M 4.67 £ - £ 100 £ 75 50% Manager months; prepare contingency plans. 7 Delay in diversion of known utilities Project H H L H 7.00 Const Reduce Early engagement with utility 12/02/2013 open H H L M 4.67 £ - £ 200 £ 100 50% Manager companies and booking works well in advance.

8 Oppostion to the scheme (Members, Town/Parsh Project M H L M 4.00 Prep Reduce Early identification of the issues; maintain 12/02/2013 open M H L L 2.00 £ 50 £ 100 £ 75 25% Councils, Residents, Stakeholders) opposing the scheme, Manager ongoing public and stakeholder engagement. causing delays and increasing costs. 9 Delay in securing requisite permissions from the Project H H L H 7.00 Prep Reduce Early and continuous dialogue with the HA to 12/02/2013 open H H L M 4.67 £ 50 £ 250 £ 175 50% Highways Agency. Manager secure consents. 10 Cost inflation higher than anticipated Project M L L M 2.67 Const Reduce Forecast outturn costs using appropriate 12/02/2013 open M L L L 1.33 £ 50 £ 100 £ 75 25% Manager industry indcies and forecasts. 11 Changes in design standards for infrastructure. Project M L L L 1.33 Prep Accept Apply "freeze" on standards at start of 12/02/2013 open M L L L 1.33 £ - £ 50 £ 25 25% Manager construction. 12 Project M L L M 2.67 Prep Reduce Early engagement with both statutory and non- 12/02/2013 open M L L L 1.33 £ 25 £ 75 £ 50 25% Higher than anticipated environmental mitigation costs Manager statutory stakeholders to indentify appropriate mitigation measures.

13 Higher than anticipated Part 1 claims. Project L L L L 1.00 Post-const Reduce 12/02/2013 open L L L L 1.00 £ - £ 10 £ 20 25% Manager Totals£ 645 £ 1,945 £ 1,410

G:\TRANSP & STRAT PROJECTS\Strategic Transport Policy\Transport Policy\Local PP funding\Bid docs\Appendices\Appendix 9 - Risk Register \ risk register Appendix 10

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Introduction

This Risk Management Strategy sets out the processes for identifying and managing project risks. A risk workshop has been conducted for the scheme to produce the risk register appended to this application form; this will be used to inform the project and with the risk identification and management process also taken through a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) process.

Although the risk workshop has formed the main reviews of the risk register at the current time, the project risk register will continue to remain a live document. Regular updating and reporting of the risk register will be undertaken through the process of reporting to the Project Board. This continual review is important to ensure that the most appropriate risk managers are allocated to specific risks, that new risks are being identified as appropriate, and that existing (and new) risks are being adequately monitored and actioned as required.

Risk Register

As outlined above, the project risk register is a live document and will continue to be regularly reviewed and updated by the Project Manager. Formal reviews for changes to risk profile will be undertaken as part of reporting to the Board and this will form part of a standard agenda item at such meetings.

The detailed project risk register is attached at Appendix 9; the current top three project risks are:

- Delays in securing permissions from the Highways Agency;

- Delays in diversions to utilities; and

- Adverse weather affecting the construction programme.

The risk register sets out the approach to mitigating these risks.

Quantified Risk Assessment

The Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been determined using the Monte Carlo risk simulation methods and the @RISK software. This risk exposure has been estimated with due regard for the Optimism Bias factors, based on Department guidance. The risk exposure has been included in the economic analysis, to determine an appropriate benefit-to-cost ratio.

QRA is also provided at Appendix 8.

The key results of the QRA in relation to programme indicate that the greatest risk to programme is in ensuring timely Highways Agency consents to the proposed works. This will be managed through close dialogue with the Agency to ensure that the works are effectively integrated with the Agency’s own Pinchpoint schemes. The key results of the QRA in relation to costs demonstrate that the most significant risks to be managed relate to the costs of utilities diversions, traffic conditions restricting working hours and higher than expected civils construction costs.

Risk Management – Mitigation

An initial assessment of potential mitigation measures is included in the risk register attached at Appendix 9. The Project Team will continue to develop mitigation actions for all identified risks, including the identification of individual risk owners. These plans will be reviewed regularly to ensure the most appropriate course of action is being taken. Mitigation actions will be comprehensive for all risks but more focus will be placed on the highest risks and this will be adjusted as these are reduced and/or resolved.

End.

Cribbs Patchway New Appendix 11 Neighbourhood - Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report South Gloucestershire Council

February 2013

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for South Gloucestershire Council’s information and use in relation to the Supplementary Planning Document for the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood.

Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 54 pages including the cover. Document history

Job number: 5115669 Document ref: Transport Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 Initial Draft GM JFC JFC 23/01/13 Rev 2.0 Revised Draft JFC GM GM 03/02/13 Rev 3.0 Final Draft GM JFC 07/02/13 Rev 4.0 4th Revision JFC JFC 14/02/13

Client signoff

Client South Gloucestershire Council

Project Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document

Document title Transport Report

Job no. 5115669

Copy no.

Document Transport Report reference

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 2

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Table of contents

Chapter Pages 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 1 1.3. CPNN Supplementary Planning Document 1 1.4. Purpose of this Report 2 2. Background Review 3 2.1. Introduction 3 2.2. Transport Modelling 3 2.3. CPNN Transport Package 3 2.4. Summary 8 3. Proposed Development 9 3.1. Introduction 9 3.2. Land Uses 9 4. Transport Analysis 13 4.1. Introduction 13 4.2. Transport Modelling 13 4.3. CPNN Transport Package 16 4.4. Summary 24 5. Walking and Cycling 25 5.1. Introduction 25 5.2. Filton Airfield: A major barrier to movement 25 5.3. Walking and Cycling Audit 26 5.4. Proposals for Off-Site Walking and Cycling Improvements 27 5.5. Proposed Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes for CPNN 29 5.6. Summary 29 6. Bus and BRT Provision 31 6.1. Introduction 31 6.2. Forecast Bus Demand at CPNN 31 6.3. Network Review 32 6.4. Revised Bus Proposals 33 6.5. Implications for infrastructure 35 6.6. Summary 36 7. Rail 37 7.1. Introduction 37 7.2. Existing Rail Services 37 7.3. Future Rail Services 37 7.4. Summary 38 8. Internal Road Layout and Access 39 8.1. Introduction 39 8.2. Development of Layout and Access Strategy 39 8.3. Site Access 39 8.4. Internal Road Layout 40 8.5. Summary 41 9. Highway Impacts and Mitigation 43 9.1. Introduction 43 9.2. Traffic Routings 43

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 3

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

9.3. Key Impacts 43 9.4. Designs of Improvement Schemes 44 9.5. Junction Assessments 44 9.6. Summary 46 10. Conclusions 47

Tables Table 1. CPNN Residential Development Proposals 9 Table 2. Combined Residential and Employment Proposals 10 Table 3. CPNN Zones and Development Details 14 Table 4. TRICS Average Vehicle Trip Rates for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period 19 Table 5. CPNN Zones Trip Generation (Vehicles) Forecasts for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period 20 Table 6. TRICS Average Multi Modal Trip Rates (person trips by mode) for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period 21 Table 7. TRICS (Multi Modal) Mode Splits 22 Table 8. Private Vehicle / Public Transport Mode Splits from Demand Model 22 Table 9. Mode Splits following adjustments using Demand Model 23 Table 10. Final CPNN Mode Splits 24 Table 11. Estimated Bus Operating Costs for the Modelled Network (2012 prices) 32

Figures Figure 1. Location of CPNN in the context of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area 4 Figure 2. Core Strategy CPNN Framework Diagram 6 Figure 3. SPD CPNN Framework Diagram 11 Figure 4. CPNN Zoning System 14 Figure 5. CPNN Modelled Access Arrangements and Internal Road Layout 15 Figure 6. Derivation of CPNN Trip Generation and Mode Split Targets 17 Figure 7. CPNN Site Location and Key Walking and Cycling Routes 25 Figure 8. Location of Proposed Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements 28 Figure 9. Location of CPNN Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes 29 Figure 10. Potential Schematic Plan for BRT Services in the North Fringe, including CPNN 34 Figure 11. CPNN Access Junctions Location Plan 40

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 4

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

1. Introduction

1.1. Background South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) commissioned Atkins to undertake a programme of work to define the transport package required to support the development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN). This work is required to inform the development of the CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); and builds on earlier high-level analysis undertaken as part of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy.

1.2. South Gloucestershire Core Strategy The South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy 2006 – 2027 proposes a substantial amount of growth in the Cribbs / Patchway area including 5,700 new homes, approximately 50ha employment land, community facilities and expansion of retail floorspace at Cribbs Causeway. The requirements for the New Neighbourhood are set out in Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy.

The Core Strategy also defines policies related to transport that will enable the Council's spatial strategy to be delivered and strategic objectives to be met. These include:

 Policy CS7: Strategic Transport Infrastructure - with specific reference to major infrastructure projects and the associated Transport Package for the North Fringe. The CPNN Transport Package is defined within Policy CS7 and was specifically designed to: - Improve travel choices for current users of the network; - Maximise opportunities for sustainable travel in the New Neighbourhoods; and - Tackle the effects of additional traffic on the network.  Policy CS8: Improving Accessibility refers to accessibility, off-site mitigation, provision and promotion of sustainable travel options and parking. It states that all new development proposals of a sufficient scale will be required to contribute financially or in kind to the schemes set out in Policy CS7.

The Examination in Public (EiP) of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy took place in June / July 2012 and the Inspector provided his initial set of findings, including a set of proposed modifications on 19th September. This was followed by a set of errata published on 4th October. The Inspector concluded that the Cribbs / Patchway area (including the land at Filton Airfield) can make a significant contribution towards satisfying development pressures and assist in delivering a coherent strategy for the North Fringe. He agreed with the Council’s contention that this was best achieved by producing a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to cover this area.

Conversely, however, the Inspector considered that proposals for expansion of the Cribbs Causeway retail area are premature. As a result, further work will be required to develop the evidence base to demonstrate the need for further retail provision in the area.

1.3. CPNN Supplementary Planning Document The CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out a strategic framework for the New Neighbourhood; identifying key strategic themes for infrastructure and the essential packages of facilities and services that need to be delivered to support the New Neighbourhood. Furthermore the SPD will be used to coordinate individual developers’ proposals and to assist with the submission of planning applications.

In transport terms the SPD is expected to:

 Ensure the delivery of adequate transport links at CPNN both in terms of access to the surrounding network and connectivity between the different areas within the New Neighbourhood;  Give detail for the overarching movement framework for the area, including internal street layout, routes for pedestrians and cyclists, routings for new bus services, confirmation of the corridor for the Bus Rapid Transit extension and interchange with the proposed new rail station(s) at Filton North and Henbury;  Give detail of the timing and phasing of the required transport infrastructure; and

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 1

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 Develop a strategy for financial contributions taking into account costs for the provision of on- and off-site transport infrastructure and measures to promote sustainable travel.

1.4. Purpose of this Report Additional transport analysis has been undertaken to identify elements of the CPNN package, as defined in the Core Strategy, that are both essential (as opposed to desirable) and deliverable. This analysis reflects current development proposals for CPNN, which take into account emerging proposals from Developers in the New Neighbourhood.

Furthermore, CPNN will be developed in phases and the analysis establishes which elements of the package are required to facilitate each development phase. This report describes the work undertaken to define in more detail the transport package for CPNN, to inform the development of the CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

This report is structured as follows:

 Chapter 2 provides a background review of the work that was previously undertaken to develop the Transport Package to support the proposals at the Core Strategy stage;  Chapter 3 describes the current development proposals for the New Neighbourhood, based on ongoing masterplanning and the emerging proposals from individual Developers in the New Neighbourhood;  Chapter 4 explains the approach taken to the modelling and analysis of the transport impacts of the New Neighbourhood, including the strategic modelling tool, trip generation, distribution and assignment;  Chapter 5 describes the proposals for walking and cycling, including both principles for maximising opportunities for walking and cycling within the New Neighbourhood, and improvements on surrounding routes;  Chapter 6 describes the development and assessment of the public transport elements of the package, with a particular focus on assessing the viability of the proposals for new and improved bus routes to serve the area;  Chapter 7 describes existing and planned rail provision to serve the North Fringe area, including the New Neighbourhood;  Chapter 8 sets out the proposed internal road layout and access arrangements, including operational assessment of key junctions;  Chapter 9 explains the package of off-site highway improvements that is proposed to help mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood; and  Chapter 10 sets out the conclusions of this review.

A series of appendices (in a separate document) are also provided, as follows:

 Appendix A presents concept proposals for the site accesses from the A4018 and A38;  Appendix B presents concept proposals for off-site junction improvements developed to help mitigate the impacts of the increased traffic flows resulting from the New Neighbourhood; and  Appendix C sets out a register of the issues relating to statutory undertakers to be considered, managed and addressed in developing these proposed off-site junction improvements.

A separate report sets out the proposed implementation plan for the transport package, including consideration of the costs of the Transport Package, potential funding sources and an indicative phasing schedule.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 2

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

2. Background Review

2.1. Introduction A review of the transport work undertaken to inform the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy, in relation to the development of the CPNN proposals, was undertaken at the outset of this study. The review also identified elements of the North Fringe Transport Package that were specific to CPNN.

The purpose of this review was two-fold:

 To identify and plan the transport modelling and analysis that would be required to support the development of the transport package;  To review the elements of the transport package, both individually and in combination, and to identify the work required to develop these to an appropriate level of detail for this stage in the planning process.

This chapter provides a brief overview of these two aspects of the review.

2.2. Transport Modelling Transport modelling for the Core Strategy was based on the Core Strategy Model (CSM), a strategic multi- modal model. It was constructed using SATURN highway assignment modelling software and is linked to two other models developed on behalf of the West of England local authorities:

 the G-BATS3 Public Transport Assignment Model (PTAM); and  the G-BATS3 Demand Model.

Together, these models enable forecasts to be made of transport demand and the corresponding highway and public transport flows in the North Fringe.

The CSM was used to inform SGC’s position on Core Strategy and develop the North Fringe Transport Package. The North Fringe Transport Package was developed specifically to support the major growth planned in the North Fringe, which will include the two New Neighbourhoods at Cribbs Patchway (CPNN) and East of Harry Stoke (EHSNN). This included specific transport schemes to support the delivery of the two New Neighbourhoods.

The CSM provided forecasts of the weekday travel demand and transport network conditions for the following two scenarios:

 Reference Case: assumed that the CPNN and EHSNN are not developed and the accompanying transport package would not be provided; and  Do Something Case: assumed that CPNN and EHSNN are developed in line with the Core Strategy and packages of transport improvements would be provided for the two New Neighbourhoods, along with strategic transport infrastructure defined in Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

The modelling work for the Core Strategy used a broad zoning system based on the conceptual site layout, together with indicative access arrangements, internal road layout and indicative routes for public transport services. However, following the subsequent work in developing the site masterplan in support of the SPD, it was necessary to make changes to the model to ensure a more disaggregate zoning system and to reflect the emerging access and movement framework. Chapter 4 of this report explains the process of updating the model to reflect the emerging SPD proposals.

2.3. CPNN Transport Package The location of CPNN, including adjacent transport links, is shown in Figure 1 overleaf.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 3

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Figure 1. Location of CPNN in the context of the North Fringe of the Bristol Urban Area

CPNN

Source: Core Strategy with Post-Submission Changes, Figure 5, Page 140

The North Fringe Transport Package comprised the CPNN Package and EHSNN Package, as described in Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy. The elements of the Transport Package relating specifically to CPNN or elements required to support development in the North Fringe more generally are outlined below. 2.3.1. Smarter Choices The development would be accompanied by a full range of measures to encourage smarter travel choices including:

 Travel plans for the residential and employment elements of the New Neighbourhoods;  Travel information packs for homebuyers;  Personalised travel planning for residents of the New Neighbourhoods;  Travel plans for the proposed on-site primary schools;  Provision and promotion of sustainable transport options; and  Incentives to encourage residents to join the South Gloucestershire car share scheme. 2.3.2. Walking and Cycling The Council aims to provide an exemplar network for cycle and pedestrian access to the CPNN. This would include:

 All streets designed to facilitate direct, safe and comfortable movement by pedestrians and cyclists, adopting a Homezone approach;  Secure cycle parking provided at key locations;  Connections will be made to the local road network in Southmead / Brentry (in Bristol) via Fishpool Hill (for pedestrians and cyclists only) and Charlton Road (pedestrians, cyclists and buses);  Links provided to the adjacent walking and cycling network at Cribbs Causeway and to routes along the A38 and A4018;  Improvements will be made to cycling infrastructure along both the A38 and A4018 and new pedestrian crossing facilities will help to address the severance currently experienced on both roads; and

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 4

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 Improved cycling links will be provided to Parkway Station, including measures to improve provision at the junction between the A38 and B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane.

The development of the New Neighbourhood also offers the opportunity to transform the quality of walking and cycling provision in the Cribbs Causeway, Patchway and Filton areas, which will significantly improve the attractiveness of active travel for shorter journeys within, to and from the area. Chapter 5 of this report describes the more detailed development of these proposals. 2.3.3. Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Services A full range of bus and BRT services would be provided to support this development. This would include the network enhancements set out below. All bus frequencies quoted are proposed daytime Monday-Saturday frequencies (lower frequencies would apply in the evenings and on Sundays).

 Route 20 – would be extended from the current northern terminus at Charlton Road into the New Neighbourhood, serving Airfield West and Fishpool Hill (2 buses per hour).  Route C01 – a new route, between Cribbs Causeway and Broomhill via Airfield West, the A4018 corridor and Bristol city centre (2 buses per hour).  Route C02 – a new route, between Cribbs Causeway and Hartcliffe via Airfield East (including the employment zones), then via the A38 corridor and Bristol city centre (2 buses per hour).  Route C03 – a new route linking Airfield West and Cribbs Causeway with Avonmouth and Severnside, via the M5 between junctions 16 and 17 (2 buses per hour).  Route C04 – a new circular route from Cribbs Causeway, along the south side of Charlton Hayes, then via Gipsy Patch Lane, Bristol Parkway, New Road, Great Stoke Way, A4174 Station Road and the A38, then across CPNN and back to Cribbs Causeway via Haw Wood (2 buses per hour in each direction).  Route X90A – a new BRT service, between Cribbs Causeway and Centre via Airfield East (including the employment zones), Gipsy Patch Lane and Bristol Parkway, then via the same route as that proposed in the North Fringe to Hengrove (NFH) Package via UWE and the M32 to the city centre (6 buses per hour). All other BRT routes are as modelled for the NFH Package.

The work in support of the SPD considered these proposals in more detail, assessed the ability of these proposals to attract future demand, estimated future operating costs and refined the proposals to maximise potential demand and minimise the requirement for ongoing subsidy. Chapter 6 of this report summarises our findings and makes recommendations for the configuration of future bus and BRT services. 2.3.4. Infrastructure for Buses and BRT The North Fringe Transport Package incorporates a range of improvements to highway infrastructure that will benefit both existing and new bus / BRT services. These include:

 A4018 Corridor – Bus priority measures would be focused on the section between Lysander Road and Crow Lane. The package of measures on this corridor will also include improved pedestrian crossing facilities to enable connections between the new areas of housing on both sides of the A4018.

 A38 Corridor – Improvements are proposed to the roundabouts at M5 Junction 16 and Aztec West. There could be scope for the provision of bus priority on the A38 southbound approach to M5 Junction 16 from Almondsbury. On the section of A38 between Filton Avenue and the A4174 Filton Roundabout, an integrated approach will be taken to the management of roadspace. This section of the A38 will also be provided with improved pedestrian crossings to tackle the severance effects of this road in Filton.

 BRT Corridor – The North Fringe Transport Package included provision for the extension of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services through the New Neighbourhood, operating along Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road, connecting to the route of the North Fringe to Hengrove Package at Bristol Parkway station. This would require priority measures and high quality BRT stops along Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road.

 Gypsy Patch Lane – It will be necessary to address problems caused by the narrow rail bridge on Gypsy Patch Lane. The work for the Core Strategy considered options including replacing the rail bridge to provide sufficient space for BRT vehicles and general traffic, or traffic management on the approaches

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 5

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

to provide priority to buses and BRT vehicles. Given the potential costs of replacing rail bridges, it is likely that the preferred option would be traffic management on the approaches to the bridge.

 Flexible ticketing – It is also important to provide a range of flexible ticketing options for people using the bus network. South Gloucestershire Council will therefore seek financial contributions towards the expansion of smart ticketing opportunities for buses.

These proposals have been considered in more detail during the SPD process and recommendations for bus priority measures are set out in Chapter 6 of this report. 2.3.5. Rail There is scope to provide new stations at Henbury (adjacent to the A4018) and Filton North (adjacent to the A38), which would be served by passenger services to be introduced on the Hallen line. These services would run to Bristol Temple Meads, calling at Filton Abbey Wood and local stations within Bristol. These proposals would be taken forward within Phase 2 of the Greater Bristol Metro project that is being jointly promoted by the four West of England authorities. However, the construction of these stations and re- introduction of services along the line would be subject to demonstrating a satisfactory business case. It was also noted that there could be scope to improve waiting facilities at (and links to) Patchway station.

The Core Strategy evidence base demonstrated that these rail proposals will support the delivery of the New Neighbourhood but are not essential. Further work (separately commissioned) is currently ongoing to consider options for new services on the Hallen line. However, provision will continue to be made for a new station at Filton North. Further consideration would need to be given to the feasibility of a new station at Henbury. The rail proposals are described in Chapter 7. 2.3.6. Highway Access to CPNN The access arrangements proposed for the Core Strategy are shown in the ‘Cribbs/Patchway New Neighbourhood Framework Diagram’. This is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Core Strategy CPNN Framework Diagram

Source: Core Strategy with Post Submission Changes, Figure 6, Page 154

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 6

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Four indicative character areas within CPNN were identified, with the following access arrangements:

1. New Charlton (area currently occupied by the western part of Filton Airfield) - A4018 Wick Beck Road; - A4018 Cribbs Causeway – via existing access at The Laurels; - Merlin Road, between the San Andreas Roundabout and Merlin Road/Lysander Road Roundabout; - Merlin Road at the San Andreas Roundabout; and - Charlton Road (bus only access);

2. Haw Wood (area west of the A4018) - Creation of a 4th arm on the A4018/B4055 Roundabout; and - A4018 Cribbs Causeway – 4th Arm on the A4018/The Laurels junction.

3. Filton Aerospace Cluster (area currently occupied by the eastern part of Filton Airfield) - Access onto Hayes Way at the three existing roundabouts (known as Blenheim, Brabazon and Concorde); - A38, just north of the Hallen Freight Line; and - West Way (internal connection, between new Aerospace cluster and existing BAe site)1.

4. Cribbs Causeway - Remodelling of existing road network to support future town centre activities and new residential development on the site of the existing Patchway Trading Estate.

Further work has taken place during the SPD process to develop the detail of the access arrangements, in parallel with ongoing masterplanning work, which is described in Chapter 8 of this report. 2.3.7. Off-site Highway Infrastructure

Stoke Gifford Transport Link The Stoke Gifford Transport Link (SGTL) is one of the key elements of the North Fringe to Hengrove Package and was identified in the Core Strategy as being essential in supporting the delivery of the two New Neighbourhoods in the North Fringe. The SGTL will be a single carriageway road link between the A4174 Avon Ring Road and the Parkway North Roundabout on Great Stoke Way. It will provide a new route connecting Bradley Stoke to the Ring Road and will provide relief to congested routes in the Stoke Gifford area, including Hatchet Road on the approaches to Bristol Parkway Station. It will be used by the BRT services in the North Fringe and will enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross the railway line.

The SGTL is important in addressing the current and future transport challenges in the North Fringe. It will enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross the railway line, and will form one of the key elements of the BRT corridor in the North Fringe to Hengrove Package. It is therefore an essential supporting element to the delivery of CPNN.

Highway Mitigation Package Highway improvements were proposed to tackle the residual impacts of traffic generated by the CPNN (and EHSNN) developments. Highway mitigation measures were identified for the following junctions:

 M5 Junction 17;  A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout (south west of Junction 17);  A4018 Crow Lane Roundabout (within the Bristol City Council boundary);  M5 Junction 16;  A38 / Aztec West Roundabout (just south of Junction 16);  A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction;  A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout; and  B4057 Winterbourne Road / Great Stoke Way Roundabout2.

1 Note: this was not included in the modelling that was used to test the impacts of CPNN – refer to Chapter 4. 2 A westbound to southbound filter lane is proposed at the roundabout. The earlier Core Strategy modelling work showed that this assisted with the movement of traffic towards the SGTL and EHSNN. This scheme has been included

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 7

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

The package of off-site highway improvements has been considered in detail as part of the work in support of the SPD. This has included strategic modelling of traffic flows, more detailed junction assessments and development of concept proposals for key junctions on the network. The proposals are discussed in more detail in Chapter 9 of this report.

2.4. Summary This chapter of the report provides details of the transport work undertaken to inform the Core Strategy in relation to CPNN and includes details of the transport package proposed to support the development, in line with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

Additional transport analysis has now been undertaken to identify elements of the CPNN package, as defined in the Core Strategy, that are both essential (as opposed to desirable) and deliverable; and to establish which elements of the package are required to facilitate a phased development of the New Neighbourhood.

Chapter 3 describes the development proposals that have been assumed within the SPD process, Chapter 4 describes the modelling and analysis undertaken, and Chapters 5-9 describe the detailed development of each element of the Transport Package to support development at the New Neighbourhood.

as a general forecasting assumption but is not specific to CPNN and does not therefore form part of the CPNN Transport Package proposals.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 8

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

3. Proposed Development

3.1. Introduction This chapter outlines the current development proposals for CPNN. The proposals were provided by SGC and the individual elements were broadly confirmed with consultants acting for Developers with land interests in the New Neighbourhood.

3.2. Land Uses

3.2.1. Residential It has been assumed that a total of 5,750 residential units would be provided, as set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1. CPNN Residential Development Proposals

Development Area Number of Dwellings Patchway Trading Estate 1,000 Airfield East and West 2,500 Fishpool Hill 1,200 Charlton Common 50 Haw Wood (west of A4018) 1,000 Total 5,750

SGC has also confirmed that 35% of the housing will be affordable, and 80% of the affordable housing is likely to be rented. 3.2.2. Employment 50ha of employment land was allocated to CPNN in the Core Strategy. For the purposes of modelling of future travel demand, this was assumed to be equivalent to:

 160,000 sqm of office development  120,000 sqm of industrial development  Total GFA for the Employment Area: 280,000 sqm

Following discussions with stakeholders, these proposals have since been scaled down to reflect current developer aspirations for the Filton Enterprise Area. The revised employment proposals, for the purposes of the SPD transport analyses, were assumed to be as follows:

 65,000 sqm of office development  86,000 sqm of industrial development  Total GFA for the Employment Area: 151,000 sqm

3.2.3. Combined Residential and Employment Table 2 overleaf shows the combined residential and employment land uses for CPNN and Figure 3 provides a framework diagram for the New Neighbourhood (as provided by SGC to inform the transport- related analysis).

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 9

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Table 2. Combined Residential and Employment Proposals

Development Area Dwellings Employment B1 B2 Patchway Trading Estate 1,000 Airfield East and West 2,500 65,000 86,000 Fishpool Hill 1,200 Charlton Common 50 Haw Wood (west of A4018) 1,000 Total 5,750 65,000 86,000

3.2.4. Local Services and Community Facilities The New Neighbourhood will be served by a range of local services and community facilities. These will include education, health care, leisure, recreational and retail facilities to serve the residential population of CPNN. The four primary schools proposed at CPNN are expected to solely serve the CPNN area. It was assumed that the secondary school will draw 40% of its pupils from the neighbouring Southmead area (in Bristol), with the remaining 60% of pupils coming from CPNN.

A 200 bed Hotel and a 10,000sqm Museum is also proposed at CPNN.

For the purpose of the SPD, it was assumed that trips associated with the primary schools, local health care and local retail facilities would be contained within the New Neighbourhood. These trips were assumed to remain within the New Neighbourhood and were not therefore assigned to the external network.

In the case of the Secondary School, it was assumed that 60% of trips would remain internal to the site, with the 40% balance drawn from the Southmead area.

In the case of the Hotel, it was assumed that trips would be drawn from outside the New Neighbourhood.

In the case of the Museum, it was assumed that all trips would be generated during off-peak weekday periods and weekends, with no traffic generated during the weekday peaks. This was not, therefore included in the modelling. 3.2.5. Expansion of ‘The Mall’ at Cribbs Causeway Following comments made by the Inspector at the SGC Core Strategy EIP, there remains some uncertainty in relation to the proposed expansion of The Mall at Cribbs Causeway. Nevertheless, for the purpose of the SPD weekday modelling, it has been assumed that the whole of the proposed retail expansion will take place. Therefore, the future year modelling includes an allowance of 35,000 sqm of retail floor area, all of which would be located at The Mall.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 10

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Figure 3. SPD CPNN Framework Diagram

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 11

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 12

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

4. Transport Analysis

4.1. Introduction This chapter describes the work undertaken to enhance the tools used for modelling, analysis and development of the CPNN Transport Package. The modelling, analysis and development of the Transport Package comprised the following elements of work:

 CSM Strategic Transport Model Update – an update of the existing model to provide the analytical tools to support the development of the transport package for the New Neighbourhood;

 Development / Refinement of the CPNN Transport Package – develop the key principles of the CPNN package, using the CSM strategic transport model and drawing on the principles of the masterplanning of the New Neighbourhood;

 Walking and Cycling – maximising opportunities for walking and cycling for more local journeys and to minimise the proportion of these trips made by car. This is particularly important given the close proximity of housing and employment in the North Fringe;

 Public Transport – maximising opportunities for travel by bus, BRT and rail, maximising the commercial viability of the proposed services and minimising potential subsidy requirements;

 Internal Road Layout and Access Arrangements – development of internal road hierarchy and access arrangements, to maximise the permeability of the site and to ensure streets are people-focused not car dominated;

 Off-Site Highway Improvements – whilst the key focus of the CPNN transport package is to maximise opportunities for sustainable travel (to, from and within the New Neighbourhood), it is recognised that significant volumes of vehicle traffic will be generated. The need for off-site highway improvements has therefore been investigated and proposals have been developed and assessed; and

 Development Phasing – infrastructure to support phased development in the New Neighbourhood and to maximise use of sustainable modes of travel from the outset.

The remainder of this chapter outlines the work undertaken to update the strategic CSM transport model and the refinement and forecasting of travel demand associated with the CPNN Transport Package

4.2. Transport Modelling The CSM was updated to take into account the following issues:

 The latest version of long-term (to 2031) planning assumptions across the four West of England authorities;  Refinement of the specification of the North Fringe to Hengrove Package in preparation for a planning application expected to be forthcoming in 2013; and  More detailed specification of the development proposals and supporting transport package for CPNN.

This recently updated version of the CSM has been used to assess the transport impacts of the New Neighbourhood and to refine the transport package required to support the development. For the purpose of this work, the proposed development at EHSNN and accompanying transport package was removed from the previously assessed ‘Do Something’ scenario.

The following sections describe the specific updates that were made in the model to reflect the emerging development proposals.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 13

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

4.2.1. New CPNN Zoning System The CPNN area was previously modelled as four discrete zones. The CPNN area has now been divided into ten zones and encompasses the development proposals outlined in Chapter 3 as follows:

Table 3. CPNN Zones and Development Details

Zone Number Zone Name Number of Employment (sqm) Dwellings B1 B2 70010 Airfield East Office (B1) Employment3 65,000 70018 Airfield East Industrial (B2) Employment 86,000 70013 Fishpool Hill 600 70014 Fishpool Hill 600 70017 Patchway Trading Estate 1000 70015 Airfield West 1500 70016 Airfield East 1000 70020 Charlton Common 50 70012 Haw Wood 1000 41683 CPNN Secondary School (850 pupils)4 Total 5,750 65,000 86,000

The proposed expansion of retail floor space at The Mall has been applied to existing zone 43604.

A plan showing the layout of the CPNN zoning system is provided in Figure 4 below. The updated zoning system allows improved assignment of CPNN travel demand and facilitates testing of the individual elements of the development.

Figure 4. CPNN Zoning System

3 Zone 70010 also includes the proposed 200 bed hotel 4 40% of the secondary school trips were assigned onto the surrounding highway network

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 14

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

4.2.2. Access and Internal Highway Infrastructure Figure 5 shows the network coding for the CPNN access points and internal road network.

Figure 5. CPNN Modelled Access Arrangements and Internal Road Layout

Key access and road layout assumptions are set out below.

Access Ten access points to CPNN have been modelled (reflecting the concepts of the CPNN Masterplan):

 A4018 - Wyck Beck Road Signalised Junction - providing access both Fishpool Hill and the Airfield site, - New four-arm signalised junction at The Laurels - providing access to both Haw Wood and the Airfield site; and - Creation of a 4th Arm on the A4018 / B4055 Roundabout – providing access to the Haw Wood site.

 A38 - New At-Grade Signalised Junction - providing access to the Airfield site.

 Hayes Way and Merlin Way - Four existing roundabouts on Hayes Way (Blenheim, Brabazon, Concorde and San Andreas) – providing access to the Airfield site; and - Merlin Road Roundabout – providing access to the Airfield site.

 Charlton Road - Bus only access to the Airfield site.

Internal Road Network The internal CPNN road network has been coded as follows (reflecting the concepts of the CPNN Masterplan):

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 15

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 East – West Spine Road through the Airfield site, connecting the A4018 access junctions at Wyck Beck Road and The Laurels to the new A38 at-grade signalised junction (coded with low traffic speeds, to reflect its status in catering for local movements and to discourage through traffic);  Five links connecting the East – West Spine Road to Merlin Road (via the Merlin Road Roundabout) and Hayes Way (via the San Andreas, Blenheim, Brabazon and Concorde Roundabouts); and  A single bus link connecting the East–West spine road to Charlton Road in the south (forming the 4th arm of a crossroads in the centre of the Neighbourhood).

4.2.3. Transport Package Assumptions The CPNN Transport Package (described in Chapter 2) was initially tested in the model. However, ongoing development of the detail of the package was taken into account as the model was developed. As noted in Chapter 2, the provision of new rail services on the Henbury line is not critical to the delivery of the New Neighbourhood. For this reason, the new rail services were not included in the core model testing for the SPD work. 4.2.4. Assessment Scenarios Forecasts of the weekday travel demand and transport network conditions in the North Fringe were estimated for a 2031 Design Year, using the updated CSM. This represents a period five years beyond the Core Strategy plan period of 2026. These forecasts can therefore be considered to be conservative as they reflect further potential growth in demand for travel (hence traffic) beyond 2026.

This report focuses on the assessments undertaken of the full CPNN development proposals, as set out in Chapter 3. However, testing was also undertaken for alternative scenarios to test the specific impacts of the employment development at Airfield East and retail expansion at The Mall. The key findings from these tests are discussed in relevant parts of this report.

4.3. CPNN Transport Package The refinement of the CPNN Transport Package comprised two elements of work. The first involved a review of the current mode choice assumptions (linked to work undertaken in relation to Bus/BRT and Walking, Cycling and Smarter Choices) whilst the second element considered highway capacity issues and improvements to the wider network.

The remainder of this chapter addresses the trip generation and mode choice analysis undertaken prior to assessing the traffic impact of the development and suitability of the proposed mitigation (initially using the CSM SATURN Model and confirmed using junction capacity assessment software). The trip rates adopted in these assessments reflect the specific provision of smarter transport measures, high quality walking and cycling links and public transport facilities associated with this area and vary from those used to assess individual sites at other locations in South Gloucestershire.

Different approaches were adopted for the housing and employment uses and the proposed retail expansion at The Mall: these are discussed below. 4.3.1. Retail Uses: Trip Generation As discussed in the preceding chapter, it was assumed that the local retail facilities would have a catchment drawn completely from within the New Neighbourhood, with journeys made primarily by walking and hence no traffic generated on the ‘external’ road network.

Provision has also been made for significant future retail expansion in the Cribbs Causeway area. Whilst there is currently uncertainty about the future proposals, a series of assumptions were made for the purposes of transport modelling. It was assumed that the full 35,000 sqm of additional retail floorspace would be located at The Mall. It was considered appropriate to apply a pro-rata increase to existing trips made to The Mall, and not to apply TRICS data. This ensured a more evidence-based approach to estimating future travel demand, which we consider to be a conservative approach to forecasting future trips, for the reasons set out below.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 16

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

First, evidence indicates that increasing floorspace at existing shopping centres results in both increases in numbers of trips and increased duration of stay (as shoppers take advantage of increased shopping choices and potentially eat and drink during their trip). This evidence suggests that increased duration of stay is the greater effect, and the proportionate increase in trips is less than the increase in floorspace. In the case of The Mall, it has been assumed that the floorspace would increase by 50%, but the evidence indicates that the increase in the number of retail trips would be significantly less than 50%.

Second, Cribbs Causeway is characterised by high levels of car accessibility, large quantities of car parking and little incentive to consider alternatives to the car. The future development of this area would include development of a wider range of uses with masterplanning to encourage greater use of sustainable travel modes. Furthermore, there would be a fundamental change in the management of car parking. The physical development of this area would require the use of existing parking areas and future parking provision would require careful consideration, but it is highly likely that future peak traffic demand would be ‘capped’ by the availability of parking.

For the purposes of traffic modelling, it was assumed that there would be a 50% increase in traffic generated by The Mall during the AM and PM peak periods. For the reasons discussed above, this assumption is considered to be conservative. 4.3.2. Housing and Employment: Trip Generation and Mode Choice Analysis Figure 6 below summarises the process used to derive trip generation targets for housing and employment land uses in CPNN. The first two steps involve the derivation of ‘vehicle’ and ‘person’ trips forecasts for CPNN, whilst the remaining steps involve adjusting these forecasts to reflect the public transport services on offer (through use of the CSM Demand Model) and walking, cycling and smarter choices initiatives (through manual adjustments).

Figure 6. Derivation of CPNN Trip Generation and Mode Split Targets

Step (a): Derive TRICS based ‘Vehicle’ Trip Generation Forecasts for CPNN

Step (b): Derive TRICS based ‘Person’ Trip Generation Forecasts and Mode Splits for CPNN

Step (c): Run CSM Demand Model to adjust Private Vehicle Trips and Mode Splits

Step (d): Adjust Mode Split to reflect Walking, Cycling and Smarter Choices Initiatives

Confirm CPNN Mode Split and Vehicle Trip Generation (for input to the SATURN Highway Assignment Model)

These steps are described in the following sections. 4.3.3. Step (a): Derive Vehicle trip generation forecasts using TRICS Database The first step was to use the TRICS database to derive average vehicle trip generation rates for the proposed development at CPNN.

The rates derived were based on a sample covering all of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland regions except for Greater London and only weekday surveys were included (excluding Fridays as travel characteristics tend to vary considerably on a Friday compared to other weekdays). Furthermore, all ‘Town

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 17

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Centre’ surveys were excluded. Table 4 overleaf shows the average vehicle trip rates for each land use type in the AM Peak (08:00-09:00), PM Peak (17:00-18:00) and for the daily 12-hour period (07:00 to 19:00). This shows, for comparative purposes, trip rates derived using both the ‘Multi Modal’ and ‘Vehicle’ options in the TRICS database.

This shows that there are slight differences in the trip rates derived using the two options, which is due to the sites used in the sampling in each case. For consistency purposes, rates derived using the ‘Multi Modal’ option have been used in this study, as these can be cross referenced against the ‘person trip’ forecasts discussed in the following section of this chapter.

Table 5 (on Page 19) shows the traffic generation forecasts for the nine CPNN zones based on the ‘Vehicle’ trip rates (Multi Modal) presented in Table 4 and the development zone allocations set out in Table 3.

The trips for the school (zone 41683) and hotel (zone 70010) were included in the modelling but are not presented in the table, because no adjustments were made to the trip rates.

For the derivation of housing trips, the affordable housing allocation has been reflected by applying the ‘Mixed Non Private Housing’ trip rates to 35% of the dwellings. The ‘Houses Privately Owned’ trip rates were applied to the remaining 65%. 4.3.4. Step (b): Derive Multi Modal trip generation forecasts using TRICS database The next step was to examine the numbers of trips generated by each mode of travel (by car, public transport, walking and cycling).

Average ‘multi modal’ trip generation rates were derived from the TRICS database for the proposed development at CPNN using the criteria outlined above.

However, as there was insufficient data available in TRICS to derive dependable multi-modal forecasts for the affordable housing element at CPNN, the mode splits for ‘Houses Privately Owned’ were used for CPNN housing in general.

Table 6 (multi-modal person trip rates) (on Page 20) summarises the average trip rates by mode for the principal land use types in the AM Peak (08:00-09:00), PM Peak (17:00-18:00) and for the daily 12 hour period (07:00 to 19:00).

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 18

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Table 4. TRICS Average Vehicle Trip Rates for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period

AM Peak (08:00-09:00) Vehicle Trip Rates (Multi Modal) Vehicle Trip Rates (Vehicles)

Arrivals Departures Two Way Arrivals Departures Two Way Houses Privately Owned 0.157 0.410 0.567 0.157 0.410 0.567 Mixed Non Private Housing5 Insufficient sample size available in TRICS 0.076 0.247 0.323 Offices (per 100 sqm) 1.42 0.221 1.641 1.406 0.210 1.616 Industrial (per 100 sqm) 0.350 0.079 0.429 0.327 0.073 0.400 PM Peak (17:00-18:00) Vehicle Trip Rates (Multi Modal) Vehicle Trip Rates (Vehicles)

Arrivals Departures Two Way Arrivals Departures Two Way Houses Privately Owned 0.376 0.223 0.599 0.377 0.227 0.604 Mixed Non Private Housing Insufficient sample size available in TRICS 0.299 0.179 0.478 Offices (per 100 sqm) 0.168 1.236 1.404 0.160 1.204 1.364 Industrial (per 100 sqm) 0.040 0.289 0.329 0.039 0.278 0.317 12 Hour (07:00-19:00) Vehicle Trip Rates (Multi Modal) Vehicle Trip Rates (Vehicles)

Arrivals Departures Two Way Arrivals Departures Two Way Houses Privately Owned 2.511 2.629 5.140 2.569 2.677 5.336 Mixed Non Private Housing Insufficient sample size available in TRICS 2.062 1.966 4.028 Offices (per 100 sqm) 6.779 6.311 13.090 6.619 6.136 12.755 Industrial (per 100 sqm) 1.503 1.579 3.082 1.467 1.520 2.987

5 Mixed Non Private Housing trip rates used to reflect affordable housing

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 19

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Table 5. CPNN Zones Trip Generation (Vehicles) Forecasts for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period

Zone Land Use AM Peak (08:00-09:00) PM Peak (17:00-18:00) 12 Hour (07:00-19:00) Number Type Arrivals Departures Two-Way Arrivals Departures Two-Way Arrivals Departures Two-Way 700106 B1 923 144 1067 109 803 913 4406 4102 8509 70018 B2 301 68 369 34 249 283 1293 1358 2651 70013 Housing 77 212 289 209 125 334 1412 1438 2850 70014 Housing 77 212 289 209 125 334 1412 1438 2850 70017 Housing 129 353 482 349 208 557 2354 2397 4751 70015 Housing 193 529 722 524 311 835 3531 3595 7126 70016 Housing 129 353 482 349 208 557 2354 2397 4751 70020 Housing 6 18 24 17 10 28 118 120 238 70012 Housing 129 353 482 349 208 557 2354 2397 4751 Total Mixed 1964 2241 4205 2151 2246 4396 19234 19243 38476

6 This table does not include forecasts for the school based trips modelled in zone 70010

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 20

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Table 6. TRICS Average Multi Modal Trip Rates (person trips by mode) for Peak Hours and Daily 12 Hour Period

AM Peak (08:00-09:00)

Total Person Trips Vehicle Occupants Public Transport Users Cyclists Pedestrians Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way Houses: Privately Owned 0.237 0.839 1.076 0.190 0.610 0.800 0.002 0.032 0.034 0.004 0.019 0.023 0.040 0.177 0.217 (per dwelling) Offices (per 100 2.192 0.269 2.461 1.567 0.223 1.790 0.353 0.005 0.358 0.031 0.003 0.034 0.240 0.039 0.279 sqm) Industrial (per 0.427 0.096 0.523 0.387 0.086 0.473 0.003 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.009 0.031 0.008 0.039 100 sqm) PM Peak (17:00-18:00)

Total Person Trips Vehicle Occupants Public Transport Users Cyclists Pedestrians Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way Houses: Privately Owned 0.615 0.372 0.987 0.492 0.303 0.795 0.022 0.004 0.026 0.015 0.009 0.024 0.087 0.057 0.144 (per dwelling) Offices (per 100 0.229 1.888 2.117 0.181 1.368 1.549 0.011 0.283 0.294 0.003 0.028 0.031 0.035 0.211 0.246 sqm) Industrial (per 0.057 0.371 0.428 0.045 0.327 0.372 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.001 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.028 0.036 100 sqm) 12 Hour (07:00-19:00)

Total Person Trips Vehicle Occupants Public Transport Users Cyclists Pedestrians Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two Arri- Depart Two vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way vals ures Way Houses: Privately Owned 4.255 4.507 8.762 3.270 3.513 6.783 0.115 0.115 0.230 0.085 0.089 0.174 0.804 0.794 1.598 (per dwelling) Offices (per 100 11.390 10.915 22.305 7.688 7.132 14.820 1.349 1.384 2.733 0.102 0.105 0.207 2.250 2.295 4.545 sqm) Industrial (per 2.076 2.231 4.307 1.703 1.777 3.480 0.031 0.054 0.085 0.041 0.051 0.092 0.309 0.358 0.667 100 sqm)

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 21

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Table 7 below shows mode splits based on the data presented in Table 6. This shows significant differences in the proportions of trips made by public transport by land use. Public transport mode split is much higher for offices than industrial land uses, which reflects the typical locations of offices and industrial sites in the TRICS database. The low public transport mode splits for housing also reflect the locations of sites taken from the TRICS database.

Table 7. TRICS (Multi Modal) Mode Splits

Housing Offices Industrial Mode Share AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr Pedestrians 20% 15% 18% 11% 12% 20% 7% 8% 15% Cyclists 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Private Vehicles 74% 81% 77% 73% 73% 66% 90% 87% 81% PT Users 3% 3% 3% 15% 14% 12% 1% 3% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Note: figures in table are rounded to the nearest whole number.

4.3.5. Step (c): Run CSM Demand Model to adjust Private Vehicle Trips and Mode Splits The CSM demand model was run to reflect the current CPNN development proposals, new zoning system and proposed public transport services. The demand model provides forecasts of trips by public transport and private vehicles, reflecting the public transport services available. These trip forecasts were converted and input to the SATURN highway assignment model.

The demand model was run using the CSM’s default trip rates for housing and employment land uses. The outputs from the demand model were therefore adjusted to reflect the differences in trip rates specific to CPNN (i.e. the ‘vehicle’ trip rates presented in Table 4) prior to input to the SATURN Model.

The splits in travel demand between public transport and private vehicles, derived from the Demand Model, are provided in Table 8 below (both pre and post Demand Model splits provided i.e input and output values). The reduction to private vehicle trip generation at CPNN, forecast by the demand model, is provided at the bottom of Table 8.

Table 8. Private Vehicle / Public Transport Mode Splits from Demand Model Housing Offices Industrial Mode Share AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr Mode Splits Input to the Demand Model Trips by Private 89.8% 91.6% 91.3% 89.2% 92.5% 92.2% 89.4% 91.6% 92.0% Vehicle Trips by Public 10.2% 8.4% 8.7% 10.8% 7.5% 7.8% 10.6% 8.4% 8.0% Transport Mode Splits Output from the Demand Model Trips by Private 86.1% 89.2% 89.8% 85.0% 90.7% 91.1% 87.6% 90.8% 91.5% Vehicle Trips by Public 13.9% 10.8% 10.2% 15.0% 9.3% 8.9% 12.4% 9.2% 8.5% Transport Demand Model – Forecast Private Vehicle Reductions Reductions in trips 4.2% 2.6% 1.6% 4.7% 1.9% 1.2% 2.0% 0.8% 0.6% by Private Vehicles

Table 8 shows that the public transport mode split for all land uses in the New Neighbourhood would be broadly similar. The specification of high quality public transport to serve the New Neighbourhood also results in adjustments to mode split and hence reductions in the number of vehicles generated by the new development.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 22

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

The Demand Model addresses the mode split between public transport and private vehicles, but does not consider walking and cycling; further adjustments must therefore be made to take account of active modes.

As part of the process to determine the modal split targets for CPNN (and to reflect the CSM modelling), the outputs from the Demand Model have been used to adjust the mode split forecasts derived from the TRICS database (by making adjustments to PT and Private Vehicle person trips). The mode splits adjusted to reflect the Demand Model outputs are provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Mode Splits following adjustments using Demand Model

Housing Offices Industrial Mode Share AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr Active modes (from Table 7) Pedestrians 20% 15% 18% 11% 12% 20% 7% 8% 15% Cyclists 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% Private vehicles / PT users (adjusted, from Tables 7 and 8) Private Vehicles 71% 79% 76% 70% 72% 65% 88% 86% 81% PT Users 7% 4% 4% 18% 15% 14% 3% 4% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

This confirms that the application of the mode splits (for the AM and PM Peaks) derived from the CSM Demand Model would result in an overall reduction in vehicle trips from the TRICS default figures shown in Tables 4, 5 and 6, as follows:

 Housing - public transport mode split is forecast to be 7% in the AM peak and 4% in the PM peak, compared with 3% in the TRICS database,  Offices - public transport mode split is forecast to be 18% in the AM peak and 15% in the PM peak, compared with 15% and 14% respectively in the TRICS database,  Industrial - public transport mode split is forecast to be 3% in the AM peak and 4% in the PM peak, compared with 1% and 3% respectively in the TRICS database.

4.3.6. Step (d): Adjust Mode Splits to reflect Walking, Cycling and Smarter Choices Initiatives The final step was to make further adjustments to reflect walking and cycling opportunities and the Smarter Choices initiatives that will be implemented at CPNN. The Smarter Choices initiatives outlined earlier will be used to promote sustainable travel behaviour from the outset, with initiatives to promote behaviour change complementing the high quality public transport connections and physical measures to encourage walking and cycling for local trips.

The existing mode split data for current employers in the North Fringe demonstrates particularly high levels of cycling for journeys to work, with targets to increase this still further. The planned improvements to walking and cycling provision through the CPNN Transport Package will dramatically improve provision for active travel within this area, and there is therefore a clear case for planning for high levels of walking and cycling, for both residential and employment uses.

Hence, the following reductions were applied to the private vehicle trip forecasts at CPNN to reflect opportunities for walking and cycling and behaviour change programmes.

 Residential – 5% reduction in private car trips (including the effects of Personalised Travel Planning Measures); and  Office and Industrial – 15% reduction in private car trips (including the effects of Workplace Travel Plan measures).

It was assumed that these reductions in car trips would be due to increased levels of walking and cycling.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 23

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Walking and cycling was only assumed to be a viable alternative to travelling by car for trips under 8km. The reductions outlined above were therefore only applied to trips, generated by CPNN, that fall within this category.

Smarter choices activity will be used to embed walking and cycling as the preferred choices for local travel for both residents and employees in the New Neighbourhood, complementing the high quality network provision. Smarter choices initiatives will also be used to secure the mode shift to public transport forecast under Step (c) above. 4.3.7. Confirmation of CPNN Mode Splits Following the trip generation adjustments made by the Demand Model and manually to reflect walking, cycling and smarter choices initiatives, the target mode splits for CPNN are outlined in Table 10 below:

Trips generated by the secondary school and hotel proposed at CPNN were not included in the Demand Model and therefore no adjustments have been made to these trips.

Table 10. Final CPNN Mode Splits

Housing Offices Industrial Mode Split AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr AM PM 12 hr Pedestrians and 26% 21% 24% 23% 24% 31% 22% 23% 30% Cyclists Private Vehicles 67% 75% 72% 59% 61% 55% 75% 73% 68% PT Users 7% 4% 4% 18% 15% 14% 3% 4% 2% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4.4. Summary This chapter has provided an overview of the work undertaken to define in more detail the transport package for CPNN; and provides details of the initial work undertaken to update the CSM transport model and to refine the CPNN transport package.

The following chapters of this report relate to an appraisal of walking and cycling measures for CPNN and the viability of the Bus and BRT proposals. These individual elements underline the assumptions adopted for adjusting mode splits for CPNN and by association the trip generation forecasts taken forward for the SATURN modelling.

These trip generation and modal split rates have been specifically derived for use in this strategic assessment of the CPNN and are applicable to this development only. They are average rates which are applicable to the development as a whole. They do not supersede any bespoke rates which may apply to individual sites when viewed in isolation.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 24

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

5. Walking and Cycling

5.1. Introduction As discussed in the preceding chapter, there are opportunities to promote high levels of walking and cycling in the New Neighbourhood. At present, there are significant barriers to movement by active modes due to the presence of the Airfield and severance caused by major road corridors. Masterplanning of the New Neighbourhood, together with improvements to the wider transport network to better cater for the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, offers the opportunity to transform opportunities for active travel in the Cribbs Causeway, Patchway and Filton areas, and hence reduce dependence on the car for more local journeys.

This chapter demonstrates the justification for the forecast high levels of walking and cycling that were identified in Chapter 4. It discusses the primary barriers to movement that exist due to the current configuration of the Airfield and the opportunity to address these problems through the masterplanning process. It also presents the findings of a detailed walking and cycling audit, which has identified key problems on the wider network, and concludes with a set of recommendations on measures to address these problems.

5.2. Filton Airfield: A major barrier to movement CPNN will occupy the site of Filton Airfield, which closed in December 2012. The runway is approximately 2.5km in length, running east to west. This creates significant levels of severance between the Filton/Brentry neighbourhoods to the south and Patchway to the north. A Public Right of Way crosses the site around the western perimeter of the runway. However, this is unlit and un-surfaced. The formal north-south pedestrian footways provided on the A4018 to the west and A38 to the east are separated by a distance of approximately 3.5km, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7. CPNN Site Location and Key Walking and Cycling Routes

Key

CPNN Development

Charlton Hayes Development

Walking Route: Patchway Filton to Cribbs Cribbs Causeway Trading Estate Shopping Centre Causeway

Patchway Railway Station

3.5km

Bristol Parkway Railway Station

The Airfield also creates significant east-west severance between Filton to the south-east and The Mall Shopping Centre and Patchway Trading Estate to the north-west. Whilst Filton and The Mall shopping centre are approximately 2.3km apart as the crow flies, the journey on foot is approximately 4.2km using

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 25

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report existing formalised footways around the Airfield, as shown in Figure 6. At present, footway provision is not continuous along the entire length of Hayes Way.

The development of the New Neighbourhood therefore provides opportunities to improve permeability through the airfield site for both pedestrians and cyclists. This provision will link the largely residential areas to the south with the industrial, employment and retail areas to the north, west and east.

5.3. Walking and Cycling Audit An audit of existing pedestrian and cycle provision in the areas surrounding CPNN was undertaken. As part of this audit, consideration was also given to the improvements required to the surrounding network and the on-site infrastructure requirements to encourage sustainable choices for more local travel, by providing attractive facilities to encourage utilisation of walking and cycling. 5.3.1. Audit Summary

Existing Severance Issues There are existing issues of severance that are caused by the presence of Filton Airfield, with significant implications for pedestrians and cyclists as follows:

 Significant north-south severance between the Filton/Brentry neighbourhoods to the south and Patchway to the north; and  Further east-west severance between Filton and The Mall and Patchway Trading Estate.

Development Opportunities The CPNN development provides an opportunity to increase permeability through the airfield site to encourage journeys on foot or by cycling, particularly between key local destinations including:

 Bristol Parkway and Patchway Railway Stations;  The Mall Regional Shopping Centre and Patchway Trading Estate; and  South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (Filton Campus).

Assessment of Existing Provision The audit identifies the proposed main access points to the CPNN development site and provides details of how they link to existing provision for cyclists and pedestrians in the local vicinity. The regional North Bristol Cycle Route (A38) and NCN4 (A4018) are identified as key routes with which cycle linkages should be sought. Public Rights Of Way are also identified, which connect to and through the site. The audit highlights the importance of integrating these into the proposed pedestrian provision.

The audit of existing provision found the following issues that should be addressed:

 Poor crossing provision on the A38 – Gloucester Road North;  Confusing and duplicated provision (ie. both on-street and off-street facilities) in certain places;  Lack of signage of shared surfaces in places leading to ambiguity as to the status of sections of footway;  Poor linkages between the CPNN development site and nearby train stations;  Street furniture obstructions which should be rationalised to de-clutter the footway;  Presence of guard-railing in the centre of some sections of carriageway to prevent pedestrians from crossing;  Examples of poor siting of pedestrian crossing facilities, resulting in significant diversions from desire lines; and  Sections of missing footway resulting in discontinuous routes in places.

CPNN Infrastructure – general design related guidance With regards to the internal layout of the CPNN area, the following recommendations in respect of providing for pedestrians and cyclists are made:

 Adoption of Manual for Streets principles to provide streets which are connected and permeable for pedestrians and cyclists both internally and to the wider area;

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 26

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 Provision of legible routes, which allow people to go where they want, unimpeded by street furniture, parking or other obstructions or barriers;  Adoption of Home Zone principles to create usable spaces in the street where people can interact; and  Provision of secure cycle parking and production of school, residential and workplace Travel Plans.

Summary The analyses undertaken, as part of the walking and cycling audit, indicate that the development will give the opportunity to transform active travel opportunities within the CPNN area (and its surroundings) and can facilitate a step-change in the numbers of people walking and cycling. The series of principles developed for walking and cycling movement within and serving the New Neighbourhood have been used to inform the recommendations for improvements to the surrounding network and the on-site infrastructure requirements at CPNN.

5.4. Proposals for Off-Site Walking and Cycling Improvements The improvements required to the surrounding network to provide attractive facilities to encourage walking and cycling for local journeys are identified below.

Footway / Cycle Links 1. Cycle linkages from A38 (Gloucester Road North) to Bristol Parkway Station; 2. Resurfacing of shared path on western side of A38 (Gloucester Road North) between Cleve Road and Church Road; 3. Rationalisation of dual cycle provision between: a. Cleve Road and North Way (northbound) on A38 (Gloucester Road North); and b. Filton Avenue and Station Road (southbound) on A38 (Gloucester Road North); 4. Provision of on-street advisory cycle lane from Callicroft Road to Highwood Road; 5. Improvements on Hayes Way to address pedestrian desire lines; 6. Footway widening on A4018 Cribbs Causeway in proximity to The Laurels; 7. Footway widening on the northern section of A4018 Wyck Beck Road, both east and west sides; 8. Improved footway link to Clifton Rugby Club bus stop; 9. Provision of a footway on the eastern side of Station Road between the Wyck Beck Road junction and Tormarton Crescent; 10. Footway provision on the B4055 between Station Road and Wyck Beck Road; 11. Provision of a continuous footway on Hayes Way; 12. Fishpool Hill to be improved for cyclists and pedestrians; 13. Provision of continuous footway on Charlton Road a. New Neighbourhood to Bindon Drive; and b. Standon Way to Strathearn Drive; 14. Footway provision on southern side of Merlin Road.

Pedestrian / Cycle Crossings 1. Conversion of Pelican crossing at A38 (Gloucester Road North) / Filton Avenue junction to ‘Toucan’ provision; 2. Toucan crossing to be provided on southern arm of A4018 near A4018 / Lysander Road at roundabout junction; 3. Provision of Toucan crossing at existing signals on Cribbs Causeway (A4018) in proximity to The Laurels junction; 4. Provision of additional signalised / zebra pedestrian crossings on A4018 Wyck Beck Road; 5. Improved Crossing facilities on A38 Gloucester Road North; and 6. Provision of Toucan crossing on Merlin Road between new development and shopping centre.

Provision of Dropped Kerbs 1. Provision of dropped kerbs on the A38 (Gloucester Road North) and Filton Avenue junction to enable cyclists to access the advance stop lines; 2. Provision of dropped kerb crossings on Hayes Way roundabout junctions to better serve pedestrian desire lines, at (a) Brabazon, (b) Blenheim and (c) Concorde Roundabouts.

Signage Improvements 1. Signed cycle linkage from A38 (Gloucester Road North) to Patchway Railway Station; and 2. Improved signing of shared surface route on western side of A38 (Gloucester Road North).

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 27

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Figure 8 below shows the locations of the proposed off-site pedestrian and cycle improvements.

Figure 8. Location of Proposed Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements

4 5c

2c Patchway Station 11 5 2 6 2a 6 5b 1 3 14 2b 8 5a 1 10 4 3a 9 7b 1 1 7a 13a 12 2 3b 2 Bristol Parkway Station 13b

CPNN Development Charlton Hayes Development Footway / Cycle Link Pedestrian / Cycle Crossing Provision of Dropped Kerbs Signage Improvements

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 28

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

5.5. Proposed Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes for CPNN Figure 9 shows the strategic walking and cycling routes required within CPNN, to provide connections with existing provision on the surrounding network. These links are considered essential in terms of maximising permeability within and through the New Neighbourhood.

Figure 9. Location of CPNN Strategic Walking and Cycling Routes

5.6. Summary This chapter has demonstrated that there are currently major barriers to walking and cycling within the Cribbs/Patchway/Filton area, caused primarily by Filton Airfield, but also with significant problems caused by poor walking and cycling infrastructure on the local road network, including the A38, A4018, Hayes Way and roads around Cribbs Causeway.

A walking and cycling audit has been undertaken and has demonstrated that a range of improvements could be delivered, with relative ease, to improve conditions for walking and cycling on the local road network. The development of the New Neighbourhood also offers the opportunity to transform walking and cycling linkages on both north-south and east-west axes through the area, connecting areas that were previously severed.

The CPNN Transport Package has been developed on the basis that walking and cycling should be the most attractive options for local travel. Walking should be the most attractive default option for trips up to 1km, and cycling should be an easy and attractive option for trips up to around 8km. The provision of appropriate infrastructure, in line with the recommendations set out above, will be a pre-requisite, which must then be supported by appropriate programmes to encourage these travel options from the outset, for both residents and employees. This will facilitate the delivery of the mode splits proposed in Chapter 4 and will help to reduce short-distance traffic, and hence congestion and environmental impacts on the local network.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 3.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 29

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 30

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

6. Bus and BRT Provision

6.1. Introduction New bus services and extensions of existing services were proposed as part of the CPNN Transport Package in the Core Strategy. These services provided connections to key centres, growth areas and transport hubs. For the purposes of the transport work in support of the SPD, the assumptions made for the Core Strategy about new and improved services were taken forward for further analysis and consideration. The previous proposals for new and improved services were used for the purposes of demand modelling (as described in Chapter 4). The efficiency of the proposed services in catering for potential demand was also considered in detail, operating costs were estimated, and the overall viability of the proposed public transport package was assessed.

This chapter sets out the levels of forecast demand for the bus services and provides service cost and revenue estimates to assess the viability of the package proposed. It then outlines options for adapting and optimising proposed service patterns to ensure that forecast demand can be met efficiently and to maximise the commercial viability of the proposed service provision.

6.2. Forecast Bus Demand at CPNN The CSM Demand Model was used to estimate annual demand for travel by bus and BRT. This analysis shows that:

 Approximately 1.7 million bus trips per year would be generated to, from and within the CPNN;  Just over 30% (0.5m pa) of these trips would be between the Airfield East employment zones (located just west of the A38) and locations outside CPNN;  Around 60% of the trips (1m pa) would be between residential areas and locations outside CPNN; and  8% (0.14m pa) would be trips within CPNN, almost wholly between the residential areas and the employment zones.

This is equivalent to around one third of the 4.9 million forecast bus trips to, from and within the wider North Fringe (including Parkway, Stoke Gifford, Filton, Patchway and Cribbs Causeway). Just under one quarter (23%) of trips to or from CPNN would be to/from the rest of the North Fringe (just under 0.4m pa). 6.2.1. Bus network modelled for CPNN The following bus network enhancements were assumed in the modelling to support CPNN. All bus frequencies quoted are daytime Monday-Saturday frequencies (lower frequencies would apply in the evenings and on Sundays).

 Route 20 – would be extended from the current northern terminus at Charlton Road into the New Neighbourhood, serving Airfield West and Fishpool Hill (2 buses per hour);  Route C01 – a new route, connecting Cribbs Causeway and Broomhill via Airfield West, Fishpool Hill, Brentry roundabout, the A4018 corridor and Bristol City Centre (2 buses per hour);  Route C02 – a new route, connecting Cribbs Causeway and Hartcliffe via Airfield East (including the Filton Enterprise Area), then via the A38 corridor and Bristol City Centre (2 buses per hour);  Route C03 – a new route linking Fishpool Hill, Airfield West and Cribbs Causeway with Avonmouth/Severnside, via the M5 between junctions 16 and 17 (2 buses per hour);  Route C04 – a new circular route from Cribbs Causeway, along the south side of Charlton Hayes, then via Gipsy Patch Lane, Bristol Parkway, New Rd, Great Stoke Way, A4174 Station Rd and the A38, then across CPNN and back to Cribbs Causeway via Haw Wood (2 buses per hour in each direction); and  Route X90A – a new BRT service, connecting Cribbs Causeway and Bristol City Centre via Airfield East (including the employment zones), Gipsy Patch Lane and Bristol Parkway station, then via the same route as the X90 proposed in the North Fringe Hengrove (NFH) package via UWE and the M32 to the city centre (6 buses per hour). All other BRT routes (X90, X91 are X93) were as modelled for the NFH Package.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 31

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

6.3. Network Review

6.3.1. Operating Costs The following approach was adopted for estimating the costs of operating these services:

 The peak vehicle requirement (PVR) for each route was estimated, based on the service frequency and bus journey times (with suitable allowances for layover);  Standard annual costs per PVR were applied, depending on the vehicle type. The standard costs were based on those used for the West of England BRT costing study, which considered both BRT and non- BRT services, and are at 2012 prices;  Vehicle types were selected based on the nature of the corridors served. Double deck vehicles were assumed for the busy A38 and A4018 corridors (C01 and C02), and single deckers for the more orbital services (C03 and C04) and route 20 (this currently operates with single deck buses). There is currently no decision on the vehicle type for BRT, so for costing purposes we assumed single deck (hybrid) buses;  The costs include direct operating costs, a contribution to overheads, depreciation of vehicle capital costs, and an allowance for operator profit, and so represent a fully allocated gross cost; and  In practice, route costs will vary to some extent from this, depending on the precise service details and detailed operator cost structure, but these cost estimates are fit-for-purpose for planning over these timescales.

On this basis, estimated costs of the proposed services are set out in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Estimated Bus Operating Costs for the Modelled Network (2012 prices) Route Assumed vehicle type PVR Annual cost £m 20 (extension) Single deck 1 0.2 C01 (A4018 corridor) Double deck 7 1.3 C02 (A38 corridor) Double deck 8 1.4 C03 (Avonmouth corridor) Single deck 2 0.3 C04 (circular) Single deck 6 1.1 X90A (BRT to city centre) Single deck – hybrid 20 2.8 Total 44 7.1

6.3.2. Viability Overall, the annual bus (including BRT) journeys to, from and within the New Neighbourhood are forecast to total approximately 1.7 million per year. The revenue arising from these journeys would depend on the level and mix of fares, but at current fares would probably be in the range of £2m to £2.5m per annum if made by direct bus links.

This revenue would be significantly lower than the cost of the additional resources proposed. However, setting demand against cost is more complex, given various network effects:

 The new services would serve markets outside CPNN, and in doing so would both abstract demand from other routes and generate additional demand;  Some of the journeys would be made by taking more than one bus, leading to a higher number of bus boardings; and  Some demand from within CPNN would use existing services in the area, such as those running through Haw Wood along Cribbs Causeway.

The modelled forecast annual demand across the routes and route sections costed above is around 7.3 million passenger boardings per year, of which 45% (3.3 million passengers per year) are on route X90A, 53% on routes C01 to C04 (3.8 million), and the remaining 2% (0.2 million) on the extension to route 20.

The large difference between the total route boardings and the number of trips generated by CPNN appears to be due to two principal effects:

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 32

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 Large numbers of passengers using routes C01, C02 and X90A wholly outside CPNN; and  Large numbers of short bus journeys, particularly between points along the (short) axis from Cribbs Causeway via the centre of CPNN to the Filton Enterprise Area (the Airfield East employment area).

The latter point suggests the model may be forecasting high levels of interchange. These may not occur in practice, and also suggests that improvements could perhaps be made to the through-links to be provided.

Taking account of these factors, the broad conclusion from the demand forecasts is that, with the development in place, routes C01, C02 and X90A are likely to be commercially viable (based on current fare and cost levels). However, route C03 (to Avonmouth/Severnside) would appear to be marginal and route C04 (circular service) is unlikely to be viable in its current form. It was therefore necessary to undertake further work to explore options for optimising service configuration. 6.3.3. Discussion of options To assess whether the routes (as proposed above) provide the most appropriate network for CPNN, it is important to consider:

 Appropriate direct linkages;  Attractive service levels and appropriate levels of comfort;  An efficient and effective relationship with the wider bus and BRT network;  Stopping patterns and locations; and  Overall viability.

These issues have been considered and the revised proposals are discussed below.

6.4. Revised Bus Proposals There is potential to improve the network to more closely match the needs of CPNN and a schedule of revised bus proposals has been assessed. 6.4.1. BRT services There is the potential to provide two BRT services through CPNN – the X90A and an extended X91 – with both serving an alignment through the employment zones, but with scope for different routes to the west and east of this common section. Options are as follows:

 X90A from Bristol via UWE, Bristol Parkway station and Airfield East to Cribbs Causeway; and  X91 from Emersons Green via UWE, Station Road (A4174), Airfield East, Airfield West and Fishpool Hill. It could then either terminate, or continue to Cribbs Causeway (via Haw Wood) or Brentry (with options to be extended further from here).  Alternatively, at the western end, the X90A could take the route to Airfield West and Fishpool Hill, and the X91 to Cribbs Causeway. This would provide links to Bristol Parkway station and the city centre from Airfield West and Fishpool Hill via BRT, but would reduce the service level to Cribbs Causeway.  The X91 could serve Bristol Parkway instead of UWE, then linking back to Station Road via New Road and Great Stoke Way.  The X90A could operate via Station Road, and the X91 via Bristol Parkway station. This would have the advantage of providing good orbital links on the X91 to Bristol Parkway from both the west and east.

A schematic plan of these options is provided overleaf. Stopping patterns for the X90A would be in line with the principles adopted generally for BRT in the North Fringe, but for the X91 it may be appropriate to allow a denser stopping pattern to provide more local links.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 33

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

Figure 10. Potential Schematic Plan for BRT Services in the North Fringe, including CPNN

To Bradley Stoke Charlton Cribbs Hayes Causeway Bristol Parkway

Gipsy Patch La Airfield West and Fishpool Hill Airfield East

Station Rd (A4174) To Emersons Potential BRT routes Green

Possible alternative links UWE

To City Centre

Each option has advantages and disadvantages, but they all provide the key east-west linkages across CPNN. For cost purposes, the first option was assumed. All would be compatible with the currently- envisaged NFH BRT Package (routes X90, X91 and X93).

However, it should be borne in mind that the A4174 Station Road is heavily congested and there is limited scope to deliver bus priority measures on this corridor, as discussed in Section 6.5.3 below. Detailed consideration of the impacts of congestion should therefore be given in determining the optimum configuration of BRT services in this area. 6.4.2. Other bus services Any final service pattern needs to be integrated within the wider bus network. This will need dialogue with the bus operators, and must take account of other forthcoming changes to the network in the area. For example, changes to some services will be needed to complement the introduction of the NFH BRT package. These could include:

 Revisions to the 73/74/X73 route group, as these are closely related to the X90; and  Revisions to the 24/25 route group, as these would be affected by passengers transferring to the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads route south-west of Bristol City Centre.

However, options identified at this stage are set out below.

A4018 corridor Route C01 could be integrated with the existing Route 1, to provide six buses per hour between Broomhill and Cribbs Causeway via Bristol City Centre and the A4018, with half of these routed north of Brentry Roundabout via Henbury and Haw Wood, and half via Fishpool Hill and Airfield West. The incremental cost of this option, when compared with the current cost of Route 1, is estimated at around £0.5m per annum.

A38 corridor and Avonmouth Options for these routes include:

 Introducing a service that combines the northern end of the C02 with the C03, to provide a route with 3 buses per hour from Horfield to Avonmouth via the A38, Airfield East, Cribbs Causeway and the M5; or  Instead of route C02, one of routes 24 or 25 could be extended from Horfield to Cribbs Causeway (at 3/hour) via the A38 and Airfield East (though these could conflict with other GBBN proposals for these routes), and the C03 could be introduced between Avonmouth/Severnside and Airfield West at 2/hour.

Costs for these two options would be similar, at around £0.8m per annum. The first option provides links across Cribbs Causeway, and may improve the economics of route C03. The second provides better links to

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 34

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report the south. Under either option, the Avonmouth/Severnside service could be routed via Lawrence Weston rather than the M5. This would be slower, but could attract more local demand, particularly if complementary changes are made to Route 40.

Links via Charlton Road Identifying the best package needs a broader service planning exercise, looking at the routes across Southmead and the wider North Fringe, in consultation with service operators. However, for cost purposes, we have assumed the following:

 Extending route 20, as previously proposed, to Airfield West and Fishpool Hill.  A further new route, at 3 buses per hour, from Southmead Hospital, via Southmead, Charlton Road, Airfield East, the south side of Charlton Hayes, and on to Bradley Stoke (particularly those areas of Bradley Stoke remote from the BRT alignment).

This level of resource could alternatively be used, for example, to extend route 76 further north than its current terminus in Henbury, or as part of wider changes to routes 73 and 74, and should be sufficient to meet the needs of CPNN on an alignment from the south and south-west to the north and north-east. 6.4.3. Costs and Revenue The total costs to operate the services outlined above are estimated to be in the region of £5.5.million per annum. Whilst this package has not been tested using the strategic model, it is expected to be viable once development is in place. Revenue from the New Neighbourhood should be in the range of £2m to £2.5m; wider demand on the X90A and X91 should lead to between £2.5m and £3m of further revenue; and a further £1m could be expected from other trips outside the New Neighbourhood on the remaining routes. 6.4.4. Phasing Services could be introduced progressively as the development builds out. In some cases (e.g. route X90A) initial frequencies could be lower, and increased over time. However, pump-priming funding is likely to be necessary to ensure that bus services are in place as occupants start to move in.

6.5. Implications for infrastructure

6.5.1. Access to bus services We propose two general guidelines for bus stop locations:

 At key demand attractions (such as shopping, employment, education or leisure destinations), stops should be as close as possible to the destination, to minimise walk time and so ensure the bus service is as attractive as possible; and  In residential areas, all residents should be within a 400m walk of a bus stop.

These guidelines should be applied when developing the internal layout of the New Neighbourhood. They should help define the route alignments within the residential areas, for example, in the Airfield West / Fishpool Hill area, a large residential area, there may need to be two route alignments, rather than one that is either circuitous or remote from some areas of housing. 6.5.2. Interchanges, terminals, and bus layover points The original route proposals, and the possible modifications set out in this chapter, envisage a major bus interchange point at Cribbs Causeway. Any relocation or redesign of the bus station should ensure the revised design is as close as possible to demand attractions, has sufficient capacity for future service levels, and is approached by direct routes for buses, protected from traffic congestion.

The proposals also require a new terminal point at the western side of the Airfield or in the Fishpool Hill area, and space needs to be allowed for this within the development. 6.5.3. Priority measures To ensure journey times by bus are as fast as possible, there is a need to consider additional priority measures, both immediately around CPNN and in the wider road network, given the increased traffic

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 35

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report pressure in the area forecast over the next 20 years. Key junctions will require particular attention, including the following key access points in the New Neighbourhood:

 A38 / Airfield East junction: key access point for both bus and BRT services;  San Andreas Roundabout: access into the Airfield area from Cribbs Causeway, Highwood Road and Merlin Road;  A4018 / Fishpool Hill junction: provision to ensure sufficient priority for buses accessing the Airfield area from the A4018 to the south; and  Bus-only access from Charlton Road to the south.

Access arrangements into the New Neighbourhood are considered in more detail in Chapter 8 of this report.

In addition, appropriate priority measures should be considered on the following sections of the local road network:

 A38 between Airfield East junction and A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout (including making use of existing bus lanes north of the Filton Avenue junction);  A4018 between Fishpool Hill and Crow Lane junction (although it is recognised that roadspace is limited and there is limited scope for significant road widening);  Highwood Road, south-east of Cribbs Causeway, to cater for future bus and BRT services; and  Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road, to cater for future BRT services.

In the case of the BRT corridor via Gypsy Patch Lane, Hatchet Road and Bristol Parkway station, it is likely that extensive bus priority will be required to mitigate the effects of traffic congestion on the planned services.

In addition, if a decision were made to route BRT or bus services along A4174 Station Road towards the A38/A4174 Filton Roundabout, consideration would need to be given to appropriate priority measures, as this route is heavily congested, with resultant impacts on journey times and reliability. However, limited roadspace and the competing demands of other traffic are likely to significantly constrain the ability to deliver significant priority on this corridor.

6.6. Summary New bus (and BRT) services and extensions of existing services, proposed as part of the CPNN transport package in the Core Strategy, were taken forward for more detailed assessment in this work. Assessments were made of potential demand for the bus services, together with service cost and revenue estimates to assess the viability of the package proposed.

Certain services proposed would not be commercially viable and an alternative, more viable package has been identified. The alternative package is shown to better meet forecast demand and is considered to be commercially viable. The package can be delivered by rolling out services linked to the development phasing, with S106 funding to pump-prime the services as occupancy of the development (and so demand) builds up.

The alternative proposals have not been assessed using the CSM models. However, it is considered that the alternative package would result in the Demand Model forecasting a greater proportion of trips by public transport (in terms of the public transport and private vehicle splits). This therefore means that the model forecasts are considered to provide a conservative view of potential public transport demand, and hence also a conservative assessment of private vehicle traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 36

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

7. Rail

7.1. Introduction The New Neighbourhood lies immediately adjacent to the Hallen Line, which is currently used by freight (and occasionally diverted passenger services), but with no regular scheduled passenger services. However, recent studies have demonstrated the scope to introduce new passenger services, with new stations at Henbury (adjacent to the A4018) and Filton North (adjacent to the A38). These proposals will be taken forward within Phase 2 of the Greater Bristol Metro project that is being jointly promoted by the West of England authorities.

The Core Strategy evidence base demonstrated that these new rail services will help enhance accessibility to the New Neighbourhood, but are not essential. This chapter discusses the specification of future rail services in this area and the role that they could play in enhancing access to the New Neighbourhood.

7.2. Existing Rail Services The nearest station to the New Neighbourhood is currently at Patchway. This station is served by hourly trains between Cardiff Central and Bristol Temple Meads, and therefore offers a potential option for commuting and other journeys (both for local residents and people working at nearby major employers, such as Rolls Royce). However, the station is located to the east of the A38, with poor pedestrian links, and can only be considered to be within walking distance for the easternmost part of the New Neighbourhood. Given the poor walking links and hourly train services, this does not currently offer an attractive option for travel to or from the New Neighbourhood.

In addition, Bristol Parkway station, which is located approximately 3km to the east of the A38 via Gypsy Patch Lane and Hatchet Road, offers frequent services to London, other major cities and other parts of the West of England. Filton Abbey Wood station, located to the south on the A4174 Ring Road, offers frequent services within the West of England and beyond. Again, these stations are not within walking distance of the New Neighbourhood, but could be accessed by cycling or by connecting bus services and would provide attractive options for longer-distance rail travel.

7.3. Future Rail Services There could be scope to improve waiting facilities at (and links to) Patchway station. However, there are, currently, no immediate plans to increase service frequencies at this station. It is therefore likely that Patchway will continue to have a limited role in catering for travel needs beyond its current immediate catchment, and it will therefore not play a significant role in catering for the travel needs of the New Neighbourhood.

As discussed above, the second phase of the Greater Bristol Metro project includes the re-opening of the Hallen Line to passenger services, with new stations at Henbury and Filton North. These services would run to Bristol Temple Meads, calling at Filton Abbey Wood and local stations within Bristol. The current proposal is for hourly train services, operating as a shuttle between Henbury and Bristol Temple Meads. However, it is recognised that wider discussions are taking place between local stakeholders and the Department for Transport over the specification of future services, including potential options for creating a loop service incorporating the Severn Beach Line, and the service configuration is not therefore fixed.

Further works and service enhancements will be undertaken as part of Network Rail’s Great Western Main Line Electrification project. These are likely to improve the range and speed of services offered at Bristol Parkway station, meaning that local trains will benefit from improved connections.

To enable any of these service enhancements to take place it will be necessary to provide additional network capacity on Filton Bank. It is assumed that this will be provided as part of the works to be undertaken by Network Rail. 7.3.1. Henbury and Filton North Stations The station at Henbury would be adjacent to existing housing in the Brentry area (in Bristol) and the proposed new housing in the Fishpool Hill area. Whilst the station might also be potentially attractive for a

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 37

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report wider geographical market, including Henbury, northern parts of Westbury-on-Trym, Easter Compton and wider areas of the New Neighbourhood, careful consideration would need to be given to avoiding a need for large areas of car parking at the station.

The station at Filton North will be closely integrated with the proposals for major employment in the recently designated Filton Enterprise Area. The station will be located a short walk from a large proportion of the employment uses in the area, and it is recommended that higher density B1 office uses should be clustered near to the station. In addition, frequent BRT and bus services will pass near to the station on the main east- west axis through the Airfield site. Opportunities to promote interchange between the rail, BRT and bus modes should therefore be promoted for this area. Again, it will be important to avoid encouraging large volumes of traffic to access the station: careful consideration should therefore be given to future car parking. 7.3.2. Potential Demand The testing using the Core Strategy Model, at the Core Strategy stage of the planning process, indicated that these new stations could attract significant demand. However, this should be seen in the context of hourly services, and hence the capacity to deliver mode shift from the car would be limited by these hourly services. Furthermore, testing suggests that this could be due in part to abstraction of demand from BRT services, particularly for travel to Bristol City Centre. Further work would therefore be required to test in more detail the impacts of different options for rail services, both in terms of the ability to reduce traffic demand and in minimising potential abstraction from proposed BRT services.

7.4. Summary There is, at present, limited rail provision in this area: the existing station at Patchway is unlikely to offer an attractive option for travel to or from the New Neighbourhood. The current proposals for new rail services on the Hallen Line, with new stations at Henbury and Filton North, could play a role in enhancing accessibility to the New Neighbourhood. However, analyses indicate that these proposals are not essential to the delivery of the New Neighbourhood.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 38

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

8. Internal Road Layout and Access

8.1. Introduction An assessment has been undertaken to determine the internal road layout and access requirements for the New Neighbourhood, using both the CSM SATURN model and stand alone junction capacity assessments. Earlier assessment work undertaken for the Core Strategy, SGC’s framework diagram for CPNN (Figure 3) and discussions with consultants acting for the Developers were used to determine the approach to developing the access strategy and internal movement framework.

8.2. Development of Layout and Access Strategy The transport work in support of the Core Strategy took a strategic approach to the internal layout and access strategy. Whilst this enabled the development of key access principles at the Core Strategy stage in the planning process, much more detailed proposals were required to support the SPD masterplanning.

As discussed in Chapter 4, significant attention was given in the transport modelling to developing a more refined zoning system (to reflect the proposed allocations of land uses and development interest) and internal road networks. Internal road networks were therefore coded, reflecting emerging consensus between SGC and Developers, including more significant local distributor roads serving key parts of the New Neighbourhood and public transport links (such as the bus-only link to Charlton Road).

These enhancements initially focused on provision of connections from the airfield area to both Wyck Beck Road and The Laurels junctions, and then further internal links were added to provide improved connections between Hayes Way / Merlin Way and the east-west axis through the New Neighbourhood. Transport modelling clearly demonstrated the importance of these links in facilitating efficient routing of traffic into and from the airfield area.

CPNN travel demand was shown to be strongly influenced by the strategic distribution of traffic on the wider road network. Maximising access opportunities and providing appropriate traffic routes into and from the airfield site is therefore essential to minimise the impact of CPNN traffic on existing adjacent routes. This requirement underpins the access strategy and internal infrastructure requirements developed for CPNN.

Numerous model iterations were performed to determine the conceptual access strategy for CPNN and the strategic routing requirements for the key elements of development in the New Neighbourhood. In terms of the access strategy, the adequacy of the individual access junction proposals was confirmed using stand alone junction capacity software and traffic flow forecasts derived from the SATURN model. Recommendations in terms of the internal road layout and access arrangements required at CPNN are provided in the following sections of this chapter.

8.3. Site Access Details of the access junctions required at CPNN are outlined below and the location of these junctions is shown in Figure 11 overleaf:

 A4018 1. Wyck Beck Road Signalised Junction – providing access to the Fishpool Hill / Airfield site only; 2. New four-arm signalised junction at The Laurels – providing access to both Haw Wood and the Fishpool Hill / Airfield site; and 3. Creation of a 4th Arm on the A4018 / B4055 Roundabout – providing access to the Haw Wood site.

 A38 4. New At-Grade Signalised Junction – providing access to the Airfield site.

 Hayes Way and Merlin Way – access to the Airfield site (via additional arms) from the following existing roundabouts: 5. Concorde Roundabout (Hayes Way); 6. Blenheim Roundabout (Hayes Way); 7. Brabazon Roundabout (Hayes Way);

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 39

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

8. San Andreas Roundabout (Highwood Road / Merlin Road / Hayes Way); and 9. Merlin Road Roundabout (Merlin Road).

 Charlton Road 10. Bus-only access to the main Airfield site.

Figure 11. CPNN Access Junctions Location Plan

5 9 8

2 7 6

3 4

Key

10 Signalised Access Junction

Roundabout Access Junction

Bus Only Access Point

Junction capacity assessments were undertaken to confirm the suitability of the proposed access arrangements. Indicative concept layouts are provided in Appendix A for the new junctions proposed on the A4018 (junctions 1 and 2) and the A38 (junction 4). This information should be used to inform the future detailed design of these access junctions.

8.4. Internal Road Layout Travel demand will be strongly influenced by the strategic distribution of traffic on the wider network. The proposed access arrangements provide sufficient opportunities to access the site, whilst the internal links that have been modelled (through the Airfield site) provide adequate connectivity, both to/from the surrounding road network and between the various land uses proposed. It is therefore recommended that the internal layout of the main Airfield site should be designed to include the following key connections:

 Provision for local east - west movements through the Airfield site, with primary access routes into the site from the A38 (Airfield East) and two A4018 accesses (Wyck Beck Road and The Laurels). There will be a requirement for east-west movement for traffic internal to the site, to enable efficient routing to the most appropriate access point, but it will be important to avoid movement through the site by traffic external to the site. For example, it will be important to avoid rat-running by through traffic between the A38, A4018 and Cribbs Causeway junctions;

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 40

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 North – south connections between access points on Hayes Way and the east-west corridor through the Airfield. It is particularly important that the connections from Hayes Way are provided as they will be critical in terms of accommodating employment trips at CPNN. Without these links in place, analysis of the CSM traffic flow forecasts and outputs indicated that the access junction on the A38 would be susceptible to significant levels of delay and queuing; and  Provision for full connectivity by public transport through the New Neighbourhood. This will include connections between Charlton Road, Fishpool Hill, Airfield East and the San Andreas Roundabout.

8.5. Summary This chapter provides details of the assessments undertaken to determine the internal road layout and access requirements for the New Neighbourhood. The requirements set out in this chapter are essential in terms of minimising the traffic impact of the New Neighbourhood on key adjacent routes and providing an internal road network to complement the requirements for sustainable transport modes, as set out in Chapter 5 (for Walking and Cycling) and Chapter 6 (bus and BRT).

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 41

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 42

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

9. Highway Impacts and Mitigation

9.1. Introduction A key focus of the CPNN Transport Package is to maximise opportunities for sustainable travel (to, from and within the New Neighbourhood). However, it is recognised that significant volumes of vehicle traffic will be generated by the proposed land uses at CPNN. The need for off-site highway improvements has therefore been investigated and scheme proposals have been developed and assessed.

Highway improvements formed a key part of the transport package identified in the Core Strategy, with improvements recommended at a number of junctions in the vicinity of the New Neighbourhood. The analyses undertaken through this most recent work have confirmed that traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood will have a significant impact on the road network and hence there will be a requirement for highway improvements.

This chapter first provides an overview of the potential impacts of traffic on the surrounding road network, before identifying the required off-site highway improvements, issues taken into account in developing concept proposals and an overview of the forecast performance of individual junctions with the improvements in place.

9.2. Traffic Routings The analysis of the outputs from the traffic modelling indicates that the additional demand generated by the New Neighbourhood will result in increases in traffic flows on the following corridors:

 M5 corridor between Junctions 15 (Almondsbury) and 18 (Avonmouth), including Junctions 16 and 17;  B4055 corridor through Easter Compton towards Severnside;  A38 through Almondsbury to the north;  Routes through Bradley Stoke to the east, including Winterbourne Road / Gypsy Patch Lane, Bradley Stoke Way and Brook Way;  A4174 Ring Road to the east;  A38 Gloucester Road and Filton Avenue towards Horfield and the north of Bristol; and  A4018 Wyck Beck Road / Passage Road and B4055 Station Road through Westbury-on-Trym, Southmead and Henbury.

9.3. Key Impacts The assessments that were previously undertaken for the Core Strategy indicated that the traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood would impact on a number of nearby junctions in the North Fringe area. These junctions were as follows:

 M5 Junction 17;  A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout (south west of M5 Junction 17);  A4018 Crow Lane Roundabout (within the Bristol City Council boundary);  M5 Junction 16;  A38 / Aztec West Roundabout (just south of M5 Junction 16);  A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction; and  A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout.

Analysis of the SATURN traffic flow forecasts and junction capacity reports, from the current transport analysis, confirms that improvements will be required to mitigate the impacts of increased traffic flows at these junctions.

More comprehensive analyses have also been undertaken to identify potential impacts across the wider road network in the North Fringe and the northern parts of Bristol. The forecasts indicate increased traffic flows on a number of routes in the corridors listed above, and the analyses indicate that measures will be required to manage and address the impacts of traffic in the following areas:

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 43

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 Henbury: increased traffic on B4055 Station Road, B4057 Kings Weston Road and Hallen Road. It will be necessary to consider the impacts of traffic through the village and options for managing and routing traffic on Avonmouth Way, Henbury Road and Hallen Road;

 Westbury-on-Trym and Southmead: increased traffic on sections of A4018 Falcondale Road, B4056 Southmead Road, Pen Park Road and Eastfield Road. Capacity constraints at key junctions (most notably Southmead Road / Pen Park Road) affect traffic routings through the area, and an integrated approach to the management of traffic in this area will be required;

 Bradley Stoke and Little Stoke: increased traffic on B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane, Bradley Stoke Way and Brook Way. Capacity constraints on Gypsy Patch Lane at the rail bridge and adjacent Kingsway junction will significantly affect traffic routings through this area. Again, an area-wide approach should be taken to the management of traffic;

 Cribbs Causeway area: significant increases in traffic on Merlin Road, Lysander Road and Pegasus Road. Congestion at the Merlin Road / Lysander Road (‘The Cone’) roundabout and the roundabout giving access to The Mall and The Venue will result in queueing and delays on Merlin Road, affecting traffic routing in the area. In this case, improvements to individual junctions within the Cribbs Causeway retail area are unlikely to address the challenges faced. Instead, a more comprehensive solution to the management of traffic will be required.

9.4. Designs of Improvement Schemes Conceptual scheme layouts have been developed for the improvements to the specific junctions listed above. These layouts take into account the latest forecasts of traffic flows derived from the strategic modelling and more detailed consideration of how best to manage limited roadspace in each case. The conceptual layouts are provided in Appendix B and are consistent with the coding in the CSM SATURN model. 9.4.1. Design Related Risks As part of the outline design process for these schemes, Ordnance Survey information has been used, together with aerial imagery, to identify key physical features and associated constraints. These physical features are naturally proposed to be avoided; however, the outline proposals are subject to detailed design which needs to be based on topographical survey information. Consequently, there remains an element of risk in terms of the deliverability and construction costs for these schemes. The scheme cost estimates provided to SGC include provision for potential third party land requirements and statutory services although these cannot be confirmed until detailed design stage as discussed below.

The primary risks to be addressed are in relation to statutory undertakers (utilities) and Appendix C sets out the findings of initial utilities searches in the vicinity of each junction. Utilities will in most cases be affected by proposals for carriageway widening. The costs of any construction works will be similar regardless of where any widening takes place, however, the impact on utilities could be significantly different. Utilities searches have been undertaken although at this stage (prior to detailed design) only ‘C2’ information is available which identifies the services within the vicinity. In order to understand the costs associated with the potential protection or diversionary works, ‘C3’ letters would need to be issued to each of the potentially affected service companies to request for budget cost estimates.

9.5. Junction Assessments Using traffic forecasts from the SATURN model, the schemes have been assessed using stand-alone junction capacity modelling software (LinSig for traffic signals and signalised roundabouts and ARCADY for roundabouts). The results from these assessments have been compared against the Reference Case (without CPNN) scenario to determine whether ‘nil detriment’ or improved operational conditions can be achieved. 9.5.1. M5 Junction 16 Improvements to Junction 16 of the M5 are proposed as part of the Highways Agency Pinchpoint programme, the objective of which will be to help unlock development in the New Neighbourhood. As part of the CPNN Transport Package, further improvements are proposed as follows:

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 44

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

 An additional lane on the southbound M5 off-slip (approaching the roundabout) and the A38 southbound exit from the roundabout. This will provide additional capacity for traffic routing towards the Aztec roundabout (particularly from the southbound carriageway of the M5).  Additional lane on the A38 southbound approach to the roundabout.  Additional lane on the northern circulatory of the roundabout (increasing from three lanes to four – to be confirmed following consultation with the Highways Agency)  One additional lane on the northbound M5 on-slip. The proposed arrangement would comprise three lanes exiting the roundabout, merging back to 2 lanes on the slip road itself.

Initial assessments of the junction using LINSIG software indicate that the proposed improvements will assist in mitigating the impacts of the additional traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood. 9.5.2. M5 Junction 17 Improvements to Junction 17 of the M5 will be implemented as part of the Highways Agency Pinchpoint programme, the objective of which will be to help unlock development in the New Neighbourhood. As part of the CPNN Transport Package, further improvements are proposed to the northern part of the roundabout as follows:

 Additional lane on the northern circulatory of the roundabout (increasing from four lanes to five – to be confirmed following consultation with the Highways Agency)  One additional lane on the northbound M5 on-slip. The proposed arrangement would comprise three lanes exiting the roundabout, merging back to 2 lanes on the slip road itself.

Initial assessments of the junction using LINSIG software indicate that the proposed improvements will assist in mitigating the impacts of the additional traffic generated by the New Neighbourhood. 9.5.3. A4018 Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout The proposed improvements to the Lysander Road roundabout comprise an additional approach lane to the roundabout from the south (A4018 Cribbs Causeway). This provides increased capacity for traffic travelling northbound (along the A4018) through the roundabout towards M5 Junction 17.

The analyses indicate that the proposed improvements at the roundabout would provide adequate mitigation against the increased traffic flow forecast as a result of the CPNN development. The results for the ‘Do Something’ scenario show that the roundabout would operate within theoretical capacity during both peak periods in 2031. However, during the PM peak period, the A4018 southbound approach to the roundabout is forecast to be operating above the design capacity threshold (i.e. 85% of the theoretical capacity), nevertheless, the forecast queue along this link is minimal. 9.5.4. A4018 Crow Lane Roundabout (within the Bristol City Council area) As part of the CPNN transport package, the existing Crow Lane Roundabout would be converted to a signalised crossroads. Opposed right turn movements would also be prohibited at the junction apart from the movement from Knole Lane (east) to the A4018 Wyck Beck Road (north). Pedestrian crossings would also be provided across all arms of the junction.

The results of testing indicate that the proposed improvements to the Crow Lane junction (i.e. signalisation of the junction with right turn restrictions in place) would provide adequate mitigation against the increased traffic flow forecasts, resulting from the CPNN development. The results for the ‘Do Something’ scenario show that the signals would operate within design capacity (i.e. degrees of saturation (DoS) below 90% on all approach arms), during both peak periods in 2031. 9.5.5. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout (just south of M5 Junction 16) The proposed improvements to the Aztec West roundabout comprise:

 An additional approach lane to the roundabout from the north (A38 coming from M5 Junction 16);  An additional exit lane onto the southbound arm of the A38 (towards Filton); and  An additional exit lane onto Bradley Stoke Way (continuing towards the traffic signals with Woodlands Lane).

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 45

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

It is evident from on-site observations that the Aztec West roundabout currently operates well above capacity during both weekday peak periods. Long queues (of varying lengths) tend to form along the Bradley Stoke Way and A38 northbound approaches to the roundabout, during both peak periods.

The results from the 2031 ‘Reference Case’ assessments show that the junction would be significantly overcapacity during both peak periods. During the busier AM peak period, large queues (in excess of 100 pcus) are forecast to form along both the Bradley Stoke Way and A38 south approaches. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when interpreting these results, as junction capacity software cannot accurately forecast operational conditions when a junction is shown to be operating considerably above capacity.

The results from the ‘Do Something’ assessment similarly indicate that the junction would be operating significantly above capacity during both weekday peaks. Whilst the practical reserve capacities are shown to change considerably (compared to the ‘Reference Case’), the increases in total delay at the junction are relatively minor. Furthermore, the total volume of traffic forecast to be queuing on the approaches to the junction (particularly during the busier AM peak period) is relatively similar in the ‘Reference Case’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios.

In summary, the analyses of the Aztec West roundabout indicate that with the proposed improvements in place (and the additional traffic associated with the development of CPNN), there will only be a slight increase in overall queuing and delay at the roundabout. 9.5.6. A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction The proposed improvements to the signalised A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane junction include an additional (left turn) approach lane to the signals from Gypsy Patch Lane. This provides increased capacity for traffic travelling from Gypsy Patch Lane to the southbound arm of the A38, towards Bristol.

The testing indicates that the proposed improvements at the Gypsy Patch Lane signals would provide adequate mitigation, against the increased traffic flows forecast as a result of the CPNN development. A considerable reduction in queuing is forecast along the Gypsy Patch Lane approach to the junction. 9.5.7. A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout The proposed improvements to the partially signalised Filton Roundabout include an additional approach lane to the signals from the A4174. For modelling purposes it has also been assumed that, for both the ’Reference Case’ and ‘Do Something’ scenarios, the improvements proposed to the A38 northbound approach to the roundabout as part of the committed Airbus Aerospace Campus development would be in place.

The testing indicates that the proposed improvements at the partially signalised Filton roundabout would provide adequate mitigation, against the increased traffic flows forecast as a result of the CPNN development.

9.6. Summary This chapter provides details of the improvements required to mitigate the traffic impact of the New Neighbourhood. It specifically relates to the need for off-site junction improvements and the analysis undertaken to determine the suitability and deliverability of the proposals.

The analysis undertaken indicates that the proposed off-site junction improvements are deliverable (albeit that certain risks have been identified) and would provide adequate mitigation against the increased traffic flows forecast as a results of the CPNN development.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 46

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

10. Conclusions

This report provides details of the transport package required to support the development of the Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood (CPNN). It also outlines the programme of work undertaken to define the transport package, building on earlier high-level analysis undertaken as part of the South Gloucestershire Core Strategy.

The CPNN Transport Package sets out the infrastructure and service requirements for the New Neighbourhood, in relation to the following:

 Walking and Cycling Initiatives (Chapter 5) – including on-site requirements and proposals for off-site improvements;  Bus and BRT Service and Infrastructure requirements (Chapter 6);  Rail (Chapter 7);  Internal Road Layout and Access Strategy for the New Neighbourhood (Chapter 8); and  Surrounding Highway Impacts and Mitigation (Chapter 9).

Information in relation to the delivery, phasing, costs and funding of the CPNN Transport Package is provided in the CPNN Implementation Plan Report.

The transport package requirements will be used to inform the development of the CPNN Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPD sets out a strategic framework for the New Neighbourhood; identifying key strategic themes for infrastructure and the essential packages of facilities and services that need to be delivered to support the New Neighbourhood. Furthermore the SPD will be used to coordinate individual developers’ proposals and to assist with the submission of planning applications.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 47

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 48

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 4.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 49

Geraint Morgan Atkins Limited The Hub 500 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ

Telephone 01454 662000

The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood - Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices South Gloucestershire Council

February 2013

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

Notice

Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 28 pages including the cover. Document history

Job number: 5115669 Document ref: Transport Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 Draft JFC JFC 14/02/13

Client signoff

Client South Gloucestershire Council

Project Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document

Document title Transport Report

Job no. 5115669

Copy no.

Document Transport Report reference

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 2

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

Table of contents

Chapter Pages Appendix A. Proposed Site Accesses 1 A.1. A38 Airfield East Site Access 3 A.2. A4018 Laurels Site Access 4 A.3. A4018 Fishpool Hill Site Access 5 Appendix B. Proposed Off-Site Junction Improvements 7 B.1. M5 Junction 16 9 B.2. M5 Junction 17 10 B.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout 11 B.4. A4018 Crow Lane Junction 12 B.5. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout 13 B.6. A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction 14 B.7. A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout 15 Appendix C. Assessment of Utilities 17 C.1. M5 Junction 16 19 C.2. M5 Junction 17 20 C.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout 21 C.4. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout 22

Tables No table of contents entries found. Figures No table of contents entries found.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 3

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 4

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

Appendix A. Proposed Site Accesses

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 1

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 2

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

A.1. A38 Airfield East Site Access

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 3

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

A.2. A4018 Laurels Site Access

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 4

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

A.3. A4018 Fishpool Hill Site Access

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 5

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 6

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

Appendix B. Proposed Off-Site Junction Improvements

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 7

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 8

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.1. M5 Junction 16

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 9

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.2. M5 Junction 17

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 10

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 11

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.4. A4018 Crow Lane Junction

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 12

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.5. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout

Note: DRAFT ONLY: NFH Package to be included and kerb-lines to be corrected

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 13

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.6. A38 / Gypsy Patch Lane Junction

Note: DRAFT ONLY: kerb-lines to be corrected

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 14

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

B.7. A38 / A4174 Filton Roundabout

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 15

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 16

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

Appendix C. Assessment of Utilities

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 17

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 18

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

C.1. M5 Junction 16 M5 Junction A38 Southbound entry to rdbt M5 Eastbound Off M5 Eastbound On M5 Westbound Off Slip A38 Southbound Northern half of rdbt 16 Slip Slip link towards Aztec West Eastern Verge Central Reserve Northern Verge Northern Verge Northern Verge Southern Verge Eastern Verge Southern verge Affinity ------C-way crossing into - this verge. BSKYB ------BT Cables & Joint boxes Cable crosses but Cable crosses but Cable crosses but Cable crosses but Cable crosses but Cables and joint Joint box and depth assumed to be depth assumed to be depth assumed to depth assumed to be depth assumed to be boxes within verge distribution point sufficient sufficient be sufficient sufficient sufficient and c’way Cable & - Cables run along Cable crosses but - - - - Cable crosses but Wireless central reserve depth assumed to be depth assumed to be sufficient sufficient Env Agency Awaiting further “ “ “ “ “ “ “ response Genesys ------Telecomms Instalcom ------South Gloucs ------Council SSE Cable within verge - - - - - Cable within verge - Traffic Master ------Traffic Master Cabinet Virgin Media Cable within verge Cable along central - - - - Cable within verge Cable and chamber reserve Wales & West - Medium Pressure - - - - Main within c-way Medium pressure main Utilities mains through central but chamber /valve in through central island reserve verge. Wessex Water Doesn’t cover this area “ “ “ “ “ “ “ WPD HV underground HV cables cross LV cables HV cables cross HV cables cross HV cables cross verge HV and LV cables in LV cables cables central reserve but verge but depth verge but depth but depth assumed to verge depth assumed to be assumed to be assumed to be be sufficient sufficient sufficient sufficient Line Search ------Esso Petroleum Bristol Water main across - - - - - Water main across waterworks central reserve central island. Telent - Cable across central - - - - Cable in verge Cable across central reserve. island

Overview

Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that BT, SSE, Virgin Media and WPD would be identified as risk items. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but are likely to be significant.

It is noted that no SEWER and Water Main information is provided for this location.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 19

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

C.2. M5 Junction 17 M5 Junction M5 Eastbound Off M5 Eastbound On M5 Westbound Off Slip Northern half of 17 Slip Slip Rdbt Northern Verge Northern Verge Northern Verge Southern Verge Southern verge BT Joint boxes and - - - - distribution points Envoy - - - - - Genesys - - - - - Telecomms Fisher German - - - - - Virgin Media - - - - - Wales & West - - - - - Utilities Wessex Water Does not cover this “ “ “ “ area WPD LV cables and - - - LV cables chambers Bristol - - - - - Waterworks Plc Environment - - - - - Agency Seabank - - - - - Power Ltd South - - - - - Gloucestershire Council Telent on - - - - - behalf of Teliasonera TrafficMaster - - - - - Plc

Overview

Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that BT and WPD would be identified as risk items. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but for BT these may be significant.

It is noted that no SEWER and Water Main information is provided for this location.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 20

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

C.3. A4018 /Cribbs Causeway / Lysander Road Roundabout Lysander Rd A4018 Northbound RDB approach to rdbt Western Verge BT - Envoy - Genesys - Telecomms Fisher German - Virgin Media - Wales & West - Utilities Wessex Water Foul Sewer in Verge, but away from widening proposals WPD LV cables will be affected. O/H cables away from Widening proposals Bristol Water main running Waterworks Plc along verge Environment - Agency Seabank - Power Ltd

South - Gloucestershire Council Telent on - behalf of Teliasonera TrafficMaster - Plc

Overview

Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that WPD would be identified as a risk item. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but are unlikely to be significant.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 21

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report: Appendices

C.4. A38 / Aztec West Roundabout Aztec West RDB A38 Southbound link A38 Southbound link Bradley Stoke Way Jct & Bradley towards Aztec West away from Aztec West Stoke Way RDB RDB Junction Eastern Verge Eastern verge Northern Verge Affinity Cable within verge - Cable within verge BSKYB - - - BT Cables and joint boxes Cables and joint boxes Cables and joint boxes within verge within verge within verge Cable & Wireless Cable and chamber in Cable in verge then c’way Cable within verge but verge. beyond widening proposal Env Agency Awaiting further “ “ response Genesys - - - Telecomms Instalcom Cables within verge Cables within verge Cables for short distance in verge South Gloucs - - - Council SSE Cable within verge - Cables for short distance in verge Traffic Master - - - Virgin Media Cable and chambers Cable and chambers Cable and chambers within verge within verge and c’way within verge Wales & West Main within c-way but Chambers/valves may be Main crosses from c-way Utilities crosses into verge. impacted to verge on two Depth assumed to be occasions. Depth sufficient. assumed to be sufficient. Wessex Water Doesn’t cover this area “ “ WPD HV cables in verge HV cables in verge LV cables in verge Bristol Waterworks - Water main in verge - Plc Telent Cable in verge - Cable in verge

Overview

Based on the above information and associated returns, it is anticipated that Affinity, BT, C&W, Instalcom, SSE, Virgin Media and WPD would be identified as risk items. Costs of potential protection or diversionary requirements are unknown but are likely to be significant.

It is noted that no SEWER and Water Main information is provided for this location.

Atkins Transport Report Appendices | February 2013 | 5115669 22

Cribbs Patchway New Neighbourhood Supplementary Planning Document Transport Report

This page is intentionally blank.

Atkins Transport Report | Version 3.0 | February 2013 | 5115669 23

Geraint Morgan Atkins Limited The Hub 500 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ

Telephone 01454 662000

The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

M5 J16 Scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12a

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids

Key inputs or performance indicators required Additional information (optional) for DM and DS Scheme type Scenarios Time period for DM and DS scenarios by time period Supporting information (e.g. maps, technical note) scenarios by time period

Congestion relief road schemes

Number of highway trips (vehicles) affected Assessment year for the scheme Vehicle trip purpose proportion Weekday: AM peak hour, Traffic data, modelling assumptions, model validation average interpeak, PM of key area, cordon location map, traffic impact peak hour, 3-hr AM and analysis showing the effect of proposed scheme within e.g. improvements to existing highway Do-Minimum and Do-Something PM peak period Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) affected area Vehicle proportion (Car, LGV, OGV1&2, PSV) conversion factors based Observed and modelled traffic flow, queue and delay on local highway and PT Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) on key links/junctions Average speed for car, LGV, HGV & PSV data Average observed and modelled journey time and Total network delays (veh-hrs) speed for vehicles passing through each key

Congestion relief through public transport, demand management measures and others

Total PT travelled distance (passenger-km)

Number of walking and cycling trips Mode share (number and percentage of trips) in affected area

Access to development sites Current use and details of the site, vehicle trip e.g. improvements to existing highway Do-Minimum generation and attraction Do-Something (no change in trips Development details (type, size, phases, year) to be to/from development) unlocked by the improvements Do-Something (including increases in Person trip generation and attraction to the trips to/from development) Weekday: AM peak hour, development average interpeak, PM peak hour, 3-hr AM and Projected modal split PM peak period Vehicle trip generation and attraction to the conversion factors based development on local highway and PT data. Weekend peak Number of highway trips (vehicles) affected Assessment year for the scheme Vehicle trip purpose proportion hours would be required Traffic data, modelling assumptions, model validation for large retail of key area, cordon location map, traffic impact development. analysis showing the effect of proposed scheme within Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) affected area Vehicle proportion (Car, LGV, OGV1&2, PSV) Observed and modelled traffic flow, queue and delay e.g. link roads from highway to site Do-Minimum Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) on key links/junctions Average speed for car, LGV, HGV & PSV Do-Something (including increases in Average observed and modelled journey time and trips to/from development) Total network delays (veh-hrs) speed for vehicles passing through each key

Structural maintenance

Number of highway trips (vehicles) affected Assessment year for the scheme Vehicle trip purpose proportion Traffic data, modelling assumptions, model validation of key area, cordon location map, traffic impact analysis showing the effect of proposed scheme within Do-Minimum and Do-Something Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) affected area Vehicle proportion (Car, LGV, OGV1&2, PSV) Observed and modelled traffic flow, queue and delay Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) on key links/junctions Average speed for car, LGV, HGV & PSV Average observed and modelled journey time and Weekday: AM peak hour, Total network delays (veh-hrs) speed for vehicles passing through each key Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) during Type and duration of traffic management during average interpeak, PM construction construction peak hour, 3-hr AM and Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) during e.g. highways, bridges PM peak period construction Do-Something during construction conversion factors based on local highway and PT Total network delays (veh-hrs) during construction data Cost of delay during construction (if QUADRO is used) Total vehicle travelled time (veh-hrs) during maintenance Frequency of maintenance per year Total vehicle travelled distance (veh-km) during Type and duration of traffic management for Do-Minimum and Do-Something maintenance maintenance during maintenance Total network delays (veh-hrs) during maintenance Cost of delay during maintenance (if QUADRO is used)

Note:

(1) A base or forecast year model could be used for the assessment of the scheme. This depends on the age of base year model and the availability of a forecast year model for the scheme opening year. (2) Highway and PT trip demand, travelled time and distance matrices should be obtained from the Area of Influence (which may be a set of selected links or cordoned network). Matrix calculation is required by multiplying OD trip demand matrix and time/distance matrix in order to calculate the highway and PT total travelled time/distance. The PT time matrix should include generalised cost components (in-vehicle time, waiting time etc.)

(3) Public transport modes (bus/BRT, rail) should be presented separately. M5 J16 Scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12a

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: J16, 2011 Base Year Assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,031 5,830 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 79 71 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 647 652 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 50 40 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,031 5,830 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 74 71 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 647 652 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 45 40 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Something Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips M5 J16 Scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12a Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: J16, 2016 Opening Year Assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,710 6,100 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 199 83 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 708 670 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 168 52 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,710 6,100 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 134 82 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 708 670 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 103 51 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Something Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips

Template J16 2016 M5 J16 Scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12a Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: J16, 2031 Future Year Assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 8,747 6,910 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 561 119 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 891 724 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 522 90 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles 8,747 6,910 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 316 115 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 891 724 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 277 86 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Something Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips

Template J16 2031 M5 J16 Scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12a

For Do-Minimum Scenario For Do-Something Scenario AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Vehicle Category Weekday Weekday Weekday Vehicle Category Weekday Weekday Weekday Car Work 9% 6% n/a Car Work 9% 6% n/a Car Non-work Commuting 71% 80% n/a Car Non-work Commuting 71% 80% n/a Car Non-work Other incl incl n/a Car Non-work Other incl incl n/a Average Car 80% 86% 0% Average Car 80% 86% 0% LGV 12% 9% n/a LGV 12% 9% n/a OGV1 8% 5% n/a OGV1 8% 5% n/a OGV2 incl incl n/a OGV2 incl incl n/a PSV 0% 0% n/a PSV 0% 0% n/a All Total 100% 100% 0% All Total 100% 100% 0% Public Transport Public Transport Bus Work n/a n/a n/a Bus Work n/a n/a n/a Bus Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a Bus Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a Bus Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a Bus Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a Bus Total 0% 0% 0% Bus Total 0% 0% 0% Rail Work n/a n/a n/a Rail Work n/a n/a n/a Rail Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a Rail Non-work Commuting n/a n/a n/a Rail Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a Rail Non-work Other n/a n/a n/a Rail Total 0% 0% 0% Rail Total 0% 0% 0%

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Car 1.6 6.1 n/a Car 6.1 6.3 n/a LGV 1.6 6.1 n/a LGV 6.1 6.3 n/a HGV & PSV 1.6 6.1 n/a HGV & PSV 6.1 6.3 n/a

Additional Info Template M5 J17 scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12b

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids

Congestion relief road schemes

Congestion relief through public transport, demand management measures and others

Total PT travelled distance (passenger-km)

Number of walking and cycling trips Mode share (number and percentage of trips) in affected area

Structural maintenance

Note:

(3) Public transport modes (bus/BRT, rail) should be presented separately. M5 J17 scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12b

Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: J17, 2011 Base Year Assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 4,401 5,733 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 66 97 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 572 690 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 30 60 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles 4,401 5,733 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 57 86 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 572 690 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 25 50 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Something Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips

Template J17 2011 M5 J17 scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12b Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: J17, 2016 Opening Year Assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 4,967 6,456 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 146 202 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 646 782 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 110 162 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles 4,967 6,456 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 100 152 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 646 782 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 67 112 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Something Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips

Template J17 2016 M5 J17 scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12b Scheme Impact Pro Forma for Small Project Bids: J17, 2031 Future Year Assessment

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Nights Sat Sun Scenario Input Data / Key Performance Indicators Unit Weekday Weekday Weekday 19:00-07:00 07:00-19:00 07:00-19:00 Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,664 8,626 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 388 517 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 867 1,056 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 349 466 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Minimum Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips Number of highway trips affected vehicles 6,664 8,626 Total vehicle travelled time vehicle-hours 231 351 Total vehicle travelled distance vehicle-km 867 1,056 Not assessed Total network delays vehicle-hrs 192 300 Highway peak period conversion factor - 2.55 2.56 Number of PT passenger trips on affected routes passenger trips Bus journey time on affected routes minutes Total PT travelled time passenger-hrs Not applicable Do-Something Total PT travelled distance passenger-km PT peak period conversion factor - Number of walking and cycling trips person trips Mode share in affected area - Walking and cycling person trips - Bus/BRT person trips Not applicable - Rail person trips - Car person trips - Total person trips

Template J17 2031 M5 J17 scheme impacts pro-form Appendix 12b

AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Inter-Peak Hr Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Average Network Speed (kph) Weekday Weekday Weekday Car 2.2 2.0 n/a Car 7.7 5.2 n/a LGV 2.2 2.0 n/a LGV 7.7 5.2 n/a HGV & PSV 2.2 2.0 n/a HGV & PSV 7.7 5.2 n/a

Additional Info Template Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 19 Feb 2013 Contact:

Name of scheme: M5 Junctions 16 and 17 Local Road Improvements Name Description of scheme: Modifications to local highway network at M5 Junctions 16 and 17. Improvements to circulatory carriageway of J16 roundabout at Almondsbury and widening Organisation A38 southbound approach + Improvements to circulatory carriageway of J17 roundabout at Cribbs Causeway. Role Promoter/Official Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport Benefits from reduced delays at both junctions, focused on AM Peak (Junction 16) and PM Peak Value of journey time changes(£) £8.50 Not applicable providers (Junction 17). Assessment based on strategic modelling using SATURN and junction assessment Net journey time changes (£) using LINSIG. Modelling focused on AM and PM peaks only and excludes inter-peaks and £8.5m weekends. Monetary assessment based on time savings only. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Economy Reliability impact on Business Capacity improvements at key pinchpoints will significantly improve resilience and enable improved users traffic routing in response to incidents. Improvements will facilitate efficient routing for goods Moderate vehicles accessing Filton Enterprise Area and Cribbs Causeway. Beneficial Regeneration Not a designated Regeneration Area. However, scheme directly serves Filton Enterprise Area, one of the priority growth areas in the West of England. Neutral

Wider Impacts High concentration of high value-added industries with strong agglomeration potential. Analyses indicate that failure to tackle infrastructure constraints (incl motorway junctions) would significantly Moderate constrain job creation and housing delivery in this area. beneficial Noise Reductions in queueing traffic will reduce noise levels next to the motorway junctions. Small Not applicable numbers of nearby receptors: overall impact minor. Slight Beneficial Air Quality Reductions in queueing traffic will reduce emissions next to the motorway junctions. Small numbers Not applicable of nearby receptors: overall impact minor. Slight Beneficial Greenhouse gases Reductions in queueing traffic will reduce carbon emissions of idling traffic. Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) Slight Beneficial Not assessed

Environmental Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) Landscape Widening of north sides of roundabouts at J16 and J17 + widening of A38 southbound approach to Slight Adverse J16. Small loss of vegetated areas in middle of roundabouts. Townscape No impact. Neutral Heritage of Historic resources No impact. Neutral

Biodiversity No impact. Neutral Water Environment No impact. Neutral Commuting and Other users Benefits from reduced delays at both junctions, focused on AM Peak (Junction 16) and PM Peak Value of journey time changes(£) £76.0m Not applicable (Junction 17). Assessment based on strategic modelling using SATURN and junction assessment Net journey time changes (£) using LINSIG. Modelling focused on AM and PM peaks only and excludes inter-peaks and £76.0m Social weekends. Monetary assessment based on time savings only. 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min

Reliability impact on Significant reliability benefits expected for commuters using motorway junctions during peak Moderate Commuting and Other users periods. Beneficial Physical activity No impact: no change in physical activity expected as a result of the junction improvements. Neutral

Journey quality Improved highway alignment will reduce conflicts and ease driver stress. Slight Beneficial

Accidents Potential reductions in rear shunt accidents and improved manoeuvring of traffic through Not applicable roundabouts. Impacts are likely to be minor. Slight Beneficial Security No impact. Not applicable Neutral

Access to services Improved access to jobs and retail. Improved traffic conditions will also benefit buses. Not applicable Slight Beneficial

Affordability No impact. Neutral Not applicable Severance Small impact due to changes to alignment of on-slips. Considered minor. Slight Adverse Not applicable Option values No impact. Neutral

c Cost to Broad Transport

bli Budget Present Value of Costs in 2010 Prices discounted to 2010 £1.901m u P

Accounts Indirect Tax Revenues No assessment made of changes in fuel consumption as assessment has focused on changes in journey times. A small reduction in fuel consumption would be likely as a result of reduced vehicle Not directly assessed idling hence a small reduction in indirect tax revenues. Project Plan Appendix 14

Pinchpont Programme 2013 2014 2015 23/01/2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun APPROVALS Funding offer confirmed Accept offer of funding Prepare & secure HA approval for schemes Stakeholder consultation Member approval for scheme ♦ Book roadspace DESIGN Mobilise Infrastructure design H&S procedures Utility confirmation Stage 1/2 safety audit TRO TRO Procedures if required PROCUREMENT Confirm construction resource requirements CONSTRUCTION Mobilise ♦ Junction 16 Site clearance & earthworks ♦ Drainage & pavement foundations ♦ Pavement & kerbing ♦ Traffic signs & road markings ♦ Street lighting & Signals ♦ Completion ♦ CONSTRUCTION Mobilise ♦ Junction 17 Site clearance & earthworks ♦ Drainage & pavement foundations ♦ Pavement & kerbing ♦ Traffic signs & road markings ♦ Street lighting & Signals ♦ Completion ♦ OTHER Stage 3 safety audit Adoption procedures Post construction monitorng Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun

♦ Milestones

G:\TRANSP & STRAT PROJECTS\Strategic Transport Policy\Transport Policy\Local PP funding\Bid docs\Appendices\Appendix 12\App 12 Project Plan PPP feb 13 19/02/2013