sign in sign up
<<
Home , A14 road (England), Dry Drayton, Fen Drayton

A14 TO IMPROVEMENT SCHEME

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER - EXAMINATION

Representation on Local Traffic Impacts

By

Cambridgeshire County Council

Shire Hall, Castle Hill, Cambridge, CB3 0AP

2 September 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 CONTENTS

CONTENTS 2

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. CHARM TRAFFIC MODEL 4

3. LOCAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS 6

3.2 Local Impact Report 7

4. SPECIFIC ISSUES 8

4.2 B1514 Brampton Road 8

4.3 Hinchingbrooke 8

4.4 Spittals 9

4.5 Galley Hill 9

5. ADDITIONAL WORK 10

6. MONITORING 12

7. INTERACTION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 13

7.1 13

7.2 A428 13

APPENDIX A - EXISTING NORTHSTOWE MONITORING 16

APPENDIX B – ADDITIONAL MONITORING LOCATIONS 18

APPENDIX C – ROAD CLOSURE GUIDELINES 19

APPENDIX D – SYSTRA REPORT 25

Page 2 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 This Written Representation is in respect of Local Traffic Impacts and supersedes Chapter 10 of the County Council’s previous written representation (REP3-006)

1.1.2 This Written Representation, in respect of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme (the Scheme) Development Consent Order (the Order or DCO), is made in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, Rule 10. It must be read in conjunction with the Local Impact Report submitted for Deadline 8.

1.1.3 The Local Impact Report presents local traffic impacts and recommendations for mitigation. Information in the Local Impact Report is generally not repeated in this document. This document makes supporting and additional representations on local traffic matters.

1.1.4 The supporting report from Systra is in Appendix D

Page 3 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 2. CHARM TRAFFIC MODEL

2.1.1 In this representation the following terms are used:

 CHARM3A – The revised traffic model submitted at Deadline 2

 CHARM3A + LIT – The CHARM3A model plus local impact testing – considered by the County Council to be core modelling for the purposes of assessing impacts on local roads  CHARM3A + LIT + S2 – The CHARM3A model plus local impact testing and sensitivity test 2 as detailed in REP6-002 – considered by the County Council to be more representative of the local road network and to better reflect typical journey times on the existing A14.

2.1.2 The County Council has made previous representations on the matter of Highways ’s traffic modelling. These are set out in REP3-006 (section 10), REP4-006, and REP7-005. The principal position of the County Council has been that has not sufficiently considered impacts of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme (the Scheme) on the local road network. The County Council and its partner local authorities did not have full confidence in the predicted changes in traffic on the local network, due to weak validation and concerns over the model itself.

2.1.3 At Deadline 6 Highways England submitted the Local Traffic Impact Report (REP6—002), which presented the results of local impact testing of changes to the core modelling requested by the County Council and other local authorities, together with a sensitivity test. These were:

 Revisions to the allocation and distribution of Base Year demand;  Correction to tidal permitted movements on Silver Street, Cambridge;  Revisions to future year infrastructure assumptions;  Revisions to the coding of Spittals Interchange; and  Revisions to scheme coding in the vicinity of .

2.1.4 In respect of the local impact testing this is core modelling as it resolved factual concerns regarding coding of the model. The CHARM 3A + LIT modelling, except for journey times on the existing A14, now correctly represents the base network, trip allocations, and future schemes.

2.1.5 However, concerns remained over the use of median as opposed to mean journey times on the existing A14. The use of median is entirely valid, but there was concern that the

Page 4 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

values of journey time did not reflect the actual levels of delay and congestion experienced on the existing A14. The County Council asked Highways England to run a sensitivity test of using mean rather than median journey times on the existing A14.

2.1.6 In consequence, the CHARM3A + LIT traffic model alone potentially underrepresents the amount of traffic using alternative routes to avoid the A14. This manifests as traffic using local roads to join the A14 closer to Cambridge, and as traffic making alternative route choices. The view of the County Council is that CHARM3A + LIT + S2 is more representative of local road changes resulting from the Scheme. However, since the method in Sensitivity Test 2 manipulated speed flow curves rather than changing journey time coding, it is accepted as being a sensitivity test.

2.1.7 The County Council remains concerned over the matter of apparent growth in trips into and out of Cambridge City Centre. It appears that there is insufficient congestion and delay within the model. This appears to allow some traffic to route through central Cambridge in preference to using outer orbital roads such as the M11. This is counter- intuitive based on local knowledge and experience. The County Council has satisfied itself that this appears to be a feature of the model, rather than a real predicted change.

2.1.8 With respect to validation, this remains a concern in respect of the local road network. However, the County Council is satisfied that the routing changes post A14 are plausible and the proportionate change reasonable. Less reliance should, however, be placed on the exact quantum of change in areas with weak validation.

2.1.9 On balance, the County Council is of the opinion that the modelling reported in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report can be used to assess the traffic impacts of the A14 on the local road network, provided account is taken of the Sensitivity Test 2 output.

2.1.10 The County Council notes that the model is specifically for use with the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon project. It is primarily a strategic road model and detailed modelling confined to a relatively narrow strip along the A14. In view of the weak validation on the local road network in several areas, the CHARM3A + LIT model should not be used for any other road project or development without further work.

Page 5 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 3. LOCAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS

3.1.1 In general, the impact of the A14 is beneficial to the local road network, reducing traffic compared to the predicted level of traffic in the Do Minimum scenarios as this traffic is predicted to occur without the scheme. There are, however, areas where there is a negative impact and traffic on the local road network increases. The County Council considers an increase of traffic on the local road network caused by implementation of the A14 scheme to be an impact of the scheme, even if the location is some distance from the new road. The impact of congestion on the A14 is widely felt as traffic uses alternative routes to avoid congestion. Examples of this are:

 Traffic from the area has a more direct route via the B1043 and to the A14. However, some traffic uses unclassified roads through Graveley to reach the A1198, then Graveley Way to access the B1040 and A14. This is in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report (REP6-002) on Figure 4.13.  Local traffic from the Hilton area has a direct route to the A14 via the B1040. However, some traffic uses the unclassified Hilton Road to reach the A14 closer to Cambridge at . This is in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report on Figure 4.16.  Some traffic from Huntingdon to St Ives and beyond currently chooses to use the A1123 instead of the A14; with the scheme, it uses the de-trunked A14 and the A1096. This is in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report on Figure 4.14.  Traffic from St Ives routes down the B1040 to Hilton, uses Graveley Way to reach the A1198 and Godmanchester. With scheme, this traffic uses the de- trunked A14. This is in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report on Figure 4.17.  Some traffic uses Low Road to reach the A14 via , to avoid the junction at Galley Hill. This is in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report on Figure 4.15.  Traffic from Cambourne currently routes up through Knapwell and Conington to reach the A14 at Fen Drayton/Fenstanton. With scheme, this traffic routes up the A1198 instead. This is in Highways England’s Local Traffic Impact Report on Figure 4.18.

Page 6 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

3.1.2 This amply demonstrates that the impact of congestion on the A14 influences traffic movements well outside the immediate corridor. In all cases, traffic is using more minor or unclassified roads with the aim of joining the existing A14 at a point closer to Cambridge. In 2001-2003 the DfT made available £4.5m of funding to provide traffic calming in villages along the A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge corridor in recognition of this accepted problem.

3.1.3 It is not, therefore, at all unexpected that with the construction of the new A14, traffic reverts to using more direct routes to access the Strategic Road Network at the earliest opportunity. This is only possible due to the Scheme, so the impact of these changes is an impact of the scheme. Although, this traffic may originally have been on less appropriate routes, communities along the revised route will perceive the change in traffic adversely. This is not a reason to change the scheme, or a reason why the scheme should not proceed, only that in some locations these impacts may require mitigation.

3.1.4 In some cases, changes in local traffic occur because of the Scheme providing new connections and new routes that do not currently exist. For example, where the new Local Access Road permits a route into Cambridge that is not available at present.

3.2 Local Impact Report

3.2.1 The Local Impact Report presents the impacts of the A14 on local traffic, and identifies where mitigation is necessary. Generally, the Scheme is beneficial in terms of the local road network, reducing the use of unsuitable routes, and generally reducing traffic on the local road network.

Page 7 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 4. SPECIFIC ISSUES

4.1.1 This section considers specific locations not dealt with in the Local Impact Report.

4.2 B1514 Brampton Road

4.2.1 In general, traffic will reduce on Brampton Road as a result of traffic leaving the existing A14 at the racecourse at present, staying on the de-trunked road to Spittals. However, there is an increase in traffic in the section over the mainline railway where the viaduct is currently. The County Council is satisfied that based on the evidence to date the existing junctions should perform adequately, but considers that further work is needed in detailed design to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is the case. The County Council accepts that the Edison Bell Way junction is at capacity and that with Scheme it will not get worse. However, in view of elevated local concerns over the performance of this area, post viaduct removal, it is necessary for Highways England and the County Council in detailed design to be completely satisfied that the performance of the junctions is fully tested, and adequacy and resilience demonstrated.

4.2.2 The Council is particularly concerned over the balance of road space allocation between NMU and vehicles. This section of road experiences high NMU flows at peak times on a demand line between Hinchingbrooke and the Station. Considered alone there does not appear to be a strong case for a separate footbridge, but it is desirable that future provision is not prejudiced, or made more costly by Highways England. Additional carriageway width on Brampton Road for traffic may require a separate bridge.

4.3 Hinchingbrooke

4.3.1 The Council is aware of suggestions that the Views Common link is removed, and access be provided by a new link near the Hospital. In the view of the Council, the location of the link is constrained by providing an adequate safe distance from the slip roads at Spittals to the roundabout. Moving the roundabout westward would not be possible if the east facing slip roads are retained.

4.3.2 The proposal for a link from the Spittals junction to Hinchingbrooke Park Road near the hospital, proposed by Ray Bowers (REP5-033) and others would require closure of the below Spittals. The view of the Council is that any shortening of the distance between the Views Common roundabout and the Spittals east facing slip roads would require this in any case.

Page 8 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

4.3.3 The provision of access to Hinchingbrooke Park Road near the hospital has not been modelled, but it would appear to the Council that this would largely just move the point of access to Hinchingbrooke Park Road further west, and not provide additional relief to the junction with Brampton Road. Traffic seeking to access Brampton Road via Hinchingbrooke Park Road will continue to do so. A link west of the hospital would alter traffic distribution along Hinchingbrooke Park Road, increasing traffic past the residential area opposite the hospital.

4.3.4 The junction between Hinchingbrooke Park Road and Views Common Link is physically separate from the junction with Brampton Road. Traffic from Views Common Link with a destination on Hinchingbrooke Park Road (eg Hospital, Police Headquarters) that currently uses and Brampton Road from the A141 will no longer do so, reducing demand at the Hinchingbrooke Park Road/Brampton Road junction.

4.3.5 The Council does not therefore see any significant benefit in traffic terms from not providing the Views Common link at the location currently proposed, and is satisfied with the proposals of Highways England, subject to detailed design.

4.4 Spittals

4.4.1 The Council wishes to discuss with Highways England in detailed design of de-trunking measures to reduce the size of the Spittals roundabout. The existing junction is very large with 3 lanes on the circulatory carriageway. The existing signals are partly for safety, to reduce the speed of vehicles on the roundabout. The Council is considering whether to retain the signals when the A14 is de-trunked. With reduced traffic, they may not be needed for capacity, and they represent a cost to maintain. Alternative means to ensure safety with reduced traffic could include narrowing the carriageway.

4.4.2 The Council would also wish to explore with Highways England in detailed design the possibility of removing the carriageway below Spittals. This would possibly provide some safety benefits by eliminating the slip road merge before the Views Common roundabout, while making better use of the large elevated Spittals roundabout.

4.5 Galley Hill

4.5.1 Highways England has identified that the off slip at Galley Hill may have capacity issues. Although there is reduced traffic on the A14 itself, traffic flows increase on the A1096. Highways England has agreed to review the junction in detailed design and improve it if necessary. The County Council is content with this response.

Page 9 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 5. ADDITIONAL WORK

5.1.1 The County Council considers that the traffic modelling is at the point where it is possible to assess the likely impacts of the Scheme. In detailed design, the precise layout and design of junctions must be subject to full operational testing. The County Council is satisfied only that the proposed junctions for the purposes of granting a development consent order are satisfactory and the red line is adequate for design development. Highways England has agreed to consult with the Council on the detailed design of all the local road elements.

5.1.2 However, a number of junctions outside the red line, and not forming part of the Scheme, are not tested at this time. While generally the increases in traffic are most likely to be within the capacity of the road and not causing congestion, it is possible that increases on certain links at junctions will result in a reduction in performance, and an increase in queueing or reduction in safety. If there is an impact, mitigation may be required. This is not an issue upon which the application for a development consent order should be determined, but the County Council seeks a commitment from Highways England to assess these junctions.

5.1.3 The junctions of concern are:-

 Edison Bell Way/Stukeley Road/Ermine Street*  A141/Stukeley Road/Ermine Street*  A141/Washingley Road/Latham Road*  A141//St Peters Road*  A141/B1514/A1123*  A1198/Barnfield Lane  A1198/Graveley Way  B1514 Buckden Road/ High Street (Brampton)  B1043/Station Lane, Offord Cluny  A1096/A14 J26 (Galley Hill)  Crafts Way/Acorn Avenue **  Crafts Way/Fox Hollow **

*- these junctions are on a congested route ** - if changes shown to be the result of the A14 scheme

Page 10 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

5.1.4 In all cases, the implementation of the A14 scheme causes an increase in traffic on links, and the performance of the associated junctions needs to be examined. In its response (REP4-011 at 3.4.60) to the Council’s written representation (REP3-006) Highways England accepted that the screen of 30% applied in the Transport Assessment was incorrect and values of 5% in Cambridge and Huntingdon, and 10% elsewhere was appropriate.

5.1.5 Further, none of the existing junctions such as the , South Roundabout, have been subject to baseline modelling. The Council accepts, although it has had only limited opportunity to scrutinise the technical work that Highways England has demonstrated that existing junctions perform satisfactorily. However, in the absence of base year assessment the calibration and validation of the junctions is at large. The Council requested Highways England to provide base year models, but these were not forthcoming. As part of detailed design, the Council will be looking for base year models to validate the future year assessment of existing junctions impacted by the Scheme.

5.1.6 With respect to the impact on increased traffic in local communities, the effects of loss of amenity are hard to establish quantitatively. Increased traffic, even if within the capacity of the road is likely to manifest in increased concern over risk to children and vulnerable road users, elevated concerns over speeding traffic, and in perceptions of reduced enjoyment of property and the local environment. Such concerns and the need for mitigation can only be established through consultative processes.

Page 11 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 6. MONITORING

6.1.1 The County Council requires Highways England to implement traffic monitoring to confirm that the impacts of the A14 are within the extent predicted. There is already a comprehensive network of monitoring around Northstowe as shown in Appendix A. There appears to be no need to duplicate this, and indeed this monitoring has already accumulated 2 years of data.

6.1.2 Monitoring needs to be extended by Highways England to cover additional points as shown in Appendix B. These points are selected on the basis that there is reduced confidence in the predicted traffic due to weak validation, or a need to ensure that a neutral or predicted impact is not actually adverse.

6.1.3 The detail of actual sites and methods has yet to be agreed in detail, but an effective monitoring package would encompass:

 Monitoring by a combination of permanent monitoring sites by automatic counter (ATC), and periodic manual counts to supplement the ATC data and other potentially other survey techniques;  Baseline monitoring carried out before works starts on the A14 and traffic management causes route changes;  Monitoring after completion until such time as the impact of the A14 can be assessed, considering that some effects of the A14 are related to developments that may be on a different timeline; and  A number of control sites to assess background traffic growth in the area.

6.1.4 Highways England has agreed to the principle of monitoring, and indeed in its response (REP4-011 at 3.4.60) to the County Council’s written representation (REP3-006) proposed a number of locations at junctions. However, the Council on behalf of all the local authorities would request a binding commitment in the DCO in the form of a Section 106 Agreement. The commitment should be to monitoring, and if the monitoring demonstrates an adverse impact due to the A14 that mitigation will be funded by Highways England.

Page 12 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 7. INTERACTION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

7.1 Northstowe

7.1.1 The development of Northstowe, and the A14 have proceeded on different timelines. Consequently, the final version of the CHARM3A model with local impact testing and sensitivity tests potentially supersedes the modelling done for Northstowe. The Council considers that Highways England and the Homes and Communities Agency need to collaborate and ensure that the planned infrastructure for Northstowe is resilient to the latest A14 forecasts.

7.2 A428

7.2.1 The A428 Caxton to A1 dualling scheme is now in planning, and may increase the attractiveness of the A428 for traffic from the areas north of the A14. Similarly, the potential upgrade of the A428 to expressway may increase the attractiveness of the A428. Northstowe Phase 3 will increase potential demand from north of the A14. The A14 modelling demonstrates that there is demand for travel from the A14 corridor and areas north of it, to the A428 and areas to the south. There is relatively little demand for a connection from A14 to A428 at Girton, and the traffic making the movement are largely local. This was the substance of Highways England’s reply to Ex A Question 1.5.10 (REP2-006) as such a link did not reduce flows through Dry Drayton significantly.

7.2.2 Highways England made comments (REP4-0005 Page 93) on responses to the Ex A first written questions from the Brampton A14 Action Group, regarding the A428 as an alternative to the A14. This showed that the improvement of the A428 reduced traffic on the A14 by less than 2%. The A14, although intersecting with the A428 at Cambridge, is not an alternative to the A428. Improvement of the A14 will not reduce demand to access the A428, and the modelling shows this.

7.2.3 There is therefore, considerable demand to travel on an axis from A14 to A428 even though this is mostly what Highways England considers local traffic. With scheme, and partly because the scheme facilitates the movement, there is an adverse impact on both Dry Drayton and Madingley.

7.2.4 In the case of Madingley, there are significant changes due to connection of The Avenue to the Local Access Road by means of an all movement junction. Further, this all movement junction makes routes through Madingley more attractive to Dry Drayton.

Page 13 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

Coding errors relating to the length of Road obscured this in earlier modelling. These errors were corrected in CHARM3A + LIT and as a result there is a significant increase in traffic on the High Street, Madingley in the peak hours.

7.2.5 Madingley Parish Council has asked for The Avenue to be closed to traffic. The County Council has considered this to be of limited benefit within Madingley, as traffic will continue to route through Madingley High Street via Dry Drayton Road. Therefore, significant reductions of traffic in Madingley require also closing Dry Drayton Road with significant connectivity issues.

7.2.6 If public consultation was carried out to the required standards (appended to this representation), the impact on other communities considered, and the cost met by Highways England, the Council would not object to to closure of The Avenue. The Avenue is a road of poor standard, and the projected increase of traffic on it would be a concern. In fact, an increase in traffic on both Dry Drayton Road and The Avenue would be concern due to low standard.

7.2.7 T the Council considers that neither Madingley nor Dry Drayton can be considered in isolation. It is clear that part of the demand to travel though these villages is due to lack of connectivity at Girton and M11 junction 13. Limiting the connection between the LAR and The Avenue to left in/left out or closure of The Avenue would reduce some impacts of the scheme and maintain the status quo. To achieve significant benefits in Madingley would require more drastic measures, such as more road closures, that would have a significant impact on connectivity in the local area. There are no realistic alternative routes to travel between the corridors due to limited connections at Girton and M11 Junction 13.

7.2.8 The County Council accepts the position of Highways England regarding the provision of the missing links at Girton as part of the A14 scheme, and would not wish any material change to the A14 scheme at this time to delay delivery of this important project. However, in the longer term the Council would ask for consideration of a link between the A428 and the local access road to provide an alternative access to north Cambridge as part of the upgrade of the A428, and in the planning of Northstowe Phase 3. The County Council and local authorities can consider public transport alternatives as part of City Deal.

Page 14 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

7.2.9 The Council considers that a multi-agency response to connectivity between the A428 and A14 corridors in this area is appropriate, and should be a key part of longer-term transport planning in the area north west of Cambridge.

Page 15 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

APPENDIX A - EXISTING NORTHSTOWE MONITORING

Page 16 Traffic Count and Speed Recording Sites Plan

7 8 9 15

4 6

11 3 13 14 12 16

18 1 10 19 20 2 5 17

Permanent Count Site

Temporary Bi-annual Count Site A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

APPENDIX B – ADDITIONAL MONITORING LOCATIONS

Page 18 A14 Improvement Scheme – Local Road network – Sites and Links to be monitored

Original Map Base produced for Highways England A14 Cambridge to Existing Northstowe Permanent Count Site Planned major Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Existing Northstowe Temporary Bi-annual Count Site development sites

Development Consent Order (DCO) Junctions highlighted by Highways England as needing monitoring Additional junctions highlighted by CCC as needing monitoring Amended by County Council for illustrative purposes Additional links highlighted by CCC as needing monitoring

A14 Improvement Scheme – Local Road network – Sites and Links to be monitored – cont.

Existing Northstowe Temporary Bi-annual Count Site

Junctions highlighted by Highways England as needing monitoring

Additional links highlighted by CCC as needing monitoring

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

APPENDIX C – ROAD CLOSURE GUIDELINES

Page 19 Cambridgeshire County Council Guidance on Stopping Up or Diversion of the Public Highway Section 116 Highways Act 1980

Summary of procedure

Where areas of public highway are considered by the County Council, as Highway Authority, to be unnecessary for highway purposes, the highway rights can be extinguished or ‘stopped up’ by an Order made by Magistrates. They can also be diverted, provided a suitable alternative exists or can be made available. In order to do either of these, an application has to be made to the Magistrates Court by the Council on behalf of an applicant under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980. The successful making of such an Order will extinguish the highway rights over the land concerned and free it from Highway Authority control.

Should the owner then wish to enclose or develop the land, planning consent may be required, including for the erection of fences over 1 metre in height (if adjacent to the highway). The Local Planning Authority will be able to provide further advice. Ownership

Once the highway rights are extinguished, control over the land reverts to the freehold or leasehold owner of the subsoil. In many cases, this will not be the Highway Authority. Where the owner of the subsoil is known, an applicant will need to negotiate a transfer of the land. For example, on many housing estate developments the land still belongs to the developer. It may be prudent for an applicant to both ascertain the owner of the land and to negotiate any costs involved prior to section 116 procedures being commenced.

Where the owner of the subsoil is not known and cannot be found, there is a rebuttable legal ‘presumption’ that the owners of the adjoining properties own the subsoil beneath the former highway out to the centre-line of the former highway. This is more often the case with older areas of highway. This would be a matter of evidence, and applicants may wish to seek independent legal advice. Recovery of fees and costs The County Council may recover from the applicant the reasonable administrative costs of advising on and processing applications for orders. Fees for s116 Highways Act 1980 applications are as follows: Stage 1: No fee Stage 2: Non-refundable fee of £600 (no VAT) for advice, drafting of plan & travelling expenses at 45p/mile, payable upon submission of the application. Stage 3: Legal fee of £2,500 – 4,500 (no VAT) plus officer time at £52/hr as required;  The administrative costs of processing your application including the court application,  The cost of inserting Public Notice(s) in the relevant local newspaper(s) concerning the proposed Order and then Notice that the Order has been made.  The registration on County Council’s legal record upon successful completion of the order. Note that any objections received during consultation will delay the process and may add to the cost whilst they are negotiated. It is therefore in an applicant’s interest to try and ensure as far as reasonably possible that any likely objections are addressed prior to submission of an application. Where there are objections the Council generally will not proceed with making an application to Court. Should an objection only transpire once the application to Court has been made, additional costs over the £4,500 quoted may arise, particularly if the Court decides that a full trial is necessary. The County Council will then decide whether it is willing to take the case further or not. Procedure

S116 Highways Act 1980 Guidance V4 12/06/15 Stage 1: Pre-application procedure Applicants are advised that prior to making a diversion or stopping up application, it is essential that:  Any disputes concerning anything relating to the land in question have been resolved  Any practical matters relating to land, for example highway engineering requirements concerning visibility splays  Consent has been obtained in writing from any party with any other legal interest in the land, for example access rights, or other landowners  Thought also needs to be given to ensure connectivity between other highways which may be of a lesser status. For example, should a certain width be retained for pedestrians or cyclists along the route of a vehicular highway which it is proposed to stop up, or of an alternative route nearby?

To assist with this, and in order to identify at an early stage whether the proposal is likely to be accepted by the public, applicants must undertake written consultation with the prescribed bodies (list attached), before submitting their application. It is also advisable to consult neighbours in the area, and the local County Councillor. This will. In particular, it should be observed that town and parish councils have a right of veto to s116 Highways Act 1980 applications. Any concerns raised should be addressed by the applicant as far as reasonably possible. All responses received should be attached to the application form, together with evidence of efforts to resolve any objections.

For an initial discussion as to whether your proposal can be considered, please contact your local Asset Information Searches Officer, who will:  Identify the status and extent of highway you are interested in  May direct you to discuss your proposal with your Local Infrastructure & Streets Officer (who deals with the practical management of the highway, or Rights of Way Officer if public rights of way are involved) or Highway Development Management Engineer if you have not done so already The application form (including check list) and this guidance is available on the County Council’s website via this link: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/highwaylandcharges/Stopping+up+the+highw ays

Stage 2: Submission of application

Applications may be submitted, with application fee, once the pre-application details outlined above have been undertaken. Consultations undertaken together with responses received and evidence of attempts to resolve concerns must be attached to the application form. We will then:  Acknowledge your application, check it and advise you if we can accept it or not.  Prepare a plan showing the area of highway to be stopped up, which will be agreed with you. This will be used for the legal Order, so it is important that it is correct.  Local Infrastructure & Streets Officer will undertake a desk-top survey of services that may be present under the highway concerned.  Arrange to meet on site with you and the Local Infrastructure & Streets Officer or other officers as appropriate to discuss your proposal. The fee for providing this advice is £600, which must be paid whether or not the applicant decides to proceed with the application following the results of Stage 2.

Stage 3: Legal process

The application will then be submitted to the County Council’s LGSS Law & Governance team to undertake the legal process, including application the Magistrates’ Court. This process takes approximately 6 months. LGSS will: S116 Highways Act 1980 Guidance V4 12/06/15  Write to you to confirm they are ready to start  Advise you of the estimated Stage 3 application fee, and request half of this to enable them to commence.

Formal consultations are undertaken with all affected parties, including:  Parish Council/Town Council  District Council  Statutory Undertakers (i.e. water, gas etc)  Adjoining land owner(s)  Local County Councillor  Other relevant departments within Cambridgeshire County Council  The Public by notice on site and in the local library notified by advertisements

Should objections be received, the County Council will inform you and will endeavour to discuss the next steps with you. However this will depend upon the circumstances, for example if time is too tight before the court hearing. The County Council reserves the right to withdraw applications if it becomes apparent that it is unlikely to be successful Reservations All rights to any services under, over, in, above, along or across the highway will remain unless alternative arrangements are negotiated with the appropriate body. The County Council and/or statutory undertakers may require any services to be diverted, or for a wayleave agreement to be entered into if the services are to remain in situ. The cost of any such diversions or agreements must be met by the applicant. Agreements with statutory undertakers are a private negotiation between the parties concerned.

If drainage remains in situ, the County Council may reserve its right to enter onto the land at any time for the purpose of cleansing or maintaining the highway drainage in accordance with their powers under Section 100 of the Highways Act 1980. Statutory undertakers with apparatus on the land will retain their rights to 24-hour access to their apparatus.

The Council may also stop up and reserve other highway rights as it deems appropriate in the interest of the public.

Further Advice Highways are complex areas of law and applicants are advised that they may wish to take independent legal advice on any or all parts of the process. For further information on the process as administered by Cambridgeshire County Council, please contact your local Asset Information Searches Officer by:  Calling Cambridgeshire County Council on 0345 0455212  Emailing your local Asset Information Searches Officer at: [email protected]

Applications should be sent to: Assets & Commissioning, Box No. SH1313 Cambridgeshire County Council Shire Hall, Castle Street, Cambridge, CB3 0AP

S116 Highways Act 1980 Guidance V4 12/06/15 List of Statutory Consultees

The relevant Parish or Town Council The relevant District Council (as below): (you will need to find out the address)

All owners and occupiers of all lands Cambridge City: adjoining the highway to be stopped up Head of Legal Services (including any other parties whose legal Cambridge City Council interests may be affected (e.g. right of The Guildhall access) CAMBRIDGE CB1 0SA

Any statutory undertakers having East Cambridgeshire: apparatus under, in, upon, over, along, or Lucy Flintham across the highway Planning Administration Team East Cambridgeshire District Council The Grange, Nutholt Lane ELY CB7 4PL

The relevant County Councillor Fenland: (advisable) Head of Legal Services Fenland District Council Fenland Hall County Road MARCH PE15 8NQ

Neighbours in the vicinity (advisable) Huntingdonshire: Head of Administration FAO Mike Barber Huntingdonshire District Council Pathfinder House, St Mary’s Street HUNTINGDON PE29 3TN

South Cambridgeshire: If possible send electronically to: [email protected] FAO Ian Senior, Democratic Services Officer District Council South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne Business Park CAMBOURNE CB23 6EA

S116 Highways Act 1980 Guidance V4 12/06/15 Stage 1 : Pre-application preperations

Contact Asset Information Searches Officer: Initial advise to identify status & extent of highway Discuss practical issues

Agreed in principle Unlikely to meet legal tests. Advised not to proceed

Applicant undertakes pre-application consultations

No issues raised Issues raised

Applicant considers & resolves issues

Issues resolved Issues unresolved— advise sought from CCC

Issues unrelated Advised to Application submitted to CCC to legal tests abandon

Stage 2: Submission of application (£600 fee) Within 10 working days : Application acknowledged and checked Within 28 working days : 1. Plan of highway extent drafted & agreed with applicant. or as advised 2. Services identified. 3. Meeting with Local Infrastructure & Streets Officer/Asset Information Officer/Rights of Way Officer. 4. Officers to complete Authorisation to Proceed form. 5. Decision made if County Council will take application forward & application informed. A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8

APPENDIX D – SYSTRA REPORT

Page 25 TECHNICAL NOTE 04 A14 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT REVIEW SENSITIVITY TEST 1

IDENTIFICATION TABLE

Client/Project owner Cambridgeshire County Council

Project A14 Traffic Assessment Review

Title of Document Sensitivity Test 1

Type of Document Technical Note 04

Date 28/08/2015

Reference number 103176

Number of pages 57

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 BACKGROUND 2

1.2 SYSTRA INVOLVEMENT 2

2. AREA ASSESSMENTS 4

2.1 APPROACH TO AREA ASSESSMENTS 4

2.2 AREA 1: ,LITTLE STUKELEY,GREAT STUKELEY 5

2.3 AREA 2 (NORTH): HUNTINGDON,BRAMPTON,HARTFORD AND GODMANCHESTER 9

2.4 AREA 2 (SOUTH): OFFORD CLUNY,OFFORD D’ARCY AND BUCKDEN 15

2.5 AREA 3: HOUGHTON,WYTON,ST IVES,HEMINGFORD,FENSTANTON AND FEN DRAYTON 19

2.6 AREA 4: ,OVER 24

2.7 AREA 5: ELSWORTH, AND KNAPWELL 28

2.8 AREA 6: AND HILTON 32

2.9 AREA 7: BAR HILL,,WILLINGHAM,OAKINGTON AND NORTHSTOWE 36

2.10 AREA 8: DRY DRAYTON AND MADINGLEY 40

2.11 AREA 9: GIRTON,,COTTENHAM AND MILTON 44

2.12 AREA 10: CAMBRIDGE NORTH 48

2.13 AREA 10: CAMBRIDGE SOUTH 53

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 1/57 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

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

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

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

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

1.2 SYSTRA involvement

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

1.2.2 The initial work was to identify whether the modelling presented as part of the application accurately represents local network conditions and is capable of producing robust and reliable forecasts for the local highway network. This assessment was undertaken based on the CHARM2 version of the model and is reported in an earlier SYSTRA Technical Note entitled ‘TN01 A14 Impact on Local Area’.

1.2.3 This initial work identified a number of inconsistences within CHARM2 and a further model (CHARM3A) was developed by Highways England to comply with new economic parameters published by the DfT in November 2014 and also address some of the inconsistences identified in Technical Note 1.

1.2.4 A review of Charm 3A was summarised in Technical Note 03, which was intended as an addendum to Technical Note 01. This Note presents a summary of the changes in the scheme’s impact on the local road network between CHARM2 and CHARM3A. Only significant changes to the conclusions in TN01 were identified in this technical note. Where significant changes were not been identified the conclusions made in TN01 remained valid.

1.2.5 CHARM 3A did not address all of the inconsistences identified as a result of the initial SYSTRA assessment of CHARM 2 and a further Local Impact Testing version of the model CHARM 3A LIT was developed by J2A.This model included the following changes from the CHARM 3A model.

 Removal of a number of bus priority and traffic management schemes from Cambridge that are not being progressed at the present time but were included in the initial versions of CHARM.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 2/57  Localised changes to the highway demand matrices and loading points to better reflect local traffic demand.  Changes in the evening peak flow direction on Silver Street in Cambridge City Centre.  Adjustments to the representation of Dry Drayton Road in the ‘Do Something’ scenario to ensure that it is consistent with the no scheme scenario.

1.2.6 The impacts of these changes to the CHARM 3A model are detailed in a J2A Technical Note.

1.2.7 Cambridgeshire County Council also requested a Sensitivity Test of the impacts of the scheme with greater levels of congestion within the CHARM 3A model along the existing A14 route. The aim of this Sensitivity Test was to reflect the ‘average’ journey times along the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge rather than the quicker ‘median’ journey times assumed in the CHARM 3A LIT scenario.

1.2.8 The overall changes associated with this sensitivity Test are outlined in the J2A Technical Note.

1.2.9 This SYSTRA note, Technical Note 04, presents a summary of the projected impacts of the A14 scheme on the highway network under the Sensitivity Test conditions. As for the previous SYSTRA Technical Notes, the performance of the forecasted impacts were assessed by grouping the model into ten sub areas based on key population centres and key roads.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 3/57 2. AREA ASSESSMENTS

2.1 Approach to Area Assessments

2.1.1 The performance of the forecasted impacts of the scheme were assessed by dividing the model into ten sub areas based on key population centres. These areas, shown in Figure 1, were agreed with Cambridgeshire County Council and form the basis of this review.

2.1.2 The sub areas, shown in Figure 1 include:

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

Figure 1. Sub areas based on population centres

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 4/57 2.2 Area 1: Alconbury, Little Stukeley, Great Stukeley

2.2.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 1 is shown in Table 1. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 2 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 2. Area 1 Traffic Flow Locations

Table 1. Area 1 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD DIRECTION NAME REF AM PM AM PM

East -101 85 -13 -3 Erimine 1.1 Street West 109 -162 -61 -85

North -1047 -633 -1082 -891 1.2 A14 Spur South -297 -916 -730 -979

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 5/57 2.2.2 The proposed Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme is predicted to result in a small reduction in traffic flow along Ermine Street and therefore through the villages of Great and Little Stukeley, and therefore the impact of the A14 scheme is minimal. The major development and associated infrastructure to the north of the village has some impact on traffic flows through the village compared to the base situation, however, overall these result in a neutral situation in terms of overall movements through the villages.

2.2.3 The greatest impact of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme is along the existing A14 with a significant overall reduction in traffic flows in both peak periods. The displacement of traffic is a result of a direct shift in vehicles to the Huntingdon Southern Bypass which is consistent with the main aims of the scheme.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 6/57 Figure 3. Area 1: Alconbury, Little Stukeley and Great Stukeley – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 7/57 Figure 4. Area 1: Alconbury, Little Stukeley and Great Stukeley – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 8/57 2.3 Area 2 (North): Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester

2.3.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 2 North is shown in Table 2. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 5 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 6 and 7.

Figure 5. Area 2 (North) Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 9/57 Table 2. Area 2 North Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ DS+ REF ROAD NAME DIRECTION AM PM AM PM

East -1086 -1267 -1373 -1329 2.1 A14 East of Brampton Hut West -1169 -1117 -1558 -1325

East -307 -35 -225 -18 B1514 from A14 to Church 2.2 Lane West -237 -149 -286 -279

North-East -658 -269 -563 -245 B1514 from Church Lane to 2.3 Hinchingbrook Park Road South-West 191 197 12 -45

B1514 from Hinchingbrook East 345 421 420 355 2.4 Park Road to Edison Bell Way West 182 193 -3 -54

East -313 -276 -83 -153 B1514 from Edison Bell 2.5 Way to Inner Ring Road West -708 -610 -628 -582

East 346 433 406 359 2.6 Hinchingbrook Link West 181 193 -3 -56

North 789 667 784 663 2.7 Mill Common Link South 1560 1493 1557 1489

2.8 A14 Huntingdon Ring Road West -844 -970 -1163 -1101

South-East -1613 -1718 -1923 -1717 A14 From Mill Common 2.9 Link to Godmanchester Junction North-West -1421 -1421 -1453 -1509

Stukeley -27 3 -78 9 A141 Spittals to Stukeley 2.10 Road A141 38 120 -17 -55

St Peters 82 181 -1 10 A141 Stukeley Road to St 2.11 Peters Road Stukeley 204 154 40 49

East 216 12 6 -9 A141 St Peters Road to 2.12 A1123 West 195 163 18 -104

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 10/57 North-East 19 -34 35 56 2.13 A141 North of A1123 South-West 164 16 -10 10

South -14 50 0 12 2.14 B1514 Buckden Road North 129 213 133 264

North-East 99 94 9 65 2.15 B1514 Hartford Road South-West -16 -48 6 -11

East -146 -193 -44 -252 2.16 B1044 Godmanchester West -344 -256 -477 -324

East -26 -136 -21 -212 Cambridge Road 2.17 Godmanchester West -215 -198 -342 -272

East -1427 -1660 -1670 -1759 A14 From Godmanchester 2.22 Junction to A1096 West -1564 -1509 -1644 -1625

East 402 736 402 736 2.23 View Commons Link West 875 513 875 513

North 411 457 411 457 2.24 Pathfinder Link South 832 762 832 762

2.3.2 The overall impact of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme in Huntingdon is minimal during the peak periods with some minor redistribution of traffic flows as a result of the diversion away from the existing A14 route and also the closure of the viaduct.

2.3.3 There are some noticeable increases in traffic flows on the Mill Common Link as a result of the closure of the existing A14 viaduct, these are generally localised and are due to local traffic using the existing road network to circumvent the viaduct closure. An increase in traffic is also forecasted on the Hinchingbrook Link and B1514 from Hinchingbrook (2.4 and 2.6) in both peaks. This comes as a result of the introduction of the Views Commons Link which offers a new alternative route into Huntingdon and Brampton for localised traffic.

2.3.4 Traffic travelling via the A14 East of Brampton Hut has moved from the existing A14 to the proposed Huntingdon Southern Bypass. This is where the largest shift in the Huntingdon area is occurring, having a positive influence on localised traffic. The shift in traffic that occurs is a direct impact of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass, as it draws traffic away from the current A14 route. This also influences the movement of traffic on the B1514 to the East of Hinchingbrook.

2.3.5 Traffic volumes within Godmanchester are predicted to be significantly reduced by the introduction of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme. In the PM peak period on the A1198 between 450-550 pcus are removed in both directions as a result of capacity on the A14 being made free for local traffic and strategic traffic in turn being forecast to use the A14 Bypass.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 11/57 The adaptation of Mill Common Link also helps reduce the amount of local traffic using The Avenue and Cambridge Road.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 12/57 Figure 6. Area 2 (North): Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 13/57 Figure 7. A rea 2 (North): Huntingdon, Brampton, Hartford and Godmanchester – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 14/57 2.4 Area 2 (South): Offord Cluny, Offord D’Arcy and Buckden

2.4.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 2 (South) is shown in Table 3. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 8 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 8. Area 2 (South) Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 15/57 Table 3. Area 2 South Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

East -77 -18 -100 -167 Mill Road 2.18 Buckden West 62 175 25 110

North-East 84 113 46 -16 B1043 North of 2.19 Offord Cluny South-West 111 322 86 290

B1043 through North 105 50 27 -149 2.20 Offord Cluny and Offord D'Arcy South 42 52 -32 -135

North 154 131 73 -79 B1043 South of 2.21 Offord D'Arcy South 72 66 -17 33

2.4.2 The Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme is predicted to result in an overall reduction in traffic through Buckden. The model is suggesting that there will be an increase in traffic using Mill Road westbound and the B1043 south-west bound to gain access for local traffic to the A1. However, in reality this is unlikely to occur due to the existing congestion issues at the A1 roundabout.

2.4.3 There is little impact as a result of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme on Offord Cluny and Offord D’Arcy in the morning peak and a significant reduction in traffic predicted through these villages in the evening peak. This is due to local traffic redistributing their movements to utilise the proposed A14 route rather than the existing route.

2.4.4 Traffic reductions on Gravely Road are forecast in both peak periods, with the most significant change occurring in the evening peak where there is predicted to be a reduction of 231 pcus travelling East and 144 travelling West.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 16/57 Figure 9. Area 2 (South): Offord Cluny, Offord D’Arcy and Buckden – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 17/57 Figure 10. Area 2 (South): Offord Cluny, Offord D’Arcy and Buckden – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 18/57 2.5 Area 3: Houghton, Wyton, St Ives, Hemingford, Fenstanton and Fen Drayton

2.5.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 3 is shown in Table 4. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 11 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 12 and 13.Area 3 Traffic Flow Locations.

Table 4. Area 3 Traffic Flow Changes

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 19/57 2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

A1123 East 12 99 -37 3 Huntingdon to 3.1 B1090 West 146 13 -25 -43 Way

A1123 From East 54 131 -172 -45 3.2 B1090 to Hill Rise St. Ives West 62 -32 -79 -166

East 15 46 -114 -22 A1123 Hill Rise St. 3.3 Ives A1096 West -28 -29 -75 -162

East 48 137 -87 88 A1123 East of 3.4 A1096 West -6 5 -35 33

South 95 348 15 194 A1096 south of 3.5 A1123 North 130 99 28 90

A14 From A1096 East -1153 -1342 -1356 -1592 3.6 to Fenstanton Junction West -1362 -1319 -1554 -1444

North -45 -113 -126 -253 3.7 Low Road South -40 -51 -144 -194

East -17 -25 -179 -179 Huntingdon Road 3.8 Fenstanton West -42 -105 -125 -252

North-East -6 -10 -176 -179 Mill Road Fen 3.9 Drayton South-West -77 -131 -156 -157

North-West -77 -131 -156 -157 Cambridge Road, 3.10 Fen Drayton South-East -29 -68 -54 -136

North-West -87 -133 -157 -153 3.11 Cootes Lane South-East 0 0 -170 -156

East 137 49 7 -104 3.12 Swavesey Road West -84 -74 -157 -175

North-East 190 59 95 -50 B1049 Potton 3.13 Road South-West -85 82 -101 92

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 20/57 2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North-East 57 30 -35 -57 3.14 Hilton Road South-West 19 46 -5 13

North-East 284 198 122 260 A1096 between St 3.15 Ives and A14 South-West 214 504 185 445

2.5.2 The predicted impacts of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme on St Ives are minimal with a general small reduction due to local traffic movements predicted to utilise the existing A14 rather than the A1123 as a result of the congestion relief along this route. This same impact is predicted to result in an increase in traffic flow along the A1096, which provides the most direct route for local traffic to the existing A14 route.

2.5.3 There are significant reductions in traffic predicted along the routes that run parallel to the existing A14 (3.7-3.14) as existing rat running local traffic avoiding the existing congestion on the A14 prefers to utilise the existing A14. This is due to the reduced levels of congestion as a result of the redistribution of through traffic movements to the proposed Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 21/57 Figure 11. Area 3: Houghton, Wyton, St Ives, Hemingford, Fenstanton and Fen Drayton – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 22/57 Figure 12. Area 3: Houghton, Wyton, St Ives, Hemingford, Fenstanton and Fen Drayton – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 23/57 2.6 Area 4: Swavesey, Over

2.6.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 34 is shown in Table 5. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 14 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 15 and 16.

Figure 13. Area 4 Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 24/57 Table 5. Area 4 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 2035 DM VS 2035 POINT DS+ DS+ ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North-East 3 6 -38 -46 4.1 Fen Drayton Road South-West -75 -64 -95 -94

North 128 471 172 330 Middlewhich/Boxworth 4.2 End/Bucking Way Road South 492 352 421 412

North -20 101 -231 -266 4.3 Ramper Road East 149 -125 -143 -211

South-East 54 45 -52 12 Longstanton Road/Gravel 4.4 Bridge Road/Over Road North-West 31 -2 19 -15

2.6.2 Forecasted impacts in the Swavesey and Over area show that the proposed Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme has a small impact in most areas. Fen Drayton and Longstanton Road show small reductions in overall traffic flows but the impact is generally minimal.

2.6.3 There is forecast to be a significant reduction in the use of Ramper Road which is at present used by local traffic to avoid the congestion on the existing A14, with local movements predicted to use the existing A14 in the future due to the congestion relief along this route.

2.6.4 The redistribution of local traffic identified previously, results in an increase in traffic along Bucking Way Road (4.2) as local traffic will utilise this route to access the existing A14 in the future. The improvements to the Swavesey junction (Cambridge Services) is forecast to also have an effect on the localised routing with an increase in the number of local trips attracted to this junction.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 25/57 Figure 14. Area 4: Swavesey and Over – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 26/57 Figure 15. Area 4: Swavesey and Over – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 27/57 2.7 Area 5: Elsworth, Boxworth and Knapwell

2.7.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 5 is shown in Table 6. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 17 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 18 and 19.

Figure 16. Area 5 Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 28/57 Table 6. Area 5 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North-East 118 55 28 -63 Robins Lane, 5.1 South-West 73 156 -43 101

East 70 33 24 -51 5.2 Boxworth Road West 10 96 -57 35

East 78 6 -22 -131 5.3 Elsworth Road West 33 113 -89 34

North 42 49 -28 -244 5.4 Conington Road South 65 110 -140 -98

North-East 97 39 11 -70 5.5 High Street South-West 55 134 -57 83

2.7.2 The forecasted traffic flows show that there is no significant change in traffic flows due to the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme in this area. The majority of traffic that routes through this area is local traffic only, and the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme results in some local traffic redistribution as a result in the overall capacity increases on the wider main road network which, improves the localised routing opportunities.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 29/57 Figure 17. Area 5: Elsworth, Boxworth and Knapwell – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 30/57 Figure 18. Area 5: Elsworth, Boxworth and Knapwell – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 31/57 2.8 Area 6: Papworth Everard and Hilton

2.8.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 6 is shown in Table 7. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 20 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 21 and 22.

Figure 19. Area 6 Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 32/57 Table 7. Area 6 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

A1198 North of South -89 -153 -174 -453 proposed 6.1 Huntingdon Southern Bypass North -170 -436 -568 -547

A1198 South of South 107 145 -24 -143 proposed 6.2 Huntingdon Southern Bypass North 163 33 -238 -99

East 184 103 102 -107 6.3 Gravely Way West 49 146 -48 23

North-West 80 -30 -321 -162 6.4 A1198 South-East 96 56 -35 -232

2.8.2 Within Area 6 there are some significant reductions in traffic flows primarily on the A1198 as traffic that uses this route to access the A14 and the A428 at present utilises the proposed Huntingdon Southern Bypass thus avoiding the need to utilise this route.

2.8.3 Overall this suggests that the inclusion of the scheme provides an overall benefit to the routes in this area.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 33/57 Figure 20. Area 6: Papworth Everard and Hilton – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 34/57 Figure 21. Area 6: Papworth Everard and Hilton – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 35/57 2.9 Area 7: Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willingham, Oakington and Northstowe

2.9.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 7 is shown in Table 8. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 23 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 24 and 25.

Figure 22. Area 7 Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 36/57 Table 8. Area 7 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North 215 210 -35 271 B1050 North of 7.1 Longstanton South 175 217 262 1

North 157 -340 -170 -222 B1050 South of 7.2 Longstanton South -46 236 -290 -151

North-West -3 5 -3 0 Crafts Way, Bar 7.3 Hill South-East 411 335 411 337

2.9.2 The impact of Phase 2 of the Northstowe development is included in the ‘Do Something’ model but not in the ‘Do Minimum’ assessment. Therefore the majority of the impacts identified in the comparisons between the with and without scheme scenarios are due to the development and associated infrastructure rather than the Huntingdon Southern bypass scheme.

2.9.3 The increase in traffic in point 7.3 is unrepresentative of the likely change in traffic movement within the area, this is due to a model inconsistency between the ‘Do Something’ and’ Do Minimum’ models. Further analysis of this area within the models suggests the likely impact on this area of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme will be negligible.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 37/57 Figure 23. Area 7: Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willingham, Oakington and Northstowe – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 38/57 Figure 24. Area 7: Bar Hill, Longstanton, Willingham, Oakington and Northstowe – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 39/57 2.10 Area 8: Dry Drayton and Madingley

2.10.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 8 is shown in Table 9. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 26 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 27 and 28.

Figure 25. Area 8 Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 40/57 Table 9. Area 8 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North 250 225 -21 116 8.1 Scotland Road South 181 246 118 -77

North-East 241 214 -42 132 8.2 Oakington Road South-West 125 224 -29 -108

North-West 3 14 2 1 8.3 Dry Drayton Road South-East -34 -6 -126 -44

North-East 251 312 173 256 8.4 The Avenue South-West 208 136 191 2

North 173 258 117 208 High Street, 8.5 Madingley South 131 95 40 -18

East 40 101 -7 -41 8.6 Cambridge Road West 69 241 33 -215

2.10.2 There is predicted to be a small increase in traffic flows through Dry Drayton as a result of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme. This is however, a result of the redistribution of local traffic due to the increased capacity on the Strategic Road network.

2.10.3 There is however, an increase in traffic movements through Madingley as a result of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme. This is a result of changes in local trip routing between the village and Cambridge but also the increased attractiveness of this route for vehicles from a wider area due to the additional capacity and accessibility to the A14 corridor as a result of the scheme and the ‘Local Access Road’ in particular. Trips are drawn from West of the M11 as well as routes North of the A14 such as Dry Drayton Road to The Avenue.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 41/57 Figure 26. Area 8: Dry Drayton and Madingley – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 42/57 Figure 27. Area 8: Dry Drayton and Madingley – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 43/57 2.11 Area 9: Girton, Histon and Impington, Cottenham and Milton

2.11.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 9 is shown in Table 10. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 29 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 30 and 31.

Figure 28. Area 9 Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 44/57 Table 10. Area 9 Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

East 51 115 -102 56 9.1 Rampton Road West 98 85 10 -226

Water North-East 168 214 -9 -132 Lane/Station 9.2 Road/Oakington Road South-West 28 152 18 -36

South-East -228 -34 -317 -181 9.3 Cambridge Road North-West 96 42 56 -15

North-East 168 214 -9 -132 9.4 Oakington Road South-West 28 152 18 -36

North 144 201 19 32 9.5 Cambridge Road South 68 232 65 -34

South 219 53 113 -177 B1049 Bridge 9.6 Road North 299 209 112 8

East 86 32 -36 22 9.7 Park Lane West 112 123 71 106

North-East 375 304 81 42 9.8 A10 South-West 266 415 19 8

North-East 153 195 -31 -188 9.9 Dry Drayton Road South-West 77 332 101 231

2.11.2 There is significant localised rerouting predicted in this area as a result of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme as routes become more attractive due to the provision of additional capacity on the A14 corridor.

2.11.3 There are significant reductions in traffic predicted through Girton and Oakington, however there are small increases in traffic through Histon. This is mainly due to the improved accessibility to Cambridge from the areas to the north, via the route through Girton as a result of the scheme.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 45/57 Figure 29. Area 9: Girton, Cottenham, Milton, Histon and Impington – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 46/57 Figure 30. Area 9: Girton, Cottenham, Milton, Histon and Impington – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 47/57 2.12 Area 10: Cambridge North

2.12.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 10 North is shown in Table 11. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 32 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 33 and 34.

Figure 31. Area 10 (North) Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 48/57 Table 11. Area 10 North Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North-West 30 -46 -77 -151 Kings Hedges 10.1 Road South-East 107 28 -28 -88

North-East -176 250 -80 -4 10.2 Ditton Lane South-West 76 124 10 -139

North -164 286 -189 0 10.3 Horningsea Road South 269 182 46 -106

North-West 431 130 108 126 A1307 10.4 Huntingdon Road South-East 522 538 342 262

North 85 119 15 -57 B1049 Histon 10.5 Road South 72 30 -13 38

North-East 182 76 13 39 A1309 Milton 10.6 Road South-West 9 140 6 10

East 289 2 35 -94 A1303 10.7 Newmarket Road West -474 317 28 13

East -16 66 -50 -121 A1303 Madingley 10.12 Road West -1 -75 -54 67

North-East 130 122 23 56 A1037 10.13 Huntingdon Road South-West 289 169 22 35

East 250 119 17 -108 10.14 A1303 West 49 204 -47 170

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 49/57 2.12.2 The modelling suggests that the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme will have little impact on the traffic flows within Cambridge with the two-way flow changes on the majority of the radial routes being less than 100 vehicles.

2.12.3 Kings Hedges Road, Ditton Lane and Horningsea Road are predicted to incur a reduction in two-way traffic flows of between 100 and 230 vehicle in the peak periods.

2.12.4 The flows on the A1307 Huntingdon Road are predicted to increase by around 390 to 450 vehicles. Within the model this impact is the result of the increased accessibility of this route due to congestion relief cause by the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme. However, this may not occur in reality due to the levels of congestion that already occur along this route which are not fully represented in the CHARM transport modelling.

2.12.5 The widening of the A14 North of the Science Park forecasts a rerouting of traffic within the North-East part of the city. Previously in the Do Minimum scenario traffic related to the Science Park would travel directly through the area along King Hedges Road. As a result of the A14 scheme traffic is now forecast to route North up Milton Road to the A14 to travel in both directions. As a result the most significant reduction to King Hedges Road is a reduction of 291 pcus in the evening peak period. This increases the flow of traffic by 220 vehicles using Milton Road.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 50/57 Figure 32. Area 10: Cambridge North – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 51/57 Figure 33. Area 10: Cambridge North – Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 52/57 2.13 Area 10: Cambridge South

2.13.1 The likely impact of the scheme on traffic flows on local roads in and around Area 10 South is shown in Table 12. The roads selected for analysis are shown in Figure 35 and the flow difference plots between the 2035 ‘Do Something’ and ‘Do Minimum’ scenarios for the AM and PM peaks are show in Figures 36 and 37.

Figure 34. Area 10 (South) Traffic Flow Locations

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 53/57 Table 12. Area 10 South Traffic Flow Changes

2014 BASE VS 2035 DS+ 2035 DM VS 2035 DS+ POINT ROAD NAME DIRECTION REF AM PM AM PM

North-West 146 419 5 11 10.8 Balsam Road South-East 124 340 41 6

North-West 282 145 13 10 A1307 Babraham 10.9 Road South-East 182 245 18 6

North-East 291 469 -115 17 A1309 Hauxton 10.10 Road South-West 280 272 81 0

North-East 152 10 -42 -53 10.11 A603 Barton Road South-West 208 -177 15 -46

2.13.2 Unlike the changes in traffic in the North of the city, traffic movements in the South are influenced less by the Huntingdon Southern Bypass scheme. Changes to traffic using localised roads is minimal, whilst there is a slight shift in the capacity of the surround strategic roads.

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 54/57 Figure 35. Area 10: Cambridge South – Morning Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 55/57 Figure 36. Area 10: Cambridge South - Evening Peak Flow Difference

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 56/57 APPROVAL

Version Name Position Date Modifications

Author Matthew Todd Analyst 27/08/2015 Checked Senior Rhian Turgoose 27/08/2015 1 by Consultant Approved Duncan Irons Director 28/08/2015 by Author DD/MM/YY Checked DD/MM/YY 2 by Approved DD/MM/YY by

Sensitivity Test 1 103176 Page 57/57