Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass North Yorkshire County Council
One Year After Report
| 2 11th June 2018
One Year After Report North Yorkshire County Council
One Year After Report
Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass
Project No: B1055903 Document Title: One Year After Report Document No.: Revision: 2 Date: 11th June 2018 Client Name: North Yorkshire County Council Client No: Project Manager: Andy Thompson Author: David Auld File Name: P:\B1055903 - BALB M&E\3 Tech Work\3.2 Reports\BALB One Year After Report FINAL.docx
Jacobs Consultancy Ltd.
4th Floor, Rotterdam House 116 Quayside Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3DY United Kingdom T +44 (0)191 211 2400 www.jacobs.com
© Copyright 2018 Jacobs Consultancy Ltd.. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.
Document history and status
Revision Date Description By Review Approved
0 02/03/18 First draft DA RM AT
1 12/03/18 Second draft DA RM AT
2 11/06/18 Final version DA RM AT
i One Year After Report
Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.2 Report Purpose ...... 1 1.3 Sources of Information ...... 1 1.4 Report Structure ...... 1 2. Scheme Overview ...... 3 2.1 Scheme Background...... 3 2.2 Scheme Description ...... 3 2.3 Scheme Objectives ...... 5 3. Scope and Methodology ...... 6 3.1 Guidance Documents ...... 6 3.1.1 Department for Transport Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (2012) ...... 6 3.1.2 Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (2014) ...... 6 3.2 Adopted Approach ...... 6 4. Scheme Build ...... 8 4.1 Programme ...... 8 4.2 Stakeholder Management ...... 8 4.3 Risk Management ...... 9 4.4 Scheme Benefits ...... 10 5. Delivered Scheme ...... 11 5.1 Implemented Scheme ...... 11 5.1.1 Western Section ...... 11 5.1.2 Eastern Section ...... 11 5.2 Changes ...... 13 5.3 Intended Beneficiaries ...... 14 5.4 Mitigation ...... 14 6. Scheme Costs ...... 15 6.1 Outturn Costs ...... 15 6.2 Risk ...... 15 6.3 Savings ...... 16 6.3.1 Land ...... 16 6.3.2 Supervision ...... 16 6.3.3 Preparation and Project Management ...... 16 6.3.4 Construction...... 16 6.4 Overruns ...... 16 6.5 Maintenance Costs ...... 17 7. Scheme Objectives ...... 18 7.1 Introduction ...... 18 7.2 Objective 1: Reduce Congestion in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar ...... 18 7.3 Objective 2: Reduce Environmental and Road Safety Problems ...... 18
ii One Year After Report
7.4 Objective 3: Improve Access ...... 18 8. Travel Demand ...... 19 8.1 Introduction ...... 19 8.2 Data Collection ...... 19 8.2.1 Data Sources ...... 19 8.3 Automatic Traffic Counts ...... 19 8.3.1 Temporary Automatic Traffic Counts ...... 19 8.3.2 Permanent Automatic Traffic Counts ...... 22 8.4 Traffic Volume Analysis ...... 24 8.4.1 Daily Flow Profiles ...... 28 8.5 Observed Changes in Traffic Composition ...... 29 8.6 Comparison with Pre-Scheme Appraisal Traffic Predictions ...... 29 8.7 Non-Motorised Users (NMU)...... 31 8.8 Conclusion ...... 37 9. Travel Times and Reliability ...... 38 9.1 Introduction ...... 38 9.2 Data Collection ...... 38 9.2.1 Pre-Scheme Data ...... 38 9.2.2 Post-Scheme Data ...... 38 9.3 Journey Time Analysis ...... 40 9.4 Journey Time Reliability ...... 41 9.5 Access from The A1(M) ...... 42 9.6 Comparison with Pre-Scheme Appraisal Results ...... 43 9.7 Value for Money ...... 43 9.8 Conclusion ...... 44 10. Noise Impacts ...... 45 10.1 Introduction ...... 45 10.2 Summary of Relevant Guidance ...... 45 10.2.1 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), 1988...... 45 10.2.2 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) ...... 45 10.3 Evaluation Methodology ...... 46 10.3.1 Traffic Data ...... 46 10.3.2 Noise Modelling Methodology ...... 46 10.3.3 Limitations ...... 46 10.4 Results ...... 47 10.5 Conclusion ...... 50 11. Air Quality Impacts ...... 51 11.1 Introduction ...... 51 11.2 Methodology ...... 51 11.3 Limitations ...... 51 11.4 Evaluation ...... 51
iii One Year After Report
11.4.1 Local Air Quality ...... 51 11.5 ES Air Quality Predictions ...... 52 11.6 Traffic Survey Results ...... 53 11.7 Regional Emissions ...... 56 11.8 Conclusion ...... 56 12. Accident Analysis ...... 57 12.1 Introduction ...... 57 12.2 Evaluation of Accident Data ...... 57 12.3 Comparison with Pre-Scheme Appraisal Results ...... 60 12.4 Conclusion ...... 60 13. Impact Upon the Economy ...... 61 13.1 Introduction ...... 61 13.2 Travel Times ...... 61 13.3 Accessibility ...... 63 13.4 Employment Levels ...... 64 14. Carbon Impacts ...... 65 14.1 Introduction ...... 65 14.2 Evaluation of Carbon Impacts ...... 65 15. Conclusion ...... 67
iv One Year After Report
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for demonstrating that its funding for local-level investment has provided value for money for the taxpayer. It is also responsible for ensuring that lessons learnt from this evidence are used to inform future decision making.
Therefore, the DfT set out a framework for monitoring and evaluation of implemented Local Major Schemes (LMS) and periodically undertake meta-analysis of LMS evaluations in order to:
Better understand the extent to which expected impacts of the LMSs have materialised;
Identify key learning points to assist scheme promoters and their delivery partners respond to their devolved scheme prioritisation and local delivery responsibilities; and
Inform ongoing development of its Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.
This report represents the post opening study of the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass (BALB) which opened in August 2016.
The study aims to check progress of the scheme against planned targets and benefits as defined in the Best and Final Funding Bid (2011) and provide the Department for Transport (DfT) with the quantitative and qualitative evidence of the extent to which the project has met the objectives set for it at the appraisal stage. It also provides explanation of reasons for any variances with original cost and programme of scheme delivery.
1.2 Report Purpose
This report sets out the findings of the monitoring and evaluation of the emerging impacts of the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass (referenced throughout the remainder of this report as ‘the scheme’) one year after opening, in line with the requirements of the BALB Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (see section 3.1).
1.3 Sources of Information
The following documents have been consulted as part of the development of the report:
Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (North Yorkshire County Council, January 2014); and
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes (DfT, September 2012).
1.4 Report Structure
The remainder of the document is structured as follows:
Section 2 – Scheme Overview
Section 3 – Scope and Methodology
Section 4 – Scheme Build
Section 5 – Delivered Scheme
Section 6 – Scheme Costs
1 One Year After Report
Section 7 – Scheme Objectives
Section 8 – Travel Demand
Section 9 – Travel Times and Reliability
Section 10 – Noise Impacts
Section 11 – Air Quality Impacts
Section 12 – Accident Analysis
Section 13 – Impact upon the Economy
Section 14 – Carbon Impacts
Section 15 – Conclusion
2 One Year After Report
2. Scheme Overview
2.1 Scheme Background
The A684 Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass (BALB) is a major North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) scheme to reduce traffic congestion in the market town of Bedale, and the villages of Aiskew and Leeming Bar.
The A684 is the principal east-west route between Northallerton, the A1, and the Yorkshire Dales. The Best and Final Funding Bid (September 2011) for the scheme set out some of the challenges the bypass is intended to address, stating that:
‘Up to 60% of traffic will be removed from Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar (combined population 7260), thereby reducing journey times to the Dales. Reducing traffic on this section of the A684 through the communities will reduce the severance experienced by the three settlements of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar, making the villages safer for residents including pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.
This will in turn benefit the very important tourist market as well as improving journey time reliability for local transport.
The existing alignment of the A684 is, in places, substandard for the volume and nature of traffic it accommodates.’
2.2 Scheme Description
The scheme involved the construction of a 4.8km single carriageway (7.3m wide) link from the A684, north of Bedale, to the A684, east of Leeming Bar. The scheme crosses the A1(M) at approximately the midpoint of the bypass, where it connects to a new grade separated interchange at Junction 51 which has recently been constructed as part of the A1 upgrade to motorway scheme. Construction commenced in October 2014 and the scheme opened on 11th August 2016.
The western section of the proposed scheme ties into the existing A684 adjacent to Bedale Golf Club, immediately north of Bedale, with a 3-arm roundabout forming the junction with the existing network. The scheme then heads east, rising and falling via approach embankments and a multi-span bridge to cross Bedale Beck and the Wensleydale Railway. The route follows a near straight alignment at ground level intersecting a track at Sand Hill Farm, before a large reverse curve on the approach to the western roundabout of the A1 (M) Leeming junction.
The central section is formed by the A1(M) underpass, constructed as part of the A1(M) upgrade, and the link road from the A1(M) to Leases Road. Essentially the road remains in a cutting to the east of the A1(M) and meets a new roundabout at Leases Road before passing onto a low embankment at Low Street.
Low Street, to the south of the bypass, has been stopped-up using a turning head adjacent to Ashville. To the north of the bypass, Low Street has been diverted to tie in to the northern spur of the Leases Road roundabout. This provides a much improved arrangement in terms of the access to Low Street North.
From Low Street the bypass remains on a low embankment to its second crossing over the Wensleydale Railway where it rises and falls using a structure and approach embankments. The road returns to ground level where a 3-arm roundabout forms the connection to the existing A684.
As part of the scheme, provisions for non-motorised users (NMUs) have been included on the eastern section of the bypass. The shared NMU route along the scheme links to, and provides a continuation of, route 71 of the National Cycle Network.
Figure 1 shows the location of the scheme.
3 One Year After Report
Figure 1: Scheme Location
4 One Year After Report
2.3 Scheme Objectives
The published objectives of the BALB scheme are:
To reduce traffic congestion in the communities bypassed by the proposed scheme;
To provide stimulus for diversification and regeneration of the rural economy, particularly in relation to tourism;
To reduce environmental and road safety problems in and on the approaches to the communities of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar;
To improve access to Leeming Bar Industrial Estate; and
To improve access from the A1(M) to communities and areas west of the A1 (North Dales), and to the east of the A1, including the county town of Northallerton.
As detailed within the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, three of these objectives are to be evaluated in detail as part of this report to identify whether they have been met by the scheme. These are addressed further in section 7.
5 One Year After Report
3. Scope and Methodology
3.1 Guidance Documents
3.1.1 Department for Transport Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (2012)
In 2012 the Department for Transport produced a guidance document ‘Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes’. This set out their expectations for the monitoring and evaluation of schemes and engagement with the DfT, and aimed to ensure a consistent and proportionate approach to monitoring and evaluation across all Local Authority Major Schemes.
Monitoring is defined as the collection of data to check progress against planned targets and benefits. Evaluation is defined as the assessment of the scheme effectiveness and efficiency during and after implementation (this includes measuring the effect of the scheme on planned outcomes and impacts and assessing whether the anticipated benefits and value for money have been realised).
The DfT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework guidance sets out three tiers of Monitoring and Evaluation:
Standard Monitoring: All schemes are required to monitor and report on a standard set of measures;
Enhanced Monitoring: Further measures should be monitored and reported for schemes costing more than £50m or which are anticipated to have a significant impact on particular indicators (e.g. local air quality); and
Fuller Evaluation: Certain schemes are required to undertake a fuller evaluation which consists of assessments of the delivery process, outcomes and impacts and value for money. The criteria used to determine whether fuller evaluation is required are (a) the overall scale of the scheme (b) the nature of the scheme in terms of risk, innovation and profile, and (c) the benefits to be gained from the evaluation evidence generated.
3.1.2 Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (2014)
In January 2014, prior to the construction of the scheme, a plan was produced to monitor the effects of the bypass in line with the DfT guidance described above. The ‘Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass Monitoring and Evaluation Plan’ (referenced throughout the remainder of this report as ‘the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan’) documents a comprehensive list of outcomes and objectives, with details on how they would be monitored and the associated data collection requirements.
3.2 Adopted Approach
The methodology used to measure the success of the scheme has been based on the approach detailed within the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. As set out in the Monitoring and Evaluation plan, this scheme requires Standard Monitoring and Evaluation.
For consistency, the structure of this report follows the Standard Monitoring reporting requirements from the DfT Monitoring and Evaluation Framework guidance.
Table 1 summarises the DfT’s Standard Monitoring requirements for all Local Authority Major Schemes.
6 One Year After Report
Table 1: Standard Monitoring Requirements Item Stage Data Collection Timing Scheme Build Input During delivery Delivered Scheme Output During delivery/post opening Costs Input During delivery/post opening Scheme Objectives Output /Outcome/Impact Pre or during delivery/post opening (up to 5 years) Travel Demand Outcome Pre or during delivery/post opening (up to 5 years) Travel Times and Reliability Outcome Pre or during delivery/post opening (up to 5 years) Impact on the Economy Impact Pre or during delivery/post opening (up to 5 years) Carbon Impact Pre or during delivery/post opening (up to 5 years) Stage Inputs: What is being invested in terms of resources, equipment, skills and activities undertaken Outputs: What has been delivered and how it is being used, such as roads built, bus services delivered. Outcomes: Intermediate effects, such as changes in traffic flows, modal shifts. Impacts: Longer-term effects on wider social and economic outcomes, such as supporting economic growth). Reported within ‘One year after Report’ (released 1 – 2 years post scheme implementation) Reported within both the ‘One year after Report’ and ‘Final Report’ (~5 years after scheme implementation).
7 One Year After Report
4. Scheme Build
4.1 Programme
The Best and Final Funding Bid (BAFFB) for the BALB scheme was submitted in September 2011 and the Project Plan from that time is reproduced in Table 2.
Table 2: Project Plan from BAFFB Submission Activity Start Finish Submission of BAFFB to DfT Sep 9th 2011 Provide clarification to DfT on BAFFB related queries Sep 26th 2011 Oct 10th 2011 Approval of BAFFB from DfT Dec 11 Statutory Orders published Aug 12 Public Inquiry starts Jun 13 Confirmation of Orders Apr 14 Complete procurement Jul 14 Submit full approval application to DfT Jun 14 Work starts on site Oct 14 Work completed Oct 16 Opening/commencement of operations Oct 16
Following approval in December 2011, the first key stage was publishing of the Statutory Orders which took place in October 2012, some 2 months later than programmed. The delay arose because of issues relating to the ownership status of the short section of link road east of the A1(M) Junction 51. Highways England (HE) had recently handed over the maintenance responsibility of this section to NYCC but the purchase of the land by the HE had not been completed. The resolution of this resulted in a short delay to publication of the Orders.
The Public Inquiry commenced on programme on 21st May 2013 and the Orders were confirmed eight months ahead of programme on 1st August 2013.
Tenders for the scheme were returned on 20th December 2013 with the evaluation process being completed in January 2014, some six months earlier than programmed. The recommendation to award the contract, subject to final funding approval by the DfT, was approved by the Executive on 25th February 2014. Full funding approval was submitted three months ahead of programme in March 2014 and approval was received in July 2014.
Following funding approval, the contract was awarded in August 2014 though, as this was a Design and Build contract, work on site did not commence until October 2014, however this was on target when compared with BAFFB programme.
The new road was opened to traffic on 11th August 2016, two months ahead of schedule, though the contractor completed some offline works in September 2016.
4.2 Stakeholder Management
During the construction works the project team engaged with stakeholders to understand and act on their concerns and to pro-actively communicate scheme delivery information. In order to reach as many people as possible this communication took a number of different forms.
8 One Year After Report
At the commencement of the scheme an exhibition was held at Bedale Hall to give an opportunity for the local community to see the detailed design proposals for the scheme and understand the programme for the works. From the project team’s point of view, it enabled them to get an understanding of the key concerns that the local community had regarding the effect the implementation of the scheme would have on daily life. The exhibition enabled personal contact with the project team and facilitated better links with the community. Feedback on the event was generally very positive with visitors welcoming the opportunity to see the scheme in more detail and ask questions of the project team.
As well as press releases and regular updates on the scheme website, Facebook and Twitter, leaflet drops were carried out where appropriate to give advance notice of changes in traffic management layout to reduce disruption.
Webcams were erected at three locations along the scheme and these were updated at hourly intervals. Links for these were provided on the NYCC scheme website for public viewing. In addition, at monthly intervals a time lapse video was updated showing the progress of the scheme. Over the available data period of nine months these were viewed approximately 2,500 times. Aerial photographs showing the progress of the scheme were also posted on the website.
During construction, visits were also made to local primary schools to highlight the dangers surrounding construction sites and the importance of not playing on sites. Some of the schools also made visits to the site and a safety poster competition was held to reinforce the safety message.
Details of the archaeology discoveries on the site were released to the press which created a lot of local interest in the site. An exhibition and a number of presentations were held to provide the community with details of the artefacts found and the history surrounding these.
Prior to the opening of the scheme a fun run was organised along the western section of the route in aid of charity.
4.3 Risk Management
The management of risk was a fundamental part of the scheme development from initial conception through to scheme delivery. At each stage potential risks were identified, possible impacts assessed and mitigation measures considered. Two risk registers were in use; a project specific risk register relating to the scheme at a detailed project level and a higher level council register which considered programme, financial and reputational risks against scheme objectives. In the case of project risks these were reviewed at least every month or when new risks occurred and any changes updated and recorded. Each risk was allocated an owner based on who was best placed to manage the specific risk. For the higher level council risks these were reviewed quarterly.
The risk register was very thorough with the vast majority of risks identified during the stages leading up to construction stage. Some of these risks were dealt with or did not materialise and could be closed prior to the construction stage. It was accepted that we could not foresee all potential risks and therefore an allowance was included in the risk schedule for potential unidentified risks which may arise.
In one instance of a risk which arose during the contract, the RAF imposed restrictions on the construction of the Holmfield Railway Bridge because it was directly in line with the approach envelope for aircraft taking off and landing at RAF Leeming. This meant that there were restrictions on the use of cranes during certain periods of the day when the airstrip was in use. This resulted in construction of the bridge taking longer and therefore there was an additional cost to the contract. Consultation had been carried out with the RAF during development of the scheme, and the only concern they raised was about the proximity of the balancing ponds to the flight path and the risk of these attracting birds, which are a hazard to the aircraft. We mitigated this by ensuring that the balancing pond was designed to discharge fully within 48 hours. The issue regarding the flight path unfortunately arose after construction had started. With hindsight, rather than corresponding by letter and email and asking for comments based on general drawings, a face to face meeting to discuss the plans may have elicited this information sooner and therefore have enabled it to be incorporated in the contract. There would still have been an extra cost to the contract but this would probably have been less than the resultant compensation event.
9 One Year After Report
The approach to risk worked very well with this being split between the Project Risk and High Level risks. These risks were reviewed and updated regularly and reported to the Project Board.
4.4 Scheme Benefits
There were some changes to the final delivered scheme compared to the scheme as proposed at scheme entry, which are noted below. However, these changes did not have a material impact on the scheme benefits.
At the time the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) was published, an application for a Truck Stop was approved adjacent to the bypass. As described in section 5.2 titled ‘Changes’ later in this report, this necessitated a change in priority of a minor junction to provide for a change to the main traffic generator in that area. This was a minor change in the context of the scheme as a whole.
During the construction phase the contractor applied for a Section 73 amendment to the planning consent to alter the level of a section of the road to the east of Low Street. This was in order to enable the adjacent balancing pond to be raised by circa 500mm to raise this above the water table. The amendment was approved.
10 One Year After Report
5. Delivered Scheme
5.1 Implemented Scheme
The scheme as constructed consists of a 4.8 km single carriageway (7.3m wide) link with metre strips from the A684, north of Bedale, to the A684, east of Leeming Bar. The scheme crosses the A1(M) at approximately the midpoint of the bypass, where it connects to the new grade separated interchange which was constructed as part of the A1 upgrade to motorway scheme.
5.1.1 Western Section
The new road commences in the west adjacent to the Bedale Golf Club to the north of Bedale. A three arm roundabout was constructed with the bypass arm heading north eastwards towards Bedale Beck. The road rises on embankment through Rectory Wood to cross the Bedale Beck and the adjacent Wensleydale Railway line on a three span bridge.
To the north east of Rectory Wood Bridge, the new road descends to existing ground level and intersects a track at Sandhill Farm. Access to this track is provided on both sides of the new road and an alternative track running parallel to the new road has also been constructed which provides a grade separated crossing of the bypass underneath Rectory Wood Bridge. A balancing pond and field access is provided to the north of the new road to the east of the Sandhill Farm crossing. The road curves to the north traversing mostly at ground level before a large reverse curve on the approach to the western roundabout of the A1(M) Junction 51.
Figure 2 on page 12 illustrates the western section of the route.
5.1.2 Eastern Section
The new road recommences at the eastern roundabout of the A1(M) Junction 51 heading eastwards in cutting to a new roundabout at the junction with Leases Road. A Pegasus crossing is provided between these two roundabouts providing crossing facilities for equestrians and for cyclists using the National Cycle Route. The southern arm of this junction leads to Leeming Industrial Estate. The northern arm leads to Exelby Lorry Park and a new link to Low Street providing access to Kirby Fleetham to the north of the bypass.
The road continues eastwards crossing Low Street which is stopped up. A balancing pond is provided to the north of the bypass which is accessed from a farm access track running parallel to the road and connecting with the Low Street diversion. The road then crosses Terry Hose Drain which is culverted before rising on embankment to cross the Wensleydale Railway for the second time and returning to existing ground level to tie in to the former A684 at a new 3-arm roundabout. Access to a third balancing pond is provided from the roundabout.
Figure 3 on page 12 illustrates the eastern section of the route.
11 One Year After Report
Figure 2: General Layout Western Section
Figure 3: General Layout Eastern Section
12 One Year After Report
5.2 Changes
During the development of the scheme an application for a Truck Stop on Leases Road just to the north of the bypass was approved. At scheme entry the design at this location (see Figure 4) involved stopping up and diverting Low Street, which was to be linked directly to Leases Road roundabout becoming a fourth arm of the roundabout. Leases Road to the north of the bypass was to tie in to the diverted section of Low Street via a priority junction. The approval of the Truck Stop meant that this would become the main traffic generator in the area and therefore the decision was made to alter the junction priorities (see Figure 5), with Leases Road north now forming the fourth arm of the roundabout and Low Street connecting to Leases road via a priority junction. A Section 73 application was made to planners to vary the existing consent to incorporate the new layout. Planning consent for this amendment was received on 22nd October 2013 and was considered and approved at the subsequent Public Inquiry.
Figure 4: Layout at Scheme Entry
Figure 5: Layout as Constructed
13 One Year After Report
To the east of Low Street some additional access tracks were added to enable access to farm land to the north and south of the bypass. These tracks run parallel to the new carriageway and were linked via a crossing under the new rail bridge, thus enabling access either side of the bypass without crossing the new road.
5.3 Intended Beneficiaries
Anecdotal evidence from residents in the area and those who regularly use the A684 to commute to work suggest that the new road has achieved its desired outcomes.
Traffic along the former A684 has been reduced significantly as demonstrated by the traffic surveys and this has been noted by residents of the bypassed communities, who have commented on the improved environment. In one case a person observed that they could stroll across the carriageway at the junction of Northallerton Road and Leases Road in Leeming Bar, whereas normally they would have to run across because of the continuous stream of traffic.
Commuters using the new bypass have remarked on the improved journey time provided by the new road. They have also noted that the journey itself is less stressful because of the free flow of traffic and the avoidance of queuing and conflict points on the old route.
5.4 Mitigation
There have been no alterations to the mitigation measures proposed as part of the scheme proposal.
14 One Year After Report
6. Scheme Costs
6.1 Outturn Costs
In the Best and Final Funding Bid which was given Scheme Entry approval in 2009, the estimated outturn cost was £42.1m with a DfT contribution of £35.9m. Following further scheme development and tendering the full funding approval forecast was £34.2m with a contribution from DfT of £29.2m. The cost breakdown at these stages is shown in Table 3 along with the current forecast outturn for comparison.
Table 3: Scheme Costs Preparation & Construction Land Project Supervision Total Management (A) 2009 BAFFB £33.9m £2.6m £3.8m £1.82m £42.1m (B) 2014 Full Funding Approval £24.4m £4.8m £3.9m £1.08m £34.2m (C) 2017 current Forecast Outturn £21.9m £4.2m £3.4m £0.84m £30.3m Difference (C) – (B) -10% -13% -13% -22% -11%
The current total outturn cost in Table 3 is still a forecast because the maintenance and defects period is still ongoing and there are programmed works taking place until 2021. Land compensation is also not finalised. The above figures do not include Part 1 claims which are not funded by the Department for Transport.
The forecast outturn is significantly less than that at scheme entry in 2009 and is also below that of the full funding approval in 2014. The reasons for these reductions are detailed in section 6.3 titled ‘Savings’.
6.2 Risk
The value of the Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) at Full Funding Approval stage was £4.2m with the actual outturn value being £3.1m. The lower outturn value resulted from some risks not occurring or the value of these being reduced by mitigation works. Table 4 shows the top five risks by value at Scheme Entry and Table 5 shows the top five risks by actual outturn cost.
Table 4: Top Five Risks by Forecast Value at Funding Approval Description Risk Allowance Actual Comment Unforeseen compensation events £1,600,000 £1,107,262 - Low tender value resulting in more £960,000 £1,163,228 Very competitive tenders received. claims Land costs had increased rapidly prior to scheme approval so an additional risk allowance was made. However, Fluctuations in land cost £600,000 £0 land values did not increase further prior to land entry. It should be noted that not all compensation claims have been finalised yet. Archaeology mitigation cost £175,000 £164,007 - increase Allowance for traffic management and Increased cost of closure at cost of claims if longer diversion £160,000 £0 Leeming Bar required for six-month closure of Leases Lane.
15 One Year After Report
Table 5: Top Five Risks by Outturn Value Description Risk Allowance Actual Comment Low tender value resulting in more Allowance for increased number of £960,000 £1,163,228 claims claims as a result of low tender. Unforeseen compensation events £1,600,000 £1,107,262 - Archaeology mitigation cost Archaeology much better preserved £175,000 £164,007 increase than expected. Unforeseen ground conditions £16,250 £150,000 - Culvert needed replacing and Spring House Drain culvert needs £25,000 £90,534 additional pipe run required to connect replacing in an additional water source.
6.3 Savings
From Table 3 it can be seen that there were significant cost savings between the BAFFB and Full Funding Approval. The majority of this resulted from the very competitive tender price received from the winning Contractor which was circa £6m below the estimate and some from the mitigation of some of the risks in the Quantified Risk Assessment. During construction further savings were made as noted below.
6.3.1 Land
Subsequent to the 2009 BAFFB the market demand for grazing and agricultural land saw significant increases in 2013, with arable land increasing from circa £8,000/acre to circa £13,000/acre and pony paddocks up to circa £25,000/acre. Therefore, at full approval application the budget for land was significantly increased when compared to the BAFFB submission. Although land compensation has not been finalised the current outturn estimate is 13% lower than the budget.
6.3.2 Supervision
The cost of supervision reduced by £240,000 when compared with the full approval application. This saving mainly arose from the lower than expected level of input required from specialist design members in the consultant’s head office.
6.3.3 Preparation and Project Management
This category includes scheme preparation work dating from 2010. The saving of £500,000 reflects the lower than forecast cost of developing the scheme and managing through to completion.
6.3.4 Construction
Under the construction heading savings were made on the QRA and statutory undertakers works. Mitigation and non-realisation of risks reduced the outturn QRA by £1.1m. A £319,000 rebate was received from Northern Powergrid as a result of diversions remaining overhead when it had been expected that these would need to be diverted underground. During the works the owner of the trans-Pennine ethylene pipeline agreed to this being protected by a concrete slab rather than being diverted, as they had originally required. This resulted in a saving to the project of £350,000.
6.4 Overruns
The largest overrun on the scheme was for the Archaeological Investigation. Pre works investigations had indicated that the bypass crossed the sites of an Iron Age enclosure and a Roman settlement. When excavation commenced at the site of the Roman Villa, it was discovered that the remains were in better condition than pre
16 One Year After Report
works investigations had indicated. As a consequence, more time and resource was required, increasing the cost of the Archaeological investigation by 40% from £379,000 to £531,000.
The route of the bypass crossed the Wensleydale Railway (WR) line at two locations. An estimate of the expected approval and attendance fees required by WR was made following discussions prior to scheme commencement. The cost of the actual attendance was greater, with some of this being due to the plant crossings being required for longer. The outturn increased from £100,000 to £190,000.
6.5 Maintenance Costs
No data on maintenance costs is available at this stage as the scheme is still within the contract maintenance period.
17 One Year After Report
7. Scheme Objectives
7.1 Introduction
DfT guidance suggests that up to three main objectives of the scheme should be evaluated against appropriate metrics to enable an assessment to be made of how scheme objectives have been realised. The scheme objectives to be evaluated, as set out within the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, are described below, along with details of the relevant report section which contains the evaluation metrics for each objective.
7.2 Objective 1: Reduce Congestion in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar
Objective 1 is to reduce traffic congestion in the communities bypassed by the proposed scheme.
The evaluation metrics which assess the performance of the scheme in relation to this objective are included in the following sections of this report:
Section 8 - Travel Demand; and
Section 9 - Travel Times and Reliability
7.3 Objective 2: Reduce Environmental and Road Safety Problems Objective 2 is to reduce environmental and road safety problems in and on the approaches to the communities of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar.
The evaluation metrics which assess the performance of the scheme in relation to this objective are included in the following sections of this report:
Section 10 - Noise Impacts;
Section 11 - Air Quality Impacts; and
Section 12 - Accident Analysis
7.4 Objective 3: Improve Access Objective 3 is to improve access from the A1(M) to communities and areas west of the A1 (North Dales), and to the east of the A1, including the county town of Northallerton.
The evaluation metrics which assess the performance of the scheme in relation to this objective are included in the following sections of this report:
Section 8 - Travel Demand; and
Section 9 - Travel Times and Reliability
18 One Year After Report
8. Travel Demand
8.1 Introduction
In order to assess the traffic impacts of the scheme, this section of the report examines the following:
Changes in weekday peak period and 12-hour traffic volumes along the routes affected by the scheme, between 2015 and 2017;
Changes in non-motorised user (NMU) volumes along the routes affected by the scheme, between 2015 and 2017; and
Observed changes in traffic volumes in the area compared to those forecast during the appraisal process.
The analysis contained within this section of the report has been used to evaluate the performance of the scheme in relation to objective 1 and objective 3.
8.2 Data Collection
The traffic data which underpins the analysis contained within this report section was collected during the following time periods:
February 2015 (before scheme opening); and
September 2017 (to represent one year after scheme opening).
8.2.1 Data Sources
Traffic data analysed within this section of the report was taken from the following sources:
Temporary automatic traffic counts (ATCs) commissioned by NYCC;
Permanent ATCs installed on the bypass; and
Temporary NMU surveys commissioned by NYCC
8.3 Automatic Traffic Counts
8.3.1 Temporary Automatic Traffic Counts
In February 2015, a total of 8 automatic traffic counts (ATCs) were undertaken to established the pre-scheme traffic levels on key routes in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. The ATCs were undertaken from Monday 9th February to Sunday 15th February 2015, each monitoring traffic flow in both directions over a continuous 24- hour period.
To establish the change in traffic volumes one year after the opening of the scheme, the same 8 ATC locations were again surveyed in September 2017. The surveys took place over a two-week period from Monday 18th September to Sunday 1st October 2017, again over a continuous 24-hour period.
The locations of the temporary ATC sites are described in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 6.
19 One Year After Report
Table 6: Temporary ATC Locations Site Location 2015 Surveys 2017 Surveys Number North End, Bedale - between the northern and southern accesses 1 to St Gregory’s Church B6268 Masham Road, Bedale - between Burill Road and The 2 Wynd B6285 South End, Bedale - between access to water treatment 3 works and Lyngarth Farm Bedale Road, Bedale - between Bedale Bridge and Mawson 4 House A6055, Leeming Bar - approximately 250m north of roundabout at 5 Leeming Bar Services Bedale Road, Leeming Bar - between Grange Avenue and Simply 6 Dutch store Unclassified Leases Road, Leeming Bar - between Low Street 7 and railway crossing Northallerton Road, Leeming Bar - between access to Leeming 8 Community Primary School and access to Vickers 4x4 Garage
20 One Year After Report
Figure 6: Temporary ATC Locations
21 One Year After Report
8.3.2 Permanent Automatic Traffic Counts
Permanent ATC equipment was installed at three locations along the bypass to enable NYCC to continuously monitor traffic flows. Data from the permanent counters was retrieved from NYCC’s online database covering a two-week period from Sunday 10th September to Saturday 23rd September 2017. It is acknowledged that this time period doesn’t fully align with the time period of the temporary ATC surveys, however, at the time of writing this was the most recent data available.
The locations of the permanent ATC sites are described in Table 7 and illustrated in Figure 7.
Table 7: Permanent ATC Locations Site Number Location 1 Bypass - west of A1(M) 2 Bypass - west of Leases Road 3 Bypass - east of Leases Road roundabout
22 One Year After Report
Figure 7: Permanent ATC Locations
23 One Year After Report
8.4 Traffic Volume Analysis
Traffic volumes in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar are shown in Table 8, which presents the average two-way traffic flows before scheme opening (2015), and one year after opening (2017), for the following time periods:
Weekday AM (07:00-10:00);
Weekday PM (16:00-19:00);
Weekday 12-hours (07:00-19:00); and
Weekend (Saturday) 12-hours (07:00-19:00)
Table 9 summarises the changes in flows at each traffic count site in the pre-scheme and post-scheme scenarios for all of the above time periods. Figure 8 shows the changes in weekday 12-hour flows only.
24 One Year After Report
Table 8: Comparison of 2015 And 2017 Two-Way Average Traffic 2015 2017 Site Location Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Number AM PM AM PM 12-hour 12-hour 12-hour 12-hour Temporary ATC Sites 1 North End, Bedale 1625 1651 6430 4824 1831 1893 7040 6736 2 B6268 Masham Road, Bedale 1175 1217 4559 3650 1194 1164 4593 4229 3 B6285 South End, Bedale 623 590 2192 * 473 530 1804 1463 4 Bedale Road, Bedale 2771 2738 10736 9609 1409 1628 5874 5668 5 A6055, Leeming Bar 1704 1517 6052 4019 1510 1509 5854 5022 6 Bedale Road, Leeming Bar 2138 2208 8502 6917 1339 1447 5345 4775 7 Unclassified Leases Road, Leeming Bar 1346 1300 4782 2999 728 745 2815 1981 8 Northallerton Road, Leeming Bar 2415 2469 9123 7028 1241 1295 4827 4268 Permanent ATC Sites 1 Bypass - west of A1(M) 2010 2073 7584 7592 2 Bypass - west of Leases Road N/A 2876 2978 11142 7374 3 Bypass - east of Leases Road roundabout 1541 1559 5852 4449
* No 2015 weekend data is available for site 3
25 One Year After Report
Table 9: Changes in Two-Way Average Traffic
Site AM PM Weekday 12-hour Saturday 12-hour Location Number Difference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % Difference Difference % Difference Temporary ATC Sites 1 North End, Bedale 206 13% 242 15% 610 9% 1912 40% 2 B6268 Masham Road, Bedale 19 2% -53 -4% 34 1% 579 16% 3 B6285 South End, Bedale -150 -24% -60 -10% -388 -18% * * 4 Bedale Road, Bedale -1362 -49% -1110 -41% -4862 -45% -3941 -41% 5 A6055, Leeming Bar -194 -11% -8 -0.6% -198 -3% 1003 25% 6 Bedale Road, Leeming Bar -799 -37% -761 -34% -3157 -37% -2143 -31% 7 Unclassified Leases Road, Leeming Bar -618 -46% -555 -43% -1968 -41% -1018 -34% 8 Northallerton Road, Leeming Bar -1174 -49% -1174 -48% -4296 -47% -2760 -39%
Increase in traffic volumes Decrease in traffic volumes
* No 2015 weekend data is available for site 3. No flow change calculated.
26 One Year After Report
Figure 8: Changes in Two-Way Average Weekday 12-Hour Traffic
27 One Year After Report
The following observations have been made regarding the traffic flows in the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar areas one year after BALB opening:
Over 7,000 vehicles per day use the majority of the new bypass. 11,000 vehicles per day use the central section of the bypass, however, a significant proportion of this traffic is likely to be from the A1 heading to Exelby Services adjacent to the bypass, accessed via the Leases Road roundabout.
Traffic volumes through the centre of Bedale (site 1) have increased by 9%. This is likely due to traffic entering Bedale from the B6268 to the west, and the B6285 to the south, rerouting through to the north of Bedale to access the new bypass.
There has been a reduction in traffic of approximately 45% through Aiskew.
A reduction in traffic in the region of 47% has been observed in Leeming Bar.
8.4.1 Daily Flow Profiles
The traffic data described above has been analysed to understand how traffic levels change across the course of a day. This analysis was undertaken for the former A684 route using data from temporary ATC site 4 in Bedale (to compare pre- and post-scheme flow profiles), and for the new bypass using data from permanent ATC site 1, west of A1(M). The daily two-way traffic flow profiles are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
Figure 9: Former A684 Pre- and Post-Scheme Daily Flow Profile
Figure 10: Bypass Daily Flow Profile
28 One Year After Report
Figure 9 shows that on the former A684 route through Bedale, traffic flow was fairly constant throughout the day, both pre- and post-scheme. While the overall daily traffic volume has significantly reduced following the introduction of the bypass, the post-scheme traffic flow profile closely mirrors that of the pre-scheme period. Figure 10 shows that the daily flow profile of the new bypass is comparable to the pre- and post-scheme flow profile of the former A684.
8.5 Observed Changes in Traffic Composition
The daily amount of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) as a proportion of all vehicles, before and after the bypass was introduced, has also been assessed at each traffic count site. This has been done to determine whether the bypass has facilitated a reduction in the amount of HGV traffic through the villages along the former route of the A684. Table 10 shows the pre- and post-scheme change in the proportion of HGVs at each traffic count site.
Table 10: Percentage of HGVs Pre- and Post-Scheme Site % HGV % HGV Difference Location Number 2015 2017 (2017-2015) Temporary ATC Sites 1 North End, Bedale 1.7 1.5 -0.2 2 B6268 Masham Road, Bedale 1.2 2.2 1.0 3 B6285 South End, Bedale 0.6 1.0 0.4 4 Bedale Road, Bedale 1.4 1.3 -0.1 5 A6055, Leeming Bar 4.7 5.2 0.5 6 Bedale Road, Leeming Bar 1.4 0.9 -0.5 7 Unclassified Leases Road, Leeming Bar 1.3 2.0 0.7 8 Northallerton Road, Leeming Bar 1.5 1.1 -0.5 Permanent ATC Sites 1 Bypass - west of A1(M) - 7.9 - 2 Bypass - west of Leases Road - 23.2 - 3 Bypass - east of Leases Road roundabout - 8.4 -
Table 10 shows that the percentage of HGVs has decreased at four sites along the former A684 route. The remaining four sites show slight increases in the proportion of HGVs, likely due to the overall volume of traffic decreasing at the majority of these locations. The proportion of HGVs observed using the bypass is significantly higher than the old route, which indicates that the bypass is operating as the preferred route for HGV traffic in the area.
8.6 Comparison with Pre-Scheme Appraisal Traffic Predictions
In order to compare the modelled change in flows against the observed change in flows as a result of the bypass, pre-scheme appraisal modelled traffic flows have been obtained from the ‘Best and Final Funding Bid Forecasting Report’ (September 2011). Within ‘Appendix E – Traffic Flow Diagrams’ of this report, is a series of figures displaying the predicted Do Minimum (no scheme) and Do Something (with scheme) traffic flows for the modelled forecast years under three separate traffic growth scenarios - low, core and high growth.
Modelled traffic flows have been taken from Figure D1 of the Forecasting Report, which presents the Do Minimum and Do Something annual average daily traffic (AADT) flows for the 2016 core growth scenario. The core growth scenario was chosen as the basis for this comparison as it represents the most likely outcome predicted at the time of the modelling exercise. The difference between the Do Something and Do Minimum
29 One Year After Report
flows has been calculated to establish the level of change in traffic volumes that was predicted during the modelling exercise. This is shown in the column labelled ‘(F)’ in Table 11.
To establish the actual change in traffic volumes brought about by the scheme, the difference in the 7-day 24- hour average flows from the 2015 and 2017 traffic surveys has been calculated, shown in the column labelled ‘(C)’ in Table 11.
Table 11: Pre-Scheme Modelled Flows Compared to Post-Scheme Observed Flows Observed Flows Modelled Flows Do Do 7-day 24hr 7-Day 24hr Do Minimum- Minimum Something Average Average 2017-2015 Do Something AADT AADT (2015) (2017) Difference Difference (C) (2016) (2016) (A) (B) (F) (D) (E) Site 1 6823 7587 11% 11400 12752 12% Site 2 4927 4966 1% * * - Site 3 2403 1893 -21% 1800 1800 0% Temporary Count Sites Site 4 12278 6569 -46% 18100 8100 -55% (as per Site 5 6423 6912 8% * * - Table 6) Site 6 9442 5939 -37% 16400 8600 -48% Site 7 5080 2971 -42% 9200 8300 -10% Site 8 9904 5163 -48% 14200 5800 -59% Bypass Site 1 - 8394 - - 10100 - Count Sites Site 2 - 11859 - - 11800 - (as per Table 7) Site 3 - 6081 - - 8500 -
* No modelled flow available in Forecasting Report for sites 2 and 5.
In order to determine the accuracy of the traffic predictions generated pre-scheme, each site has been ranked in order of the level of reduction in both observed and modelled traffic flows, from largest reduction to smallest. Comparing the difference between the observed and modelled flow changes in this way provides an indication of whether the areas predicted to experience the most benefit from the bypass, in terms of traffic flow reduction, were predicted accurately. This comparison is provided in Table 12.
Table 12: Count Sites Ranked by Level of Observed and Modelled Flow Change Ranked Observed Flow Change Ranked Modelled Flow Change Site Site Do Minimum-Do Rank 2017-2015 Difference Number Number Something Difference 1 Site 8 -48% Site 8 -59% 2 Site 4 -46% Site 4 -55% 3 Site 7 -42% Site 6 -48% 4 Site 6 -37% Site 7 -10% 5 Site 3 -21% Site 3 0% 6 Site 1 11% Site 1 12%
30 One Year After Report
Table 12 shows that the changes in traffic flows across Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar were predicted accurately, with the majority of count sites ranked equally in terms of their observed and predicted traffic volume reduction. Site 6 and site 7 are the only sites not to rank equally. Site 1 was predicted to experience a 12% increase in traffic which closely reflects the 11% increase which has been observed.
The predicted traffic flows on the bypass vary in comparison to the observed traffic flows. When comparing the figures in columns (B) and (E) in Table 11 for the bypass sites, site 1 and site 3 were predicted to have flows approximately 20% and 40% higher respectively than those observed. However, the predicted flows at site 2 are in line with those observed.
8.7 Non-Motorised Users (NMU)
In February 2015, a total of 7 non-motorised user (NMU) surveys were undertaken to established the pre- scheme volumes of pedestrian, cyclist and other NMU movements on key corridors of travel in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar.
The surveys were undertaken on Tuesday 5th February 2015, between 07:00 and 19:00, through video camera observation. No incidents were reported over the survey period. Data was collated in 15 minute intervals in both directions, and captured the following road users:
Pedestrians;
Pedal cyclists;
Wheelchair Users;
Mobility Scooters;
Equestrians; and
Other.
To determine the effect of the BALB scheme on NMU movements, the same sites were surveyed in September 2017 using the same method as above. A weekday survey was undertaken on Tuesday 19th September and a weekend survey was also carried out on Saturday 23rd September. As with the pre-scheme surveys, both surveys were conducted over a 12-hour period from 07:00 to 19:00.
In addition to the original 7 sites, the September 2017 surveys also captured data at a further 7 sites, the majority of which on routes which interface with, or are in close proximity to, the bypass.
The locations of the NMU survey sites are described in Table 13 along with an indication of the years in which each site was surveyed. Survey locations are illustrated in Figure 11.
Table 14 shows the observed NMU flows at each count site and also summarises the changes in NMU flows from the pre-scheme to the post-scheme period. The NMU flow changes are also illustrated graphically in Figure 12.
31 One Year After Report
Table 13: NMU Survey Locations Site Location 2015 Surveys 2017 Surveys Number North End - between access to Bedale Museum and St Gregory’s 1 X Church 2 Bedale Road - between Bedale Bridge and Mawson House 3 Bedale Road - between Badger Hill Drive and Sycamore Avenue Sandhill Lane - between Spruce Gill Avenue and access to 4 Sandhill Farm Bedale Road - between the White Rose Hotel and Simply Dutch 5 store Roman Road - between access to John H Gill and Sons and 6 access to Leeming Bar Primary School 7 Leases Road - between railway crossing and Corner House Hotel Northallerton Road - between Corner House Hotel and Mattison 8 Close Northallerton Road - between Holmfield Farm and roundabout 9 X junction with Bedale Bypass Bypass - uncontrolled crossing point to Low Street, approximately 10 X 200m east of the Leases Road roundabout 11 Footway link between Low Street and Leases Road X Leases Road - uncontrolled crossing point south of 12 X bypass/Leases Road roundabout Bypass – pegasus crossing point west of Leases Road 13 X roundabout Footway link adjacent to Bedale Golf Club, immediately west of 14 X bypass/North End roundabout
32 One Year After Report
Figure 11: NMU Survey Locations
33 One Year After Report
Table 14: Changes in Two-Way Weekday NMU Flows 2015 2017 2015-2017 Difference Site % Location Peds % Peds Cyclists Number Peds Cyclists Peds Cyclists Cyclists Difference Difference Difference Difference North End - between access to Bedale Museum 1 - - 593 0 - - - - and St Gregory’s Church Bedale Road - between Bedale Bridge and Mawson 2 625 26 760 48 135 22% 22 85% House Bedale Road - between Badger Hill Drive and 3 182 24 201 5 19 10% -19 -79% Sycamore Avenue Sandhill Lane - between Spruce Gill Avenue and 4 74 2 83 18 9 12% 16 800.0% access to Sandhill Farm Bedale Road - between the White Rose Hotel and 5 229 19 274 23 45 20% 4 21% Simply Dutch store Roman Road - between access to John H Gill and 6 174 31 503 20 329 189% -11 -36% Sons and access to Leeming Bar Primary School Leases Road - between railway crossing and 7 213 36 218 5 5 2% -31 -86% Corner House Hotel Northallerton Road - between Corner House Hotel 8 162 18 148 3 -14 -9% -15 -83% and Mattison Close Northallerton Road - between Holmfield Farm and 9 - - 1 0 - - - - roundabout junction with Bedale Bypass Bypass - uncontrolled crossing point to Low Street, 10 approximately 200m east of the Leases Road - - 19 9 - - - - roundabout 11 Footway link between Low Street and Leases Road - - 0 0 - - - - Leases Road - uncontrolled crossing point south of 12 - - 35 0 - - - - bypass/Leases Road roundabout
34 One Year After Report
2015 2017 2015-2017 Difference Site % Location Peds % Peds Cyclists Number Peds Cyclists Peds Cyclists Cyclists Difference Difference Difference Difference Bypass – pegasus crossing point west of Leases 13 - - 8 0 - - - - Road roundabout Footway link adjacent to Bedale Golf Club, 14 - - 34 2 - - - - immediately west of bypass/North End roundabout
Decrease in NMU volumes Increase in NMU volumes
35 One Year After Report
Figure 12: Changes in Two-Way Weekday NMU Flows
36 One Year After Report
The following observations have been made regarding the NMU flows in the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar areas one year after BALB opening:
Pedestrian footfall has increased at six of the seven sites which have comparable data from 2015 and 2017. Site 6 has seen the largest increase in pedestrian activity (189%), which may be attributed to the opening of a new Co-op food store in Leeming Bar.
At site 2, which lies between Bedale and Aiskew, pedestrian flows have increased by 22% and cyclist flows by 85% since the opening of the bypass. The same location has also experienced a 43% reduction in vehicle flows. This suggests that people travelling between Bedale and Aiskew may feel safer using non-motorised modes following the reduction in vehicular traffic at this location.
Cyclist flows have decreased at three of the four locations surveyed in Leeming Bar, despite vehicle flows having decreased in Leeming Bar. Conversely, pedestrian flows have increased at all but one of the four survey locations in Leeming Bar.
8.8 Conclusion
Analysis of changes in traffic and non-motorised user flows between 2015 (pre-scheme) and 2017 (post- scheme) shows that:
The majority of the bypass is used by over 7,000 vehicles per day;
There has been a reduction in traffic on the former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar of between 37% and 47%. One of the survey locations to the north of Bedale has seen a 9% increase in traffic, which is likely due to traffic rerouting to access the new bypass;
The proportion of HGVs has decreased at four of the eight surveyed locations along the former A684 route. The proportion of HGVs using the bypass is significantly higher than the old route at up to 23%. This indicates that the bypass is operating as the preferred route for HGV traffic in the area.
Pedestrian flows have generally increased throughout the vicinity of the scheme. Cyclist flows have shown a high degree of variability, although it should be noted that there is a relatively low volume of cyclist flows in the vicinity of the scheme, therefore only a small change in the number of cyclists can represent a large percentage change.
The Appraisal Summary Table submitted as part of the final funding submission suggested that the bypass would result in a reduction in traffic of between 45% and 60% on the former A684 route. Based on the traffic flow changes shown earlier in Table 9, it can be seen that in reality there was a reduction in traffic on the former A684 of between 37% and 47% from the 2015 traffic levels following the opening of the scheme.
It can therefore be concluded that the scheme has been successful in reducing traffic through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar by transferring traffic to the new bypass.
37 One Year After Report
9. Travel Times and Reliability
9.1 Introduction
One of the key aims of the BALB scheme was to reduce traffic congestion in the communities of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. In order to assess success of the scheme in relation to this objective, journey times along the old A684 route and the new bypass have been compared in the pre- and post-scheme periods.
The analysis contained within this section of the report has been used to evaluate the performance of the scheme in relation to objective 1 and objective 3.
9.2 Data Collection
9.2.1 Pre-Scheme Data
To assess the pre-scheme journey times along the former A684, TrafficMaster GPS journey time data was requested from the DfT. However, at the time of the request the DfT were experiencing technical issues when processing requests for TrafficMaster GPS data and were unable to supply data to inform the journey time analysis. To mitigate this issue, the DfT advised that the annual GPS file provided to local authorities should be used as an alternative until the TrafficMaster data service returned to normal. This local authority GPS information was subsequently provided by NYCC to enable the before-scheme journey time analysis to be undertaken. The data provided covered the month of November in 2014.
9.2.2 Post-Scheme Data
To inform the post-scheme journey time analysis, journey time surveys were conducted along the following routes:
Route 1 (former A684) - Leeming Bar Roundabout along the former A684, through Aiskew and Bedale to the White Bear pub junction, and on to Bedale Athletic Club.
Route 2 (Bypass) - Leeming Bar Roundabout to Junction 51 of the A1(M) along A684 Bedale bypass, continuing on to the Bedale roundabout, and along the A684 to Bedale Athletic Club.
The journey time surveys were conducted along the above routes in both directions from 08:00 to 09:00 and 17:00 to 18:00, from Monday 13th November to Friday 18nd November (5 days).
A weekend survey of each route in both directions was also undertaken on Saturday 18th November from 11:00 to 12:00.
Both journey time routes are illustrated in Figure 13.
38 One Year After Report
Figure 13: Journey Time Routes
39 One Year After Report
9.3 Journey Time Analysis
The data described in section 9.2 has been used to calculate average journey times for the weekday AM peak hours of 0800 to 0900 and PM peak hours of 1700 to 1800. The average journey time between the hours of 1100 and 1200 on a Saturday has also been calculated. Table 15 compares the journey times for the following situations:
On the former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar, before the scheme was built (2014);
On the former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar after the scheme was built (2017); and
On the new bypass (2017).
Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the changes in journey times. All journey times are given in minutes/seconds.
Table 15: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Scheme Journey Times One Year After Opening Route 1 (former A684) Route 2 (Bypass) Pre- Post- scheme Scheme 2017 Direction Period Time Time (2014) (2017) % Diff Journey % Diff Difference Difference Journey Journey Time Time Time AM 08:09 07:41 -00:28 -5.7% 04:34 -03:35 -44.0% Eastbound PM 08:06 07:28 -00:37 -7.7% 04:33 -03:33 -43.8% Weekend 08:13 07:05 -01:08 -13.8% 04:15 -03:58 -48.3% AM 08:56 08:20 -00:36 -6.7% 04:53 -04:03 -45.4% Westbound PM 10:06 08:47 -01:19 -13.0% 04:51 -05:15 -52.0% Weekend 08:48 07:49 -01:00 -11.3% 04:34 -04:15 -48.2%
Figure 14: Average Journey Times Eastbound
40 One Year After Report
Figure 15: Average Journey Times Westbound
The key findings from Table 15 are:
Travel times for journeys using the new bypass are now significantly lower than the former A684 route before the scheme was built in all directions and time periods. Time savings of just over 5 minutes have been observed westbound in the PM peak.
Travel times for journeys along the former A684 route have shown slight improvement since the introduction of the bypass, with time savings ranging from approximately 30 seconds to just over one minute.
On the bypass there is little variation in travel times between each time period, which may indicate that on an average day there is minimal congestion on the scheme and journeys are reliable.
9.4 Journey Time Reliability
The GPS and journey time survey data provides travel times for each individual vehicle recorded. In addition to being used to derive average journey times per route as described above, the data can be used to understand day-to-day variation in travel times. Road users value having consistent and reliable journey times each day.
The statistical value known as standard deviation has been used to measure reliability; the lower the value, the more consistent and reliable journey times are on that route.
Based on the same routes and time periods used in the assessment of journey times in section 9.3, a summary of the standard deviation in observed journey times is shown in Table 16.
41 One Year After Report
Table 16: Standard Deviation of Travel Times (Used as a Proxy for Travel Time Reliability) Former A684 Former A684 Bypass Time Period Pre-Scheme Post-Scheme Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Weekday AM Peak 2.61 2.30 0.71 0.80 0.35 0.54 (0800-0900) Weekday PM Peak 4.37 8.17 0.66 0.84 0.35 0.27 (1700-1800) Saturday 25.34 14.95 0.22 1.18 0.23 0.21 (1100-1200)
It can be seen from Table 16 that throughout all time periods, both eastbound and westbound, the standard deviations of travel times have reduced significantly due to the introduction of the scheme. A reduction in standard deviation for the travel times routes indicates that the travel times are more reliable. The results show that the most improvement in reliability is a Saturday, with the least significant improvement being the weekday AM peak.
9.5 Access from The A1(M)
As described in section 7.4, scheme objective 3 is to improve access from the A1(M) to communities and areas west of the A1 (North Dales), and to the east of the A1, including the county town of Northallerton. To understand whether the scheme has met this objective, journey time savings along the scheme have been analysed as follows:
Between junction 51 of the A1(M) and Bedale Athletic Club; and
Between junction 51 of the A1(M) and the A684/Northallerton Road roundabout (tie in between bypass and former A684)
Table 17 illustrate the changes in journey times between the above locations and the A1(M). All journey times are given in minutes/seconds.
Table 17: Comparison Between Pre- and Post-Scheme Journey Times to and from The A1(M) Route 1 - Pre- Time Route 2 – Section Direction scheme (2014) Difference Period Bypass (2017) Journey Time
Junction 51 A1(M) to Eastbound 02:32 01:45 -00:48 A684/Northallerton Road roundabout Westbound 02:34 02:28 -00:06 AM Junction 51 A1(M) to Eastbound 05:36 02:24 -03:13 Bedale Athletic Club Westbound 06:22 02:04 -04:18 Junction 51 A1(M) to Eastbound 02:31 01:44 -00:46 A684/Northallerton Road roundabout Westbound 02:37 02:28 -00:10 PM Junction 51 A1(M) to Eastbound 05:35 02:22 -03:13 Bedale Athletic Club Westbound 07:28 02:03 -05:26 Junction 51 A1(M) to Eastbound 02:21 01:38 -00:43 Weekend A684/Northallerton Road roundabout Westbound 02:28 02:22 -00:06
42 One Year After Report
Route 1 - Pre- Time Route 2 – Section Direction scheme (2014) Difference Period Bypass (2017) Journey Time
Junction 51 A1(M) to Eastbound 05:52 02:16 -00:03:36 Bedale Athletic Club Westbound 06:20 01:51 -00:04:29
It can be seen from Table 17 that throughout all time periods, both eastbound and westbound, there has been a reduction in travel time between both Bedale Athletic Club and Leeming Bar roundabout and the A1 (M).
In particular, there has been a significant time saving between Junction 51 A1(M) and Bedale Athletic Club in the westbound direction across all time periods, with a time saving of over four minutes during the AM and weekend peaks and over five minutes in the PM peak. The eastbound direction on this section also shows time savings, albeit to a slightly lesser degree than westbound, with over three minutes being saved across all time periods. The majority of these time savings are likely to result from traffic now being able to avoid travelling through the White Bear junction located on this section of the former A684 route, which was identified in the pre- scheme appraisal as significant source of delay.
On the section between Junction 51 A1(M) and the A684/Northallerton Road roundabout the time savings are more modest, with up to 48 seconds saved in the eastbound direction and up to 10 seconds saved in the westbound direction.
The above figures demonstrate that the scheme has improved journey times for through traffic, and show that access from the A1(M) to Leyburn and the North Dales to the west, and Northallerton to the east, has been improved due to the scheme.
9.6 Comparison with Pre-Scheme Appraisal Results
Forecast journey time savings at route level were not presented in the Best and Final Funding Bid or the supporting documentation containing the pre-scheme appraisal findings. However, the ‘Best and Final Funding Bid Forecasting Report’ (September 2011) contained details of the predicted delay savings at four key junctions along the former A684 route. The junctions and the forecast scheme opening year delay savings are as follows:
White Bear (Bedale) – 78 seconds AM peak and 96 second PM peak;
Market Cross (Bedale) – 54 seconds AM peak and 78 seconds PM peak;
Crossways (Leeming Bar) – 12 seconds AM peak and 6 seconds PM peak; and
Leeming Lane (Leeming Bar) – 30 seconds AM peak and 12 seconds PM peak
Across all four junctions the time savings were predicted to total 2 minutes 54 seconds in the AM peak and 3 minutes 12 seconds in the PM peak. When comparing these figures with those shown in Table 15, it can be seen that the observed time savings on the former A684 route are significantly lower than the total time savings predicted at the junctions. Although the route-based evaluation presented earlier is not directly comparable to the junction-based predicted time savings, this indicates that the pre-scheme appraisal may have overestimated the reduction in delay resulting from the scheme.
9.7 Value for Money
Value for money has been reappraised by factoring the expected pre-scheme benefits and costs, using the proportions of those benefits and costs that have been demonstrated within the report. Where a given benefit has not been reappraised it is assumed that the expected benefit was realised. A summary of the value for money calculation is as follows:
43 One Year After Report
The combined journey time saving benefits on the bypass and the former A684 route as a result of the bypass have been found to be approximately 67% of the pre-scheme appraisal predicted journey time saving benefits. Therefore, 67% of the predicted monetary journey time benefit calculated in the pre- scheme appraisal (documented within the scheme Economic Assessment Report) has been used in the value for money calculation.
The 2017 forecast outturn scheme cost is 28% lower than the predicted cost stated in the 2009 BAFFB. This 28% reduction was applied to the costs presented in the Economic Assessment Report, which are discounted to 2002 prices.
All other benefits outside of journey time savings, such as carbon, noise etc, were left as per the values stated in the Economic Assessment Report.
Based on the reduced cost figures (discounted to 2002) and the adjusted journey time benefits described above, the estimated benefit cost ratio (BCR) for the scheme is 3.7. This compares to a pre- scheme predicted BCR of 3.85. This indicates that the scheme falls within the same high value for money category as predicted in the pre-scheme economic assessment.
9.8 Conclusion
For journeys using the bypass, travel times have been significantly reduced following the introduction of the scheme. Time savings of up to five minutes have been observed for journeys using the bypass, compared to pre-scheme journeys along the former A684 route.
For journeys using the former A684 route, travel times are slightly lower than before the scheme was built with time savings ranging from 28 seconds to 1 minute 19 seconds.
Through the evaluation of the route-based journey times it can be determined that the expected time savings at key junctions predicted as part of the pre-scheme appraisal have not been achieved.
The scheme was shown to provide more consistent and reliable travel times, both on the new bypass and on the former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar.
44 One Year After Report
10. Noise Impacts
10.1 Introduction
This section describes the evaluation of the noise changes resulting from the A684 Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass scheme since opening. The analysis contained within this section of the report has been used to evaluate the performance of the scheme in relation to objective 2.
Traffic counts were undertaken in September 2017 at the locations shown in Figure 6. These have been used to derive basic noise levels (BNLs) at receptors in accordance with the methodology set out in Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN). Where suitable, these BNLs have been compared against predictions made in the 2010 Environmental Statement1 (ES) or the 2012 Addendum to the ES2. Additionally, the 2017 BNLs have been used to determine the overall change in noise level of the scheme since opening.
In order to quantify the impact at each receptor in the vicinity of the Scheme a three dimensional noise model has been used. For consistency, the noise model from the ES has been used. The noise model was created using the CadnaA noise modelling software package, which incorporates the CRTN prediction methodology and supplementary guidance in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 – Noise and Vibration (HD 213/11).
10.2 Summary of Relevant Guidance
10.2.1 Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), 1988
In the UK the standard method for predicting traffic noise levels is given in the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) published by the Department of Transport Welsh Office in 1988. The CRTN prediction method requires information on the number, type and speed of vehicles using a road, the road surface and gradient, ground conditions and takes into consideration the precise geometry between the road and the receiving position.
10.2.2 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)
The Highways England ‘Design Manual for Road and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Part 7 - Traffic Noise and Vibration’ (HD 213/11) provides guidance on the appropriate level of assessment to be used when assessing the noise and vibration impacts arising from all road projects, including new construction, improvements and maintenance.
The following classification criteria in Table 18 for traffic noise impacts from HD 213/11 have been adopted in order to classify the magnitude of noise impact at individual receptors.
Table 18: Classification of Magnitude of Noise Benefit in The Short Term
Noise change, dB LA10,18hr Magnitude of Impact 0 No change 0.1 – 0.9 Negligible 1 – 2.9 Minor 3 – 4.9 Moderate 5+ Major
1 A684 Bedale – Aiskew – Leeming Bar Bypass Environmental Statement: Volume 1, March 2010 2 Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass Addendum to the Environmental Statement, May 2012
45 One Year After Report
10.3 Evaluation Methodology
10.3.1 Traffic Data
This evaluation is based on traffic data collected in September 2017 as described in section 8.3. A map showing the locations of the traffic counts is given in Figure 6. Traffic flows were surveyed on the following local roads:
North End;
B6268;
B6285 South End;
B6285 Bedale Road;
A6055;
A684 Bedale Road;
Leases Road; and
A684 Northallerton Road
Additional traffic data has been acquired from Highways England’s WebTRIS online database and NYCC’s online traffic count database and represents the same two-week period as the ATC survey data for local roads:
A1(M) northbound southbound traffic data - Highways England WebTRIS (date accessed 14th December 2017); and
The Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass and the former A684 network - NYCC’s online traffic count database (date accessed 10th January 2018).
10.3.2 Noise Modelling Methodology
A noise model has been created using the noise modelling package CadnaA, which incorporates the road noise propagation methodology defined in CRTN. The road noise calculations undertaken using CadnaA have taken account of the following variables: 18-hour Average Annual Weekday Traffic (AAWT) covering the period 06:00 to 00:00; percentage of ‘Heavy Vehicles’ (HGV) i.e. vehicles of un-laden weight greater than 3.5 tonnes; traffic speeds (kph); road gradient; local topography; nature of the ground cover between the road and the receptor; and shielding effects of any intervening structures, including allowances for limited angles of view from the road and any reflection effects from relevant surfaces.
10.3.3 Limitations
Although traffic flow data are available for the majority of roads around the scheme area, there are a number of road links without any traffic data available. Figure 16 illustrates the road links where traffic flow data are available. Only these road links have been modelled. In order to maintain consistency of results with the ES only noise sensitive receptors situated in close proximity to road links containing traffic data have been considered for comparison. These receptors are given in Table 19.
46 One Year After Report
Noise level predictions provided in the ES Addendum were produced using traffic data for an opening year of the scheme of 2016. The traffic survey used in this assessment were obtained in 2017. It is considered these are comparable because the annual increase in traffic between the years will cause a negligible change in noise levels. For example, traffic count data for North Yorkshire3 shows annual increases of between 2.5% and 2.8% between 2014 and 2016. Assuming similar increases in traffic flow between 2016 and 2017 there will be a negligible effect on the change in noise level between 2016 and 2017.
Figure 16: Noise Evaluation Modelled Roads
10.4 Results
A selection of sensitive receptors presented in the original ES for whom a high degree of confidence can be assigned to their noise levels are given for comparison in Table 19. Receptors for whom a high degree of confidence can be assigned to their noise levels are those that meet the following criteria:
The most dominant noise source(s) are road links with 2017 traffic data; and
Nearby road links absent of 2017 traffic data are a sufficient distance away such that under normal circumstances they would not contribute to the overall noise level.
3 http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php?la=North+Yorkshire#83022 (Accessed 29/01/2018)
47 One Year After Report
Where there are two receptor points for a dwelling these have been included for comparison also.
Table 19: Magnitude of Impact Comparisons Between ES and 2017 Traffic
Magnitude of Short Term Impact Noise Noise Receptor ES predictions for change 2017 traffic results change 2014 in dB(A) in dB(A) *26 Kingfisher Drive (north façade) Increase (Minor) + 1.3 Increase (Minor) + 2.3 *26 Kingfisher Drive (south façade) £Decrease (Negligible) - 0.1 Decrease (Major) - 6.0 *Aiskew Grange Increase (Negligible) + 0.1 Decrease (Moderate) - 4.0 Caravan Park, Low Street Decrease (Negligible) - 0.1 Decrease (Moderate) - 3.7 Field House Increase (Minor) + 2.3 Decrease (Moderate) - 3.2 Warwick House Decrease (Moderate) - 3.3 Decrease (Major) - 8.0 22 Bedale Road Decrease (Minor) - 2.7 Decrease (Major) - 6.7 Holmfield Farm (north façade) Decrease (Major) - 5.9 Decrease (Major) - 17.6 Holmfield Farm (south façade) Decrease (Major) - 5.9 Decrease (Major) - 5.7 Warwick House Farm Decrease (Moderate) - 3.7 Decrease (Major) - 7.9 Wilbert Farms (44) Decrease (Moderate) - 3.6 Decrease (Minor) - 2.4 Wilbert Farms (42) Decrease (Moderate) - 3.6 Decrease (Moderate) - 4.0 *Sand Hill Farm Increase (Major) + 6.6 Increase (Major) + 6.0 25 Northallerton Road Decrease (Major) - 6.6 Decrease (Minor) - 1.5 3 Willow Place Increase (Major) + 6.8 Decrease (Moderate) - 3.5
* baseline levels are measured LAeq,18hr noise levels £ receptor point not included in the original ES
Table 19 shows that, according to the 2017 traffic data, there are five sensitive receptors experiencing a greater noise change than indicated in the ES. Of these sensitive receptors two are experiencing a greater magnitude of short term impact than indicated in the ES. The short term magnitude of impact is unchanged at five sensitive receptors.
The 2017 traffic data shows that ten sensitive receptors are experiencing a greater reduction in noise level than indicated in the ES. Of these sensitive receptors eight are experiencing a lower magnitude of short term impact than indicated in the ES.
An Addendum to the ES was produced in 2012 to reflect a change in the scheme opening year. Table 20 shows a comparison of the traffic flows on the bypass used in the ES Addendum noise modelling, with 2017 traffic flow data.
48 One Year After Report
Table 20: Comparison of Traffic Composition Along the Bypass
East Section West Section Traffic Metric ES Addendum Traffic 2017 Traffic Data ES Addendum Traffic 2017 Traffic Data AAWT 18hr 8,697 6,701 10,429 8,549 HGV % 2% 9% 2% 9% Speed 84 km/h 74 km/h 82 km/h 79 km/h
Table 20 shows that 2017 traffic flows are lower than the traffic flows used in the ES Addendum noise modelling. The lower than predicted flows and speeds would result in lower noise levels at nearby receptors than those presented in the ES Addendum. According to the 2017 traffic data, the percentage of HGVs is higher than predicted along both the east and west sections of the bypass. This increase in HGV composition could counteract the reduction in noise levels that would normally occur as a result of lower than predicted flows and speeds.
The ES Addendum presented noise changes at a sample of receptors within proximity of the scheme. The noise changes resulting from the ES Addendum is compared with the noise changes from the 2017 traffic results for these receptors in Table 21.
Table 21: Magnitude of Impact Comparison Between 2017 Traffic and ES Addendum
Magnitude of Short Term Impact
Receptor Noise Noise ES Addendum change 2017 Traffic Results change Predictions for 2016 in dB(A) in dB(A)
*26 Kingfisher Drive (north façade) Decrease (Negligible) - 0.7 Increase (Minor) + 2.3 26 Kingfisher Drive (south façade) £Decrease (Minor) - 1.3 Decrease (Major) - 6.0 *Sand Hill Farm Increase (Moderate) + 4.8 Increase (Major) + 6.0 Ashville Increase (Major) + 8.6 $Increase (Major) + 6.5 Fairfield Farm Increase (Minor) + 2.1 $Increase (Minor) + 1.2
* baseline levels are measured LAeq,18hr noise levels £ receptor point not included in the original ES $ result obtained via ‘Do-Something’ (DS) 2016 traffic data for links absent of 2017 traffic data
Both 26 Kingfisher Drive and Sand Hill Farm are situated between the same two roads; the western section of the bypass and Bedale Road. Comparing the 2016 Addendum result with the 2017 traffic survey both the western section of the bypass and Bedale Road present with decreasing traffic flows (-18% and -34% respectively) and speeds (-4% and -41% respectively). The HGV composition presents with an increase of 7% along the western section of the bypass and a 7% decrease along Bedale Road. The resulting basic noise levels present as a 0.3dB(A) increase in LA10,18h along the West section of the bypass and a 6.1dB(A) decrease in LA10,18h along Bedale Road.
According to the 2017 traffic data both 26 Kingfisher Drive (north façade) and Sand Hill Farm are experiencing an increase in both noise change and magnitude of short term benefit than indicated in the ES Addendum. It should be noted that the traffic information for the nearest section of bypass suggests that traffic noise levels should increase by a negligible amount from those previously presented in the ES Addendum. Therefore, a slight noise increase would be expected at both receptors.
26 Kingfisher Drive (south façade) has been included in this sample because 2017 traffic data is available for the most dominant road sources nearby, including Bedale Road situated to the south of Kingfisher Drive. The
49 One Year After Report
changes in traffic and the resulting basic noise levels on Bedale Road between the ES Addendum and the 2017 traffic survey are likely to account for the lower than predicted noise change experienced on the south façade of 26 Kingfisher Drive.
The short term magnitude of impact is unchanged at Ashville and Fairfield Farm. Additionally, Ashville and Fairfield Farm present with a reduction in noise change between the ES Addendum and the 2017 traffic survey. Both Ashville and Fairfield Farm are situated near roads absent of 2017 traffic data. In order to make a judgement regarding the noise change at Ashville and Fairfield Farm any roads absent of 2017 traffic data have been modelled with traffic data from the 2016 DS scenario.
The dominant noise sources for both Ashville and Fairfield Farm are the eastern section of the bypass and the A1(M). Comparing the 2016 ES Addendum results with the 2017 traffic survey, the eastern section of the bypass and the A1(M) northbound and southbound carriageways present with decreasing speeds at all roads (- 12%, -17% and -7% respectively). Only the eastern section of the bypass presents with a decrease in traffic flow (-23%), both A1(M) carriageways present with an increase in traffic flows (0.7% for the northbound carriageway and 13% for the southbound carriageway). Both A1(M) carriageways present with a decrease in HGV composition (-8% for the northbound carriageway and -4% for the southbound carriageway). The eastern section of the bypass presents with an increase in HGV composition of 7%.
The resulting basic noise levels at the aforementioned roads are lower in the 2017 traffic survey than was predicted in the ES Addendum (-0.6 dB(A) for the eastern section of the bypass, -2.2 dB(A) for the A1(M) northbound carriageway and -0.4 dB(A) for the A1(M) southbound carriageway). The changes in traffic giving rise to the basic noise levels between the ES Addendum and the 2017 traffic survey could account for the lower than predicted noise change experienced at both Ashville and Fairfield Farm.
10.5 Conclusion
The 2017 traffic results show that the magnitude of short term impact is unchanged at two out of the four sensitive receptors considered in the ES Addendum. For these two receptors it is evident that both are likely to experience a reduced noise level. The noise environment at one receptor (26 Kingfisher Drive) is more mixed, presenting with a minor increase in short term impact on the north façade and a major decrease in short term impact on the south façade. According to the 2017 traffic results Sand Hill Farm is experiencing an increase in both noise change and magnitude of short term impact.
In terms of receptors considered in the ES where suitable traffic information is available to allow further predictions, this assessment shows that the magnitude of short term impact for two receptors is higher than predicted. For five receptors the magnitude of short term impact is unchanged. For eight receptors the magnitude of short term impact is lower than predicted.
It can be concluded, based on the information available, that overall the noise impacts due to the introduction of the scheme are lower than predicted in the ES and Addendum ES.
50 One Year After Report
11. Air Quality Impacts
11.1 Introduction
This section describes the evaluation of the potential air quality changes in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar resulting from the scheme since opening. The analysis contained within this section of the report has been used to evaluate the performance of the scheme in relation to objective 2. Qualitative evaluation has been undertaken for the potential effects on air quality based upon the traffic survey data and accompanying analysis provided in section 8.4.
11.2 Methodology
Qualitative evaluation of the surveyed traffic data from 2015 and 2017 and the potential effects on air quality has been undertaken using professional judgement. The changes in traffic flows between 2015 (pre-scheme) and 2017 (post-scheme) have been compared against the predictions made in the BALB Environmental Statement (March 2010).
11.3 Limitations
In the absence of post-scheme measured air quality data, the traffic survey data made available is insufficient for quantifying the pollutant concentrations for the assessment years. There is no defined method available to infer changes that predicted air quality concentrations can be attributed to the changes in the monitored traffic data.
The years of 2015 and 2017 in which the traffic counts were undertaken are not in line with those of the original traffic model used in the air quality assessment. The air quality predictions provided in the ES (Jacobs, 2010) and Addendum (Jacobs, 2012) were produced using traffic data for an opening year of 2014 and 2016.
The traffic count data only provides a small snapshot of the traffic movements at a particular time, whereas the traffic data used in the air quality modelling in the ES (Jacobs, 2012) was an annual average.
11.4 Evaluation
11.4.1 Local Air Quality
The scheme is located within the administrative area of Hambleton District Council (HDC). The HDC Air Quality Status Report 2017 was reviewed to determine the local air quality in Bedale and Leeming Bar.
An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) was declared in November 2017 in Bedale, at the junction of Bridge Street and Market Place, known locally as the White Bear junction.
HDC currently operates automatic monitor and diffusion tube monitoring at 31 locations in the District area. Six sites are located in Bedale, two sites along Bedale Road, and four sites are located in Leeming Bar. The measured nitrogen dioxide (NO2) data is shown in Table 22. The annual mean NO2 concentrations in the study area are within the national objective limit (40µg/m3), except site HDC 29 at the junction of Bridge Street and Market Place. The monitoring data trend shows there has been a reduction in NO2 concentrations at this site, from 55.6µg/m3 in 2014 to 41.1µg/m3 in 2016. The HDC Air Quality Status Report 2017 attributes this reduction to the opening of the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass scheme.
51 One Year After Report
Table 22: Hambleton District Council Air Quality Monitoring – NO2 Concentrations Site ID Site Name 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 HDC7 Bedale 1 11.3 11.0 11.2 8.7 8.9 HDC10 Aiskew 20.8 22.5 21.9 20.6 18 HDC18 Leases Road 24.1 23.4 26.4 24.9 20.6 HDC19 Leases Road 22.1 20.7 23.5 22.3 18.5 HDC20 A684, LP 7 24.9 22.8 24.3 25.3 19.4 HDC21 A684, LP 8 24.4 21.6 25.0 25.3 18.7 HDC22 A684, LP 31 21.6 24.7 25.6 22.8 13.9 HDC23 Northend, LP 20.3 20.4 21.5 19.7 13.1 HDC24 Northend, LP 21.2 20.6 21.8 21.1 15 HDC28 Bedale Bridge - - 39.7 34.2 25.6 HDC29 Bedale White - - 55.6 50.2 41.1
11.5 ES Air Quality Predictions
Local air quality modelling was undertaken to predict the pollutant concentrations at 26 sample receptors within the study area defined by guidance sought from DMRB HA207/07 and Local Air Quality Management Guidance LAQM TG09 (ES 2010). The receptor locations are shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: 2010 ES Air Quality Modelled Receptors Locations
52 One Year After Report
The predicted pollutant concentrations changes with the scheme are summarised in Table 23.
Table 23: 2010 ES Air Quality Predictions 2010 ES Predictions (Air quality Receptor Nearest Road Link concentration increase or ID decrease with the scheme?) 1 A684 (Bedale) Increase 2 A684 (Bedale) Increase 3 The Wynd Increase 4 Market Place Increase 5 Emgate Decrease 6 Sussex Street (B6268) Decrease 7 Sussex Close Decrease 8 Sussex Street (B6268) Decrease 9 Sussex Close Decrease 10 Harbour Rise Decrease 11 South End Increase 12 South End Increase 13 Bridge Street Decrease 14 A684 (Aiskew) Decrease 15 A684 (Aiskew) Decrease 16 A684 (Aiskew) Decrease 17 Leases Road No change 18 Leases Road Decrease 19 Leeming Lane Decrease 20 Leeming Lane Decrease 21 Northallerton Road Decrease 22 Bedale Road Decrease 23 Bedale Road Decrease 24 BALB east of A1(M) Increase 25 BALB west of A1(M) Decrease 26 BALB west of A1(M) / A1(M) north of Leeming Bar No change
11.6 Traffic Survey Results
The results of the traffic volume analysis in section 8.4 show the majority of traffic count sites within Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar had reduced traffic volumes for the time periods monitored. Sites 1 and 2 within Bedale experienced increases in traffic volumes.
53 One Year After Report
The evaluation of potential changes in air quality is based on the assumption that there were no new local developments which would significantly affect the local traffic flow and composition. Also, that there were no new sources of pollutants and emissions, such as industrial installations, in the local area which would contribute to the local air quality and change the background air quality. The estimation of the potential change in air quality is based on having the scheme in place only.
Traffic survey results show that the change in HGVs is not significant. Based on 12-hour weekday observations, the reduction in HGVs at some locations is between -4 and -86 and the increase in HGVs at some locations is between 5 and 46. The changes in speed between 2015 and 2017 is also is also very limited, the maximum reduction is -3.4 kph and the maximum increase is 3.1 kph. It is anticipated that the changes of % HGV and average speed is not significant enough to have any noticeable effect on air quality.
A summary of the potential air quality change following the introduction of the scheme is presented in Table 24.
Table 24: Summary of 2015 And 2017 ATC Traffic Surveys and Potential Air Quality Change
Weekday Average Possible Site Location 12 hour HGV (% Speed Air Quality Number flow (kph) Change 1 A684 North End, Bedale Increase Decrease Decrease Worsen 2 B6268 Masham Road, Bedale Increase Increase Decrease Worsen 3 B6285 South End, Bedale Decrease Increase Decrease Improve 4 A684 Bedale Road, Bedale Decrease Decrease No change Improve 5 A6055, Leeming Bar Decrease Increase No change Improve 6 A684 Bedale Road, Leeming Bar Decrease Decrease Decrease Improve Unclassified Leases Road, Leeming 7 Decrease Increase Increase Improve Bar A684 Northallerton Road, Leeming 8 Decrease Decrease Increase Improve Bar Bypass1 A684 Bedale Bypass - west of A1(M) Increase Increase Increase Worsen A684 Bedale Bypass - west of Bypass2 Increase Increase Increase Worsen Leases Road A684 Bedale Bypass - east of Leases Bypass3 Increase Increase Increase Worsen Road roundabout
Each ES modelled air quality receptor was allocated its nearest traffic count site. Some modelled air quality receptors did not have a representative traffic count site nearby and so these have been omitted from the assessment. The modelling points assigned to a traffic count site can be found in Table 25.
54 One Year After Report
Table 25: Comparison Between ES Air Quality Prediction and ATC Traffic Surveys 2010 and 2012 ES Predictions Representative Receptor (Air quality Possible Air Nearest Road Link Traffic Count ID concentration Quality Changes increase or (ATC) Site decrease with the scheme?) 1 A684 (Bedale) Increase 1 Worsen 2 A684 (Bedale) Increase 1 Worsen 3 The Wynd Increase 2 Worsen 4 Market Place Increase 1 Worsen 5 Emgate Decrease N/A N/A 6 Sussex Street (B6268) Decrease N/A N/A 7 Sussex Close Decrease N/A N/A 8 Sussex Street (B6268) Decrease 2 Worsen 9 Sussex Close Decrease N/A N/A 10 Harbour Rise Decrease N/A N/A 11 South End Increase 3 Improve 12 South End Increase 3 Improve 13 Bridge Street Decrease 4 Improve 14 A684 (Aiskew) Decrease 4 Improve 15 A684 (Aiskew) Decrease 4 Improve 16 A684 (Aiskew) Decrease 4 Improve 17 Leases Road No change N/A N/A 18 Leases Road Decrease 7 Improve 19 Leeming Lane Decrease 7 Improve 20 Leeming Lane Decrease 7 Improve 21 Northallerton Road Decrease 8 Improve 22 Bedale Road Decrease 6 Improve 23 Bedale Road Decrease 6 Improve 24 BALB east of A1(M) Increase Bypass Site 3 Worsen 25 BALB west of A1(M) Decrease N/A N/A BALB west of A1(M) / A1(M) north 26 No change N/A N/A of Leeming Bar
55 One Year After Report
Along Bedale Road and in Leeming Bar, the nearest traffic count site indicates a reduction in traffic movements which could possibly result in a reduction in traffic emissions. Therefore, it is likely there will be an improvement in air quality at receptors located along these roads.
Along North End Road and The Wynd, the nearest traffic count sites show an increase in traffic movements due to the redistribution of the traffic accessing the bypass, which could possibly result in an increase in traffic emissions. Therefore, it is likely there has been a deterioration in air quality at receptors located along these roads.
Along Masham Road and Sussex Street the nearest traffic count site shows a slight increase in traffic movements. As above this could possibly result in an increase in traffic emissions and hence, a potential slight deterioration in air quality at receptors located along these roads.
Along South End Road the nearest traffic count site has recorded a reduction in traffic movements. As above this could possibly result in a reduction in traffic emissions and hence, a potential improvement in air quality at receptors located along these roads.
11.7 Regional Emissions
It was predicted that there would be an increases in regional emissions of NOx, PM10 and carbon emissions with the scheme due to the increased vehicle speeds on the bypass (ES, 2010). The increase was ranged between 4% and 14%.
Without detailed modelling, it is not possible to quantify the change in regional emissions. However, based on the noise impacts evaluation in section 10, the traffic data for noise assessment (Table 20) shows that the surveyed traffic flow is lower than in the modelled data used in the 2012 ES. Therefore, it is likely that the regional emission changes would be in line with the ES predictions (i.e. increase) and the change (increases) is likely to be less than the ES predictions.
11.8 Conclusion
The qualitative evaluation of traffic data and the inferred changes in air quality suggest that while some of the receptors identified in the ES are likely to have experienced a deterioration in air quality, the majority of receptors are likely to have experienced an improvement in air quality.
In addition, the Hambleton District Council Air Quality Status Report 2017 states that air quality monitoring results show that there has been a significant reduction in NO2 concentrations within the AQMA at the Bridge Street/Market Place junction in Bedale. The report attributes this reduction to the opening of the BALB scheme. The report also states that it is expected that the monitoring data for the first full calendar year following the opening of the bypass (to be published in the 2018 Air Quality Status Report) will show further reductions that will bring the annual mean pollutant concentrations to below the objective levels.
It is therefore considered that the introduction of the bypass has had an overall positive impact on air quality in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar.
56 One Year After Report
12. Accident Analysis
12.1 Introduction
In order to assess the effect of the scheme on the road safety performance of the former A684, in particular the number and severity of road traffic accidents, personal injury collision data was obtained from NYCC. Accident data was obtained for the following time periods:
1st October 2013 to 30th September 2014; a one-year period before construction started; and
1st October 2016 to 30th September 2017; a one-year period after scheme opening.
Data was obtained on the number and severity of accidents for the new bypass and for the former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. The analysis contained within this section of the report has been used to evaluate the performance of the scheme in relation to objective 2.
12.2 Evaluation of Accident Data
A summary of the pre- and post-scheme accidents for both the former A684 and the new bypass, broken down by number and severity, is provided in Table 26.
Table 26: Summary of Accidents Former A684 Bypass Total Pre-Scheme Post-Scheme Pre-Scheme Post-Scheme Pre-Scheme Post-Scheme Slight Accidents 5 2 - 0 5 2 Serious Accidents 1 0 - 0 1 0 Fatal Accidents 0 0 - 0 0 0 Total Accidents 6 2 - 0 6 2
The locations of the pre-scheme and post-scheme accidents are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19 respectively.
As Figure 18 and Figure 19 show, there has been a significant reduction in accidents on the route of the former A684 since the opening of the scheme. All six of the pre-scheme accidents occurred between Aiskew and Leeming Bar and the reduction in accidents in this area reflects the large decrease in traffic on this part of the route as vehicles have transferred onto the bypass. As well as the overall decrease in accidents there was also a decrease in severity, from one serious accident to none, following the opening of the scheme.
There have been no personal injury accidents recorded on the bypass within the year since it opened.
57 One Year After Report
Figure 18: Pre-Scheme Accidents (2013-2014)
58 One Year After Report
Figure 19: Post-Scheme Accidents (2016-2017)
59 One Year After Report
12.3 Comparison with Pre-Scheme Appraisal Results
The Strategic Case (2011) submitted as part of the Best and Final Funding Bid for the scheme predicted that the scheme would result in a reduction of 30 accidents over a 60-year period.
The observed results indicate that the scheme may potentially result in a larger reduction in accidents than was estimated during the scheme appraisal, if the level of accident reduction observed in the one-year period post- scheme is maintained. However, caution should be applied as this does not consider the background effect of potential changes in road infrastructure and traffic volumes over time, and as the evaluation is based on only a one-year period of data, it cannot be considered statistically significant.
12.4 Conclusion
The analysis shows that in the year following the opening of the bypass the accident frequency along the former A684 has reduced by two-thirds compared to the year prior to construction of the bypass. This indicates that the scheme is likely to have contributed to a reduction in road safety problems in Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar.
However, it should be noted that whilst the analysis shows a positive early impact of the scheme on the number of accidents along the former route, the relatively short time frame since scheme implementation does not provide a sufficient amount of evidence to determine a statistically sound conclusion on whether this accident reduction is a long-term trend which can be attributed to the scheme. Once the final evaluation report is produced five years after scheme opening, enough time will have elapsed to enable statistically sound evidence of the long-term accident patterns to be identified.
One Year After Report
13. Impact Upon the Economy
13.1 Introduction
This section of the report details the analysis of information which can be used to evaluate how the scheme is contributing to economic growth in the local area. The evaluation has been done both quantitatively and qualitatively by monetising journey time savings which represent benefits to the economy, assessing changes in pre- and post-scheme employment levels, and identifying any improvement in access to employment and development sites.
13.2 Travel Times
The basic principles of an economic assessment of a transport scheme is calculating the monetary values of the journey time savings using Value of Time for respective journey types, as well as determining the vehicle operating costs and other impacts including air quality and accidents benefits. The predicted variable demand TUBA4 opening year benefit for the scheme was calculated as £2.105m, as shown in the Economic Assessment Report.
Following the introduction of the scheme it is clear to see there are significant journey time savings for people that use the bypass, as shown in section 9. By using the journey time analysis, along with the average daily traffic flows along the scheme and on the existing route and vehicle values of time we can compare the accuracy of the economic assessment carried out pre-scheme.
In order to determine a more accurate monetary value, the journey time routes were split into three sections for which there were also traffic counts located: Sinks Lane (approximately 400m west of Bedale Athletic Club) to A1, A1 to Leases Road, and Leases Road to Northallerton Road roundabout. This sectioning applied to the journey time routes along the bypass and also on the existing route. In order to calculate the time savings with the scheme in place, the 2014 journey time route along the existing route was used as the do minimum scenario and the 2017 journey time route along the bypass and on the existing route were used as the do something scenario. The do minimum scenario was then subtracted from the do something scenario to determine the journey time savings with the scheme in place.
Table 27 shows the journey times on the existing route pre- and post-scheme, and on the bypass post-scheme, as well as the journey time savings for vehicles using the bypass and the existing route post-scheme. All journey times are given in minutes/seconds.
4 DfT Transport Users Benefit Appraisal(TUBA) Software
One Year After Report
Table 27: Journey Times Pre- and Post-Scheme JT on former JT on former JT on the Time saving Time saving on Period Dir Section A684 route A684 route – bypass – post on former bypass – pre post scheme scheme A684 route scheme Sinks Lane 05:34 05:26 02:49 00:09 02:45 to A1 A1 to Leases 01:00 00:54 00:25 00:06 00:36 EB Road Leases Road to 01:34 01:21 01:20 00:13 00:14 A684 rbt AM Sinks Lane 06:20 05:56 02:49 00:24 03:31 to A1 A1 to Leases 01:01 00:54 00:37 00:06 00:23 WB Road Leases Road to 01:36 01:30 01:27 00:05 00:09 A684 rbt Sinks Lane 05:51 04:54 02:37 00:56 03:14 to A1 A1 to Leases 00:53 00:55 00:22 -00:02 00:32 EB Road Leases Road to 01:29 01:15 01:16 00:14 00:13 A684 rbt IP Sinks Lane 06:18 05:31 02:43 00:48 03:36 to A1 A1 to Leases 00:58 00:55 00:34 00:02 00:24 WB Road Leases Road to 01:33 01:23 01:17 00:10 00:15 A684 rbt Sinks Lane 05:33 05:12 02:49 00:21 02:44 to A1 A1 to Leases 01:00 00:58 00:25 00:02 00:36 EB Road Leases Road to 01:32 01:18 01:19 00:14 00:13 A684 rbt PM Sinks Lane 07:26 06:20 02:48 01:06 04:38 to A1 A1 to Leases 00:59 00:56 00:43 00:02 00:16 WB Road Leases Road to 01:41 01:31 01:20 00:10 00:21 A684 rbt
The three traffic counts on the bypass, as shown in section 8.3.2, were used for each section of the analysis. The average peak periods and average IP traffic flows were used. These counts did not provide vehicle class splits, and so 2-week average 24-hour vehicle splits were taken from NYCC’s online traffic count database.
Three of the traffic counts on the former A684 route, as shown in section 8.3.1, were used to determine the monetary impact of the scheme along the existing route with the bypass in place; count sites 4, 6, and 8. These counts provided vehicle splits, and so the weekly average vehicle percentage splits for each site was then applied to the average traffic count.
One Year After Report
Table 28 shows the traffic counts on the bypass and on the former A684 route post scheme.
Table 28: Vehicle Volumes Post-Scheme
Bypass Former A684 Route Time Direction Section HGV Car LGV HGV Period Car Total LGV Total Total Total Total Total Sinks Lane to A1 328 15 31 211 13 2 EB A1 to Leases Road 392 23 125 221 14 2 Leases Road to A684 rbt 266 13 26 197 16 2 AM Sinks Lane to A1 261 13 22 221 14 4 WB A1 to Leases Road 301 19 98 190 14 2 Leases Road to A684 rbt 182 10 17 179 14 2 Sinks Lane to A1 259 12 24 225 13 2 EB A1 to Leases Road 316 19 100 198 12 2 Leases Road to A684 rbt 210 10 21 174 14 2 IP Sinks Lane to A1 254 12 22 210 13 4 WB A1 to Leases Road 321 20 104 194 14 2 Leases Road to A684 rbt 190 10 18 173 13 2 Sinks Lane to A1 261 12 25 257 15 2 EB A1 to Leases Road 330 20 105 207 13 2 Leases Road to A684 rbt 221 11 22 183 15 2 PM Sinks Lane to A1 347 17 30 242 16 5 WB A1 to Leases Road 388 25 126 236 17 2 Leases Road to A684 rbt 232 12 22 209 16 2
The values of time for 2017 for Cars, LGVs and HGVs were provided from the latest WebTAG Databook (December 2017) for each respective time period.
The journey time savings, traffic flow and the VOTs for each section were multiplied together, and the AM and PM time periods were multiplied by 3 to convert from peak average hour to peak total period, and IP was multiplied by 6 to convert from IP average hour to IP total period to get the average weekday benefit for each section. These values were then multiplied by 253 to determine the annual 12-hour weekday total benefit. The total of each section and time period for both the bypass and former A684 route were then added together to get the total 12-hour annual monetary benefit of the scheme.
The opening year benefits (discounted to 2010) for traffic using the bypass and on the former A684 route was calculated as being £1.54m. These benefits do not include vehicle operating costs, or other benefits including air quality and accident benefits. In addition to this, the benefits are only calculated for vehicles on the bypass and the former A684 route, and therefore does not include benefits to vehicles elsewhere that have been affected by the scheme due to re-routing. Therefore, it is noted that the provided benefit is understating the total benefits of the scheme, and benefits which will have been included in the TUBA benefit calculation of £2.105m.
13.3 Accessibility
It has been demonstrated by the analysis contained in this report that the scheme has reduced journey times to and from Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar, and has resulted in more reliable journey times. The scheme has also reduced traffic flows and increased pedestrian footfall along the former A684 route, consequently resulting
One Year After Report
in a reduction in severance within the local communities. This suggests a positive impact of the bypass on the local economy as predicted at the appraisal stage.
The introduction of the bypass has facilitated quicker access from the strategic road network, specifically the A1(M), to Leeming Bar Industrial Estate, thus providing a benefit to the local industrial economy. This is reflected by the large proportion of HGVs using the central section of the bypass between the A1 and Leases Road which provides direct access to the industrial estate. However, while access to the industrial estate has been improved, it should also be noted a large proportion of the HGV traffic using the central section of the bypass is likely to be destined for the lorry park at Exelby Services immediately to the north of the bypass.
In addition to improving access to a key local employment site at Leeming Bar Industrial Estate, the bypass also offers improved access to a number of new housing developments in the local area. These include the Leeming Gate development in Leeming Bar which comprises approximately 82 dwellings, and the Fox Covert and The Nurseries developments in Aiskew which comprise 41 and 59 dwellings respectively.
13.4 Employment Levels
Business and employment data in the area has been compared prior to construction of the bypass and post opening. The business data compares 2014 to 2017 and employment data compares 2013 to 2016.
Looking at the business data first, this indicates that there has been an increase in the number of businesses in the area of 10% compared to Hambleton district as a whole which was 7.3% and 8% for North Yorkshire. Of particular note has been the two-thirds increase in the number of medium-sized businesses (50-249 employees), from 15 to 25 in the area.
Total employment in the A684 area has risen by 18%. In July 2017 a new Co-op food store opened in Leeming Bar, further increasing employment in the local community through the creation of approximately 15 jobs.
One Year After Report
14. Carbon Impacts
14.1 Introduction
This section of the report details the qualitative evaluation of the how the scheme has affected carbon emissions in the local area.
14.2 Evaluation of Carbon Impacts
As part of the economic assessment, the carbon benefit for the bypass scheme was calculated using the traffic model, and was predicted to be £1.05m. These carbon benefits are determined by changes in traffic volumes on the road network and the respective traffic speeds.
Table 29 shows the changes in speeds along the three sections identified by direction on the former A684 route before and after the introduction of the bypass scheme. From the table, it is possible to see that average speeds have increased with the bypass scheme in place for nearly all sections by direction in all time periods.
Table 29: Average Vehicle Speeds
Former Former Average Average Time A684 Route A684 Route Distance Direction Section Speeds Before Speeds After Period - Before - After (m) Bypass (mph) Bypass (mph) Bypass Bypass Sinks Lane to A1 05:34 05:26 3860 26 27 A1 to Leases Road 01:00 00:54 615 23 25 EB Leases Road to 01:34 01:21 1380 33 38 A684 rbt AM Sinks Lane to A1 06:20 05:56 3860 23 24 A1 to Leases Road 01:01 00:54 615 23 25 WB Leases Road to 01:36 01:30 1380 32 34 A684 rbt Sinks Lane to A1 05:51 04:54 3860 25 29 A1 to Leases Road 00:53 00:55 615 26 25 EB Leases Road to 01:29 01:15 1380 35 41 A684 rbt IP Sinks Lane to A1 06:18 05:31 3860 23 26 A1 to Leases Road 00:58 00:55 615 24 25 WB Leases Road to 01:33 01:23 1380 33 37 A684 rbt Sinks Lane to A1 05:33 05:12 3860 26 28 A1 to Leases Road 01:00 00:58 615 23 24 EB Leases Road to 01:32 01:18 1380 34 40 A684 rbt PM Sinks Lane to A1 07:26 06:20 3860 19 23 A1 to Leases Road 00:59 00:56 615 24 24 WB Leases Road to 01:41 01:31 1380 31 34 A684 rbt
One Year After Report
Table 30 shows that there are significant decreases in traffic flows with the bypass scheme in place along the former route of the A684, particularly within Aiskew and Leeming Bar. These values are also shown in section 8.4.
Table 30: Traffic Flow Comparisons
2015 2017 Site Location Number Weekday Weekday % Difference 12 hour 12 hour 1 A684 North End, Bedale 6,430 7,040 9% 2 B6268 Masham Road, Bedale 4,559 4,593 1% 3 B6285 South End, Bedale 2,192 1,804 -18% 4 A684 Bedale Road, Bedale 10,736 5,874 -45% 5 A6055, Leeming Bar 6,052 5,854 -3% 6 A684 Bedale Road, Leeming Bar 8,502 5,345 -37% 7 Unclassified Leases Road, Leeming Bar 4,782 2,815 -41% 8 A684 Northallerton Road, Leeming Bar 9,123 4,827 -47%
The tables above show increased average traffic speeds and significant reductions in traffic volumes along the former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. This means that there are fewer vehicles which are travelling at more efficient speeds, meaning a likely reduction in carbon emissions along the former A684 route.
One Year After Report
15. Conclusion
The primary objectives of the Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar Bypass as defined in the Best and Final Funding Bid are:
To reduce traffic congestion in the communities bypassed by the proposed scheme;
To reduce environmental and road safety problems in and on the approaches to the communities of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar; and
To improve access from the A1(M) to communities and areas west of the A1 (North Dales), and to the east of the A1, including the county town of Northallerton.
Table 31 summarises the evaluation of the scheme objectives using the evidence presented in this study. It can be seen that all key objectives have been achieved.
Table 31: Success of BALB Against Objectives
Objective Has the scheme objective been achieved?
There has been a reduction in traffic on the former A684 route of between 37% and 47% following the introduction of the bypass. To reduce traffic congestion in the communities For journeys using either the new bypass or the bypassed by the proposed scheme. former A684 route through Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar, travel times are lower than before the scheme was built. Time savings of up to 5 minutes have been observed on the bypass. The noise evaluation has shown that overall the noise impacts due to the introduction of the scheme are lower than predicted. Both qualitative analysis, and quantitative information from Hambleton District Council’s air To reduce environmental and road safety quality monitoring programme, shows there has problems in and on the approaches to the been an overall improvement in local air quality communities of Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. for receptors as a result of the bypass. The number of accidents along the former A684 route has reduced by two-thirds in the year following the opening of the bypass compared to the year prior to construction of the bypass. Access from the A1(M) to Leyburn and the North Dales to the west has been improved by the To improve access from the A1(M) to scheme, with time savings of over 5 minutes. To communities and areas west of the A1 (North a lesser degree, access from the A1(M) to Dales), and to the east of the A1, including the Northallerton to the east has also been county town of Northallerton. improved by the scheme, with time savings of under one minute.
In addition, the following observations and conclusions can be made from the analysis presented in this report:
There were significant cost savings between the Best and Final Funding Bid and Full Funding Approval. The majority of this resulted from the tender price received from the winning Contractor being circa £6m
One Year After Report
below the estimate, and some from the mitigation of some of the risks in the Quantified Risk Assessment. Further savings were also made during construction.
The value of the Quantified Risk Assessment at Full Funding Approval stage was £4.2m with the actual outturn value being £3.1m. The lower outturn value resulted from some risks not occurring or the value of these being reduced by mitigation works.
The scheme was delivered ahead of schedule and the road opened to traffic two months before full completion.
The new bypass is used by over 7,000 vehicles per day.
Pedestrian activity has increased throughout Bedale, Aiskew and Leeming Bar. This indicates that walking has become a more enjoyable experience due to the reduced volumes of traffic on the former A684 route.
Reduced traffic flows and improved average speeds along the former A684 route have resulted in a lower consumption of fuel, which ultimately has caused lower CO2 emissions which is consistent with the forecast.
There has been an increase in the number of businesses in the A684 area of 10% over a three-year pre- and post-scheme period (2014 to 2017), indicating a positive impact of the scheme on the local economy. In particular, there has been a two-thirds increase in the number of medium-sized businesses from 15 to 25 in the area.
Total employment in the A684 area has risen by 18% over a three-year pre- and post-scheme period (2013 to 2016), indicating a positive impact of the scheme on the local economy.