Transport Background Paper Dec 2013
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Greater Nottingham Broxtowe Borough Council Erewash Borough Council Gedling Borough Council Nottingham City Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Transport Background Paper December 2012 This page is intentionally blank Greater Nottingham Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City & Rushcliffe Transport Background Paper, December 2012 Greater Nottingham Core Strategies Transport Background Paper 1 Background 1.1 The councils of Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham and Rushcliffe have worked together to develop a comprehensive transport evidence base for their Core Strategies. Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham are working together to prepare aligned Core Strategies, with Erewash and Rushcliffe preparing separate documents but with a high degree of alignment with the other councils. 1.2 The councils are working closely with the three highway authorities which cover the councils’ administrative boundaries – Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council together with the Highways Agency which manages the M1 and trunk roads in the area. The highway authorities have supported the councils above in testing the strategic transport impacts of their Core Strategies by using the Greater Nottingham Transport Model. This background paper has been prepared in consultation with the three highway authorities and the Highways Agency. It should be read in conjunction with the Main Report and Appendices which can be found on the Growth Point web site: www.gngrowthpoint.com 2 Greater Nottingham Transport Model (GNTM) 2.1 The Greater Nottingham Transport Model was originally developed by Nottingham City Council in 2001 to cover the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan area. In 2008 it was updated to include new travel demand and network data. The decision was taken in 2009 to expand the model geographically to include the whole of the Nottingham Housing Market Area (HMA) at a simulation level to enable detailed junction modelling to be undertaken and provide outputs suitable to inform the aligned Core Strategies. This was jointly funded by Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Derbyshire County Council, the three local highway authorities. The Greater Nottingham Transport Model is jointly owned and operated by the aforementioned three local highway authorities. 2.3 The three highway authorities and the Highways Agency have agreed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which sets out an agreed approach to the methodology and use of the Greater Nottingham Transport Model for the assessment of spatial strategy options and major development 1 within the Nottingham HMA. 3 Core Strategies Transport Modelling 3.1 On behalf of the authorities listed in paragraph 1 above, Nottingham City Council commissioned consultants MVA to undertake strategic transport modelling to demonstrate the impacts of the councils’ core strategies. 1 For the purposes of this MoU major development is generally defined as residential development in excess of 500 units or development greater than 10,000 sq. m (unless clear significant impacts from smaller development sites can be demonstrated, e.g. on sensitive sections of the Strategic Route Network.) Page 1 Greater Nottingham Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City & Rushcliffe Transport Background Paper, December 2012 3.2 The key objective of the study is to identify whether there are any ‘showstoppers’ to delivering the Core Strategies i.e. sites that could not be accessed viably, and to identify the critical strategic infrastructure required to ensure the overall Core Strategy growth can be delivered without serious compromise to the performance of the transport network. 3.3 It is a high level, strategic assessment of assumed levels of growth and focuses on the Strategic Road Network (trunk roads and principal roads) and does not attempt to identify and mitigate impacts at every junction on the local road network. These local issues will be resolved through the Development Management process and planning procedures. A plan is appended which indicates the network for priority assessment within the study. 3.4 In summary the study aims to: 1. Model the transport impacts of growth in the Housing Market Area 2. Assist in the identification of potential mitigation strategies and measures and 3. Inform the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. 3.5 The transport model includes the levels of housing and employment growth within the councils’ emerging Core Strategies and incorporates an allowance for the Hucknall area of Ashfield to ensure the cumulative area-wide impacts of development can be understood. More detail on the assumed housing and employment growth is contained within the main report and its appendices. 4 General Approach 4.1 The study seeks to assess the impact of development proposed in the councils’ emerging Core Strategies over a 15 year period. The strategies set out proposals for a number of large strategic sites and overall housing numbers to be delivered over the plan period. The larger sites (over 300 dwellings) are specifically identified in the model – this includes strategic sites identified in the Core Strategies and sites above 300 dwellings which may be allocated in site specific Development Plan Documents. As the details of delivery on smaller sites will be the subject of future Development Plan Documents, wider growth has been distributed by electoral ward on the basis of each council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). 4.2 The study employs the latest version of the GNTM originally validated to a 2008 base year which has been continually updated and improved. The model comprises three main elements, as follows: • Highway assignment model (SATURN) which represents the highway network roads and junctions, • Public Transport model (CUBE Voyager) which includes buses, trams and rail and, • A Demand Model which forecasts the levels and usage of each mode of transport. 4.3 The model is provided with changes in highways and public transport networks and development proposals and forecasts future travel patterns taking into account assumptions on car ownership levels, fuel prices etc. Page 2 Greater Nottingham Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City & Rushcliffe Transport Background Paper, December 2012 5 Scenarios 5.1 Three scenarios have been developed to enable comparative assessments. These are described below. 2008 Base – The base case represents the position in 2008 when the model was developed. This provides a useful bench-mark for other scenarios to be tested against. 2028 Reference Case – This includes assumptions relating to development and transport networks and represents what is likely to happen without the proposed Core Strategies. The assumptions include: • Residential development within the HMA constructed since 2008, sites with planning permission and sites allocated in Local Plans, • Non-residential development within the HMA constructed since 2008 is included, however, the overall growth levels to reflect employment growth are derived from TEMPRO 2 between 2008 and 2028, • Outside the HMA area both residential and non-residential growth is in line with TEMPRO forecasts, • Transport infrastructure with committed public sector funding eg NET lines 2 and 3, dualling of the A453 etc, and highway infrastructure associated with development with planning permission, e.g. Sharphill Woods Edwalton, are included. 2028 Core Strategies – This represents the impacts of full growth proposals. The assumptions include: • Specific residential and employment strategic sites • Wider growth distributed by ward on the basis of each council’s SHLAAs 5.2 Comparisons can be made between the scenarios to assist in understanding the relative and possible cumulative impacts. The detailed development and transport assumptions, which have been provided by local planning and highway authorities, can be found in the Main Report and Appendices. 5.3 It should be noted that the 2028 Reference Case includes development which may have already occurred since 2008 and further development which is already approved, committed or allocated (including funded and committed transport schemes). The approach taken to the transport assessment for the Core Strategies, therefore enables the councils to understand the consequences of both committed development/background growth and of additional growth in the Core Strategies, and how the impacts of this growth can be mitigated. 6 Mitigation Packages 6.1 The first stage of the study presented details of the forecast impacts assuming no mitigation, except that committed through planning obligations associated with 2 TEMPRO is a data set of trip rates provided by the Department for Transport based on population and employment growth assumptions Page 3 Greater Nottingham Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City & Rushcliffe Transport Background Paper, December 2012 developments with extant planning permission. The next stage assesses the mitigating impacts of a Smarter Choices Package 3 and a Public Transport Package. Smarter Choices Mitigation Package 6.2 The Reference Case and Core Strategies scenarios include the Key Component of the Nottingham Urban Area Local Sustainable Transport Fund scheme (LSTF) as this is a funded scheme. The Key Component includes: • Smartcard Development and Integrated Ticketing; • A Community Smarter Travel Hub in Bulwell aimed at developing more effective community approach to deliver locally focused sustainable travel advice and services; • Provision of an enhanced package