East Cambridgeshire District
Council & Cambridgeshire County Council A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report A142 Ely Level Crossing December 2010
3
A142 Ely Level Crossing This document analyses the impacts of the A142 Ely Level Crossing on the local transport network. The A142 is a strategic route in the local area.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 4 Table of contents
Chapter pages
1. Introduction 6 Overview 7 Structure of Report 7
2. A142 Ely Level Crossing Traffic Analysis 8 Changes in Traffic Volumes Over Time 9 Vehicle Classification Analysis 10 Level Crossing Traffic 14
3. A142 Ely Level Crossing Barrier Closure Time Analysis 17 Level Crossing Barrier Closure Overview 18 Average Weekday Level Crossing Barrier Closure Time Analysis 18 Average Weekday Train Arrival Frequency 19 Weekend Barrier Closure Duration and Train Arrival Frequency 20 MDS Transmodal Limited Data 24 Level Crossing Closure Conclusions 24
4. A142 Ely Level Crossing Queue Length Analysis 25 Queuing Overview 26 Data Collected 26 Average Weekday Queuing 26 Weekend Queue Analysis 28 Paramics Model Queue Length Comparison 31 Queue Length Conclusions 32
5. A142 Ely Level Crossing HGV Routing Analysis 33 Heavy Goods Vehicle Trip Pattern Analysis 34
6. Conclusions 39 Conclusions 40
Tables Table 2.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, North of the Level Crossing 11 Table 2.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, North of the Level Crossing 11 Table 2.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, South of the Level Crossing 13 Table 2.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, South of the Level Crossing 13 Table 2.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound Traffic 15 Table 2.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Southbound Traffic 15 Table 3.1 – A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Barrier Closure Frequency and Duration 18 Table 3.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Train Arrival Frequency 19 Table 3.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Barrier Closure Frequency and Duration 20 Table 3.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Barrier Closure Frequency and Duration 21 Table 3.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Train Arrival Frequency 22 Table 3.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Train Arrival Frequency 23 Table 3.7 - MDS Transmodal Ltd Weekday Barrier Closure Comparison 24 Table 3.8 - MDS Transmodal Ltd Weekday Train Arrival Comparison 24 Table 4.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Queue Lengths 26 Table 4.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Queue Lengths 29 Table 4.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Queue Lengths 30 Table 4.4 - Paramics and Survey Data Queue Length Comparison 32 Table 5.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Origin Summary 34 Table 5.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Destination Summary 35
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 5
Table 5.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Trip Distribution Summary 36 Table 5.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Trip Distribution Percentage Summary37
Figures Figure 2.1 - A142 Northbound Traffic Flow Profile 9 Figure 2.2 - A142 Southbound Traffic Flow Profile 9 Figure 2.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, North of the Level Crossing 10 Figure 2.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, North of the Level Crossing 11 Figure 2.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, South of the Level Crossing 12 Figure 2.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, South of the Level Crossing 12 Figure 2.7 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound Traffic Flow Profile Comparison 14 Figure 2.8 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Southbound Traffic Flow Profile Comparison 14 Figure 2.9 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound Vehicle Usage Classification Breakdown 15 Figure 2.10 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Southbound Vehicle Usage Classification Breakdown 16 Figure 3.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Barrier Closure Frequency 18 Figure 3.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Barrier Closure Duration 19 Figure 3.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Train Arrival Frequency 20 Figure 3.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Weekend Barrier Closure Frequency 21 Figure 3.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Weekend Barrier Closure Duration 22 Figure 3.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Train Arrival Frequency 23 Figure 3.7 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Train Arrival Frequency 23 Figure 4.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Northbound Queue Length Profile 27 Figure 4.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Southbound Queue Length Profile 27 Figure 4.3 - Weekday Absolute Maximum Queue Length Profiles 27 Figure 4.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Northbound Queue Length Profile 29 Figure 4.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Southbound Queue Length Profiles 30 Figure 4.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Northbound Queue Length Profile 31 Figure 4.7 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Southbound Queue Length Profile 31 Figure 5.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Interview Trip Distribution 34 Figure 5.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound HGV Trip Length Distribution 38
Appendix
A. Paramics Model Technical Note 42 Methodology 43 Results 45 Conclusions 47
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 6
1. Introduction
Atkins was commissioned by East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council to assess the operation of the Ely Level Crossing and its impact on road traffic.
The Level Crossing operates adjacent to an underpass which has a height restriction of 2.7m. Taller vehicles queue along slip roads off the main carriageway to use the Level Crossing.
Once the queue length exceeds the length of the slip road, the queuing vehicles block the main carriageway of the A142 causing significant delays to the local road network.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 7
Overview 1.1. Atkins was commissioned by East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) and Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) to assess the operation of the Ely Level Crossing and its impact on road traffic.
1.2. The Ely Level Crossing is unusual in its layout as it operates adjacent to an underpass on the A142 Station Road, with a 2.7m height restriction. The height restriction makes the underpass unusable for heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches which must use the Level Crossing as their only alternative along this route.
1.3. When the Level Crossing barriers close taller vehicles queue along the short slip roads to the east and west of the junction whilst cars and light vans are able to continue using the underpass. When either slip road becomes full, heavy goods vehicles, buses or coaches start to queue along the A142 thus blocking all traffic, at which point the amount of queuing traffic rapidly increases.
1.4. Since the A142 is a strategic route for goods vehicles, particularly to and from Soham and Newmarket to the south-east of Ely, between 10 and 15 percent of the A142 traffic is forced to use the Level Crossing due to the height restriction.
1.5. In order to assess the operation of the Ely Level Crossing, Atkins commissioned Nationwide Data Collection (NDC) to carry out a camera based survey of the Level Crossing over 9 days from Wednesday 22nd to Thursday 30th September 2010.
1.6. NDC collected the following information, from 07:00 to 20:00 on each survey day:
Level crossing barrier down times; The number and direction of trains; Queue lengths at 5 minute intervals; and The time and duration of blocking of Level Crossing approach slip roads. 1.7. In addition to the survey data collected by NDC, some existing data on the Ely Level Crossing and its surroundings will be made use of. These include:
2008, A142 Station Road/Queen Adelaide Way Manual Classified Turning Count (MCTC); 2008, Angel Drove Roundabout MCTC; 2002, A142 Road Side Interview (RSI) Survey; and 2002, Station Entrance MCTC.
Structure of Report 1.8. The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
Section 2 analyses the traffic that uses the A142 to the south of Ely, as well as the Ely Level Crossing itself; Section 3 analyses the queues that result from the closure of the barriers at the Level Crossing; Section 4 analyses the closures of the level crossings and their relationship to the frequency of trains arriving at Ely Rail Station; Section 5 analyses the travel patterns of the HGVs that use the Ely Level Crossing; and Section 6 concludes the results.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 8
2. A142 Ely Level Crossing Traffic Analysis
The A142 near Ely is a strategic route of local importance, connecting Newmarket and Soham to Ely and March beyond.
This section analyses the volume and proportion of each vehicle type that uses the A142 at Ely, both to the north and south of the Level Crossing, as well as the Level Crossing itself.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 9
Changes in Traffic Volumes Over Time 2.1. Data that is available from the 2002 Station Entrance MCTC and the 2008 Angle Drove Roundabout MCTC are in comparable locations, and as such enable a direct comparison to be made regarding the change in vehicle proportions and traffic levels over time.
2.2. Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 show the observed traffic profiles between 07:00 and 18:00 from both the 2002 and 2008 traffic data.
Figure 2.1 - A142 Northbound Traffic Flow Profile
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 2002 Total TrafficTotalFlow (Vehicles) 100 2008 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00
Time of Day
Figure 2.2 - A142 Southbound Traffic Flow Profile
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 2002 Total TrafficTotalFlow (Vehicles) 100 2008 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00
Time of Day 2.3. It can be seen from the figures above that while there is some variation in the profile, there is no significant change between the two sets of data in terms of overall volume or pattern. It can be seen that the level of traffic has remained largely consistent between 2002 and 2008.
2.4. The northbound traffic exhibits a sharp peak in volume at 08:00. This is represented in both sets of survey data, and corresponds to the AM Peak hour. There is also a peak in traffic volume at 17:00 which corresponds to the PM Peak hour in terms of traffic flow.
2.5. It can be seen that the southbound traffic also has a peak at 17:00, however the AM Peak in traffic flow is earlier at 07:00. This may correspond to the local residents of Ely migrating towards the train station to commute to work.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 10
2.6. The most noticeable difference between the two data sets is a slight change in the profile of the Inter Peak period. It can be seen that the 2002, the profile of the Inter Peak traffic is smoother, with a steady decline from the AM Peak hour leading to a gradual increase in traffic to the PM Peak hour. Conversely, the 2008 data shows a sharp increase between 12:00 and 13:00 in both directions.
2.7. It should be considered that seasonal variation between the time of year that the surveys were undertaken would also have an impact on the results.
2.8. However, the general trend and level of traffic appears consistent between the two data sets, especially in the AM and PM Peak hours. The largest differences can be seen at the fringes of the day, with 2008 displaying higher traffic levels both before the AM Peak hour and after the PM Peak hour in both directions. However, it can be said that there has been no significant changes in overall traffic volume between 2002 and 2008 during the majority of the day, and therefore any data collected in 2002 would also give a fair representation of 2008 conditions.
Vehicle Classification Analysis 2.9. Since the analysis above indicates that there has been little variation between 2002 and 2008 in terms of traffic volume levels, it has been assumed that the 2008 data that is available would be representative of traffic levels and proportions today.
North of the Level Crossing 2.10. The proportion of each vehicle classification on the network was obtained from the 2008 Angel Drove Roundabout MCTC survey discussed above. The traffic profile, split by vehicle class, is presented below in Figure 2.3, Figure 2.4, Table 2.1 and Table 2.2
Figure 2.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, North of the Level Crossing
1000 900 800 700 600 Pedal Cycle 500 Motorcycle 400 PSV 300
Vehicle Vehicle per Hour HGV 200 LGV 100 0 Car
Time of Day
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 11
Figure 2.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, North of the Level Crossing
1000 900 800 700 600 Pedal Cycle 500 Motorcycle 400 PSV 300 HGV Vehicles Vehicles per Hour 200 LGV 100 0 Car
Time of Day
Table 2.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, North of the Level Crossing Pedal Car LGV HGV Bus Motorcycle Total Cycle AM Average 463 116 48 5 2 11 645 (07:00-10:00) Inter Peak Average 315 75 46 3 1 3 443 (10:00-16:00) PM Average 583 77 20 3 5 10 698 (16:00-19:00) AM Peak Hour 562 136 48 6 3 6 761 (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour 655 67 20 4 6 13 765 (17:00-18:00)
Table 2.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, North of the Level Crossing Pedal Car LGV HGV Bus Motorcycle Total Cycle AM Average 504 106 34 4 4 71 723 (07:00-10:00) Inter Peak Average 357 72 41 4 1 5 480 (10:00-16:00) PM Average 559 70 19 6 3 2 659 (16:00-19:00) AM Peak Hour 522 102 34 6 4 81 749 (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour 624 64 20 7 2 2 719 (17:00-18:00)
2.11. This shows that the proportion of each vehicle class remains relatively consistent throughout the day, with the exception of the between 08:00 and 10:00, where there is a noticeable reduction in the percentage of HGV traffic in both the northbound and southbound directions.
2.12. There is also a reduction in the percentage of HGVs during the PM Peak period, although this is less significant.
2.13. The other most significant trend is a high percentage of pedal cycles during the AM Peak period, when compared to the rest of the day. This is particularly significant in the southbound direction, and correlates with local station users accessing the interchange by pedal cycle.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 12
2.14. It can be seen that the highest number of HGVs pass through the area during the AM and Inter Peak periods, with approximately double the number of HGVs on average passing the Level Crossing when compared to the PM Peak period. This is consistent by direction.
2.15. LGV traffic has a peak in number of vehicles during the AM Peak period, with approximately 50 percent greater flow than is seen in the Inter and PM Peak periods.
2.16. While car traffic is not directly affected by the Level Crossing, it does sustain an impact once HGV traffic blocks back onto the A142 during a barrier closure. Car traffic is at it’s greatest on average during the PM Peak period, with the PM Peak hour displaying a flow of around 100 vehicles per hour greater than the AM Peak hour in both directions. The average Inter Peak period car traffic volume is significantly lower than either of the peak periods.
South of the Level Crossing 2.17. A MCTC was conducted at the A142 Station Road and Queen Adelaide Road junction in 2008, and this will enable analysis of the vehicle classifications to the South of the Level Crossing to be undertaken.
Figure 2.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, South of the Level Crossing
1000 900 800 700 600 Pedal Cycle 500 Motorcycle 400 PSV 300 HGV Vehicles Vehicles Per Hour 200 LGV 100 0 Car
Time of Day
Figure 2.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, South of the Level Crossing
1000 900 800 700 600 Pedal Cycle 500 Motorcycle 400 PSV 300 HGV Vehicles Vehicles Per Hour 200 LGV 100 0 Car
Time of Day
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 13
Table 2.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Northbound, South of the Level Crossing Pedal Car LGV HGV Bus Motorcycle Total Cycle AM Average 479 110 31 5 2 0 628 (07:00-10:00) Inter Peak Average 350 80 37 4 2 1 473 (10:00-16:00) PM Average 514 87 29 6 6 1 641 (16:00-19:00) AM Peak Hour 540 116 34 8 2 0 700 (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour 639 59 16 1 2 0 717 (17:00-18:00)
Table 2.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Vehicle Class Proportions Southbound, South of the Level Crossing Pedal Car LGV HGV Bus Motorcycle Total Cycle AM Average 440 90 35 3 3 0 571 (07:00-10:00) Inter Peak Average 337 70 34 3 3 0 447 (10:00-16:00) PM Average 437 90 26 5 5 1 562 (16:00-19:00) AM Peak Hour 560 103 41 4 4 0 712 (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour 659 75 15 5 5 0 759 (17:00-18:00)
2.18. The trends observed to the south of the Level Crossing are very similar to those to the north of the Level Crossing. Once more, the proportion of vehicles remains relatively consistent throughout the day, with a reduction in HGV percentage in the AM and PM Peak periods.
2.19. The most noticeable difference is that there is no high proportion of pedal cycles observed in the AM Peak period, which links to the lower population density to the immediate south of the Level Crossing. In fact, the number of pedal cycle is significantly lower throughout the whole day.
2.20. The number of HGVs is greatest in the AM and Inter Peak periods which is consistent with the traffic profiles observed to the north of the Level Crossing. LGVs are greatest in number in the AM Peak period heading northbound. However unlike to the north of the Level Crossing, both the AM and PM Peak periods have an identical number heading southbound.
2.21. Car traffic on average is again greatest in the PM Peak period. However, the peak hour flows are similar to those north of the roundabout. This shows that to the north of the Level Crossing, the PM Peak profile is much more flat than that to the south of the Level Crossing, and this can also be seen in Figure 2.3 to Figure 2.6.
2.22. Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8 below show the comparison between the total vehicle flows across the day, to the north and south of the roundabout. This clearly demonstrates the differences discussed above in terms of overall flow either side of the Level Crossing.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 14
Figure 2.7 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound Traffic Flow Profile Comparison 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 South of the Level Vehicles Vehicles Per Hour Crossing 200 North of the Level 100 Crossing 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00
Time of Day
Figure 2.8 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Southbound Traffic Flow Profile Comparison 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 South of the Level Vehicles Vehicles Per Hour Crossing 200 North of the Level 100 Crossing 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day 2.23. It can be seen from Figure 2.7 and Figure 2.8 above that the most noticeable difference in traffic flow volume either side of the Level Crossing occurs in the AM Peak period. The flow to the north of the Level Crossing is greater, which further confirms the link with the residents of Ely travelling to the station during the AM Peak period.
Level Crossing Traffic 2.24. The survey conducted in 2002 at the station entrance also contains data about the volume and classification of traffic that uses the A142 Ely Level Crossing.
2.25. Table 2.5 and Table 2.6 below give breakdowns of the total volume and classification of the vehicles that use the Level Crossing throughout the day.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 15
Table 2.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound Traffic Car, LGV and Hour HGV and PSV Total Vehicles Motorcycle 07:00 1 35 36 08:00 6 71 77 09:00 14 64 78 10:00 15 60 75 11:00 14 54 68 12:00 5 58 63 13:00 5 54 59 14:00 6 51 57 15:00 6 36 42 16:00 14 29 43 17:00 4 29 33 18:00 2 16 18 Average 7.7 46.4 64.1
Table 2.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Southbound Traffic Car, LGV and Hour HGV and PSV Total Vehicles Motorcycle 07:00 18 53 71 08:00 20 75 95 09:00 13 64 77 10:00 16 53 69 11:00 19 56 75 12:00 18 43 61 13:00 12 40 52 14:00 18 56 74 15:00 21 58 79 16:00 13 40 53 17:00 12 24 36 18:00 4 17 21 Average 15.3 48.3 63.6
Figure 2.9 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound Vehicle Usage Classification Breakdown
100 HGVs and PSVs 90 Cars, LGVs & Motorcycles 80 70 60 50 40 30 Vehicles Vehicles per Hour 20 10 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 16
Figure 2.10 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Southbound Vehicle Usage Classification Breakdown
100 HGVs and PSVs 90 Cars, LGVs & Motorcycles 80 70 60 50 40 30 Vehicles Vehicles per Hour 20 10 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
2.26. The data above shows that the largest proportions of vehicles that use the Level Crossing are HGVs and PSVs as intended.
2.27. There are a significant proportion of lighter vehicles throughout the day. This is unlikely to be single cars, but either cars with high trailers such as horseboxes or caravans, or taller light goods vehicles.
2.28. While there is a peak in flows evident between 08:00 and 09:00 in both directions corresponding to the AM Peak hour, the PM Peak hour is less clearly defined. Northbound traffic exhibits a continual reduction in traffic volume from its peak. The southbound traffic volume reduces before increasing again between 13:00 and 15:00, before reducing again throughout the rest of the day.
2.29. The lighter vehicles do not exhibit a significant trend, either that agrees or disagrees with the observed HGV profile.
2.30. It should be noted that the total number of vehicles using the Level Crossing is very small when compared to the total flow on the A142 either side of the Level Crossing. The impact that this relatively small volume of traffic has on the A142 when the barriers are closed is very significant however.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 17
3. A142 Ely Level Crossing Barrier Closure Time Analysis
The Ely Level Crossing has varied closures throughout the day to coincide with the arrivals and departures of trains at Ely Station. This section outlines the nature and duration of the closures throughout both an average weekday and the weekend.
This section analyses the nature and duration of the Level Crossing barrier closures, and their relationship to the frequency of train arrivals at Ely Rail Station.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 18
Level Crossing Barrier Closure Overview 3.1. The number and duration of barrier closures at the Ely Level Crossing varies throughout the day. The duration of the closure is also linked to the proximity of passing trains, such that one or more trains may pass the crossing during a single barrier closure.
Average Weekday Level Crossing Barrier Closure Time Analysis 3.2. Table 3.1 below presents the frequency and duration of the Level Crossing barrier closures per hour throughout the day. Bold numbers indicate the maximum closure frequency and closure time during the whole day.
Table 3.1 – A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Barrier Closure Frequency and Duration Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Time Closed per Hour (mm:ss) 07:00 7.0 30:00 08:00 9.4 40:25 09:00 7.9 26:51 10:00 8.3 29:14 11:00 7.3 31:23 12:00 8.4 32:17 13:00 8.6 32:42 14:00 7.9 34:20 15:00 8.1 30:12 16:00 8.7 36:10 17:00 7.7 35:30 18:00 9.4 30:59 19:00 9.9 38:43 Average 8.4 35:02
Figure 3.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Barrier Closure Frequency
12
10
8
6 Frequency 4
2 Average Average Weekday Barrier Closure 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 19
Figure 3.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Barrier Closure Duration
45:00
40:00
35:00
30:00
25:00 Time Per Closure 20:00
15:00 Total Closure Time Per Hour 10:00
Barrier Closure Barrier Duration (mins) 05:00
00:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
3.3. It can be seen from the table above that there is a peak evident in the frequency of the closures that correlates to the AM Peak hour. The PM Peak hour is less clearly defined, with the peak in closures being somewhat later at 19:00. This would relate to the different nature of the rail traffic, and the potential for trains leaving London arriving later in Ely. The overall peak in closure frequency also occurs at this time of day; however the peak in terms of closure time occurs at 08:00.
3.4. There does not appear to be a direct relationship between the frequency of closures and the total time closed within the hour. This is due to the fact that the precise timing of trains arriving at Ely Station will dictate if one or more trains can pass within a single Level Crossing barrier closure. As can be seen below, the train arrival frequency does correlate to the total duration of closure within the hour.
Average Weekday Train Arrival Frequency 3.5. The surveys undertaken also recorded the frequency of trains throughout the day. This is presented below in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Train Arrival Frequency Northb ound Train Southbou nd Train Total Train Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour 07:00 5.9 6.3 12.1 08:00 6.9 7.4 14.3 09:00 6.7 5.4 12.1 10:00 6.3 6.3 12.6 11:00 5.6 6.4 12.0 12:00 6.1 7.1 13.3 13:00 6.7 6.0 12.7 14:00 6.7 6.9 13.6 15:00 5.7 6.3 12.0 16:00 6.6 7.3 13.9 17:00 6.1 6.4 12.6 18:00 6.3 5.3 11.6 19:00 8.1 7.0 15.1 Average 6.4 6.5 12.9
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 20
Figure 3.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Train Arrival Frequency
16
14
12
10
8
6 Train Frequency Train 4 Northbound Southbound 2 Combined 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
3.6. It can be seen that with exception of 19:00, there is on average between 5 and 6 trains per hour heading northbound during an average weekday. There is slightly greater variability in the number of southbound trains with between 5 and 8 trains arriving on average within each hour throughout the day.
3.7. In terms of total arrival frequency, clear peaks can be seen at 08:00 and 19:00, relating to the peaks in rail movements. The remainder of the day displays reasonable consistent frequencies of train arrivals.
3.8. Linking this to the number of barrier closures and closure time, it can be seen that the higher frequency of trains observed at 08:00 and 19:00 correlate to the greatest frequency and length of closures per hour.
Weekend Barrier Closure Duration and Train Arrival Frequency 3.9. Since there are still significant levels of traffic both on the A142 and on the rail line during the weekends, the Ely Level Crossing still has a significant impact on the local road network during the weekend. Table 3.3 and Table 3.4 below present the survey results for the duration of closure for a Saturday and Sunday, and Table 3.5 and Table 3.6 present the train arrival frequency for Saturday and Sunday.
Table 3.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Barrier Closure Frequency and Duration Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Time Closed per Hour (mm:ss) 07:00 10.0 28:55 08:00 9.0 33:36 09:00 8.0 37:34 10:00 6.0 28:41 11:00 5.0 30:03 12:00 7.0 32:08 13:00 7.0 24:59 14:00 10.0 33:24 15:00 10.0 32:29 16:00 8.0 34:38 17:00 6.0 29:28 18:00 6.0 31:39 19:00 7.0 26:40 Average 7.6 28:55
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 21
Table 3.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Barrier Closure Frequency and Duration Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Time Closed per Hour (mm:ss) 07:00 1.0 03:48 08:00 1.0 03:45 09:00 2.0 04:48 10:00 4.0 15:20 11:00 7.0 26:51 12:00 3.0 14:25 13:00 6.0 14:34 14:00 6.0 25:53 15:00 8.0 29:1 5 16:00 7.0 25:27 17:00 8.0 26:33 18:00 9.0 27:18 19:00 7.0 22:37 Average 5.3 18:30
Figure 3.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Weekend Barrier Closure Frequency
12
10
8
6
4
Saturday
Barrier Closure Barrier Frequency 2 Sunday
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 22
Figure 3.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Weekend Barrier Closure Duration
45:00 40:00 35:00 30:00 25:00 20:00 15:00 10:00 05:00
Barrier Closure Barrier Duration (mins) 00:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
Saturday Total Closure Time Per Hour
Saturday Time Per Closure
Sunday Total Closure Time Per Hour
Sunday Time Per Closure
3.10. It can be seen that there is a noticeable reduction in the frequency of Level Crossing barrier closures on a Saturday compared to an average weekday, with further reductions evident on a Sunday.
3.11. There is also a noticeable reduction in the length of the Level Crossing barrier closures over the hour, with the average length of closure per hour being reduced by a little over six minutes for a Saturday when compared to an average weekday, with a further reduction of over 10 minutes shown for a Sunday.
3.12. The peaks in terms of frequency of closure and total closure time are more varied at the weekend, with Sunday showing later peaks relating to the less frequent early Sunday services as can be seen in Error! Reference source not found. below.
Table 3.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Train Arrival Frequency Northbound Train Southbound Train Total Train Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour 07:00 7.0 4.0 11.0 08:00 6.0 6.0 12.0 09:00 6.0 7.0 13.0 10:00 6.0 6.0 12.0 11:00 5.0 5.0 10.0 12:00 6.0 6.0 12.0 13:00 5.0 5.0 10.0 14:00 6.0 6.0 12.0 15:00 6.0 6.0 12.0 16:00 7.0 6.0 13.0 17:00 5.0 6.0 11.0 18:00 5.0 6.0 11.0 19:00 5.0 6.0 11.0 Average 5.8 5.8 11.5
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 23
Table 3.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Train Arrival Frequency Northbound Train Sout hbound Train Total Train Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour 07:00 0.0 1.0 1.0 08:00 0.0 1.0 1.0 09:00 1.0 1.0 2.0 10:00 2.0 3.0 5.0 11:00 8.0 2.0 10.0 12:00 4.0 3.0 7.0 13:00 3.0 3.0 6.0 14:00 5.0 5.0 10.0 15:00 7.0 4.0 11.0 16:00 5.0 6.0 11.0 17:00 5.0 5.0 10.0 18:00 6.0 6.0 12.0 19:00 5.0 4.0 9.0 Average 3.9 3.4 7.3
Figure 3.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Train Arrival Frequency
16
14
12
10
8
6 Train Frequency Train 4 Northbound Southbound 2 Combined 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
Figure 3.7 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Train Arrival Frequency
16 Northbound 14 Southbound 12 Combined 10
8
6 Train Frequency Train 4
2
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day
3.13. It can be seen from the tables above that the number of trains arriving on a Saturday is only marginally lower than that which was observed during an average weekday. There is a more
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 24
consistent service throughout the day however, showing that there is less peak hour demand from rail users.
3.14. Sunday exhibits a different pattern once again, with very little rail traffic until 10:00. This links to the lower number of closures and shorter closure time per hour observed on a Sunday morning. There is a gradual increase in total train frequency throughout the day, however both the average and peak number of trains per hour is lower than for either an average weekday or a Saturday.
MDS Transmodal Limited Data 3.15. As part of the 2010 East Cambridgeshire Freight Outputs Study, MDS Transmodal Limited conducted fieldwork of the A142 Ely Level Crossing, noting the barrier closure times between 11:00 and 14:00 on a weekday. These results are presented below alongside the survey data collected by NDC for this study for comparison.
Table 3.7 - MDS Transmodal Ltd Weekday Barrier Closure Comparison MDS Time NDC Time MDS Closure NDC Closure Hour Beginning Closed per Closed per Frequency Frequency Hour (mm:ss) Hour (mm:ss) 11:00 7.0 7.3 24:54 31:23 12:00 8.0 8.4 32:05 32:17 13:00 11.0 8.6 39:28 32:42 Average 8.6 8.1 32:09 32:07
Table 3.8 - MDS Transmodal Ltd Weekday Train Arrival Comparison MDS Train NDC Train Hour Beginning Frequency per Hour Frequency per Hour 11:00 11.0 12.0 12:00 14.0 13.3 13:00 13.0 12.7 Average 12.6 12.6
3.16. It can be seen from the tables above, that the data collected by MDS Transmodal Ltd corresponds well to the data collected by NDC. This independent check on the data helps to give confidence in the data that has been surveyed.
Level Crossing Closure Conclusions 3.17. It can be seen that weekdays are clearly the busiest in terms of rail traffic and the resultant Level Crossing barrier closure time and frequency. The largest impact on the road network would therefore take place during the week.
3.18. Both Saturday and Sunday have reduced train and barrier closure frequency, with a related reduction in barrier closure time throughout the day.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 25
4. A142 Ely Level Crossing Queue Length Analysis
The Ely Level Crossing causes queues to form on the approaches when the Level Crossing barriers close. Vehicles over 2.7m in height are unable to use the adjacent underpass. Once the number of vehicles queuing exceeds the available road space of the slip roads, the queues propagate back onto the A142, causing congestion along the main road.
This section analyses the length of the queues that form at the Ely Level Crossing.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 26
Queuing Overview 4.1. The Ely Level Crossing naturally causes some queues to form on the approaches when the Level Crossing barriers are closed to road traffic. While there is an underpass that accommodates vehicles with a height less than 2.7m. Any vehicle that exceeds this height has to use the Level Crossing. Once the barriers are closed, queues quickly form of these taller vehicles, which quickly propagate onto the main road as well as the Level Crossing approaches.
4.2. NDC conducted video surveys of the queue lengths that were caused by the Level Crossing barrier closures in order to determine the precise impact that the closures have upon traffic along the A142.
Data Collected 4.3. Queue length data was collected between 07:00 and 20:00 over a nine day period in September 2010. Video records of the queue information and dispersal were maintained, and a zone based system of queue length measurement was employed to determine the length of queue that resulted from a Level Crossing barrier closure.
4.4. Full details of the data collected can be found in the A142 Ely Level Crossing Data Collection Report – November 2010.
Average Weekday Queuing 4.5. The available data covered seven weekdays. This allowed a robust average representation of the typical queues to be formed.
4.6. Table 4.1 below presents the surveyed data for an average weekday, showing the length of the queue on both the northern and southern side of the Ely Level Crossing in terms of the average and average maximum observed queue within each hour. The average maximum queue is the maximum value of the queue within the hour, averaged over the weekday data. The absolute maximum observed queue is also shown for comparison.
Table 4.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Queue Lengths Northern Side Southern Side Average Absolute Average Absolute Average Average Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Hour Length Length Length Length Length Length Beginning Within Within Within Within Within Within Each Hour Each Hour Each Hour Each Hour Each Hour Each Hour (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) 07:00 54 86 380 87 138 624 08:00 45 73 380 105 161 583 09:00 57 103 380 72 123 356 10:00 52 122 380 66 169 560 11:00 75 119 380 109 189 1106 12:00 56 97 380 72 212 681 13:00 67 140 380 88 216 750 14:00 71 116 380 109 224 704 15:00 48 116 380 77 212 560 16:00 59 112 380 90 195 560 17:00 34 77 116 101 232 612 18:00 20 41 66 34 90 361 19:00 12 19 40 16 30 101 Daily 49.9 - 79.0 - Average
4.7. Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 below presents this information graphically.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 27
Figure 4.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Northbound Queue Length Profile
800
700
600
500 Average Maximum 400 Weekday Average 300 Traffic Flow
Queue LengthQueue (m) 200
100
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
Figure 4.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Average Weekday Southbound Queue Length Profile
800
700
600
500
400 Average Maximum Weekday Average 300 Traffic Flow Queue LengthQueue (m) 200
100
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
Figure 4.3 - Weekday Absolute Maximum Queue Length Profiles 1200 Northbound Southbound 1000 Northound Traffic Flow Southbound Traffic Flow 800
600
400
MaximumQueue Length (m) 200
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 28
4.8. It can be seen from the data above that the length of queue observed does not correlate with the traffic flow profiles. The peaks in observed queuing do not match the times of the AM and PM Peak hours of total traffic flow. It is also apparent that there is little correlation between the volume of traffic using the Level Crossing, and the length of the queue that emanates from the crossing.
4.9. It can be seen that the northbound traffic reaches a peak in queue length at 17:00, having exhibited an increase in maximum queue length throughout the day. There is a sharp reduction in queue length from 18:00 onwards.
4.10. The average queue length of the northbound traffic remains at approximately 90 meters until 17:00, where the average queue length again reduces.
4.11. Southbound traffic displays a slightly different trend. The average and average maximum queue length increase from the AM Peak period through to a maximum at 13:30, before reducing again towards the PM Peak period as was seen for the northbound queue lengths.
4.12. It should be noted that the queue lengths observed for southbound traffic are significantly shorter than those for the northbound traffic.
4.13. This correlates to the observed traffic flows, since the northbound traffic observed to the south of the Level Crossing is significantly higher on average throughout the AM, Inter and PM Peak periods than the southbound traffic observed to the north of the Level Crossing. Therefore the lower traffic levels approaching the north side of the Level Crossing would mean that queues would form and grow at a slower rate than to the south of the Level Crossing. This is also linked to the greater road space available for queuing to the north of the Level Crossing, where there is a separate lane for the vehicles to queue between the Level Crossing and the Angel Drove roundabout.
4.14. It can be seen that there is not a direct relationship between average and average maximum queue length, indicating that the length and frequency of the barrier closures has an effect on the queue formation and dissipation.
4.15. The absolute maximum queue length can clearly be seen to be significantly longer than the average maximum value. This shows that there is tendencies for queues to build up and dissipate very quickly, but that for a short period of time have a great effect on the surrounding road network. It should be noted that the 380 meter queue reported on the northern side of the Level Crossing represents the maximum distance that was recorded during the survey.
4.16. One longer closure is likely to result in a longer maximum queue, but may result in a lower average queue, should the number of other closures be sufficiently low. This effect can be seen at various times throughout the day. While the peak maximum and peak average queues do not necessarily occur at the same time, there is still a link between the two.
Weekend Queue Analysis 4.17. Queues on the A142 as a result of the Level Crossing barrier closures are also apparent during the weekend, despite lower traffic volumes. One Saturday and one Sunday were surveyed as part of the data collection, and the results for these days are tabulated below. Due to the different nature in the results for each of the days, the results are presented separately for each.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 29
Table 4.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Queue Lengths Northern Side Southern Side Maximum Maximum Average Queue Average Queue Queue Length Queue Length Hour Beginning Length Within Length Within Within Each Within Each Each Hour (m) Each Hour (m) Hour (m) Hour (m) 07:00 13 26 9 40 08:00 21 90 13 40 09:00 33 53 23 53 10:00 18 40 31 333 11:00 17 40 13 40 12:00 13 53 12 53 13:00 11 40 10 40 14:00 14 53 11 40 15:00 4 13 15 40 16:00 17 40 16 103 17:00 17 66 18 32 18:00 7 13 25 86 19:00 8 26 2 26 Daily Average 15 - 15 -
Figure 4.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Northbound Queue Length Profile
350 Maximum 300 Average 250
200
150
100 Queue LengthQueue (m)
50
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 30
Figure 4.5 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Saturday Southbound Queue Length Profiles
350 Maximum 300 Average 250
200
150
100 Queue LengthQueue (m)
50
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
4.18. It can be seen that the average queue lengths are significantly lower during a Saturday than those recorded during the week. The average queue length in either direction is also much more similar on a Saturday than a weekday.
4.19. It can be seen that the maximum queue length for the southbound traffic exhibits a similar trend to the average queue length, and is lower than that seen during the week. However, the northbound queuing exhibits a large peak at 10:00 where there was a very long queue recorded.
4.20. Detailed analysis of the survey data shows that this peak queue was recorded at 10:50, and this time falls within an 8 minute and 57 second barrier closure. It is therefore likely that the particular nature of the arriving traffic at the time combined with the long barrier closure caused a particularly long queue at this time. There are other smaller peaks towards the end of the day that also correlate with long barrier closures.
4.21. The fluctuations in average queue length are also lower than that seen during the week, reflecting the lower traffic flows and less frequent and shorter duration of closures that occur on a Saturday.
Table 4.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Queue Lengths Northern Side Southern Side Maximum Maximum Average Queue Average Queue Queue Length Queue Length Hour Beginning Length Within Length Within Within Each Within Each Each Hour (m) Each Hour (m) Hour (m) Hour (m) 07:00 2 26 0 0 08:00 3 40 0 0 09:00 0 0 0 0 10:00 6 40 0 0 11:00 24 103 7 26 12:00 11 53 4 26 13:00 4 13 3 13 14:00 1 13 9 26 15:00 10 40 8 26 16:00 4 13 6 13 17:00 14 40 19 66 18:00 7 26 6 13 19:00 2 13 1 13 Daily Average 7 - 5 -
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 31
Figure 4.6 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Northbound Queue Length Profile
350 Maximum 300 Average 250
200
150
100 Queue LengthQueue (m)
50
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
Figure 4.7 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Sunday Southbound Queue Length Profile
350 Maximum 300 Average 250
200
150
100 Queue LengthQueue (m)
50
0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time of Day (hh:mm)
4.22. The queues that have been observed on a Sunday are once again significantly lower than those for a weekday, and are also lower than those for a Saturday. This relates to the lower traffic volumes expected on a Sunday, and also to the reduced number, and total duration of, barrier closures during the day.
4.23. The peak in the queuing observed at 11:00 correlates to a long barrier closure of over 7 minutes, with the peak at 17:00 relating to a 6 minute closure. It can be seen that there is less fluctuation again in average queue lengths on a Sunday, again linked to the lower number and shorter barrier closures that occur throughout the day.
Paramics Model Queue Length Comparison 4.24. As part of the work undertaken by Atkins to investigate queuing at the A142 Ely Level Crossing in 2030, a Paramics model was constructed using 2008 traffic flows and forecast 2030 Level Crossing barrier closure times from the MDS Transmodal Study. The model forecast traffic queue lengths for 08:00 to 09:00, and 10:00 to 11:00. While these are not a direct comparison given the predicted 2030 barrier closure times used, the 2008 traffic flow will still give an interesting comparison to the observed data.
4.25. The table below compares the average and maximum queue lengths for the two hourly periods between the observed and modelled data for the northbound approach to the Level Crossing.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 32
Table 4.4 - Paramics and Survey Data Queue Length Comparison Paramics Model Survey Data Average Absolute Average Maximum Average Maximum Maximum Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Hour Length Length Length Length Length Beginning Within Each Within Each Within Each Within Within Hour (m) Hour (m) Hour (m) Each Each Hour Hour (m) (m) 08:00 63 287 105 161 583 10:00 143 340 66 169 560
4.26. It can be seen from the table above, that the survey data differs from the Paramics model for the northbound approach to the Level Crossing, with greater queuing observed at both times of day. This could be due to the changes in Level Crossing barrier closure patterns that were applied to the Paramics model to represent the 2030 Level Crossing closures. The average queue lengths observed are similar however.
4.27. Further details on the Paramics modelling can be found within Appendix A.
Queue Length Conclusions 4.28. It can be seen that the queue lengths at the A142 Ely Level Crossing are variable throughout the day, and that there is little correlation between the profile of traffic flow, and the length of the queue.
4.29. This is likely to be due to the fact that the driving factors behind the instigation of a queue are the HGV traffic and the frequency and length of the Level Crossing barrier closures. Both of these remain fairly consistent throughout and average weekday, and as such there is little variation in the queue lengths observed.
4.30. Some variation is of course apparent, with the effects of particularly long barrier closures being seen more clearly by the peaks in queue lengths observed in both the Saturday and Sunday data.
4.31. Queues are generally longer on the northbound approach to the Level Crossing, but this is due in part to the lower stacking capacity for HGVs off the main A142 in that direction. As the HGVs have to cross over to the offside of the road to use the Level Crossing, and the slip road to that side of the Level Crossing is shorter, fewer vehicles would cause the queue to propagate back onto the main A142 at a faster rate. It should also be noted that once past the Level Crossing, the northbound traffic has to give way to both north and southbound traffic using the A142 underpass. As such, it may be the case that if there were successive barrier closures with a short time between them, the full queue length may not dissipate in time for the second closure.
4.32. Both of these factors would ultimately cause a greater queue length in that direction, since vehicles that would normally be able to bypass the crossing by using the underpass would be affected by the HGVs queuing for the barrier closure. On the southbound approach, a separate lane is provided for traffic using the Level Crossing, and as such, vehicles using the underpass would not be affected by queuing HGVs until the queue reaches the Angel Drove roundabout.
4.1. Additionally, NDC reported that when queuing reached the main road to the east of the Level Crossing, the propensity for other vehicles to attempt dangerous overtaking manoeuvres past one or more heavy goods vehicles increases despite the limited forward visibility. This is obviously a safety concern when there are long queues approaching the Level Crossing.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 33
4.2. 5. A142 Ely Level Crossing HGV Routing Analysis
The Ely Level Crossing is located on the A142 which carries a significant volume of local and national HGV movements.
This analysis gives an indication as to the nature of the HGV traffic that relies upon the Ely Level Crossing.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 34
Heavy Goods Vehicle Trip Pattern Analysis 5.1. Heavy Goods Vehicles use the A142 through Ely as a key route between East Anglia and the East Midlands, and as such the Ely Level Crossing is frequently used by HGVs. It is these HGVs that cause queues to form, since they are unable to use the underpass to bypass the rail line. Once the number of HGVs queuing at the closed Level Crossing barriers exceeds the available road space of the slip roads, queues propagate back and block the main A142. As such the HGV movements across the crossing are of particular importance.
5.2. A Road Side Interview survey conducted in 2002 interviewed a sample of the HGVs using the Ely Level Crossing in a northbound direction. Figure 5.1 below shows the distribution of HGV trips that were interviewed during the survey.
Figure 5.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Interview Trip Distribution
5.3. Table 5.1 to Table 5.4 break this data down numerically, identifying the origins and destinations of the trips interviewed during the day.
Table 5.1 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Origin Summary Number of County District Parish Interviews Cambridge City - 2 Burwell 5 Chippenham 2 Fordham 5 East Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire Isleham 6 Soham 40 Stetchworth 1 South Girton 2 Cambridgeshire Essex - - 11 Greater London - - 7 Hertfordshire - - 1 Kent - - 2 Norfolk - - 7 Portsmouth City - - 1 Suffolk - - 54 Surrey - - 1 Wiltshire - - 1
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 35
Table 5.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Destination Summary Number of County District Parish Interviews Cambridge City - 4 Coveney 1 Downham 4 Ely 37 Haddenham 2 Littleport 9 East Cambridgeshire Mepal 2 Soham 1 Sutton 5 Wilburton 2 Witchford 3 March 8 Chatteris 9 Elm 1 Cambridgeshire Manea 3 Fenland Whittlesey 1 Wimblington 1 Wisbech 2 Wisbech St Mary 2 Earith 1 Hemingford Abbots 1 Huntingdonshire Warboys 4 Yaxley 2 Barton 1 Girton 1 South Oakington and Cambridgeshire 1 Westwick Waterbeach 1 Leicestershire - - 1 Lincolnshire - - 8 Norfolk - - 21 North East - - 1 Lincolnshire Perth and Kinross - - 1 Peterborough - - 4 Stockton-on-Tees - - 1 Suffolk - - 1 Warwickshire - - 1
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 36
Table 5.3 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Trip Distribution Summary Destination South South North North Cambridgeshire Essex Suffolk Norfolk London Midlands East West East West Cambridgeshire 43 0 0 8 0 10 0 0 2 0
Essex 7 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
Suffolk 44 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 0 0
Norfolk 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
London 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Origin Midlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
South East 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
South West 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North East 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 37
Table 5.4 - A142 Ely Level Crossing 2002 Road Side Interview HGV Trip Distribution Percentage Summary Destination South South North North Cambridgeshire Essex Suffolk Norfolk London Midlands East West East West Cambridgeshire 29% 0% 0% 5% 0% 7% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Essex 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Suffolk 30% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Norfolk 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
London 3% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Origin Midlands 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
South East 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
South West 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
North East 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
North West 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 38
5.4. It can be seen that the majority of trips are relatively local, with 59% having an origin in Cambridgeshire or Suffolk, and a destination located within Cambridgeshire.
5.5. There are relatively few trips from further away, although there are 17% of trips from Essex, Norfolk and London. Norfolk and the Midlands are the next two most popular destinations for HGVs that use the Ely Level Crossing, with 14% and 11% of trips respectivly.
5.6. It must be remembered that this data is only for the northbound HGV traffic using the Level Crossing. There is therefore a natural bias towards northbound trips in this data.
5.7. Detailed analysis of the numerical origins and destinations show that 27% of trips that originate in Soham. A major haulage company is based in close proximity to Soham, and this would therefore generate a high volume of HGV traffic that would be likely to use the Level Crossing.
5.8. Due to the proximity of the Ely Level Crossing to the Suffolk border, there is 36% of HGVs using the Level Crossing that originate from Suffolk.
5.9. The destination pattern of the HGV traffic is less well defined; however the majority of traffic does terminate its journey within Cambridgeshire, primarily within Ely itself. Other than for Ely, the destinations of traffic are widespread throughout Cambridgeshire.
Figure 5.2 - A142 Ely Level Crossing Northbound HGV Trip Length Distribution
25
20
15
10
5 Numberof Observations
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Trip Length (km)
5.10. It can be seen from Figure 5.2 above that the majority of trips observed using the Ely Level Crossing are on trips of 150km or less. The most frequent trip length is between 20km and 30km. There are some instances of longer distance trips, up to 530km, however these are very infrequent.
5.11. It can therefore be said that the majority of trips either have an origin and destination close to Ely itself. There are clusters outside this range, such as the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe; however, this represents a small proportion of the overall traffic.
5.12. It must be noted that this data is derived from interviews in one direction only, and that the trip pattern for HGVs in the reverse direction may be different.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 39 6. Conclusions
The A142 Ely Level Crossing has a significant impact on traffic using the A142 due to the closure of the barriers causing the HGV traffic on the road to block the main A142, thus causing significant delays to all vehicles on the route.
The main delays occur throughout a weekday, associated with the high frequency and duration of Level Crossing barrier closures, particularly in the AM and PM Peak periods.
HGV traffic using the Level Crossing are comprised mainly of trips under 150km in length, with either an origin or destination within Cambridgeshire.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 40
Conclusions 6.1. It can be seen from the data presented above, that the A142 Ely Level Crossing has a significant impact on traffic using the A142 due to the closure of the barriers causing the HGV traffic on the road to block the main A142, thus causing significant delays to all vehicles on the route.
Traffic Levels 6.2. The highest volume of traffic using the A142 at Ely occurs in the AM and PM Peak periods, with the PM Peak hour being slightly greater on average than the AM Peak hour. There is a large proportion of pedal cycles to the north of the Level Crossing in the AM Peak period, travelling towards Ely Station.
6.3. The number of HGVs remains relatively consistent throughout the day; however the greatest proportion can often be seen during the AM and Inter Peak periods. The number of HGVs is slightly greater heading northbound, although there is little variance between the north and southbound HGV traffic levels.
6.4. The majority of traffic that uses the Level Crossing is HGV traffic, although there is a potion of light vehicles that also use the crossing. These lighter vehicles may include high trailers, or cars carrying tall loads on their roof. The volume of southbound traffic is generally greater than the northbound traffic throughout the day.
Level Crossing Barrier Closures & Train Arrival Frequency 6.5. The A142 Ely Level Crossing exhibits many closures during the day. The greatest number of closures per hour can be seen to take place during the AM and PM Peak periods; although the precise peak hours differ from that of the road traffic to coincide more closely to the peak train arrival times to and from London.
6.6. The AM Peak of barrier closures occurs between 08:00 and 09:00, with an average of 9.4 closures per hour during the week, with an average duration of 40 minutes and 25 seconds. This does coincide with the AM Peak hour in terms of road traffic flow.
6.7. The PM Peak barrier closure occurs between 19:00 and 20:00, with a closure per hour of 38 minutes and 43 seconds. This occurs significantly later in the day than the PM Peak hour of traffic flow. Therefore the PM Peak barrier closures, has less of an effect on the road traffic than the AM Peak.
6.8. The barrier closures at the weekend exhibit a different pattern to those during the week. The AM and PM Peaks of barrier closures are less well defined, with Saturday showing a much earlier PM Peak towards late afternoon. Sunday has no AM Peak, with a steady growth towards a peak in the late afternoon once more.
6.9. Both Saturday and Sunday exhibit significantly lower total numbers of closures total barrier closure time throughout the day, when compared to an average weekday.
A142 Queue Lengths 6.10. Due to the closure of the Level Crossing barriers, there are resultant queues along the A142 once the number of HGVs queuing on the adjacent slip roads to use the Level Crossing exceeds the length of the slip road. This is most significant in the northbound direction, since the available space for queuing is significantly lower than in the southbound direction, but there is little correlation between the profile of traffic flow, and the length of the queue.
6.11. Since both the level of HGV traffic and the frequency and duration of the Level Crossing barrier closures remain fairly consistent throughout an average weekday and are the key factors that affect the queue lengths, there is little variation in the queue lengths observed. There is some variation however, as would be expected.
6.12. Queues are generally longer on the northbound approach to the Level Crossing due to the lower amount of available road space for HGVs to queue on the approach to the Level Crossing that is away from the main A142.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 41
6.13. The average maximum observed queues fluctuate between 125m and 225m in the northbound direction, and 80m to 140m in the southbound direction throughout the majority of the day, however these values are only reached for a small percentage of the hour, as the substantially lower averages demonstrate.
6.14. The absolute maximum queues frequently reach 380m to the north of the Level Crossing which was the limit of the surveyed area. To the south of the Level Crossing, the absolute maximum queue was in excess of 1100m, clearly showing that there is a significant impact on the local road network when the Level Crossing barriers close.
HGV Trip Patterns 6.15. The majority of HGV trips that use the A142 Ely Level crossing in the northbound direction have their origin with either Cambridgeshire or Suffolk. There are a high percentage of trips that originate from Soham, coinciding with the transport company located there.
6.16. The primary observed destination was again Cambridgeshire, indicating that the majority of trips that use the A142 Ely Level Crossing are relatively short distance trips, which is supported by the analysis of the trip length distribution of the traffic using the Ely Level Crossing.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 42 A. Paramics Model Technical Note
Atkins has been commissioned by East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) and Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) to investigate the queuing at the A142 Ely Level Crossing. The purpose of the investigations is to establish the severity of the vehicle queuing in 2030 on the road network if proposed increases to the number of trains using the level crossing are realised.
The impact of the level crossing has been assessed using the Paramics model developed to analyse the Ely Southern Bypass proposal.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 43
Methodology
Time Periods A.1 Analysis of anticipated barrier closed time in 2030 was carried out by MDS Transmodal. In this analysis, a typical inter-peak (IP) hour was assumed to 10am to 11am. Therefore, the analysis carried out and reported in this Technical Note has been based on 10am to 11am data. The Paramics inter-peak model was developed to assess the impact between 9am and 11am, with the period between 9am and 10am used as a ‘warm-up’ period for the model.
Demands A.2 Demands for the model were taken from the turning count survey carried out by Sky High Traffic Surveys on Wednesday 19 th November 2008 at the junction of the A142 with Queen Adelaide Way, located approximately 300m to the south of the level crossing. As the number of accesses located between the junction and Ely level crossing is small it is felt that the traffic volumes using the level crossing are accurately reflected by this turning count. The assessment has been carried out using the 2008 traffic levels with no increase factor applied.
A.3 Two matrices (Lights and Heavies) were entered into Paramics based on the survey described above. The matrices used for the inter-peak are shown below.
Table A.1 – 2008 Inter-peak Matrix (Lights) Stuntney Queen Adelaide A142 Ely Level A142 Ely Causeway Way Crossing Underpass Stuntney 0 43 0 347 Causeway Queen Adelaide 52 0 0 45 Way A142 Ely Level 0 0 0 0 Crossing A142 Ely 344 36 0 0 Underpass
Table A.2 – 2008 Inter-peak Matrix (Heavies) Stuntney Queen Adelaide A142 Ely Level A142 Ely Causeway Way Crossing Underpass Stuntney 0 5 36 0 Causeway Queen Adelaide 7 0 2 0 Way A142 Ely Level 37 4 0 0 Crossing A142 Ely 0 0 0 0 Underpass
Profiles A.4 Paramics uses profiles with 5 minute time segments in order to vary the demand with appropriate fluctuations over the assessed time period. The same survey as identified above was used to calculate the profiles used in the model. Three profiles were used in this model:
1) Light vehicles travelling northbound to the A142 Ely Underpass;
2) All other light vehicle movements; and
3) Heavy vehicles.
A.5 The survey was completed using 15 minute time segments. Appropriate turning movements were summed within the 15 minute period and divided by the sum of the turning movements
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 44
over the whole hour to create a proportion for that period. A flat profile was assumed within each 15 minute period, so 5 minute traffic proportions were calculated by simply dividing the 15 minute proportions by 3.
A.6 The three profiles used in the inter-peak hour are illustrated in Table A.3.
Table A.3 – Profiles used in the inter-peak model
Time From Time To Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 10:00:00 10:04:59 0.108 0.075 0.121 10:05:00 10:09:59 0.108 0.075 0.121 10:10:00 10:14:59 0.108 0.075 0.121 10:15:00 10:19:59 0.074 0.080 0.059 10:20:00 10:24:59 0.074 0.080 0.059 10:25:00 10:29:59 0.074 0.080 0.059 10:30:00 10:34:59 0.077 0.097 0.081 10:35:00 10:39:59 0.077 0.097 0.081 10:40:00 10:44:59 0.077 0.097 0.081 10:45:00 10:49:59 0.074 0.081 0.073 10:50:00 10:54:59 0.074 0.081 0.073 10:55:00 10:59:59 0.074 0.081 0.073 10:00:00 10:59:59 1.000 1.000 1.000
Level Crossing Barrier Time A.7 The level crossing barrier closure times for 2030 have been taken from the MDS Transmodal report (East Cambridgeshire – Summary of Freight Outputs, MDS Transmodal Ltd, June 2010) assessing the future usage of the level crossing. MDS Transmodal developed both worst and best case scenarios for the barrier closure times, where the worst case scenario experienced longer closures. For the purposes of this assessment the worst case scenario has been used.
A.8 Table A.4 is a table extracted from the report showing the times at which the level crossing barriers would be closed in 30 second segments. The red time segments indicate that the barrier would be closed.
A.9 The timings for the level crossing barriers being open and closed, as shown in Table A.4, have been input to the Paramics model.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 45
Table A.4 - Times between 10am and 11am at which the barriers are closed at Ely Level Crossing in the worst case scenario
10:00:00 to 10:04:59 10:30:00 to 10:34:59
10:05:00 to 10:09:59 10:35:00 to 10:39:59
10:10:00 to 10:14:59 10:40:00 to 10:44:59
10:15:00 to 10:19:59 10:45:00 to 10:49:59
10:20:00 to 10:24:59 10:50:00 to 10:54:59
10:25:00 to 10:29:59 10:55:00 to 10:59:00
Source: East Cambridgeshire – Summary of Freight Outputs, MDS Transmodal Ltd, June 2010
Results A.10 This section outlines the flow and queue results generated by the model. As a comparison, AM peak results have been included, although these have not been assessed directly in this analysis work.
Flows Traffic flows have been extracted from the model from a link immediately to the north of the Queen Adelaide Way junction with the A142 so that a comparison between the peak periods can be made. Table A.5 indicates that the northbound flow towards the level crossing is greater in the inter-peak than the AM peak, and therefore greater queuing would be expected during this period without any increase to the barrier closure time.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 46
Table A.5 – Modelled flows during the peak hour periods on link immediately to the north of the Queen Adelaide junction Period Northbound Southbound AM Peak 380 856 Inter-peak 455 470
Queues and Journey Times A.11 Queue lengths and journey times have been extracted from the model for both the AM and Inter-peaks so that a comparison of the relative periods can be made.
A.12 Table A.6 below provides a summary of the average and maximum queues for northbound traffic approaching the level crossing split into 5 minute intervals. This has been compared to the average journey time from houses located on Stuntney Causeway to the level crossing barriers. The distance over which the journey time has been measured is arbitrary and is shown as a comparison between the AM and Inter-peaks.
Table A.6 – Distance of queuing northbound traffic back from the level crossing barriers AM Peak Inter -peak Maximum Average Journey Maximum Average Journey Time Queue Queue Time (s) Time Queue Queue Time (s) (m) (m) (m) (m) 08:00:00 48 32 47 10:00:00 174 143 351 08:05:00 30 24 67 10:05:00 291 216 434 08:10:00 40 32 46 10:10:00 340 184 671 08:15:00 23 23 37 10:15:00 225 225 786 08:20:00 77 55 74 10:20:00 283 177 447 08:25:00 237 154 345 10:25:00 268 186 363 08:30:00 287 184 139 10:30:00 158 92 199 08:35:00 65 43 76 10:35:00 199 132 211 08:40:00 56 30 77 10:40:00 189 129 108 08:45:00 167 97 128 10:45:00 55 37 51 08:50:00 79 53 115 10:50:00 145 104 70 08:55:00 28 23 47 10:55:00 125 96 31 A.13 Figure A.1 illustrates the data in Table A.6 for the Inter-peak and Figure A.2 illustrates the AM peak data.
Figure A.1 – Inter-peak queue lengths for northbound vehicles back from level crossing barriers
400 900 350 800 300 700 600 250 500 200 400 150 300 100 200 Journey Journey Time(s) Queue LengthQueue (m) 50 100 0 0
Maximum Queue Length (m) Average Queue Length (m) Journey Time (s)
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council 47
Figure A.2 – AM Peak queue lengths for northbound vehicles back from level crossing barriers
250 400 350 200 300 150 250 200 100 150 100
50 Journey Time(s) Queue LengthQueue (m) 50 0 0
Maximum Queue Length (m) Average Queue Length (m) Journey Time (s)
Conclusions A.14 Northbound traffic flows during the inter-peak are slightly higher than during the AM peak, so some additional queuing at the barriers would be expected. However, due to the anticipated additional closure time of the level crossing barriers in 2030 queuing can be expected to be significantly worse during the inter-peak with longer queues over a more prolonged period. Figure A.1 shows that average queue lengths in excess of 100m can be expected for the majority of an inter-peak hour.
Atkins A142 Ely Level Crossing Analysis Report – East Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge County Council
ATKINS 2 Wellbrook Court Girton Cambridge Cambridgeshire CB3 0NA Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01223 814400 Direct telephone: 01223 814030 Fax: 01223 814520
© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.
The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd .