BRIDGWATER TRANSPORT OPTIONS FORECAST REPORT

October 2016 BRIDGWATER TRANSPORT OPTIONS FORECAST REPORT Somerset County Council

Project no: 287584CQ-PTT

Date: October 2016

WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Riverside Chambers Castle Street Taunton TA1 4AP www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.2 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES ...... 1

1.3 MODELLING METHOD STATEMENT ...... 2

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT ...... 2

2 FORECAST SCENARIOS ...... 4

2.1 FORECAST YEARS ...... 4

2.2 MODELLED SCENARIOS ...... 4

3 MODEL OVERVIEW ...... 6

3.1 MODEL HISTORY ...... 6

3.2 TIME PERIODS ...... 6

3.3 USER CLASSES ...... 6

4 MODEL LINK VALIDATION ...... 7

4.1 LINK VALIDATION ...... 7

4.2 TRAFFIC DATA ...... 7

4.3 VALIDATION RESULTS ...... 7

4.4 CONCLUSION ...... 8

5 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY...... 10

5.1 NETWORK CODING ...... 10

5.2 DEMAND MATRICES ...... 10

6 ASSIGNMENT CONVERGENCE ...... 14

6.1 SCENARIOS ...... 14

6.2 CONVERGENCE CRITERIA ...... 14

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 7 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS ...... 16

7.1 FORECAST SCENARIOS ...... 16

7.2 NETWORK WIDE STATISTICS ...... 16

7.3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS FOR THE CORE SCENARIO ...... 17

7.4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS FOR PROPOSED SITES 1 TO 5...... 19

7.5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS FOR SCENARIOS A, B AND C ...... 28

8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 33

8.1 FORECASTING SCENARIOS...... 33

8.2 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY...... 33

8.3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS ...... 33

8.4 LIMITATIONS ...... 34

8.5 FURTHER WORK ...... 34

TABLES

TABLE 4.1 - TRAFFIC FLOW DATA USED FOR LINK VALIDATION ...... 7 TABLE 4.2: AM PEAK HOUR LINK VALIDATION ...... 8 TABLE 4.3: PM PEAK HOUR LINK VALIDATION ...... 8 TABLE 5.1: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS – TRIP GENERATION...... 11 TABLE 6.1: WEBTAG CONVERGENCE CRITERIA ...... 14 TABLE 6.2: CONVERGENCE RESULTS ...... 15 TABLE 7.1: NETWORK WIDE STATISTICS...... 16 TABLE 7.2: JUNCTIONS WHICH ARE FORECAST TO EXPERIENCE CONGESTION IN THE CORE SCENARIO ...... 18

FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1: LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITES ...... 2 FIGURE 5.1: PROCESS TO CREATE DEMAND MATRICES...... 10 FIGURE 7.1: JUNCTIONS FORECAST TO BE OVER CAPACITY IN THE CORE SCENARIO ...... 19 FIGURE 7.2: LOCATION PLAN FOR SITE 1...... 20

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 FIGURE 7.3: LOCATION PLAN FOR SITE 2...... 22 FIGURE 7.4: LOCATION PLAN FOR SITE 3...... 24 FIGURE 7.5: LOCATION PLAN FOR SITE 4...... 25 FIGURE 7.6: LOCATION PLAN FOR SITE 5 MAP ...... 27 FIGURE 7.7: LOCATION PLAN FOR SCENARIO A ...... 29 FIGURE 7.8: LOCATION PLAN FOR SCENARIO B ...... 31 FIGURE 7.9: LOCATION PLAN FOR SCENARIO C...... 32

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A MODELLING METHOD STATEMENT APPENDIX B HIGHWAYS ENGLAND RESPONSE TO MODELLING METHOD STATEMENT APPENDIX C UNCERTAINTY LOG, TRIP RATES AND TRIP GENERATION APPENDIX D TEMPRO GROWTH FACTORS APPENDIX E RTF GROWTH FACTORS APPENDIX F CONVERGENCE STATISTICS APPENDIX G SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX H SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX I SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX J SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX K SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX L SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX M SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS APPENDIX N SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Modelling work has been undertaken to assess the impact of proposed development sites beyond the current Core Strategy period. Forecasts were created for the 2032 AM (08:00 to 09:00) and PM (17:00 to 18:00) peak hours to test the impact of five potential development sites within Sedgemoor, in comparison with a ‘Core Scenario’:

à Core Scenario à Site 1: Land to the west of Bridgwater – Core Scenario plus 1,200 dwellings, primary school and the relocation of Haygrove School. à Site 2: Land at East Bridgwater – Core Scenario plus 800 dwellings and a primary school à Site 3: Land north of Chilton Trinity – Core Scenario plus 2,500 dwellings plus a primary school, 2,500m2 B1 development and 27,000m2 B8 development à Site 4: Land at South Bridgwater – Core Scenario plus 300 dwellings à Site 5: Land at Huntworth – Core Scenario plus 5,338m2 B1 development and 22,257m2 B8 development à Scenario A – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 à Scenario B – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 1 and 3 à Scenario C – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 2, 4 and 5

The results of the individual site assessments forecast that Sites 1 (Land to the West of Bridgwater) and Site 3 (Land at Chilton Trinity) would have the greatest traffic impacts. The modelling also demonstrates that a single point of access for Site 3, from Dunball Roundabout or elsewhere on Bristol Road, is unlikely to be sufficient.

Site 2 (Land at East Bridgwater) is forecast to have the least impact upon the highway network and is not anticipated to result in increased congestion or delay.

This report identifies issues but not potential solutions. Following discussion with stakeholders it is expected that work will be undertaken to identify appropriate transport improvements to support the development sites, with modelling to determine those which are most suitable.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 1

1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff has been commissioned by Somerset County Council (SCC) to undertake traffic modelling in relation to the formulation and assessment of Transport Options for Bridgwater on behalf of Sedgemoor District Council (SDC). The outcome of this study will ultimately be used as part of the evidence base for the upcoming Local Plan (Core Strategy Review) to be developed by Sedgemoor District Council. This report outlines the traffic forecasting that has been undertaken using the existing TSTM3 SATURN Traffic Model, owned by SCC.

1.1.2 Due to the potential need to test schemes to the north of Bridgwater, and to include the Huntspill Energy Park (HEP) in the Forecast Model, it is proposed to use the version of the TSTM3 SATURN model re-validated in 2012 by Peter Brett Associates for the HEP Transport Assessment. The validated model was reviewed and considered appropriate by SCC in 2012; Highways England and their then consultants JMP were also involved in the scoping and agreement of the modelling and Transport Assessment.

1.1.3 Forecasts of traffic demand have been prepared in accordance with the Department for Transport’s WebTAG guidance. The model does not meet all WebTAG criteria due to the nature of the existing traffic model, but this is not considered to be an issue for this high level strategy work.

1.1.4 Prior to undertaking the modelling WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff has reviewed existing work (particularly Transport Assessments relating to Hinkley Point C (HPC) and the Huntspill Energy Park), and held discussions with SDC and SCC, in order to fully understand the extent of committed/allocated development. The result of this review and discussion was the Method Statement (dated October 2015) which was also agreed with Highways England (the Modelling Method Statement is provided at Appendix A. Highways England’s response to the proposed methodology is provided at Appendix B).

1.2 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES

1.2.1 The five proposed development sites which have been tested are listed below. Each of the five sites has been tested in isolation and in combination with other sites. A description of each of the forecast scenarios is discussed in Section 2. The location of each of the development sites is provided in Figure 1.1.

à Site 1 - Land to the west of Bridgwater – 1,200 dwellings, primary school and the relocation of Haygrove School. à Site 2 - Land at East Bridgwater – 800 dwellings and a primary school à Site 3 – Land north of Chilton Trinity – 2,500 dwellings plus a primary school, 2,500m2 B1 development and 27,000m2 B8 development à Site 4 - Land at South Bridgwater – 300 dwellings à Site 5 - Land at Huntworth – 5,338m2 B1 development and 22,257m2 B8 development

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 2

Figure 1.1: Location of the proposed development sites

1.3 MODELLING METHOD STATEMENT

1.3.1 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared a Modelling Method Statement (dated October 2015) which sets out the proposed methodology for the development of the forecast models and the testing of potential infrastructure schemes and major development in the local area of Bridgwater. This document was discussed and agreed with SDC, SCC and Highways England, although Highways England did request some additional supporting information which is to be provided separately.

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.4.1 The primary purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the modelling approach that has been applied in the development of the future year forecasts and to identify the assumptions that have been made. The report also outlines the future year traffic conditions for the different scenarios to test.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 3

1.4.2 Following this work, it is intended that consideration will be given to potential infrastructure improvements. This Stage 2 work will form the basis of a second report.

1.4.3 It is noted that this document is intended to be a Technical Report. A Non-Technical Summary Report will be produced summarising the future year traffic conditions with and without potential infrastructure improvements and on completion of Stage 2.

1.4.4 The remainder of this report is set out as follows:

à Chapter 2: Forecast Scenarios – describes the different forecast scenarios which have been tested. à Chapter 3:Model Overview – provides an overview of the existing 2010 base model which has been used to develop the 2030 forecasts. à Chapter 4: Model Link Validation – describes the level of link validation for key links near the Strategic Road Network. à Chapter 5: Forecasting Methodology – outlines the methodology which has been adopted to create the forecast models and specifies the assumptions made at each stage. à Chapter 6: Assignment Convergence – reports the convergence results for each of the forecast scenarios and assesses the level of convergence in line with WebTAG specified acceptability criteria. à Chapter 7: Assignment Results – each describes the future year conditions in terms of predicted traffic flows and delay for links and junctions. à Chapter 8: Conclusions – summarises the key findings from the modelling work undertaken and highlights the deficiencies of the model in accurately predicting future year traffic conditions.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 4

2 FORECAST SCENARIOS 2.1 FORECAST YEARS

2.1.1 The existing Sedgemoor District Council Core Strategy ‘Shaping the Future of Sedgemoor 2006-27’ runs to 2027. The revised Local Plan will cover the period to 2032, and therefore the modelled forecast year scenarios were created for that future year.

2.2 MODELLED SCENARIOS

THE CORE SCENARIO

2.2.1 In order to provide a comparison baseline to assess the impact of each of the proposed development sites, a 2032 ‘Core Scenario’ has been developed. This assignment includes all committed and proposed development within Sedgemoor up to the end of the Core Strategy Period and included major development such as Hinkley Point C and Huntspill Energy Park. Full details of all committed developments which have been included in the Core Scenario are provided in Appendix C1.

TREATMENT OF HINKLEY POINT C

2.2.2 The modelling has assumed that no Hinkley Point C (HPC) construction traffic will still be present on the network in 2032. The HPC project and its construction traffic, during its construction phase, is being managed and monitored in accordance with the Development Consent Order (DCO) and the associated Section 106 agreement granted by the Government through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project regime in 2012. The DCO and the Section 106 agreement dictate the times and numbers of vehicles which are allowed to travel to and from the site per day. They also control the accommodation strategy for the employees involved in the delivery of the project and how they are to travel to and from the site.

2.2.3 The success of these strategies is monitored through a Transport Review Group and the Socio-Economic Advisory group, which, should any challenges or issues occur, will require amendments to the strategies or require EDF Energy to mitigate any impacts as and when they occur. Funds for mitigation for transport impacts are provided by EDFE to Somerset County Council for example, for walking, cycling, safety improvements and EDFE have direct obligations to improve specific junctions in line with their transport assessment and strategy. The District Council have also secured funds to invest in the public realm to help compensate for the ‘economic costs of congestion’.

2.2.4 Should significant changes to the project or strategies arise during implementation, or additional impacts present, the transport assessment which identifies the impact of the construction related traffic may need to be updated. Whilst the construction traffic is ‘temporary’, this is now estimated to be for a protracted period in excess of ten years, commencing in 2016.

1 Committed development have been based on an Uncertainty Log, discussed in more detail in paragraph 5.2.2.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 5

2.2.5 Sedgemoor District Council has advised that they do not consider it to be the role of the Local Plan transport strategy is make provision for the temporary construction impacts of a nationally significant infrastructure project, which is consented through a different planning regime. The assessment and mitigation of these impacts will need to be fully explored through that regime and its monitoring and complaints processes. The Department of Transport, EDFE, the Local Enterprise Partnership, Highways England and the Homes and Communities Agency will need to work with the Councils to respond to and consider the implementation issues arising from Hinkley, and work to find solutions to address any capacity gaps in the network during the construction period.

DEVELOPMENT SITES

2.2.6 Forecast year assignments have been created which include the proposed development sites identified in section 0 to test the impact of each site in isolation. A description of the development which has been assessed within each assignment is provided below:

à Site 1 - Land to the west of Bridgwater – 1,200 dwellings, primary school and the relocation of Haygrove School; à Site 2 - Land at East Bridgwater – 800 dwellings and a primary school; à Site 3 – Land north of Chilton Trinity – 2,500 dwellings plus a primary school, 2,500m2 B1 development and 27,000m2 B8 development; à Site 4 - Land at South Bridgwater – 300 dwellings; à Site 5 - Land at Huntworth – 5,338m2 B1 development and 22,257m2 B8 development.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

2.2.7 The proposed sites for testing were described in Section 1.2, and these form Scenarios “Site 1” to “Site 5”.

2.2.8 In addition to each proposed development site being tested individually, the sites have also been tested in the following combinations:

à Scenario A - Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; à Scenario B - Sites 1 and 3; à Scenario C - Sites 2, 4, and 5.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 6

3 MODEL OVERVIEW 3.1 MODEL HISTORY

3.1.1 The original Taunton Strategic Traffic Model (TSTM1) was built in 2001 and has since been updated and revalidated, most recently to a 2010 base year (TSTM3). An extended version of the model was developed in 2012 in order to test the impact of the Huntspill Energy Park development (HEP). This expanded version, which maintains the 2010 base year, is the one which has been used for the current work.

3.1.2 The 2010 TSTM3 covered the towns of Bridgwater, Taunton and Wellington, including the M5 between Junctions 23 and 26. The expanded 2012 version of the model that was developed to test HEP also includes network further to the north and east, as far as Junction 22.

3.1.3 Primary routes and important minor roads are included and fully simulated within the fully modelled area. Peripheral parts of the network are coded as a ‘buffer network’.

3.2 TIME PERIODS

3.2.1 The base model was created to represent a typical weekday during term time in the year 2010 and consists of an AM peak (08:00 to 09:00) and PM peak (17:00 to 18:00). These time periods have been taken forward to model forecasting.

3.3 USER CLASSES

3.3.1 Traffic demand in the model is split into two user classes which represent ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles. In addition, buses are represented as fixed flows on timetabled routes. The existing user classes have been taken forward to model forecasting, with bus routes assumed to remain unchanged. Whilst in practice this is unlikely, it will not affect the results unless a step-change in public transport provision is anticipated.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 7

4 MODEL LINK VALIDATION 4.1 LINK VALIDATION

4.1.1 Following consultation with Highways England on the proposed modelling approach2, Highways England recommended that link validation checks were undertaken for key links near the Strategic Road Network (SRN)3 . This is to provide a level of assurance to Highways England that the model is robust and reliable in reliable in relation to the impacts on the SRN

4.1.2 Consequently, a link validation exercise was undertaken comparing observed and modelled traffic flows for the following links:

à M5 Junction 22 Link Road à A39 east of M5 Junction 23 à A39 west of Junction 23 à Huntworth Lane west of M5 Junction 244 4.2 TRAFFIC DATA

4.2.1 The traffic data used for the link validation exercise is summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 - Traffic Flow Data used for Link Validation

LINK TRAFFIC DATA SOURCE DATES

M5 J22 Link Road Highways England TRIS database5 June 2015

A39 east of M5 J23 ATC data November 2015

A39 west of M5 J23 ATC Data November 2015

Huntworth Lane west of J24 ATC Data 7 October 2015

4.3 VALIDATION RESULTS

4.3.1 The level of link validation has been determined by the absolute and percentage differences in observed and modelled flows (in vehicles per hour (veh/h)), as well as the GEH statistical value6.

4.3.2 The validation results for the aforementioned links for the AM and PM peak hours

2 Technical Note 287584CQ-PTT, dated August 2015. 3 Report entitled Forecast SATURN Model Method Statement Review, prepared by JMP on behalf of Highways England, dated 07/09/2015, provided at Appendix B 4 Traffic data was unavailable for Huntworth Lane east of M5 Junction 24. 5 https://data.gov.uk/dataset/dft-eng-srn-routes-journey-times 6 The GEH states is a form of chi-squared which incorporates both relative and absolute errors. TAG Unit M3.1 specifies that GEH value of <5 should be achieved for over 85% of cases.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 8

are summarised in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3.

Table 4.2: AM Peak Hour Link Validation LINK LINK OBSERVED MODELLED GEH JUNCTION DIRECTION MEETS MEETS (VEHICLES) (VEHICLES) VALUE CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 M5 J22 Link Road EB 1448 1304 3.89 Yes Yes M5 J22 Link Road WB 813 948 4.54 No Yes M5 J23 – A39 East EB 809 719 3.27 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 East WB 1113 1151 1.14 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 West EB 564 573 0.40 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 West WB 900 979 2.57 Yes Yes M5 J24 – Huntworth Lane EB 1125 912 6.68 No No M5 J24 – Huntworth Lane WB 775 763 0.43 Yes Yes

Table 4.3: PM Peak Hour Link Validation LINK LINK OBSERVED MODELLED GEH JUNCTION DIRECTION MEETS MEETS (VEHICLES) (VEHICLES) VALUE CRITERIA 1 CRITERIA 2 M5 J22 Link Road EB 1334 974 10.57 No No M5 J22 Link Road WB 1400 1437 0.97 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 East EB 1080 1078 0.06 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 East WB 805 785 0.70 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 West EB 884 934 1.67 Yes Yes M5 J23 – A39 West WB 728 694 1.28 Yes Yes M5 J24 – Huntworth Lane EB 1077 780 9.76 No No M5 J24 – Huntworth Lane WB 954 950 0.15 Yes Yes

4.4 CONCLUSION

4.4.1 The validation results presented in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 demonstrate an acceptable level of validation for the majority of links. The notable exceptions are Junction 22 Link Road eastbound in the PM period and Huntworth Lane eastbound in both periods. In these instances the observed flows on these links are greater than modelled flows.

4.4.2 The validation exercise involved the comparison of 2010 modelled flows with 2015 observed flows. Therefore, it can be expected that there would be differences between observed and modelled flows due to the recent developments within Burnham-on-Sea and Weston-Super-Mare and (which would impact upon the M5 at Junction 22) and developments such as the Stockmoor and Wilson housing development and Bridgwater Enterprise Park near to Junction 24. Such developments are included within the 2030 future year Forecast Scenarios (in addition to future committed developments).

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 9

4.4.3 It is considered that this variation will not affect the overall conclusions of this strategic level study (especially at Junction 22, where the impact of the development options will be relatively small). Any future assessment of the motorway junctions should however review the differences and account for them appropriately.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 10

5 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY 5.1 NETWORK CODING

5.1.1 Committed infrastructure, including infrastructure which has been constructed since 2010, was incorporated into the existing 2010 network to create the 2032 forecast network. After discussion with Highways England it was agreed that the proposed Henlade Bypass, improvements to M5 Junction 25 and improvements to the A358 will be included in the 2032 forecast model as Government policy deems these to be committed. The Uncertainty Log summarising the list of committed infrastructure schemes which have been incorporated into the 2032 network is provided at Appendix C; note that this log incorporates all proposals since 2010, even if they have already been built.

5.2 DEMAND MATRICES

5.2.1 The flow chart in Figure 5.1 below summarises the steps involved in the preparation of the forecast year demand matrices. Each step is described in more detail in the remainder of this chapter.

Figure 5.1: Process to create demand matrices

1 - Trip •To determine the total traffic flow to/from Generation each explicitly modelled development site.

2 - Background •To determine growth factors to be applied to Growth trips associated with non-development zones.

3 - HGV • To determine the growth factors to be applied to HGV trips associated with non-development Growth zones

• To determine the distribution of traffic to, 4 - Distribution from and between explicitly modelled development sites.

5 - Highway •To assign the forecast demand matrices onto the forecast network using the highway Assignment assignment software SATURN

STEP 1 - TRIP GENERATION

5.2.2 An Uncertainty Log was developed by SCC/SDC which identifies proposed developments within the Sedgemoor district and surrounding area. The Uncertainty Log includes the level of certainty (in line with WebTAG specification) and the anticipated delivery timescale for each site. Sites categorised as ‘near certain’ or

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 11

‘more than likely’ were explicitly modelled (point loaded) within the demand forecasts in line with recommendations set out in WebTAG. In addition, certain sites which have been classified as ‘reasonably foreseeable’ have also been included in the demand forecasts where there is a commitment to deliver the site through its inclusion in the adopted Local Plan or supplementary planning policy.

5.2.3 For larger development sites, the trip generation was obtained from the relevant Transport Assessment (TA). The trip generation for smaller sites was established based upon trip rates from TRICS.

5.2.4 Trip generation for the proposed sites for testing was derived from TRICS based on the development mix. For sites which contained both residential and school elements, a degree of internalisation was applied (equivalent to 30% of trips to/from the school being associated with the local development7). To ensure a robust assessment, and in the absence of any local evidence, no internalisation for other uses was incorporated.

5.2.5 The resultant total trip generation is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Proposed developments – trip generation AM AM PM PM SCENARIO ARRIVALS DEPARTURES ARRIVALS DEPARTURES Site 1 – Land to the West of Bridgwater 398 645 467 271

Site 2 – Land to the East of Bridgwater 137 347 314 184

Site 3 – Land north of Chilton Trinity 566 1127 993 697

Site 4 – Land at South Bridgwater 43 124 116 66

Site 5 – Land at Huntworth 150 48 37 133

5.2.6 With the exception of the larger development sites, where trip generation for HGVs has been taken from the relevant TA, it has been assumed that all explicitly modelled trips will be ‘light’ vehicles with HGV trips accounted for as part of background growth.

5.2.7 The Uncertainty Log, trip rates and the source used to establish the trip generation for each site is provided at Appendix C.

STEP 2 – BACKGROUND GROWTH

5.2.8 Background traffic growth has been applied to traffic associated with non- development zones through obtaining growth factors from TEMPro (dataset 6.2)8.

7 The 30% internalisation factor was applied to account for home-school trips which are anticipated to remain within the same zone and would not be present upon the surrounding highway network (as they would remain on local inter-zonal roads). The 30% internalisation factor was an estimate provided by SCC based upon the proportion of pupils expected to use their nearest school. 8 TEMPro Growth was only applied to ‘light’ vehicles (i.e. cars) as HGV growth was applied separately

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 12

Background traffic growth was not applied to new development zones which contained point-loaded trips.

5.2.9 TEMPro growth factors were applied to non-development zones in the model based on the wider NTEM zone within which each model zone lies. County, Regional or National factors were applied to larger external zones that are distant from the study area.

5.2.10 To prevent over-estimating traffic growth within the Sedgemoor area the planning assumptions within TEMPro were adjusted to remove houses and employment which were explicitly modelled as development sites. Where the number of residential units or jobs explicitly modelled exceeded the estimates in TEMPro, the future level was fixed at the 2010 level (i.e. was not adjusted to assume negative background growth). The latter assumption is considered to provide an appropriate representation of Core Strategy aspirations.

5.2.11 The TEMPro growth factors used in the creation of the 2032 forecast matrices are provided at Appendix D.

STEP 3 – HGV GROWTH

5.2.12 Growth factors for HGV vehicles were determined using the Department for Transport’s Road Traffic Forecasts 2015 (RTF)9. As with TEMPro growth, RTF growth was only applied HGV trips associated with zones which did not include point loaded developments.

5.2.13 The RTF growth factors used in the creation of the 2032 forecast matrices are provided at Appendix E.

STEP 4 – DISTRIBUTION

5.2.14 A gravity model was developed to derive a trip distribution for all development sites, meaning that distributions from individual TAs (where available) were not used. This methodology is preferable to adopting an existing distribution from a similar zone because it enables trips to be distributed between development sites, as would be expected given the mix of housing and employment developments proposed.

5.2.15 The formula used to determine trip distribution within the gravity model is as follows:

T O D f(C )

Where:= γ T is the number of trips distributed between i and j O is the origin trip end D is the destination trip end; f(C ) is a deterrence function; and represents a balancing factor which enable constraint to both origin and destination trip ends. γ

9 Factors were calculated based upon the RTF ‘Scenario 1’ assumptions.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 13

The deterrence function is calculated as follows:

f C =C exp C ) Where: (−β

and are parameters which were calibrated; and C represents the generalised cost between zones i and j. α β 5.2.16 The validated base model was used to supply origin-destination costs for the gravity model and for calibrating the deterrence function parameters. Matrices of generalised cost were derived by applying values of time and vehicle operating costs from WebTAG to time and distance skims from the base model assignments.

5.2.17 As previously discussed, HGV trip generation was only been established for larger sites which are anticipated to generate a substantial number of HGV trips. The distribution of HGV trips was calculated using the existing distribution from the 2010 base model. This method is simpler than using a gravity model and as only a few sites were anticipated to generate HGV trips (compared to the number of sites generating ‘light’ vehicle trips) this method was considered to be acceptable.

STEP 5 – HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT

5.2.18 The demand matrix was assigned onto the forecast network using the highway assignment modelling software SATURN (v.10.9.22). The model was assigned using link-based assignment which is consistent with the original 2010 base model. In addition to the changes to the network discussed in Section 5.1, it was assumed that each site would be provided with a suitable access point onto the local network.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 14

6 ASSIGNMENT CONVERGENCE 6.1 SCENARIOS

6.1.1 As described in Section 2, a 2032 strategic SATURN model has been developed to test the impact of five proposed development sites in Bridgwater. Each of the five development sites have been tested in isolation and in various combinations as part of three potential development scenarios and compared with the Core Scenario.

6.1.2 In summary, the following forecast assignments have been created to represent the 2032 AM (08:00 to 09:00) and PM (17:00 to 18:00) peak hours:

à Core Scenario – includes all committed developments and infrastructure, as described in Section 5. à Site 1 – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Site 1 à Site 2 – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Site 2 à Site 3 – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Site 3 à Site 4 – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Site 4 à Site 5 – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Site 5 à Scenario A – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 à Scenario B – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 1 and 3 à Scenario C – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 2, 4 and 5

6.1.3 The remainder of this chapter summarises the level of model convergence achieved by each of the forecast assignments.

6.2 CONVERGENCE CRITERIA

6.2.1 Model convergence is required in order to provide stable, consistent and robust model results. The WebTAG specified convergence criteria and acceptability levels for each criterion are summarised in Table 6.110.

Table 6.1: WebTAG Convergence Criteria MEASURE OF CONVERGENCE BASE MODEL ACCEPTABLE VALUES Delta and %GAP Less than 0.1% or at least stable with convergence fully documented and all other criteria met Percentage of links with flow Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% change (P)<1% Percentage of links with cost Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% change (P2)<1% Percentage change in total user Four consecutive iterations less than 0.1% (Stochastic User Equilibrium costs (V) only)11

10 From Table 4, WebTAG Unit M3.1 (January 2014) 11 This criteria has not been considered for this model as is only applicable to Stochastic User Equilibrium Assignment (SUE)

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 15

6.2.2 In order to achieve an acceptable level of stability for each assignment it was necessary to reduce the P2 target value to 97% for the following assignments:

§ Core Scenario - AM peak hour § Site 3 - AM peak hour § Site 4 - AM peak hour This is not considered to affect the conclusions of the work as it only affects the results at the local level.

6.2.3 The level of model convergence for each of the assignments is summarised in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Convergence Results

SCENARIO AM PEAK HOUR MODEL PM PEAK HOUR MODEL Core Scenario P2 value set to 97%. Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. Fully meets all other WebTAG convergence criteria.

Scenario A Fully meets all WebTAG Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. convergence criteria.

Scenario B Fully meets all WebTAG Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. convergence criteria.

Scenario C Fully meets all WebTAG Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. convergence criteria.

Site 1 Fully meets all WebTAG Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. convergence criteria.

Site 2 Fully meets all WebTAG Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. convergence criteria.

Site 3 P2 value set to 97%. Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. Fully meets all other WebTAG convergence criteria.

Site 4 P2 value set to 97%. Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. Fully meets all other WebTAG convergence criteria. Site 5 Fully meets all WebTAG Fully meets all WebTAG convergence criteria. convergence criteria.

6.2.4 The full convergence statistics for the 2032 forecast models are presented in Appendix F. The results demonstrate that all assignments achieve %Gap and Delta values well within the specified threshold of 0.1% for both modelled peaks.

6.2.5 Examination of the stability indicators P1 and P2 shows that the majority of assignments fully meet the WebTAG criteria. Where assignments fail to fully meet the WebTAG criteria convergence is achieved by relaxing the target values only marginally.

6.2.6 It is therefore considered that the 2032 forecast assignments achieve a level of convergence which is satisfactory for the purpose of undertaking a high level assessment of alternative development scenarios.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 16

7 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS 7.1 FORECAST SCENARIOS

7.1.1 This chapter summarises the assignment results for each of the forecast scenarios in terms of the network-wide statistics and the main traffic impacts associated with each of the five development sites.

7.1.2 Information has also been provided on the operation of key junctions which are anticipated to experience capacity issues in 2032 without the inclusion of any additional development above that currently proposed for the Core Scenario.

7.2 NETWORK WIDE STATISTICS

7.2.1 The network wide statistics shows the number of trips that have been modelled for each peak hour for each of the scenarios. They also provide an indication of the anticipated impact this would have on the average traffic speeds during the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 7.1: Network Wide Statistics

TOTAL TRIPS (PCUs)12 AVERAGE SPEED (KPH)

AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK Change Change Change Change ASSIGNMENT from Core from Core from Core from Core Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Core Scenario 53,620 0 58,262 0 54.7 0.0 51.1 0.0 Site 1 53,973 354 58,630 368 53.3 -1.4 50.2 -0.9 Site 2 53,862 242 58,510 248 54.3 -0.4 50.7 -0.4 Site 3 54,468 848 59,111 849 53.6 -1.1 50.0 -1.1 Site 4 53,684 64 58,352 90 54.5 -0.2 51.1 0.0 Site 5 53,719 99 58,348 86 54.4 -0.3 51.1 0.0 Scenario A 55,246 1,626 59,902 1,640 51.7 -3.0 49.1 -2.0 Scenario B 54,821 1,202 59,478 1,216 52.1 -2.6 49.4 -1.7 Scenario C 54,045 425 58,686 424 54.1 -0.6 50.6 -0.5

7.2.2 The network wide statistics presented in Table 7.1 demonstrate that:

When examining the impact of individual sites:

< Sites 4 (Land at South Bridgwater) and 5 (Land at Huntworth) generate the lowest volumes of additional traffic and are anticipated to have the least impact on average speeds.

< Site 3 (Land north of Chilton Trinity) generates the greatest volume of additional traffic and is anticipated to result in reduced average speeds during both peak hours.

12 The total trips for each scenario include Core Scenario trips plus balanced trip generations specified in Table 5.1 (i.e. so that all trips to have an origin and a destination).

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 17

< Site 1 (Land to the west of Bridgwater) generates the second greatest volume of additional traffic but is shown to have the greatest impact on average speeds during the AM peak.

When assessing Scenarios A, B and C:

< Scenario A, which includes all 5 proposed development sites, has the greatest volume of additional traffic and average speeds are anticipated to be lower than in Scenarios B or C.

< Scenario C, which includes sites 2, 4 and 5, generates less additional traffic than Scenarios A or B and is expected to have the least impact on average speeds. 7.3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS FOR THE CORE SCENARIO

7.3.1 The methodology outlined in Chapter 5 was used to develop the 2032 Core Scenario. In order to assess the impact of each proposed development site it is necessary to understand traffic conditions in the 2032 Core Scenario.

7.3.2 The volume to capacity ratio (V/C) has been examined as an indicator of congestion, whereby a V/C value greater than 100% is considered to signify that a link is likely to experience noticeable queuing and delay.

7.3.3 Junctions which have been forecast to have V/C values greater than 100% on at least one approach arm in either the AM or PM peak hour (or both) in the 2032 Core Scenario are listed in Table 7.2. The location of these junctions is shown in Figure 7.1 (page 19). Each junction has been allocated a site ID for ease of reference.

7.3.4 In addition to the junctions identified in Table 7.2, the following roads have been forecast as experiencing congestion in the 2032 Core Scenario:

à A38 Taunton Road - It is forecast that Taunton Road is anticipated to experience congestion and delay westbound (i.e. towards Taunton) between Showground and Huntworth roundabouts during the AM and PM peak hours in the 2030 Core Scenario. à Northgate – Northgate is anticipated to experience congestion as a result of proposed developments which have been modelled as part of the Core Scenario. However, the amount of development that has been modelled in the vicinity of Northgate is considered a “worst case” scenario and emerging proposals are for a smaller scale development13.

13 The traffic impact associated with individual developments would be examined through the preparation of a Transport Assessment.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 18

Table 7.2: Junctions which are forecast to experience congestion in the Core Scenario

SITE ID JUNCTION

J23 M5 Junction 23 circulatory and western approach arm

TA A38 Taunton Road / Broadway

XR A38 Cross Rifles (Cannon) Roundabout

EP A38 Bristol Road / Express Park

MO A38 Bristol Road / Kings Drive

WY A38 Bristol Road / Wylds Road

PU A39 Bath Road / Puriton Hill

PK A39 Bath Road / Parkway

SP Broadway / Salmon Parade

CT Western Way / Chilton Road

WB Wembdon Road / Northfield

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 19

Figure 7.1: Junctions forecast to be over capacity in the Core Scenario

7.4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS FOR PROPOSED SITES 1 TO 5

7.4.1 This sub-section examines the traffic impact associated with each of the five proposed development sites. The traffic impacts described in this section relate to the forecast conditions in the future year of 2032 which assumes that all committed highway improvement schemes (such as schemes which will be delivered as part of the Hinkley Point C and Huntspill Energy Park proposals) have been completed14.

7.4.2 Comparisons have been made between the Core Scenario and each test assignment in terms of traffic flows (in PCUs), V/C and delay (in seconds).

14 The proposed Park and Ride facility for Hinkley Point C construction workers has not been included as this is only a temporary provision.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 20

SITE 1 - LAND TO THE WEST OF BRIDGWATER

1200 DWELLINGS, PRIMARY SCHOOL AND RELOCATION OF HAYGROVE SCHOOL

7.4.3 Site 1 consists of two parcels of land situated to the north and south of Quantock Road. The proposed access arrangement for this site is via a new four-armed roundabout on Quantock Road. The proposed location of Site 1 is shown in Figure 1.1 (page 20).

7.4.4 The modelling results for the Site 1 analysis indicate a substantial increase in flow (in comparison with the Core Scenario) at the following junctions:

SITE ID JUNCTION

A1 Proposed 4-arm roundabout on the A39 (site access)

WR A39 Whitegate Roundabout

HO Homberg Way / Wembdon Rise signalised junction

7.4.5 The locations of these junctions are shown in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2: Location Plan for Site 1

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 21

7.4.6 In summary, the modelling results for Site 1 forecast that:

< Considerable increase flows along the A39 Quantock Road during both peak hours. This is forecast to lead to delays at Whitegate Roundabout of around 8 minutes in the AM peak and 2 minutes during the PM peak.

< The consequence of this is that a significant level of traffic diverts through Wembdon Village. This re-routing is more prominent during the AM peak than the PM peak.

< The result of traffic re-routing is that the Homberg Way / Wembdon Rise signalised junction is forecast to experience around 5 minutes of additional delay during the AM peak. The difference in the level of delay during the PM peak is expected to be less noticeable, with additional delay forecast to be less than 20 seconds.

< The proposed site access roundabout on the A39 Quantock Road is also anticipated to operate over capacity on the eastern arm during the AM and PM peak.

7.4.7 Further details of forecast traffic flows, delay and V/C values for the Site 1 assignment and a comparison with the Core Scenario are provided at Appendix G.

7.4.8 Being on the edge of the town, the SATURN network in this area is not as detailed as for other sites. There is a slightly higher degree of uncertainty regarding the results for this reason, but in broad terms the conclusions are considered to be reasonable.

SITE 2 - LAND AT EAST BRIDGWATER

800 DWELLINGS AND PRIMARY SCHOOL

7.4.9 Site 2 consists of two parcels of land located to the north and south of Westonzoyland Road which are bounded by the M5 on the east. The access arrangement for this site is via a proposed four-armed roundabout to replace the existing Westonzoyland Road / Bower Lane and Westonzoyland Road / Dunwear Lane priority junctions. The proposed location for Site 2 is shown in Figure 7.3 (page 22).

7.4.10 The modelling results for the Site 2 analysis indicate a substantial increase in flow (in comparison with the Core Scenario) at the following junctions:

SITE ID JUNCTION

WZ Proposed 4 arm roundabout on Westonzoyland Road

SJ Broadway / St John Street signalised junction

7.4.11 The locations of these junctions are shown in Figure 7.3 (page 22).

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 22

Figure 7.3: Location Plan for Site 2

7.4.12 To summarise the results of the modelling assessment for Site 2:

< Unlikely to lead to capacity issues (or delay) at the proposed Westonzoyland Road/ Bower Lane/ Dunwear Lane roundabout.

< Will increase traffic flows on Westonzoyland Road and St John Street. This is likely to result in increased delay at the Broadway / St John Street signalised junction, especially during the AM peak. The level of additional delay at this junction is around 30 seconds in the AM peak and around 10 seconds in the PM peak. However, detailed junction modelling would need to be undertaken to fully understand the associated traffic impact.

< The increase in traffic flow and delay on Westonzoyland Road is not anticipated to result in any significant levels of traffic re-routing.

< The Eastover entry to the Broadway /St John Street junction is anticipated to be approaching capacity in the PM peak. However, this is anticipated in the Core Scenario and is not substantially affected by the provision of Site 2.

7.4.13 Further details of forecast traffic flows, delay and V/C values for the Site 2 assignment and a comparison with the Core Scenario are provided at Appendix H.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 23

SITE 3 - LAND NORTH OF CHILTON TRINITY

2,500 DWELLINGS, PRIMARY SCHOOL + 2,500M2 B1 DEVELOPMENT AND 27,000M2 B8 DEVELOPMENT

7.4.14 Site 3 is located to the north of Chilton Trinity and to the west of Bristol Road and the River Parrett. The location of Site 3 is shown in Figure 7.4 (page 24). The proposed access arrangement for this site is via the western arm of Dunball roundabout, which currently provides access to Bridgwater Business Park. This would involve the provision of a new bridge across the River Parrett. However, initial model runs indicated that this access arrangement would be insufficient to allow the forecast traffic demand to access the local highway network. Therefore, a second access has been modelled which is located on Bristol Road to the south of Dunball roundabout15.

7.4.15 It should be noted that the current assignment assumes that a high proportion of traffic associated with Site 3 would distribute onto the M5 at Junction 23. This is due to the location of the site in proximity to the motorway junction and the distribution from the gravity model.

7.4.16 The modelling results for the Site 3 analysis indicate a substantial increase in flow (in comparison with the Core Scenario) at the following junctions:

SITE ID JUNCTION

J23 M5 Junction 2316

DB Dunball Roundabout

MO A38 Bristol Road / Kings Drive

7.4.17 The locations of these junctions are shown in Figure 7.4.

15 It is noted that the provision of two access points which require river crossings is unlikely to be deliverable. An alternative second access point on the A39 at was not considered an appropriate assumption as this would imply a ‘bypass’ which is an infrastructure option to be tested. 16 It is worth noting that the 2032 Forecast model assumes that the committed highway scheme at junction 23 is in place.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 24

Figure 7.4: Location Plan for Site 3

7.4.18 The modelling assessment for Site 3 forecasts that:

< The provision of a single point of access onto Dunball Roundabout is insufficient to meet the forecast traffic demand for the site and a secondary point of access is expected to be required for a development on this scale.

< At Dunball roundabout, increased traffic demand originating from the site results in increased congestion and delay for southbound traffic on the Bristol Road northern arm during the AM peak hour.

< The provision of Site 3 will result in increased traffic flows along the A38 Bristol Road and at Junction 23 during AM and PM peak hours.

< The forecast level of traffic and congestion is forecast to result in a notable increase in travel times where traffic travelling from Bristol Road north towards the M5 is forecast to experience an increase in delay of around 4 minutes.

< The modelling assessment forecast a significant increase in traffic flows on

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 25

the M5 J23 north-bound off-slip and south-bound on-slip during both the AM and PM peaks. This results in an increase in V/C values and delay at these locations.

< The Bristol Road / King’s Drive Roundabout is anticipated to be over capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours. However, this junction is forecast to be over capacity in the Core Scenario and is not substantially affected by the provision of Site 3.

7.4.19 Further details of forecast traffic flows, delay and V/C values for the Site 3 assignment and a comparison with the Core Scenario are provided at Appendix I.

SITE 4 - LAND AT SOUTH BRIDGWATER

300 DWELLINGS

7.4.20 Site 4 is located to the west of newly built Stockmoor Village. The proposed access for Site 4 is from Campion Way. The proposed location for Site 4 is shown in Figure 7.5.

Figure 7.5: Location Plan for Site 4

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 26

7.4.21 The modelling results for the Site 4 analysis indicate a substantial increase in flow (in comparison with the Core Scenario) at the following junctions:

SITE ID JUNCTION

HW Huntworth Roundabout

J24 M5 Junction 24

7.4.22 The locations of these junctions are shown in Figure 7.5. It should be noted that current improvements (signalisation17) of the Huntworth Roundabout are incorporated into the forecasting for all scenarios.

7.4.23 The modelling forecast for Site 4 indicates that:

< The provision of development at Site 4 results in an increase in traffic flows on Campion Way and at Huntworth Roundabout.

< The provision of Site 4 is forecast to result in increased traffic demand on Huntworth Lane between Huntworth Roundabout and Junction 24. This is forecast to lead to additional delay at the M5 J24 roundabout from the Huntworth Lane western approach during the AM peak hour.

< The increase in traffic flows is forecast to result in an additional 30 seconds of delay for traffic on Huntworth Lane travelling towards the M5 J24 roundabout during the AM peak. There is not forecast to be any notable increase in delay during the PM peak.

7.4.24 Further details of forecast flows, delay and V/C values for the Site 4 assignment and a comparison between the Core Scenario are provided at Appendix J.

SITE 5 - LAND AT HUNTWORTH

5,338M2 B1 DEVELOPMENT AND 22,257M2 B8 DEVELOPMENT

7.4.25 Site 5 is located to the east of the M5 at Huntworth. The proposed access arrangement for this site is via the Huntworth Lane, situated to the east of the M5 Junction 24 Roundabout. The proposed location for Site 5 is shown in Figure 7.6 (page 27).

17 SCC drawing reference MJ004044-SK-024

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 27

Figure 7.6: Location Plan for Site 5 Map

7.4.26 The modelling results for the Site 5 analysis indicate a substantial increase in flow (in comparison with the Core Scenario) at the following junctions:

SITE ID JUNCTION

J24 M5 Junction 24

HW Huntworth Roundabout

7.4.27 The locations of these junctions are shown in Figure 7.6. Junctions to the south of Huntworth have not been examined in detail as part of the assessment as they have not been forecast to be significantly affected. It should be noted that current improvements (signalisation) of the Huntworth Roundabout are incorporated into the forecasting.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 28

7.4.28 The modelling forecast for Site 5 indicates that:

< The inclusion of Site 5 leads to increased traffic flows at Huntworth Lane East approach to the J24 Roundabout since this is the access link to the new site.

< The provision of Site 5 is forecast to result in additional delay of around 30 seconds at the M5 J24 roundabout from the Huntworth Lane western approach during the AM peak hour. There is not forecast to be any notable increase in delay during the PM peak.

7.4.29 Further details of forecast flows, delay and V/C values for the Site 5 assignment and a comparison between the Core Scenario are provided at Appendix K.

7.5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS FOR SCENARIOS A, B AND C

7.5.1 This sub-section examines the traffic impact associated with Scenarios A, B and C. Comparisons have been made between the Core Scenario and each test assignment in terms of traffic flows (in PCUs), V/C and delay (in seconds).

SCENARIO A

SITES 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5

7.5.2 Figure 7.7 shows the location of development sites which have been included in the 2032 Scenario A assignment. Figure 7.7 also identifies junctions which are forecast to be over capacity in the AM or PM peak hour (or both). A distinction has been made between junctions which are also forecast to be over capacity in the Core Scenario and those which are forecast to be over capacity as a consequence of additional development which has been tested as part of the Scenario A assignment.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 29

Figure 7.7: Location Plan for Scenario A

7.5.3 The following junctions are identified in Figure 7.7 as forecast to be over capacity as a result of development included in the Scenario A assignment:

SITE ID JUNCTION

J24 M5 Junction 24 (Huntworth Lane western approach arm)

A1 Proposed 4-arm roundabout on the A39 (site access)

WR A39 Whitegate Roundabout

HO Homberg Way / Wembdon Rise signalised junction

DB Dunball Roundabout

MS Wembdon Road / North Street roundabout (Malt Shovel Roundabout)

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 30

7.5.4 The western approach arm to M5 Junction 24 is anticipated to be over capacity in Scenario A as a consequence of additional traffic associated with Sites 4 and 5. Although this junction is forecast to operate within capacity in the Core Scenario, it is forecast to be very close to capacity and as a consequence a relatively small increase in traffic demand is forecast to result in increased delay at this location.

7.5.5 The proposed A39 roundabout (Site 1 access), Whitegate Roundabout and Homberg Way junctions have all been identified to be over capacity in the 2032 forecasts as a result of additional traffic associated with Site 1.

7.5.6 Dunball Roundabout has been forecast to be over capacity as a result of additional traffic associated with Site 3.

7.5.7 The Malt Shovel Roundabout is forecast to be over capacity due to a culmination of traffic associated with developments included within Scenario A.

7.5.8 In addition to the junctions listed above, Scenario A is also forecast to result in increased congestion along Taunton Road between Broadway and Showground Roundabout. This is in addition to the capacity issues forecast for the 2032 Core Scenario (and Scenario A) for Taunton Road between Showground Roundabout and Huntworth Roundabout. It is likely that this cumulative level of development anywhere in Bridgwater would have similar impacts, regardless of the exact locations.

7.5.9 The assignment results for Scenario A in terms of forecast demand flows (in PCUs), delay (in seconds) and V/C values are provided at Appendix L.

SCENARIO B

SITES 1 AND 3

7.5.10 Junctions which are forecast to be over capacity in Scenario B are listed in the table below and are shown in Figure 7.8. To clarify, these junctions are forecast to be over capacity as a consequence of developments included in the Scenario B assignment and are not over capacity in the Core Scenario.

SITE ID JUNCTION

Proposed 4-arm roundabout on the A39 A1 (site access)

WR A39 Whitegate Roundabout

Homberg Way / Wembdon Rise signalised HO junction

DB Dunball Roundabout

Wembdon Road / North Street roundabout MS (Malt Shovel Roundabout)

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 31

Figure 7.8: Location Plan for Scenario B

7.5.11 The results of the Scenario B assignment forecast that the same junctions will be over capacity as summarised in the Scenario A assignment with the exception of M5 J24 roundabout. In addition, the Scenario B assignment does not forecast V/C values greater than 100% for Taunton Road between Broadway and Showground Roundabout. However, Taunton Road to the south of Showground roundabout is forecast to be over capacity, as forecast for the Core Scenario.

7.5.12 The assignment results for Scenario B in terms of forecast demand flows (in PCUs), delay (in seconds) and V/C values are provided at Appendix M.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 32

SCENARIO C

SITES 2, 4 AND 5

7.5.13 The location of development sites which have been assessed as part of the Scenario C assignment are shown in Figure 7.9.

Figure 7.9: Location Plan for Scenario C

7.5.14 As shown in Figure 7.9, M5 Junction 24 is forecast to be over capacity at the western approach arm in the Scenario C forecast. However, it is noted that this junction is forecast to be very close to capacity in the Core Scenario and therefore detailed junction modelling would be required to assess the operation of this junction.

7.5.15 The assignment results for Scenario C in terms of forecast demand flows (in PCUs), delay (in seconds) and V/C values are provided at Appendix N.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 33

8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 FORECASTING SCENARIOS

8.1.1 Modelling work has been undertaken to assess the impact of proposed development sites beyond the current Core Strategy period. Forecasts were created for the 2032 AM (08:00 to 09:00) and PM (17:00 to 18:00) peak hours to test the impact of five potential development sites within Sedgemoor.

8.1.2 The list below summarises the five proposed development sites which have been tested in isolation and in combinations with other sites. A 2032 Core Scenario was also developed to provide a comparison for all other tests.

à Core Scenario à Site 1: Land to the west of Bridgwater – Core Scenario plus 1,200 dwellings, primary school and the relocation of Haygrove School. à Site 2: Land at East Bridgwater – Core Scenario plus 800 dwellings and a primary school à Site 3: Land north of Chilton Trinity – Core Scenario plus 2,500 dwellings plus a primary school, 2,500m2 B1 development and 27,000m2 B8 development à Site 4: Land at South Bridgwater – Core Scenario plus 300 dwellings à Site 5: Land at Huntworth – Core Scenario plus 5,338m2 B1 development and 22,257m2 B8 development à Scenario A – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 à Scenario B – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 1 and 3 à Scenario C – Core Scenario plus the inclusion of Sites 2, 4 and 5

8.2 FORECASTING METHODOLOGY

8.2.1 The methodology used to generate the future year forecasts is in line with WebTAG guidance. Chapter 5 outlines the assumptions which have been made as part of the forecasting process.

8.2.2 It has been demonstrated in Chapter 6 that the forecast models achieve a satisfactory level of convergence that is required for the high-level strategic assessment.

8.3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS

8.3.1 The results of the individual site assessments forecast that Sites 1 (Land to the West of Bridgwater) and Site 3 (Land at Chilton Trinity) would have the greatest traffic impacts. Traffic associated with these sites are anticipated to result in increased congestion and delay at the following junctions:

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 34

Site 1 à A39 Whitegate Roundabout: Forecast to experience around eight minutes of delay during the AM peak hour compared with less than one minute in the Core Scenario. à Homberg Way / Wembdon Rise signalised junction: Forecast to experience around six and a half minutes of delay during the AM peak hour compared to one and a half minutes in the Core Scenario.

Site 3 à M5 Junction 23: Forecast to experience around three minutes of delay during the AM peak hour compared to around two minutes in the Core Scenario. à Dunball roundabout: This junction is forecast to experience around two minutes of delay during the AM peak hour compared to no forecast delay in the Core Scenario. It should be noted that this forecast is based upon the committed signalised through-about scheme.

8.3.2 The modelling also demonstrates that a single point of access for Site 3, from Dunball Roundabout or elsewhere on Bristol Road, is unlikely to be sufficient.

8.3.3 The junctions listed above are also forecast to be over capacity in scenarios which include Sites 1 and 3 (i.e. Scenarios A and B). In addition, these scenarios also forecast that the following junction to be over capacity:

à Wembdon Road / North Street roundabout

8.3.4 Site 4 (Land at South Bridgwater) and Site 5 (Land at Huntworth) are anticipated to result in increased delay at Huntworth Roundabout from the Huntworth Lane western approach arm during the PM peak hour. This junction is also forecast to be over capacity in scenarios which include sites 4 and 5 (i.e. Scenarios A and C)

8.3.5 Site 2 (Land at East Bridgwater) is forecast to have the least impact upon the highway network and is not anticipated to result in increased congestion or delay.

8.4 LIMITATIONS

8.4.1 This is a high level assessment, making broad assumptions in relation to the nature of the developments and access arrangements. It does not replace the requirement for a detailed and robust Transport Assessment supporting any future planning applications, and nor does it guarantee that any proposals would be acceptable to the Highway Authority.

8.4.2 The assessment also includes various assumptions with regard to background growth and specific development, for example at Hinkley Point C and Huntspill Energy Park. Should changes in timing or development type occur in the future, this could have a large impact on the results.

8.5 FURTHER WORK

8.5.1 This report identifies issues but not potential solutions. Following discussion with stakeholders it is expected that work will be undertaken to identify appropriate transport improvements to support the development sites, with modelling to determine those which are most suitable. As part of this work SDC may wish to

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 35

consider updating a long-term transport strategy for the District covering the next two plan periods.

8.5.2 Any future site(s) would need to be supported by a Transport Assessment identifying local transport improvements (including site access arrangements) where required, and to have an accompanying Travel Plan which would further mitigate their traffic impact.

8.5.3 Town-wide Smarter Choices initiatives18 have not been considered as part of this assessment although their inclusion in the emerging Local Plan may partially mitigate some of the impacts identified.

18 Initiatives aimed at reducing travel by private car by promoting sustainable modes such as walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Somerset County Council Project No 287584CQ-PTT October 2016 Appendix A

MODELLING METHOD STATEMENT October 2015

METHOD STATEMENT: DEVELOPMENT OF FORECAST SATURN MODEL TO SUPPORT SEDGEMOOR CORE STRATEGY UPDATE

Somerset County Council

287584CQ-PTT

Draft Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

287584CQ-PTT

Prepared for Somerset County Council County Hall Taunton Somerset TA1 4DY

Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Riverside Chambers Castle Street Taunton TA1 4AP

01823 281190 www.pbworld.com Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

CONTENTS Page

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1

2 Previous Work 2 2.1 Previous transport strategy work 2 2.2 Previous infrastructure work 3 2.3 Previous Major Development Transport Assessments 4

3 Existing Model 5 3.1 Summary of existing model 5 3.2 Suitability for Core Strategy review 5

4 Updating Forecast Models 7 4.1 Starting point 7 4.2 Years and Time Periods 7 4.3 Demand Scenarios (Development updates) 7 4.4 Step 1 - Trip Generation 8 4.5 Step 2 - TEMPRO Growth 9 4.6 Step 3 - LGV and HGV Growth Factors 9 4.7 Step 4 - Distribution for Development Trips 9 4.8 Step 5 - Furness Matrix 10 4.9 Step 6 - Constrain to TEMPRO 10 4.10 Supply Scenarios (Highway Infrastructure updates) 11 4.11 Variable Demand 11

5 Model checks and Reporting 12 5.1 Assignment convergence 12 5.2 Model checks 12 5.3 Reporting 12

Appendix A: TSTM3 Model Review (August 2014)

Appendix B: Huntspill Energy Park Model Local Model Validation Report

Appendix C: Uncertainty Log

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP | PB) has been requested by Somerset County Council (SCC) to undertake traffic modelling in relation to the formulation and assessment of Transport Options for Bridgwater on behalf of Sedgemoor District Council (SDC). This study will ultimately be used as part of the evidence base for the upcoming Local Plan (Core Strategy Review) to be developed by Sedgemoor District Council.

1.1.2 The purpose of this report is to:

i Provide background to the relevant previous strategy work, potential infrastructure schemes and major development in the local area; ii Outline a method by which the traffic impact of potential future development allocations can be tested using a traffic model. Note that although infrastructure options are likely to be tested once the impact of developments has been assessed, that is not covered by this note as the method may change depending on the results of the initial modelling. 1.1.3 The document will be used in three ways:

i Agreement of the method with SCC/SDC, as the commissioners of the project; ii Agreement of the method with Highways England, as a key stakeholder; iii As an internal reference document for WSP | PB staff undertaking the work. 1.1.4 As set out in the Agreed Brief, the traffic modelling will use the existing TSTM3 SATURN Traffic Model, owned by SCC. Due to the potential need to test schemes to the north of Bridgwater, and to include the Huntspill Energy Park (HEP) in the Forecast Model, it is proposed to use the version of the model re-validated in 2012 by Peter Brett Associates for the HEP Transport Assessment. The validated model was reviewed and considered appropriate by SCC in 2012; The Highways Agency (HA) and their then consultants JMP were also involved in the scoping and agreement of the modelling and Transport Assessment.

1.1.5 This document has been prepared with reference to the DfT’s WebTAG Guidance, and where possible this will be followed. The model will not meet all WebTAG criteria due to the nature of the existing traffic model, but this is not considered to be an issue for this high level strategy work. Consideration has also been given to Interim Advice Note 106/08, “Guidance Note for Traffic Consultants Employed on Highways Agency Schemes”, so as to ensure that the information provided matches the expectations of Highways England.

1.1.6 Prior to undertaking the work in this Method Statement WSP | PB has reviewed existing work (particularly Transport Assessments relating to Hinkley Point C (HPC) and the Huntspill Energy Park), and held discussions with SDC and SCC, in order to fully understand the extent of committed/allocated development.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 1 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

2 PREVIOUS WORK

2.1 Previous transport strategy work

2.1.1 A substantial amount of strategy work has been undertaken previously by SCC and others. A summary of relevant findings follows.

Sedgemoor District Council Core Strategy

2.1.2 Policies D9 and D10 of the Sedgemoor Core Strategy (May 2013) identify the need for sustainable transport and to manage the impact of new development. More specifically, for Bridgwater, the Core Strategy (Policy P1) supports the following:

· Proposals for cycling, walking and enhanced public transport · A robust car parking strategy which supports town centre retail whilst encouraging sustainable travel · Improving accessibility and use of Bridgwater Railway Station 2.1.3 In terms of new infrastructure, Policy P1 prioritises:

· Transformation of the principal routes including the A38, A39 and the A372 through environmental improvements, dedicated pedestrian and cycle ways, and priority bus lanes in conjunction with public realm improvements and signage; · Junction improvements at Cannon (Cross Rifles) Roundabout and Crandon Bridge (Silver Fish); · Delivery of the Colley Lane Southern Access Road; · Completion of the Leggar Link; · New bridge over the railway linking A38 Bristol Road with North East Bridgwater; · Improvement of junctions of The Drove and Wylds Road with Bristol Road. 2.1.4 It is notable that the majority of these infrastructure improvements have already been implemented or are being actively promoted.

SCC Future Transport Strategy

2.1.5 The November 2011 “Bridgwater, Taunton and Wellington Future Transport Strategy” sets out potential improvements for improving provision between 2011 and 2026. For Bridgwater, the proposals include a mix of measures:

· Park & Bus to the north and south of the town centre; · Enhanced bus services, particularly on the A38 (including to/from Taunton, combined with bus priority measures; · Improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure; · Improved junctions on Durleigh Road, Spaxton Road, Westonzoyland Road, Bristol Road (including at Cross Rifles), including consideration of non-car users;

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 2 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

· A road between Bristol Road and Taunton Road, adjacent to the M5 (see ‘Eastern Distributor Road, below); · Advanced traffic management on approaches to the M5.

2.2 Previous infrastructure work

Bridgwater Northern Bypass

2.2.2 The concept of a northern bypass (connecting Junction 23 with the A358 in the Cannington area) has been considered since the original (1980s) HPC Inquiry. The most recent review was undertaken in January 2012 in a report (Strategic Options Appraisal of Transport Proposals In Bridgwater) for Sedgemoor District Council produced by Arup in conjunction with JMP Consultants, SCC and West Somerset Council. In the context of the HPC development it concluded that this was not a viable option. Leaving aside HPC, moderate adverse environmental impacts were identified and the high cost of a scheme would probably outweigh the economic benefits, even though journey time benefits for movements between the in A39 in West Somerset and Dunball would improve significantly. Wider economic impacts were assessed as neutral: although benefitting West Somerset, the impact of construction traffic must be considered and activity would be displaced from the centre of Bridgwater. Finally, it was found that the bypass had a poor strategic fit with Core Strategy objectives.

2.2.3 The HPC Panel’s Report to the Secretary of State (19 December 2012) discusses the northern bypass. It points out that since previous proposals at Hinkley, government policies for roads had changed and that “building new roads is now not favoured except where unavoidable” (para. 4.19). Although the panel agreed with the Statement of Common Ground, and therefore stated that the Northern Distributor Road was not required for Hinkley Point C, it can be noted that Government policy has been revised somewhat in the interim (see e.g. The National Infrastructure Plan 2013), with infrastructure seen as important for economic growth and, in the case of highways, network resilience. There is therefore nothing arising from the HPC Inquiry which rules out a Northern Distributor Road should a suitable benefit be demonstrable in terms of enabling development and/or a strong economic case.

Bridgwater Eastern Distributor Road

2.2.4 SCC prepared a “Scheme Prioritisation Proforma” for the Heart of the South West Local Transport Board in April 2013, summarising a proposal to improve pedestrian facilities in Bridgwater Town Centre in conjunction with the construction of a link road, adjacent to the M5, which would create a new north-south link avoiding the town centre.

2.2.5 A high level assessment supporting the submission found that, for some journeys, savings of 4-7 minutes would be achieved during peak hours. Value for Money was anticipated to be very good, with an estimated Benefit to Cost Ratio of 15. Although that includes the town centre element, the majority of benefits would be derived from the distributor road.

2.2.6 There are, however, concerns in relation to the deliverability of the scheme. Combined with environmental concerns, substantial additional work would be required to demonstrate that this proposal would be achievable.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 3 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

2.3 Previous Major Development Transport Assessments

Hinkley Point C

2.3.2 A Transport Assessment1 was produced for the Hinkley Point C (HPC) Inquiry. The TA focuses predominantly on the construction phase, which is expected to be completed well before the Modelled Year (2032) considered here. However many of the mitigation schemes proposed in the TA and agreed with the relevant authorities (particularly SCC as the Highway Authority, and the then Highways Agency) will remain in place. Such schemes are considered below within the Uncertainty Log.

2.3.3 The on-going operation of HPC will need to be incorporated into the model; during operation the TA states that around 900 staff will be employed, and the assumptions set out in the HPC TA will be used to derive vehicle trip generation.

2.3.4 As part of the construction of HPC, various off-site “associated developments” are to be provided such as accommodation and park-and-ride facilities. On completion of construction it is anticipated that these sites will be redeveloped, and have some residual traffic impact. Assumptions on these sites are included in the Uncertainty Log.

Huntspill Energy Park

2.3.5 Huntspill Energy Park, to the east of Junction 23, will provide about 5000 jobs. A resolution to grant was made by SDC in late 2013.

2.3.6 The TA for the site assumes that development will be complete by 2033. For the purpose of this work it will be assumed that it is fully built out in 2032.

2.3.7 The TA sets out mitigation measures required as a result of the proposal. Agreed infrastructure improvements are set out in the Uncertainty Log.

2.3.8 Trip generation will be taken from the TA and distributed using the gravity model.

1 Hinkley Point C, Development Consent Order Application Environmental Statement – Annex 7 (October 2011).

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 4 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

3 EXISTING MODEL

3.1 Summary of existing model

3.1.1 This section provides only a brief summary of the structure of the existing model. More details are provided in the “TSTM3 Model Review” (August 2014), in Appendix A.

Development

3.1.2 TSTM3 (Taunton Strategic Traffic Model 3) has been developed in SATURN, an industry standard traffic modelling package. The model was original built in 2001 (TSRT1) but has since been updated and revalidated, most recently to a 2010 base year. An extended version of the model was developed in 2012 in order to test the impact of the Huntspill Energy Park development (HEP).

Network and Zone Coverage

3.1.3 The main TSTM3 covers the towns of Bridgwater, Taunton and Wellington, including the M5 between Junctions 23 and 26. The expanded version of the model that was developed to test HEP also includes network further to the north and east, as far as Junction 22.

3.1.4 Primary routes and important minor roads are included and fully simulated within the fully modelled area. Peripheral parts of the network are coded as a ‘buffer network’ (i.e. without detailed simulation).

3.1.5 The model’s zoning system contains 336 zones. In the urban areas these are small, increasing in size outside of the fully modelled area, up to the size of whole UK regions for those most distant.

Years and Time Periods

3.1.6 As well as the 2010 Base, Forecast Models are currently available for 2018 and 2028. Models cover the AM (0800-0900) and PM (1700-1800) peak hours.

Demand Segmentation

3.1.7 The current Forecast models contain two user classes representing ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ vehicles. In addition, buses are represented as fixed flows on timetabled routes.

3.2 Suitability for Core Strategy review

3.2.1 Appendix A is a 2014 report which was undertaken to determine the suitability of the existing TSTM3 model for two purposes: a Major Scheme Business Case at Junction 25 of the M5, and a transport strategy review in Bridgwater. Although the HEP version will be used here, the report is still considered relevant.

3.2.2 The review found that a full update of the model (including demand matrices) would be required to support a Major Scheme Business Case. However such an update was not considered essential for a transport strategy review in Bridgwater since the scope of such work “is broader and is likely to include a wide range of interventions (both infrastructure and ‘soft’ measures), many of which will be of a much lower cost than Major Schemes.”

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 5 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

3.2.3 It was however recommended that the forecast models should be updated to take into account updated assumptions regarding development allocations and background growth.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 6 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

4 UPDATING FORECAST MODELS

4.1 Starting point

4.1.1 As mentioned above, it is considered that the most appropriate starting point is the validated base model used for the Huntspill Energy Park Transport Assessment. The Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) for this study is attached as Appendix B.

4.2 Years and Time Periods

4.2.1 The current Core Strategy runs to 2027, but the update will run to 2032. For consistency with the updated Core Strategy it is proposed to redevelop forecast models for 2032, which will thus represent all development expected during the Plan Period.

4.2.2 An Uncertainty Log (included as Appendix C) will be developed to catalogue and prioritise potential development sites for inclusion within the future year scenario. When developing the Uncertainty Log (see below) consideration will be given to assumptions on whether development should be modelled as fully or, if appropriate, only partly built out in the Forecast Year.

4.2.3 As with the base year model, forecasts for the AM and PM peak hours will be developed.

4.3 Demand Scenarios (Development updates)

Core Scenario

4.3.2 The Core Scenario will consist of all committed and allocated sites, and will form the comparator for further scenarios containing potential highway schemes and Development Options.

4.3.3 The 2010 base matrices will be updated to form the 2032 Core Scenario following the process below. Unless otherwise stated all values of parameters will be derived from WebTAG.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 7 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

Table 4-1 - Process to create demand matrices

1 - Trip Generation for • To determine the total traffic flow to/from each explicitly Development Sites modelled development site.

• To determine growth factors to be applied at non- 2 - Background Growth development model zones.

• To determine the growth factors to be applied to HGV 3 - HGV Growth trips in the model (non-development).

4 - Distribution for • To determine the distribution of traffic to, from and Development Trips between explicitly modelled development sites.

5 - Furness Matrix • To incorporate growth into the base year trip matrices.

6 - Constrain Growth to • To control the overall level of traffic growth in the study TEMPRO area in line with the National Trip End Model (NTEM).

4.4 Step 1 - Trip Generation

4.4.1 The total number of trips generated by each development site will be determined using standard trip rates for different use types, based on the TRICS database. It is considered appropriate to use rates from a recent project, summarised in Table 3-1. For a small number of atypical sites (such as HEP and HPC) trip rates will be based on existing Transport Assessments.

4.4.2 Trip rates for Heavy Good Vehicle (HGV) trips have not been derived from TRICS because it has been assumed that none of the development sites will produce a significant enough number of HGV trips to necessitate modelling them explicitly (with the exception of HPC and HEP, where TA figures will be used). Instead growth factors have been applied to represent general growth in HGV traffic across the study area, as described in Section 5.5.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 8 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

Table 4-1 - Car Trip Rates from TRICS

AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak Land Use Unit O D O D O D Mixed Housing per dwelling 0.144 0.413 0.202 0.176 0.378 0.223 B1 Office per 100 m2 1.45 0.162 0.365 0.529 0.171 1.145 B2 Industrial per 100 m2 0.453 0.227 0.282 0.295 0.104 0.389 B8 Warehouse per 100 m2 0.082 0.044 0.103 0.08 0.031 0.084 D2 - Leisure Centre per 100 m2 0.591 0.487 0.622 0.657 1.646 1.313 O = Origins (departures), D = Destinations (arrivals)

4.4.3 The demand matrices in the model are only segmented into light and heavy vehicles so it will not be necessary to develop a methodology to disaggregate the trip generation estimates into journey purposes.

4.5 Step 2 - TEMPRO Growth

4.5.1 Background traffic growth that is not associated with point loaded development sites will be derived from TEMPRO, as per WebTAG guidance. TEMPRO dataset 6.2 will be used as this is the most recent set of planning assumptions available.

4.5.2 TEMPRO growth factors will be applied to non-development zones in the model based on the wider NTEM zone within which each model zone lies. Larger external zones that are distant from the study area will adopt County, Regional or National factors (e.g. Somerset, South West, GB).

4.5.3 To avoid over-estimating traffic growth within the Fully Modelled Area, the planning assumptions within TEMPRO will be adjusted to remove houses and employment that have been explicitly modelled as development sites.

4.5.4 TEMPRO employment growth is measured in jobs. Where development sites are given in hectares or floor area the Homes and Communities Agency’s Employment Densities Guide (2010) will be used to convert to jobs, on the assumption that floor area is (on average) one-third of the site area.

4.6 Step 3 - LGV and HGV Growth Factors

4.6.1 Background growth factors for LGV and HGV trips in the model will be derived from the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF 2015), Scenario 1. The NRTF tables include growth factors for 5 year intervals and therefore it will be necessary to calculate growth factors for the period between the base and future modelled years by interpolation.

4.7 Step 4 - Distribution for Development Trips

4.7.1 A gravity model will be used to derive a trip distribution for development trips, subject to sense-checking of the results. This methodology is preferable to adopting an existing distribution from a similar zone because it enables trips to be distributed between development sites, as would be expected give the mix of housing and

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 9 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

employment developments proposed. Note that this means that distributions from individual TAs will not be used.

4.7.2 The formulation for the gravity model is as follows:

T O D f(C ) Where: · T is the number of trips distributed = γ between i and j

· O is the origin trip end · D is the destination trip end; · f(C ) is a deterrence function; and · represents balancing factors which enable constraint to both origin and destination trip ends. γ 4.7.3 The deterrence function will be as follows:

f C =C exp C ) Where: · and are parameters to be calibrated; (−β and · C represents the generalised cost between zones i and j. α β 4.7.4 The validated base model will be used to supply origin-destination costs for the gravity model and for calibrating the deterrence function parameters. Matrices of generalised cost will be derived by applying values of time and vehicle operating costs from WebTAG to time and distance skims from the base model assignments.

4.7.5 A visual check of the distributions at key development sites will be carried out using select link analyses within P1X.

4.8 Step 5 - Furness Matrix

4.8.1 The future year matrices will be derived by furnessing the base year matrices to revised trip ends which include background growth (from TEMPRO) and development trips.

4.8.2 The trip distribution derived for each development zone using the gravity model will be added to the base matrices before furnessing.

4.9 Step 6 - Constrain to TEMPRO

4.9.1 It is considered likely that in at least some of the options, explicitly modelled growth will exceed the forecast level of growth in TEMPRO. However, as the purpose of the study is to determine how development proposals will impact on the network, growth will not be constrained to the level outlined in TEMPRO.

Option Scenarios

4.9.2 A Core Scenario, developed following the above steps, will then be compared with a series of Development Tests.

4.9.3 A total of five sites are proposed, and these will be tested individually and in three combinations as follows:

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 10 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

i Land to the west of Bridgwater (Wembdon and Durleigh) – up to 1,200 units, new primary school and new secondary school ii Land east of Dunwear Lane and Bower Lane – up to 900 units and new primary school iii North of Chilton Trinity – emerging ideas linked to new crossing of River Parrett, construction of the surge barrier and up to 2,000 units. It would also provide for significant employment opportunities. iv Land at South Bridgwater – up to 250 units south of existing Stockmoor village v Land to the east of Junction 24, Huntworth for B1, B2, B9 employment.

A Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 B Sites 1 and 3 C Sites 2, 4, and 5

For these sites (except (iv) which is residential only) a small adjustment will be made to allow for internalisation.

4.9.4 More detailed assumptions will be supplied by SDC so that demand can be forecast using the same methods as for development in the Core Scenario.

4.10 Supply Scenarios (Highway Infrastructure updates)

4.10.1 Committed infrastructure, included that constructed since the 2010 base, will be incorporated. This includes major road schemes such as the NIDR in Taunton and Colley Lane Link Road and junction improvements associated with Hinkley Point C and other developments in Bridgwater. After discussion with Highways England it has been agreed that improvements to Junction 25, the Henlade Bypass, and improvements to the A358 will be modelled as Government policy deems these to be committed. The Uncertainty Log is appended (Appendix C).

4.10.2 Note that the testing of additional infrastructure, to support new development, will follow as a separate task.

4.11 Variable Demand

4.11.1 It is not considered that Variable Demand Modelling is required for this high level study. It would be included, if deemed appropriate, in any future business case for infrastructure.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 11 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

5 MODEL CHECKS AND REPORTING

5.1 Assignment convergence

5.1.1 Model convergence is required in order to provide stable, consistent and robust model results and to differentiate between real changes due to the assessment scheme and those associated with ‘noise’ in the model. Checks of model convergence will be undertaken to ensure that the convergence criteria in WebTAG are met.

5.2 Model checks

5.2.1.1 Sense-checks will be undertaken consistent with those in Table 2.4 of IAN 106/08, to ensure that the forecast models perform logically.

5.3 Reporting

5.3.1 A Forecasting Report will be produced, summarising the methodology adopted to develop the model forecasts and to present the findings of the option testing. This will consist of the following elements (consistent with the structure suggested in IAN 106/08).

Study Overview

5.3.2 Statement of the purpose of the model and study, and summary of the scenarios being considered.

Forecasting approach

5.3.3 Details of the process of model development, including the details set out in IAN 106/08

Network Calibration

5.3.4 Summary of all calibration undertaken, including demonstration that various checks have been undertaken on the network.

Forecast Matrix Development

5.3.5 Summary of the work undertaken to develop the forecast matrices.

Forecast Assignments Calibration

5.3.6 Checks will be undertaken and reported to ensure that demand, flows, speeds, distances and routing are logical.

Forecast Assignments

5.3.7 Details of elasticity and corresponding statistics. Summary of convergence statistics.

Presentation of Model Forecasts

5.3.8 Summarising the following and comparing the results from each scenario, with and without the proposed infrastructure:

i Network summary statistics

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 12 - Method Statement: development of forecast SATURN model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy update

ii Flows on key links iii Journey times on key routes iv Congestion (Delay and volume/capacity ratio) at key junctions 5.3.9 Supporting text and graphs/diagrams will highlight the key issues identified.

Summary and Conclusion

5.3.10 Summary of the study’s key findings.

SDC CS Modelling Method Statement 151002.docx Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff October 2015 for Somerset County Council - 13 - Appendix B

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND RESPONSE TO MODELLING METHOD STATEMENT

Forecast SATURN model Method Statement Review

DEVELOPMENT OF FORECAST SATURN MODEL TO SUPPORT SEDGEMOOR CORE STRATEGY UPDATE Report Double-click to insert client logo JMP Consultants Ltd

Forecast SATURN Model Method Statement Review

DEVELOPMENT OF FORECAST SATURN MODEL TO SUPPORT SEDGEMOOR CORE STRATEGY UPDATE Report

JMP Consultants Ltd 10 Victoria Street, Bristol, BS1 6BN T 0117 922 9040 F E [email protected] www.jmp.co.uk [email protected] facebook.com/jmp.consultants twitter.com/#!/_jmp linkedin.com/company/jmp consulting

Report Record Job No. Report No. Issue No. Prepared Verified Approved Status Date Y312020 001 1 LH TB JC Issue 07/09/2015

Contents Amendments Record Issue No. Revision description Approved Status Date

ii Development of Forecast SATURN Model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy Update : Y312020- 001/1

JMP Consultants Ltd

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 REVIEW OF MODELLING APPROACH 2 Modelling option scenarios ...... 3

3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5

Forecast SATURN Model Method Statement Review : Y312020-001/1 iii

JMP Consultants Ltd

1 Introduction

1.1 A technical note entitled 287584CQ-PTT, dated August 2015, has been prepared by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff on behalf of Somerset County Council (SCC). The note sets out the proposed traffic modelling approach for forecasting the impact of Transport Options for Bridgwater as part of the evidence base for the upcoming Sedgemoor District Council (SDC) Local Plan (Core Strategy Review). It is proposed to use Somerset County Council’s (SCC’s) 2012 TSTM3 SATURN traffic model. A previous technical note (285333KU-HLT, dated August 2014)) which concluded the suitability of the existing 2011 TSTM3 model for a strategy update in Taunton has also been provided for review.

1.2 A review of both technical notes has been undertaken to assess the robustness of the modelling approach in line with the DfT’s WebTAG guidance and to confirm whether the strategic modelling would adequately assess local plan growth impacts on the Strategic Road Network (SRN), in particular M5 junctions 22-25.

Forecast SATURN Model Method Statement Review : Y312020-001/1

JMP Consultants Ltd

2 Review of Modelling Approach

2.1 A number of matters that are key to Highways England have been identified and have been considered in the review. These are set out in turn below:

 Inclusion in the model of the planned employment growth at Isleport (M5 junction 22). 2.2 The expansion of the Highbridge Business Park (Isleport Phase 2) SPD is currently out to public consultation and with 65 hectares of additional employment land will likely add pressure to the SRN in the vicinity of M5 junction 22. It is encouraging to see that the Isleport Phase 2 development is included in the uncertainty log which was provided with the technical notes, and that it is proposed to use development details provided in the SPD if they are not forthcoming from SDC. Employment growth at Isleport needs to be addressed in the modelling so that we can fully understand the wider impacts on the SRN.  Acceptability of the use of SCC’s TSTM3 SATURN model for this strategic assessment

2.3 It is understood that the most recent 2012 TSTM3 SATURN model proposed to be used in this assessment, was developed and validated using 2011 traffic and survey data. This model was developed in 2012 to test the impact of the Huntspill Energy Park. The updated model network expanded upon the previous model further to the north and east and now includes M5 junction 22.

2.4 For the purpose of this high level assessment work, the traffic data used in the 2012 model is within an acceptable age range. However, we would recommend a exercise of traffic flow checks on some key links near the SRN with new survey counts compared against the modelled link flows, to ensure the model is robust and reliable. Acknowledging the resourcing requirements for new surveys, it is considered that one week Automatic Traffic Counts could be installed on the approach roads to Junctions 22 (i.e. junction 22 link road), 23 (i.e. A39 east and west of M5) and 24 (i.e. Huntworth Lane east and west of M5).

2.5 Some elements of the 2012 model, such as the demand segmentation and the modelled time periods remain as per the 2011 TSTM3 model. As discussed in the 2014 technical note prepared by PB for SCC, this does not fully meet the WebTAG criteria for forecasting the impact of transport projects. However, it is considered that the expanded model (2012 version) is broadly ‘fit for purpose’ in terms of the wide-ranging scheme scopes.  Appropriateness of Uncertainty Log 2.6 We are grateful that the Uncertainty Log has been provided summarising all known inputs (e.g. lists of development and infrastructure) in the forecasting model. The log includes four categories for the probability of the inputs, namely, ‘near certain’, or ‘more than likely’, ‘reasonably foreseeable’ and ’hypothetical’ in line with WebTAG.

2.7 It is however not apparent which category/ies in the Uncertainty Log have been incorporated in the core scenario described in Paragraph 4.3.2 of the 2015 technical note. Nevertheless WebTAG recommends that those categorised as ‘reasonably foreseeable’ will be excluded from the core scenario. We therefore request that an explicit description of the model’s central assumptions should be made, as suggested in WebTAG Unit M4 Appendix A Table A2, to form the basis for the development of the core scenario, or that may be considered for use within alternative scenarios.

Development of Forecast SATURN Model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy Update : Y312020- 001/1

JMP Consultants Ltd

 Acceptability of proposed forecasting years, time periods and traffic growth 2.8 A forecast year of 2032 is in compliance with the end period of updated Core Strategy. The proposed methodology for the development of forecasting demand for a forecast year of 2032 is considered generally acceptable. The forecasting models will be developed for AM (0800-0900) and PM (1700- 1800) peak hours and these are considered appropriate to use, together with the adjusted TEMPRO growth for background traffic growth, that reflects the levels of known committed development and stand-alone proposed development

Trip rates 2.9 Paragraph 4.4.1 of the 2015 technical note states that “the trip rates would use the rates from a recent report”. It would be helpful to be provided with more information about this recent report and further details of the trip rate parameters and assumptions, so that we can better understand the appropriateness of the trips rates. We agree with the use of trip rates from individual Transport Assessments for known development sites, where possible.

Trip Distribution 2.10 The approach to the trip distribution is considered acceptable.

Trip Internalisation 2.11 We note that for some of the sites in the Uncertainty Log some comments have been made with regards to trip internalisation, e.g. site 21, 22 and 23. We would expect that trip rates in some of the other large strategic development sites would also be subject to a trip reduction due to the mix of land uses within the sites. If internalisation has been taken into account for other sites these should also be recorded.

MODELLING OPTION SCENARIOS 2.12 With reference to paragraph 1.8 above the components of the core scenario should be explicitly discussed in relation to the information within the Uncertainty Log.

2.13 The number of option scenarios, comprising one for each individual site plus a further three scenarios of combinations of proposed sites, is considered sufficient to test the impacts from the proposed developments. Further explanation of the specific combination of sites within these three ‘combination scenarios’ would be welcome, in particular the reason for a combination of sites 2, 4 and 5 rather than of sites 4 and 5 for example.

2.14 We request that an additional scenario is tested to take account of the expansion of the Highbridge Business Park (Isleport Phase 2), either in the form of a standalone scenario or in combination with other allocated sites.  Acceptability of the model forecasting report

2.15 We are satisfied with the structure of the forecast model report which will be consistent with Table 2.4 of IAN 106/08. The report should also be in line with WebTAG unit M2 section 6.

2.16 In terms of the modelling results presentation for each option, it would be helpful to see a comparison of turning flows on the SRN junctions 22-24 in addition to link flows on key links, a corridor analysis, and an overall discussion on the M5 from junction 22 to 24.

Forecast SATURN Model Method Statement Review : Y312020-001/1

JMP Consultants Ltd

 Assessing the need for targeted supplementary models to assess the impacts on the SRN in more detail

2.17 After consideration of the location, size and land use mix of the five proposed sites we are broadly satisfied that the associated impact on the SRN (namely junctions 22, 23 and 24 of the M5) could be assessed by the proposed modelling work, subject to the comments raised in the report above.

2.18 The SATURN model would inform the trip patterns between allocated sites and the diversionary effects of the forecast traffic demand at a wider area level. However, we consider that the need may arise for more detailed local modelling, such as Paramics modelling, to undertake detailed testing on the SRN and local road network. We envisage that a combination of strategic SATURN modelling and local PARAMICS modelling could be required to assess the traffic impacts of the allocated sites and the proposed intervention measures, to provide a more detailed picture for Highways England on the impact of planned development on the SRN. .

2.19 In particular, we are conscious that there could be an impact at junction 24, with the presence of 28 hectares of proposed employment land at Huntworth adjacent to junction 24 (brief option 5) and 300 dwellings proposed on a site approximately 500 metres to the west of junction 24. We are also conscious of the potential additional traffic that may be travelling on the M5 mainline from one end of the corridor to the other between junction 22 and junction 24, reflecting the proposed residential and employment allocations.

2.20 We therefore anticipate the need in the future for some additional and more focussed traffic modelling, to better assess the future operation of junction 24 and along the mainline in particular. We recommend further discussions after the initial round of modelling, to ascertain the need, if any, for any more detailed modelling.

Development of Forecast SATURN Model to support Sedgemoor Core Strategy Update : Y312020- 001/1

JMP Consultants Ltd

3 Conclusion and Recommendations

3.1 Based on the above review, we are content that the 2012 TSTM3 SATURN model will provide sufficient overall detail and can be used as a starting point for the forecasting model development. The modelling approach is considered appropriate for the proposed option testing as part of evidence base for Core Strategy review.

3.2 We have identified a number of matters which should be addressed before undertaking the forecasting modelling, so as to ensure that a robust traffic impact assessment can be provided for us to better understand the implications on the SRN, in particular M5 junctions 22-24.  Link flow checks on SRN;  Update the Uncertainty Log to include assumptions for the core scenario;  Explanation of derivation of trip rates;  Consideration of trip internalisation within the allocated sites;  Update option scenario(s) with inclusion of Isleport Phase 2; and  Corridor analysis on forecasting reporting 3.3 We anticipate that supplementary local traffic modelling on the M5 junction 22 – 24 corridor, such as Paramics modelling, may ultimately need to be developed and used for detailed testing on the SRN and local road network. This, in combination with the SATURN modelling would likely enable Highways England to adequately assess the impacts arising from the future strategic proposals.

Forecast SATURN Model Method Statement Review : Y312020-001/1

Appendix C

UNCERTAINTY LOG, TRIP RATES AND TRIP GENERATION B1 – UNCERTAINTY LOG – DEVELOPMENTS

LEVEL OF CERTAINTY:

NC – NEAR CERTAIN MTL – MORE THAN LIKELY RF – REASONABLY FORESEEABLE

Uncertainty Log - Sedgemoor Site / Development Type Uncertainty Source Nr Unit Old Taunton Road Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 125 Dwellings Industrial Estate dated 30 July 2015 Monmouth Street Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 37 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 South Bridgwater Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 1428 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 Wilstock Phase 3 Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 330 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 North East Bridgwater Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 2000 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 Morrisons RDC Federal Mogul Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 126 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 Bigwood and Staples Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 86 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 Former Bridgwater Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 200 Dwellings Livestock Market dated 30 July 2015 Gerber, Wembdon Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 208 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 Land South of Durleigh Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 120 Dwellings Road dated 30 July 2015 Land South of Haygrove Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 186 Dwellings Road dated 30 July 2015 Former Police Station Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 37 Dwellings dated 30 July 2015 Former Paragon Laundry Residential NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 39 Dwellings Site dated 30 July 2015 Bridgwater Retail Park Retail MTL SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 8200 sqm dated 30 July 2015 Northgate Mixed Use MTL SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 210 pupil primary school dated 30 July 2015 8000 sqm cinema 3000 sqm retail Bridgwater Gateway Office/Hotel NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 28870 sqm B1 dated 30 July 2015 120 bed hotel Bristol Road Office MTL SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 2762 sqm dated 30 July 2015 RRBC Hotel Hotel MTL SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 120 Bed dated 30 July 2015 Eastover Hotel NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 104 Bed dated 30 July 2015 Bridgwater College Theatre NC SDC "Development Schedule July 2015" 350 Seat theatre dated 30 July 2015 Land north of Chilton Mixed Use RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 2500 Dwellings Trinity - Brief Option 3 July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in 2500 B1 plan period. 27000 B8 420 place primary school Stockmoor, South Residential RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 120 Dwellings Bridgwater July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in plan period. Haygrove School, Residential RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 120 Dwellings Durleigh Road July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in plan period. East of Bristol Road, Residential RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 250 Dwellings north of former cattle July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in market plan period. Somerset Bridge Emp RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 65000 B8 July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in plan period.

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Former Wellworths, Emp RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 7500 B8 Colley Lane July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in plan period. Bristol Road North (three Emp RF SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 5000 B1 possible sites) July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in 10000 B1 plan period. 20000 B8

Former ROF Site - Emp NC SDC "Future sites July 2015" dated 30 Employment Huntspill Energy Park, July 2015. Sites likely to come forward in Puriton plan period. Bower Lane - new Hospital NC Email from Nick Tait 7800 sqm hospital Bower Lane - new Nursing Home NC Email from Nick Tait 64 bed nursing home Police operations base Misc NC Email from Nick Tait and custody centre - Express Park Chilton Trinity Residential NC Email from Nick Tait 48 Dwellings Brickworks Chilton Trinity Leisure Misc NC Email from Nick Tait Centre Hinkley Point C (HPC) - Misc NC HPC TA Operational Phase Isleport Phase 2 Emp RF SDC Supplementary Planning Document for 5000 B1 Highbridge 9000 B2 17500 B8 Bridgwater Business Emp Built Existing development Unknown 1 Employment Park

1 Trip Generation determined by observed traffic flows to/from site

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential B2 – TRIP GENERATION SOURCE

SITE SOURCE SITE SOURCE SITE SOURCE Old Taunton Bridgwater Road Industrial TRICS TRICS Somerset Bridge TRICS Gateway Estate Former South TRICS Bristol Road TRICS Wellworths, TRICS Bridgwater Colley Lane Wilstock Phase Bristol Road TRICS RRBC Hotel TRICS TRICS 3 North Former ROF North East Site - Huntspill Transport TRICS Eastover TRICS Bridgwater Energy Park, Assessment Puriton West Bridgwater Bower Lane - Federal Mogul TRICS - land at TRICS TRICS new hospital Cokerhurst Bower Lane - Bigwood and Land north of TRICS TRICS new nursing TRICS Staples Chilton Trinity home Police Former operations base Land at East Transport Bridgwater TRICS TRICS and custody Bridgwater Assessment Livestock Market centre - Express Park Gerber, Land at South Chilton Trinity TRICS TRICS TRICS Wembdon Bridgwater Brickworks Stockmoor, Land South of Chilton Trinity Transport TRICS South TRICS Durleigh Road Leisure Centre Assessment Bridgwater Hinkley Point C Haygrove Land South of Transport (HPC) - Transport TRICS School, Durleigh Haygrove Road Assessment Operational Assessment Road Phase East of Bristol Bridgwater Road, north of TRICS TRICS Isleport Phase 2 TRICS Retail Park former cattle market Bridgwater Transport Northgate TRICS Huntworth TRICS Business Park Assessment Transport Morrisons RDC Assessment B3 – TRICS (V7.2.2) TRIP RATES AM PM

Land Use Unit Origins Destinations Origins Destinations Mixed Per 0.413 0.144 0.223 0.378 Housing dwelling B1 Office Per 0.162 1.450 1.145 0.171 100m2 B2 Per 0.227 0.453 0.389 0.104 Industrial 100m2 B8 Per 0.044 0.082 0.084 0.031 Warehouse 100m2 D2 - Per Leisure 0.487 0.591 1.313 1.646 100m2 Centre Retail non Per 0.235 0.586 2.312 1.697 food 100m2 Retail - Per 1.03 1.581 3.221 2.775 food 100m2 Cinema Per 0.000 0.000 1.547 2.095 100m2 Primary Per 0.182 0.274 0.04 0.028 School pupil Hotel Per bed 0.190 0.139 0.107 0.148 Hospital Per bed 0.303 1.148 0.747 0.246 Nursing Per bed 0.043 0.047 0.08 0.04 home B4 – TRIP GENERATION FROM TRANSPORT ASSESSMENTS (VEHICLES)

AM PM Land use Origins Destinations Origins Destinations Huntspill Energy Park - Cars B1 Land use – lights 82 507 432 69 B2 Land use – lights 149 322 221 58 B8 Land use – lights 348 359 498 434 Other Land Use - Energy 21 145 138 18 trips – lights HGV Trips 272 206 106 212 Hinkley Point C Trips 75 150 150 40 Chilton Trinity Leisure Centre Trips 23 16 56 36 Police operations base and custody centre - Express Park Trips 14 97 59 8 Morrison’s Distribution Centre Trips - Lights 9 33 27 51 HGV Trips 12 5 5 3 Bridgwater Business Park Trips – Lights 19 28 19 2 HGV Trips 12 5 6 5 Appendix D

TEMPRO GROWTH FACTORS C1 – AM TEMPRO GROWTH FACTORS

AREA LEVEL AREA DESCRIPTION ORIGIN DESTINATION 40UC0 Rural (Sedgemoor) 1.0351 1.1308 40UC1 Bridgwater 0.9225 1.0991 40UC2 Burnham-on-Sea/Highbridge 1.1222 1.1493 40UF0 Rural (West Somerset) 1.0225 1.1391 SW South West 1.1459 1.1469

C2 – PM TEMPRO GROWTH FACTORS

AREA LEVEL AREA DESCRIPTION ORIGIN DESTINATION 40UC0 Rural (Sedgemoor) 1.1377 1.0734 40UC1 Bridgwater 1.0879 0.9729 40UC2 Burnham-on-Sea/Highbridge 1.1729 1.1551 40UF0 Rural (West Somerset) 1.1636 1.0818 SW South West 1.1626 1.1629

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix E

RTF GROWTH FACTORS RTF GROWTH FACTORS FOR SOUTH WEST (HGV)

Year Row Labels Area Type3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

South West LGV Miles 3.96 4.28 4.88 5.47 6.04 6.55 7.06 Growth from 2010 1.00 1.08 1.23 1.38 1.52 1.65 1.78 South West Rigid miles 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.98 South West Artic Miles 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 South West PSV Miles 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Total HGV Miles 1.64 1.60 1.65 1.69 1.73 1.78 1.83 Growth from 2010 1.00 0.97 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.11 in 2035 0.029 5.00 years in 2032 0.012 2.00 years Growth rate 1.065 South West Total miles 29.10 31.10 33.76 36.83 38.67 40.53 42.25 South West Total CO2 KT 9233 8768 7865 7572 7412 7470 7680 South West Total NOx KT 31.42 21.68 13.42 10.27 9.44 9.61 10.01 South West Total PM10 KT 0.96 0.45 0.16 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 South West Ave Delay sec/mile 8.17 8.53 9.23 9.99 10.51 11.08 11.56 South West Ave Speed mph 38.1 38.1 37.9 37.6 37.4 37.2 37.0 Appendix F

CONVERGENCE STATISTICS E1 – CORE SCENARIO

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 48 40 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.014 0.009 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.043 0.014 0.1%*

Percentage of links with 97.1 99.4 flows change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 96.8 99 …and previous 3 loops 96.9 99 96.7 98.7 Percentage of links with cost (delay) change (P2) Four 98.8 99.1 <1% consecutive iterations 99.1 99.2 greater than …and previous 3 loops 99.0 99.2 98% 99.0 98.5

E2 – SCENARIO 1

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 111 45 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.015 0.009 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.039 0.026 0.1%*

Percentage of links with 97.8 99.3 flows change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 97.8 97.6 …and previous 3 loops 97.7 99.3 97.9 97.6 Percentage of links with cost 99.1 99.4 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.1 99.0 …and previous 3 loops greater than 98.9 99.4 98% 99.0 98.6

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential E2 – SCENARIO 2

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 191 49 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.018 0.009 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.040 0.010 0.1%*

Percentage of links with flows 97.8 97.6 change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 97.8 99.5 …and previous 3 loops 97.9 99.5 98.5 99.5 Percentage of links with cost 99.3 99.0 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.4 99.6 …and previous 3 loops greater than 99.4 99.5 98% 99.2 99.3

E2 – SCENARIO 3

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 55 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.012 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.036 0.1%*

Percentage of links with flows 97.5 change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 97.7 …and previous 3 loops 97.0 98.0 Percentage of links with cost 98.9 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.1 …and previous 3 loops greater than 99.0 98% 99.2

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential E2 – SCENARIO 4

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 47 52 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.018 0.007 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.033 0.018 0.1%*

Percentage of links with flows 96.9 99.1 change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 97.3 99.2 …and previous 3 loops 97.6 99.2 96.9 98.1 Percentage of links with cost 99.2 99.3 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.1 99.3 …and previous 3 loops greater than 99.0 99.3 98% 98.8 99.0

E2 – SCENARIO 5

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 112 43 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.017 0.007 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.031 0.026 0.1%*

Percentage of links with flows 98.3 99.0 change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 98.8 99.0 …and previous 3 loops 97.6 99.2 98.3 98.8 Percentage of links with cost 99.1 99.1 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.4 98.7 …and previous 3 loops greater than 99.3 99.0 98% 99.1 99.2

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential E2 – SCENARIO A

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 39 33 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.014 0.021 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.026 0.023 0.1%*

Percentage of links with 97.7 97.8 flows change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 98.4 98.7 …and previous 3 loops 98.4 97.9 97.9 98.3 Percentage of links with cost 99.3 98.4 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.4 99.1 …and previous 3 loops greater than 99.3 98.5 98% 99.3 98.8

E2 – SCENARIO B

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 82 34 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.013 0.012 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.042 0.029 0.1%*

Percentage of links with 98.2 99.0 flows change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 97.7 97.8 …and previous 3 loops 97.8 99.2 97.8 97.8 Percentage of links with cost 99.1 99.3 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 99.0 98.8 …and previous 3 loops greater than 98.9 99.1 98% 99.1 98.7

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential E2 – SCENARIO C

WebTAG Convergence Parameter AM PM Criteria Number of Assignment/Simulation - 110 34 Loops Less than Assignment Delta (%) 0.015 0.011 0.1%* Less than Convergence Gap (%) 0.026 0.027 0.1%*

Percentage of links with 98.0 99.0 flows change (P) <1% Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% 97.8 98.9 …and previous 3 loops 97.9 97.9 97.8 98.9 Percentage of links with cost 99.0 99.2 (delay) change (P2) <1% Four consecutive iterations 98.9 99.4 …and previous 3 loops greater than 99.1 98.7 98% 99.2 99.2

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix G

SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS F1 –SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK

KEY: Actual flow (PCU) Wembdon Rise Core Site 1 Increase Decrease Northern access arm 322 524 Homberg Way 202 645 Quantock Meadow 149 711 162 65 0 0 13 145 485 891 145 485 537 659 30 518 A39 Quantock Road (W) -232 30 -19 7 0 7 607 -1 483 728 891 -123 667 1274 671 -61 383 587 -84

0 728 967 228 1047 1080 0 228 319 113 160 160 716 989 A 39 Quantock Road (E) 273 Southern access arm F2 – SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 1 B With Site 1 Wembdon Rise Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 Northern access arm 82 A Homberg Way 120-180 396 B 180-300 Greater than 300 Quantock Meadow

6 A 8 B 11 A A 18 A 16 14 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 14 B 16 5 A 6 B

A 18 B 503 12 A 13 A 92 B 12 B

A 5 B 6 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

5 A 9 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential F3 – SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 1 B With Site 1 Wembdon Rise V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% Northern access arm 89 A Homberg Way 114 B

Quantock Meadow

0 A 59 B 42 A A 88 A 47 40 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 65 B 40 4 A 4 B

A 88 B 126 72 A 52 A 104 B 46 B

A 0 B 19 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

48 A 66 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential F4 – SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK

KEY: Actual flow (PCU) Wembdon Rise Core Site 1 Increase Decrease Northern access arm 219 308 Homberg Way 90 596 Quantock Meadow 237 647 371 51 0 0 135 426 263 910 426 263 622 825 12 681 A39 Quantock Road (W) -85 12 59 20 0 20 684 -1 631 802 910 -53 609 1066 692 -193 156 603 -90

0 802 910 6 1067 999 0 6 265 88 8 8 803 1093 A 39 Quantock Road (E) 290 Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential F5 – SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 1 B With Site 1 Wembdon Rise Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 Northern access arm 47 A Homberg Way 120-180 65 B 180-300 Greater than 300 Quantock Meadow

6 A 6 B 13 A A 19 A 19 14 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 21 B 16 6 A 6 B

A 20 B 135 13 A 14 A 128 B 12 B

A 5 B 7 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

6 A 10 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential F6 – SITE 1 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 1 B With Site 1 Wembdon Rise V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% Northern access arm 58 A Homberg Way 86 B

Quantock Meadow

0 A 32 B 49 A A 90 A 53 53 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 82 B 49 2 A 2 B

A 90 B 106 79 A 54 A 106 B 47 B

A 0 B 1 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

54 A 73 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix H

SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS G1 – SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street Actual flow (PCU)

Core Site 2 Increase Decrease

147 162 1169 1010 Eastover 15 1203 999 Bower Lane 34 -10

270 149 251 183 -20 34 170 337 105 167 724 St John Street 188 856 83 891 132 871 1184 337 -19 1251 430 367 68 93 491 125 Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 521 489 676 491 155 2

83 102 80 19 200 120

Dunwear Lane G2 – SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Site 2 B With Site 2

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 82 120-180 B 89 41 A 180-300 Eastover 42 B Bower Lane Greater than 300

6 A 10 B

54 A St John Street 80 B A 54 B 53 A 4 B 4

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 4 A 5 B

A 5 B 6

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential G3 – SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Site 2 B With Site 2

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% A 68 B 74 62 A Eastover 61 B Bower Lane

26 A 52 B

65 A St John Street 77 B A 80 B 78 A 22 B 29

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 30 A 32 B

A 10 B 26

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential G4 – SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street Actual flow (PCU)

Core Site 2 Increase Decrease

191 194 1054 1192 Eastover 3 1065 1172 Bower Lane 11 -20

279 282 286 301 6 19 226 300 197 73 670 St John Street 245 720 48 814 50 827 1252 515 13 1260 632 495 8 117 520 25 Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 438 412 550 416 112 5

95 172 72 77 138 66

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential G5 – SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Site 2 B With Site 2

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 120 60-120 A 120 120-180 B 121 47 A 180-300 Eastover 46 B Bower Lane Greater than 300

8 A 10 B

55 A St John Street 64 B A 50 B 51 A 5 B 6

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 4 A 4 B

A 5 B 5

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential G6 – SITE 2 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Site 2 B With Site 2

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% A 89 B 90 74 A Eastover 73 B Bower Lane

35 A 46 B

60 A St John Street 65 B A 73 B 74 A 34 B 42

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 25 A 27 B

A 9 B 18

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix I

SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS H1 – SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK

KEY: M5 Actual flow (PCU)

Core Site 3 882 1016 Increase 889 985 Decrease 6 -32

1325 1528 1309 1829 -17 Bristol Road 300 A39 Dunball 561 A39/M5 1823 1640 319 1593 1891 J23 1635 -242 1905 68 -5 311 1604 1575 504 1823 1788 1882 559 1891 184 307 56 68

31 M5 718 687

48 178 1869 Bridgwater 130 1925 Business Park 56 1603 1667 64

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

1609 1719 1570 1727 -38 8

345 312 -33

1219 608 1226 545 King's Drive 8 -63 1497 1547 50

Bristol Road H2 – SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 3 B With Site 3 M5

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 A 1 36 A 60-120 B 2 34 B 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300 A 112 B 168 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 4 A A39/M5 4 A 128 B J23 6 B

A 89 10 A 8 A B 167 182 B 9 B

A 4 M5 B 4

Bridgewater A 11 Business Park B 12

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

6 A 6 B

A 7 393 A B 6 324 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential H3 – SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 3 B With Site 3 M5

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% A 51 64 A Greater than 100% B 52 62 B

A 101 B 104 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 37 A A39/M5 43 A 106 B J23 54 B

A 94 92 A 60 A B 104 109 B 62 B

A 3 M5 B 51

Bridgewater A 50 Business Park B 52

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

76 A 76 B

A 73 118 A B 70 114 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential H4 – SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK

KEY: M5 Actual flow (PCU)

Core Site 3 991 1087 Increase 948 1157 Decrease -43 70

1411 1625 1351 1742 -61 Bristol Road 117 A39 Dunball 495 A39/M5 1554 1429 515 1566 1948 J23 1437 21 1682 395 8 116 1320 1498 641 1554 1571 1660 598 1948 251 162 -43 395

26 M5 421 395

24 289 1839 Bridgwater 265 2046 Business Park 207 1996 1731 -265

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

1985 1962 1996 2016 11 55

815 818 3

1554 758 1631 673 King's Drive 77 -84 1247 1326 79

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential H5 – SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 3 B With Site 3 M5

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 A 2 34 A 60-120 B 2 38 B 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300 A 67 B 55 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 4 A A39/M5 4 A 4 B J23 5 B

A 29 8 A 8 A B 73 12 B 9 B

A 4 M5 B 4

Bridgewater A 11 Business Park B 11

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

6 A 6 B

A 318 79 A B 253 51 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential H6 – SITE 3 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK

KEY:

A Without Site 3 B With Site 3 M5

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% A 58 69 A Greater than 100% B 55 73 B

A 82 B 88 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 33 A A39/M5 39 A 36 B J23 44 B

A 77 87 A 51 A B 91 97 B 64 B

A 2 M5 B 32

Bridgewater A 62 Business Park B 54

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

85 A 89 B

A 116 102 A B 112 100 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix J

SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS I1 – SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 192 1223 1415 191 Core 1243 1418 -1 Site 4 808 21 3 Increase Campion Way 911 Decrease 103 114 114 0 311 310 -1

2146 M5 1191 1248 2196 1180 1227 50 -11 -22

1592 751 1544 743 -48 -8 665 Taunton Road 600 J24 -65 Huntworth Lane

28 28 0

957 979 1436 22 1473 40 Huntworth Lane 36 40 0

M5 I2 – SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 4 21 A B With Site 4 21 B A 6 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 7 0-30 8 A 30-60 8 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 16 B 16 A 10 M5 B 10

6 A 29 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 7 A 7 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 4 1 A A 6 2 B B 6 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential I3 – SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 4 61 A B With Site 4 61 B A 58 V/C Campion Way B 65 Lower than 85% 16 A 85-100% 17 B Greater than 100%

A 46 B 45 A 49 M5 B 47

99 A 101 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 31 62 A 57 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 57 B 57 59 A A 5 61 B B 5 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential I4 – SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 117 1326 1500 117 Core 1333 1500 -1 Site 4 420 7 0 Increase Campion Way 471 Decrease 51 221 221 0 717 718 1

1877 M5 1253 958 1890 1255 1039 12 2 81

1601 756 1649 761 48 5 645 Taunton Road 668 J24 23 Huntworth Lane

51 51 0

978 1007 1150 29 1161 58 Huntworth Lane 11 58 0

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential I5 – SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 4 17 A B With Site 4 17 B A 5 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 6 0-30 7 A 30-60 7 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 15 B 15 A 18 M5 B 18

3 A 3 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 5 A 5 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 5 1 A A 5 1 B B 5 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential I6 – SITE 4 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 4 69 A B With Site 4 69 B A 32 V/C Campion Way B 36 Lower than 85% 25 A 85-100% 26 B Greater than 100%

A 57 B 57 A 73 M5 B 75

86 A 87 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 31 51 A 53 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 58 B 60 47 A A 6 48 B B 7 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix K

SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS J1 – SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 192 1223 1415 189 Core 1221 1419 -3 Site 5 808 -2 4 Increase Campion Way 809 Decrease 1 114 114 0 311 308 -3

2146 M5 1191 1248 2147 1196 1196 1 5 -52

1592 751 1523 727 -69 -24 665 Taunton Road 620 J24 -44 Huntworth Lane

28 165 137

957 1018 1436 61 1433 40 Huntworth Lane -3 87 48

M5 J2 – SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 5 21 A B With Site 5 21 B A 6 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 6 0-30 8 A 30-60 8 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 16 B 16 A 10 M5 B 10

6 A 29 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 7 A 7 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 5 1 A A 6 1 B B 6 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential J3 – SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 5 61 A B With Site 5 61 B A 58 V/C Campion Way B 58 Lower than 85% 16 A 85-100% 16 B Greater than 100%

A 46 B 46 A 49 M5 B 47

99 A 101 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 30 62 A 58 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 57 B 59 59 A A 5 59 B B 11 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential J4 – SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 117 1326 1500 118 Core 1344 1500 0 Site 5 420 18 0 Increase Campion Way 419 Decrease 0 221 221 0 717 718 1

1877 M5 1253 958 1885 1252 965 7 -1 7

1601 756 1636 781 35 25 645 Taunton Road 649 J24 4 Huntworth Lane

51 86 35

978 986 1150 8 1207 58 Huntworth Lane 57 191 133

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential J5 – SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 5 17 A B With Site 5 17 B A 5 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 5 0-30 7 A 30-60 7 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 15 B 15 A 18 M5 B 18

3 A 3 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 5 A 5 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 5 1 A A 5 1 B B 5 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential J6 – SITE 5 ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Site 5 69 A B With Site 5 69 B A 32 V/C Campion Way B 32 Lower than 85% 25 A 85-100% 25 B Greater than 100%

A 57 B 57 A 73 M5 B 75

86 A 88 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 32 51 A 51 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 58 B 60 47 A A 6 50 B B 21 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix L

SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS L1 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: Actual flow (PCU) Wembdon Rise Core Scenario A Increase Decrease Northern access arm 322 513 Homberg Way 191 645 Quantock Meadow 149 723 170 78 0 0 21 145 481 891 145 481 537 665 30 562 A39 Quantock Road (W) -226 30 25 7 0 7 607 -1 504 728 891 -103 667 1276 671 -61 385 620 -52

0 728 967 227 1047 1072 0 227 319 105 159 159 716 970 A 39 Quantock Road (E) 254 Southern access arm L2 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario A Increase Decrease 1

147 177 1169 1010 Eastover 29 1149 1016 Bower Lane -20 7

270 149 302 201 32 52 170 405 105 235 724 St John Street 214 825 109 891 101 853 1184 337 -38 1219 490 367 36 153 672 305 Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 521 489 648 528 127 39

83 85 80 2 196 117

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L3 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 3

KEY: M5 Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario A 882 1016 Increase 872 1015 Decrease -11 -1

1325 1528 1309 1847 -17 Bristol Road 319 A39 Dunball 561 A39/M5 1823 1640 310 1593 1935 J23 1658 -251 1934 112 18 340 1604 1575 504 1823 1746 1897 580 1935 142 323 76 112

31 M5 721 690

48 193 1869 Bridgwater 145 1931 Business Park 62 1603 1698 96

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

1609 1719 1616 1778 7 59

345 353 8

1219 608 1260 569 King's Drive 41 -39 1497 1542 44

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L4 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 4

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 192 1223 1415 172 Core 1430 1442 -20 Scenario A 808 208 27 Increase Campion Way 901 Decrease 93 114 113 -1 311 293 -17

2146 M5 1191 1248 2212 1188 1216 66 -3 -32

1592 751 1680 678 88 -74 665 Taunton Road 675 J24 11 Huntworth Lane

28 149 121

957 1136 1436 179 1517 40 Huntworth Lane 81 86 47

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L5 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: Actual flow (PCU) Wembdon Rise Core Scenario A Increase Decrease Northern access arm 219 320 Homberg Way 101 596 Quantock Meadow 237 667 362 71 0 0 125 422 264 910 422 264 622 828 12 684 A39 Quantock Road (W) -82 12 62 20 0 20 684 -1 637 802 910 -47 612 1071 692 -190 161 612 -80

0 802 910 5 1066 997 0 5 264 86 8 8 803 1085 A 39 Quantock Road (E) 283 Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L6 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario A Increase Decrease 1

191 194 1054 1192 Eastover 3 1162 1168 Bower Lane 108 -24

279 282 320 285 41 3 226 303 197 76 670 St John Street 265 744 68 814 74 919 1252 515 105 1258 565 495 7 50 546 51 Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 438 412 525 501 86 89

95 171 72 76 138 66

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L7 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 3

KEY: M5 Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario A 991 1087 Increase 977 1212 Decrease -14 125

1411 1625 1474 1849 63 Bristol Road 223 A39 Dunball 495 A39/M5 1554 1429 544 1566 1989 J23 1494 49 1788 435 65 222 1320 1498 641 1554 1612 1705 579 1989 292 206 -63 435

26 M5 442 416

24 355 1839 Bridgwater 331 2100 Business Park 261 1996 1847 -149

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

1985 1962 2031 2132 46 171

815 819 5

1554 758 1665 614 King's Drive 111 -144 1247 1418 171

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L8 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 4

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 117 1326 1500 113 Core 1502 1500 -5 Scenario A 420 177 0 Increase Campion Way 474 Decrease 54 221 222 1 717 699 -18

1877 M5 1253 958 2027 1382 1061 150 129 103

1601 756 1823 877 222 121 645 Taunton Road 712 J24 67 Huntworth Lane

51 83 32

978 1118 1150 140 1266 58 Huntworth Lane 116 192 134

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L9 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A Wembdon Rise Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 Northern access arm 82 A Homberg Way 120-180 401 B 180-300 Greater than 300 Quantock Meadow

6 A 8 B 11 A A 18 A 16 14 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 14 B 16 5 A 6 B

A 18 B 506 12 A 13 A 92 B 13 B

A 5 B 6 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

5 A 8 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L10 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 82 120-180 B 97 41 A 180-300 Eastover 42 B Bower Lane Greater than 300

6 A 13 B

54 A St John Street 76 B A 54 B 52 A 4 B 5

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 4 A 5 B

A 5 B 6

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L11 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 3

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A M5 Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 1 36 A 120-180 B 1 37 B 180-300 Greater than 300

A 112 B 167 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 4 A A39/M5 4 A 131 B J23 40 B

A 89 10 A 8 A B 123 199 B 9 B

A 4 M5 B 4

Bridgewater A 11 Business Park B 12

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

6 A 6 B

A 7 393 A B 6 431 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L12 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 4

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario A 21 A B With Scenario A 21 B A 6 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 8 0-30 8 A 30-60 8 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 16 B 16 A 10 M5 B 11

6 A 56 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 7 A 8 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 5 1 A A 6 2 B B 6 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L13 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A Wembdon Rise Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 Northern access arm 47 A Homberg Way 120-180 74 B 180-300 Greater than 300 Quantock Meadow

6 A 6 B 13 A A 19 A 19 14 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 21 B 16 6 A 6 B

A 20 B 144 13 A 14 A 126 B 12 B

A 5 B 7 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

6 A 10 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L14 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 120 120-180 B 126 47 A 180-300 Eastover 48 B Bower Lane Greater than 300

8 A 10 B

55 A St John Street 78 B A 50 B 55 A 5 B 5

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 4 A 5 B

A 5 B 6

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L15 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 3

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A M5 Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 2 34 A 120-180 B 2 42 B 180-300 Greater than 300

A 67 B 59 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 4 A A39/M5 4 A 4 B J23 5 B

A 29 8 A 8 A B 100 13 B 9 B

A 4 M5 B 4

Bridgewater A 11 Business Park B 12

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

6 A 6 B

A 318 79 A B 134 214 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L16 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 4

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario A 17 A B With Scenario A 17 B A 5 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 7 0-30 7 A 30-60 8 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 15 B 16 A 18 M5 B 21

3 A 3 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 5 A 6 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 6 1 A A 5 1 B B 6 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L17 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A Wembdon Rise V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% Northern access arm 89 A Homberg Way 115 B

Quantock Meadow

0 A 59 B 42 A A 88 A 47 44 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 66 B 41 4 A 4 B

A 88 B 126 72 A 52 A 104 B 48 B

A 0 B 19 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

48 A 65 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L18 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% A 68 B 81 62 A Eastover 62 B Bower Lane

26 A 62 B

65 A St John Street 74 B A 80 B 77 A 22 B 33

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 30 A 33 B

A 10 B 25

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L19 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 3

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A M5

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% A 51 64 A Greater than 100% B 51 64 B

A 101 B 104 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 37 A A39/M5 43 A 106 B J23 62 B

A 94 92 A 60 A B 102 110 B 63 B

A 3 M5 B 52

Bridgewater A 90 Business Park B 91

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

76 A 78 B

A 73 118 A B 73 120 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L20 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 4

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario A 61 A B With Scenario A 62 B A 58 V/C Campion Way B 70 Lower than 85% 16 A 85-100% 17 B Greater than 100%

A 46 B 45 A 49 M5 B 51

99 A 103 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 28 62 A 66 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 57 B 67 59 A A 5 62 B B 12 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L21 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A Wembdon Rise V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% Northern access arm 58 A Homberg Way 89 B

Quantock Meadow

0 A 32 B 49 A A 90 A 53 53 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 82 B 50 2 A 2 B

A 90 B 106 79 A 54 A 106 B 48 B

A 0 B 1 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

54 A 72 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L22 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% A 89 B 91 74 A Eastover 73 B Bower Lane

35 A 47 B

60 A St John Street 67 B A 73 B 83 A 34 B 38

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 25 A 32 B

A 9 B 18

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L23 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 3

KEY:

A Without Scenario A B With Scenario A M5

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% A 58 69 A Greater than 100% B 57 77 B

A 82 B 93 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 33 A A39/M5 39 A 39 B J23 47 B

A 77 87 A 51 A B 95 99 B 65 B

A 2 M5 B 34

Bridgewater A 112 Business Park B 105

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

85 A 94 B

A 116 102 A B 106 109 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential L24 – SCENARIO A ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 4

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario A 69 A B With Scenario A 69 B A 32 V/C Campion Way B 42 Lower than 85% 25 A 85-100% 28 B Greater than 100%

A 57 B 63 A 73 M5 B 83

86 A 94 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 36 51 A 58 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 58 B 70 47 A A 6 52 B B 22 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix M

SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS M1 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: Actual flow (PCU) Wembdon Rise Core Scenario B Increase Decrease Northern access arm 322 431 Homberg Way 109 645 Quantock Meadow 149 678 159 32 0 0 10 144 482 891 144 482 537 745 30 586 A39 Quantock Road (W) -146 30 49 7 0 6 607 -1 550 728 891 -56 668 1357 671 -59 466 650 -21

0 728 967 227 1046 1059 0 227 318 92 159 159 716 972 A 39 Quantock Road (E) 255 Southern access arm M2 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY: M5 Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario B 882 1016 Increase 846 1090 Decrease -36 74

1325 1528 1360 1795 35 Bristol Road 266 A39 Dunball 561 A39/M5 1823 1640 316 1593 1953 J23 1610 -245 1889 130 -30 296 1604 1575 504 1823 1760 1863 609 1953 156 289 106 130

31 M5 731 700

48 200 1869 Bridgwater 152 1946 Business Park 77 1603 1672 69

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

1609 1719 1591 1790 -17 71

345 315 -31

1219 608 1250 536 King's Drive 31 -72 1497 1577 79

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M3 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: Actual flow (PCU) Wembdon Rise Core Scenario B Increase Decrease Northern access arm 219 318 Homberg Way 99 596 Quantock Meadow 237 670 365 74 0 0 128 424 264 910 424 264 622 826 12 684 A39 Quantock Road (W) -84 12 62 20 0 20 684 -1 642 802 910 -42 610 1069 692 -192 159 609 -83

0 802 910 6 1067 988 0 6 265 77 8 8 803 1085 A 39 Quantock Road (E) 282 Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M4 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2 .

KEY: M5 Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario B 991 1087 Increase 969 1195 Decrease -22 108

1411 1625 1425 1824 14 Bristol Road 198 A39 Dunball 495 A39/M5 1554 1429 541 1566 1972 J23 1466 47 1763 418 36 197 1320 1498 641 1554 1580 1691 585 1972 260 192 -56 418

26 M5 423 397

24 343 1839 Bridgwater 319 2065 Business Park 226 1996 1821 -175

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

1985 1962 2023 2099 38 137

815 803 -12

1554 758 1664 612 King's Drive 110 -145 1247 1405 158

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M5 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B Wembdon Rise Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 Northern access arm 82 A Homberg Way 120-180 560 B 180-300 Greater than 300 Quantock Meadow

6 A 10 B 11 A A 18 A 16 12 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 17 B 15 5 A 6 B

A 18 B 650 12 A 13 A 90 B 13 B

A 5 B 6 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

5 A 8 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M6 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B M5

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 A 1 36 A 60-120 B 1 40 B 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300 A 112 B 171 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 4 A A39/M5 4 A 129 B J23 6 B

A 89 10 A 8 A B 138 163 B 9 B

A 4 M5 B 4

Bridgewater A 11 Business Park B 12

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

6 A 6 B

A 7 393 A B 6 449 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M7 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B Wembdon Rise Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 Northern access arm 47 A Homberg Way 120-180 72 B 180-300 Greater than 300 Quantock Meadow 1 6 A 6 B 13 A A 19 A 19 14 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 21 B 16 6 A 6 B

A 20 B 141 13 A 14 A 127 B 12 B

A 5 B 7 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

6 A 10 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M8 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B M5

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 A 2 34 A 60-120 B 2 40 B 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300 A 67 B 57 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 4 A A39/M5 4 A 4 B J23 5 B

A 29 8 A 8 A B 81 12 B 9 B

A 4 M5 B 4

Bridgewater A 11 Business Park B 12

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

6 A 6 B

A 318 79 A B 154 162 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M9 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B Wembdon Rise V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% Northern access arm 89 A Homberg Way 123 B

Quantock Meadow

0 A 66 B 42 A A 88 A 47 46 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 74 B 43 4 A 4 B

A 88 B 134 72 A 52 A 104 B 51 B

A 0 B 19 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

48 A 65 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M10 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B M5

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% A 51 64 A Greater than 100% B 49 69 B

A 101 B 104 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 37 A A39/M5 43 A 106 B J23 52 B

A 94 92 A 60 A B 102 108 B 64 B

A 3 M5 B 53

Bridgewater A 90 Business Park B 90

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

76 A 77 B

A 73 118 A B 70 121 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M11 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B Wembdon Rise V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% Northern access arm 58 A Homberg Way 88 B

Quantock Meadow

0 A 32 B 49 A A 90 A 53 53 B A39 Quantock Road (W) B 82 B 50 2 A 2 B

A 90 B 106 79 A 54 A 106 B 48 B

A 0 B 1 A 39 Quantock Road (E)

54 A 72 B

Southern access arm

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential M12 – SCENARIO B ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

KEY:

A Without Scenario B B With Scenario B M5

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% A 58 69 A Greater than 100% B 56 75 B

A 82 B 92 Bristol Road A39 Dunball 33 A A39/M5 39 A 39 B J23 46 B

A 77 87 A 51 A B 92 98 B 65 B

A 2 M5 B 33

Bridgewater A 112 Business Park B 103

Bristol Road

Bristol Road

85 A 93 B

A 116 102 A B 107 106 B King's Drive

Bristol Road

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential Appendix N

SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS N1 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario C Increase Decrease

147 161 1169 1010 Eastover 14 1193 987 Bower Lane 24 -22

270 149 249 185 -21 36 170 329 105 159 724 St John Street 184 843 80 891 119 874 1184 337 -17 1239 445 367 55 108 507 140 Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 521 489 662 491 141 2

83 111 80 28 199 120

Dunwear Lane N2 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 192 1223 1415 190 Core 1298 1418 -3 Scenario C 808 75 3 Increase Campion Way 910 Decrease 101 114 114 0 311 307 -4

2146 M5 1191 1248 2189 1188 1245 43 -3 -4

1592 751 1599 719 7 -32 665 Taunton Road 660 J24 -4 Huntworth Lane

28 163 135

957 1062 1436 105 1451 40 Huntworth Lane 15 87 48

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N3 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street Actual flow (PCU)

Core Scenario C Increase Decrease

191 193 1054 1192 Eastover 2 1066 1178 Bower Lane 12 -14

279 282 289 300 9 18 226 300 197 73 670 St John Street 238 718 42 814 48 826 1252 515 12 1260 626 495 9 112 522 28 Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 438 412 542 410 104 -2

95 172 72 77 138 66

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N4 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – ACTUAL FLOWS – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park Actual flow (PCU) 117 1326 1500 117 Core 1405 1500 -1 Scenario C 420 80 0 Increase Campion Way 471 Decrease 52 221 221 0 717 717 0

1877 M5 1253 958 1948 1291 1046 70 38 88

1601 756 1748 806 147 50 645 Taunton Road 691 J24 46 Huntworth Lane

51 85 35

978 1058 1150 80 1248 58 Huntworth Lane 99 191 133

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N5 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario C B With Scenario C

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 82 120-180 B 88 41 A 180-300 Eastover 42 B Bower Lane Greater than 300

6 A 10 B

54 A St John Street 79 B A 54 B 53 A 4 B 4

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 4 A 5 B

A 5 B 6

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N6 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario C 21 A B With Scenario C 21 B A 6 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 7 0-30 8 A 30-60 8 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 16 B 16 A 10 M5 B 10

6 A 56 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 7 A 7 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 5 1 A A 6 2 B B 6 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N7 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario C B With Scenario C

Delay (seconds) 0-30 30-60 60-120 A 120 120-180 B 121 47 A 180-300 Eastover 46 B Bower Lane Greater than 300

8 A 10 B

55 A St John Street 64 B A 50 B 51 A 5 B 6

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 4 A 4 B

A 5 B 5

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N8 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – DELAY – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario C 17 A B With Scenario C 17 B A 5 Delay (seconds) Campion Way B 6 0-30 7 A 30-60 7 B 60-120 120-180 180-300 Greater than 300

A 15 B 16 A 18 M5 B 19

3 A 3 B

A 0 Taunton Road B 0 5 A 6 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 5 B 5 1 A A 5 1 B B 6 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N9 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario C B With Scenario C

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% A 68 B 74 62 A Eastover 61 B Bower Lane

26 A 51 B

65 A St John Street 76 B A 80 B 79 A 22 B 30

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 30 A 31 B

A 10 B 26

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N10 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – AM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario C 61 A B With Scenario C 61 B A 58 V/C Campion Way B 67 Lower than 85% 16 A 85-100% 16 B Greater than 100%

A 46 B 45 A 49 M5 B 49

99 A 103 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 30 62 A 63 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 57 B 63 59 A A 5 60 B B 11 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N11 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 1

KEY: A38 Monmouth Street A Without Scenario C B With Scenario C

V/C Lower than 85% 85-100% Greater than 100% A 89 B 89 74 A Eastover 73 B Bower Lane

35 A 46 B

60 A St John Street 65 B A 73 B 74 A 34 B 42

Westonzoyland Road Westonzoyland Road A38 Monmouth Street 25 A 27 B

A 9 B 18

Dunwear Lane

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential N12 – SCENARIO C ASSIGNMENT RESULTS – V/C – PM PEAK – DIAGRAM 2

Taunton Road KEY: Huntworth Business Park A Without Scenario C 69 A B With Scenario C 69 B A 32 V/C Campion Way B 38 Lower than 85% 25 A 85-100% 27 B Greater than 100%

A 57 B 59 A 73 M5 B 80

86 A 90 B

A 31 Taunton Road B 33 51 A 56 B Huntworth Lane

J24

A 58 B 65 47 A A 6 51 B B 21 Huntworth Lane

M5

Bridgwater Transport Options - Forecast Report WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Project No 287584CQ-PTT Confidential