18. Arun Local Development Framework Transport Study of 2009

18. Arun Local Development Framework Transport Study of 2009 West Sussex County Transport Model Arun District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Revised Options Final Report

Report for Arun District Council

April 2009

Document Control Distribution

Project Title: Arun Local Development Framework Issue Date Distribution Comments Transport Study 1 13/02/09 Arun DC, WSCC Draft MVA Project Number: C3784800 2 18/02/09 Arun DC, WSCC Revised Draft Document Type: Final Report 3 24/02/09 Arun DC, WSCC Revised Draft Directory & File Name: J:\C37848 Arun District LDF Further Scenarios\Reports\Report V13.Doc 4 06/03/09 Arun DC, WSCC Final Report

5 20/03/09 Arun DC, WSCC Revised Final Report

6 30/04/09 Arun DC, WSCC Revised Final Report

Document Approval

Primary Author: Ian Wilkinson

Other Author(s): Leon Shrewsbury

Ann Fenwick

Kayleigh Uthayakumar

Reviewer(s): Ian Burden

Formatted by: LS

Contents

4 Tabulated Results 4.1 1 Introduction 1.1 4.1 General 4.1 1.1 Background 1.1 4.2 Additional traffic 4.1 1.2 2026 Demand Forecast 1.1 4.3 Road Capacity 4.1 1.3 Testing the LDF Scenarios for 2026 1.2 4.4 Option Specific Infrastructure 4.2 4.5 Public Transport and Modal Shift from Car 4.2 2 West Sussex County Transport Model 2.1 2.1 Suitability for Purpose 2.1 5 Graphical Results 5.1 2.2 Model History 2.1 5.1 Flow Diagrams 5.1 5.2 Congestion (Figures 5.11 to 5.19) 5.1 3 Methodology 3.1 3.1 Overview 3.1 6 Conclusions 6.1 3.2 TEMPRO Production and Attraction Trip Ends 3.1 6.1 Highway Conclusions 6.1 3.3 Car Ownership growth 3.1 3.4 Specification of Options 3.4 3.5 Locations of Developments and Infrastructure 3.9 7 Appendix 1 7.1 7.1 County Model Assumptions and Limitations 7.1

1 Contents

Tables

Table 3.1 TEMPRO Car Ownership and Household totals for Arun 3.2 Table 3.2 2006 Trip Ends from TEMPRO 5.1 3.3 Table 3.3 2026 Trip Ends from TEMPRO 5.1 3.3 Table 3.4 2006-2026 Trip End Growth from TEMPRO 5.1 3.3 Table 3.5 2026 Development Option Specification 3.6 Table 3.6 2026 Development Productions for the Transport Model (Based on Assumed Trip Rates by Mode) 3.7 Table 3.7 2026 Development Attractions for the Transport Model (Based on Assumed Trip Rates by Mode) 3.7 Table 4.1 Public Transport Total Boardings from the Transport Model 4.3 Table 4.2 Public Transport Development Site Boardings from the Transport Model 4.4 Table 4.3 Summary of Impacts on the study area road network 4.5 Table 4.4 Roads experiencing capacity problems due to development 4.6 Table 4.5 Summary of Flow on Option Specific Roads 4.7 Table 6.1 Summary results and preference (in terms of traffic impact) ranking 6.6

1 Introduction

1.1 Background 1.2 2026 Demand Forecast

1.1.1 MVA Consultancy was appointed by Arun District Council to 1.2.1 The first stage of this study was to create the 2026 highway assess their Local Development Framework Scenarios (LDF) and public transport matrices for the 2026 Baseline and each using the West Sussex County Model. Option, taking into account the committed developments and the option specific developments. 1.1.2 The study has two main objectives that were stated in the brief: 1.2.2 For the zones with new developments in Arun, the method was as follows: to establish the absolute and relative impacts of potential strategic development locations on the road and rail calculate new productions and attractions created by the networks in Arun District and beyond; and proposed developments for each zone of the model; to confirm where transport infrastructure improvements add these new productions and attractions to the 2006 are likely to be required, firstly to enable individual AM peak trip ends and incorporate growth in car developments to go ahead without incurring an ownership to calculate the forecast 2026 trip ends; and unacceptable impact on the highway and secondly to ensure that the sites in question are as accessible as distribute the 2026 trip ends to calculate the 2026 AM possible by rail transport. peak trip matrices for the 2026 Baseline and the Options.

1.1.3 This strategic transport study was divided into two main tasks: 1.2.3 For the rest of West Sussex (outside Arun), trip ends growth factors were taken from TEMPRO for the six districts: Adur, prepare the transport model inputs for the options Chichester, Crawley, Horsham, Mid Sussex and Worthing. (Chapter 3); and 1.2.4 The 2006 trip ends were directly extracted from the West test the options and report the outcomes (Chapters 4, 5 Sussex County Model. Arun District Council provided the extra and 6). housing numbers due to the proposed development for the period 2006-2026. The resulting trip ends were compared against the TEMPRO forecasts.

1.1 1 Introduction

1.3 Testing the LDF Scenarios for 2026

1.3.1 Nine options were tested, which comprised of three differing residential development scenarios, each with and without mitigating infrastructure. In addition, for each development scenario a further test was undertaken with an assumption that for new trips the car mode would constitute no more than a 50% mode share. Full details of the options are in Table 3.5.

1.3.2 Each scenario was analysed against the ‘2026 Baseline’ which

assumed the following improvements from the 2001 network:

Bognor Regis Relief Road;

Chichester bypass improvements;

Angmering bypass;

Titnore lane (West Worthing) improvements; and

700 bus service headway decreased from 30 to 10 minutes.

Further mitigating infrastructure is included in some options as specified in Table 3.5.

1.2

2 West Sussex County Transport Model

2.1 Suitability for Purpose 2.2 Model History 2.1.1 The West Sussex County Model was considered to be suitable for this strategic transport assessment. Following work to 2.2.1 The West Sussex County Model was developed as a tool for incorporate highway and public transport updates the model forecasting strategic highway movements on the county’s main provided a fully functional multi-modal transport modelling tool routes. The area of coverage extends into East Sussex, suitable for the work required in this project. Hampshire, Surrey and the M25 in order to more accurately model journeys of all lengths to, from and through the county. 2.1.2 The County Model assesses link capacity and therefore indicates which road sections are likely to experience delays as 2.2.2 The base year is 2001 and there is a 2026 forecast year which a result of traffic demand exceeding capacity with a has been used in LDF scenario tests. It is an AM peak hour consequent reduction in vehicle speeds. It also indicates how multi-modal model having evolved from a highway-only model. traffic diverts away from busy routes, where traffic is slowed The rail network was added during an update in 2002; the bus because of excessive demand, and adds to flows on secondary model was first added in 2003. The update to 2001 was based routes that may be less suitable. However, junction capacity is only on traffic counts using a matrix estimation process; no not modelled and the model does not represent the delays that new origin to destination data was used. would result from congestion at junctions. Additional specialised software will be required for this work. A detailed 2.2.3 The highway and public transport models use TRIPS software; explanation of the County Transport Model assumptions and the highway model is link-based with no junction modelling. limitations is included in Appendix 1. Congestion delay effects are calculated using speed flow curves. 2.1.3 The results of the County Model should be regarded as indicative of the areas where impacts are likely to take place 2.2.4 Development and network updates are ongoing as part of work and where further investigation and analysis will be necessary for some District Councils on the impact of LDF proposals. prior to any planning consents. The Model will indicate the These include highway network and bus route updates. relative scales of impacts from different patterns of Demand matrices have been uplifted from the 2001 base year development and the likely hotspots. This evidence will help to 2006 using planning data. inform decisions on the most suitable locations for strategic development in the Arun LDF. Subject to the model results, individual junction tests may need to be undertaken to support the choice of preferred locations and to help determine the scale and phasing of development in these locations.

2.1 2 West Sussex County Transport Model

Figure 2.1 West Sussex County Model

2.2

3 Methodology

3.1 Overview 3.2 TEMPRO Production and Attraction Trip Ends

3.1.1 For the zones with new developments in Arun, the method was 3.2.1 TEMPRO provided trip end productions and attractions by as follows: mode, by time period and by geographical area for 2006 and 2026. TEMPRO production and attraction trip ends were calculate new productions and attractions created by the extracted for each district in West Sussex, for the AM peak proposed developments for each zone of the model; period (07:00 to 10:00) and for three modes: car (driver),

add these new productions and attractions to the 2006 rail and bus. AM peak trip ends and incorporate growth in car 3.2.2 Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show the total production and attraction trip ownership to calculate the forecast 2026 trip ends; and ends for each mode (car, rail and bus) for 2006 and 2026. distribute the 2026 trip ends to calculate the 2026 AM Growth for 2006-2026 is also presented in Table 3.4. peak trip matrices for the 2026 Baseline and the Options. 3.2.3 This growth was applied to the 2006 trip ends (except for

Arun) to calculate the 2026 forecast trip ends. 3.1.2 For the rest of West Sussex (outside Arun), trip ends growth factors were taken from TEMPRO for the following districts: 3.3 Car Ownership growth

Adur; 3.3.1 In addition to new housing developments, the car ownership change is another source of potential production trip ends Chichester; increase. This was considered when forecasting the 2026 car Crawley; production trip ends.

Horsham; 3.3.2 The growths in number of cars and in number of households Mid Sussex; and allow the calculation of an average growth in car ownership per household for the time period 2006-2026. Forecast numbers Worthing. of households and cars from TEMPRO are given in Table 3.1.

3.1 3 Methodology

Table 3.1 TEMPRO Car Ownership and Household totals for Arun

Year Cars Households

2006 78,691 66,292

2026 101,045 79,091

2006-26 Growth 1.358 1.222

3.3.3 Two factors were calculated for the period 2006-2026 for Arun.

The factors were calculated as follows using the figures in Table 3.1:

Growth in Number of Cars = 1.284

Growth in Number of Households = 1.193

Growth in Car Ownership per Household = 1.284/1.193 = 1.076

These factors were applied to the car production trip ends previously calculated for the new developments in Arun.

3.2 3 Methodology

Table 3.2 2006 Trip Ends from TEMPRO 5.1

Car Bus Rail All Productions Attractions Productions Attractions Productions Attractions Productions Attractions

WEST SUSSEX (County) 203,253 208,509 32,762 20,640 8,313 8,365 244,328 237,514 ADUR (Authority) 14,541 12,852 2,652 1,527 641 540 17,834 14,919

ARUN (Authority) 34,130 26,556 5,950 2,184 1,449 534 41,529 29,274

CHICHESTER (Authority) 29,087 31,027 4,480 3,010 1,148 976 34,715 35,013

CRAWLEY (Authority) 29,891 47,755 4,757 5,481 1,276 3,169 35,924 56,405

HORSHAM (Authority) 35,540 32,177 5,116 2,844 1,330 686 41,986 35,707

MID SUSSEX (Authority) 35,648 33,748 5,430 2,637 1,397 1,457 42,475 37,842

WORTHING (Authority) 24,416 24,396 4,378 2,956 1,071 1,003 29,865 28,355 Table 3.3 2026 Trip Ends from TEMPRO 5.1

Car Bus Rail All Productions Attractions Productions Attractions Productions Attractions Productions Attractions

WEST SUSSEX (County) 248,056 251,583 34,340 20,530 9,325 9,139 291,721 281,252 ADUR (Authority) 17,432 15,249 2,646 1,471 694 572 20,772 17,292

ARUN (Authority) 41,297 31,278 6,019 2,120 1,583 560 48,899 33,958

CHICHESTER (Authority) 35,290 36,843 4,766 3,032 1,291 1,045 41,347 40,920

CRAWLEY (Authority) 36,743 58,821 4,859 5,484 1,424 3,534 43,026 67,839

HORSHAM (Authority) 43,565 38,576 5,589 2,859 1,540 735 50,694 42,170

MID SUSSEX (Authority) 44,241 41,238 6,046 2,679 1,626 1,601 51,913 45,518

WORTHING (Authority) 29,488 29,578 4,415 2,885 1,167 1,092 35,070 33,555 Table 3.4 2006-2026 Trip End Growth from TEMPRO 5.1

Car Bus Rail All Productions Attractions Productions Attractions Productions Attractions Productions Attractions

WEST SUSSEX (County) 22% 21% 5% -1% 12% 9% 19% 18% ADUR (Authority) 20% 19% 0% -4% 8% 6% 16% 16%

ARUN (Authority) 21% 18% 1% -3% 9% 5% 18% 16%

CHICHESTER (Authority) 21% 19% 6% 1% 12% 7% 19% 17%

CRAWLEY (Authority) 23% 23% 2% 0% 12% 12% 20% 20%

HORSHAM (Authority) 23% 20% 9% 1% 16% 7% 21% 18%

MID SUSSEX (Authority) 24% 22% 11% 2% 16% 10% 22% 20%

WORTHING (Authority) 21% 21% 1% -2% 9% 9% 17% 18%

3.3 3 Methodology

3.4 Specification of Options Car Production Trip Rate = Av. Prod Trip Rate – Bus & Rail Prod (zone specific) (0.30) Trip Rate 3.4.1 Table 3.5 shows the specification of the options for the nine (zone specific) options in this study.

Production Trip Ends 3.4.5 The average production trip rate (across all West Sussex zones) was calculated to be 0.30 trips per household. The split 3.4.2 The methodology was different for Arun zones as detailed between highway and public transport varied from zone to locations of new housing developments were provided. This zone due to differences in proximity to a railway station or a allowed forecasting specific zone trip ends, rather than bus stop. Therefore, the car, rail and bus production trip rates applying growth factors to the whole of Arun district. were specific to each zone, but the total production trip rate was the same for all zones (with new developments in). This 3.4.3 The trip ends generated by the new developments were avoided anomalies of development producing varying demand calculated by multiplying the number of residential units by a dependent on which zone they were located in. zone production trip rate: 3.4.6 This method was also applied for a development in West 2026 Production = 2006 Productions + 2006-26 Trip Ends generated Durrington (Worthing District). The 1200 new dwellings were Trip Ends Trip Ends by the new developments allocated to the transport model zone 114 for in the 2026 Baseline test. 2006-2026 Trip Ends = Production * 2006-26 New Units from new developments Trip Rate (by zone) (by zone) 3.4.7 Table 3.6 shows the production trip ends for each development location by mode and site. These represent the input productions for the transport model based on the assumed trip 3.4.4 The production trip rates were calculated by dividing the 2001 rates. base model trip ends by the number of households for each zone: Attraction Trip Ends

Total Production Trip Rate = 2001 Car + Rail Production TripEnds 3.4.8 New housing developments generate far fewer attractions than (Average across West Sussex) Number of households production in the morning peak. A trip rate of 0.14 trip per household was calculated from the TRICS database. The Rail Production Trip Rate = 2001 Rail Production Trip Ends attraction trip rate was the same for all zones and used to (zone specific) Number of households calculate car attraction trip ends, as it was assumed the housing development will not generate any public transport Bus Production Trip Rate = 2001 Bus Production Trip Ends (rail or bus) attraction in the morning peak. (zone specific) Number of households

3.4 3 Methodology

3.4.9 Home is not the main purpose for trip attraction in the morning the frequency or proximity of public transport provision peak hour, as opposed to school and work. Therefore, the and private car journey times including delay due to attractions generated by the new developments were added to congestion. the 2006 attraction trip ends and the total was factored up to match the TEMPRO attraction trip ends growth. Eco-Town Assumptions

3.4.10 Specific attention was given to the two developments with 3.4.15 The Ford Eco-town site includes the assumption that car employment, Oldlands Farm and MRF at Ford. Information productions and attractions which are external (not to or from from the developer indicated that MRF will generate and attract with the eco-town itself) are limited to 50% of the total 60 trips in the morning peak. These trips were directly added productions and attractions. The assumptions for external into zone 39. public transport trips are unchanged from the ‘typical’ trip rates. Therefore the differences compared to the 'typical' are 3.4.11 For the Oldlands Farm employment site, production trip rate due to additional internal car and public transport trips and do of 0.08 and attraction trip rate of 0.81 trip per 100sqm were not include changes to the number of external public transport applied to the proposed 90,000 sqm floorspace to generate 72 trips. The transport model mode shift calculation predicts the production trip ends and 729 attraction trip ends. change in external public transport trips as reported in Chapter 4. 3.4.12 Table 3.7 shows the attraction trip ends for each development location. These represent the input attractions for the transport model based on the assumed trip rates.

Transport Model

3.4.13 The productions and attractions in Table 3.6 and 3.7 are inputs to the transport model. Part of the model’s functionality is to calculate variations to these inputs which could be expected based on the transport conditions simulated by the model. This includes changes in public transport patronage, referred to

as ‘pre’ and ‘post’ mode shift (or mode choice). The outcomes of this are reported in Chapter 4.

3.4.14 Change between ‘pre’ and ‘post’ mode shift reflects the change in patronage that is predicted by the model compared to the

assumed input trip rates. This can be due to factors such as

3.5 3 Methodology

Table 3.5 2026 Development Option Specification

2026 Option 1a 2026 Option 1b 2026 Option 1c 2026 Option 2a 2026 Option 2b 2026 Option 2c 2026 Option 3a 2026 Option 3b 2026 Option 3c

New Settlement at New Settlement at New Settlement at Urban Extensions Urban Extensions Urban Extensions Inland Settlements Inland Settlements Inland Settlements Number of Ford Ford Ford Employment Description Zone Residential 2026 Baseline (sqm) Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Units No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure Typical mode Typical mode Eco-town mode Typical mode Typical mode Eco-town mode Typical mode Typical mode Eco-town mode share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution

Housing Housing supply already identified: Net housing completions 2006-2008 See other sheet 909 Est yield from existing housing permissions at 1.4.08 " 3,028 Additional large sites gaining permission since 1.4.08 " 406

Other Baseline inclusions: Trips matched to Estimated housing potential within built-up areas (SHLAA sites) " 1,750 productions Small scale greenfield allocations "400 Small scale greenfield allocations "100 Estimated small windfall sites = 1,800 (estimated 100 units per year over period 2008-2026) " 1,800 Oldlands Farm Business Park - 90,000 8,393 90,000

Northwest of Bognor Regis, located North of Chalcraft Lane and west of Newbarn Lane 301 2,500 50,000 North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 302 1,500 30,000 North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 302 1,300 26,000 North of Littlehampton, located at Courtwick Lane 303 500 10,000 Ford Eco-town 304 5,000 100,000 At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 305 500 10,000 At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 305 1,500 30,000 Between Barnham and Westergate on land identified in the SHLAA 306 2,500 50,000 Sub Total (Baseline) 8,393 8,293 8,293 8,293 8,293 8,293 8,293 7,993 7,993 7,993

Sub Total (Option) 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,300 5,300 5,300

Grand Total 8,393 13,293 13,293 13,293 13,293 13,293 13,293 13,293 13,293 13,293

Infrastructure Full A284 Lyminster Bypass connecting to existing A284 south of A27, to be tested with closure of existing rail level crossing at Wick.

Southern extension of new road link from A259 Worthing Road to B2187 East Street at Fitzalan Road

A259 Dualling North Bersted to Chichester

Road Bridge over rail line at Toddington connecting A259 Worthing Road at Highdown Drive with A284 Lyminster Road at Mill Lane, with intermediate connection to development Zone north of Mill Lane

A259 Dualling Roundstone Bypass (Station Road to Angmering Bypass)

A29 Woodgate / Westergate Eastern Bypass Connecting Lidsey Road to Nyton Road

Eastergate Southern Relief Road as a spur off new A29 to B2233Barnham Road between Eastergate and Barnham

Improved rail station and bus connections at Ford reflecting eco-town proposals

Road bridge over rail crossing at Ford with link continuing south to join B2233 Yapton Road at Climping and on line improvement to A259 junction.

Sustainability

Typical mode share and distribution Eco-town mode share and distribution

3.6 3 Methodology

Table 3.6 2026 Development Productions for the Transport Model (Based on Assumed Trip Rates by Mode)

2026 Option 1a/b 2026 Option 1c 2026 Option 2a/b 2026 Option 2c 2026 Option 3a/b 2026 Option 3c

Urban Extensions Urban Extensions New Settlement at Ford New Settlement at Ford Inland Settlements Inland Settlements Number of Employment Description Zone Residential (sqm) Eco-town mode share and Eco-town mode share and Eco-town mode share and Typical mode share and distribution Typical mode share and distribution Typical mode share and distribution Units distribution distribution distribution

Car Bus Rail Total Car Bus Rail Total Car Bus Rail Total Car Bus Rail Total Car Bus Rail Total Car Bus Rail Total

Northwest of Bognor Regis, located North of Chalcraft Lane and west of 301 2,500 50,000 707 30 11 374 30 11 000 000 000 000 Newbarn Lane 748 415 0 0 0 0

North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 302 1,500 30,000 419 28 1 448 224 28 1 253 0000 0000 0000 0000

North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 302 1,300 26,000 0000 0000 0000 0000 363 24 1 388 194 24 1 219

North of Littlehampton, located at Courtwick Lane 303 500 10,000 140 9 0 149 75 9 0 84 0000 0000 0000 0000

Ford Eco-town 304 5,000 100,000 0000 0000 1426 49 22 1497 748 49 22 819 0000 0000

At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 305 500 10,000 147 2 1 150 75 2 1 78 0000 0000 0000 0000

At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 305 1,500 30,000 0000 0000 0000 0000 440 7 2 449 225 7 2 234

Between Barnham and Westergate on land identified in the SHLAA 306 2,500 50,000 0000 0000 0000 0000 686 22 40 748 374 22 40 436

Total 1413 69 13 1495 748 69 13 830 1426 49 22 1497 748 49 22 819 1489 53 43 1585 793 53 43 889

Table 3.7 2026 Development Attractions for the Transport Model (Based on Assumed Trip Rates by Mode)

2026 Option 1a/b 2026 Option 1c 2026 Option 2a/b 2026 Option 2c 2026 Option 3a/b 2026 Option 3c

Urban Extensions Urban Extensions New Settlement at Ford New Settlement at Ford Inland Settlements Inland Settlements Number of Employment Description Zone Residential (sqm) Units Typical mode share and distribution Eco-town mode share and distribution Typical mode share and distribution Eco-town mode share and distribution Typical mode share and distribution Eco-town mode share and distribution

Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Car Total Total Total Total Total Total Residential Employment Residential Employment Residential Employment Residential Employment Residential Employment Residential Employment

Northwest of Bognor Regis, located North of Chalcraft Lane and west of 301 2,500 50,000 350 405 175 203 00 00 00 00 Newbarn Lane 755 378 0 0 0 0

North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 302 1,500 30,000 210 243 453 105 122 227 000 000 000 000

North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 302 1,300 26,000 000 000 000 000 182 211 393 91 106 197

North of Littlehampton, located at Courtwick Lane 303 500 10,000 70 81 151 35 41 76 000 000 000 000

Ford Eco-town 304 5,000 100,000 000 000 700 810 1510 350 405 755 000 000

At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 305 500 10,000 70 81 151 35 41 76 000 000 000 000

At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 305 1,500 30,000 000 000 000 000 210 243 453 105 122 227

Between Barnham and Westergate on land identified in the SHLAA 306 2,500 50,000 000 000 000 000 350 405 755 175 203 378

Total 700 810 1510 350 407 757 700 810 1510 350 405 755 742 859 1601 371 431 802

3.7 3 Methodology

Figure 3.1 West Sussex County Model Zoning

3.8 3 Methodology

3.5 Locations of Developments and Infrastructure

3.5.1 Figures 3.2 to 3.7 show where the developments are located in the model for each Option.

3.5.2 The points where the developments connect to the network are highlighted in these figures with a broken purple line. New roads have been added to some Options, these are highlighted, with blue broken lines.

3.9 3 Methodology

Development North of Littlehampton Development North (North of Toddington of Littlehampton Lane) Angmering (Courtwick Lane) Toddington Road Bridge

A259 Development at Bognor Regis Relief Road Angmering

New Link Road, A259 to B2187

Bognor Regis North-West Bognor Regis Development

Figure 3.2 Option 1a, and 1c, Developments and New Roads

3.10 3 Methodology

Development North of Littlehampton Development North (North of Toddington of Littlehampton Lane) Angmering (Courtwick Lane)

A259 Dualling, North Lyminster Bypass Bersted to Chichester

A259 Development at Bognor Regis Relief Road Angmering

New Link Road, A259 to B2187

Bognor Regis North-West Bognor Regis Development

Figure 3.3 Option 1b, Developments and New Roads

3.11 3 Methodology

Ford Eco-Town Angmering

Ford

A259 Bognor Regis Relief Road

Bognor Regis

Figure 3.4 Option 2a, and 2c, Developments and New Roads

3.12 3 Methodology

Road Bridge over Ford Rail

Improved rail station and Angmering Ford Eco-Town bus connections at Ford

Ford

A259 Bognor Regis Relief Road

Bognor Regis

Figure 3.5 Option 2b, Developments and New Roads

3.13 3 Methodology

Development Development North between Barnham of Littlehampton and Westergate (North of Toddington Angmering Lane)

Toddington A29 Road Bridge

Bognor Regis Relief Road A259 Development at Angmering

Bognor Regis

Figure 3.6 Option 3a and 3c, Developments and New Roads

3.14 3 Methodology

Development between Development North Barnham and of Littlehampton Westergate (North of Toddington Angmering Lane)

Toddington Eastergate Road Bridge Relief Road

Development at Bognor Regis Relief Road A259 Dualling A259 Angmering Roundstone bypass

Bognor Regis

Figure 3.7 Option 3b, Developments and New Roads

3.15

4 Tabulated Results

The right hand half of the table shows the traffic increase as a 4.1 General percentage where the criteria above are met.

4.1.1 This chapter provides a tabulated summary assessment of the An increase over 50% is highlighted in red; and changes in traffic flow resulting from the development Options An increase over 25% is highlighted in gold. in 2026. They show impact in terms of additional flow (Table 4.3) and the capacity to absorb additional flow (Table 4.4).

4.3 Road Capacity 4.1.2 Only roads which are either in the study area or of strategic importance elsewhere are included in the summary tables. The 4.3.1 Table 4.4 shows the roads experiencing congestion due to the study area includes all routes in Arun District. Town centre different development options. As stated above some town and residential urban roads which can not be reliably assessed centre roads which can not be reliably assessed with this with this strategic model are excluded. strategic model are excluded. Roads which meet all the following criteria in one or more Options are included in the 4.1.3 Roads that are not currently constructed are described in table: italics.

Roads with a final volume to capacity ratio (V/C) over 80%; 4.2 Additional traffic V/C increased by more than 5%; 4.2.1 Table 4.3 shows a summary of the traffic flow impact of the Flow increase by more than 50 PCUs. different development options compared to the 2026 Baseline. The worst affected roads, in terms of the extra traffic they would be carrying are identified in the table. All links which 4.3.2 The left hand side of the table denotes for which options the meet both of the following criteria in one or more Options are above criterion is met as follows: included on the table. Volume to capacity ratio increasing significantly and Traffic flow increases by more than 200 PCUs over 100%; (passenger car units); and Volume to capacity ratio increasing significantly and Traffic flow increases by 5% or more. over 80%;

4.3.3 The right hand side of the table shows the corresponding

4.1 4 Tabulated Results

increase in flow where the criterion is met. Traffic flow 4.5.3 The transfer to public transport is attributable to the following: increases by more than 200 PCUs are highlighted. Increased travel times on highway routes, due to increasing highway flow and congestion up to 2026; 4.4 Option Specific Infrastructure Speed of accessibility to bus and rail services from the

4.4.1 Table 4.5 shows flows on roads which are only included in development; some of the options. These roads are not included in Tables Frequency and speed of routes serving the development. 4.3 or 4.4 which show the impact on existing and committed

infrastructure. 4.5.4 Options 1 and 3 have the highest public transport patronage from the development sites, although Option 2 has the highest 4.5 Public Transport and Modal Shift from Car rail patronage due to the proximity of the Ford site to the railway station. 4.5.1 Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the public transport patronage for bus and rail modes before and after the calculation of potential modal transfer.

4.5.2 Enhancements to public transport have been provided for each option, including provision of dedicated services for each development site. A bus service with a 15 minute frequency was added connecting each site to the nearest town centre and rail station. The Northwest Bognor Regis (Zone 301) site was connected to both Chichester and Bognor Regis. The Barnham / Westergate site (Zone 306) has frequent services to Barnham Station and to Bognor Regis. Bus services were included in all tests, both with and without highway mitigation options.

4.2 4 Tabulated Results

Table 4.1 Public Transport Total Boardings from the Transport Model

2026 Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Option 2a Option 2b Option 2c Option 3a Option 3b Option 3c Test Baseline

Pre Mode Choice

Bus 3,238 3,327 3,315 3,337 3,272 3,259 3,266 3,330 3,322 3,321

Rail 11,007 11,069 11,050 11,059 11,067 11,080 11,072 11,051 11,055 11,059

Post Mode Choice

Bus 3,351 3,338 3,346 3,290 3,293 3,288 3,362 3,368 3,349

Rail 11,087 11,091 11,100 11,104 11,122 11,107 11,089 11,076 11,095

% Change

Bus 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 1.0% 1.4% 0.8%

Rail 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3%

% Change from 2026 Baseline

Bus 3.49% 3.09% 3.34% 1.61% 1.70% 1.54% 3.83% 4.01% 3.43%

Rail 0.73% 0.76% 0.84% 0.88% 1.04% 0.91% 0.74% 0.63% 0.80%

4.3 4 Tabulated Results

Table 4.2 Public Transport Development Site Boardings from the Transport Model

Test Option 1a Option 1b Option 1c Option 2a Option 2b Option 2c Option 3a Option 3b Option 3c

Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail Bus Rail

Pre Mode Choice Northwest of Bognor Regis, located North of Chalcraft Lane and west of Newbarn Lane 39 19 39 19 39 19 North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 28 26 3 26 28 26 24 23 24 22 24 23

North of Littlehampton, located at Courtwick Lane 9 8 9 8 9 8

Ford Eco-town 10 65 10 66 10 65 At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 6 3 6 3 6 Between Barnham and Westergate on land identified in the SHLAA 52 12 47 15 52 12

Total 77 55 52 55 77 55 10 65 10 66 10 65 79 41 74 43 79 41

Post Mode Choice Northwest of Bognor Regis, located North of Chalcraft Lane and west of Newbarn Lane 34 19 36 19 34 19 North of Littlehampton, located north of Toddington Lane 30 28 3 28 30 28 26 24 25 23 25 24

North of Littlehampton, located at Courtwick Lane 9 8 9 8 9 8

Ford Eco-town 11 70 12 82 10 66 At Angmering located to the south and east of the existing development 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 6 3 6 3 6 Between Barnham and Westergate on land identified in the SHLAA 68 13 69 22 65 13

Total 74 57 49 57 74 57 11 70 12 82 10 66 97 43 97 51 93 43

Change

Total -3 2 -3 2 -3 2 1 5 2 16 0 1 18 2 23 8 14 2

Percent -4% 4% -6% 4% -4% 4% 10% 8% 20% 24% 0% 2% 23% 5% 31% 19% 18% 5%

4.4 4 Tabulated Results

Table 4.3 Summary of Impacts on the study area road network

Increase in Flow (PCUs) Percentage Increase in Flow 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Optio n 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c New New New New New New Urban Urban Urban Inland Inland Inland Urban Urban Urban Inland Inland Inland Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at 2026 Extensions Extensions Extensions Settlements Settlements Settlements Extensions Extensions Extensions Settlements Settlements Settlements Baseline Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Baseline Location Capacity Volume / Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Flow Capacity No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation (PCUs) structure structure structure structure structure structure Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode mode share mode share mode share mode share mode share mode share share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and and and and and and and distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution

Ford Road (SB) Ford Lane to Horsemere Green Lane 126 550 23 454 611 310 360% 485% 246% Church Lane (SB) Climping to A259 214 550 39 402 530 315 188% 248% 147% A259 (WB) Crookthorpe Lane, Church Lane to B2233 Yapton Road 931 1400 67 488 354 310 52% 38% 33% A259 (SB), B2144 towards North Bersted 974 1400 70 337 472 261 35% 48% 27% A259 (EB) Roundstone Bypass Road, B2225 to A280 1,569 1400 112 1043 66% Ford Lane (EB) to Ford Road/Station Road 151 550 27 427 596 283% 395% A259 (EB) Bognor Road, A27 to B2144 924 3500 26 307 432 239 33% 47% 26% A259 (NB), Colworth towards Merston 1,603 1400 115 820 51% Bognor Regis Relief Road (EB), towards A29 359 1400 26 272 335 210 76% 93% 58% A259 (WB) Bognor Road, B2145 to A27 1,545 3500 44 759 49% A29 (NB), Shirpney Road, Rowan Way to Shirpney Lane 1,396 3500 40 258 283 201 18% 20% 14% A259 (SB), B2144 towards North Bersted 974 1400 70 242 260 218 25% 27% 22% A29 (SB), B2233 to Hook Lane 463 1400 33 474 238 102% 51 % A29 (NB), Hook Lane to B2233 662 1400 47 436 244 66% 37 % B2132 (SB), A27 to Walberton 127 600 21 292 387 230% 305% B2132 (SB), Walberton to B2233 159 600 27 287 382 181% 240% A280 (NB) A259 towards Water Lane 365 1400 26 213 409 58% 112% A27, one way link, near B2132 176 3500 5 289 324 164% 184% A259 (NB), from North Bersted towards Colworth 1,603 1400 115 602 38% B2233 (NB), Nyton Road, Church Road to A27 280 600 47 295 272 105% 97% A259 (EB), Roundstone Bypass, B2225 to B2140 1,432 1400 102 567 40% Ford Road (NB) Horsemere Green Lane to Ford Lane 466 550 85 229 301 49% 65% A259 (WB) B2132 to Hoe Lane 1,169 1400 84 272 257 23% 22% A29 (NB), Shripney Road, towards Rowan Way 1,006 3500 29 250 275 25% 27% A259 (WB) Grevatt's Lane, B2233 to B2132 865 1400 62 312 212 36% 25% A29 (WB) Bridge Road, B2187 to Church Lane 1,361 1400 97 206 293 15% 22% B2233 (BB), Nyton Road, A27 to Church Road 141 600 24 233 253 165% 179% B2233 (EB), Nyton Road, Church Road to A29 141 600 24 233 253 165% 179% Nyton Road, A27 link 141 600 24 233 253 165% 179% A29 (EB), Arundal Road, A29 Fontwell Avenue to A29/ Park Lane 1,873 3500 54 230 233 12% 12% A259 (WB) Littlehampton Road, Hangleton Lane to A280 1,452 3500 41 206 243 14% 17% A259 (WB) Roundstone Bypass Road, A280 to B2225 1,421 1400 102 446 31% A27 (EB), Arundal Road, The Street to B2233 1,785 3500 51 209 206 12% 12% A27 (WB), Arundal Road, B2233 to The Street 2,741 3500 78 209 205 8% 7% Ford Lane (WB) Ford Road/Station Road to B2132 297 550 54 404 136% Western Bognor Regis Relief Road (WB), from A29 486 1400 35 368 76% A259 (WB), Roundstone Bypass, B2140 to B2225 1,038 1400 74 354 34% A280 (NB), towards Water Lane 365 1400 26 329 90% Ford Road (NB) Ford Station to A27/A284 257 550 47 305 119% Ford Road (NB) close to Ford Station heading towards A284/A27 Arundel 257 550 47 305 119% Ford Road (SB) A27 to Ford Station 466 550 85 301 65% B2225 (SB), to A259 138 600 23 298 216% B2225 (SB), High Street towards A259 138 600 23 297 215% A29 (SB), Shirpney Road, towards Rowan Way 894 3500 26 290 32% Church Lane (NB) A259 to Climping 489 550 89 288 59% A259 (NB), N Bersted Street to Newbarn Lane 1,261 1400 90 284 23% B2233 Yapton Road (NB), A259 to Horesmere Green Lane 317 600 53 282 89% Ford Road (SB), A27/A284 towards Ford Station 63 550 11 280 444% Ford Road (SB), A284/A27 to Ford Lane 63 550 11 280 444% A29 (SB) Shirpney Road, towards Rowan Way 1,167 3500 33 280 24%

4.5 4 Tabulated Results

Table 4.4 Roads experiencing capacity problems due to development

Where V/C is over 80% or 100% having increased by more than 5% Increase in flow (PCUs) 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c New New New New New New Urban Urban Urban Inland Inland Inland Urban Urban Urban Inland Inland Inland 2026 Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Baseline Extensions Extensions Extensions Settlements Settlements Settlements Extensions Extensions Extensions Settlements Settlements Settlements Baseline Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Ford Location Capacity Volume / Mitigating Flow Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating Capacity No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigatio n (PCUs) structure structure structure structure structure structure Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode mode share mode share mode share mode share mode share mode share share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and share and and and and and and and distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution A259 (WB), B2187 to Toddington Lane 831 850 98 137 76 98 94 112 85 114 114 8 0 A259 (EB), Toddington Lane to B2187 938 850 110 64 62 62 90 5 2 Ford Road (NB) Horsemere Green Lane to Ford Lane 466 550 85 229 301 136 A259 (WB) B2132 to Hoe Lane 1,169 1400 84 183 272 257 188 A29 (WB) Bridge Road, B2187 to Church Lane 1,361 1400 97 206 293 93 Church Lane (NB) A259 to Climping 489 550 89 169 288 122 A29 (EB) Bridge Road, Church Lane to B2187 1,330 1400 95 172 241 102 A29 (EB) Nyton Road, Barnett Close to Barnham Road 617 800 77 168 140 63 138 116 6 8 A259 (EB) Hoe Lane to B2132 1,438 1400 103 117 112 80 Church Lane (SB) Climping to A259 214 550 39 402 530 315 A29 (EB) Nyton Road, Westergate Street to Barnham Road 617 800 77 168 140 63 138 6 8 Bognor Regis Relief Road, towards Bersted and Shripney Lane 1,143 1400 82 175 135 90 120 92 A29 (EB) Nyton Road, Westergate Street to Barnett Close 617 800 77 168 140 63 138 6 8 A259 (WB), Worthing Road, Toddington Lane to A284 704 850 83 192 100 126 84 Ford Road (SB) Ford Lane to Horsemere Green Lane 126 550 23 454 611 A259 (WB) Crookthorpe Lane, Church Lane to B2233 Yapton Road 931 1400 67 488 354 310 Ford Lane (EB) to Ford Road/Station Road 151 550 27 427 596 B2187 (EB), Franciscan Way, A284 to B2187 670 800 8452 65 60 97 A2031 (EB), Tarring Road, A2031 to A24 741 800 93 52 52 5 3 B2132 (NB), B2233 to Walberton 415 600 69 122 192 A259 (NB), Chichester Road, from Bognor Regis Station towards North Bersted 679 800 85 80 54 54 A259 (EB), Worthing Road, A284 to Toddington Lane 748 850 88 196 61 A284 (NB), A259 to Mill Lane 604 800 76 55 103 55 A259 (SB), B2144 towards North Bersted 974 1400 70 337 261 A259 (NB), Colworth towards Merston 1,603 1400 115 70 A259 (SB), B2144 towards North Bersted 974 1400 70 242 218 B2233 (NB), Nyton Road, Church Road to A27 280 600 47 295 272 A27 (WB), Arundal Road, B2233 to The Street 2,741 3500 78 209 205 Ford Lane (WB) Ford Road/Station Road to B2132 297 550 54 404 Ford Road (NB) Ford Station to A27/A284 257 550 47 305 na Ford Road (NB) close to Ford Station heading towards A284/A27 Arundel 257 550 47 305 Ford Road (SB) A27 to Ford Station 466 550 85 301 B2233 Yapton Road (NB), A259 to Horesmere Green Lane 317 600 53 192 282 A259 (EB), B2233 to Church Lane 1,175 1400 84 220 125 B2132 (NB), Walberton towards A27 387 600 65 132 203 B2139 (EB), Houghton to A283 at Cootham 502 600 84 67 51 B2139 (SB), A284/A29 towards Amberley Railway Station 495 600 83 64 51 B2139 (EB), over Amberley Railway Line 557 600 93 63 A259 (SB), towards Bognor Regis Station 569 800 71 110 83 A259 (EB), B2132 to B2233 1,111 1400 79 94 105 A27 (WB), The Causeway, over Arundel Railway Station 1,614 1400 115 124 A27 (NB) Lyminster Road, from A284 to Station Road 1,663 1400 119 114 B2166 (WB), Hawthorn Road to Lower Bognor Road 429 500 86 63 51 A27 (WB), A27 The Causeway to A284 1,518 1400 108 90 A259 (NB), from Bognor Regis Station to Chalcraft Lane 628 800 79 185 A27 (SB) Lyminster Road, from Station Road to A284 1,469 1400 105 72 B2187 (SB), Horsham Road, towards East Street 609 800 76 80 64 A27 (EB), The Causeway, over Arundel Railway Station 1,407 1400 101 82 A27 (WB), Chichester Road, A284 towards Arundal Road 1,376 1400 98 123 B2187 (NB), Horsham Road, towards Worthing Road 746 800 93 68 B2132 (SB), A27 to Walberton 127 600 21 387 B2132 (SB), Walberton to B2233 159 600 27 382 A259 (WB) Grevatt's Lane, B2233 to B2132 865 1400 62 312 A259 (WB), Roundstone Bypass, B2140 to B2225 1,038 1400 74 104 A29 (WB) Nyton Road, Barnham Road to Barnett Close 444 800 56 240 A29 (WB) Nyton Road, Westergate Street to Barnham Road 444 800 56 240 A29 (WB) Nyton Road, Barnett Close to Barnham Road 444 800 56 240 B2233 (WB) at Yapton 269 500 54 158 B2139 (WB) Cootham (A283) to Houghton 419 600 70 69 B2166 (NB) Aldwick Road to Chalcroft Lane, Bognor Regis 412 500 82 53 A27 Chichester Bypass (WB) A259 to B2145 3,260 3800 86 193

4.6 4 Tabulated Results

Table 4.5 is a summary of flows on roads which only appear in some options. These do not appear in Tables 4.3 or 4.4.

Table 4.5 Summary of Flow on Option Specific Roads

Flow (PCUs) 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 2026 Option 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c New New New Urban Urban Urban Inland Inland Inland Settlement at Settlement at Settlement at Extensions Extensions Extensions Settlements Settlements Settlements Ford Ford Ford Location Mitigating Mitigating Mitigating No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation No Mitigation infra- No Mitigation structure structure structure Eco-town Eco-town Eco-town Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode Typical mode mode share mode share mode share share and share and share and share and share and share and and and and distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution distribution

New Southern Extension Link Road (NB) to A259 640 681 540 New Southern Extension Link Road (SB) from A259 616 675 493 Connection for Road Bridge (WB) over Toddington Rail, to A284 343 244 319 301 209 A29 (NB) Woodgate/Westergate Eastern Bypass 949 Road Bridge over Toddington Railway Station (NB) from A259 273 202 240 233 184 Connection for Road Bridge (EB) over Toddington Rail, from A284 318 198 302 284 180 New Southern Extension Link Road (NB) towards A259 288 362 251 New Southern Extension Link Road (SB), to B2166 295 315 282 New Southern Extension Link Road (SB), towards B2166 Lower Bognor Road 264 239 305 A29 (SB) Woodgate/Westergate Eastern Bypass, from A29 Nyton Road 803 A29 (NB) Woodgate/Westergate Eastern Bypass, from A29 Lidsey Road 685 A29 (SB) Woodgate/Westergate Eastern Bypass to A29 Lidsey Road 511 Road Bridge over rail line at Toddington, A259 to A284 435 New Southern Extension Link Road (NB) towards A259 185 209 217 Road Bridge over Toddington Rail (SB) from A259 224 na 162 201 195 162 Road Bridge (NB) over rail at Ford 399 Link (NB) joining Yapton Road B2233 to New Rail crossing at Ford 399 Link from B2333 (NB) joining Yapton Road to New Rail crossing at Ford 399 Road Bridge over rail line at Toddington, A284 to A259 383 Link Road (NB) from B2187 to A259 275 Link Road (NB) A259 to B2187 243 New Link Road, Chalcraft Lane to New Southern extension 237 114 161 New Link Road, New Southern extension to Chalcraft Lane 122 119 52 New Southern Extension Link Road (NB), to B2166 Lagness 119 54 93

New Southern Extension Link Road (NB) from B2166 Lagness 69 52 51 Eastergate Southern Relief Road (WB), as a spur off new A29 from B2233 166 Eastergate Southern Relief Road (EB), as a spur off new A29 to B2233 156 Road Bridge (SB) over rail at Ford 126 Link to B2333 (SB) joining into Yapton Road from New Rail crossing at Ford, 126 Link (SB) towards B2333, joining into Yapton Road from New Rail crossing at Ford 126

4.7

5 Graphical Results

5.1 Flow Diagrams 5.2 Congestion (Figures 5.11 to 5.19)

Additional Flow due to Options (Figures 5.2 to 5.10) 5.2.1 The flow difference are plotted as in Figure 5.2 to 5.10 except only roads which meet all the following criteria in one or more 5.1.1 The flow differences due to the different development options Options are highlighted in the diagrams: relative to the 2026 Baseline flows are plotted in the figures below. All maps show the development zone locations in the Roads with a final volume to capacity ratio (V/C) over option with the number of residential units. Flow differences 80%; greater than 100 PCUs (Passenger Car Units) are labelled V/C increased by more than 5%; numerically in all these figures. It should be noted that due to a limitation of the software graphics, some values can be Flow increase by more than 50 PCUs.

obscured by others. The location of the highlighted roads should match those listed in Table 4.4 which is based on the same criteria. 5.1.2 The bandwidths denote traffic increases only; the colour of the bands depends on the magnitude of the differences relative to 2026 Baseline flows as indicated below. Flow decreases are The bandwidths show traffic increases only, as described in shown numerically only. 5.1.2.

red for flow increases of 150 vehicles or more; Traffic Flow (Figures 5.20 to 5.29)

purple for flow increases of 100-149; 5.2.2 The assigned traffic flows including the impacts of the orange for flow increases of 50-99; development options are shown in the figures below.

yellow for flow increases of 30-49; The bandwidths are coloured from yellow to red grey for flow increase up to 29 vehicles. showing increasing traffic flow.

For reference, numerical flows on roads that carry over 1000 PCUs are shown.

5.1 5 Graphical Results

Volume over Capacity (Figures 5.30 to 5.38) brown: V/C >= 1.15 – serious delays;

red: 1.15 > V/C >= 1.00 – congestion; 5.2.3 The sizes of the bandwidths in these figures relate to the traffic flow in the network. The colours of the bandwidths represent orange: 1.00 > V/C >=0.80 – reaching capacity; and the level of congestion in the network as the Volume over green: V/C < 0.80 – free flow. Capacity ratio (V/C).

5.2 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.1 Arun District and Surrounds

5.2 5 Graphical Results

4 1

318 30 107 36 7 1 1500unit

2 500unit

2 2

7 4

33 - 4

140 500unit 3 1 1 1 6 14 33 141 1 141 7 37 143 134 119 140

- 14 24 4 2 2 5 272 2072 2 - 5 0 1 2 8 4 583 6 2 6 1 - 6 18 - 1 7 10 2 6 2 2500unit2

5 7 1 4 8 4 11 1 6 5 0 235 3 2 9 1 17226 4 -10 1

1 0 19 3 6

Figure 5.2 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 1a (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.3 5 Graphical Results

-192 -225 -122 -266 - -210 161

- 1 6

9 56 -1

9 6

3 -

1 1

- 7

- 4 4 1121 3 4 3 2 9 110 8 6 3 2

5 - 1 1500unit- 3 4 2 500unit 3 3 7 4 196 5 -10 4 1 1552 3 2 - - 9 -136 168 500unit 0 104 1 1 - 1 1 0 1 3 1 5 7 0 4 5 11 9 - 3 3 47 1 1 110 6 3 27 1 192 1 2 1 5 11 2 - 1 3 2 7 - 11 4 177 2 155 247 2

8 2 - 1 0 2 1 8 -1 2 4 7 6 0 270 1 0 2 2 335 1 3735 9 3 5 -2 -2 17 0 2 2 5 1 7 9 8 14 8 3 6 5 6 0 550 31 7 2 2 - 1 6 7 187 2 1 5 - 1 8 368 1 368 14 1 4 8 3 5 2500unit9 3 0 8 9 2 1 9 - 0 16 2 1 3 1 175 9 1 3 2 0 85 14 3 59123 1 -18

13 7

Figure 5.3 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 1b (Urban Extensions; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.4 5 Graphical Results

198 239 1500unit

1 500unit

2 6

0 2 2 42 4 - 500unit 1

0 26 1

- 1 2 8 1 1 0 8 9 210 217 0 2

0 0

4 1 3

5 29 9 3 - 4 18 -1 99 2 1 3 2500unit1 7 -

5 1 2 1 0 6320 3 1 8 106 -16

18 5

Figure 5.4 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 1c (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.5 5 Graphical Results

230 -1 174 -112 12

9 131 1 1 10 8 1 2 14 9 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 4 2 1681

4 0 2 8 5 8 1 2 1 7 2

42 7

2 3 2 5000unit

154 10 8

5 2 1 2 4 179 5 9 8 9 106 7 115 5 -208 1 21 4 72 01 1 2 4 1 0 2 226215 - 9 1 08 06 0 1 2 2 7 9 135 2 88 1 7 4 3 11 5 312

2 27 135

Figure 5.5 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 2a (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.6 5 Graphical Results

1 12

1 233 271 12

3 123 17 123 263 3 263 8 2 7 0

3 2 4 140 1

6 3

2 8 1 1 2 9

9 9 59 6 3

6 2 4 1 8 3 1 5000unit 1460 12 0 9 1 126 65 9 1 40 43 6 108 1 3 6 6 8 1 0 0 6 1 1 4 1 12 1 2 259 6 12 06 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 148 04 105 5 170 1 1 2

2 3 7 16 1 24 -3 5 41 9 6 23 2 9 0 8 1 2 2 1 8-247 8 1 6 3 0 2 31 29 4 8 2 354 12 1 198

7 25

Figure 5.6 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 2b (New Settlement at Ford; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.7 5 Graphical Results

148

8 0 1 5000unit

1 1

3 0 110

6 0 1 1

3 2 1 10 5 1 2 5 122 105 120 310 1 2 0 212

8 18 120

Figure 5.7 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 2c (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.8 5 Graphical Results

209 173

2 209 3 6 3 2 9 17 4 5 2 1 1 9 5 233 53 138 1 8 7 1

2 2 2 4 4 9 5 6 7 7 5 240 4 4

0 4

1 2500unit

1 30 1 318 2 4 157 719 1300unit

2 1500unit 2 0 137 32 4 1 1

310 9 1 25 145 117 120 1 296 3 213 220 132 1 199 11 199 4 198 104 206

Figure 5.8 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 3a (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.9 5 Graphical Results

206 168

2 205 5 161 3 7 9 2 3 14 7 1 2 2 53 9 0 38 1 1 2 7 1

1 1 8 1 27 4 0 2 8 6 3 3 0 3 6 9

5 3 5 4 1 - - 3 68 9 2500unit -

6 3 16 2 2 2 1405 6 8 9 2 14 4 -39 77 1 14 6 1 14 1300unit 4 -508 5 -336 1 1500unit 7 1043 8 36 6 2 9 2 2 4 6 1 11 3 9 5 3 563 7 - 33 8 1 1 0 1 24 1 152 2 - 305 1 409 121 172 2 16 5 1 4 18 -3 239 114 239 237 127 243 134 354 446 176 174

1 2 5

1 2 0

Figure 5.9 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 3b (Inland Settlements; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.10 5 Graphical Results

101

1 122 1 2 1 7 1 112

171

4 125 78 8 4

3 3

2 2500unit

180 168 405 1300unit

1 1500unit

1 6

8 20 2 4 9 148 103 103 119 119 118 120

Figure 5.10 Vehicle Flow Difference; 2026 Option 3c (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.11 5 Graphical Results

1500unit 500unit 64 500unit

33 7 137

24 2

2500unit 1 10

5 3

Figure 5.11 Congestion; 2026 Option 1a (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.12 5 Graphical Results

1500unit 500unit 196 3 19 500unit

192 76

8 65 6 0 8

175

1 7 5

2500unit 3 18 1 175 85

Figure 5.12 Congestion; 2026 Option 1b (Urban Extensions; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.13 5 Graphical Results

1500unit 500unit 62 500unit

26 98 1

21 8

2500unit 83

Figure 5.13 Congestion; 2026 Option 1c (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.14 5 Graphical Results

67 54

3 6

82 90 1 3 1 2 24 168

42 7

5000unit 5

5 2

2 4 10 1 0 94 58 9

4 72 01 2 1 0 226 9 6 1 20 94 9 135 2 88 1 7 4 3 11 5 312

2 27 135

Figure 5.14 Congestion; 2026 Option 2a (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.15 5 Graphical Results

123

3 8

2 7 0

3 140

1 2 9

596

5000unit 3 0 61 1 52 40 4 6

1 3

1 0 126 112 1 104

5 41 60 23 4 0 6

2 8 8 3 2 29 90 66 8 90 2 54 2 3 9 1 0 1

7 25 90

Figure 5.15 Congestion; 2026 Option 2b (New Settlement at Ford; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.16 5 Graphical Results

5000unit 5 5 52

1 3 84 85 6

3 2 1 10 5 1 2 5 122 93 105 120 310 1 0 2 8 0

8 18 120

Figure 5.16 Congestion; 2026 Option 2c (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.17 5 Graphical Results

209

2 9 5

138

29 5 240

2500unit

1300unit 1500unit 62

114

Figure 5.17 Congestion; 2026 Option 3a (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.18 5 Graphical Results

205

2 7 2

272

2500unit

1300unit 1500unit 90

114

92 92

9 2

Figure 5.18 Congestion; 2026 Option 3b (Inland Settlements; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.19 5 Graphical Results

2500unit

1300unit 1500unit 52 53

Figure 5.19 Congestion; 2026 Option 3c (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.20 5 Graphical Results

0 1

3 5 8 2

1 3 8 2

4 1150 7

2 8

2 9

4 1198

15 15 4 1724 1873 3 11 1785 164 1273 111 13 56 17 14 04 137 2461 2667 2460 376 6 14 741 1 07 2 1926 59 2771 1518 18 16 1542 1649 14 1520 152 1003 0 1520 86 26 10 24 4 3 2 7 2 3 5 1551 0 9 1439 1439 6 1 1439 6 12 11 1109 2 6 09 3 0 1 7 1 2 9 1 3 1 1 5 9 40 2 9 2 4 4 1 64 9 2708 2 149 27 221 61 37 2 11 0 15 1473 2078 1 26 45 1720 1432 1569 116 32 3 35 1577 1577 10 1137 1258 1038 1421 1452 1 0 6 33 10 03 1 5 90000sqm 117 61 13 1 1111 143 16 0 3 1 8 1 43 4 1 12 9 3 6 5 1 1 91 1 3 69 1 11 1143

Figure 5.20 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths: 2026 Baseline

5.21 5 Graphical Results

0 1

9 3 8 2

1 1 0 1 5 2 8 2

4 1151 6

2 2

2 3

4 1232

23 15 8 1716 1889 9 10 1786 163 1253 108 89 1748 14 09 13 26 17 5 85 1 2450 67 25 138 41 2826 1959 2 49 2831 1529 18 16 1606 1654 29 1569 156 9 1569 49 27 10 24 5 5 2 6 2 2 6 1580 0 6 1460 1460 6 0 1460 0 17 11 1124 2 6 24 3 9 1 5 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 6 1 82 2 4 2 5 80 1 276 27 123 1 9 1 1500unit 154 500unit 7 4 27 227 23 76 10 1 1 02 15 31 36 622 500unit 23 1749 1455 1547 21 34 33 12 3292 718 1 10 13 1718 013 1 1 1 1271 1377 1114 1426 1592 1 1 6 36 10 73 1 0 90000sqm 120 12 09 1 14 6 1 1126 165 15 5 4 1 7 1 45 6 1 10 5 5 7 5 3 1 92 2500unit 1 3 66 1 11 1165

Figure 5.21 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths: 2026 Option 1a (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.22 5 Graphical Results

0 1

2 1 8 2

4 0 0 1 10 7 06 9 7 2

8 1166 2

2 2

8 1222

94 14 639 1711 1840 2 107 1767 1 1201 107 2 1749 14 31 137 2267 2440 2336 379 9 14 473 1 34 2 1763 78 2559 1541 18 16 1495 1623 51 1498 149 1003 8 1498 28 25 10 24 5 5 2 5 2 2 4 1515 1 6 1450 1450 4 0 1450 6 95 10 1117 2 9 17 3 7 1 4 1 2 4 1 3 2 1 4 0 73 2 5 2 15 00 1 278 28 35 0 6 6 1500unit 155 500unit 0 1 28 226 22 16 1 15 18 53 23 500unit 77 1789 1470 1573 21 21 34 04 12 3338 687 1 10 14 1687 4 6 1314 1413 1093 1429 1564 2 87 4 12 10 23 6 90000sqm 115 12 71 3 13 4 1140 131 8 78 22 10 0 2 5 1 6 3 4 1 1 1052 15 9 8 4 1 5 1 22 2500unit 1 13 52 13 1318

Figure 5.22 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths: 2026 Option 1b (Urban Extensions; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.23 5 Graphical Results

0 1

6 4 8 2

9 2 8 2

8 1148 6

2 8

2 0

8 1208

17 15 8 1717 1884 4 10 1787 163 1254 109 94 50 17 13 97 13 26 99 0 90 1 2476 94 24 139 40 2802 1955 0 48 2823 1525 18 16 1570 1651 25 1548 154 1006 8 1548 49 27 10 24 4 4 2 5 2 1 6 1567 0 6 1457 1457 6 1 1457 6 22 11 1119 2 0 19 3 9 1 5 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 6 2 50 2 1 2 15 43 27 7 116 2 28 2 3 1500unit 151 500unit 5 27 2240 19 53 1 3 15 500unit 1497 2097 5 27 41 1731 1442 1548 119 32 3 37 1626 6 10 12 162 3 5 1193 1302 1056 1422 1499 1 7 6 34 10 15 1 2 90000sqm 119 11 82 9 13 2 1 1121 138 15 2 5 1 0 1 45 3 1 10 4 8 7 6 1 1 87 2500unit 1 3 57 1 11 1138

Figure 5.23 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 1c (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.24 5 Graphical Results

0 1

9 8 7 2

10 4 16 8 7 2

9 1167 2

2 1

2 0

9 1201

85 14 7 1797 2103 1852 171 1447 13 18 14 66 13 27 91 1 61 1 2523 24 25 136 48 2795 2034 9 14 2809 1608 19 17 1611 1611 38 1553 155 3 1553 18 27 10 24 5 5 2 1 2 1 5 1590 0 9 1456 1456 9 7 1456 0 02 11 1104 2 0 04 3 6 1 9 1 2 7 1 3 1 1 5 1 57 2 3 2 5 7 1 27 70 1 57 2 153 7 27 5000unit 2205 19 75 1008 1 1 14 62 98 577 79 1724 1433 1560 20 97 32 11 3263 1656 8 10 0 656 0 1 1 1243 1373 1108 1434 1529 02 15 10 16 32 5 90000sqm 139 67 15 1205 127 8 9 141 5 1 5 2 5 7 1 1177 12 5 8 6 5 8 1 96 1 13 41 14 1278

Figure 5.24 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 2a (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.25 5 Graphical Results

0 1

2 0 8 2

2 9 7 2

6 1165 4

2 8

6 1188

01 15 0 1813 2106 4 11 1865 173 1544 114 44 28 18 14 47 14 27 33 9 99 1 2513 39 26 149 45 2786 2189 3 25 2804 1563 19 16 1614 1627 69 1566 156 1016 6 1566 16 27 10 24 7 5 2 3 2 2 6 1552 1 0 1413 1413 1 2 1413 6 05 11 1097 2 5 97 3 2 0 1 1 2 9 1 3 2 1 5 4 75 2 1 2 5 7 1 27 68 4 57 2 151 4 27 5000unit 2204 23 66 1058 1 1 14 60 97 592 75 1750 1436 1562 20 34 32 12 3269 1685 8 10 5 1034 685 0 1 4 1 7 3 1285 14 1142 1441 155 0 28 1 71 15 10 16 4 8 6 90000sqm 123 54 16 1 1177 233 5 128 1 0 2 55 3 1 1063 12 0 3 6 6 2 1 81 1 13 26 14 1233

Figure 5.25 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 2b (New Settlement at Ford; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.26 5 Graphical Results

0 1

3 3 8 2

5 1 8 2

9 1149 5

2 4

2 9

9 1194

15 15 6 1766 1958 1 10 1822 168 1322 106 61 92 17 14 44 137 2465 2680 2493 377 7 14 736 1 49 2 1951 93 2764 1567 18 16 1587 1642 79 1548 154 1003 8 1548 78 26 10 24 4 4 2 2 2 1 5 1534 0 6 1426 1426 9 4 1426 6 07 11 1110 2 9 10 3 0 1 9 1 2 5 1 3 1 1 5 3 43 2 3 2 5 7 1 66 3 2742 2 153 2 27 5000unit 2184 19 54 1 1 15 1480 2037 2 27 87 1727 1436 1572 119 32 3 48 1627 1627 10 1216 1332 1078 1437 1497 32 14 10 16 47 300 90000sqm 1 4 45 16 1 12 12 63 1 124 8 1 1 2 5 6 1 1077 12 8 3 5 5 8 1 92 1 13 57 13 1263

Figure 5.26 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 2c (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.27 5 Graphical Results

0 1

8 3 8 2

2 2 0 1 0 3 8 2

0 1157 7

2 1

2 4

0 1241

35 15 9 1710 1942 1 11 1994 161 1284 111 11 29 19 14 11 14 25 56 6 06 1 2376 72 25 140 41 2950 1964 3 18 2947 1544 20 16 1594 1669 43 1554 155 1018 4 1554 39 8 10 24 2 8 5 2 1 2 2 7 1602 1 1 1471 1471 9 8 5 1471 3 9

0 7 1 9 10 1144 2 3 2500unit 44 3 5 1 7 1 2 8 1 3 2 1 6 8 66 2 8 2 5 9 1 276 72 8 9 2 1300unit 158 1500unit 8 27 235 93 68 12 1 15 23 41 514 12 1759 1471 1515 22 93 33 12 3295 76 17 10 1776 1241 1356 1108 1406 1658 54 13 10 15 9 3 0 90000sqm 122 03 14 1 1154 192

1 7 1 46 9 1 12 8 2 7 7 6 1 04 1 4 12 1 12 1192

Figure 5.27 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 3a (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.28 5 Graphical Results

0 1

4 3 8 2

5 1 0 1 10 9 02 1 8 2

1 1151 8

2 6

2 5

1 1256

36 15 7 1689 1923 9 11 1991 159 1255 110 09 24 19 14 04 14 26 54 0 10 1 2395 05 25 141 40 2946 1964 6 08 2932 1546 20 16 1512 1672 47 1466 146 1014 6 1466 24 8 10 24 2 7 5 2 1 2 3 7 1591 1 0 1458 1458 7 5 1458 9 1145 2 2 2500unit 45 3 1 1 6 1 2 8 1 3 2 1 6 5 68 2 4 2 6 0 1 277 74 5 8 2 1300unit 164 1500unit 7 27 245 77 71 10 12 1 28 16 2319 26 521 25 1892 1999 2612 77 33 12 3278 16 18 10 1816 1264 1392 1392 1867 1695 84 13 10 15 8 7 9 90000sqm 122 08 14 1 1146 235

1 8 2 42 3 1 12 6 5 6 9 4 1 08 1 4 56 1 11 1235

Figure 5.28 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 3b (Inland Settlements; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution

5.29 5 Graphical Results

0 1

0 4 8 2

6 0 0 1 0 2 8 2

6 1151 6

2 0

2 3

6 1230

20 15 3 1718 1907 5 11 1886 163 1276 110 05 39 18 14 04 13 26 05 2 92 1 2411 10 25 139 40 2863 1952 4 40 2866 1533 19 16 1570 1654 28 1543 154 1017 3 1543 69 7 10 24 2 6 4 2 1 2 0 6 1580 1 8 1459 1459 6 3 1459 1 11 11 1134 2 1 2500unit 34 3 9 1 6 1 2 5 1 3 2 1 6 2 46 2 5 2 5 3 1 27 68 2 36 2 1300unit 155 1500unit 9 9 27 226 22 61 1 1 15 29 97 548 05 1735 1448 1538 21 29 32 12 3268 1696 1696 10 1195 1313 1101 1418 1572 42 13 10 16 0 6 0 90000sqm 120 96 13 1 1136 175

1 6 1 45 7 1 12 6 5 6 6 8 1 01 1 4 94 1 11 1175

Figure 5.29 Vehicle Flow Bandwidths; 2026 Option 3c (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution

5.30 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.30 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Baseline

5.31 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.31 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 1a (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.32 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.32 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 1b (Urban Extensions; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.33 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.33 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 1c (Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.34 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.34 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 2a (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.35 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.35 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 2b (New Settlement at Ford; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.36 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.36 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 2c (New Settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Eco-town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.37 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.37 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 3a (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.38 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.38 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 3b (Inland Settlements; Mitigating Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution)

5.39 5 Graphical Results

Figure 5.39 Volume over Capacity; 2026 Option 3c (Inland Settlements; No Mitigation; Eco-Town Mode Share and Distribution)

5.40

6 Conclusions

6.1 Highway Conclusions Commentary by Option

6.1.1 This section describes the main outcomes of the 2026 traffic Option 1a: Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Typical flow forecasts for each Option. It highlights the notable Mode Share and Distribution impacts on traffic flow and potential capacity problems that are shown in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Preference rankings (in terms of Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): th traffic impact) are used to assess the relative overall impact of 4 the Options. 6.1.3 Key impacts are: 6.1.2 Each option is assessed against three indicators of key impact which are informed by Tables 4.3 and 4.4. These are: Developments contribute to significant capacity problems* on 3 road sections (preference ranking = 5th) Number of road sections on which developments including:

contribute to significant capacity problems, that is • A259 (SB) B2144 towards North Bersted + 337 defined as those where: PCUs per hour

Roads with a final volume to capacity ratio (V/C) Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 over 100%; PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 6 (preference ranking = 4th) including (where not V/C increased by more than 5%; mentioned above): Flow increase by more than 50 PCUs. • A259 Bognor Road (EB) A27 to B2144 + 307 Therefore the number is the number of on Table PCUs per hour 4.4. • Bognor Regis Relief Road (EB) towards A29 + Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 272 PCUs per hour PCUs (passenger car units) where this is an increase of Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 5% or more, that is: PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 0 Number of flows on Table 4.5. (preference ranking = equal 1st)

Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more, that is:

Number of flows over 500 on Table 4.5.

6.1 6 Conclusions

Option 1b: Urban Extensions; Mitigating Infrastructure; Option 1c: Urban Extensions; No Mitigation; Eco-town Typical Mode Share and Distribution Mode Share and Distribution

Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): 7th 2nd

6.1.4 Key impacts are: Key impacts are:

Developments contribute to significant capacity Developments contribute to significant capacity problems* on 5 road sections (preference ranking = 6th) problems* on 2 road sections (preference ranking = including: equal 1st) including:

• A259 Worthing Road (EB) A284 to Toddington • A259 (SB) B2144 towards North Bersted + 261 Lane + 196 PCUs per hour PCUs per hour

Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 13 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 5 (preference ranking = equal 6th) (preference ranking = 3rd) including (where not mentioned above): Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 3 • A259 Bognor Road (EB) A27 to B2144 + 239 (preference ranking = equal 8th) including (where not PCUs per hour mentioned above): • A259 (SB) B2144 towards North Bersted + 218 • A259 (NB) Colworth towards Merston + 820 PCUs per hour PCUs per hour Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 • A259 Bognor Road (WB) B2145 to A27 + 759 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 0 PCUs per hour (preference ranking = equal 1st)

• A259 (NB) North Bersted towards Colworth + 602 PCUs per hour

6.2 6 Conclusions

Option 2a: New settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Option 2b: New settlement at Ford; Mitigating Typical Mode Share and Distribution Infrastructure; Typical Mode Share and Distribution

Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): 9th 8th

Key impacts are: Key impacts are:

Developments contribute to significant capacity Developments contribute to significant capacity problems* on 18 road sections (preference ranking = problems* on 14 road sections (preference ranking = 9th) including: 8th) including:

• A259 Crookthorpe Lane (WB) Church Lane to • Ford Road (SB) Ford Lane to Horsemere Green B2233 Yapton Road + 488 PCUs per hour Lane + 611 PCUs per hour

• Ford Road (SB) Ford Lane to Horsemere Green • Ford Lane (EB) to Ford Road/ Station Road + Lane + 454 PCUs per hour 596 PCUs per hour

Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 15 Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 (preference ranking = 9th) PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 14 (preference ranking = 8th) including (where not Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 mentioned above): PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 3 (preference ranking = equal 8th) including (where not • Ford Lane (EB) to Ford Road/ Station Road + mentioned above): 427 PCUs per hour • Church Lane (SB) Climping to A259 + 530 PCUs • Church Lane (SB) Climping to A259 + 402 PCUs per hour per hour • Ford Lane (WB) Ford Road/ Station Road to Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 B2132 + 404 PCUs per hour PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 0 (preference ranking = equal 1st)

6.3 6 Conclusions

Option 2c: New settlement at Ford; No Mitigation; Eco- Option 3a: Inland settlements; No Mitigation; Typical town Mode Share and Distribution Mode Share and Distribution

Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): 5th 3rd

Key impacts are: Key impacts are:

Developments contribute to significant capacity Developments contribute to significant capacity problems* on 6 road sections (preference ranking = 7th) problems* on 2 road sections (preference ranking = including: equal 1st) including:

• Church Lane (SB) Climping to A259 + 315 PCUs • B2233 Nyton Road (NB) A29 to A27 + 295 PCUs per hour per hour

• A259 Crookthorpe Lane (WB) Church Lane to Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 B2233 Yapton Road + 310 PCUs per hour PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 8 (preference ranking = 5th) including (where not Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 mentioned above): PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 4 (preference ranking = 2nd) including (where not • A29 (SB) B2233 to Hook Lane + 474 PCUs per mentioned above): hour

• Ford Road (SB) Ford Lane to Horsemere Green • A29 (NB) Hook Lane to B2233 + 436 PCUs per Lane + 310 PCUs per hour hour

• A259 Grevatt’s Lane (WB) B2233 to B2132 + Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 212 PCUs per hour PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 0 (preference ranking = equal 1st) Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 0 * Volume to capacity ratio (by direction) over 100% having increased by st (preference ranking = equal 1 ) more than 2% due to development traffic

6.4 6 Conclusions

Option 3b: Inland settlements; Mitigating Infrastructure; Option 3c: Inland settlements; No Mitigation; Eco-town Typical Mode Share and Distribution Mode Share and Distribution

Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): Overall preference ranking (in terms of traffic impact): 6th 1st

Key impacts are: Key impacts are:

Developments contribute to significant capacity Developments contribute to significant capacity problems* on 2 road sections (preference ranking = problems* on 2 road sections (preference ranking = equal 1st) including: equal 1st) including:

• B2233 Nyton Road (NB) A29 to A27 + 272 PCUs • A259 (WB) B2187 to Toddington Lane + 80 per hour PCUs per hour

Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 Number of directional flows increasing by more than 200 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 13 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 2 (preference ranking = equal 6th) (preference ranking = 1st) including (where not mentioned above): Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 2 • A29 (NB) Hook Lane to B2233 + 244 PCUs per (preference ranking = 6th) including (where not hour mentioned above): • A29 (SB) B2233 to Hook Lane + 238 PCUs per • A259 Roundstone Bypass Road (EB) B2225 to hour A280 + 1043 PCUs per hour Number of directional flows increasing by more than 500 • A259 Roundstone Bypass Road (EB) B2225 to PCUs where this is an increase of 5% or more = 0 B2140 + 567 PCUs per hour (preference ranking = equal 1st)

6.5 6 Conclusions

Table 6.1 Summary results and preference (in terms of traffic General conclusions impact) ranking 6.1.5 Option 3c performs the best with the fewest significant traffic increases. The only congestion problems appear to be on the Criteria Op 1a Op 1b Op 1c Op 2a Op 2b Op 2c Op 3a Op 3b Op 3c A259 at Toddington and A29 at Westergate, both of which are of only small concern. Developments contribute to 6.1.6 Options 1c, 3a and 1a perform the next best (in that order), significant 3 5 2 18 14 6 2 2 2 and are quite similar in the level of their impacts on the Arun capacity th th st th th th st st st 5 6 1 = 9 8 7 1 = 1 = 1 = road network. All of these options have the highway problems* on __ infrastructure measure of the road bridge over the rail line at road sections Toddington connecting the A259 to the A284, and they both include the North Littlehampton development at Toddington Number of Lane which has also caused some capacity problems on the directional flows A259 near this site. The greatest congestion impacts though increasing by 6 13 5 14 15 4 8 13 2 are on the A259 Chichester to Bognor road for Options 1a and more than 200 4th 6th= 3rd 8th 9th 2nd 5th 6th= 1st Option 1c and on the Chichester bound B2233 from Westergate PCUs where this for Option 3a. is an increase of

5% or more 6.1.7 Most of Option 2c’s problems are found on the A259 and Ford Road at Climping. This option comprises of the Ford Eco-town Number of development with the Eco-town mode share and distribution. directional flows 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 There are some minor congestion issues at Westergate and increasing by 1st= 8th= 1st= 1st= 8th= 1st= 1st= 6th 1st= Toddington, but these are small problems in comparison. more than 500 PCUs 6.1.8 Options 3b and 1b are the next worse congested schemes. They both cause traffic problems to the Bognor Regis Relief Overall Road and the A259 at Toddington. However, Option 3b has preference 4th 7th 2nd 9th 8th 5th 3rd 6th 1st greatest congestion issues on the B2233 and A27 from ranking Westergate to Tangmere, and Option 1b causes a lot of extra traffic leaving Bognor on the A259 through Bersted, and affects a small section on the A27 Chichester Bypass between the B2145 and the A259.

6.6 6 Conclusions

6.1.9 Option 2a creates the most problems for the highest number of road sections, closely followed by Option 2b. They both have major problems on the A259 between Bognor and Littlehampton and on Ford Road, Ford Lane and the B2132, but Option 2a extends its problems on this route to Arundel and Arundel Station, and the congestion can also be seen on the B2139 and A283 at Storrington. Option 2b affects less numbers of roads, but its congestion problems are more intense in some areas, particularly Ford Road through Climping and from Ford to Walberton on the B2132.

6.7

7 Appendix 1

7.1.7 The origins and destinations of individual journeys are 7.1 County Model Assumptions and Limitations aggregated into relatively large geographical zones. These zones load traffic to the highway network at typically only one 7.1.1 The West Sussex County Model is currently the only tool or two points each. The model does not show the detail of the readily available for assessment on a consistent basis across local start and finish points of each journey. A journey may Arun District. appear the road network at a nearby strategic junction rather than a more minor junction that is not included. 7.1.2 It is a strategic model, which does not simulate the operation of traffic through individual junctions, but gives a general 7.1.8 Some of the most local trips would not appear on the network indication of the capacity of highway corridors. as they will be within the same zone or in a few cases between adjoining zones that share a common point of connection to 7.1.3 Capacity for traffic is modelled by applying a relationship the network. The longer the journey, the greater the portion of between volume of traffic flow and speed of movement to links it that will be on the modelled network. in the model which represent roads

7.1.9 Although the county model models strategic public transport 7.1.4 The model links are each assigned a link type which reflects services and indicates how much travel would be attracted to the overall standard of the road. Each link type has its own them, it does not model over-capacity crowding effects on speed/flow curve buses or trains.

7.1.5 The capacity relationships in the model make allowance for the 7.1.10 The current version of County Model only models one time fact that there will be junctions along the route, so the link period, being the weekday AM peak hour 08:00 – 09:00 capacity is lower than would be the case than if no junctions

were present. This is intended to produce approximately the 7.1.11 The base year pattern of traffic movement uses origin- correct overall amount of delay in the model network, despite destination information from some years ago, derived from the absence of queues at junctions. observed surveys and from census travel to work information, estimated to fit with more recent observed volumetric flows. 7.1.6 The highway network in the County Model includes the main routes that are available for use by through traffic, but does 7.1.12 The base year of the model is 2001, so representations of not include roads used mainly for local access. In particular, changes to travel patterns since then are based on forecasting, complex road layouts within urban areas and town centres can rather than re-basing to more recent surveyed information. be heavily simplified.

7.1 7 Appendix 1

7.1.13 The available survey years are 2016 and 2026. spreading”) or changing destination or reducing numbers of journeys made. 7.1.14 The model assumes that travellers are attempting to minimise the overall level of cost for their journey in terms of time 7.1.18 Due to these limitations with the modelling tool, the results taken, distance travelled and financial cost. The mode-choice should be regarded as indicative of the areas where impacts decision is based on use of these factors. are likely to take place and where further investigation and analysis will be necessary prior to any planning consents. 7.1.15 Mode choice decisions in the model will be imperfect because the model does not provide for journeys by local buses, 7.1.19 The model will indicate the relative scales of impacts from walking or cycling and cannot take into account all the factors different patterns of development and the likely hotspots, that individual people use to make such decisions such as which will point towards the least impact scenarios as well as preferences, perceived comfort or simply habit. providing sufficient information to discard those which produce unnecessarily high levels of transport impacts for the quantum 7.1.16 The model does recognise that not everyone has access to a of new development envisaged. car for all journeys, so a part of the demand for modelled public transport trips is assumed to be “non car-available” and 7.1.20 When combined with individual junction tests on preferred does not pass through the mode choice model. The level of non options, this approach will provide the best indication of the car available trips and other public transport trips is related to soundest strategy for developing the required numbers of information and projections on car ownership and data on sale dwellings and employment floorspace for the District that is of public transport tickets. available within the constraints of timescale and resource available to the LDF process. It will not, however, bottom out 7.1.17 The model responds to congestion by changes of route or the local strategy and mitigation measures to the extent mode for journeys. It cannot make more sophisticated required to deliver planning applications for individual sites. responses such as varying the time of travel (“peak

7.2

MVA Consultancy provides advice on transport and other policy areas, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.

A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a 550-strong team worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.

For more information visit www.mvaconsultancy.com

Abu Dhabi London Suite 118, The Avenue Business Centre, Emirates Tower, P.O. Box 33763, Abu Dhabi, Second Floor, 17 Hanover Square, London W1S 1HU United Kingdom UAE. T: +971 (0)2 412 4118 T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 7529 6556

Birmingham Lyon Second Floor, 37a Waterloo Street, Birmingham B2 5TJ United Kingdom 11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France T: 44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681 T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28

Dubai Manchester Office 402, Building 49, Dubai Healthcare City, PO Box 123166, Dubai, UAE 25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom T: +971 (0)4 433 0530 F: +971 (0)4 423 3613 T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095

Dublin Marseille First Floor, 12/13 Exchange Place, Custom House Docks, IFSC, Dublin 1, Ireland 76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001 T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14

Edinburgh Paris Stewart House, Thistle Street, North West Lane, Edinburgh EH2 1BY United Kingdom 12-14, rue Jules César, 75012 Paris, France T: +44 (0)131 220 6966 F: +44 (0)131 220 6087 T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01

Glasgow Woking Seventh Floor, 78 St Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5UB United Kingdom Dukes Court, Duke Street, Woking, Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom T: +44 (0)141 225 4400 F: +44 (0)141 225 4401 T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207

Email: [email protected]

Offices also in Bangkok, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore