Transport Assessment
Proposed Residential Development, land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, ST13 6NH
June 2017
Revision C – 16 March 2018
Encon Associates Limited 10 Chapel Lane Arnold Nottingham NG5 7DR
A3244
Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Date of Report: 8th June 2017
Report Reference: A3244 – Revision C (16.03.18)
Issued by: TR
Checked by: MJB
A3244 June 2017 Page | 2 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Contents
Executive Summary...... 4
1 Introduction ...... 6
2 Background ...... 8
3 Scheme Overview ...... 9
4 Scope of Assessment ...... 10
5 Description of Existing Conditions ...... 11
6 Development Proposals ...... 26
7 Trip Generation ...... 33
8 Development Traffic Distribution ...... 34
9 Junction Capacity Assessment ...... 43
10 Travel Plan ...... 47
11 Summary and Conclusions ...... 48
Appendix A - ATC Data ...... 51
Appendix B - PICADY Calculations ...... 52
Appendix C - Accident Data ...... 53
Appendix D - Proposed Access & Visibility Splays ...... 54
A3244 June 2017 Page | 3 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Executive Summary
This report has been prepared in connection with the outline application for a residential development on land off Thorncliffe Road in Leek, Staffordshire, ST13 6NH. The planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of access for which detailed approval is sought. The notional master plan is for 154 dwellings on the site.
From investigations in respect of existing traffic, accident data, sustainable accessibility, car parking provision, traffic generation and junction capacity assessment, the main findings are:
• The predicted traffic generated by the outline proposals to develop the land for residential use will result in an increase in traffic within the local highway network, however the increased traffic can be absorbed into the surrounding highway network without any indiscernible impact to the flow of traffic.
• An assessment of the proposed junction into the site shows that the predicted traffic generated can be accommodated within the operational capacity and would not lead to a detrimental impact to traffic flows on the local highway or from the site itself.
• An assessment of the Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road junction shows that the predicted traffic generated can be accommodated within the operational capacity of the junction and would not lead to a detrimental impact to traffic flows.
• An assessment of the distribution of the proposed development traffic on the wider highway network within Leek has been carried out to establish how much additional traffic will be introduced to the network by the proposed development and determine any junctions which may experience a notable increase in traffic volume. The assessment confirmed increases are likely to be immaterial and would not be considered to have a significant impact on the operation of the highway, with net increases in traffic volumes less than 5% at all locations considered on the wider network.
• The proposed new access/egress has been assessed in terms of visibility and found to be appropriate and in accordance with local authority requirements for visibility splays and sight stopping distances based on the recorded 85th percentile speed on Thorncliffe Road.
• The existing junction with Buxton Road and Thorncliffe Road has been assessed in terms of visibility and found to be appropriate and in accordance with local authority requirements for visibility splays and sight stopping distances based on the recorded 85th percentile speed on Buxton Road.
• The number and severity of accidents recorded in the vicinity of the site are not indicative of defects in the highway layout and design. Given the volume of traffic within the study area is in
A3244 June 2017 Page | 4 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
excess of 1,700 vehicles per day, an accident rate of 0.2 per year in the last 5 years is exceptionally low and does not highlight any problems with the safety record of the local highway network. Any additional traffic to be generated by the development is unlikely to impact the existing road safety within the study area.
• The location of the proposed residential development provides viable access to sustainable modes of transport with convenient access to local bus services serving the locality and the surrounding towns, suitable roads for cycling and with the provision of a new footpath connection, the improved viability for walking, which would likely encourage a reduction in car usage.
• Whilst full details of the internal layout of the development have been reserved for future approval, indications are that car parking and cycle storage provision would be consistent with the published standards and strike the requisite balance between parking restrain, to promote alternative travel modes and the provision of adequate parking that will not lead to indiscriminate on street car parking which would compromise highway safety.
• The effect on existing highway drainage and the strategy for site drainage is included within a separate Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy report which states “highway drains will be adopted by the Highways Authority and domestic pipework will be adopted by the drainage undertaker, but regardless the common SuDS area will be the responsibility of a maintenance company as standard.
• The client will provide a detailed Travel Plan for any subsequent Reserved Matters application in direct response to a “prior occupation planning condition”.
The Local Authority can rest assured that the impact on the local roads from the proposed development has been assessed in terms of traffic generation, sustainable accessibility and highway safety and would not present a detrimental impact to the highway network.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 5 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
1 Introduction
1.1 This Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted in connection with the outline application for the construction of a residential development off Thorncliffe Road to the north east of Leek in Staffordshire, in order to assess the impact of the proposed development on the existing highway network.
1.2 The report has been produced in line with the ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ (DfT 2007) and takes into account current Government policy within the National Planning Policy Framework (CLG 2012) and best practice guidance within ‘Manual for Streets’ (DfT 2007) and ‘Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles’ (CIHT 2010), the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways Agency 2002) and the ‘Staffordshire Residential Design Guide’ (Staffordshire County and District Councils 2000) which deals with highways and transportation infrastructure for new developments in the region.
1.3 Comments have been received from David Plant at Staffordshire County Council and therefore this revised document includes the additional requirements requested by Highways to mitigate their recommendation for refusal as follows:
a) Comprehensive Transport Assessment relevant to the scale of the development.
• Provide a capacity assessment for the Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road junction • Carry out a Trip Distribution exercise to determine if there are any other junctions where the development may have an effect
b) Visibility at the Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road junction has not been considered.
• Carry out a speed survey on Buxton Road, calculate the 85th percentile speed of vehicles, compare the speed to the Stopping Sight Distances in Manual for Streets and plot the requisite visibility splays onto an existing site plan to demonstrate the achievable visibility and confirm if they are acceptable or not.
c) Proposals for highway improvements.
• There are no highway improvements proposed other than the removal of part of the existing hedgerow along the northern boundary to provide the new site access and required visibility splays and the introduction of a pedestrian footway which links with Buxton Road to the west of the site, as confirmed in point 6.15 of the report and drawing number A3244-01 Proposed Access & Visibility Splays, which has been revised to show details of the new footway connection.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 6 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
d) Effect on existing highway drainage.
• Drainage has been dealt with by the Flood Risk Assessment produced by AAH Planning.
e) A detailed Travel Plan must be agreed and fully in place at first occupation.
• The applicant has confirmed they will provide a detailed TP for any subsequent Reserved Matters application or in response to a “prior occupation planning condition”.
f) Parking provision must be adequate for the proposal.
• The report provides details of the parking provision based on PPG13 due to the absence of any guidance from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council who do not have their own standards and although PPG13: Transport is now withdrawn, the standards contained within are considered appropriate in the absence of any other published parking requirements. The report confirms, based on a notional masterplan (layout is a reserved matter), 385 car parking spaces and 154 secure cycle parking spaces are required. Whilst full details of the internal layout of the development have been reserved for future approval, indications are that car parking and cycle storage provision would be consistent with the published standards and strike the requisite balance between parking restrain, to promote alternative travel modes and the provision of adequate parking that will not lead to indiscriminate on street car parking which would compromise highway safety.
1.4 This revision of the report addresses the further comments received from Highways with regards to the following:
• Further detail on the assumed traffic distribution • Check visibility splays on Buxton Road in the vertical plane • Further investigation into alternative modes of travel • Remove reference to PPG13 • Provide more specific/realistic plans for walking and cycling distances • Extend the proposed footway to connect with Buxton Road
A3244 June 2017 Page | 7 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
2 Background
2.1 The site subject to planning consideration is located on the south side of Thorncliffe Road in Leek, a town in Staffordshire, within the administrative area of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.
2.2 The site measures 5.5 hectares in area the planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of access for which detailed approval is sought. The notional master plan is for 154 dwellings on the site.
2.3 Leek is a market town and civil Parish in Staffordshire. It is situated approximately 10 miles (16 km) north east of Stoke-on-Trent. Leek is located on the River Churnet and is served by several major roads; the A523, A53 and A520. These roads provide connections to the nearby towns of Macclesfield, Buxton, Ashbourne, Stone and Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent.
2.4 At the 2011 census, Leek had a population of 20,768 inhabitants. It is an ancient borough and was granted its royal charter in 1214. Leek prospered as a market town and centre of local agriculture and trade, with a regular, thriving cattle market operating there for centuries. With the advent of the industrial revolution, the focus of Leek’s economy shifted towards textile production, with silk especially dominant in the industrial landscape. Many of the former textile mills form a part of Leek’s architectural heritage, with some having been converted into housing developments.
2.5 The site is located just outside Leek, to the north-east of the town which has a good range of amenities available to residents and visitors. A wide variety of both independent shops and businesses and national and international retail chains are found within the historic town centre. Popular chains found in Leek include Costa Coffee, New Look, Halifax, Subway, Argos and Millets. Other local amenities include supermarkets, pubs, bars, restaurants, leisure centres, a college, several schools, places of worship, a golf club and other green spaces.
2.6 The development site is located approximately 1.7 miles (2.8 kilometres) to the west of the edge of the Peak District National Park. Tittesworth Reservoir, a popular place for watersports, is located approximately 2 miles (3.2 km) to the north of Leek town centre. A number of caravanning & camping parks can be found around Leek and in the surrounding district, which benefit greatly from the tourist trade brought in thanks to the close proximity to these natural beauty spots.
2.7 Leek is served by the ‘First’ bus network, with several services operating out of the bus station situated just southeast of the town centre. Leek railway station was closed in 1965 and completely demolished in 1973. This means that the nearest railway station to the development site is Congleton, approximately 10 miles away by road which takes 20-25 minutes to drive under normal traffic conditions. Services operate from this station to Manchester Piccadilly and Stoke- on-Trent.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 8 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
3 Scheme Overview
3.1 The proposal for the development is to obtain outline planning permission with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of access for which detailed approval is sought. The notional master plan indicates a development with 154 dwellings.
3.2 Access to the existing site is available from Thorncliffe Road and from Stile House Lane, which runs from Thorncliffe Road to the southeast of the site.
3.3 The proposal includes the formation a new site access further to the west along Thorncliffe Road, located centrally along the northern boundary of the site, with the construction of a new footpath to link the site back to Buxton Road and the settlement to the west.
3.4 The application site is shown within the red line boundary:
A3244 June 2017 Page | 9 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
4 Scope of Assessment
4.1 This Transport Assessment has been produced to consider the following issues
• Layout of the proposed site access • Assessment of the achievable visibility splays from the proposed junction • Highway safety and existing accident data for the local area • Sustainable accessibility and car parking provision • Number of trips generated by the proposed development • Analyses of impacts of trips from the proposed development and assessment of junction capacity
4.2 Existing traffic data for Thorncliffe Road, the main highway from which the proposed development is proposed to be accessed, was collected via ATC installed on the public highway. The ATC survey equipment was installed along the northern boundary of the site and left in situ for a 7-day period.
4.3 This Assessment considers the extent of the transport and movement implications of the proposed development and the impact on the locality. In particular, the likely vehicle trip generation, the accessibility of the site in terms of sustainable transport options and an assessment of the suitability of the proposed access and the visibility from the site exit are all examined.
4.4 To provide the most robust traffic generation scenario for the site, the TRICS database was examined to determine appropriate trip rates for residential use in this edge of town location.
4.5 The report comprises the following sections:
Section 5 - Provides a description of the existing highway and pedestrian conditions in the site vicinity, including a site description, existing traffic conditions, accident data analysis, existing vehicle speeds and assessments of the existing public transport and walking networks. Section 6 - Sets out the development proposals for the amount and type, including a description of the development, proposed access and assessment of visibility splays and level of on-site parking provision and servicing. Section 7 - Sets out the existing and proposed traffic generation for the site. Section 8 – Sets out the distribution of the predicted traffic from the proposed development. Section 9 – Provides an assessment of junction capacity. Section 10 – Travel Plan Section 11 - Summarises the key findings and concludes the report.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 10 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5 Description of Existing Conditions
5.1 This section describes the existing:
• site location and surrounding area • development site • local highway network • existing traffic flows • accident data • sustainable modes of transport • bus travel • rail travel • walking • cycling
5.2 Site Location and Surrounding Area
5.3 The application site falls within the local highways authority of Staffordshire County Council Highways and the planning jurisdiction of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. The site is located on land just to the northeast side of Leek.
5.4 Leek is a market town with a good range of amenities available approximately 1.6km from the application site. There are other major residential areas to the west of the town centre approximately 2km (1 mile) away.
5.5 Leek is situated in close proximity to the Peak District National Park, Tittesworth Reservoir and is within 15 miles (24 km) of the towns of Macclesfield and Buxton and the city of Stoke-on-Trent. These towns and cities provide additional amenities that are not available in Leek, including railway stations and a University.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 11 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.6 Development Site
The application site has an area of circa 5.5 hectares and lies to the northeast of the town of Leek. The surrounding area is a mixture of suburban housing and rural land, used largely for agricultural purposes with a mixture of arable and pastoral farms around. The site is surrounded by farmland with occasional dwellings and farm building. The land to the north, east and south comprises arable fields and pasture, with an Equestrian Centre & Livery Yard and dwellings present to the west. The heart of Leek town centre is located approximately 0.96 miles (1.54 km) to the southwest of the development site.
5.7 The site currently comprises five fields with mixed agricultural uses, which are bordered by hedgerows on most of the boundaries. The development site runs up to the edge of Thorncliffe Road to the north and Stile House Lane to the east. The site is bordered to the west by the access road serving the Equestrian Centre & Livery Yard.
5.8 Local Highway Network
The site is located just off the A53 Buxton Road, close to its junction with Northcliffe Road. The A53 runs from Buxton to the northeast of the development site to Shrewsbury to the southwest of the development site. The A53 is just over 55 miles in length and provides connections to Stoke- on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme along its route. The A523 and A520 also pass through Leek in close proximity to the site. The A523 runs from its junction with the A6 Buxton Road in Hazel Grove, near Stockport, to its junction with the A52 just northwest of Ashbourne. The A523 passes through Leek, Macclesfield and Poynton along its route. The A520 connects Leek to Stone and has junctions with the A52, the A50 and the A34.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 12 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.9 The major roads passing through and around Leek provide onward links to the M6 and M1 motorways, both of which are trunks roads that traverse huge areas of England and offer connections from the proposed development site to the major cities of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham and Leicester.
5.10 Existing Traffic Flows
To ascertain the existing traffic flows in proximity to the site, traffic count information was collected via an Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) survey device installed on Thorncliffe Road, close to where the proposed development is accessed. Data was collected between 00:00 on Monday 3rd April 2017 and 23:59 on Sunday 9th April 2017. The photograph below shows the ATC in situ:
5.11 The map below shows the location of the ATC relative to the proposed development site:
ATC
A3244 June 2017 Page | 13 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.12 The results of the ATC survey are provided overleaf. Full details are appended to this report.
Automatic Traffic Count - Eastbound
Hour 03/04/17 04/04/17 05/04/17 06/04/17 07/04/17 08/04/17 09/04/17 Ending Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 1 1 4 0 1 0 5 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 3 3 4 5 2 2 1 6 22 26 27 26 15 3 0 7 17 18 23 19 20 13 5 8 36 32 30 34 37 15 8 9 43 45 46 42 50 30 30 10 38 37 29 45 44 52 41 11 58 41 51 48 50 63 79 12 56 51 62 46 52 56 77 13 54 62 44 55 64 73 71 14 50 54 44 55 52 82 74 15 54 53 55 49 65 80 81 16 63 46 48 52 67 68 55 17 68 56 54 62 70 72 69 18 73 77 77 68 83 63 54 19 60 64 76 89 74 71 49 20 37 39 46 49 41 60 18 21 40 19 26 38 23 30 27 22 20 17 24 23 22 15 14 23 5 15 10 17 22 7 9 24 3 6 3 6 6 4 5 0-24 802 765 779 830 859 870 781
5.13 The above data shows that a total of 5,686 vehicles in total travelled past the site in an eastbound direction during the 7-day survey period. The average weekday 24-hour total was 807 vehicles, with the weekday AM peak hour between 11:00 and 12:00 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and between 10:00 and 11:00 on Monday and Thursday. The average weekday peak hour (AM) volume flow was 54 vehicles. The weekday PM peak hour was between 17:00 and 18:00 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and between 18:00 and 19:00 on Thursday. The average weekday peak hour (PM) volume flow was 80 vehicles.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 14 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Automatic Traffic Count – Westbound
Hour 03/04/17 04/04/17 05/04/17 06/04/17 07/04/17 08/04/17 09/04/17 Ending Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 1 0 3 4 1 1 2 6 2 0 0 1 1 0 3 4 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 5 2 1 3 1 2 1 0 6 3 2 3 4 5 3 2 7 13 17 18 14 17 9 3 8 38 41 41 34 32 17 11 9 87 88 69 72 72 46 25 10 63 65 63 57 59 66 44 11 57 59 55 59 73 83 52 12 46 54 53 35 60 87 66 13 46 51 41 53 53 59 62 14 37 41 53 48 55 64 62 15 62 64 56 58 80 72 97 16 80 69 61 76 69 80 99 17 68 66 78 70 78 85 94 18 81 84 93 84 68 73 92 19 77 74 63 70 69 71 70 20 40 40 44 55 50 55 40 21 28 25 30 35 33 38 38 22 11 11 22 20 21 29 19 23 7 13 17 21 14 22 8 24 4 6 4 5 8 10 0 0-24 852 879 873 875 921 978 896
5.14 The above data shows that a total of 6,274 vehicles were recorded travelling in a westbound direction during the 7-day survey period. The average weekday 24-hour total was 880 vehicles. The weekday AM peak hour was between 08:00 and 09:00 on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and between 10:00 and 11:00 on Friday, with an average flow of 78 vehicles. The weekday PM peak hour was between 17:00 and 18:00 on Monday (shared with the 15:00 to 16:00 slot), Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and between 14:00 and 15:00 on Friday. The average PM peak hour flow was 84 vehicles.
5.15 The surveyed traffic data also included vehicle types and travelling speeds. Full details are included in Appendix A, but are summarised overleaf.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 15 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.16 Vehicle Class
Eastbound Westbound
Car/LGV/Caravan = 86 % Car/LGV/Caravan = 90 %
OGV 1/Bus = 13 % OGV 1/Bus = 9 %
OGV 2 = 1 % OGV 2 = 1 %
5.17 The vehicle class survey illustrates that the vast majority of vehicles travelling along Thorncliffe Road past the site in both directions are in the ‘Car, LGV & caravan’ category. Given the development site’s relative remoteness from motorways and major dual-carriageways, the proportion of large goods vehicles observed during the survey period was predictably low.
5.18 Vehicle Speed
5.19 A summary of the speed data recorded is given below. The speed limit of the road is National Speed Limit ie 60 mph:
Speed Survey - Eastbound
5-DAY MEAN
0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 807
85%ile Speed 48.3
% Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 0.7
Speed Survey - Westbound
5-DAY MEAN
0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 880
85%ile Speed 48.6
% Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 0.5
5.20 The results above demonstrate that 99.3 % of vehicles travelling eastbound along the road were below the 60mph speed limit and 99.5 % of vehicles travelling westbound were below the 60mph
A3244 June 2017 Page | 16 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
speed limit. The 85th percentile speed of vehicles travelling eastbound is 48.3mph (77.76kph) and travelling westbound it is 48.6 mph (78.25kph).
5.21 Accident Data
Accident data for the highway network within a 250m radius of the application site access has been purchased from Staffordshire County Council. This data covers the 60 month period between 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2015. Analysis of this data is carried out to identify if any patterns or trends exist and to investigate if there are existing highway safety issues that could be exacerbated by the proposed change in use of the site.
5.22 Accident Data Study area
The data for those accidents within the vicinity of the site (as shown on the map below), focuses on a 250m radius from the site access and would include any accidents that occurred on the A53 and the adjoining roads within the study area.
Map Showing Location of Accidents within the Study Area
Site
5.23 The data revealed that there has been 1 accident within the 250m radius study area during the 5 year study period (up to 31st December 2015). The accident was classified as ‘Slight’ (indicated by a green circle on the map above).
A3244 June 2017 Page | 17 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.24 The accident in question occurred on Thorncliffe Road, approximately 22 metres northeast of the junction with Stile House Lane. The accident took place on Friday the 27th June 2014 at 22:35. At the time the weather was fine, without high winds and the road surface was dry. The accident involved only one vehicle, a car, which was travelling from the northeast to the southwest along Thorncliffe Road. The driver lost control of the car and skidded, and the vehicle was overturned. Slight injuries were suffered by the driver, a 17-year-old male, and all three of his passengers. It is noted that the two main contributory factors in this incident were lack of experience on the part of the driver and the loss of control. The condition and layout of the road network appears to have had no bearing on this road traffic incident.
5.25 Summary
In the five years to the end of December 2015, there has been 1 accident in total recorded in the 250m radius study area, with no accidents occurring near the proposed access. The accident resulted in 4 casualties, all of which were slight. There have been no serious or fatal accidents. No accidents have occurred within the survey area during all of 2011, 2013 or the period of 2016 included in the survey. The frequency of accidents is as follows:
Frequency
Severity 01-01-11 01-01-12 01-01-13 01-01-14 01-01-15 31-12-11 31-12-12 31-12-13 31-12-14 30-12-15
Slight 0 0 0 1 0
Serious 0 0 0 0 0
Fatal 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 0 0 0
5.26 The accident involved the following vehicles:
Accidents Involving
Fatal Serious Slight Total
Motor vehicles only (excluding 2-wheels) 0 0 1 1
2-wheeled motor vehicles 0 0 0 0
Pedal cycles 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 1
A3244 June 2017 Page | 18 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.27 The single recorded accident resulted in the following 4 casualties:
Casualties
Fatal Serious Slight Total
Vehicle driver 0 0 1 1
Passenger 0 0 3 3
Motorcycle rider 0 0 0 0
Motorcycle pillion passenger 0 0 0 0
Cyclist 0 0 0 0
Pedestrian 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 4 4
5.28 Accident Analysis Conclusion
An examination of the incidents occurring along the roads and junctions near the site shows there are no road safety issues. Given the existing volume of traffic on Thorncliffe Road is just over 1,700 vehicles per day, it is considered that any additional traffic to be generated by the development is unlikely to impact on existing road safety within the study area.
5.29 Sustainable Accessibility
An investigation into the provision of sustainable travel options for potential residents on the application site has been carried out to assess the sustainable accessibility of the site. Derby Street is the main retail centre for Leek and is located 1.8km from the proposed site access.
5.30 An assessment of the following alternative modes of travel to the motor car has been carried out:
Bus Travel
The IHT Guidelines for "Planning for Public Transport in New Developments" state that the maximum walking distance to a bus stop should not exceed 400m if bus travel is to be maximised.
5.31 The nearest bus stop from the proposed site access is a 170 m walk away on the A53 Buxton Road, opposite the Sera Café Bistro which provides access to the number 16 service to Buxton. Bus services running in the opposite direction can also be caught from this stop on the other side of the road.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 19 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.32 Further services are available at stops located on Abbotts Road, near the Priory public house approximately 650m from the site, which provide access to the 165/166 Leek Circular Bus Service.
5.33 More extensive bus routes and services convenient for travelling to and from the surrounding area are available from stops located in Leek Bus Station on Cromwell Terrace which is a 1.6km (1.1 mile) walk away. The number 18 bus from here runs to Hanley with frequent services 7 days per week. Services are also available to Biddulph and Macclesfield.
5.34 The frequency of bus services in proximity to the site are summarised below:
Bus Services
Times Service Route Day Frequency First Last
Hanley, Stafford Street – 4 services 16 Mon-Sat 08:40 15:40 Buxton, Market Place (Stop A) per day
Hanley, Stafford Street – 2 services 16 Sun 10:40 14:52 Buxton, Market Place (Stop A) per day
Buxton, Market Place (Stop A) - 4 services 16 Mon-Sat 09:45 16:45 Hanley, Stafford Street per day
Buxton, Market Place (Stop A) - 2 services 16 Sun 11:45 15:55 Hanley, Stafford Street per day
Leek - Westwood - Haregate - 5 services 165/166 Mon-Sat 09:30 15:30 Leek per day
Leek Town Centre - Westwood 4 services 165/166 Mon-Sat 09:55 14:25 - Barnfields - Leek Bus Station per day 15-20 minutes from 06:54 Haregate - Leek - Endon - - 17:39 18 Mon - Fri 06:04 22:45 Sneyd Green - Hanley Up to 1 hour outside these times 20-30 minutes from 07:44 Haregate - Leek - Endon - - 18:55 18 Sat 07:44 22:45 Sneyd Green - Hanley Up to 1 hour outside these times Haregate - Leek - Endon - Hourly 18 Sun 10:19 18:12 Sneyd Green - Hanley service
A3244 June 2017 Page | 20 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.35 Given the proximity of bus stops and the frequency of services, there is good opportunity for residents to travel using public transport.
5.36 Rail Travel
The closest railway station to the development site is Congleton station, approximately 10 miles away by road, which takes 20-25 minutes to drive under normal traffic conditions. Congleton Station has two platforms, is managed by Northern and is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A ticket office is also present, although this is only open between 06:30 and 14:30 Monday to Saturday. Services operate from this station to Manchester Piccadilly and Stoke-on-Trent. Each service operates once per hour throughout the day on normal weekdays, with journey times to Manchester Piccadilly in the region of 40 minutes and journey times to Stoke-on-Trent in the region of 15 minutes. In addition, Arriva CrossCountry operate a limited service at peak times to Manchester Piccadilly and Bournemouth. Onward services to several local and national destinations are available from Stoke-on-Trent station, to Manchester Piccadilly, Crewe, Bournemouth via Coventry, London Euston, Derby, Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads. Stoke-on- Trent railway station is approximately 11.7 miles (18.84 km) from the development site, which takes in the region of 30 minutes to drive.
5.37 Given the distance of the train station from the site and services provided, rail travel is considered to have a low viability for people who live on this site and work the surrounding towns where the train could form part of a multi-modal journey combined with cycling to and from the station.
5.38 Walking
A person's willingness to walk is dependent on may factors including access to a car, safety, road congestion, weather, gradients, parking, health, direction of route and purpose of journey.
5.39 The Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) publication “Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot” note that walking accounts for over 25% of all journeys and 80% of journeys up to 2.0km.
5.40 The walking isochrone map below shows that over half of the town of Leek, including the town centre, are within walking distance of the site i.e. within 2.0km (1.2 miles)
A3244 June 2017 Page | 21 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
2.0 km Walking Isochrone Map
5.41 The site is on the edge of Leek, with other residential properties and a large number of commercial businesses within walking distance.
5.42 The existing road, Thorncliffe Road, from which the new access is proposed is a 6.75m wide, lightly trafficked road with no footpaths and no street lighting present along the route.
5.43 Pavements and street lighting are present along both side of the A53 Buxton Road, leading from the development site into the centre of Leek. Furthermore, as part of the proposed development the developer is exploring the possibility of creating a new footpath to link the site back to Buxton Road (A53) and the housing area to the west. The aim of this is to improve the overall character of the development site and to better connect it to the town of Leek itself.
5.44 By providing a footpath connection to the west of the site which continues from the proposed site access and connects directly with the footway on Buxton Road at the junction with Thorncliffe Roa, pedestrian connectivity would be improved and walking would become a more viable option for short distance travel for residents on site.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 22 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.45 Local Amenities
The site is located 1.6km (1 mile) from Derby Street in Leek which is the main retail centre of the town. This is in line with the other main residential areas of Leek and closer than the western residential areas which are approximately 2km from the town centre.
There are numerous local amenities in the surrounding area that residents of the site can access by foot, within the acceptable 2.0km target distance. A selection of the nearest amenities are shown in the table below:
* Walking Amenity Location Distance Time Sera Café Bistro Buxton Road 90m 1 min
St Pauls Church Centre Novi Lane 320m 5 mins
Beresford Memorial First School Novi Lane 320m 5 mins Abbotts Road/Novi McColls Convenience Store & ATM 320m 5 mins Lane Leek High School Springfield Road 640m 8 mins
Leek Pharmacy Queens Drive 640m 9 mins
Asda Supermarket Springfield Road 800m 11 mins
Moorland Medical Centre Regent Street 1.3km 14 mins
TSB Bank Haywood Street 1.4km 16 mins
Leek Library Stockwell Street 1.4km 16 mins
Various & numerous restaurants Leek Town Centre 1.4km 18 mins
Post Office High Street, Leek 1.8km 21mins
* Walking times based on “leisurely” 5km/hr (3mph/hr)
5.46 Cycling
5.47 The location of the site provides a wide catchment area, including residential, retail and leisure facilities in the local area and offers an opportunity for areas within an acceptable cycling distance from the site.
5.48 The cycling isochrones map below shows that a 5km cycle catchment area, centred on the site, includes the entire town of Leek and some of the surrounding villages. The 5km cycle catchment area also takes in the Tittesworth Reservoir to the north and encroaches into the Peak District National Park.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 23 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
5.0 km Cycling Isochrones Map
5.49 The nearest designated cycle route to the development is Route 559, a local route that runs through Leek along its western edge, joining up with another local route, 550, to the south. To the north, route 559 stops at the ‘Lazy Trout’ public house, just on the edge of the Peak District National Park in Meerbrook. Route 550 runs to the southwest into Stoke-on-Trent, where connections to National Cycle Routes 5 and 55 can be made. National Route 55 is still under construction in certain sections, but when completed it will link Preston in Lancashire to Ironbridge in Shropshire via a 111-mile route. National Cycle Route 5 is a long-distance route which connects Reading in Berkshire with Holyhead on the Isle of Anglesey. Route 5 passes through Oxford, Banbury, Stratford-upon-Avon, Redditch, Bromsgrove, Birmingham, Walsall, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Chester, Colwyn Bay and Bangor.
5.50 The Staffordshire County Council website provides information on cycling in the region, with cycling maps of the local regions available for download and an online cycling journey planner tool. For more information please visit the following web pages:
• Cycling and walking in Staffordshire: https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/walkingandcycling/home.aspx
• Cycling maps: https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/walkingandcycling/maps/cyclemaps.aspx
A3244 June 2017 Page | 24 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
• Cycling journey planner: http://cyclemap.staffordshire.gov.uk/
5.51 For those planning a bike ride, the Cycle Streets website and app provide the latest route information and are designed to encourage people to take up cycling as an alternative to using their cars.
5.52 The existing road network is considered suitable to encourage cyclists and offers links to areas within an acceptable cycling distance and is likely to provide a viable option for residents living on this site.
5.53 Sustainable Accessibility Conclusion
5.54 The location of the proposed residential development provides viable access to sustainable modes of transport with convenient access to local bus services serving the locality and the surrounding towns, suitable roads for cycling and with the provision of a new footpath connection which links to Buxton Road, the improved viability for walking would likely encourage a reduction in car usage.
5.55 The main retail area of Leek, centred around Derby Street, is approximately 1.8km from the site, within the acceptable target distance of 2.0km (1.2 miles) and is closer to the main centre of Leek than other residential areas surrounding the town to the north and west, which are over 2.0km from the centre of Leek.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 25 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
6 Development Proposals
6.1 This section sets out the development proposals for the site in greater detail.
6.2 Development Proposals
The planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of access for which detailed approval is sought. The proposals will seek to achieve a high standard of design for the proposed residential scheme. The overall approach will be to apply design proposals, which can be sensitively assimilated into the area, taking into account, where necessary, adjacent land uses and developments, which are predominantly residential streets, agricultural and rural based activities.
6.3 An indicative master-plan has been prepared to accompany the application, which illustrates how the proposed development could be accommodated on the site. The application is submitted in outline only but with the access submitted for approval also. The internal layout of the site, the number of dwellings and associated design would all be submitted as a reserved matters scheme, therefore the extent of design solutions in relation to layout is only for the purposes of an indicative master plan to show how the scheme ‘could’ be developed.
6.4 The proposal will aim to strike a balance between the provision of housing with sufficient parking, amenity space, landscaping and the preservation of the existing key features of the site. The proposal site has a total area of approximately 5.5 hectares with the indicative layout to be developed at approximately 30 dwellings per hectare once site constraints have been taken into
A3244 June 2017 Page | 26 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
account. This level of development would be in character with the existing settlement and allow for a sufficiently spacious layout to accommodate suitable areas of recreation open space and allow for the necessary separation between properties to ensure that there would be no significant impact upon residential amenity. It is considered that this density of development would be commensurate with Core Strategy Policy H1 New Housing Development.
6.5 Amount
The indicative proposal is for a mix of approximately 154 dwellings, two storey houses on the site, which draw from the character of the adjacent settlement of Leek.
6.6 Car Parking Provision
This section assesses the amount of proposed car parking against the standards stipulated by Local Authority. Staffordshire Moorlands District Council do not have their own standards for parking provision. Therefore, although PPG13: Transport is now withdrawn, the standards contained within have been used in the absence of any other published parking requirements.
6.7 Maximum Parking Standards
The following provides the maximum number of parking spaces considered appropriate for residential developments and is not provided as a minimum. In locations well served by means of transport other than the car, such as sites within or adjacent to town centres, or within walking and cycling distance of public transport nodes, it may be possible to reduce the on site parking spaces, whilst simultaneously encouraging alternative sustainable travel choices.
Use Class Car Parking Spaces
Class C3 (dwellings)
Within 400m of town centre retail area 1.5 spaces per dwelling (average)
All other areas
1 Bedroom 1 space + 1 space per 3 dwellings for visitors
2 or 3 Bedrooms 2 spaces
4 or more Bedrooms 3 spaces
Use Class Cycle Parking Spaces
Class C3 (dwellings) 1 secure space per unit
A3244 June 2017 Page | 27 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
6.8 Residential Parking
The outline masterplan for the site indicates 154 dwellings, however the quantity of housing types and bedroom numbers has yet to be determined. Based on a notional distribution of dwelling types as follows, the development should provide 385 car parking spaces and 154 cycle parking spaces:
77 x 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings = 154 car parking spaces and 77 cycle parking spaces 77 x 4 or more bedroom dwellings = 231 car parking spaces and 77 cycle parking spaces
6.9 The planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of access for which detailed approval is sought. The notional master plan is for 154 dwellings on the site. Based on this quantity, the site should include 385 car parking spaces and 154 secure cycle parking spaces.
6.10 The Reserved Matters application should give details of on-site car parking provided in accordance with the Council’s guidance note. Parked vehicles should not project into or interfere with the use of the road or pavement, to ensure that the scheme does not prejudice highway safety. To achieve this, all new driveways would measure at least 5.5m in length. Garages would be set far enough back from the road to enable the garage door to be opened and closed whilst a car is parked within the driveway. A hierarchy of streets is proposed which will provide the necessary vehicle circulation and also allow for footpath and cycleway connections with the wider area in order to assist in the creation of an integrated movement network and prevent indiscriminate on street parking which would impinge on highway safety.
6.11 Whilst full details of the internal layout of the development have been reserved for future approval, indications are that car parking and cycle storage provision would be consistent with the published standards and strike the requisite balance between parking restrain, to promote alternative travel modes and the provision of adequate parking that will not lead to indiscriminate on street car parking which would compromise highway safety.
6.12 Proposed Access
The access for the proposed development is to be considered in detail as part of this application.
6.13 A new access is proposed to the site to accommodate the residential development from Thorncliffe Road along the northern boundary of the site. The proposed access will require the removal of part of the hedgerow and vegetation along the northern boundary, to ensure safe access and egress and the required visibility splays.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 28 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
6.14 Proposals for Highway Improvements
A pedestrian footpath is proposed in order to link the site to Buxton Road to the west. The footway should be 1.8m in wide and include dropped kerbing and tactile paving at the crossing points at the Buxton Road junction.
6.15 Proposed Access Design
The proposed access to the site is a Lower Order Road, residential spine road (major residential access road) in accordance with Staffordshire County Council (SCC) design guidance. The application is to provide a loop road, which in accordance with SCC design guidance, can serve up to 300 dwellings.
6.16 The carriageway width is 5.5m, with a 1.8m wide footway on each side of the carriageway. At its entrance, the road is straight for the first 20m back from the channel of the main road, Thorncliffe Road.
6.17 The detailed design of the housing layout, to be dealt with at Reserved Matters, may provide frontage access to dwellings from the proposed access road, although any access within 30m of a junction with a distributor road must enable drivers to emerge onto the road in a forward gear.
6.18 The design of the internal road layout for the site dealt with a Reserved Matters, should be design for a maximum speed of 20mph (30kph).
6.19 The design of the junction with Thorncliffe Road has taken into account the characteristics of the road and local circumstances, including pedestrian access and existing vehicle speeds recorded on the main road. The junction has been designed with 10m radius at the entrance and is straight for the first 20m from the channel of the main road, Thorncliffe Road.
6.20 Drawing number A3244-01 showing the proposed access arrangements is appended to this report and shows a design in accordance with SCC design guidance.
6.21 Effect on Existing Highway Drainage
Drainage has been dealt with by the Flood Risk Assessment (refer to FRA document produced by AAH Planning). We have consulted with the author of the report which includes a strategy for the drainage, and provide the following response:
• The flood risk assessment (FRA) considers surface water management for the entire red line boundary. The areas for rainfall runoff calculations have been undertaken on the basis of an assumed developed ratio, this is because the site layout is not fixed due to the nature of the outline consent applied for.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 29 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
• It is not intended to connect to any existing pipe/gully highway drainage system (indeed we do not believe that one exists).
• Surface water disposal will be to soakaways or, where this is not viable, an existing land drain which flanks the low site frontage on to Thorncliffe Road, this receives existing runoff from the greenfield site.
• The surface water drainage strategy in the FRA provides estimates of necessary attenuation storage provisions associated with the developed site area, under the 1 in 100 year rain fall event with the addition of 40% to rainfall intensities associated with climate change, and discharge limited to mean (opposed to peak) greenfield runoff rate (with no supplementary infiltration).
• Adequate spatial provisions have been made by the master planner within the indicative site plan to accommodate the calculated attenuation storage volumes.
• With the above considered, there is no increased burden on the existing land drainage network, indeed the rate of discharge to adjacent land drain is controlled to a mean greenfield rate (QBAR) opposed to peak rate.
• Highway drains will be adopted by the highways authority and the domestic pipework will be adopted by the drainage undertaker, but regardless the common SuDS area will be the responsibility of a maintenance company as is standard.
6.22 Visibility Splays
There are two publications which provide guidance on visibility requirements for the safe egress of vehicles from junctions. Manual for Street I and II (MfS) and the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB).
6.23 Staffordshire County Council guidance states the stopping site distances within MfS should be used, however for roads with an 85th percentile speed greater than 60kmh, a hybrid between MfS and DMRB may be used.
6.24 Visibility splays are calculated using an 'X' distance of 2.4m measured back along the centreline of the proposed access from the 'give way' line (or an imaginary 'give way' line if no such markings are provided), typically used in most built up situations as this represents a reasonable maximum distance between the front of the car and the drivers eye. The 'Y' distance represents the distance that a driver who is about to exit from the minor arm can see to his left and right along the main alignment. For simplicity, it is measured in a straight line along the nearside kerb line of the main arm, although vehicles will normally be travelling a distance from the kerb line. The measurement is taken from the point where this line intersects the centreline of the minor arm
A3244 June 2017 Page | 30 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
based on the Stopping Site Distance calculated for the speed of vehicles travelling on the main alignment.
6.25 Proposed Access Visibility
In order to assess the proposed access in terms of the available visibility for emerging vehicles, visibility splays have been measured in accordance with SCC requirements and the 85th percentile vehicle speeds as per the ATC data collected on Thorncliffe Road.
6.26 The 85th percentile speed of vehicles travelling eastbound has been calculated as 48.3mph (77.76kph) and westbound as 48.6mph (78.25kph). The speeds are in excess of 60kph therefore the Stopping Site Distance (SSD) guidance with in DMRB has been applied.
6.27 DMRB states that for vehicle speeds up to 85kph, the SSD should be 160m. The visibility splay drawing appended to this report shows that 160m can be achieved in both directions from the proposed access and is therefore in accordance with DMRB and SCC requirements.
6.28 Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road Junction Visibility
At the request of the Staffordshire County Council Highways, visibility at the Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road junction has been assessed.
6.29 In order to assess this junction in terms of the available visibility for emerging vehicles, visibility splays have been measured in accordance with the 85th percentile vehicle speeds as per the following ATC data collected on Buxton Road for the 48-hour period between Wednesday 4 October and Thursday 5 October 2017.
Northbound 04/10/2017 05/10/2017 48 Hour Mean Wednesday Thursday
0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 1956 3267 3589 Mean Speed 40.6 40.8 40.7 85%ile Speed 48.8 48.1 48.5
Southbound 04/10/2017 05/10/2017 48 Hour Mean Wednesday Thursday 0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 1968 3309 2638 Mean Speed 38.5 39.0 38.8 85%ile Speed 44.0 43.7 43.9
6.30 The 85th percentile speed of vehicles travelling northbound has been calculated as 48.5mph (78.05kph) and westbound as 43.9mph (70.65kph). The speeds are in excess of 60kph therefore the Stopping Site Distance (SSD) guidance with in DMRB has been applied.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 31 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
6.31 DMRB states that for vehicle speeds up to 85kph, the SSD should be 160m. The visibility splay drawing appended to this report shows that 160m can be achieved on Buxton Road in both directions from the Thorncliffe Road junction and is therefore in accordance with DMRB and SCC requirements.
6.32 Vertical Visibility
Whilst the visibility splays have been checked in the horizontal plane, the visibility in the vertical plane has also been checked to ensure that views are not compromised by obstructions such as the brow of a hill, or a bridge or a dip in the road ahead. Therefore, existing spot levels and contours have been used to provide a vertical alignment longitudinal section measured from a point 1.05m to 0.6m above carriageway level.
6.33 Drivers need to be able to see obstructions from 2m high down to a point 600mm above the carriageway. The latter dimension is used to ensure small children can be seen.
6.34 A full scaled drawing showing both horizontal and vertical visibility splays is appended to this report.
6.35 Provision of Service Vehicles
The road layout must accommodate the safe passage of emergency and refuse collection vehicles.
6.36 Emergency Vehicles
There is a greater emphasis on keeping dead end access routes to a minimum to ensure that emergency service requirements are not compromised. This is achieved by the use of loop roads, connecting streets or cul-de-sacs with emergency link access.
6.37 Whilst the internal road layout has not been designed in detail and is reserved for later approval, the intention is to provide a loop road, which meets with the requirements of SCC and would therefore provide full and unrestricted access for emergency vehicles.
6.38 Refuse Collection
Turning facilities should be provided for refuse where they would otherwise have to reverse more 40m, according to SCC design guidance. Whilst the internal road layout has not been designed in detail and is reserved for later approval, the intention is to provide a loop road with turning facilities, to be designed in accordance with SCC details for turning heads.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 32 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
7 Trip Generation
7.1 This section sets out details with regards to trip generation for the existing and proposed site.
7.2 Trip Rates - Existing Site
The exiting site covers an area of approximately 5.5 hectares and consists of 5 agricultural fields dominated by horse-grazed pasture, and is an undeveloped, greenfield site and as such does not generate any traffic other than very occasional movement of agricultural vehicles during periods of farming activities. The level of traffic generated by the existing site has therefore considered as negligible.
7.3 Trip Rates - Proposed Site
The outline proposals for the site is to provide 154 dwellings in a mix of bedroom quantities and housing types.
7.4 To provide the most robust traffic generation scenario for the site, the TRICS database was examined to determine appropriate trip rates for residential use in this edge of town location. The following AM and PM trip rates have been calculated from the TRICS data supplied by JMP:
Trip Rates
Calculation Factor: 1 Dwelling Time Period Arrivals Departures Total
AM Peak 0.149 0.444 0.593 08:00-09:00 PM Peak 0.417 0.217 0.634 17:00-18:00
7.5 Based on the trip rates above, the proposed residential development would generate the following vehicle movements:
Traffic Generation - Proposed 154 Dwellings
Traffic Generation 154 dwellings Time Period Total Arrive Total Depart
AM Peak 22.946 68.376 08:00-09:00 PM Peak 64.218 33.418 17:00-18:00
A3244 June 2017 Page | 33 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
8 Development Traffic Distribution
8.1 This section sets out details with regards to the distribution of traffic for the development.
8.2 The background traffic volumes recorded by the ATC were used to determine the average volumes and the appropriate AM and PM peak hours on the network. It was determined that the average AM peak hour was 08:00 – 09:00 and the PM peak hour was 17:00 – 18:00. The associated average traffic volumes for the peak hours are as follows:
• AM Peak: 46 vehicles eastbound and 78 vehicles westbound • PM Peak: 76 vehicles eastbound and 82 vehicles westbound
8.3 Traffic growth rates were determined using Tempro V7.2 software to give a 5 year horizon. The growth rates for the Staffordshire Moorlands area from 2017 to 2022 were determined to be 1.0426 for the AM peak and 1.0404 for the PM peak.
8.4 The growth rates were then applied to the 2017 background traffic to obtain the 2022 background traffic volumes. These were calculated to be equal to:
• AM Peak: 48 vehicles eastbound and 82 vehicles westbound • PM Peak: 80 vehicles eastbound and 86 vehicles westbound
8.5 The 2011 Census data for Staffordshire Moorlands residents place of work destinations, travelling by driving a car/van has been investigated in order to assess the likely traffic distribution based on employment destination. Using the data provided by the Office for National Statistics on the nomisweb official labour market statistics website, it was determined that 88% of residents would likely travel westbound on Thorncliffe Road to gain access to A53, A523, etc and the remaining 12% would travel eastbound on Thorncliffe Road to gain access to the B5012 or A52.
8.6 These distributions were then applied to the trip generation profile in Section 7 and determined the following distribution of traffic:
AM Peak:
Arrivals: 20 arrivals from Thorncliffe Road (W) and 3 arrivals from Thorncliffe Road (E) Departures: 61 departures to Thorncliffe Road (W) and 8 departures to Thorncliffe Road (E)
PM Peak:
Arrivals: 56 arrivals from Thorncliffe Road (W) and 8 arrivals from Thorncliffe Road (E) Departures: 31 departures to Thorncliffe Road (W) and 4 departures to Thorncliffe Road (E)
8.7 To be conservative the decimal figures were rounded up to obtain a round number of vehicles.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 34 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
8.8 The trip generation values were then added to both the 2017 background and 2022 background scenarios. The following scenarios were modelled for both the AM and PM peak hours:
2017 Background Traffic only 2017 Background Traffic + Development Traffic (Calculated Trip Generation) 2022 Background Traffic only 2022 Background Traffic + Development Traffic (Calculated Trip Generation)
8.9 The distribution calculations are illustrated in Appendix B.
8.10 Wider Traffic Distribution
At the request of David Plant at Staffordshire County Council, an assessment has been carried out on the distribution of the proposed development traffic on the wider highway network within Leek in order to establish how much additional traffic will be introduced to the network by the proposed development and determine any junctions which may experience a notable increase in traffic volume.
8.11 Without the presence of existing traffic data for all junctions within Leek, ‘Location of Usual Residence and Place of Work’ data from the 2011 Census Data available on the Office for National Statistics webpage (www.nomisweb.co.uk) was used to distribute the proposed development traffic onto the highway network. This is the same trip distribution approach adopted within the TA prepared by Encon and expanded for the purposes of this exercise. The data was taken for the Staffordshire Moorlands area and the following is the percentage distribution of traffic from Staffordshire Moorlands to various locations in the area:
Travel to Work Data
A3244 June 2017 Page | 35 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
8.12 These percentages were then used to distribute traffic onto the highway network by considering the likely routes of travel from the proposed development site to the various destinations. From the site access, it was determined that 88% would travel to and arrive from the west and 12% would travel to and arrive from the east; therefore, 88% of development traffic travelled westbound on Thorncliffe Road toward the junction with the A53 and 12% of development traffic travelled eastbound on Thorncliffe Road. The development traffic was then distributed using the likely routes of travel to/from the various destinations. Assumptions made for distribution of the development traffic from the development site were as follows:
• Trips to Manchester and Stockport were split 50/50 North and South on A53; • Trips to Stoke on Trent and Newcastle under Lyme were split 50/50 between the A53/A523/Springfield Road junction and the A523/St Edward St junction; • 100% of trips travelling to Stafford, East Staffordshire, Derbyshire Dales, Derby and Cannock Chase headed eastbound on Thorncliffe Road; • 100% of trips travelling to Cheshire East went through Leek via A523 and continued on the A523; • 100% of trips traveling to High Peak travelled northbound on the A53 from the junction with Thorncliffe Road; and, • 100% of trips to South Staffordshire accessed the A520 via the A53/A523/Springfield Road junction.
8.13 The final trip distribution profile for both the AM and PM peak periods is provided in Appendix B and the profiles are shown below.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 36 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Figure 1: AM Peak Traffic Distribution:
A3244 June 2017 Page | 37 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Figure 1: AM Peak Traffic Distribution:
A3244 June 2017 Page | 38 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
8.14 The Guidance on Transport Assessments prepared by the Department for Transport suggests that a junction may be impacted by a development if a net increase in traffic of 30 two-way vehicles or more occurs as a consequence of a proposed development. Whilst this guidance has been superseded, it is still considered a key resource for establishing best practice for transport studies. In order to determine the net increase in traffic volume at key junctions, the percentage distribution profile was applied to the development traffic.
8.15 As a result of the distributed development traffic, it can be seen that the following junctions experience an increase in traffic:
• A53 with Thorncliffe Road; • A523/Springfield Road with A53 priority T-junction; • A523 with Bath Street (to A523 and A53); and, • A523 with St Edward Street (to A53 and A520).
8.16 In the absence of data and the minimal number of trips anticipated for the proposed development site, AADT data sourced from the DFT website illustrates that the background flows on the A53 and A523 are such that the relatively modest increases in traffic resulting from the development proposals are likely to be insignificant at these locations. AADT data is available for the most recent year of 2016 at various locations along the network within Leek. The AADT data is used to establish the likely volume of traffic going through a junction in order to establish the net impact at the key junctions through Leek, as set out above. The survey locations and the respective volumes are highlighted in Figure 3 below, which is also in Appendix B.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 39 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Figure 3: Survey Locations and Respective Volumes:
A3244 June 2017 Page | 40 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
8.17 AADT data provides an average daily total traffic amount for the network, therefore, the TRICS data used for the peak hour trip generation profile was used to determine the total daily traffic generation for the proposed development. The total daily traffic generation of the site is expected to be 862 two-way vehicles, 424 arrivals and 438 departures. These trips were distributed onto the network using the same methodology as was prescribed for the peak hour traffic in 8.11 above. After distributing the traffic onto the network, the daily two-way development traffic was compared to the 2016 AADT traffic volumes obtained from the DfT website to determine the percentage increase on the network. A summary of the AADT traffic volumes, two-way total daily traffic generation and the respective percentage increases is provided in the table below. A figure demonstrating the location and respective traffic volumes, development traffic and percentage increases is available in Appendix B.
Impact on Highway Network
8.18 The table above demonstrates that the percentage increase in total daily traffic generation of the site is expected to result in a minor increase in the traffic on any part of the network beyond A523 Springfield Street as the percentage increase in traffic volume is equal to less than 5% on any part of the network. DfT Guidance on Transport Assessments sets out that a junction with 5% or more impact may require additional assessment; however, none of the locations considered above experience a net increase of 5% or more, therefore, it is considered that further assessment will not be required.
8.19 Traffic Distribution Conclusion
The traffic distribution exercise has been undertaken in order to identify junctions which may be requested to have additional assessment by the local highway authority. The exercise included establishing a percentage distribution profile using 2011 Census data for ‘Location of Usual Residence and Place of Work’, applying the distribution profile to the proposed development traffic and then determining which key junctions in Leek experience a net increase in traffic
A3244 June 2017 Page | 41 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
volumes of 30 or more vehicles. It was determined that the junctions which may experience a net increase in traffic volumes of 30 or more vehicles are as follows:
• A53 with Thorncliffe Road; • A523/Springfield Road with A53 priority T-junction; • A523 with Bath Street (to A523 and A53); and, • A523 with St Edward Street (to A53 and A520).
8.20 The background flows are such that these increases are likely to be immaterial and would not be considered to have a significant impact on the operation of the highway, with net increases in traffic volumes less than 5% at all locations considered on the network.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 42 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
9 Junction Capacity Assessment
9.1 The impact of the proposed development on the local highway network has been assessed using industry standard modelling software.
9.2 Proposed Site Access
The proposed new site access has been assessed as follows.
9.3 A lane width of 2.75m for the site access based on the 5.5m carriageway width required for the access per SCC Design Guide has been applied. A topographical survey has been provided to determine the width of the carriageway of the main road and found to be 6m. These geometries were used for the preparation of the junction model. The determined peak hour volumes and development traffic have been added to the junction to demonstrate how it will operate.
9.4 PICADY – Priority Intersection Module
Calculations have been carried out using the PICADY software, Junction 9 version 9.0.1.4646, based on the ATC traffic survey results and the predicted AM and PM trip rate calculations in section 7 of this report and the distribution of trips based on the details within Section 8.
9.5 Summary of Results
Full details of the PICADY calculations are provided in Appendix B at the rear of this report and are summarised below:
Summary of Junction Performance
9.6 For the assessment of junctions, the key performance indicator is the ratio of flow to capacity (RFC). A threshold RFC value of 0.85 is considered appropriate. Junction arms exhibiting RFC values below 0.85 are considered to be operating ‘within capacity’, whereas junction arms exhibiting RFC values above 0.85 are considered to be operating ‘over capacity’.
9.7 The proposed junction has been assessed and found to be operating within capacity with none of the Ratio to Flow Capacity (RFC) values exceeding 0.11, which indicates that the junction is well within capacity for all scenarios. Furthermore, no queues are experienced with minimal delays, under 7 seconds.
9.8 The results of the operational modelling exercise show the proposed new junction will operate well within the design capacity thresholds in all scenarios modelled.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 43 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
9.9 Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road Junction
The existing junction with Buxton Road has been assessed as follows.
9.10 Peak Hour 2017 Base Traffic Volume calculations
A survey was carried out for the turning movements at this junction (see appendix for details) to establish the current traffic flows. The data was used to calculate PCUs by assuming the following factors per the traffic survey calculations:
Classification PCU P/Cycle 0.2 M/Cycle 0.4 Car/LGV 1 OGV1 1.5 OGV2 2.3 Bus 2
9.11 The total PCUs for a 15 minute increment were determined as follows:
(P/Cycle * 0.2) +( M/Cycle * 0.4) + No. Cars + No. LGV + (OGV1 * 1.5) +(OGV2*2.3) + (BUS * 2) = PCUs
9.12 The peak hour volumes were totalled by 4 x 15 minute increments which established the peak hours as 08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 - 18:00 which is consistent with the survey data.
9.13 The associated traffic volumes in PCUs for the peak hours are as follows:
AM Peak: 2017 Traffic Flows - AM Peak 642 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 2 235 Thorncliffe Road 3 0 74 A53 S (Northbound) 285 43 0
PM Peak: 2017 Traffic Flows - PM Peak 748 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 4 314 Thorncliffe Road 1 0 78 A53 S (Northbound) 278 73 0
9.14
A3244 June 2017 Page | 44 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
9.15 Growth Background Traffic – Base 2022
The same growth rates used for the site access junction were applied to this junction. The growth rates from 2017 to 2022 were determined to be 1.0426 for the AM peak and 1.04045 for the PM peak. The growth rates were then applied to the 2017 background traffic to obtain the 2022 background traffic volumes. These were calculated to be equal to:
AM Peak: 2022 Traffic Flows - AM Peak 674 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 3 246 Thorncliffe Road 4 0 78 A53 S (Northbound) 298 45 0
PM Peak: 2022 Traffic Flows - PM Peak 782 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 5 327 Thorncliffe Road 2 0 82 A53 S (Northbound) 290 76 0
9.16 Distribution
The proposed traffic was distributed using the same methodology as was used for the site access and for the distribution exercise, this is roughly in line with existing turning movements at the junction. The development traffic is as follows:
Development Flows - AM Peak 81 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 (Northbound) 0 0 0 Thorncliffe Road 1 0 60 A53 (Southbound) 0 20 0
Development Flows - PM Peak 87 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 1 0 Thorncliffe Road 1 0 30 A53 S (Northbound) 0 55 0
A3244 June 2017 Page | 45 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
9.17 Modelled Scenarios
The trip generation values were then added to the 2022 background scenario. The following scenarios were modelled for both the AM and PM peak hours:
• 2017 Background Traffic only;
• 2022 Background Traffic only; and,
• 2022 Background Traffic + Development Traffic (Calculated Trip Generation).
AM Peak: 2017 Traffic Flows - AM Peak 642 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 2 235 Thorncliffe Road 3 0 74 A53 S (Northbound) 285 43 0
PM Peak: 2017 Traffic Flows - PM Peak 748 A53 N (Northbound) Thorncliffe Road A53 S (Southbound) A53 N (Southbound) 0 4 314 Thorncliffe Road 1 0 78 A53 S (Northbound) 278 73 0
9.18 Junction Results
It is demonstrated that the Thorncliffe Road/A53 Buxton Road priority junction would operate well within capacity for all scenarios with RFC values not exceeding 0.33, queuing under 1 PCU and delays under 10 seconds.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 46 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
10 Travel Plan
10.1 The applicant has confirmed they will provide a detailed TP for any subsequent Reserved Matters application or in response to a “prior occupation planning condition”.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 47 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
11 Summary and Conclusions
11.1 This report has been prepared in connection with the outline application for a residential development on land off Thorncliffe Road in Leek, Staffordshire, ST13 6NH. The planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future approval, with the exception of access for which detailed approval is sought. The notional master plan is for 154 dwellings on the site.
11.2 From investigations in respect of existing traffic, accident data, sustainable accessibility, car parking provision, traffic generation and junction capacity assessment, the main findings are:
11.3 The predicted traffic generated by the outline proposals to develop the land for residential use will result in an increase in traffic within the local highway network, however the increased traffic can be absorbed into the surrounding highway network without any indiscernible impact to the flow of traffic.
11.4 An assessment of the proposed junction into the site shows that the predicted traffic generated can be accommodated within the operational capacity and would not lead to a detrimental impact to traffic flows on the local highway or from the site itself.
11.5 An assessment of the Thorncliffe Road/Buxton Road junction shows that the predicted traffic generated can be accommodated within the operational capacity of the junction and would not lead to a detrimental impact to traffic flows.
11.6 An assessment of the distribution of the proposed development traffic on the wider highway network within Leek has been carried out to establish how much additional traffic will be introduced to the network by the proposed development and determine any junctions which may experience a notable increase in traffic volume. The assessment confirmed increases are likely to be immaterial and would not be considered to have a significant impact on the operation of the highway, with net increases in traffic volumes less than 5% at all locations considered on the wider network.
11.7 The proposed new access/egress has been assessed in terms of visibility and found to be appropriate and in accordance with local authority requirements for visibility splays and sight stopping distances based on the recorded 85th percentile speed on Thorncliffe Road.
11.8 The existing junction with Buxton Road and Thorncliffe Road has been assessed in terms of visibility and found to be appropriate and in accordance with local authority requirements for visibility splays and sight stopping distances based on the recorded 85th percentile speed on Buxton Road.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 48 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
11.9 The number and severity of accidents recorded in the vicinity of the site are not indicative of defects in the highway layout and design. Given the volume of traffic within the study area is in excess of 1,700 vehicles per day, an accident rate of 0.2 per year in the last 5 years is exceptionally low and does not highlight any problems with the safety record of the local highway network. Any additional traffic to be generated by the development is unlikely to impact the existing road safety within the study area.
11.10 The location of the proposed residential development provides viable access to sustainable modes of transport with convenient access to local bus services serving the locality and the surrounding towns, suitable roads for cycling and with the provision of a new footpath connection, the improved viability for walking, which would likely encourage a reduction in car usage.
11.11 Whilst full details of the internal layout of the development have been reserved for future approval, indications are that car parking and cycle storage provision would be consistent with the published standards and strike the requisite balance between parking restrain, to promote alternative travel modes and the provision of adequate parking that will not lead to indiscriminate on street car parking which would compromise highway safety.
11.12 The effect on existing highway drainage and the strategy for site drainage is included within a separate Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy report which states “highway drains will be adopted by the Highways Authority and domestic pipework will be adopted by the drainage undertaker, but regardless the common SuDS area will be the responsibility of a maintenance company as standard.
11.13 The client will provide a detailed Travel Plan for any subsequent Reserved Matters application in direct response to a “prior occupation planning condition”.
A3244 June 2017 Page | 49 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
This Report has been prepared by:
Encon Associates Limited 10 Chapel Lane Arnold Nottingham NG5 7DR Tel: 0115 987 55 99 Email: [email protected]
Signed for and on behalf of Encon Associates Limited
Mark Bentley MCIHT Traffic and Transportation Division Date: 8 June 2017 Revision C: 19 March 2018
A3244 June 2017 Page | 50 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Appendix A - ATC Data
A3244 June 2017 Page | 51 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 1 - Eastbound
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 5-DAY 7-DAY Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday MEAN MEAN 0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 802 765 779 830 859 870 781 807 812 Mean Speed 38.7 38.6 39.3 38.1 38.2 38.1 37.7 38.6 38.4 85%ile Speed 48.5 48.3 48.3 48.2 48.2 48.6 43.9 48.3 47.7 No. Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 4 8 4 5 7 5 4 6 5 % Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 No. Vehicles > 75 MPH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Vehicles > 75 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Channel 2 - Westbound
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 5-DAY 7-DAY Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday MEAN MEAN 0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 852 879 873 875 921 978 896 880 896 Mean Speed 38.2 37.4 38.8 38.0 38.7 38.2 37.2 38.2 38.1 85%ile Speed 48.7 48.4 48.7 48.4 48.8 48.2 43.8 48.6 47.9 No. Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 4 3 6 4 6 1 1 5 4 % Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4 No. Vehicles > 75 MPH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Vehicles > 75 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Channels 1+2 - Eastbound & Westbound
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 5-DAY 7-DAY Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday MEAN MEAN 0000-2400 Vehicle Flow 1654 1644 1652 1705 1780 1848 1677 1687 1709 Mean Speed 38.5 38.0 39.1 38.1 38.5 38.2 37.5 38.4 38.2 85%ile Speed 48.6 48.4 48.5 48.3 48.5 48.4 43.9 48.5 47.8 No. Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 8 11 10 9 13 6 5 10 9 % Vehicles > 60 MPH Limit 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 No. Vehicles > 75 MPH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Vehicles > 75 MPH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 1 - Eastbound Vehicle Flow Week 1
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Hr Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 5 Day Ave 7 Day Ave 1 1 4 0 1 0 5 8 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 3 3 4 5 2 2 1 3 3 6 22 26 27 26 15 3 0 23 17 7 17 18 23 19 20 13 5 19 16 8 36 32 30 34 37 15 8 34 27 9 43 45 46 42 50 30 30 45 41 10 38 37 29 45 44 52 41 39 41 11 58 41 51 48 50 63 79 50 56 12 56 51 62 46 52 56 77 53 57 13 54 62 44 55 64 73 71 56 60 14 50 54 44 55 52 82 74 51 59 15 54 53 55 49 65 80 81 55 62 16 63 46 48 52 67 68 55 55 57 17 68 56 54 62 70 72 69 62 64 18 73 77 77 68 83 63 54 76 71 19 60 64 76 89 74 71 49 73 69 20 37 39 46 49 41 60 18 42 41 21 40 19 26 38 23 30 27 29 29 22 20 17 24 23 22 15 14 21 19 23 5 15 10 17 22 7 9 14 12 24 3 6 3 6 6 4 5 5 5
7-19 653 618 616 645 708 725 688 648 665 6-22 767 711 735 774 814 843 752 760 771 6-24 775 732 748 797 842 854 766 779 788 0-24 802 765 779 830 859 870 781 807 812
Vehicle Flow (Channel 1)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Number of Vehicles of Number 0-24 0 6-24 6-22 03/04/201704/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 7-19 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Date
7-19 6-22 6-24 0-24 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 1 - Eastbound Average Speed Week 1
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Hr Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 53.0 41.8 - 38.0 - 34.5 38.9 - 2 - - - 43.0 - 43.0 43.0 - 3 43.0 - - - - 45.5 38.8 - 4 - - - - - 48.0 43.0 - 5 41.3 29.7 46.8 40.5 39.2 40.5 33.0 - 6 45.7 48.8 47.8 44.3 47.0 36.3 - - 7 41.8 42.6 39.8 41.2 39.9 41.8 44.0 - 8 42.5 32.9 42.9 42.5 42.6 42.0 39.9 - 9 39.2 36.1 41.4 38.5 40.8 39.8 36.5 - 10 33.0 37.0 37.5 33.1 36.5 38.8 38.0 - 11 38.9 36.7 38.0 36.8 37.4 37.3 38.0 - 12 36.6 37.7 38.2 35.3 35.3 39.3 38.1 - 13 37.0 37.9 37.3 35.9 35.3 37.2 37.1 - 14 38.7 38.1 38.4 33.1 36.2 37.8 37.5 - 15 36.5 38.2 36.1 37.5 36.4 36.0 36.0 - 16 37.8 37.3 37.5 36.0 36.6 37.1 38.0 - 17 37.7 38.8 36.2 38.5 39.2 36.5 36.6 - 18 38.3 39.3 39.7 40.4 41.1 40.5 37.4 - 19 38.4 37.8 41.2 38.3 37.7 37.4 37.3 - 20 40.6 41.5 38.5 40.7 38.2 37.9 39.2 - 21 42.6 40.0 39.2 38.3 35.7 39.8 40.2 - 22 39.6 40.4 42.0 41.8 39.5 40.3 36.9 - 23 40.0 42.3 40.5 39.5 41.3 37.3 40.8 - 24 46.3 44.7 49.7 52.2 43.0 39.9 44.0 -
10-12 37.8 37.3 38.1 36.1 36.3 38.3 38.1 - 14-16 37.2 37.8 36.8 36.7 36.5 36.5 36.8 - 0-24 38.7 38.6 39.3 38.1 38.2 38.1 37.7 -
7 Day Ave 38.4
85th Percentile
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Hr Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 53.7 48.3 - 38.8 - 38.1 43.2 - 2 - - - 43.4 - 48.1 43.9 - 3 43.5 - - - - 48.3 53.1 - 4 - - - - - 48.1 43.4 - 5 43.6 48.6 53.0 53.3 54.0 43.0 33.3 - 6 53.3 58.6 53.3 53.9 53.1 38.5 - - 7 53.3 53.3 43.4 48.6 43.4 48.7 63.9 - 8 48.8 48.3 48.3 48.6 48.4 48.5 43.8 - 9 53.0 48.8 48.9 48.4 48.5 48.8 43.3 - 10 43.8 48.8 44.0 43.1 43.2 43.1 43.7 - 11 48.8 43.6 48.4 43.6 43.5 43.2 48.3 - 12 43.7 44.0 48.3 43.7 43.3 48.7 48.1 - 13 43.0 43.9 43.2 43.9 43.6 48.5 48.0 - 14 43.4 48.2 43.2 43.8 43.5 48.4 43.3 - 15 48.9 48.7 43.6 43.0 43.2 43.1 43.8 - 16 43.8 49.0 48.4 43.5 43.9 43.7 48.3 - 17 43.4 48.2 43.4 48.9 48.7 43.9 43.2 - 18 44.0 48.5 48.7 48.4 48.5 48.5 43.5 - 19 48.9 48.1 48.3 48.7 48.4 43.1 43.3 - 20 48.1 49.0 43.6 48.5 43.1 48.8 53.3 - 21 53.9 43.7 48.2 43.5 43.8 48.4 48.0 - 22 48.4 58.0 53.2 48.5 53.5 48.5 48.5 - 23 43.5 48.6 48.6 48.4 53.8 48.5 43.2 - 24 53.8 53.1 58.1 63.4 58.6 53.2 53.9 -
10-12 48.1 43.1 48.5 43.3 43.8 48.3 48.6 - 14-16 43.6 48.8 48.9 43.1 43.0 43.1 43.8 - 0-24 48.5 48.3 48.3 48.2 48.2 48.6 43.9 -
7 Day Ave 47.7 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 1 - Eastbound Speed Summary Week 1
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Speed (MPH) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0-30 93 118 82 123 109 101 100 31-45 576 508 556 562 607 638 578 46-60 129 131 137 140 136 126 99 61-100 4 8 4 5 7 5 4
TOTAL 802 765 779 830 859 870 781
Speed Summary (MPH)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017Date 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017
0-30 31-45 46-60 61-100 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 1 - Eastbound Vehicle Class Week 1
Classes Car / LGV / OGV1 / Bus OGV2 TOTAL Day / Time Caravan - 1 - 2,3,5,6,7,12 - 4,8,9,10,11,13 - 1-13 03/04/2017 7-19 543 106 4 653 6-22 644 119 4 767 6-24 651 120 4 775 0-24 675 123 4 802 04/04/2017 7-19 507 100 11 618 6-22 588 111 12 711 6-24 607 113 12 732 0-24 636 117 12 765 05/04/2017 7-19 512 101 3 616 6-22 617 115 3 735 6-24 628 117 3 748 0-24 656 120 3 779 06/04/2017 7-19 546 92 7 645 6-22 659 106 9 774 6-24 682 106 9 797 0-24 713 108 9 830 07/04/2017 7-19 590 114 4 708 6-22 686 124 4 814 6-24 710 127 5 842 0-24 726 128 5 859 08/04/2017 7-19 643 79 3 725 6-22 752 87 4 843 6-24 763 87 4 854 0-24 779 87 4 870 09/04/2017 7-19 625 60 3 688 6-22 683 66 3 752 6-24 697 66 3 766 0-24 711 67 3 781
Average 7-19 567 93 5 665 6-22 661 104 6 771 6-24 677 105 6 788 0-24 699 107 6 812
Total Vehicle Class Distribution
1% 13%
86% Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 2 - Westbound Vehicle Flow Week 1
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Hr Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 5 Day Ave 7 Day Ave 1 0 3 4 1 1 2 6 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 3 4 0 1 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 5 2 1 3 1 2 1 0 2 1 6 3 2 3 4 5 3 2 3 3 7 13 17 18 14 17 9 3 16 13 8 38 41 41 34 32 17 11 37 31 9 87 88 69 72 72 46 25 78 66 10 63 65 63 57 59 66 44 61 60 11 57 59 55 59 73 83 52 61 63 12 46 54 53 35 60 87 66 50 57 13 46 51 41 53 53 59 62 49 52 14 37 41 53 48 55 64 62 47 51 15 62 64 56 58 80 72 97 64 70 16 81 69 61 76 69 80 99 71 76 17 68 66 78 70 78 85 94 72 77 18 81 84 93 84 68 73 92 82 82 19 77 74 63 70 69 71 70 71 71 20 40 40 44 55 50 55 40 46 46 21 28 25 30 35 33 38 38 30 32 22 11 11 22 20 21 29 19 17 19 23 7 13 17 21 14 22 8 14 15 24 4 6 4 5 8 10 0 5 5
7-19 743 756 726 716 768 803 774 742 755 6-22 835 849 840 840 889 934 874 851 866 6-24 846 868 861 866 911 966 882 870 886 0-24 852 879 873 875 921 978 896 880 896
Vehicle Flow (Channel 2)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400 300 200 100
Number of Vehicles of Number 0-24 0 6-24 6-22 03/04/201704/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 7-19 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Date
7-19 6-22 6-24 0-24 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 2 - Westbound Average Speed Week 1
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Hr Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 - 33.8 36.1 48.0 38.0 40.5 38.8 - 2 - - 38.0 48.0 - 43.0 45.5 - 3 - 32.2 - 38.0 - 45.5 29.2 - 4 43.0 45.5 38.0 38.0 40.5 48.0 - - 5 43.0 48.0 46.3 53.0 53.0 15.5 - - 6 38.0 40.5 38.0 46.8 47.0 41.3 50.5 - 7 44.9 40.5 39.8 41.6 38.6 41.1 46.3 - 8 41.8 36.6 42.5 40.8 44.6 40.8 37.3 - 9 39.9 37.1 40.4 38.4 40.3 39.1 34.9 - 10 35.7 34.0 35.8 35.5 36.1 39.2 38.8 - 11 38.2 38.5 38.1 36.6 38.7 36.2 37.6 - 12 36.8 37.4 36.3 37.4 36.3 38.9 37.8 - 13 35.1 38.1 36.7 36.8 39.7 40.1 36.1 - 14 34.4 38.2 36.7 32.5 37.8 36.1 37.0 - 15 38.1 34.9 37.1 38.0 38.8 38.0 36.2 - 16 37.4 36.8 37.5 34.6 38.5 36.8 37.7 - 17 37.3 40.6 37.4 39.1 38.0 39.4 36.0 - 18 38.7 37.0 39.5 40.4 38.2 38.2 36.6 - 19 38.9 36.8 43.2 37.9 36.7 36.7 37.4 - 20 37.9 40.0 41.5 39.3 39.4 39.3 38.6 - 21 41.6 38.6 37.5 40.4 39.2 37.8 37.2 - 22 43.0 35.5 39.8 37.9 39.3 39.4 38.7 - 23 39.8 38.0 43.6 42.8 41.8 37.1 41.8 - 24 41.8 42.2 45.5 44.0 41.8 42.2 - -
10-12 37.5 38.0 37.2 36.9 37.6 37.6 37.7 - 14-16 37.7 35.9 37.3 36.1 38.7 37.3 36.9 - 0-24 38.2 37.4 38.8 38.0 38.7 38.2 37.2 -
7 Day Ave 38.1
85th Percentile
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Hr Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 1 - 38.7 43.9 48.8 39.0 43.1 43.9 - 2 - - 38.5 48.4 - 53.5 53.4 - 3 - 39.0 - 38.9 - 48.8 33.3 - 4 43.3 53.3 38.2 38.7 48.5 48.8 - - 5 53.5 48.5 53.7 53.1 63.5 15.8 - - 6 43.1 48.4 43.7 58.6 59.0 49.0 53.8 - 7 53.6 53.7 53.6 48.7 48.2 53.8 53.2 - 8 48.4 48.2 53.8 48.0 48.4 48.7 48.4 - 9 49.0 43.4 48.2 48.4 48.4 48.9 43.2 - 10 43.1 43.5 43.8 48.4 43.3 48.9 48.9 - 11 48.9 48.8 48.2 43.3 43.5 43.4 48.6 - 12 43.6 43.5 44.0 49.0 43.1 48.1 48.4 - 13 43.3 48.4 43.1 43.8 48.5 49.0 48.4 - 14 43.1 48.5 43.1 43.7 49.0 43.8 43.9 - 15 43.5 43.2 43.8 48.4 48.6 48.7 43.6 - 16 43.2 48.6 43.4 43.7 48.9 43.4 43.9 - 17 49.0 48.5 43.5 48.3 43.7 48.0 38.5 - 18 48.1 48.7 48.1 48.4 48.4 48.2 43.3 - 19 48.0 48.9 48.1 43.4 43.7 43.2 43.9 - 20 48.3 48.4 48.2 48.9 48.1 48.5 48.3 - 21 48.5 43.3 43.0 48.1 48.8 48.4 48.3 - 22 48.9 43.3 53.7 43.6 53.7 43.1 43.2 - 23 48.5 48.2 48.5 58.3 58.5 43.3 43.3 - 24 53.4 58.5 53.6 53.1 43.2 53.6 - -
10-12 48.8 43.2 48.2 43.2 43.2 48.8 48.0 - 14-16 43.8 43.6 43.5 48.1 48.3 48.5 43.7 - 0-24 48.7 48.4 48.7 48.4 48.8 48.2 43.8 -
7 Day Ave 47.9 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 2 - Westbound Speed Summary Week 1
03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Speed (MPH) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0-30 115 159 118 144 117 124 135 31-45 602 582 597 584 646 690 661 46-60 131 135 152 143 152 163 99 61-100 4 3 6 4 6 1 1
TOTAL 852 879 873 875 921 978 896
Speed Summary (MPH)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 03/04/2017 04/04/2017 05/04/2017 06/04/2017 07/04/2017 08/04/2017 09/04/2017 Date
0-30 31-45 46-60 61-100 Thorncliffe Road, Leek ATC 01
Channel 2 - Westbound Vehicle Class Week 1
Classes Car / LGV / OGV1 / Bus OGV2 TOTAL Day / Time Caravan - 1 - 2,3,5,6,7,12 - 4,8,9,10,11,13 - 1-13 03/04/2017 7-19 667 74 2 743 6-22 751 81 3 835 6-24 762 81 3 846 0-24 767 82 3 852 04/04/2017 7-19 659 88 9 756 6-22 741 99 9 849 6-24 760 99 9 868 0-24 771 99 9 879 05/04/2017 7-19 641 78 7 726 6-22 750 82 8 840 6-24 771 82 8 861 0-24 783 82 8 873 06/04/2017 7-19 631 77 8 716 6-22 748 84 8 840 6-24 774 84 8 866 0-24 783 84 8 875 07/04/2017 7-19 676 84 8 768 6-22 786 93 10 889 6-24 808 93 10 911 0-24 817 94 10 921 08/04/2017 7-19 738 62 3 803 6-22 864 66 4 934 6-24 895 67 4 966 0-24 907 67 4 978 09/04/2017 7-19 733 39 2 774 6-22 828 44 2 874 6-24 836 44 2 882 0-24 849 45 2 896
Average 7-19 678 72 6 755 6-22 781 78 6 866 6-24 801 79 6 886 0-24 811 79 6 896
Total Vehicle Class Distribution
1% 9%
90% = Calculated Values
Eastbound (2017) Hour Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Average 01:00 1 4 0 1 0 2 02:00 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.5 03:00 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 3 3 4 5 2 4 0.666667 06:00 22 26 27 26 15 24 0.857143 07:00 17 18 23 19 20 20 0.555556 08:00 36 32 30 34 37 34 0.472222 09:00 43 45 46 42 50 46 0.370968 10:00 38 37 29 45 44 39 0.386139 11:00 58 41 51 48 50 50 0.45045 12:00 56 51 62 46 52 54 0.519231 13:00 54 62 44 55 64 56 0.533333 14:00 50 54 44 55 52 51 0.520408 15:00 54 53 55 49 65 56 0.466667 16:00 63 46 48 52 67 56 0.4375 17:00 68 56 54 62 70 62 0.462687 18:00 73 77 77 68 83 76 0.481013 19:00 60 64 76 89 74 73 0.506944 20:00 37 39 46 49 41 43 0.483146 21:00 40 19 26 38 23 30 0.491803 22:00 20 17 24 23 22 22 0.564103 23:00 5 15 10 17 22 14 0.482759 00:00 3 6 3 6 6 5 24 Hour 802 765 779 830 859 819 Westbound Traffic (2017) Hour Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Average 01:00 0 3 4 1 1 2 02:00 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.5 03:00 0 3 0 1 0 1 0.5 04:00 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 05:00 2 1 3 1 2 2 0.333333 06:00 3 2 3 4 5 4 0.142857 07:00 13 17 18 14 17 16 0.444444 08:00 38 41 41 34 32 38 0.527778 09:00 87 88 69 72 72 78 0.629032 10:00 63 65 63 57 59 62 0.613861 11:00 57 59 55 59 73 61 0.54955 12:00 46 54 53 35 60 50 0.480769 13:00 46 51 41 53 53 49 0.466667 14:00 37 41 53 48 55 47 0.479592 15:00 62 64 56 58 80 64 0.533333 16:00 81 69 61 76 69 72 0.5625 17:00 68 66 78 70 78 72 0.537313 18:00 81 84 93 84 68 82 0.518987 19:00 77 74 63 70 69 71 0.493056 20:00 40 40 44 55 50 46 0.516854 21:00 28 25 30 35 33 31 0.508197 22:00 11 11 22 20 21 17 0.435897 23:00 7 13 17 21 14 15 0.517241 00:00 4 6 4 5 8 6 24 Hour 852 879 873 875 921 889 Total Two-Way (2017) Hour Ending Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Average 01:00 1 7 4 2 1 4 02:00 0 0 1 2 0 2 03:00 1 3 0 1 0 2 04:00 1 2 1 1 2 2 05:00 5 4 7 6 4 6 06:00 25 28 30 30 20 28 07:00 30 35 41 33 37 36 08:00 74 73 71 68 69 72 09:00 130 133 115 114 122 124 10:00 101 102 92 102 103 101 11:00 115 100 106 107 123 111 12:00 102 105 115 81 112 104 13:00 100 113 85 108 117 105 14:00 87 95 97 103 107 98 15:00 116 117 111 107 145 120 16:00 144 115 109 128 136 128 17:00 136 122 132 132 148 134 18:00 154 161 170 152 151 158 19:00 137 138 139 159 143 144 20:00 77 79 90 104 91 89 21:00 68 44 56 73 56 61 22:00 31 28 46 43 43 39 23:00 12 28 27 38 36 29 00:00 7 12 7 11 14 11 24 Hour 1654 1644 1652 1705 1780 1708 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Appendix B - PICADY Calculations
A3244 June 2017 Page | 52 High Peak, Arrivals Departures Manchester and AM Peak 23 69 Stockport A53 ↱ Manchester, Stockport and 2% 0 ↳ 20 Cheshire East 88% Thorncliffe Road
⬐ Stafford, East Staffordshire, Derbyshire 20 ↱ ⬑ 1 2% ↱ Dales. Derby and Cannock Chase 98% ⬐ 60 98% 61 8 ⬐ 3 14% 88% 12% 12% 2 → 57% 11 → ← 5 14% A523 Site ← 34 57% ⬐ 29 86% 43% 9 ↱ ⬐ 26 43% 9 ↱ 86% A523
100% 26 ↲ ↳ 0
St. Edward St. Street Stoke and Newcastle Under A523 South Staffordshire Lyme A53 100% 9 ⬏ ⬑ 0
Stoke and Newcastle Under Lyme High Peak, Arrivals Departures Manchester and PM Peak 64 35 Stockport A53 ↱ Manchester, Stockport and 2% 1 ↳ 56 Cheshire East 88% Thorncliffe Road
⬐ Stafford, East Staffordshire, Derbyshire 98% 55 ↱ ⬑ 1 2% ↱ Dales. Derby and Cannock Chase ⬐ 30 98% 31 4 ⬐ 8 14% 88% 12% 12% 4 → 57% 31 → ← 2 14% A523 Site ← 17 57% ⬐ 15 86% 43% 24 ↱ ⬐ 13 43% 29 ↱ 86% A523
100% 13 ↲ ↳ 0
St. Edward St. Street Stoke on Trent and Newcastle A523 South Staffordshire Under Lyme A53 100% 24 ⬏ ⬑ 0 Stoke on Trent and Newcastle Under Lyme High Peak, Manchester and Stockport A53
Manchester, Stockport and Cheshire East Thorncliffe Road Stafford, East Staffordshire, Derbyshire Dales. Derby and Cannock Chase 12608 vehicles Site 6924 vehicles A53
5 15955 vehicles 11847 vehicles 4 A523 1 9383 vehicles 9006 vehicles
Ball Haye St 8394 vehicles (A53) St A523 A523 Springfield Springfield 6 8607 vehicles 8422 vehicles 12875 vehicles 14332 vehicles A523 Ashbourne Rd
A53 Street St.Edward South Staffordshire Stoke on Trent and A53 3 A523 2 Newcastle Under Lyme 17399 vehicles A520 Stoke on Trent and Newcastle Under Lyme High Peak, Arrivals Departures Two Way Traffic Manchester and Total Daily Traffic 424 438 862 Stockport A53
Manchester, Stockport and 758 104 Cheshire East Thorncliffe Road Stafford, East Staffordshire, Derbyshire 0.47% Increase Dales. Derby and Cannock Chase 12608 Vehicles 6924 Vehicles
59 2.65% Increase 743 15995 Vehicles 3.58% Increase 424 11847 Vehicles A523 Site 3.54% Increase
9383 vehicles 9006 Vehicles
365 319
4.35% Increase A523 8394 Vehicles
2.23% Increase 3.71% Increase 0.00% Increase 14332 Vehicles 8607 Vehicles 8422 Vehicles 343 St. EdwardSt. Street A523 South Staffordshire 319
12875 Vehicles 1.97% Increase 2.66% Increase 17399 Vehicles
343 Location of Usual Residence and Place of Work by Car/Van (Staffordshire Moordlands) Information here was taken from: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/WU03UK/chart/1132462299 Destination No. Ppl Driving Car Percentage Directions from Site Stoke on trent 19886 67.79 A53S WB Newcastle Under Lyme 1950 6.65 A53S WB Cheshire East 3225 10.99 A523N WB Stafford 1421 4.84 A520S or Thorncliffe to B5053 EB East Staffordshire 1454 4.96 Thorncliffe to B5053 or A523 EB Derbyshire Dales 405 1.38 Thorncliffe to B5054 or Thorncliffe to B5053 to B5054 EB High Peak 309 1.05 A53N WB Derby 208 0.71 Thorncliffe to A52S EB Cannock Chase 82 0.28 Thorncliffe to B5013 or A520 EB South Staffordshire 58 0.20 A53 to M6 WB Stockport 169 0.58 A523N WB Manchester 167 0.57 A523N WB Total 29334 Resultant Distributions Outbound AM Peak Inbound PM Peak Direction Calculated Rounded Direction Calculated Rounded Westbound (to Thorncliffe West) 87.83 88.00 Westbound (from Thorncliffe East) 12.17 12.00 Eastbound (to Thornclifee East) 12.17 12.00 Eastbound (from Thorncliffe West) 87.83 88.00 Background Flows
To Growth Rate: 1.0426 2017 Traffic Flows - AM Peak 2022 Traffic Flows - AM Peak Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Site Access Site Access 124 Road West Road East 130 Road West Road East (southbound) (southbound) (westbound) (eastbound) (westbound) (eastbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road West 0 0 46 Road West 0 0 48 (eastbound) (eastbound) Site Access Site Access From 0 0 0 0 0 0 (northbound) (northbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road East 78 0 0 Road East 82 0 0 (westbound) (westbound)
Growth Rate: 1.0404 2017 Traffic Flows - PM Peak 2022 Traffic Flows - PM Peak Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Site Access Site Access 158 Road West Road East 166 Road West Road East (southbound) (southbound) (westbound) (eastbound) (westbound) (eastbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road West 0 0 76 Road West 0 0 80 (eastbound) (eastbound) Site Access Site Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 (northbound) (northbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road East 82 0 0 Road East 86 0 0 (westbound) (westbound)
= Total Volume through Junction = Inputs Development Flows Arrivals 23 Departures 69 Development Flows - AM Peak Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Site Access 92 Road West Road East (southbound) (westbound) (eastbound) Thorncliffe Road West 0 20 0 (eastbound) Site Access 61 0 8 (northbound) Thorncliffe Road East 0 3 0 (westbound)
Arrivals 64 Departures 35 Development Flows - PM Peak Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Site Access 99 Road West Road East (southbound) (westbound) (eastbound) Thorncliffe Road West 0 56 0 (eastbound) Site Access 31 0 4 (northbound) Thorncliffe Road East 0 8 0 (westbound) Background + Development Flows
2017 Background + Development Flows - AM Peak 2022 Background + Development Flows - AM Peak Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Site Access Site Access 216 Road West Road East 222 Road West Road East (southbound) (southbound) (westbound) (eastbound) (westbound) (eastbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road West 0 20 46 Road West 0 20 48 (eastbound) (eastbound) Site Access Site Access 61 0 8 61 0 8 (northbound) (northbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road East 78 3 0 Road East 82 3 0 (westbound) (westbound)
2017 Background + Development Flows - PM Peak 2022 Background + Development Flows - PM Peak Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Site Access Site Access 257 Road West Road East 265 Road West Road East (southbound) (southbound) (westbound) (eastbound) (westbound) (eastbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road West 0 56 76 Road West 0 56 80 (eastbound) (eastbound) Site Access Site Access 31 0 4 31 0 4 (northbound) (northbound) Thorncliffe Thorncliffe Road East 82 8 0 Road East 86 8 0 (westbound) (westbound) Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Junctions 9 PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module Version: 9.0.1.4646 [] © Copyright TRL Limited, 2017 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: Tel: +44 (0)1344 770758 email: [email protected] Web: http://www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution
Filename: Thorncliffe Road Jcn Model.j9 Path: G:\Projects\K-TT408.00 - Thorncliffe Road, Leek Report generation date: 08-Jun-17 08:09:54
»2017 Base Flows, AM »2017 Base Flows, PM »2017 Base + Dev, AM »2017 Base + Dev, PM »2022 Base Flows, AM »2022 Base Flows, PM »2022 Base + Dev, AM »2022 Base + Dev, PM
Summary of junction performance
AM PM Queue (PCU) Delay (s) RFC LOS Network Residual Capacity Queue (PCU) Delay (s) RFC LOS Network Residual Capacity 2017 Base Flows
Stream B-AC 0.0 0.00 0.00 A 900 % 0.0 0.00 0.00 A 900 %
Stream C-AB 0.0 0.00 0.00 A [] 0.0 0.00 0.00 A [] 2017 Base + Dev
Stream B-AC 0.1 6.11 0.11 A 475 % 0.1 5.79 0.06 A 448 %
Stream C-AB 0.0 5.57 0.04 A [Stream B-AC] 0.1 5.85 0.10 A [Stream C-AB] 2022 Base Flows
Stream B-AC 0.0 0.00 0.00 A 900 % 0.0 0.00 0.00 A 900 %
Stream C-AB 0.0 0.00 0.00 A [] 0.0 0.00 0.00 A [] 2022 Base + Dev
Stream B-AC 0.1 6.12 0.11 A 468 % 0.1 5.80 0.06 A 438 %
Stream C-AB 0.0 5.57 0.04 A [Stream B-AC] 0.1 5.84 0.10 A [Stream C-AB]
Values shown are the highest values encountered over all time segments. Delay is the maximum value of average delay per arriving vehicle. Network Residual Capacity indicates the amount by which network flow could be increased before a user-definable threshold (see Analysis Options) is met.
File summary
1 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
File summary
File Description
Title (untitled) Location Site number Date 07-Jun-17 Version Status (new file) Identifier Client Jobnumber Enumerator OPUS\lnlm00 Description
Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Average delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph PCU PCU perHour s -Min perMin
The junction diagram reflects the last run of Junctions.
2 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Analysis Options Vehicle Calculate Queue Calculate detailed Calculate residual Residual capacity RFC Average Delay Queue threshold length (m) Percentiles queueing delay capacity criteria type Threshold threshold (s) (PCU) 5.75 ü Delay 0.85 36.00 20.00
Demand Set Summary ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D1 2017 Base Flows AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü D2 2017 Base Flows PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü D3 2017 Base + Dev AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü D4 2017 Base + Dev PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü D5 2022 Base Flows AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü D6 2022 Base Flows PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü D7 2022 Base + Dev AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü D8 2022 Base + Dev PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü
Analysis Set Details ID Include in report Network flow scaling factor (%) Network capacity scaling factor (%) A1 ü 100.000 100.000
3 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2017 Base Flows, AM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 0.00 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 900
Arms
Arms Arm Name Description Arm type A Thorncliffe Road East Major B Site Access Minor C Thorncliffe Road West Major
Major Arm Geometry Arm Width of carriageway (m) Has kerbed central reserve Has right turn bay Visibility for right turn (m) Blocks? Blocking queue (PCU) C 6.10 160.0 ü 0.00 Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D.
Minor Arm Geometry Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m) B One lane 2.75 160 160
Slope / Intercept / Capacity
Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts Slope Slope Slope Slope Intercept Junction Stream for for for for (PCU/hr) A-B A-C C-A C-B 1 B-A 598 0.108 0.274 0.173 0.392 1 B-C 707 0.108 0.273 - - 1 C-B 667 0.257 0.257 - - The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments. Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted. Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments.
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D1 2017 Base Flows AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü
4 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 78 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 0 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 46 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 0 78 A 0.00 0.00 1.00 From From B 0 0 0 B 0.33 0.33 0.33 C 46 0 0 C 1.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 59 59 07:45-08:00 B 0 0 C 35 35 A 70 70 08:00-08:15 B 0 0 C 41 41 A 86 86 08:15-08:30 B 0 0 C 51 51 A 86 86 08:30-08:45 B 0 0 C 51 51 A 70 70 08:45-09:00 B 0 0 C 41 41 A 59 59 09:00-09:15 B 0 0 C 35 35
Results
5 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-AB 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-A 42 63 A-B 0 0 A-C 72 107
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 628 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 652 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 35 9 35 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 59 15 59
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 624 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 649 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 41 10 41 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 70 18 70
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 619 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 645 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 51 13 51 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 86 21 86
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 619 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 645 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 51 13 51 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 86 21 86
6 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 624 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 649 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 41 10 41 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 70 18 70
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 628 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 652 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 35 9 35 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 59 15 59
7 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2017 Base Flows, PM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 0.00 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 900
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D2 2017 Base Flows PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 82 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 0 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 76 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 0 82 A 0.00 0.00 1.00 From From B 0 0 0 B 0.33 0.33 0.33 C 76 0 0 C 1.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
8 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 62 62 16:45-17:00 B 0 0 C 57 57 A 74 74 17:00-17:15 B 0 0 C 68 68 A 90 90 17:15-17:30 B 0 0 C 84 84 A 90 90 17:30-17:45 B 0 0 C 84 84 A 74 74 17:45-18:00 B 0 0 C 68 68 A 62 62 18:00-18:15 B 0 0 C 57 57
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-AB 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-A 70 105 A-B 0 0 A-C 75 113
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 625 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 651 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 57 14 57 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 62 15 62
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 621 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 648 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 68 17 68 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 74 18 74
9 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 614 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 643 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 84 21 84 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 90 23 90
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 614 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 643 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 84 21 84 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 90 23 90
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 621 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 648 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 68 17 68 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 74 18 74
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 625 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 651 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 57 14 57 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 62 15 62
10 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2017 Base + Dev, AM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 2.50 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 475 Stream B-AC
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D3 2017 Base + Dev AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 81 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 69 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 66 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 3 78 A 0.00 0.04 0.96 From From B 8 0 61 B 0.12 0.00 0.88 C 46 20 0 C 0.70 0.30 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
11 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 61 61 07:45-08:00 B 52 52 C 50 50 A 73 73 08:00-08:15 B 62 62 C 59 59 A 89 89 08:15-08:30 B 76 76 C 73 73 A 89 89 08:30-08:45 B 76 76 C 73 73 A 73 73 08:45-09:00 B 62 62 C 59 59 A 61 61 09:00-09:15 B 52 52 C 50 50
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.11 6.11 0.1 A 63 95 C-AB 0.04 5.57 0.0 A 20 29 C-A 41 61 A-B 3 4 A-C 72 107
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 52 13 674 0.077 52 0.0 0.1 5.784 A C-AB 16 4 673 0.024 16 0.0 0.0 5.512 A C-A 34 8 34 A-B 2 0.56 2 A-C 59 15 59
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 62 16 670 0.093 62 0.1 0.1 5.918 A C-AB 19 5 674 0.028 19 0.0 0.0 5.532 A C-A 40 10 40 A-B 3 0.67 3 A-C 70 18 70
12 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 76 19 665 0.114 76 0.1 0.1 6.107 A C-AB 24 6 676 0.035 24 0.0 0.0 5.564 A C-A 49 12 49 A-B 3 0.83 3 A-C 86 21 86
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 76 19 665 0.114 76 0.1 0.1 6.107 A C-AB 24 6 676 0.035 24 0.0 0.0 5.569 A C-A 49 12 49 A-B 3 0.83 3 A-C 86 21 86
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 62 16 670 0.093 62 0.1 0.1 5.920 A C-AB 19 5 674 0.028 19 0.0 0.0 5.544 A C-A 40 10 40 A-B 3 0.67 3 A-C 70 18 70
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 52 13 674 0.077 52 0.1 0.1 5.790 A C-AB 16 4 673 0.024 16 0.0 0.0 5.516 A C-A 34 8 34 A-B 2 0.56 2 A-C 59 15 59
13 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2017 Base + Dev, PM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 2.21 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 448 Stream C-AB
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D4 2017 Base + Dev PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 90 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 35 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 132 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 8 82 A 0.00 0.09 0.91 From From B 4 0 31 B 0.11 0.00 0.89 C 76 56 0 C 0.58 0.42 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
14 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 68 68 16:45-17:00 B 26 26 C 99 99 A 81 81 17:00-17:15 B 31 31 C 119 119 A 99 99 17:15-17:30 B 39 39 C 145 145 A 99 99 17:30-17:45 B 39 39 C 145 145 A 81 81 17:45-18:00 B 31 31 C 119 119 A 68 68 18:00-18:15 B 26 26 C 99 99
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.06 5.79 0.1 A 32 48 C-AB 0.10 5.85 0.1 A 57 86 C-A 64 96 A-B 7 11 A-C 75 113
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 26 7 670 0.039 26 0.0 0.0 5.586 A C-AB 46 11 686 0.067 46 0.0 0.1 5.680 A C-A 53 13 53 A-B 6 2 6 A-C 62 15 62
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 31 8 666 0.047 31 0.0 0.0 5.671 A C-AB 56 14 690 0.081 56 0.1 0.1 5.744 A C-A 63 16 63 A-B 7 2 7 A-C 74 18 74
15 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 39 10 660 0.058 38 0.0 0.1 5.790 A C-AB 70 18 695 0.101 70 0.1 0.1 5.839 A C-A 75 19 75 A-B 9 2 9 A-C 90 23 90
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 39 10 660 0.058 39 0.1 0.1 5.790 A C-AB 70 18 695 0.101 70 0.1 0.1 5.848 A C-A 75 19 75 A-B 9 2 9 A-C 90 23 90
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 31 8 666 0.047 32 0.1 0.0 5.672 A C-AB 56 14 690 0.081 56 0.1 0.1 5.764 A C-A 63 16 63 A-B 7 2 7 A-C 74 18 74
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 26 7 670 0.039 26 0.0 0.0 5.589 A C-AB 46 12 686 0.067 46 0.1 0.1 5.695 A C-A 53 13 53 A-B 6 2 6 A-C 62 15 62
16 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base Flows, AM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 0.00 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 900
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D5 2022 Base Flows AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 82 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 0 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 48 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 0 82 A 0.00 0.00 1.00 From From B 0 0 0 B 0.33 0.33 0.33 C 48 0 0 C 1.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
17 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 62 62 07:45-08:00 B 0 0 C 36 36 A 74 74 08:00-08:15 B 0 0 C 43 43 A 90 90 08:15-08:30 B 0 0 C 53 53 A 90 90 08:30-08:45 B 0 0 C 53 53 A 74 74 08:45-09:00 B 0 0 C 43 43 A 62 62 09:00-09:15 B 0 0 C 36 36
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-AB 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-A 44 66 A-B 0 0 A-C 75 113
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 627 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 651 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 36 9 36 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 62 15 62
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 623 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 648 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 43 11 43 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 74 18 74
18 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 618 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 643 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 53 13 53 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 90 23 90
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 618 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 643 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 53 13 53 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 90 23 90
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 623 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 648 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 43 11 43 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 74 18 74
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 627 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 651 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 36 9 36 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 62 15 62
19 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base Flows, PM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 0.00 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 900
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D6 2022 Base Flows PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 86 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 0 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 80 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 0 86 A 0.00 0.00 1.00 From From B 0 0 0 B 0.33 0.33 0.33 C 80 0 0 C 1.00 0.00 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
20 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 65 65 16:45-17:00 B 0 0 C 60 60 A 77 77 17:00-17:15 B 0 0 C 72 72 A 95 95 17:15-17:30 B 0 0 C 88 88 A 95 95 17:30-17:45 B 0 0 C 88 88 A 77 77 17:45-18:00 B 0 0 C 72 72 A 65 65 18:00-18:15 B 0 0 C 60 60
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-AB 0.00 0.00 0.0 A 0 0 C-A 73 110 A-B 0 0 A-C 79 118
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 624 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 650 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 60 15 60 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 65 16 65
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 619 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 647 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 72 18 72 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 77 19 77
21 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 613 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 642 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 88 22 88 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 95 24 95
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 613 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 642 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 88 22 88 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 95 24 95
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 619 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 647 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 72 18 72 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 77 19 77
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 0 0 624 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-AB 0 0 650 0.000 0 0.0 0.0 0.000 A C-A 60 15 60 A-B 0 0 0 A-C 65 16 65
22 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base + Dev, AM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 2.44 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 468 Stream B-AC
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D7 2022 Base + Dev AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 85 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 69 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 68 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 3 82 A 0.00 0.04 0.96 From From B 8 0 61 B 0.12 0.00 0.88 C 48 20 0 C 0.71 0.29 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
23 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 64 64 07:45-08:00 B 52 52 C 51 51 A 76 76 08:00-08:15 B 62 62 C 61 61 A 94 94 08:15-08:30 B 76 76 C 75 75 A 94 94 08:30-08:45 B 76 76 C 75 75 A 76 76 08:45-09:00 B 62 62 C 61 61 A 64 64 09:00-09:15 B 52 52 C 51 51
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.11 6.12 0.1 A 63 95 C-AB 0.04 5.57 0.0 A 20 30 C-A 43 64 A-B 3 4 A-C 75 113
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 52 13 673 0.077 52 0.0 0.1 5.792 A C-AB 16 4 673 0.024 16 0.0 0.0 5.512 A C-A 35 9 35 A-B 2 0.56 2 A-C 62 15 62
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 62 16 669 0.093 62 0.1 0.1 5.928 A C-AB 19 5 675 0.028 19 0.0 0.0 5.532 A C-A 42 10 42 A-B 3 0.67 3 A-C 74 18 74
24 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 76 19 664 0.114 76 0.1 0.1 6.120 A C-AB 24 6 677 0.035 24 0.0 0.0 5.564 A C-A 51 13 51 A-B 3 0.83 3 A-C 90 23 90
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 76 19 664 0.114 76 0.1 0.1 6.120 A C-AB 24 6 677 0.035 24 0.0 0.0 5.571 A C-A 51 13 51 A-B 3 0.83 3 A-C 90 23 90
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 62 16 669 0.093 62 0.1 0.1 5.932 A C-AB 19 5 675 0.028 19 0.0 0.0 5.542 A C-A 42 10 42 A-B 3 0.67 3 A-C 74 18 74
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 52 13 673 0.077 52 0.1 0.1 5.798 A C-AB 16 4 673 0.024 16 0.0 0.0 5.517 A C-A 35 9 35 A-B 2 0.56 2 A-C 62 15 62
25 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base + Dev, PM
Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 2.15 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Network residual capacity (%) First arm reaching threshold Left Normal/unknown 438 Stream C-AB
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) Run automatically D8 2022 Base + Dev PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 ü
Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) ü ü HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ONE HOUR ü 94 100.000 B ONE HOUR ü 35 100.000 C ONE HOUR ü 136 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) Proportions To To A B C A B C A 0 8 86 A 0.00 0.09 0.91 From From B 4 0 31 B 0.11 0.00 0.89 C 80 56 0 C 0.59 0.41 0.00
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages Average PCU Per Veh To To A B C A B C A 0 0 10 A 1.000 1.000 1.100 From From B 0 0 0 B 1.000 1.000 1.000 C 14 0 0 C 1.140 1.000 1.000
26 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 71 71 16:45-17:00 B 26 26 C 102 102 A 85 85 17:00-17:15 B 31 31 C 122 122 A 103 103 17:15-17:30 B 39 39 C 150 150 A 103 103 17:30-17:45 B 39 39 C 150 150 A 85 85 17:45-18:00 B 31 31 C 122 122 A 71 71 18:00-18:15 B 26 26 C 102 102
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Average Demand Total Junction Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) B-AC 0.06 5.80 0.1 A 32 48 C-AB 0.10 5.84 0.1 A 58 87 C-A 67 101 A-B 7 11 A-C 79 118
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 26 7 669 0.039 26 0.0 0.0 5.594 A C-AB 46 12 687 0.067 46 0.0 0.1 5.674 A C-A 56 14 56 A-B 6 2 6 A-C 65 16 65
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 31 8 665 0.047 31 0.0 0.0 5.681 A C-AB 56 14 691 0.081 56 0.1 0.1 5.738 A C-A 66 17 66 A-B 7 2 7 A-C 77 19 77
27 Generated on 08-Jun-17 08:10:32 using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 39 10 659 0.058 38 0.0 0.1 5.803 A C-AB 71 18 697 0.101 71 0.1 0.1 5.831 A C-A 79 20 79 A-B 9 2 9 A-C 95 24 95
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 39 10 659 0.058 39 0.1 0.1 5.803 A C-AB 71 18 697 0.101 71 0.1 0.1 5.843 A C-A 79 20 79 A-B 9 2 9 A-C 95 24 95
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 31 8 665 0.047 32 0.1 0.0 5.682 A C-AB 56 14 691 0.081 56 0.1 0.1 5.756 A C-A 66 17 66 A-B 7 2 7 A-C 77 19 77
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Junction Capacity Throughput Start queue End queue Stream RFC Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) Arrivals (PCU) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU) (PCU) B-AC 26 7 669 0.039 26 0.0 0.0 5.597 A C-AB 46 12 687 0.067 46 0.1 0.1 5.688 A C-A 56 14 56 A-B 6 2 6 A-C 65 16 65
28 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Junctions 9 PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module Version: 9.0.1.4646 [] © Copyright TRL Limited, 2017 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: Tel: +44 (0)1344 770758 email: [email protected] Web: http://www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution
Filename: Thorncliffe - A53 Jcn.j9 Path: C:\Users\lnlm00\Documents\Chesterfield Rd, Higham\Chesterfield Rd Site Access_Junctions 9 Report Report generation date: 19/10/2017 11:52:10 AM
»2017 Base, AM »2017 Base, PM »2022 Base, AM »2022 Base, PM »2022 Base + Dev, AM »2022 Base + Dev, PM
Summary of junction performance
AM PM Queue (PCU) Delay (s) RFC LOS Queue (PCU) Delay (s) RFC LOS 2017 Base
Stream B-AC 0.2 7.52 0.14 A 0.2 7.36 0.15 A Stream C-AB 0.2 5.64 0.10 A 0.4 5.89 0.18 A 2022 Base
Stream B-AC 0.2 7.70 0.15 A 0.2 7.57 0.16 A Stream C-AB 0.2 5.64 0.11 A 0.4 5.92 0.19 A 2022 Base + Dev
Stream B-AC 0.4 8.84 0.27 A 0.3 8.19 0.22 A Stream C-AB 0.3 5.89 0.16 A 0.7 7.17 0.33 A
There are warnings associated with one or more model runs - see the 'Data Errors and Warnings' tables for each Analysis or Demand Set.
Values shown are the highest values encountered over all time segments. Delay is the maximum value of average delay per arriving vehicle.
File summary
File Description
Title (untitled) Location Site number Date 19/10/2017 Version Status (new file) Identifier Client Jobnumber Enumerator \lnlm00 Description
1 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Average delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph PCU PCU perHour s -Min perMin
The junction diagram reflects the last run of Junctions.
Analysis Options Calculate Queue Percentiles Calculate residual capacity RFC Threshold Average Delay threshold (s) Queue threshold (PCU) ü 0.85 36.00 20.00
Demand Set Summary ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 2017 Base AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 D2 2017 Base PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 D3 2022 Base AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 D4 2022 Base PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15 D5 2022 Base + Dev AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 D6 2022 Base + Dev PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15
Analysis Set Details ID Network flow scaling factor (%) A1 100.000
2 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
3 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2017 Base, AM
Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Queue percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high.
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 1.49 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Arms
Arms Arm Name Description Arm type A untitled Major B untitled Minor C untitled Major
Major Arm Geometry Arm Width of carriageway (m) Has kerbed central reserve Has right turn bay Visibility for right turn (m) Blocks? Blocking queue (PCU) C 6.50 70.0 ü 0.00 Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D.
Minor Arm Geometry Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m) B One lane 3.00 30 70
Slope / Intercept / Capacity
Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts Slope Slope Slope Slope Intercept Junction Stream for for for for (PCU/hr) A-B A-C C-A C-B 1 B-A 522 0.093 0.235 0.148 0.336 1 B-C 668 0.100 0.253 - - 1 C-B 615 0.233 0.233 - - The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments. Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted. Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments.
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 2017 Base AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15
4 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ü 237 100.000 B ü 77 100.000 C ü 328 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A B C A 0 2 235 From B 3 0 74 C 285 43 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A B C A 0 0 7 From B 0 0 6 C 18 0 0
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 178 178 07:45-08:00 B 58 58 C 247 247 A 213 213 08:00-08:15 B 69 69 C 295 295 A 261 261 08:15-08:30 B 85 85 C 361 361 A 261 261 08:30-08:45 B 85 85 C 361 361 A 213 213 08:45-09:00 B 69 69 C 295 295 A 178 178 09:00-09:15 B 58 58 C 247 247
5 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Max 95th Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) percentile Queue Max LOS (PCU) B-AC 0.14 7.52 0.2 0.5 A C-AB 0.10 5.64 0.2 1.2 A C-A A-B A-C
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 58 613 0.095 58 0.1 6.847 A C-AB 46 719 0.064 46 0.1 5.599 A C-A 201 201 A-B 2 2 A-C 177 177
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 69 604 0.115 69 0.1 7.113 A C-AB 59 741 0.080 59 0.1 5.558 A C-A 236 236 A-B 2 2 A-C 211 211
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 85 590 0.144 85 0.2 7.516 A C-AB 80 771 0.104 80 0.2 5.533 A C-A 281 281 A-B 2 2 A-C 259 259
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 85 590 0.144 85 0.2 7.519 A C-AB 80 771 0.104 80 0.2 5.561 A C-A 281 281 A-B 2 2 A-C 259 259
6 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 69 604 0.115 69 0.1 7.120 A C-AB 59 741 0.080 60 0.2 5.623 A C-A 235 235 A-B 2 2 A-C 211 211
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 58 613 0.095 58 0.1 6.857 A C-AB 46 719 0.064 46 0.1 5.639 A C-A 201 201 A-B 2 2 A-C 177 177
Queue Variation Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 N/A N/A C-AB 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 N/A N/A
08:00 - 08:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 N/A N/A C-AB 0.15 0.03 0.28 0.51 0.72 N/A N/A
08:15 - 08:30 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.18 0.03 0.27 0.49 0.52 N/A N/A C-AB 0.21 0.03 0.29 0.52 1.17 N/A N/A
08:30 - 08:45 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.18 0.03 0.27 0.48 0.50 N/A N/A C-AB 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 N/A N/A
08:45 - 09:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 N/A N/A C-AB 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 N/A N/A
09:00 - 09:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 N/A N/A C-AB 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A
7 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2017 Base, PM
Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Queue percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high.
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 1.68 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D2 2017 Base PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ü 318 100.000 B ü 79 100.000 C ü 351 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A B C A 0 4 314 From B 1 0 78 C 278 73 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A B C A 0 0 3 From B 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
8 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 239 239 16:45-17:00 B 59 59 C 264 264 A 286 286 17:00-17:15 B 71 71 C 316 316 A 350 350 17:15-17:30 B 87 87 C 386 386 A 350 350 17:30-17:45 B 87 87 C 386 386 A 286 286 17:45-18:00 B 71 71 C 316 316 A 239 239 18:00-18:15 B 59 59 C 264 264
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Max 95th Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) percentile Queue Max LOS (PCU) B-AC 0.15 7.36 0.2 0.5 A C-AB 0.18 5.89 0.4 1.2 A C-A A-B A-C
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 59 604 0.098 59 0.1 6.592 A C-AB 78 703 0.111 78 0.2 5.748 A C-A 186 186 A-B 3 3 A-C 236 236
9 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 71 592 0.120 71 0.1 6.901 A C-AB 101 722 0.139 100 0.2 5.797 A C-A 215 215 A-B 4 4 A-C 282 282
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 87 576 0.151 87 0.2 7.360 A C-AB 136 749 0.182 136 0.3 5.881 A C-A 250 250 A-B 4 4 A-C 346 346
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 87 576 0.151 87 0.2 7.363 A C-AB 137 749 0.182 137 0.4 5.889 A C-A 250 250 A-B 4 4 A-C 346 346
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 71 592 0.120 71 0.1 6.908 A C-AB 101 722 0.140 101 0.2 5.809 A C-A 215 215 A-B 4 4 A-C 282 282
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 59 604 0.098 60 0.1 6.609 A C-AB 79 703 0.112 79 0.2 5.770 A C-A 186 186 A-B 3 3 A-C 236 236
Queue Variation Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 N/A N/A C-AB 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 N/A N/A
17:00 - 17:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 N/A N/A C-AB 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 N/A N/A
10 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.18 0.03 0.26 0.46 0.49 N/A N/A C-AB 0.35 0.03 0.26 0.47 0.50 N/A N/A
17:30 - 17:45 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.18 0.03 0.25 0.45 0.48 N/A N/A C-AB 0.35 0.03 0.30 0.92 1.21 N/A N/A
17:45 - 18:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 N/A N/A C-AB 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 N/A N/A
18:00 - 18:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 N/A N/A C-AB 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 N/A N/A
11 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base, AM
Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Queue percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high.
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 1.54 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D3 2022 Base AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ü 249 100.000 B ü 82 100.000 C ü 343 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A B C A 0 3 246 From B 4 0 78 C 298 45 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A B C A 0 0 7 From B 0 0 6 C 18 0 0
12 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 187 187 07:45-08:00 B 62 62 C 258 258 A 224 224 08:00-08:15 B 74 74 C 308 308 A 274 274 08:15-08:30 B 90 90 C 378 378 A 274 274 08:30-08:45 B 90 90 C 378 378 A 224 224 08:45-09:00 B 74 74 C 308 308 A 187 187 09:00-09:15 B 62 62 C 258 258
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Max 95th Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) percentile Queue Max LOS (PCU) B-AC 0.15 7.70 0.2 0.5 A C-AB 0.11 5.64 0.2 1.2 A C-A A-B A-C
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 62 608 0.102 61 0.1 6.945 A C-AB 49 724 0.068 49 0.1 5.593 A C-A 209 209 A-B 2 2 A-C 185 185
13 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 74 598 0.123 74 0.1 7.245 A C-AB 63 747 0.085 63 0.2 5.554 A C-A 245 245 A-B 3 3 A-C 221 221
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 90 584 0.155 90 0.2 7.692 A C-AB 86 779 0.110 86 0.2 5.533 A C-A 292 292 A-B 3 3 A-C 271 271
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 90 584 0.155 90 0.2 7.696 A C-AB 86 779 0.111 86 0.2 5.565 A C-A 292 292 A-B 3 3 A-C 271 271
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 74 598 0.123 74 0.1 7.255 A C-AB 63 747 0.085 64 0.2 5.621 A C-A 245 245 A-B 3 3 A-C 221 221
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 62 608 0.102 62 0.1 6.959 A C-AB 49 724 0.068 49 0.1 5.635 A C-A 209 209 A-B 2 2 A-C 185 185
Queue Variation Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A C-AB 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A
08:00 - 08:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 N/A N/A C-AB 0.16 0.03 0.26 0.48 0.50 N/A N/A
14 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:15 - 08:30 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.19 0.03 0.27 0.49 0.51 N/A N/A C-AB 0.23 0.03 0.29 0.52 1.20 N/A N/A
08:30 - 08:45 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.19 0.03 0.27 0.48 0.51 N/A N/A C-AB 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 N/A N/A
08:45 - 09:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 N/A N/A C-AB 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 N/A N/A
09:00 - 09:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A C-AB 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A
15 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base, PM
Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Queue percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high.
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 1.74 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D4 2022 Base PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ü 332 100.000 B ü 84 100.000 C ü 366 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A B C A 0 5 327 From B 2 0 82 C 290 76 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A B C A 0 0 3 From B 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
16 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 250 250 16:45-17:00 B 63 63 C 276 276 A 298 298 17:00-17:15 B 76 76 C 329 329 A 366 366 17:15-17:30 B 92 92 C 403 403 A 366 366 17:30-17:45 B 92 92 C 403 403 A 298 298 17:45-18:00 B 76 76 C 329 329 A 250 250 18:00-18:15 B 63 63 C 276 276
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Max 95th Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) percentile Queue Max LOS (PCU) B-AC 0.16 7.57 0.2 0.5 A C-AB 0.19 5.92 0.4 1.3 A C-A A-B A-C
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 63 599 0.106 63 0.1 6.712 A C-AB 83 707 0.117 82 0.2 5.756 A C-A 193 193 A-B 4 4 A-C 246 246
17 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 76 586 0.129 75 0.1 7.050 A C-AB 107 727 0.147 107 0.3 5.808 A C-A 222 222 A-B 4 4 A-C 294 294
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 92 568 0.163 92 0.2 7.558 A C-AB 146 755 0.193 145 0.4 5.907 A C-A 257 257 A-B 6 6 A-C 360 360
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 92 568 0.163 92 0.2 7.566 A C-AB 146 755 0.193 146 0.4 5.918 A C-A 257 257 A-B 6 6 A-C 360 360
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 76 586 0.129 76 0.1 7.060 A C-AB 107 727 0.147 108 0.3 5.822 A C-A 222 222 A-B 4 4 A-C 294 294
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 63 599 0.106 63 0.1 6.726 A C-AB 83 707 0.117 83 0.2 5.775 A C-A 192 192 A-B 4 4 A-C 246 246
Queue Variation Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A C-AB 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 N/A N/A
17:00 - 17:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 N/A N/A C-AB 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 N/A N/A
18 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.19 0.03 0.26 0.46 0.49 N/A N/A C-AB 0.38 0.03 0.26 0.47 0.50 N/A N/A
17:30 - 17:45 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.19 0.03 0.26 0.47 0.49 N/A N/A C-AB 0.38 0.03 0.33 1.08 1.29 N/A N/A
17:45 - 18:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 N/A N/A C-AB 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 N/A N/A
18:00 - 18:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 N/A N/A C-AB 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 N/A N/A
19 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base + Dev, AM
Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Queue percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high.
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 2.49 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D5 2022 Base + Dev AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ü 249 100.000 B ü 143 100.000 C ü 363 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A B C A 0 3 246 From B 5 0 138 C 298 65 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A B C A 0 0 7 From B 0 0 6 C 18 0 0
20 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 187 187 07:45-08:00 B 108 108 C 273 273 A 224 224 08:00-08:15 B 129 129 C 326 326 A 274 274 08:15-08:30 B 157 157 C 400 400 A 274 274 08:30-08:45 B 157 157 C 400 400 A 224 224 08:45-09:00 B 129 129 C 326 326 A 187 187 09:00-09:15 B 108 108 C 273 273
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Max 95th Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) percentile Queue Max LOS (PCU) B-AC 0.27 8.84 0.4 1.4 A C-AB 0.16 5.89 0.3 0.7 A C-A A-B A-C
Main Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 108 611 0.176 107 0.2 7.528 A C-AB 71 724 0.098 70 0.2 5.778 A C-A 202 202 A-B 2 2 A-C 185 185
21 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:00 - 08:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 129 601 0.214 128 0.3 8.036 A C-AB 91 747 0.122 91 0.2 5.793 A C-A 235 235 A-B 3 3 A-C 221 221
08:15 - 08:30 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 157 588 0.268 157 0.4 8.825 A C-AB 124 779 0.159 124 0.3 5.854 A C-A 276 276 A-B 3 3 A-C 271 271
08:30 - 08:45 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 157 588 0.268 157 0.4 8.841 A C-AB 124 779 0.160 124 0.3 5.891 A C-A 275 275 A-B 3 3 A-C 271 271
08:45 - 09:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 129 601 0.214 129 0.3 8.058 A C-AB 92 747 0.123 92 0.2 5.867 A C-A 235 235 A-B 3 3 A-C 221 221
09:00 - 09:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 108 611 0.176 108 0.2 7.562 A C-AB 71 724 0.098 71 0.2 5.825 A C-A 202 202 A-B 2 2 A-C 185 185
Queue Variation Results for each time segment
07:45 - 08:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 N/A N/A C-AB 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 N/A N/A
08:00 - 08:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 N/A N/A C-AB 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 N/A N/A
22 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
08:15 - 08:30 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.38 0.03 0.27 0.49 0.51 N/A N/A C-AB 0.33 0.03 0.28 0.51 0.67 N/A N/A
08:30 - 08:45 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.38 0.03 0.33 1.30 1.43 N/A N/A C-AB 0.33 0.03 0.28 0.50 0.53 N/A N/A
08:45 - 09:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 N/A N/A C-AB 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 N/A N/A
09:00 - 09:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 N/A N/A C-AB 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 N/A N/A
23 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
2022 Base + Dev, PM
Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description Warning Queue variations Analysis Options Queue percentiles may be unreliable if the mean queue in any time segment is very low or very high.
Junction Network
Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 2.82 A
Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown
Traffic Demand
Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D6 2022 Base + Dev PM ONE HOUR 16:45 18:15 15
Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00
Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A ü 333 100.000 B ü 115 100.000 C ü 421 100.000
Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A B C A 0 6 327 From B 3 0 112 C 290 131 0
Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A B C A 0 0 3 From B 0 0 0 C 0 0 0
24 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
Detailed Demand Data
Demand for each time segment Time Segment Arm Demand (PCU/hr) Demand in PCU (PCU/hr) A 251 251 16:45-17:00 B 87 87 C 317 317 A 299 299 17:00-17:15 B 103 103 C 378 378 A 367 367 17:15-17:30 B 127 127 C 464 464 A 367 367 17:30-17:45 B 127 127 C 464 464 A 299 299 17:45-18:00 B 103 103 C 378 378 A 251 251 18:00-18:15 B 87 87 C 317 317
Results
Results Summary for whole modelled period Max 95th Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) percentile Queue Max LOS (PCU) B-AC 0.22 8.19 0.3 1.3 A C-AB 0.33 7.17 0.7 3.0 A C-A A-B A-C
Main Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 87 597 0.145 86 0.2 7.033 A C-AB 143 707 0.202 141 0.3 6.358 A C-A 174 174 A-B 5 5 A-C 246 246
25 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:00 - 17:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 103 584 0.177 103 0.2 7.486 A C-AB 184 727 0.253 184 0.5 6.636 A C-A 194 194 A-B 5 5 A-C 294 294
17:15 - 17:30 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 127 566 0.224 126 0.3 8.184 A C-AB 251 755 0.332 250 0.7 7.141 A C-A 213 213 A-B 7 7 A-C 360 360
17:30 - 17:45 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 127 566 0.224 127 0.3 8.194 A C-AB 251 755 0.333 251 0.7 7.169 A C-A 212 212 A-B 7 7 A-C 360 360
17:45 - 18:00 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 103 584 0.177 104 0.2 7.500 A C-AB 185 727 0.254 186 0.5 6.672 A C-A 194 194 A-B 5 5 A-C 294 294
18:00 - 18:15 Total Demand Capacity Throughput Stream RFC End queue (PCU) Delay (s) LOS (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) (PCU/hr) B-AC 87 597 0.145 87 0.2 7.058 A C-AB 143 707 0.203 144 0.4 6.403 A C-A 174 174 A-B 5 5 A-C 246 246
Queue Variation Results for each time segment
16:45 - 17:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 N/A N/A C-AB 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 N/A N/A
17:00 - 17:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 N/A N/A C-AB 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 N/A N/A
26 Generated on 19/10/2017 11:52:55 AM using Junctions 9 (9.0.1.4646)
17:15 - 17:30 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.28 0.03 0.26 0.46 0.49 N/A N/A C-AB 0.73 0.03 0.26 0.73 0.73 N/A N/A
17:30 - 17:45 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.29 0.03 0.31 1.02 1.32 N/A N/A C-AB 0.73 0.04 0.36 1.73 2.97 N/A N/A
17:45 - 18:00 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 N/A N/A C-AB 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.49 N/A N/A
18:00 - 18:15 Mean Q05 Q50 Q90 Q95 Percentile Marker Probability of reaching or Probability of exactly Stream (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) message message exceeding marker reaching marker B-AC 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 N/A N/A C-AB 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 N/A N/A
27 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Appendix C - Accident Data
A3244 June 2017 Page | 53 Colour-coding by SEVERITY Selected Range of Accidents between dates 01/01/2011 and 31/12/2015 Total Accidents (1) Selected using Manual Selection (( Fatal (0) (( Serious (0) (( Slight (1) Other (0)
((
(C) Crown Copyright and database rights 2015. You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute or sell 1 : 4570 any of this data to third parties in any form. Staffordshire County Council 20/04/2017 Licence No. 100019422 Thorncliffe Road Map FULL LISTING Run on: 20/ 04/2017
AccsMap - Accident Analysis System
Accidents between dates 01/01/2011 and 31/12/2015 (60) months Selection: Notes: Selected using Manual Selection
Acc. Ref. No: 14003444 Road: C 16 Grid Reference: 400134 357329 District Council: Staffordshire Moorland Time: 2235 Friday 27-June-2014 Lighting: Darkness: no street lighting Weather: Fine without high winds Speed limit: 60 Severity: SLIGHT Road surface Dry Location: THORNCLIFFE RD LEEK APPROX 22MTS NE J/W STILE HOUSE LN
The accident occured on the C16, a single carriageway .
Special conditions and hazards: None Vehicle 1 Car, travelling from NE to SW was going ahead other on the main carriageway. The vehicle was not at, or within 20M of a junction and skidded and overturned. The male driver aged 17 lived in ST13. Casualty 1 (Vehicle 1) A male vehicle or pillion passenger aged 18 suffered a slight injury. Casualty 2 (Vehicle 1) A male vehicle or pillion passenger aged 18 suffered a slight injury. Casualty 3 (Vehicle 1) A male vehicle or pillion passenger aged 18 suffered a slight injury. Casualty 4 (Vehicle 1) A male driver aged 17 suffered a slight injury. Contributory Factors Vehicle 1 Inexperienced or learner driver/rider Vehicle 1 Loss of control
Registered to: Staffordshire County Council 1 Transport Assessment Land at Thorncliffe Road, Leek, Staffordshire
Appendix D - Proposed Access & Visibility Splays
A3244 June 2017 Page | 54