Halcrow Group Limited Stoke on Trent City Council Staffordshire County

Halcrow Group Limited

North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Study Final Report May 2005

Stoke on Trent City Council Staffordshire County Council Advantage West Midlands Highways Agency

Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House 44 Brook Green London W6 7BY Tel +44 (0)20 7602 7282 Fax +44 (0)20 7603 0095 www.halcrow.com

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of their client, Stoke on Trent City Council Staffordshire County Council Advantage West Midlands Highways Agency, for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

Halcrow Group Limited North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Study Final Report May 2005

Stoke on Trent City Council Staffordshire County Council Advantage West Midlands Highways Agency

Halcrow Group Limited Vineyard House 44 Brook Green London W6 7BY Tel +44 (0)20 7602 7282 Fax +44 (0)20 7603 0095 www.halcrow.com

Stoke on Trent City Council Staffordshire County Council Advantage West Midlands Highways Agency

North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Study Final Report

Contents Amendment Record This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Revision Description Date Signed

1 0 Draft Report for consideration at 07-02-05 DRT Steering Group Meeting on 10 Feb 2005 Chapters 2 to 14, 16 to 20 No Figures included 2 0 Complete Draft Final Report for 22-02-05 DRT consideration at Steering Group Meeting on 14 March 2005 2 1 Final Report incorporating 11-04-05 DRT/SH Steering Group Comments

2 2 Final Report including phasing 14-04-05 DRT/SH and Supporting Analysis

2 3 Final Report addressing SoTCC 09-05-05 SH 28th April comments

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Aims and Requirements of the Study 1 1.3 Acknowledgements 2

2 THE STUDY AREA 3 2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 The Historical Background 3 2.3 The Transport Network – An Overview 4 2.4 The Highway Network 5 2.5 The Bus Network 7 2.6 The Rail Network 9 2.7 Cycling and Walking 11 2.8 Water Based 12 2.9 Transport Policy Context 12

3 THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 15 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 Central Government Objectives 15 3.3 Local and Regional Objectives 17 3.4 The Transport Related Local and Regional Objectives 17 3.5 Other Regional and Local Objectives 19

4 APPROACH TO APPRAISAL 23 4.1 Introduction 23 4.2 Central Government Objectives Based Assessment 24

4.3 Local Authority Objectives Based Assessment 24 4.4 Appraising the Impact on Problems 32 4.5 Supporting Analysis - Distribution and Equity 32 4.6 Supporting Analysis - Affordability and Financial Sustainability 35 4.7 Supporting Analysis - Practicality and Public Acceptability 35

5 BASE YEAR 2002 CONDITIONS 37 5.1 Introduction 37 5.2 Populations, Households and Employed Residents 37 5.3 Employment Opportunities 40 5.4 Mode of Travel to Work 40 5.5 Travel Demand and Travel Movement Patterns 41 5.6 Travel Characteristics 44

6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGIME 47 6.1 Introduction 47 6.2 Internationally Designated Environmental Assets 47 6.3 Nationally Designated Environmental Assets 47 6.4 Regionally Designated Environmental Sites 48 6.5 Locally Designated Environmental Sites 49 6.6 The Water Regime 50 6.7 Sensitive Land Uses 51 6.8 Local Air Quality Management Areas 51

7 PROBLEMS AND ISSUES, 2002 BASE YEAR 53 7.1 Introduction 53 7.2 Efficiency Conditions 54 7.3 Safety Conditions 59 7.4 Environmental Issues 66

7.5 Accessibility Issues 71 7.6 The Perceptions of Stakeholders 83 7.7 Summary of 2002 Base Year Problems and Issues 87 7.8 Overall Conclusions 88

8 THE 2021 REFERENCE CASE SITUATION 91 8.1 Introduction 91 8.2 Future Populations, Households and Employed Residents 91 8.3 Future Year Travel Demand and Travel Movement Patterns 93 8.4 The 2021 “Reference Case” Transport Network 96 8.5 Travel Conditions in the 2021 Reference Case Situation 98

9 2021 REFERENCE CASE PROBLEMS & ISSUES 103 9.1 Introduction 103 9.2 Efficiency Issues 103 9.3 Safety Issues 105 9.4 Environmental Issues 106 9.5 Accessibility Issues 110 9.6 Summary of 2021 Reference Case Problems and Issues 114 9.7 Conclusions 115

10 WHAT MIGHT THE SOLUTIONS BE ? 119 10.1 Introduction 119 10.2 Improve Public Transport Services and Infrastructure 119 10.3 Encouragement of Walking and Cycling 120 10.4 Encourage Less Car Use 120 10.5 Increase Highway Capacity 120 10.6 Increase the Cost of Car Use 120 10.7 The Way Forward 121

11 THE ROLE OF URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT 123 11.1 Introduction 123 11.2 The Issues 123 11.3 Urban Public Transport - Patronage and Funding 127 11.4 Willingness to Use Urban Public Transport 129 11.5 Urban Public Transport Service Improvements 130 11.6 Initial Conclusions Regarding Service Level Improvements to Urban Public Transport 135 11.7 Giving Public Transport Priority Over Other Vehicles 137

12 RESOLVING THE RURAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROBLEM 145 12.1 Introduction 145 12.2 The Case for Demand Responsive Transport 146 12.3 Market Town Bus Services 148

13 THE CASE FOR PARK AND RIDE 149 13.1 Introduction 149 13.2 The Location of Park and Ride Sites 149 13.3 Potential Performance of the Short Listed Park and Ride Options 155

14 WINNING OVER HEARTS AND MINDS 159 14.1 Winning Hearts and Minds 159 14.2 Development of a Walking Plan 160 14.3 Development of a Cycling Plan 162 14.4 School Travel Plans 163 14.5 Workplace Travel Plans 164 14.6 Teleconferencing 165 14.7 Home or Internet Shopping 166 14.8 Personal Journey Planning 166

14.9 Conclusions 167

15 THE CASE FOR INCREASED HIGHWAY CAPACITY173 15.1 Introduction 173 15.2 The Proposals Considered 174 15.3 Localised Improvements - Possible Schemes 174 15.4 Localised Improvements – The Benefits and Impacts 177 15.5 Major Highway Improvements 178 15.6 Major Highway Schemes – The Benefits and Impacts 182 15.7 Overall Conclusions 184

16 INCREASING THE COSTS OF CAR TRAVEL 189 16.1 Introduction 189 16.2 Public On-Street and Off-Street Parking Charges 191 16.3 Private Non-Residential Off-street Parking Charges 193 16.4 Cordon or Area Based Road User Charges 196

17 LAND USE ISSUES 205 17.1 Introduction 205 17.2 The Issues of Peripheral New Development 205 17.3 The Alternative Land Use Scenarios 206 17.4 The Expected Impact of Differing Land Use Distributions 208 17.5 Conclusions 208

18 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREFERRED STRATEGY 213 18.1 Introduction 213

19 THE PREFERRED TRANSPORT STRATEGY 217 19.1 The Strategy in Outline 217 19.2 Public Transport Service and Infrastructure Improvements 219

19.3 The Park and Ride System 224 19.4 The Walking and Cycling Plans 225 19.5 Aggressive Promotion of Measures Aimed at “Winning Hearts and Minds” 227 19.6 Replacement Capacity Based Highway Improvements 228 19.7 Highway Improvements to Reduce Congestion, Improve Road Safety and Environmental Conditions 229 19.8 Parking Controls in Hanley, Newcastle and Stoke Centres 229 19.9 Congestion Charging 230 19.10 Changes in Land Use Policy 230

20 THE STRATEGY’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE 233 20.1 Introduction 233 20.2 Modal Choice 233 20.3 Overall Levels of Car Use with the Preferred Transport Strategy 235 20.4 Travel Conditions with the Preferred Strategy in Place 235 20.5 Efficiency Issues 238 20.6 Safety Issues 240 20.7 Environmental Issues 242 20.8 Accessibility Issues 246 20.9 Land Use Issues 251

21 THE STRATEGY’S COSTS AND BENEFITS 257 21.1 Introduction 257 21.2 The Implementation Costs – An Overview 257 21.3 Costs for Improvements to Public Transport 257 21.4 Costs for Introducing Park and Ride 259 21.5 Costs Associated with “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” 260 21.6 Costs Associated with Implementing Congestion Charging 262 21.7 The Strategy Costs – A Summary 262

21.8 The Economic Case 263 21.9 The Financial Case 265 21.10 Transport Funding Context 266

22 THE STRATEGY APPRAISAL 279 22.1 Introduction 279 22.2 Supporting Analysis – Distribution and Equity 295 22.3 Supporting Analysis - Affordability and Financial Sustainability 297 22.4 Supporting Analysis – Practicality and Public Acceptability 301

23 THE REJECTED STRATEGY VARIANTS 305 23.1 Introduction 305 23.2 The Impact of Removing the Traffic Free Bus Corridors 305 23.3 The Impact of Providing Replacement Capacity for the Northern Traffic Free Bus Corridors 308 23.4 The Impact of Adopting Different Park and Ride Solutions 309 23.5 The Impact of Adding an Eastern Bypass to the Strategy 313

24 PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION 317 24.1 Introduction 317 24.2 The Implementation Plan 317 24.3 Short Term - The First Five Years 318 24.4 Medium Term - The Next Five Years 319 24.5 Long Term - The Last Five Years 319 24.6 The Need for Ownership and Co-ordination 320 24.7 The Next Steps 320

Figures

2.1 The Study Area 2.2 The Road Network 2.3 The Bus Network 2.4 The Rail Network

5.1 Population Density, 2002 Base Year 5.2 Percentage of Population Under 5 Years Old 5.3 Percentage of Population Aged between 5 and 16 Years 5.4 Percentage of Population Aged between 17 and 60 Years 5.5 Percentage of Population Aged over 60 Years 5.6 Car Ownership Levels, 2001 Census 5.7 Resident Employment Quality, 2001 Census 5.8 Unemployment and Long Term Sickness Levels, 2001 Census 5.9 Employment Place Densities, 2002 Base Year 5.10 Percentage of Residents Travelling to W ork by Cycle and Foot, 2001 Census 5.11 Percentage of Residents Travelling to W ork by Car and Bus, 2001 Census 5.12 Percentage of Residents Travelling to W ork by Taxi, 2001 Census 5.13 Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 5.14 Bus Flows (Vehicles), 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 5.15 Bus Passenger Flows, 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour)

6.1 Nationally Designated Environmental Sites 6.2 Regionally Designated Environmental Sites 6.3 The W ater Protection Regime 6.4 Locations Sensitive to Traffic Noise 6.5 Locations Sensitive to Air Quality Issues

Figures (Cont.)

7.1 Link Efficiency Based Problems, 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 7.2 Intersection Efficiency Based Problems, 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 7.3 Bus Utilisation, 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 7.4 Road Safety Problems – All Road Users, 2002 Base Year 7.5 Road Safety Problems – Pedestrians, 2002 Base Year 7.6 Traffic Related Noise Levels, 2002 Base Year

7.7 Local Air Quality Problems – PM 10, 2002 Base Year

7.8 Local Air Quality Problems – NO2, 2002 Base Year 7.9 Location of Schools 7.10 Location of Healthcare Centres and Surgeries 7.11 Location of Hospital Facilities 7.12 Location of Food and Household Goods Retailers 7.13 Non Car Based Accessibility - Absolute Levels, Education and Healthcare, 2002 Evening peak Hour 7.14 Non Car Based Accessibility - Absolute Levels, Hospitals and Retail (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.15 Non Car Based Accessibility - Absolute Levels, Employment and Social (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.16 Non Car Based Accessibility - Problems, Education and Healthcare (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.17 Non Car Based Accessibility - Problems, Hospitals and Retail (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.18 Non Car Based Accessibility - Problems, Employment and Social (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.19 Non Car Based Accessibility – Absolute Levels and Problems, Employer Based Access to the Workforce (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.20 Accessibility Problems to the UK’s Road Based Gateways (2002 Evening Peak Hour)

Figures (Cont.)

7.21 Non Car Based Travel Times to Hanley and Newcastle Centres (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.22 Non Car Based Travel Times to Tunstall and Burslem Town Centres (2002 Evening Peak Hour) 7.23 Non Car Based Travel Times to Stoke and Longton Town Centres (2002 Evening peak Hour) 7.24 Stakeholder Perception of Locations with Public Transport Accessibility Problems 7.25 Stakeholder Perception of Locations with Pedestrian Related Problems 7.26 Stakeholder Perception of Locations with Cyclist Related Problems 7.27 Stakeholder Perception of Locations with Road Based Efficiency Problems 7.28 Stakeholder Perception of Locations with Parking Related Problems

8.1 Population Densities, 2021 Reference Case 8.2 Employment Place Densities, 2021 Reference Case 8.3 Changes in Population and Employment, 2002 Base Year to 2021 Reference Case 8.4 Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 8.5 Changes in Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour)

9.1 Link Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.2 Intersection Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.3 Changes in Link Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour)

Figures (Cont.)

9.4 Changes in Intersection Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 9.5 Road Safety Problems – All Road Users, 2021 Reference Case 9.6 Road Safety Problems - Pedestrians, 2021 Reference Case 9.7 Changes in Road Safety Problems – All Road Users, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year 9.8 Changes in Road Safety Problems - Pedestrians, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year 9.9 Traffic Related Noise Levels, 2021 Reference Case 9.10 Changes in Traffic Related Noise Levels, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year

9.11 Local Air Quality Problems – PM10, 2021 Reference Case

9.12 Changes in Local Air Quality Problems – PM10, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year

9.13 Changes in Local Air Quality Problems – NO2, 2021 Reference Case Compared with 2002 Base Year 9.14 Non Car Based Accessibility – Education, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.15 Non Car Based Accessibility – Healthcare, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.16 Non Car Based Accessibility – Hospitals, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.17 Non Car Based Accessibility – Retail, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.18 Non Car Based Accessibility – Employment, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.19 Non Car Based Accessibility – Social, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.20 Non Car Based Accessibility – W orkforce, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

Figures (Cont.)

9.21 Accessibility Problems to the UK’s Road Based Gateways, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.22 Non Car Based Travel Times to Hanley City Centre, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.23 Non Car Based Travel Times to Newcastle Town Centre, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.24 Non Car Based Travel Times to Tunstall Town Centre, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.25 Non Car Based Travel Times to Burslem Town Centre, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.26 Non Car Based Travel Times to Stoke Town Centre, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 9.27 Non Car Based Travel Times to Longton Town Centre, 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

11.1 The Relationship Between the Rail Corridors and Concentrations of Population, 2021 11.2 The Relationship Between the Rail Corridors and Concentrations of Employment Places, 2021 11.3 The Traffic Free Bus Corridors

13.1 Possible Park and Ride Site Locations 13.2 Park and Ride – Option 1 13.3 Park and Ride – Option 2 13.4 Park and Ride – Option 3

14.1 W alk in Catchments for the Conurbation’s Centres

Figures (Cont.)

14.2 Changes in Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Reference Case with “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” – Low Impact, Compared with 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 14.3 Changes in Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Reference Case with “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” – High Impact, Compared with 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

15.1 Possible Local Highway Schemes 15.2 Possible Major Highway Schemes 15.3 Possible W estern Bypass – Flow Changes Relative to the 2021 Reference Case Situation, (Evening Peak Hour) 15.4 Possible Eastern Inner Relief Road – Flow Changes Relative to the 2021 Reference Case Situation, (Evening Peak Hour) 15.5 Possible Eastern Bypass – Flow Changes Relative to the 2021 Reference Case Situation, (Evening Peak Hour) 15.6 Possible Southern Bypass – Flow Changes Relative to the 2021 Reference Case Situation, (Evening Peak Hour) 15.7 Possible W estern Bypass – Changes in Car Based Accessibility Relative to the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 15.8 Possible Eastern Inner Relief Road – Changes in Car Based Accessibility Relative to the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 15.9 Possible Eastern Bypass – Changes in Car Based Accessibility Relative to the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 15.10 Possible Southern Bypass – Changes in Car Based Accessibility Relative to the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

16.1 An Illustrative Congestion Charging Zone 16.2 Vehicular Traffic Flows, Stand Alone Congestion Charging Scheme 2021, Compared with 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

Figures (Cont.)

16.3 Change in Vehicular Traffic Flows, Stand Alone Congestion Charging Scheme 2021, Compared with 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

19.1 The Preferred Transport Strategy 19.2 The Traffic Free Bus Corridors 19.3 Traffic Free Bus Corridor – College Road – 1 19.4 Traffic Free Bus Corridor – College Road - 2 19.5 Traffic Free Bus Corridor – Hartshill Road – 1 19.6 Traffic Free Bus Corridor – Hartshill Road - 2 19.7 Traffic Free Bus Corridor – Chell Street 19.8 Park and Ride – Short Term 19.9 Park and Ride – Longer Term

20.1 Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.2 Changes in Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 20.3 Changes in Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 20.4 Bus Flows (Vehicles) – 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.5 Bus Flows (Passengers) – 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.6 Changes in Bus Flows (Passengers) – 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case (and the 2002 Base Year) (Evening Peak Hour) 20.7 Link Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.8 Intersection Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.9 Changes in Link Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour)

Figures (Cont.)

20.10 Changes in Link Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 20.11 Changes in Intersection Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 20.12 Changes in Intersection Based Efficiency Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy compared with 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 20.13 Bus Utilisation Levels – 2021 Preferred Strategy and 2002 Base Year (Evening Peak Hour) 20.14 Road Safety Problems – All Road Users, 2021 Preferred Strategy 20.15 Road Safety Problems – Pedestrians, 2021 Preferred Strategy 20.16 Changes in Road Safety Problems – All Road Users, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year 20.17 Changes in Road Safety Problems – Pedestrians, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year 20.18 Traffic Related Noise Levels, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Sensitive Roads) 20.19 Changes in Traffic Related Noise Levels, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year 20.20 Changes in Traffic Related Noise Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case 20.21 Changes in Traffic Related Noise Problems, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2002 Base Year

20.22 Changes in Local Air Quality – PM 10 Levels, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year

20.23 Changes in Local Air Quality Problems – PM10, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case

20.24 Changes in Local Air Quality Problems – PM10, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2002 Base Year

20.25 Changes in Local Air Quality – NO2 Levels, 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year

Figures (Cont.)

20.26 Non Car Based Accessibility – Education, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.27 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – Education, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.28 Non Car Based Accessibility – Healthcare, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.29 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – Healthcare, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.30 Non Car Based Accessibility – Hospitals, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.31 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – Hospitals, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.32 Non Car Based Accessibility – Retail, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.33 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – Retail, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.34 Non Car Based Accessibility – Employment, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.35 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – Employment, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.36 Non Car Based Accessibility – Social, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.37 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – Social, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.38 Non Car Based Accessibility – W orkforce, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.39 Non Car Based Accessibility Problems – W orkforce, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.40 Accessibility Problems to the UK’s Road Based Gateways, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour)

Figures (Cont.)

20.41 Non Car Based Travel Time to Hanley City Centre, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.42 Non Car Based Travel Time to Newcastle Town Centre, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.43 Non Car Based Travel Time to Tunstall Town Centre, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.44 Non Car Based Travel Time to Burslem Town Centre, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.45 Non Car Based Travel Time to Stoke Town Centre, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.46 Non Car Based Travel Time to Longton Town Centre, 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 20.47 Changes in Car Based Accessibility (Evening Peak Hour) 2021 Preferred Strategy Compared with the 2002 Base Year

23.1 The Preferred Strategy – The Park and Ride Issue 23.2 The Preferred Strategy – The Eastern Bypass Options 23.3 The Preferred Strategy, W ith or W ithout the Full Eastern Bypass, Flow Changes Compared with the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 23.4 The Preferred Strategy, W ith or W ithout the South Eastern Bypass, Flow Changes Compared with the 2021 Reference Case (Evening Peak Hour) 23.5 The Preferred Strategy with Full Eastern Bypass – Changes in Car Based Accessibility Relative to the 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour) 23.6 The Preferred Strategy with South Eastern Bypass – Changes in Car Based Accessibility Relative to the 2021 Preferred Strategy (Evening Peak Hour)

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Halcrow was appointed in December 2003 by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire County Council, Advantage W est Midlands and the Highways Agency, to undertake the North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Study (NSITS).

The study has been overseen by a Steering Group made up of representatives from the above bodies, together with representatives from the following organisations and interest groups: • Government Office for the W est Midlands; • Housing Market Renewal Project; • North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone; • North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry; • Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council; • First Group; • Staffordshire University; and • Environmental Organisations.

1.2 Aims and Requirements of the Study

The overall aims of this study, as defined within the Study Brief, were to: ‘undertake a comprehensive overview of transport and travel in North Staffordshire which considers all travel modes, all land use considerations, linkages with other regeneration strategies and which considers short, medium and longer term solutions’.

The study brief went on to state that the outputs from the study were likely to comprise of a range of initiatives including: • capital funded improvements such as new access roads, public transport interchanges, Park and Ride sites, priority measures, cycling and walking facilities and perhaps further additions to the non-commercial bus fleet; • revenue funded initiatives such as new public transport operator and passenger based subsidies and education initiatives; and • a variety of wider policy and partnership initiatives including recommendations

for changes in parking policy and land use allocation, together with the promotion of green travel plans and greater integration, both within the transport sector and at a wider level.

At a more detailed level the study brief required that the study should: • examine transport in North Staffordshire at the sub-regional level and at a more detailed conurbation level; • identify key transport and travel issues, focusing on the underlying drivers wherever possible, and explaining the problems and opportunities; • consider and influence of the impact of any future land use changes, including those arising out of the regeneration programmes; • identify funding constraints and opportunities; • develop and appraise a set of strategy options; • identify the mechanism for implementation; and • produce an integrated transport strategy.

This report sets out our response to that brief through documenting our findings and conclusions in respect of each of the above.

1.3 Acknowledgements

Before proceeding any further however, we would like to acknowledge the help and support that has been provided to us throughout the study by individual members of the Study Steering Group and other officers of the organisations represented thereon, together with a wide range of other individuals and organisations who have given up their time to meet with us, both through specially convened meetings and through attendance at a number of discussion workshops held in the early summer and late autumn of 2004.

2 The Study Area

2.1 Introduction

The Study is divided into three constituent parts, these being the Core Area, the Inner Study Area and the Outer Study Area. All three are identified on Figure 2.1

The Core Area extends from Kidsgrove in the north to Trentham and Blythe Bridge in the south and from the M6 in the W est to W errington in the east and is primarily focused on the North Staffordshire conurbation.

The Inner Study Area then extends slightly beyond the Core Area, so as to incorporate part of Staffordshire Moorlands and Stafford.

Finally, the Outer Study Area extends as far as Crewe and Market Drayton to the west, Biddulph to the north, Leek and Uttoxeter to the east and Stone to the south.

The study concentrates primarily on addressing transport problems within the core Area and, where appropriate, the Inner Study Area. The primary purpose of defining the wider Outer Study Area is to ensure that the needs of those who live in the wider area, and use the facilities of the conurbation, are taken into account

2.2 The Historical Background

Historically, the development of the North Staffordshire conurbation was based on the excellent location of the area at the intersection of key north-south and east-west trading routes. This was built upon with the construction of the Trent and Mersey Canal, followed by the introduction of the railway, which helped to facilitate a massive expansion of heavy and manufacturing industry.

The area benefited from abundant supplies of high quality coal and other minerals such as marl, helping to facilitate this expansion, which occurred during the 18th, 19th and early part of the 20th Century. This focused, in particular, on the production of steel, ceramics, brick making, silk and cotton mills and, more recently, tyre manufacture.

This rapid expansion lead to substantial growth in each of the main settlements in North Staffordshire, although the settlement pattern which has emerged differs significantly across the area, with the six towns of Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley,

Stoke, Fenton, and Longton all expanding in isolation, with a close mix of housing and employment land uses.

This has resulted in a polycentric settlement pattern that has been maintained through to the present day, with the more recent decline in heavy and manufacturing industries perpetuating a dispersed settlement pattern, with the creation of a large number of derelict sites in need of regeneration.

In contrast, Newcastle-under-Lyme, which lies to the west, expanded in a more conventional fashion, with a dominant market town centre, initially, surrounded by a number of dispersed settlements, some of which were located around colliery sites such as Silverdale, Holditch and Parkhouse. Much of the remainder of what is now the urban part of the Borough consists of areas which have seen massive residential expansion in the 20th Century, combined with employment sites containing a mix of B2 and B8 uses located mainly on what are now former colliery sites. This has lead to a much more conventional land use pattern existing today, with the town centre containing a wide range of retail units, surrounded by a ring road, with a radial road network feeding in from the surrounding area.

Historically, the six towns of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle were distinct settlements but, given the aforementioned expansion, combined with the expansion of surrounding settlements such as Kidsgrove, Blythe Bridge and Trentham they have now coalesced to form a substantial conurbation, covering a large part of the northern part of Staffordshire.

2.3 The Transport Network – An Overview

Traditionally, within the Core Area, much of the traditional types of employment described above involved workers who lived within a very short distance of their place of work. This continued until well into the 20th Century and the transport network in the area was tailored towards accommodating these movements.

The area has seen a massive decline in employment in heavy and manufacturing industries, particularly during the last 30-40 years. This employment has been replaced, in part, with alternative employment, primarily in the service and distribution sectors.

This has lead to much greater distances being travelled to and from work, with the transport needs of the area increasing significantly. This, combined with social trends such as increases in car ownership and incomes, has lead to substantial

highway construction and improvement in the area, although the highway network pattern is heavily influenced by that created in Victorian times to serve each of the distinct settlements as they expanded.

The following sections describe the existing transport network and also outline those plans and schemes which are already in the pipeline. For clarity each mode of transport is covered individually.

2.4 The Highway Network

The existing road hierarchy, including the motorway, trunk road, primary and strategic highway network, is shown in Figure 2.2. Longer distance movements are well catered for in the area, with the M6 Motorway and A500 (T) (between M6 Junction 15 and 16) and A50 (T) (between its junction with the A500 (T) and Blythe Bridge) all forming part of the core trunk roads network, providing fast connections to the north, south and east of the study area. To the west, the A500 provides a connection with Crewe and other Cheshire settlements such as Nantwich, Northwich and Chester.

The A50 has recently benefited from substantial improvements to its capacity and, in combination with the A500, it now provides a high speed connection between the M6 and M1 Motorways. This acts as part of an alternative north-south long distance route for road users wishing to avoid both the congested M6 motorway through Birmingham and the new M6 toll road. It additionally acts as an alternative east-west route to the more remote connections through the Peak District.

Longer distance connections to places not served by the national trunk road network are provided by the A53, which runs west-east across the study area, linking it with settlements such as Market Drayton and Leek and the A34, which connects to surrounding settlements such as Stone, Stafford and Congleton.

The national trunk road network (M6, A50 and A500) also cater for significant numbers of short distance journeys made within the study area. This is particularly the case with the A50 and A500; both have a high number of junctions within the urban area, which allow these short distance movements to be made. This leads to significant levels of conflict between short and longer distance movements, and increases the levels of congestion suffered during peak periods.

Significant further improvements to the trunk road network in North Staffordshire are either underway or are planned. These include the A500 Stoke Pathfinder Project improvements, which will provide grade separation at the junctions between the A500 and Stoke Road and City Road, both of which currently suffer from significant levels of congestion. This is scheduled to be completed in 2006.

Additionally, improvements are planned to the A50 / Stanley Matthews W ay junction, which involve the creation of a grade separated junction accommodating all traffic movements (it currently only allows traffic to turn left in or left out). This scheme will also provide on-line improvements between its junction with the A500 and Heron Cross and also improvements to the A50/A500 junction itself. This scheme is currently scheduled for construction after the A500 Pathfinder scheme has been completed.

Additional future planned schemes on the A50 and A500 will be influenced by the recently published Draft Route Management Strategy. This contains a series of Route Outcomes, which will be used to draw up a Route Management Plan. Two of these outcomes potentially have an impact on the routeing of longer distance traffic in the area. The first of these, RO14, states that a strategy should be developed to “enhance the function of A50/A500 (M6 Junction 15 to A50) as the strategic route and enhance the local role of the A500 (A50 to M6 Junction 16)”, which could potentially have significant implications for the routeing of long distance traffic.

Coupled with this is RO15, which states “to promote a strategic approach to a development led programme of improvements for the A500 in the area between the A50 and M6 Junction 16.” This will seek to avoid a piecemeal approach to the consideration of developer contributions to improvements to the A500, allowing them to contribute to a central pot of money to put towards such improvements.

W here the local road network meets the national trunk road network, there are numerous primary routes which provide an important local function, helping to distribute traffic between the national road network and the main centres of Longton, Fenton, Stoke, Hanley, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Burslem, Tunstall and Kidsgrove.

These main primary route connections are as follows: • the A34 linking Newcastle-Under-Lyme to Stafford in the south and Congleton in the north;

• the A50, which links Kidsgrove in the north of the study area with Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley and Fenton, where it joins the A50 (T) trunk road; • the A52 linking the Core Area to Derby, via Ashbourne; • the A53 linking Newcastle-Under-Lyme and Hanley to Market Drayton in the southwest and Leek in the north-east; and • the A527 / A5271, which currently links Tunstall with Newcastle.

Much of this Primary Road network performs a more local function also and is typical of a developed urban area, consisting for the most part of wide single carriageway links. The notable exceptions being parts of the A34, the A53, the A527 Tunstall W estern Bypass and Potteries W ay in Hanley City Centre.

Additionally, there are a number of further routes included in the Strategic Highway Network including: • the A519, which links Newcastle with the M6 at junction 15; • the A527 from Tunstall to Congleton via Biddulph; • the A521, which connects Blythe Bridge with the A50 for both west and eastbound traffic; • the A5005, which links Meir Heath with Longton; • the A5007, which connects the A50(T) at Longton with the City Road roundabout on the A500(T) (this was formerly the A50); • the A5008/A5272. which connects Hanley with W eston Coyney; and • the A5035, which connects the A34 with the A50(T), running via Trentham, Hem Heath, Blurton and Dresden.

2.5 The Bus Network

There is an extensive network of bus services operating in the North Staffordshire conurbation. Figure 2.3 shows those routes on which services operate and includes all services which operate at an hourly frequency or higher in the evening peak hour. The existing service pattern is heavily focused on services which serve the main centres of Hanley and Newcastle, which both benefit from good, high frequency connections to a wide range of destinations.

The range of destinations, which can be accessed by direct bus services from the other main settlements in the conurbation, is more limited. This is caused, in part,

by the limited availability of orbital type services. This problem particularly affects connections between the north and east of the conurbation and those from the far south of the conurbation (e.g. Trentham) to the northern, eastern and western part of the conurbation. Such connections require one, and sometimes two, changes of bus and associated lengthy journey times.

Bus services providing connections to the surrounding rural area are often infrequent, with the levels of provision falling away quickly at the edge of the conurbation. Of those services which provide connections to and from the conurbation, most only serve one of the main centres in the area (e.g. Hanley or Newcastle) meaning that a change of bus is required for many passengers who wish to travel by bus from rural areas into many parts of the conurbation.

The main local operator, First, has recently completed an overhaul of its routes, which is now branded as an ‘Overground’ network. This rationalised the previous network, increasing the focus on services terminating in Hanley. First operates around 85-90 % of services in the area, with a range of other operators running the remaining services, some of which operate with the aid of local authority subsidy.

For those services operating commercially over the core parts of the bus network, improvements have also been provided under the provisions of a Quality Partnership between the City and County Councils and First. As part of this agreement, significant investment has been made by the Councils in the provision of improved route infrastructure such as improved stops, shelters, bus boarders allowing level access to low floor buses and priority measures. In return First have provided low floor accessible vehicles to operate many of the routes covered by the infrastructure improvements.

Both of the local transport authorities provide subsidy for local bus services, allowing services to be provided, which would otherwise not be provided, or would be provided at a lower frequency. W hilst Staffordshire County Council provides a higher per capita subsidy than does Stoke-on-Trent City Council, the Stoke subsidy is boosted by the innovative use of Local Transport Plan capital funding to purchase new buses for use on subsidised services.

These subsidised services predominantly either serve locations which are poorly served during the main period of bus operation (Monday to Saturday daytimes) or provide services outside this period during evenings and Sundays. They are often provided to ensure that a public transport option at least exists for those who have

to rely on it if they do not have a car available for their journey. Many of these services are now run with the aforementioned new buses, which are accessible to those with buggies and the mobility impaired, under a Quality Partnership signed between the City Council and D & G, a local operator.

There are three main bus stations in the conurbation, located at Hanley, Newcastle and Longton. Hanley is the largest of these, accommodating all services which either terminate or pass through the city centre. The station is in a poor state of repair, requiring substantial investment to bring it up to modern standards. It has also been the subject of a number of possible redevelopment plans which have not materialised, and at the time of writing, its long term future is uncertain.

The bus station in Newcastle was recently rebuilt as part of a town centre development and benefits from modern facilities, but significant issues with the capacity available for buses have already emerged. The bus station at Longton benefited from a complete renewal recently and is now referred to as Longton Interchange, and its location close to the town’s railway station allows interchange with rail services.

2.6 The Rail Network

The rail network serving North Staffordshire is shown in Figure 2.4. There are three lines which provide direct connections to the conurbation: • the W est Coast Main Line, which provides high speed connections from London to Manchester and Birmingham to Manchester, serving Stoke Station; • the Stoke to Derby line, which connects Stoke with Derby and other East Midlands destinations; and • the Kidsgrove to Crewe line, which connects Kidsgrove in the north of the conurbation to Crewe, which is located on the London to Liverpool / North W est / Scotland branch of the W est Coast Main Line.

There are six stations in the core study area with just one of these, Stoke, providing high speed long distance connections. The other five, Kidsgrove, Longport and Etruria (which are located on the W est Coast Main Line) and Longton and Blythe Bridge (located on the Stoke to Derby line) just provide connections via local stopping services. Of these, Etruria is currently the subject of a closure order issued by the Strategic Rail Authority early in 2004 and a decision on the stations future is expected in the near future.

The main service which stops at each of these stations (and Stoke) is the Crewe to Skegness service currently operated by Central Trains (although this is not currently stopping at Etruria due to excessive clearance between the platform and the train). This only operates to an hourly frequency and does not benefit from clock face timetabling, and whilst it is quite well used during the weekday peak periods, usage falls away significantly during the day.

Longport, Etruria and Kidsgrove also benefit from a local stopping service currently operated by Northern Trains from Stoke to Manchester. Historically, this service operated throughout the day but, in recent years it has been cut back and in the latest timetable there are only two direct connections to Manchester in the morning and one back in the evening. Other connections to these stations from Manchester rely on a change of train at either Crewe or Stoke.

There is one other local stopping service serving the conurbation which is a stopping service, currently operated by Central Trains between Stoke and Stafford, calling at W edgwood, Barlaston and Stone. This service has suffered extensively from the disruption caused by the W est Coast Main Line route modernisation programme, during parts of which it was operated using rail replacement bus services. Currently the service is still being run using rail replacement bus services, due to a shortage of trained locomotive drivers.

The section of the W est Coast Main Line between Kidsgrove and Stoke is common to all routes which use the lines above, and because it only has two tracks, is heavily used. This use has increased recently with the new enhanced W est Coast timetable, which increases the numbers of high speed long distance services passing through the area. This, combined with the use of the line for freight movements, limits the scope for the provision of enhanced local services to serve the area.

The new W est Coast timetable provides Stoke with fast connections to key destinations such as London, Manchester and Birmingham and other main stations in between for example, Stafford, W olverhampton, Stockport and Nuneaton. London can now be reached in under 1 hr 45 minutes, Manchester in around 40 minutes and Birmingham in around 55 minutes.

Stoke Station forms the main gateway into the study area for InterCity connections and provides the main opportunity for rail/bus interchange, providing good bus based connections to destinations such as Hanley Centre, the Universities, Fenton,

Blurton, Newstead Estate and Longton. The other local stations have much less potential for this, primarily because services are currently irregular, with intervals of up to an hour at certain times of the day and often a lack of consistent ‘clock- face’ timetabling.

In terms of rail freight, the study area benefits from a number of existing freight terminals i.e. at Longport (Junction and Chatterley), Etruria, Stoke (W agon W orks) and at Cliff Vale (China Clay). The close proximity of the rail network to many of the development areas may also offer opportunities for the future, particularly with significant developments planned for both Chatterley and Etruria Valleys and Trentham Lakes.

There are a number of disused former rail corridors located in the area. They fall into two categories. Those where the track bed has been removed can be referred to as disused. There are also two lines which are referred to as ‘mothballed’, the Stoke to Caldon Low line and the Silverdale to Madeley line. Their alignments are protected from development, which would allow their re-opening (most likely for freight use) should economic conditions allow.

2.7 Cycling and Walking

The network available for cyclists across the study area offers cyclists a choice of using the main highway network, or alternatively a network of lightly trafficked streets which act as advisory routes or dedicated off-road routes. Many of these routes are signed and are available for pedestrian use and often for equestrian use also.

A large proportion of the dedicated off-road routes utilise the network of disused rail lines which cross the area, including the ‘loop line’ from Etruria to Kidsgrove, the line from Sneyd Green to Biddulph, substantial parts of which form part of the National Cycle Network, and the former branch line which connected Newcastle to Silverdale. In addition, the Trent-Mersey Canal towpath provides a long distance north-south connection across the conurbation.

The City Council produces a comprehensive Cycling Map, which covers the whole of the conurbation including Newcastle-Under-Lyme. This shows all of the routes available for cyclists and also includes a comprehensive guide to all aspects of cycling, including guidance on the rules and regulations covering each type of route.

In addition to this, cyclists are allowed to cycle in bus lanes where they are provided and, in an increasing number of locations across the conurbation, cycle lanes are provided together with advance cycle stop lines at traffic signals.

2.8 Water Based

As well as providing an excellent cycling and walking route connection (indeed significant parts of the canal towpaths in the area are part of the National Cycle Network) the local canals in North Staffordshire, the Trent and Mersey and Caldon Canals, provide an important leisure facility for the area, attracting tourists and generating income. A number of rivers and minor tributaries run across the study area, but none are navigable by freight so the focus is to promote them as green corridors for use by cyclists and pedestrians.

2.9 Transport Policy Context

Existing transport policies for the North Staffordshire conurbation are set out in the two Local Transport Plans prepared by Stoke-on-Trent City and Staffordshire County Councils. Included in each of these plans is an Integrated Transport Strategy for the conurbation prepared jointly by the two authorities. Both Plans were submitted to the Government in July 2000 and cover the period from 2001 to 2006.

The objectives of both of these plans are consistent with the national objectives set out by Central Government and a mixture of the local objectives set in these Plans, plus regional and national objectives have been used to provide the framework against which the updated Integrated Transport Strategy has been assessed.

The first LTP five year period is now almost complete and much has been achieved in terms of the provision of improved transport services and infrastructure across the conurbation with the help of significantly increased capital funding awarded through the LTP combined with increased levels of revenue funding provided by the local transport authorities, plus other sources of funding such as developer contributions and Central Government grants. A significant proportion of this funding has been directed towards schemes and initiatives aimed at improving provision for non car modes of transport. Some of the main achievements are set out below:

• The development of Quality Bus Corridors: These have been introduced under a Quality Partnership agreement between both local transport

authorities and First, the largest local bus operator. This has involved both local authorities providing improved infrastructure such as new bus shelters, bus boarders (Kassel Kerbs) allowing easy access for the mobility impaired and parents with young children and increased priority for bus services using Selective Vehicle Detection at key traffic signal junctions under Urban Traffic Control (UTC). First have introduced modern low floor buses allowing easy access and have provided improved timetabling and other service information at stops. Increases in patronage have been achieved on routes covered by this partnership; • The use of LTP capital funds to purchase new low floor buses for use on subsidised services: In all, 21 bus services are now operated using these vehicles, which are fully accessible under a Quality Partnership agreement between Stoke-on-Trent City Council and D & G Coaches, a local operator. Infrastructure improvements such as bus boarders (Kassel Kerbs) have been introduced at many stops along these routes; • The introduction of School and W orkplace Travel Plans: Both local transport authorities have given a high priority to the introduction of travel plans for schools and employers within the conurbation. The targets set in terms of the numbers of schools and employers where travel plans are to be introduced before the end of the first LTP in 2006 have either already been met or are on target to be met. • The introduction of Safer Routes to Schools (SRTS): Again, both local transport authorities have made the introduction of SRTS a central theme of their LTPs. The original target number of schemes to be introduced before the end of the first LTP in 2006 has already been exceeded by both authorities and both have already set more challenging targets; • Improvements to provision for cyclists and pedestrians: Both local transport authorities have implemented the cycling and walking strategies included in their LTPs, which give a high priority to the needs of cyclists and pedestrians over other road users. Particular achievements have included the publication of a new style cycle map for the conurbation, over 7,000 of which have now been distributed. This has been combined with an infrastructure programme which combines both on and off road provision for cyclists. Additionally, improvements to pedestrian facilities have included the introduction of traffic calming measures to create safer local environments, new pelican or toucan crossings and new footway provision; and

• The introduction of Advanced Transport Telematics: This has involved the further development of UTC across the conurbation, with in built bus priority. Additionally, a network of Variable Message Signs (VMS) displaying real time journey times and car parking information;

However, despite these achievements, levels of traffic within the conurbation continue to increase, and the problems associated with this increase such as increased congestion, worsening air quality, increased noise and severance continue to worsen. Additionally, as car ownership levels increase the viability of local public transport services continues to be affected and despite increases in patronage on a number of the Quality Bus Corridors implemented under the Quality Partnership, the conditions under which local bus services operate continue to be difficult.

The updated Integrated Transport Strategy set out in this report will build upon the existing Integrated Transport Strategy for the North Staffordshire conurbation. It is aimed at breaking the vicious circle described in the previous paragraph by providing a framework designed to achieve a ‘step change’ improvement in the provision of the infrastructure and services available for non car modes of transport and the introduction of complimentary measures and policy interventions designed to place a restraint on increased car use. It will be through the implementation of both of these that the objectives of this Strategy will be met.

This updated strategy is set out in Chapter 19. It covers the period from 2006 to 2021, the first five years of which are equivalent to the second LTP period (2006 to 2011).

3 The Aims and Objectives

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this Chapter is to set out a series of aims and objectives against which: • firstly, the performance of the present and future transport networks can be assessed; and • secondly, the improved performance of any future transport strategy can be tested / appraised.

These study based aims and objectives should be based on the more general policy based aims and objectives that have already been identified at National, Regional and Local level within adopted policy documents. In the following sections the current policies of Central, Regional and Local Government are reviewed. Based on the findings of this review, conclusions are then drawn.

3.2 Central Government Objectives

Central Government’s overarching objectives are to: • promote a strong economy and increase prosperity; • provide better protection for the environment; and • develop a more inclusive society.

In its 1998 publication ‘A New Deal for Transport’, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) recast these over-arching objectives so as to relate them to transport initiatives. The publication sets out the five main criteria (or objectives) against which transport proposals are to be assessed as being: • accessibility – to improve access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce severance; • economy – to support sustainable economic activity and get good value for money; • safety – to improve safety;

• environmental impact – to protect the built and natural environment; and • integration – to ensure that all decisions are taken in the context of the Government’s integrated transport policy.

Under each of these headings the DETR also identified a number of sub- objectives that need to be taken account of. It is, from a Central Government perspective, these sub-objectives that will form the basis against which any integrated transport strategy for the North Staffordshire area will need to be assessed. These sub-objectives are: a) Accessibility • to increase option values; • to reduce severance; and • to improve access to the transport system. b) Economy

• to get good value for money in relation to impacts on public accounts;

• to improve transport economic efficiency for business users and transport providers; • to improve transport economic efficiency for consumer users; • to improve reliability; and • to provide beneficial wider economic impacts. c) Safety • to reduce accidents; and • to improve security. d) Environment • to reduce noise; • to improve local air quality; • to reduce greenhouse gases; • to protect and enhance the landscape; • to protect and enhance the townscape;

• to protect the heritage of historic resources; • to support biodiversity; • to protect the water environment; • to encourage physical fitness; and • to improve journey ambience.

e) Integration • to ensure an integrated transport policy; • to improve transport interchange; • to integrate transport policy with land-use policy; and • to integrate transport policy with other Government policies.

3.3 Local and Regional Objectives

The five Government criteria (or objectives) set out above are very broad and may not fully reflect the specific regional circumstances that exist within North Staffordshire. More specific regional and local transport objectives, as set out within the Regional Spatial Strategy, Local Transport Plans and Development Plans, were therefore considered.

From examination of all these documents it has been concluded that two sets of local and regional objectives are relevant. The first set is specifically transport related and the second set reflects the wider regeneration agenda within the region.

3.4 The Transport Related Local and Regional Objectives

The transport related local and regional objectives can be summarised as follows:

a) M inimise the Need to Travel • to manage traffic and travel demand; • to encourage integration between transport, land use planning and implementation; • to encourage more sustainable patterns of travel; and • to encourage travel awareness and behavioural change.

b) Improve Public Transport • to provide high quality sustainable transport modes; • to improve integration between public transport services; • to encourage modal transfer from the car to public transport; • to improve overall reliability; and • to improve travel information and ticketing. c) Promote Other Sustainable Modes of Travel • to encourage walking through improving facilities and maximising accessibility; and • to encourage cycling through improving facilities and maximising accessibility. d) Improve People’s Health • to encourage travel by non-motorised modes; • to reduce exposure to road safety problems; • to improve local air quality; and • to improve accessibility to a full range of healthcare facilities. e) Enhance Freight M ovement • to improve travel time reliability; • to improve freight access for goods and services; • to reduce the impacts of road based freight movement; and • to encourage longer distance freight movement onto the railways. f) Protect and Enhance the Environment • to improve air quality and reduce green house gases; • to reduce traffic noise; and • to conserve and enhance the quality of the urban environment. g) Improve Safety • to improve personal security; and

• to reduce road accidents.

h) Improve Accessibility • to maintain a level of service on the strategic road network that safeguards efficient movement; • to reduce overall levels of congestion, particularly in urban areas; • to provide acceptable levels of accessibility for all to essential services (employment, education, health care and food stores) by all modes; • to improve accessibility for the disabled and those with reduced mobility; and • to reduce social disadvantage and inequality.

To a considerable extent, many of these mirror those contained within the Government’s national objectives. In many cases however, they are much more definitive in their aims.

3.5 Other Regional and Local Objectives

The relevant wider regional and local policy objectives can be summarised as:

a) Assist Overall Regeneration of the Study Area through: • addressing the decline in the regional economy (both urban and rural) thereby increasing overall confidence, attracting inward investment and encouraging increased economic enterprise and employment; • reversing the movement of people and jobs away from the major urban areas (the North Staffordshire conurbation is defined as a major urban area in the Regional Spatial Strategy); and • achieving a more balanced and sustainable pattern of development, across the Study Area, including in rural areas.

b) Promote Urban Regeneration within the Study Area through: • concentrating new development that generates high travel demands in the major urban areas, particularly sustainable town centres and other locations that can readily facilitate good public transport accessibility; • concentrating new business development where it is easily accessible (to both its potential workforce and its markets), by all modes;

• supporting existing businesses by improving accessibility (to both its workforce and markets), by all modes; and • avoiding the introduction of measures that deter investment in the core urban areas, particularly if they have the impact of encouraging development elsewhere in less sustainable locations. c) Strengthen the Viability of Key Centres through: • improving their attractiveness so as to attract the widest possible range of shopping and commercial services; • maximising opportunities for the creation of a full range of quality employment sites, particularly promoting those employment opportunities that are likely to contribute to the creation of balanced economy; • encouraging those developments that generate high levels of travel activity to locate within the key centres, rather than elsewhere, so as to ensure, where major infrastructure is needed, it can be funded and made viable; • promoting improvements in the quality of urban living by facilitating opportunities for regeneration, environmental improvement and enhanced personal security; • while at the same time • protecting and enhancing the vitality and viability of other secondary and district centres. d) Enhance and Strengthen the Viability of Existing Local Communities through: • supporting the retention and provision of the widest possible range of convenient, accessible social and community facilities, including cultural, educational, health, recreational and leisure facilities; • promoting new appropriate local employment opportunities and assisting / strengthening conditions that will support and encourage the retention of existing compatible employment uses; and • maximising opportunities to revitalise the existing housing stock, promote renovation, and where necessary, assist in the provision of replacement development so as to achieve a demographically diverse population in a mix of housing types and tenures in locations which are easily accessible to employment, shopping and other facilities, particularly by non car based modes;

while also • supporting development patterns of sufficient density, extent and diversity that settlements can be much more self contained, thereby reducing reliance on commuting and introducing real choice in usage of sustainable transport modes; • encouraging commuting, where it does take place, to be by sustainable modes to centres in North Staffordshire, rather than outside; and • recognising the differing needs of the four districts within the sub-region.

These wider regional and local sub-objectives cover the same range of issues as is examined under the Government’s Integration – W ider Policy Impacts sub- objective. They are, however, much more specifically targeted towards issues that are of key concern within the Study Area.

4 Approach to Appraisal

4.1 Introduction

The overall approach to strategy appraisal is set out within the recently updated guidance documentation on the preparation of the second round of Local Transport Plans. This guidance is, in turn, based to a significant extent on the detailed advice provided within W EBTAG and the New Approach to Appraisal, as developed for multi-modal applications in the Guidance on Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS, DETR 2000).

The approach has four key strands, as follows: • assessment of the degree to which Central Government’s objectives for transport would be achieved; • assessment of the degree to which the local authority’s objectives for transport would be achieved; • assessment of the extent to which problems would be mitigated; and • supporting analyses of - distribution and equity, - affordability and financial sustainability, and - practicality and public acceptability.

In terms of the first two strands, Central Government and Local Government objectives have already been identified within Chapter 3. This Chapter now utilises this information to set out a proposed framework which can be used to assess the performance of any future strategy.

The problems analysis referred to in the third strand should reflect the key problems that exist within the study area. By definition, the key problems that need to be addressed are likely to be explicitly or implicitly reflected in the policy issues set out in Chapter 3. This information has therefore again been used to identify a framework for use in analysing the impact that any strategy might have on problems.

The final strand is also addressed within this Chapter.

4.2 Central Government Objectives Based Assessment

It is proposed that the ‘Central Government objectives based assessment’ will be presented in a simple Appraisal Summary Table (AST) that provides the following information: ° a brief description of the proposal under assessment, together with a reference to a fuller description; ° a reference to both the problems, as they exist in the Do-Minimum or Reference Case Situation, and the expected changes in those problems with the proposals in place; ° the total cost of the proposal and the cost to Central Government over the full appraisal period, in terms of a discounted present value; and ° an assessment of the proposal’s performance in relation to each of the Central Government objectives and sub-objectives, this being in the form of an assessment of both qualitative and quantitative impact. In terms of the latter the impacts will be recorded in terms of a measurement.

The issues to be assessed are summarised in Table 4.1.

Performance under each of the Government’s sub-objectives will be based around establishing a series of measurable benchmark conditions for the Do-Minimum Situation (i.e. the 2021Reference Case) and then establishing the extent to which these benchmark conditions improve / worsen when any transport initiatives / interventions are introduced. These ‘benchmark conditions’ are set out within Chapters 7 and 9 and future conditions, with the transport strategy in place, are discussed in Chapter 20.

4.3 Local Authority Objectives Based Assessment

The approach to appraising performance against Local Authority objectives will be very similar to that described above, with the appraisal findings being set out in a succinct manner within a supplementary AST. The issues to be assessed, together with the adopted methods of measurement are summarised in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

In cases where the national and local objectives are very similar these have been excluded from the Local Authority Supplementary AST so as to avoid repetition / double counting. In many cases however, the local authority objectives are more targeted.

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M easurement M ethod of M easurement

ENVIRONM ENT Noise Quantitative / Qualitative DMRB procedures utilising traffic flow predictions from the Multi Modal Transport Model

Local Air Quality Quantitative / Qualitative DMRB procedures utilising traffic flow predictions from the Multi Modal Transport Model

Greenhouse Gases Qualitative Changes in CO2 emissions used as part of written assessment.

Landscape Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact. Townscape Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

Heritage of Historic Resources Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact. Biodiversity Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

W ater Environment Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

Physical Fitness Quantitative / Qualitative Impact on numbers predicted to walk and cycle using Multi Modal Transport Model and written

commentary provided on strategy impact.

Journey Ambience Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

SAFETY Accidents Quantitative Predictions of Personal Injury Accidents made using Multi Modal Transport Model. Security Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

ECONOM Y Transport Economic Efficiency Quantitative Link and Intersection capacity and private / public transport vehicle occupancy assessed using Multi Modal Transport Model.

Reliability Quantitative Congestion levels and predicted strategy impacts measured using Multi Modal Transport Model.

W ider Economic Impacts Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

ACCESSIBILITY Option Values Quantitative / Qualitative Population affected measured using Multi Modal Transport Model/written summary of impact. Severance Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

Access to the Transport System Quantitative Multi Modal Transport Model used to assess predicted changes in accessibility. INTEGRATION Transport Interchange Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

Land-Use Policy Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

Other Government Policies Qualitative Written commentary provided on strategy impact.

Table 4.1 M ethods of M easurement, Central Government Objectives 25

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M ethod of M easurement M easurement

Minimise the Manage traffic and travel demand Quantitative Based on changes in the overall number of trips being made within / to / need to travel from and through the study area. Encourage integration between transport, land Quantitative Based on changes in the overall number of kilometres travelled per trip by all use planning and implementation modes. Encourage more sustainable patterns of travel Quantitative Based on changes in the Percentage of trips made to and from key centres with high levels of public transport accessibility (i.e. Hanley and Newcastle- Under-Lyme). Encourage travel awareness and behavioural Quantitative Based on changes in modal choice for work based and education based trips. change Improve Public Provide high quality sustainable transport Qualitative Based on statements regarding the detailed form of the Strategy’s public Transport modes transport components. Encourage modal transfer from car to public Quantitative Based on changes in overall levels of modal choice between car and public transport transport for all trips. Improve travel information and ticketing Qualitative Based on statements regarding the detailed form of the Strategy’s public transport information systems and ticketing / fare integration components.

Promote other Encourage walking through improving facilities Qualitative Based on statements regarding the detailed form of the Strategy’s pedestrian sustainable and maximising accessibility improvement components and the extent to which these are likely to modes encourage modal transfers from car to foot.

Encourage cycling through improving facilities Qualitative Based on statements regarding the detailed form of the Strategy’s cycling and maximising accessibility improvement components and the extent to which these are likely to encourage modal transfers from car to cycle.

Improve Encourage travel by non motorised modes Qualitative and Based on statements that examine each strategy’s ability to encourage usage People’s Health quantitative of non motorised transport modes (i.e. walking and cycling). Particularly examining the distribution of such benefits between neighbourhoods and highlighting any particular impacts in socially deprived areas.

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M ethod of M easurement M easurement

Improve Reduce exposure to road safety problems Qualitative and Based on the statements that examine each strategy’s ability to improve road People’s Health quantitative safety, particularly examining the distribution of such benefits between (continued) neighbourhoods and highlighting any particular impacts in socially deprived areas. Improve local air quality Qualitative and Based on statements that examine changes in local air quality, particularly quantitative examining the distribution of such benefits between neighbourhoods and highlighting any particular impacts in socially deprived areas. Improve accessibility to a full range of Qualitative and Based on statements that examine each strategy’s ability to improve health healthcare facilities quantitative care related accessibility, particularly examining the distribution of such benefits between neighbourhoods and highlighting any particular impacts in socially deprived areas. Reduce the impacts of road based freight Quantitative Based on changes in the overall number of vehicle kilometres driven on movement different types of roads within the study area. Encourage longer distance freight movement Qualitative Based on statements regarding the potential that a particular strategy provides onto the railways for encouraging modal transfers from road to rail. Improve Maintain level of service on the strategic road Qualitative and Based on statements regarding the impact that the strategy might have on the Accessibility network that safeguards efficient movement quantitative strategic road network, both in terms of changes in stress levels and development related access issues. Reduce overall levels of congestion, particularly Quantitative Based on an assessment of changes in stress levels, by road type and study in urban areas area location. Improve accessibility for the disabled and those Qualitative Based on statements regarding the potential that a particular strategy provides with reduced mobility for improving / reducing accessibility for this sector of the community. Reduce social disadvantage and inequality Qualitative and Based on statements that set out the extent to which these sectors of the quantitative community might be more included within society. These statements will draw heavily on the outcomes of the accessibility analysis. Table 4.2 – M ethods of M easurement, Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M ethod of M easurement M easurement

Assist overall Address the decline in the regional Qualitative and Based on statements regarding the extent to which transport strategies will regeneration of economy thereby increasing confidence, quantitative reduce overall levels of congestion and improve accessibility between the Study Area attracting inward investment and employment locations, workforce locations and strategic gateways. encouraging economic enterprise and In particular the statement will assess the flexibility that the strategies offer employment under differing development scenarios, identifying housing development patterns that perform well and attempt to compare future conditions in the study area with those elsewhere.

Reverse the movement of people and jobs Qualitative and Based on statements regarding relative and absolute levels of away from the major urban areas quantitative congestion and accessibility within the core urban areas, the suburbs and the rural areas by differing modes. In particular the statement will assess the flexibility that differing transport strategies offer under differing development scenarios and also identify any significant factors that might suggest that the central development scenario assumptions should be reconsidered.

Achieve more balanced and sustainable Qualitative Based on statements regarding the opportunities that transport patterns of development strategies provide for concentrating development in highly accessible town centres and within close proximity to major public transport corridors. In particular the statement will assess the flexibility that strategies offer under differing development scenarios and assess how changes in the latter might improve performance.

Promote urban Concentrate high generating development Qualitative and Based on statements that examine the relative and absolute performance Regeneration in major urban areas quantitative of transport strategies under differing development scenarios, particularly highlighting those that perform well under development scenarios that revolve around concentrating high generating development in major urban areas

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M ethod of M easurement M easurement

Promote urban Concentrate new business development in Qualitative and Based on statements that examine the transport strategies’ urban area Regeneration urban areas where it is easily accessible quantitative accessibility between new employment sites, their potential workforce (continued) and the strategic gateways. In particular the statement will assess the relative performance of transport strategies under differing development scenarios and draw conclusions regarding any shifts in both employment and housing land use policy (when compared with the central case) that might be appropriate

Support existing urban businesses by Qualitative and Based on statements that examine the transport strategies’ urban area increasing accessibility quantitative accessibility between existing employment sites, their workforce and the strategic gateways. In particular the statement will assess the relative performance of transport strategies under differing development scenarios and draw conclusions regarding any shifts in future housing land use policy (when compared with the central case) that might be appropriate

Avoid the introduction of measures that Qualitative and Based on statements that compare the transport strategies’ overall urban, deter investment in the core urban areas quantitative suburban and rural accessibility, particularly the differences between rural accessibility by car and urban accessibility by public transport

Strengthen Encourage the attraction of the widest Qualitative and Based on statements that examine in both absolute and relative terms: viability of Key possible range of shopping and quantitative accessibility between residents/ work force and the key centres of Centres (i.e. commercial services Hanley and Newcastle; and Newcastle and between residents / workforce and the other town centres (i.e. Meir, Hanley) Longton, Fenton, Stoke, Burslem, Tunstall, Kidsgrove, Biddulph) and draw conclusions regarding the ability of transport strategies to reinforce an hierarchical centre structure The statement will assess how differing housing development scenarios may impact on the above.

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M ethod of M easurement M easurement

Strengthen Maximise opportunities for creation of Qualitative and Based on statements that examine workforce accessibility (by type), viability of Key quality employment sites, particularly quantitative particularly public transport based accessibility, to Hanley and Centres (i.e. those that create a balanced economy Newcastle, together with the physical form of differing transport Newcastle and strategies and the impact they might have in constraining / expanding Hanley) opportunities for centres to develop. (continued) Encourage high activity generating Qualitative and Based on statements that examine resident accessibility, particularly developments to locate within the key quantitative public transport based accessibility, to Hanley and Newcastle. In centres particular the statement will assess the flexibility that the strategies offer under differing development scenarios, identifying housing development patterns that perform well and attempt to compare future conditions in the study area with those elsewhere.

Promote the quality of urban living Qualitative Based on statements that examine the opportunities that differing through regeneration, environmental transport strategies provide in terms of refurbishment, redevelopment, improvement and better personal security traffic reduction, evening and weekend accessibility, etc

Maintain the Protect and enhance the vitality and Qualitative and Based on statements that examine absolute accessibility between local viability of viability of other secondary and district quantitative area residents/ work force and those other town centres, together with other town centres examining the opportunities provided in terms of refurbishment, centres redevelopment, traffic reduction, evening and weekend accessibility. The statements will also assess how differing housing development scenarios may impact on the above.

Strengthen the Support retention and provision of Qualitative and Based on statements that examine, on an area by area basis, resident viability of convenient and accessible social and quantitative accessibility, particularly public transport based accessibility, to local existing local community facilities community services, particularly education, healthcare and local retail communities facilities. The statements will assess how differing housing development scenarios may impact on the above.

Objective Sub- Objective Type of M ethod of M easurement M easurement

Strengthen the Promote new employment opportunities Qualitative and Based on statements that examine, on an area by area basis, resident viability of and assist/ strengthen conditions that quantitative accessibility, particularly public transport based accessibility, to local existing local support retention of existing employment. employment opportunities and to new employment opportunities within communities new regeneration areas, premium employment sites and key centres. The (Cont.) statements will assess how differing housing development scenarios may impact on the above.

Maximise opportunities to revitalise the Qualitative and Based on statements that examine on an area by area basis overall resident housing stock, promote renovation and quantitative accessibility, particularly public transport based accessibility, traffic assist provision of new development related environmental conditions and road safety conditions and then attempt to assess the impact that the transport strategy will have in improving the attractiveness (from a mobility, environmental and safety viewpoint) of housing areas that are undergoing change.

Support development patterns of Qualitative Based on statements that examine the transport strategies’ ability to cope sufficient density, extent and diversity so with increased population densities. This being based around levels of that they are more self contained, thereby road congestion and the capacity of the public transport system. reducing commuting and introducing travel choice Encourage commuting, where it does Qualitative Based on statements that examine the overall kilometres travelled to work, take place, to be by sustainable modes to by mode, to locations within and outside the Study Area. In particular, the centres in North Staffordshire, rather statement will assess differences in overall levels of commuting by mode, than outside between the differing development strategies. Table 4.3 – M ethods of M easurement, Wider Local and Regional Objectives

4.4 Appraising the Impact on Problems

The third part of the appraisal process involves an assessment of the degree to which identified problems will be ameliorated by any strategy that might be put forward. This involves a comparison between problems that exist, both before and after the strategy’s introduction.

A key difference between this analysis and those outlined above is that in this case the appraisal is only interested in locations that experience conditions that are deemed to create a problem. By contrast, the previous analyses were centred around the improvement or worsening of conditions, from the Do- minimum reference situation.

To assist this part of the appraisal, an initial analysis of problems and issues has been undertaken for both the 2002 Base Year situation and for the 2021 Reference Case situation. This analysis is set out in Chapters 7 and 9 and examines each of the issues listed in Table 4.4.

W here possible, the analysis contained within Chapters 7 and 9 is based on numerical analysis, with the magnitude of any particular issue being compared with the magnitude of a series of predetermined acceptance thresholds. For completeness, these numerically based findings have also been validated against the perceived views of a wide range of stakeholders, as recorded at the Stakeholder workshops undertaken in May 2004.

Table 4.4 clearly identifies which Problems and Issues will be analysed using a quantitative numerical approach and which will be analysed using a qualitative approach.

4.5 Supporting Analysis - Distribution and Equity

This supporting analysis will show, where appropriate, the distribution of the overall impacts summarised in the Government and the Regional / Local Area Appraisal Summary Tables.

It will particularly concentrate on setting out: the spatial distribution of noise, air quality and accident impacts through the use of GIS mapping;

Problem / Issues M ethod of M easurement Affected Groups Ef f i ci e n cy Highway links operating at or near capacity Quantitative Private vehicle users, bus passengers / operators, businesses / freight operators Intersections operating at or near capacity Quantitative Private vehicle users, bus passengers / operators, businesses / freight operators Bus passenger routes operating at or near capacity Quantitative Bus passengers Rail passenger services operating at or near capacity Quantitative Rail Passengers Rail routes operating at or near capacity Quantitative Rail Passengers and Businesses / Freight Operators Accessibility Locations experiencing poor accessibility by public transport Quantitative Residents to essential services (education, healthcare, employment and retail facilities) Locations experiencing poor accessibility by car to essential Quantitative Residents services (education, healthcare, employment and retail facilities) Employment locations that have poor accessibility by public Quantitative Businesses transport Employment locations that have poor accessibility by car Quantitative Businesses Business Premises that are poorly located in respect of the Quantitative Businesses strategic road network

Table 4.4: Analysis of Problems and Issues

Problem / Issues M ethod of M easurement Affected Groups Safety Highway links and intersections that experience high levels of Quantitative Private vehicle users, public transport users, personal injury accidents pedestrians and cyclists Locations or means of transport that experience personal Qualitative Private vehicle users, public transport users, security problems pedestrians and cyclists Environmental Impact Sensitive locations that experience high levels of traffic noise Quantitative Residents and users of sensitive buildings Sensitive locations that experience poor local air quality Quantitative Residents and users of sensitive buildings I n te g r ati o n Passenger interchange locations that poorly serve their users Qualitative based on People accessing public transport by foot or discussion / consultation interchanging between private vehicles, cycles and public transport Freight interchange locations that poorly serve their users Qualitative based on Businesses / Freight Operators discussion / consultation

Table 4.4: Analysis of Problems and Issues (Continued)

• the distribution of costs, together with the distribution of economic benefits / disbenefits between different user groups; and • the spatial distribution of accessibility impacts, so as to relate accessibility issues to social inclusion, economic regeneration and community strengthening / enhancement.

4.6 Supporting Analysis - Affordability and Financial Sustainability

The affordability and financial sustainability of any strategy will be a key consideration in deciding whether to adopt a particular transport strategy. This analysis will therefore provide an overall assessment of the likely need for public and private expenditure and the possible sources of such monies.

The findings of the analysis will be set out in an Affordability and Financial Sustainability Table. This will summarise the financial impact that any strategy will have on both private and public sector providers, providing information regarding: • total private sector investment, together with the change in operator costs and operator revenue; • total public sector investment, and any public sector operator costs and operating revenue, and • any contributions that Central Government may make, to either the public or private sector, via capital grants and subsidies.

4.7 Supporting Analysis - Practicality and Public Acceptability

To assess the overall Practicality of any strategy the appraisal will review:

• Feasibility – W hat is the likelihood of any strategy being implemented? • Enforcement – Does the strategy require other, supporting enforcement measures to ensure that it is effective? • Area of interest (‘breadth’ of the decision) – W hat is the scale of the strategy? • Complexity (‘depth’ of the decision) – Does the strategy or plan involve numerous co-ordinated elements? • Timescale – W hat is the timescale for the implementation of the strategy and its effects? • Phasing – What is the phasing of the strategy?

• Partitioning – Can the strategy be broken down into a series of simpler, discrete components? Does the strategy have the ability to be broken down into smaller manageable units? • Complementarity – Are the proposals complementary or independent? • Conflicts – Do the measures conflict with others that have been, or are likely to be, made? • Political nature of policies and proposals – How does the strategy relate to the way that political choices are made?

Finally, the overall Public Acceptability of any strategy will be assessed, through reference to the outcomes of the “Emerging Strategy” Stakeholder workshops held at the end of 2004.

The main points from all of the Supporting Analyses will be summarised in a single table.

5 Base Year 2002 Conditions

5.1 Introduction

This Chapter provides an overview of the current distribution of populations and employment opportunities within the North Staffordshire area, together with an overview of the current magnitude of travel activity.

The information contained herein was used, initially, to assist in the identification of Base Year problems and then will be subsequently used to understand relative changes between now and the future year, 2021.

The data has been derived from a number of sources including: • previous studies, surveys and consultations; • new studies, surveys and consultations undertaken directly for the North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Study; and • through interpretation of outputs from the North Staffordshire Multi- Modal Transport Model.

5.2 Populations, Households and Employed Residents

W ithin the Inner Study Area there are 372,500 residents, living within 155,500 households. Of these, some 138,000 are within employment. Similar statistics for the outer area are 300,000, 126,000, 144,000 respectively. The Inner and Outer Study Areas are shown on Figure 2.1.

Table 5.1 provides a more detailed understanding of these figures by administrative district. Figure 5.1 provides further information on population locations, by examining population density by area (North Staffordshire Multi- Modal Transport Model travel zones).

It can be seen from Figure 5.1 that the highest concentrations of population tend to divide into two distinct areas. • to the east of the A500 the highest populations are concentrated along a northwest - southeast axis that extends from Kidsgrove in the north, through Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Shelton, Bentilee, Longton and Normacot to Meir Park; and • to the west of the A500 high populations are concentrated within Bradwell, W olstanton, Basford, Hartshill, Stoke, Penkhull, Oakhill and Clayton.

It is additionally noticeable that there are significant areas within the conurbation that have very low concentrations of populations, these being particularly:

Location Population Households Employed Employment Residents Places

Core Area Stoke On Trent 235,000 98,500 85,000 104,250 Stafford (part) 1,000 500 500 750 Newcastle under Lyme (part) 100,000 41,500 38,500 35,000 Total 336,000 140,500 124,000 140,000

Inner Study Area (including Core Area) Stoke On Trent 235,000 98,500 85,000 104,250 Newcastle under Lyme (part) 107,500 45,000 41,500 37,000 Stafford Moorlands (part) 25,000 10,000 9,750 4,250 Stafford (part) 5,000 2,000 1,750 1,500 Total 372,500 155,500 138,000 147,000

Outer Study Area Newcastle under Lyme (part) 5,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 Stafford Moorlands (part) 62,500 26,500 30,000 18,500 Stafford (part) 57,500 24,000 28,500 28,000 Congleton (part) 20,000 8,000 7,500 5,500 East Staffordshire (part) 45,000 19,000 22,500 21,000 Crewe and Nantwich (part) 65,000 27,500 32,000 28,500 North Shropshire (part) 45,000 18,500 21,500 17,500 Total 300,000 126,000 144,000 120,500

Overall Stoke On Trent 235,000 98,500 85,000 104,250 Newcastle under Lyme 112,500 47,500 43,500 38,500 Stafford Moorlands (part) 87,500 36,500 39,750 22,750 Stafford (part) 62,500 26,000 30,250 29,500 Congleton (part) 20,000 8,000 7,500 5,500 East Staffordshire (part) 45,000 19,000 22,500 21,000 Crewe and Nantwich (part) 65,000 27,500 32,000 28,500 North Shropshire (part) 45,000 18,500 21,500 17,500 Total 672,500 281,500 282,000 267,500

Table 5.1: Base Year 2002: Populations, Households, Employed Residents and Employment Opportunities

• the Ravenscliffe area; • the Chatterley Valley area; • Etruria Valley; • the south western segment of Hanley City Centre; • Central Forest Park; • the Fenton Manor / Fenton Low areas; • the Sideway / Trentham Lakes areas; • the High Carr / Parkhouse area; and • the Home Farm area (between W estlands and Keele University.

The main factor which causes many of these areas to have low population densities is the fact that many of them are former industrial sites, which are either derelict, have been redeveloped (or are planned to be redeveloped) as employment sites or have been given over to open space, e.g. Central Forest Park.

From analysis of the 2001 Census, together with other data provided by Stoke City Council, Staffordshire County Council and Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council a more detailed understanding has been developed of magnitude, location, distribution / density and social structure of the populations, households and employed residents. All information is set out by Local Authority Administrative ward for the Inner Study Area.

The findings of this analysis are summarised in Figures 5.2 to 5.8 as follows:

Figure 5.2: Percentage of Population Aged under 5 Years Figure 5.3: Percentage of Population Aged 5 to 16 Years Figure 5.4: Percentage of Population Aged 17 to 60 Years Figure 5.5: Percentage of Population Aged over 60 Years Figure 5.6: Car Ownership Levels (this figure compares the percentage car ownership in each ward with the national average, with each colour representing a range of percentages above or below this average) e.g. those areas shaded red, have car ownership levels more than 50% below the national average. Figure 5.7: Resident Employment Quality (this measures the quality of employment undertaken by the residents of each ward according to Census definitions, where managerial and professional occupations are considered to be high quality and unskilled and manual occupations low quality). Figure 5.8: Unemployment and Long Term Sickness Levels

The most significant findings from these figures are that: • within the Inner Study Area car ownership levels are generally below national levels or equal to national levels, with the lowest levels of car ownership being concentrated in the Burslem, Hanley, Shelton and Bentilee areas; • by contrast, car ownership in the Outer Study Area is generally above national average levels; • in terms of employment quality, the majority of residents within the Inner Study Area are employed in occupations where the overall level of job skill / management responsibility is below national average levels; • even within the Outer Study Area the quality of employment opportunities is limited, by national standards; • although overall levels of unemployment are not particularly high, when compared with the national average, there are concentrated problems within the Inner Study Area, particularly to the east of the A500(T); and • finally, the real problem of unemployment may be masked by the high number of residents who are registered as unable to work due to long term sickness.

5.3 Employment Opportunities

In terms of employment opportunity there are some 147,000 employment places within the Inner Study Area and a further 120,500 in the Outer Study Area. The numbers of these employment places by administrative district is also provided within Table 5.1. Figure 5.9 provides further information on employment locations, by examining employment density by area (NSITS Multi-Modal Model travel zones).

It can be seen from Figure 5.9 that employment places are much more concentrated than population, with: • the core employment areas being located within a diamond shaped area bounded by the outer limits of Festival Park, Hanley, Stoke and Newcastle; and • other areas of significant employment being located within the A34 corridor between Newcastle and Chesterton, the Fenton and Longton areas, and the areas around Burslem and Tunstall.

5.4 Mode of Travel to Work

From examination of the 2001 Census it has been possible to develop a detailed understanding of the modes of travel, used by residents to access employment opportunities. The findings of this analysis are set out in Figures 5.10 to 5.12 as follows: Figure 5.10: Percentage of Residents Travelling to W ork by Cycle and Foot

Figure 5.11: Percentage of Residents Travelling to W ork by Car and Bus Figure 5.12: Percentage of Residents Travelling to W ork by Taxi

The most noticeable features from these figures are: • public transport usage for work journeys is generally high within the City of Stoke. Elsewhere, however, it is lower than might be expected, given the overall levels of car ownership; and • taxi usage for journeys to and from work, although low in absolute terms, is still much higher than the national average in many parts of the Inner Study Area, particularly in those areas that have lower levels of bus use.

Comparisons between the travel to work mode choice within Stoke and other major cities with similar levels of car ownership, suggests that there is generally a tendency (within the Study Area) towards bus use being seen as a choice of last resort, rather than as a viable alternative to the car This is supported through the findings of study specific public transport surveys which revealed that less than 10 % of bus users within the conurbation had the option of using a car for the same journey, which is a low percentage when compared with other urban areas. In similar studies undertaken for Swindon and Greater Manchester, this percentage was in the order of 15%.

5.5 Travel Demand and Travel Movement Patterns

In terms of travel demand, there are some 1.35 million motorised person trips within the core area of the conurbation each weekday.

During the busiest period, the evening peak hour, the corresponding figure is around 107,000 motorised person trips, travelling in some 70,000 private vehicles and 225 bus services.

In terms of where, why and how these people are travelling, Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 provide details regarding the purpose of these trips, their orientation and the modal split between private transport and public transport.

As would be expected, evening peak hour travel tends to be made up of journeys between work and home, social based travel to/from home (i.e. trips not connected with work, education and shopping) and trips that are non-home based.

In terms of orientation, the vast majority of travel within the conurbation has either an origin or destination (or both) within the urban area, with some 55% of trips being wholly within the urban area.

Trip Purpose % Home Based W ork trips 33% Home Based Education trips 2% Home Based Shopping trips 5% Home Based Other Trips 19% Employers Business trips 13% Non Home Based trips 25% Heavy Goods Vehicles 3% Total 100%

Table 5.2: Travel Purpose (Weekday Evening Peak Hour Period, 2002)

Private Public Transport Transport Overall W holly within the urban 53.5% 83.0% 55.0% area

To and from the urban 35.0% 16.5% 34.0% area

Through the Urban area 11.5% 0.5% 11.0%

To / from Hanley and 8.0% 34.5% 9.5% immediate area

To / from Newcastle and 5.5% 8.4% 5.7% immediate area

Table 5.3: Travel Orientation, by Mode (Weekday Evening Peak Hour Period, 2002)

Of particular note are the low overall percentages of travel movements to and from the two key centres (Hanley and Newcastle), which stand at 8% and 5.5% respectively. This can be highlighted by referring to a similar study, currently underway in Leicester, which has shown that in excess of 20% of all traffic within that conurbation is travelling to or from the city centre.

The finding clearly demonstrates the current polycentric nature of the conurbation, with it two key centres and the further six centres of Kidsgrove, Tunstall, Burslem Fenton, Longton and Stoke plus other major retail and employment areas, e.g. Festival Park, Wolstanton Retail Park, Lymedale Business Park and Parkhouse Industrial Estate.

As might be expected, most public transport movements take place entirely within the urban area, with travel trips that start or finish within the vicinity of Hanley or Newcastle making up around half of all public transport movements. This latter finding primarily reflects the structure of the bus service network, with services concentrated on both centres. The presence of parking charges within these centres and the congested nature of the inner area road networks are also likely to have contributed to this, although these factors are likely to have made a lesser contribution given that few bus passengers (only around 1 in 10) chose to use the bus even though they had a car available for their journey.

These factors are particularly well illustrated in Table 5.4. This shows how modal choice varies according to origin and destination. In the case of Hanley, the percentage of trips using public transport to travel to and from the urban area is high, at 21%. By contrast, the average modal split figure for travel wholly within the conurbation shows that overall, only some 7% of travellers use the bus. This compares with an overall statistic for the conurbation that some 30 % of all households do not possess a car and a further 50% of households have access to only one car.

Private Public Transport Transport

W holly within the urban area 92.9% 7.1%

To and from the urban area 97.8% 2.2%

Through the Urban area 99.9% 0.1%

To / from Hanley and its 78.6% 21.4% immediate area from other parts of the urban area

To / from Hanley and its 96.2% 3.8% immediate area from the rural areas

To / from Newcastle and its 91.0% 9.0% immediate area from other parts of the urban area

To / from Newcastle and its 97.1% 2.9% immediate area from the rural areas

Overall 95.3% 4.7%

Table 5.4: M odal Choice, by Location (Weekday Evening Peak Hour Period, 2002)

5.6 Travel Characteristics

The above travel demand, when viewed from the perspective of impacts on the local road, bus and rail networks results in just over 1.25 million kilometres of travel (driver / passenger) in the evening peak hour, with each traveller travelling for an average overall journey distance of some 36 kilometres and spending an average of 33 minutes to complete each of these journeys. It should be noted these figures and those shown below include the long distance movements on the M6 Motorway and therefore are in excess of the figures which just apply to traffic travelling to / from or within the conurbation.

Average journey length and average travel time vary, however, according to the mode chosen by the traveller. Table 5.5 provides details of these variation for the 2002 evening peak hour period.

In terms of network efficiency, road safety and environmental impact it is the number of vehicles using the transport network, together with the characteristics of the network itself, that determine network congestion.

Average Average Percentage Travel Trip (in terms of Time Length KM (M ins) (KM ) travelled) of all travel on the local transport network

Private Car and Goods Vehicle 33.4 37.6 97.1% Urban Bus 16.0 5.4 2.0% Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the study area) 23.6 28.0 0.9% Overall 32.7 35.9 100%

Table 5.5: Traveller Based Travel Characteristics by Mode, 2002 Evening Peak Hour Period

Table 5.6 provides information regarding the number of vehicle kilometres driven in the 2002 evening peak hour period, the overall number of vehicle hours that these vehicles operate for and average vehicular travel speeds. This information is presented by mode and location, as appropriate.

Overall, across the area covered by the North Staffordshire Multi-Modal Model the average speed of private vehicles is 45.5kph, with the average speed varying considerably between the congested urban part of the study area, where the

speed falls to 31 kph and the rural part of the study area, where the average speed is 82.2 kph.

Vehicular Vehicular Average Travel Travel travel Speed Distance Time (KM /h) (KM ) (Hours)

Private Car and Goods Vehicle a) By Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 421,100 13,575 31.0 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 438,750 5,340 82.2 b) By Road Type i) M otorway 285,650 2,960 96.5 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 150,700 3,085 48.9 / A500) iii) Other Roads 423,500 12,870 32.9 c) Overall 859,850 18,915 45.5 Urban Bus 3,100 150 20.4 Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the 500 7 70.9 study area) All M odes 863,450 19,072 45.3

Table 5.6: Vehicle Based Travel Characteristics by M ode, Location and Road Type, 2002 Evening peak Hour Period

The figures for private vehicles have also been broken down by road type, with the average speed on the M6 motorway being 96.5 kph. This falls to 48.9 kph on the A50(T) and A500(T) trunk roads and drops to 32.9kph on all remaining routes (which lie both within and outside the North Staffordshire urban area).

The vehicular travel distance figure for public transport services reflect the fact that bus usage is low when compared to private vehicle usage across the North Staffordshire urban area. Of the 424,700 vehicle kilometres travelled across the urban area (the All Modes figure of 863,450 km minus the 438,750 km travelled across the Rural Areas), just 3,100 vehicle kilometres (0.7%) were travelled by bus, with 500 vehicle kilometres (0.1%) by rail services starting or finishing in the study area (the figures exclude through journeys by rail).

The average speed of urban bus journeys, at 20.4 kph, is significantly lower than that for private vehicles travelling in the urban area (31.0 kph). This primarily

reflects the fact that buses are slowed down by having to pick up / set down passengers and take fare payments and (to a lesser extent) the fact that there are relatively few bus priority measures in North Staffordshire.

In terms of the more detailed spatial distribution of private vehicles (cars and goods vehicles), buses and bus passengers, Figures 5.13 to 5.15 set out the following: Figure 5.13: Vehicular Traffic Flows, 2002 Evening Peak Hour Figure 5.14: Bus Flows (Vehicles), 2002 Evening Peak Hour Figure 5.15: Bus Passenger Flows, 2002 Evening Peak Hour

6 The Environmental Regime

6.1 Introduction

The current environmental regime can be sub-divided into a number of differing components. Some of these, such as noise and local air quality, are directly related to the presence of traffic (whether this be road or rail traffic) using transport infrastructure and others, such as landscape, townscape, heritage, biodiversity and the water environment, are generally influenced primarily by the presence of infrastructure, rather than solely the level of usage.

In recognition of this, this Chapter concentrates primarily on describing the form and location of all the significant environmental assets (i.e. the Statutory Constraints) within the inner part of the study area.

In terms of prevailing noise levels and local air quality the information presented within this Chapter is limited to identifying locations that are sensitive to these two issues and highlighting the current Area Quality Management Areas. Analysis of both current traffic related noise and local air quality levels, and the future impact of traffic changes on these related noise and air quality pollutants, is addressed later within the report.

The next four sections summarise the statutory designated international, national, regional and local environmental assets that exist within the study area.

6.2 Internationally Designated Environmental Assets

W ithin the Inner Study Area there are no identified internationally designated assets. The eastern edge of the Inner Study Area does, however, lie within some 10 kilometres of the Peak District National Park and a number of Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation which are contained therein. In addition, there are a number of RAMSAR sites (wetland sites of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention, held in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971) which lie to the west of the M6.

6.3 Nationally Designated Environmental Assets

In terms of nationally designated assets the area benefits from four Sites of Special Scientific Interest, all situated to the east or south of the built up area. From north to south these are: • A. Ford Green Reedbeds; • B. W etley Moor; • C. Hulme Quarry; and

• D. Kings and Hargreaves Woods.

The third of these, Hulme Quarry, is also designated as a National Nature Reserve.

There are also a number of designated Ancient W oodlands. The most significant of these are sited at Chatterley Valley (to the west of the A500), in Northwood (on the western side of the Lyme brook), at Seabridge (adjacent to the M6) and in the vicinity of Trentham Gardens.

Finally, there are also a number of National Heritage sites within the Inner Study Area. These are as follows: 1. Castle Hill Motte, Audley; 2. Springwood blast furnace, Chesterton; 3. Chatterley Whitfield colliery; 4. Moated site at Hallwater House, Endon Bank; 5. Churchyard Cross, St Edward's Churchyard, Cheddleton; 6. The Butter Cross, Lowerhouse Farm, Cheddleton; 7. Moated site and pond at Moor Hall Farm, Bagnall; 8. Hulton Abbey (site of), between Bucknall and Milton; 9. Simfields moated site, east of Bucknall; 10. Bowl barrow at St Thomas's Trees (north of Blythe Bridge); 11. Moated site and two ponds at Lawn Farm, Bentilee; 12. Anglo-Scandinavian cross in St Peter's churchyard, Stoke; 13. Etruscan bone mills, to the south east of Etruria Station; 14. Newcastle under Lyme Castle, Newcastle; 15. Bowl barrow north of Hargreaves W ood, (north of Trentham Gardens); and 16. Heighley Castle (west of M6).

All of these sites are identified on Figure 6.1.

6.4 Regionally Designated Environmental Sites

As can be seen from Figure 6.2, the conurbation is surrounded on all sides by Green Belt. Further east, to the south of Leek, there are also some lands designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

6.5 Locally Designated Environmental Sites

In addition to the above there are also a number of locally designated sites within the study area These include the following: a) Local Natural Heritage Sites – Stoke on Trent • Packmoor Hay Meadows; • Scotia Brook; • W hitfield Valley; • Heakley Marshes; • Tunstall Park Glacial Erratic; • Baddeley Edge Ridge; • Goldendale Pools; • W estport Lake Park; • Holden Lane Pools; • Bagnall Road W ood; • Cromer Road; • Bucknall Glacial Erratic; • Causeley Brook; • Berryhill; • Hartshill Park; • Park Hall Country Park; • Manorfields Pools and Trentside; • Smith’s Pool; • Crockster Brook; • Bridgetts Pool; • W eston Sprink; • Hem Heath W ood and Newstead W ood.

b) Local Natural Heritage Sites – Newcastle Under Lyme • Podmore Pools; • W atermills W ood; • Apedale Marsh; • Springpool W ood; • Clayton Fields; • Audley Castle Banks;

• Bignall End Coalyards; • Parrots Drumble; • Bathpool Park; • Bradwell W oods; and • Briery Hill.

c) Local Conservation Areas • Kidsgrove; • Talke; • Audley; • Tunstall - Tower Square and Park Terrace; • Burslem Town Centre; • Middleport - Newcastle Street; • W olstanton; • Sliverdale; • Hanley - Albion Square, Hanley Park; • Newcastle - Town Centre, The Brampton, Stubbs W alk; • Keele and Keele Hall; • Hartshill; • Stoke - The Villas, W inton Square, St Peter’s Churchyard; • Penkhull – Penkhull Village, St. Christopher Avenue; • Clayton; • Fenton - Albert Square, Victoria Place, Hitchman Street; • Longton – Short Street, Gladstone Pottery Museum; • Trentham - Ash Green; • Blurton Church; • Dresden; • Trent and Mersey Canal, Caldon Canal; and • Victoria Park.

6.6 The Water Regime

The central part of the study area lies at the head of the Trent Valley and, as such, is crossed by Fluvial Flood Plains. At each of the four extremities of the study area there are also W ater Protection Zones, centred around Meir, Leek, Audley and W hitmore. Each of these features is shown on figure 6.3.

6.7 Sensitive Land Uses

Based on a preliminary series of land use observations the sensitivity of each road link to traffic noise has been determined. Links that are considered to be sensitive to noise are shown in Figure 6.4. In preparing this figure it has been assumed that links will be sensitive to noise impacts where they have housing, education, hotel or hospital land uses adjacent to them.

For the purposes of establishing which road links are sensitive to local air quality issues it has been assumed that all road links that have housing, retail, office, education and hospital land uses adjacent to them will be sensitive. These are shown on Figure 6.5.

6.8 Local Air Quality Management Areas

It should be noted that there are two local Air Quality Management Areas within the study area. These are located at: • Burnham Street, Fenton; and • Cliffe Vale (east), Stoke.

7 Problems and Issues, 2002 Base Year

7.1 Introduction

Building on the information set out within Chapter 5, this Chapter now examines the current travel related problems and issues within the North Staffordshire conurbation.

The information contained herein will be used, in combination with similar data for the future year, to establish a series of benchmarks against which the performance of any future transport strategy can be assessed.

The majority of the information presented is based on objective analyses and provides: • a quantification, at a spatial level, of the impacts that current travel activity has in terms of prevailing efficiency, environmental, road safety and accessibility conditions; and • an examination, again at a spatial level, of the degree to which these prevailing conditions constitute a problem that needs to be addressed by any future transport strategy.

Equally important, however, are the perceptions that users of the transport network have about its operation and quality. The last section of the chapter therefore provides an overview of the key issues raised at the Stakeholders workshops and attempts to make comparisons, where appropriate, between these perceptions and reality.

In order to prepare the objective information set out herein, it has been necessary to adopt a uniform approach to methods of measurement, both in quantifying conditions in absolute terms and for the purposes of quantifying problem severity. Details of the adopted methods of measurement for ascertaining absolute conditions have already been summarised in outline form in Chapter 4. Details of the adopted thresholds used for problem identification, where they are appropriate, are set out each section within this chapter.

7.2 Efficiency Conditions

The efficiency of the transport network can be measured in two key ways, these being: • the ease with which each vehicle is able to move within the conurbation; and • the extent to which each vehicle is utilised.

a) Road Based Efficiency

In terms of the first of these, private cars, two wheeled vehicles, goods vehicles and buses all compete for the same road space within the conurbation and therefore generally experience the same problems in terms of traffic congestion and traffic delay. In the case of buses and goods vehicles however, these impacts are primarily concentrated within selected corridors where these vehicles tend to operate in high numbers. In a very limited number of places within the urban area buses also operate within restricted streets or bus lanes and therefore do not suffer the same problems as other traffic. These facilities are currently generally confined to Hanley, Newcastle, Tunstall and Stoke town centres.

Road based efficiency problems have been measured in two ways. These being the extent to which the overall capacity of each link is utilised (i.e. the Link Stress Level) and the extent to which vehicles are delayed at intersections (i.e. the Junction Stress Level). It is recognised that delays to traffic are caused by insufficient capacity being available at both links and / or junctions and that delays are caused by both of these in combination. Additionally, links or junctions where significant delays are experienced can act as a ‘bottleneck’, meaning that downstream links and junctions work more efficiently, this effect is taken into account in the Multi-Modal Transport Model network developed for the study.

So as to quantify the extent of these road based efficiency problems, calculations have been undertaken to determine stress levels on each significant link and at each significant intersection within the conurbation, and then the resulting stress levels have been compared with a series of thresholds so as to determine the extent of any problems.

The adopted method of measurement and the adopted thresholds are shown overleaf:

i) Link Stress Levels

M ethod of M easurement The ratio of evening peak hour traffic volume to the operational traffic capacity of the link, the link capacities are based on COBA11 speed flow curves.

Thresholds No Problem Links where the ratio of flow to capacity is less than 85%.

Slight Problem Links where the ratio of flow to capacity is between 85% and 100%.

Moderate Problem Links where the ratio of flow to capacity is between 100% and 125%.

Severe Problems Links where the ratio of flow to capacity is over 125%. ii) Stress at Intersections

M ethod of M easurement The average delay experienced by each vehicle using the intersection during the evening peak hour. Each significant junction in the study area is fully modelled, with specific coding provided for each lane / turning movement, according to whether the junction is a priority junction, roundabout or traffic signals. The coding is based on the junction coding available in the TRIPS modelling suite, which is similar to that used in ARCADY, PICADY or OSCADY.

Thresholds No Problem Average vehicular delay for each vehicle is below 40 seconds.

Slight Problem Average vehicular delay for each vehicle is between 40 seconds and 90 seconds.

Moderate Problem Average vehicular delay for each vehicle is between 90 seconds and 300 seconds.

Severe Problems Average vehicular delay for each vehicle is over 300 seconds.

Based on the use of the above thresholds, the road based efficiency problems in the 2002 evening peak hour are as shown in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. These show the following:

Figure 7.1: Link Based Efficiency Problems in the 2002 Evening Peak Hour.

Figure 7.2: Intersection Based Efficiency Problems in the 2002 Evening Peak Hour.

In summary terms, the total number of links and intersections experiencing differing levels of efficiency problems is set out in Table 7.1.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem Link Based 94.7 3.6 1.6 0.1 Problems Intersection Based 97.8 1.8 0.4 0.0 Problems

Table 7.1: 2002 Base Year - Summary of Network Efficiency Problems, (Evening Peak Hour Period)

Figure 7.1 shows that the existing link efficiency problems are concentrated on those routes which carry the highest amounts of traffic, namely the trunk and A road network. There is only one link with a Serious problem in 2002, although a number of links are suffering from Moderate problems. These links consist of a mixture of single and dual carriageway links, many of which are located at key locations within the conurbation. A section of Town Road, just to the east of Hanley is the only link experiencing a Serious problem. Some of the most notable examples of Moderate problems, include the A53 Etruria Road on both sides of the junction with the A500 (T), the A5272 between Lime Kiln traffic lights and Bentilee, the A50 between Cobridge traffic lights and Potteries W ay and the A34 on the approaches to both of its junctions with the A500 (T). A number of the intersections where efficiency problems exist (identified in Figure 7.2) are located in similar locations to the links identified in Figure 7.1. Those intersections where delays are most severe (between 90 and 300 seconds per vehicle on average) include the following key junctions, which are recognised as major causes of congestion in the North Staffordshire conurbation: • A500 (T) / Stoke Road; • A500 (T) / City Road;

• A500 (T) / A50 (T); and • A50 Potteries W ay / A5272 Bucknall New Road.

A further fifteen junctions are currently experiencing delays per vehicle averaging between 40 and 90 seconds. These are all located on the A road network within the conurbation. Five of these fifteen junctions are located on the busy A50 / A5007 route between Kidsgrove and Longton, with other junctions affected including the busy Limekiln traffic lights and the A519 Clayton Road / A500 (T) roundabout located just to the east of M6 Junction 15. b) Private Vehicle Based Efficiency – Occupancy Levels Current private vehicle occupancy levels, (which were derived from roadside interview surveys undertaken by Stoke-on-Trent City and Staffordshire County Councils) during the 2002 evening peak hour period are shown in Table 7.2.

Private Vehicle Occupancy Trip Purpose (People per vehicle) Home Based W ork trips 1.23 Home Based Education trips 1.64 Home Based Shopping trips 1.84 Home Based Other trips 1.72 Employers Business trips 1.31 Non Home Based trips 1.47 Light Goods Vehicles 1.46 Heavy Goods Vehicles 1.31 Average Private Vehicle Occupancy 1.44

Table 7.2: Private Vehicle Occupancy by Purpose, 2002 Evening Peak Hour

These current occupancy figures, which have been broken down into individual travel purposes, identify that there is scope for introducing measures that encourage car sharing, particularly for home based work and home based education trips, where occupancy levels are currently low. c) Bus Based Efficiency – Occupancy Levels Bus utilisation has been measured on a link by link basis, comparing the overall passenger demand on each link with the capacity of all the bus services travelling along that link (which took the type/capacity of the vehicles used for each service into account).

Resultant utilisation levels, shown in Figure 7.3, highlight that there are relatively few locations where bus services are running close to capacity. Those which are, showing a utilisation figure of greater than 75%, are the A50 Victoria Road between Fenton and Hanley, parts of the A34 north of Newcastle and the A53 to the south west of Newcastle. The numbers of scheduled services operating along these sections varies considerably, with the figure on the A53 for example just being based on three buses per hour each way and the figure for the A50 Victoria Road being based on around 12 buses per hour each way. Large parts of the remainder of the urban area (shown in green) have a much lower utilisation figure of less than 50%.

Most of the routes between Hanley, Newcastle and Stoke, plus most of the old A50 between Stoke and Meir, are shown in yellow, operating at between 50% and 75% utilisation. d) Rail Based Efficiency In terms of rail network efficiency the local rail network is affected by the needs of InterCity passenger movements (both to and from Stoke Station and through Stoke Station), local passenger movements and freight movement.

In reality, the rail network within the Study Area, particularly the north-south section between Stafford, Stoke and Congleton, is viewed by the Strategic Rail Authority and the Train Operating Companies as having a primary function of moving InterCity passengers. These longer distance InterCity requirements, coupled with the limited two track capacity of the current system, mean that at its critical points the rail network is operating very close to its capacity.

If it should be decided that additional train services are needed for local movements within the conurbation, or to and from the conurbation, it would be necessary to either revise existing priorities or to construct additional infrastructure.

In terms of efficient usage being made of current rail services, current local rail demand is small, particularly in terms of non InterCity movements. There are, therefore no current locally generated rail based efficiency problems in terms of train overcrowding. Discussions with Central Trains, who operate the main local service from Crewe to Nottingham / Skegness confirm this and this is reinforced by reference to the low levels of local demand shown in data derived from the Computer Analysis of Passenger Revenue Information (CAPRI) database, provided by Staffordshire County Council. This shows that passenger demand for local services (i.e. not including InterCity services) operating on the section of the W est Coast Main Line from Kidsgrove to Stoke from October 1999 to October 2000 (a period unaffected by the W est Coast Route Modernisation works) was around 400-450 passengers per day. Given that there were in excess of 30 such services operating each day at this time (15 in each

direction), then even during the morning and evening peak periods, no capacity problems exist.

In the wider context, however, the continuing improvements to the W est Coast Mainline, in terms of both operating speeds and rolling stock, are expected to lead to considerable increases in “through travel” patronage levels. This is likely to result in increasing pressures on existing services and a trend towards a need to increase “through service” capacity.

7.3 Safety Conditions

To assess the current situation, in terms of road safety problems, it has been necessary to assemble personal injury road accident data for the Core Study Area. This data, which has been obtained from Stoke City Council and Staffordshire County Council, covers the three year period up to December 2002.

During this period, there were some 1570 personal injury accidents per year on or near those links that make up the significant road network within the North Staffordshire conurbation. Of these, some 995 personal injury accidents occur on links while another 575 occur at intersections. These figures are shown in Table 7.3.

In terms of location, some 60 % of all the significant road links have an urban frontage, while over 90 % of all the intersections are located within the urban area.

P.I. Accidents P.I. Accidents on Links at Intersections

All P.I. Accidents occurring 995 575 in one year

Pedestrian P.I. Accidents 180 70 occurring in one year

Table 7.3: 2002 Base Year - Personal Injury Accidents by Location and Type

Tables 7.4, which follows, provides an analysis of these P.I. accidents by severity, dividing the data into P.I. accidents occurring on links and at intersections. In the case of the former the data is also divided by rural and urban frontage. It can be seen from this table that the severity of P.I. accidents is lower at intersections than on links, perhaps reflecting lower travel speeds through intersections. In terms of links there is little difference between P.I. accident severity in urban and rural areas.

Category Percentage of Personal Injury Accidents Accident Severity on Urban Links Slight 89.9% Serious 8.9% Fatal 1.2% Accident Severity on Rural Links Slight 89.9% Serious 8.8% Fatal 1.3% Accident Severity at Intersections Slight 94.8% Serious 4.6% Fatal 0.6%

Table 7.4: 2002 Base Year - Severity of Personal Injury Accidents in the North Staffordshire Conurbation, by Location

Tables 7.5 and 7.6 (shown overleaf) provide more detailed information regarding the casualty occurrences that result from P.I. accidents.

In the case of link based P.I. accidents, pedestrian casualty rates tend to be highest on routes with urban frontages and on single carriageway roads, with pedestrians making up around 25% of all casualties in such locations. Also of significance is the fact that some 20% to 25% of all casualties that result from P.I accidents on lower category urban roads are children aged between 5 and 16.

Given that this group represent only 15 % of the population this is a cause for concern. More detailed analysis also shows that in well over half of these child injury occurrences, the child was a pedestrian, rather than a passenger in a vehicle.

At intersections the patterns of pedestrian casualty occurrence tends to be similar, with the highest levels of pedestrian casualty involvement being at intersections on the more minor roads. Although patterns by age group and intersection type are less clear, there again appears to be a tendency towards higher child casualty involvement at intersections on lower category roads.

Percentage of Accidents in Which a Particular Category of Road User is

Involved

Category M otorways M otorways Roads Trunk Core (Dual) Roads A (Single) Roads A Roads B Roads Other

Category of Casualty (Urban) Pedestrians - 3.5 27 22 25 25 Bus User - - 4 2.5 2.5 2.5 Cyclist - - 3 3 5 3.5 M otor Cyclist - 2.5 7 6 7 8 Taxi User - - 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 Other Road User - 95 60 70 60 65 Category of Casualty (Rural) Pedestrians 1 - 3.5 7.5 9.5 9 Bus User - - - 1 - - Cyclist - - - 5 7 2.5 M otor Cyclist 2 - 3.5 11 10 12.5 Taxi User ------Other Road User 97 100 93 77 75 75 Age of Casualty (Urban Roads) 0 to 5 years - 2.5 4 2.5 4 3 6 to 16 years - 6 10 15 20 25 Over 65 years - 3.5 6.5 6 7.5 8.5 Age of Casualty (Rural Roads) 0 to 5 years 1.5 - 3.5 4 - 2 6 to 16 years 7.5 4 - 10 15 15 Over 65 years 11.5 - 17 8 10 4

Table 7.5: 2002 base Year - Casualty Analysis, by User Group and Age Profile, for Link Based Personal Injury Accidents in the North Staffordshire Conurbation, by Road Type and Location

Percentage of Accidents in W hich a Particular Category of Road User is Involved

Category Grade Separated – All –All Separated Grade Roads A / Trunk – Roads Signals A / –Trunk Roads A / Roundabouts – Trunk Uncontrolled Roads B – Signals Roads Other / B – Roundabouts Roads B – Uncontrolled Roads – Other Uncontrolled

Category of Casualty

Pedestrians 5 15 7.5 20 10 23 15 15

Bus User 1 5 5 3 - - 5 5

Cyclist 1 4 6 2.5 - 1 12 4

M otor Cyclist 5 2 8 6 5 15 6 3

Taxi User - 1 1 1 3 1 - -

Other Road User 90 80 85 67 85 63 67 75

Age of Casualty

0 to 5 years 2.5 1

6 to 16 years 5.5 16

Over 65 years 3.5 6.5

Table 7.6: 2002 Base Year - Casualty Analysis, by User Group and Age Profile, for Intersection Based Personal Injury Accidents in the North Staffordshire Conurbation, by Road Type and Location

P. I. Accident Occurrence Rates by Link, Intersection and Area Type The spatial distribution of the above P.I. accidents has been further analysed so as to establish locally based personal injury accident occurrence rates for different types of road and differing forms of intersection control. The

resulting average values for each category of road and intersection are set out in Tables 7.7 and 7.8. The accident rates for the North Staffordshire conurbation shown in Table 7.7 have been compared with national rates obtained from DfT figures1. Direct comparison is difficult given the different categories used in the local and national figures, but examination of the figures contained in Table 7.7 suggests that on the whole the accident rates for the North Staffordshire conurbation are below national rates for motorways and A Roads, but above national rates for other roads (including B, C and unclassified routes).

So as to gain an understanding of current personal injury accident “hot spots” the number of actual personal injury accidents occurring on each link and at each intersection over the last three years has been compared with the average occurrence rates set out in Tables 7.7 and 7.8.

A second analysis has also been undertaken for each of the above “hot spot” locations, concentrating particularly on those “hot spot” locations that have high pedestrian related accidents problems. In this case the thresholds contained in Tables 7.7 and 7.8 have been adjusted to reflect the pedestrian casualty occurrence percentages set out in Tables 7.5 and 7.6. Separate analysis has not been undertaken for each of the other groups of road users as occurrence levels are relatively low.

Urban Areas Rural Areas Link Type Local National Local National

M otorway 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 Core Trunk Roads 0.09 0.11 A Roads (Dual) 0.33 0.77 0.16 0.26 A Roads (Single) 0.67 0.31 B Roads 0.91 0.32 0.66 0.47 Other Roads 1.00 0.43 Note- National Figures taken from Road Casualties in Great Britain 2003 Annual Report Table 7.7: Comparison of Annual Average Personal Injury Accident Rates on Links in the North Staffordshire Conurbation with National Average Accident Rates (Personal Injury Accidents per million km travelled)

1 Taken from Road Casualties in Great Britain 2003 Annual Report – Department for Transport

Road Type M otorway Trunk and A B Other Roads roads Roads

Intersection Type Grade Separated 8.33 5.0 - - Signals - 1.75 1.75 - Roundabouts - 2.0 1.0 1.0 Cross Roads - 1.17 1.0 0.6 T - Junctions - 1.08 0.67 0.33

Table 7.8: Annual Average Personal Injury Accident Rates at Intersections in the North Staffordshire Conurbation (Personal Injury Accidents rates per intersection)

These occurrence rates have been used to establish the severity of current accident problems on each link and at each intersection, through use of the thresholds set out below:

M ethod of M easurement Ratio of number of personal injury accidents occurring per year with the average number of such accidents expected to occur on the link or at the intersection. These expectations being based on the accident occurrence rates set out in Table 7.7 and 7.8.

Thresholds

No Problem Links where the ratio of actual to expected personal injury accident levels is below 110%.

Slight Problem Links where the ratio of actual to expected personal injury accident levels is between 110% and 150%.

Moderate Problem Links where the ratio of actual to expected personal injury accident levels is between 150% and 200%.

Severe Problems Links where the ratio of actual to expected personal injury accident levels exceeds 200%.

Based on use of the above thresholds, the road safety based problems in the year 2002 are as shown in Figures 7.4 and 7.5. These show the following information:

Figure 7.4 – All Road Users – Severity of Road Safety Problems, 2002 Figure 7.5 – Pedestrians – Severity of Road Safety Problems, 2002

In summary terms, the total number of links and intersections experiencing differing levels of road safety problems is as set out in Table 7.9.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

All Personal Injury Accidents

Link Based 67% 8% 8% 17% problems

Intersection 68% 11% 11% 10% Based Problems

Pedestrian Based Personal Injury Accidents

Link Based 82% 1% 3% 14% problems

Intersection 81% 4% 3% 12% Based Problems

Table 7.9 2002 Base Year - Summary of Personal Injury Accident Problems

The pattern of road safety problems suffered by all road users shown in Figure 7.4 highlights a number of links where serious road safety problems exist. These include a range of routes across the conurbation, with roads of differing types (single / dual carriageway), location (urban / rural) and with differing levels of traffic flow all affected. Examples include:

• A500 (T) between M6 Junction 15 and the A34 at Hanford; • A34 between the A500 (T) at Hanford and Clayton Lane; • A number of sections of the A50, namely High Street between Summerbank Road and Scotia Road north of Tunstall, Scotia Road from W illiamson Street to Burslem Town Centre and W aterloo Road between Cobridge Road and Potteries W ay north of Hanley; • A53 between Newcastle and the A500 (T); • A52 W errington Road between Dividy Road and Greasley Road; • Dimsdale Parade East and Alexandra Road in Wolstanton; and

• Beverley Drive in Bentilee.

The types of accidents suffered at these locations vary according to the type of road, with higher levels of pedestrian accidents occurring in the more urban locations and more speed related accidents occurring on routes such as the A500 (T) between M6 Junction 15 and the A34 at Hanford, where a contributory factor is also the lack of street lighting.

Figure 7.4 also identifies a number of intersections within the conurbation which suffer from serious accident problems, when their accident records are compared with the average observed for the conurbation as a whole. Many of these intersection are clustered around the largest settlements where traffic flows are highest within the urban area, with Hanley, Newcastle and to a lesser extent Longton particularly affected. The pattern of pedestrian accidents, which occurred on links shown on Figure 7.5 shows a different pattern, which is to be expected, given that a greater percentage of accidents involving pedestrians occur in areas where pedestrian activity is high. Many of the links are within the most populated parts of the conurbation.

Analysis of the intersections where serious pedestrian accident problems exist shows that a larger number of intersections are affected when compared with those experiencing serious problems for all accidents. The intersections affected are located around all of the main concentration of population in the conurbation rather than just the largest ones, with junctions around Stoke and Longton town centres being particularly affected by accidents involving pedestrians versus all accident types.

7.4 Environmental Issues

The current environmental regime has been described within Chapter 6. In the Base Year 2002 the most noticeable environmental impact, associated with travel activity, is that of traffic related noise and traffic related local air quality. Both impinge on the quality of life within sensitive urban areas and in the wider countryside. The following section examines prevailing noise and air quality conditions and then goes on to quantify where these might be considered to constitute a problem.

a) Traffic related noise Current levels of traffic noise have been computed for the 2002 Base Year situation using the recognised methodologies for calculating road traffic noise.

Resultant basic LAeq, 18 hour noise levels at 10 metres from the kerbside have been determined.

In order to determine whether these prevailing conditions constitute a problem, two factors need to be taken into account. The first relates to the characteristics

of the area through which the road link passes and the second relates to the levels of noise being experienced.

Locations that are sensitive to traffic related noise have previously been identified within Chapter 6 (Figure 6.4). The thresholds that have been used to establish whether a particular level of traffic noise constitutes a problem are set out below:

M ethod of M easurement Basic LAeq, 18 hour noise levels were calculated for a point at a distance of 10 metres from the kerbside. These calculations do not take account of any particular local issues or features.

Thresholds

No Problem All non sensitive links, regardless of prevailing noise levels.

Sensitive Links where the basic LAeq, 18 hour noise

level is below 65 dB LA10 18-hour .

Slight Problem Sensitive links where the basic LAeq, 18 hour noise

level is between 65 and 70 dB LA10 18-hour.

Moderate Problem Sensitive links where the basic LAeq, 18 hour noise

level is between 70 and 75 dB LA10 18-hour.

Severe Problems Sensitive links where the basic LAeq, 18 hour noise

level exceeds 75 dB LA10 18-hour.

Based on the above thresholds and the sensitive land use analysis set out in Figure 6.4 the resultant noise related problems in the 2002 Base Year are as shown in Figure 7.6. This shows that Severe Problems exist on large parts of the A50 (T) route between the west end of the Blythe Bridge bypass and the Stanley Matthews W ay junction, the A500 (T) between the A53 and City Road and a large part of the A34 from its junction with the A500 (T) at Hanford and Barlaston. W hilst selected parts of each of these routes have non-residential frontages, there are significant sections of each of these routes which are heavily populated, particularly on the A34 route, which has a significant impact on the quality of life of the local population.

Of those locations shown to be experiencing Moderate Problems (highlighted in yellow in Figure 7.6), those routes which are most affected include the A34 between Chesterton and the A500 (T) at Hanford (including all of the Newcastle Ring Road), the A53 between the A500 (T) and Cobridge traffic lights, the A52 between the A500 (T) and Limekiln traffic lights and the A527 / A5271 between Porthill and Middleport.

In summary terms, this figure shows that, in percentage terms, the total length of conurbation’s road network that is subjected to noise problems is as set out in Table 7.10.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Significant Roads No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 68.8% 21.5% 7.5% 2.1%

Table 7.10. 2002 Base Year Situation: Percentage of the Conurbation’s Significant Roads W here Frontages Experience Noise Problems b) Local Air Quality In assessing local air quality the key issue is to determine whether pre-set emissions levels for PM10s and NO2 are exceeded in locations that are sensitive to such emissions. Using recognised procedures the level of such emissions have been calculated for each road link within the study area. Emission levels have then been compared with established exceedence levels to establish the extent of any problems.

Locations that are sensitive to poor levels of local air quality have previously been identified within Chapter 6 (Figure 6.5). The thresholds that have been used to establish whether a particular level of local air quality constitutes a problem are set out below:

i) PM 10 Emissions

M ethod of M easurement Traffic related emissions levels for PM 10s will be calculated for a point at a distance of 10 metres from the source. These calculations will be undertaken using recognised procedures. The resulting emissions levels will then be compared with established exceedence limits for the year under consideration.

Thresholds No Problem All non-sensitive links, regardless of prevailing local air quality levels.

Sensitive links where the level emissions falls below the Government’s provisional exceedence levels for use beyond 2010.

Slight Problem Sensitive links where the level of emissions exceeds the Government’s provisional exceedence levels for use beyond 2010 but are still within the Government’s currently accepted exceedence levels.

Serious Problems Sensitive links where the level of emissions exceeds the Government’s currently accepted exceedence levels.

i) NO2 Emissions

M ethod of M easurement Traffic related emissions levels for NO2s will be calculated for a point at a distance of 10 metres from the source. These calculations will be undertaken using recognised procedures. The resulting emissions levels will then be compared with established exceedence limits for the year under consideration.

Thresholds No Problem All non-sensitive links, regardless of prevailing local air quality levels.

Sensitive links where the level emissions falls below the Government’s currently accepted exceedence levels.

Serious Problem Sensitive links where the level of emissions exceeds the Government’s currently accepted exceedence levels.

Based on the above thresholds and the sensitive land use analysis set out in Figure 6.5 the resultant local air quality related problems in the 2002 Base Year are as shown in Figures 7.7 and 7.8.

In summary:

• roadside annual mean levels of PM 10 are generally well below the current Government objective level of 40µg/m3 (Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000) but exceed the provision 2010 target in many places. Pollution levels in the urban area of Stoke-on-Trent are generally higher than elsewhere. • within Stoke-on-Trent, on many major roads and at many major

intersections, the prevailing level of NO2 are in exceedence of the current

Government objective level of 40µg/m3 (Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000). In particular, this includes the A500 that runs adjacent to the Cliff Vale (East) Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

• away from Stoke-on-Trent, roadside concentrations of NO2 are below the objective level.

Finally, Tables 7.11 and 7.12 set out the percentage of the conurbation’s road links that are subjected to local air quality related problems.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems No Problem Slight Serious Problem Problem Percentage of Network subjected to Traffic Related Local 44.5% 55.5% 0% Air Quality Problems

– PM 10

Table 7.11. 2002 Base Year - Summary of Local Air Quality Related

Problems – PM 10

Percentage of Network Subjected to Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems No Problem Serious Problem Percentage of Network subjected to Traffic Related Local 89.4% 10.6% Air Quality Problems

– NO2

Table 7.12. 2002 Base Year - Summary of Local Air Quality Related

Problems – NO2

C) Greenhouse Gases

In terms of green house gas emissions, total annual emissions in the 2002 Base Year are estimated to be in the order of 32,250 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide. Unlike other types of local pollutant, these are not likely to reduce significantly over time due to vehicle improvements and are therefore likely to be a major issue, both now and in the future. Table 7.13 provides an overview regarding the distribution of these pollutants across the core study area.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Area (tonnes) Base (2002) Stoke 11,400 Stafford 625 Staffordshire Moorlands 1,900 Newcastle-under-Lyme 11,300 Crewe & Nantwich 600 Congleton 6,450 Totals 32,275

Table 7.13: 2002 Base Year - Summary of Green House Emissions by District – Carbon Dioxide

7.5 Accessibility Issues

The low levels of car ownership within the conurbation, combined with the relatively low levels of public transport usage, suggest that accessibility, particularly for non-car owners, is a problem.

Many of the objectives discussed within Chapter 3 also relate to improving overall accessibility, not only from the viewpoint of residents, but also from the perspective of the employer.

The issues related to accessibility have therefore been examined in depth in this section of this Chapter, initially through examining accessibility from the viewpoint of the resident and then looking at the issue from the viewpoint of the employer.

a) Resident Based Accessibility. Levels of resident based accessibility tend to vary depending on which services / facilities one wishes to access and the mode of transport one chooses to use (or is compelled to use).

For this reason we have assessed resident accessibility to a wide range of facilities, both by car and non car modes, using travel times extracted from the Multi Modal Transport Model. In the case of non car modes, the analysis has assumed that travel will be made by the quickest mode (or combination of modes) that is available. The choice available in the model is travelling on foot, by bus or by rail (it should be noted that cycling is not modelled).

For the purpose of understanding the issues we have chosen to assess accessibility to each of the following services, facilities or opportunities

• education facilities, for those aged 4 to 16, taking into account the availability of school places at different times during the school life and the relative distances that pupils expect to travel to such school places. The location of schools, by age group is shown on Figure 7.9; • healthcare facilities in the form of family doctor surgeries or healthcare centre practices. The location of healthcare centres and surgeries is shown on Figure 7.10. • hospital facilities. The location of hospital facilities is shown of Figure 7.11; • basic food / household retail facilities that offer both a reasonable choice of goods and reasonable prices. For the purposes of this analysis such facilities were classified as “trolley shops” (i.e. a self service food / household goods retailer of sufficient size to warrant a sales system based around self service, checkouts and trolley shopping). The location of such shops is shown on Figure 7.12. • employment opportunities. This analysis was undertaken using the zonal employment data discussed in Chapter 5; and • social contact – this being measured in terms of the number of other households that can be visited within a given travel time. This analysis was undertaken using the zonal household data discussed in Chapter 5.

For the analysis to be sensible it needs to take account of: • the travel time from the resident’s home to the facility, service or opportunity; • the range of choices available to the resident (i.e. is there one shop or three shops to choose from within an acceptable travel horizon); and • the number of residents who might wish to access the service (i.e. if accessibility to schools is very low from a particular location, but no one lives there it does not matter).

The adopted acceptable travel times from the residents’ home to each type of attractor have been taken to be as set out in Table 7.14. These are based on a ‘common sense’ assessment of desirable maximum acceptable travel times to different facilities.

Using these maximum travel times, an analysis has been undertaken to: • firstly determine the overall percentage of the conurbation’s supply of a particular facility that can be accessed within the relevant maximum travel time; and • secondly, individual thresholds have been set for each facility, service or opportunity so as to allow an assessment to be made as to whether there are problems in accessing any particular facilities.

Facility M aximum Acceptable Travel Times Nursery Schools 15 minutes Infant Schools 20 minutes Junior Schools 30 minutes Secondary Schools 45 minutes Health Centres 20 minutes General Hospital 45 minutes

Retail 20 minutes Access to Jobs 45 minute Access to Households 45 minutes Table 7.14: Maximum Acceptable Access Times to Differing Facilities, Services or Opportunities

In the case of the first, the analysis has been undertaken without any consideration of the demand to use a specific service. In the second, problem orientated analysis however, those areas that have very low demands (i.e. very low residential densities), have been excluded.

In terms of general levels of accessibility to differing attractors it should first be noted that there are no identified issues within the conurbation with regard to car based accessibility. The analysis has therefore concentrated primarily on non car based accessibility levels. Figures 7.13 to 7.15 set out information for non car based accessibility as follows: Figure 7.13: Non car based Accessibility to Schools and Healthcare Facilities, Evening Peak Hour, 2002 Figure 7.14: Non car based Accessibility to Hospitals and Basic Food / Household Goods Retailers, Evening Peak Hour, 2002 Figure 7.15: Non car based Accessibility to Employment Opportunities and Other Households, Evening Peak Hour, 2002

These figures are colour coded by geographical area, according to the percentage of the attractors within the conurbation, which can be reached within the maximum acceptable travel time shown above in Table 7.14. For example Figure 7.14 (a) shows the percentage of the conurbation’s hospital bed supply, which can be reached within a 45 minute travel time by non car modes (walk, bus or train).

It can be seen from these figures that accessibility by non car modes is not particularly good. Examples of this include Figure 7.14 (a), where, effectively the areas not shown in orange or red cannot access the two main hospitals in the conurbation within 45 minutes by non car modes. Additionally, Figure 7.15 (a)

shows that residents in over half of the conurbation cannot access more than 50% of the employment opportunities available in the conurbation within a 45 minute travel time by public transport (areas shaded in shades of blue or green). This pattern is repeated in Figure 7.15 (b) for access to other households. This all suggests that those who do not have access to a car have limited choices.

The importance of this limited choice depends on the attractor. In the case of healthcare it might be argued that having the ability to access 20 different doctor’s surgeries rather than 2 or 3 is of little importance. However, being limited to a choice of one doctor might be a problem.

By contrast, in the case of employment, the more employment places that are accessible the greater the opportunities become to earn increased salaries and gain satisfaction from work.

Using this approach we have set differing problem based thresholds for different attractors. These are summarised below:

M ethod of M easurement Levels of accessibility will be calculated from each location to each attractor, based on the Maximum Acceptable Travel Times set out in Table 7.14. The total number of attractors that can be accessed from each location will be summed and expressed as both a number and as a percentage of the overall number of attractors.

Thresholds No Problem For the purposes of presenting this analysis it has been assumed that for all locations where the population density is below 10 people per hectare there are no substantial accessibility problems.

It is nonetheless acknowledged that for those who live in such areas, accessibility may be a major problem.

Locations where the following minimum accessibility criteria are satisfied:

Education: At least 25% of the conurbation’s school places are accessible to residents.

Healthcare: More than 2 doctor’s surgeries are accessible to residents.

Hospitals: At least 25% of the conurbation’s

hospital beds are accessible to residents.

Food Retail: More than 2 food retail stores are accessible to residents.

Employment: At least 35% of the conurbation’s employment places are accessible to residents.

Social contact: At least 35% of the conurbation’s households are accessible to residents.

Slight Problem Locations where the following range of accessibility exists:

Education: Between 20% and 25% of the conurbation’s school places are accessible to residents.

Healthcare: Only 2 doctor’s surgeries are accessible to residents.

Hospitals: Between 20% and 25% of the conurbation’s hospital beds are accessible to residents.

Food Retail: Only 2 food retail stores are accessible to residents.

Employment: Between 25 and 35% of the conurbation’s employment places are accessible to residents.

Social contact: Between 25% and 35% of the conurbation’s households are accessible to residents.

Moderate Problem Locations where the following range of accessibility exists:

Education: Between 15% and 20% of the conurbation’s school places are accessible to residents.

Healthcare: Only 1 doctor’s surgery is accessible to residents.

Hospitals: Between 15% and 20% of the conurbation’s hospital beds are accessible to residents.

Food Retail: Only 1 food retail store is accessible to residents.

Employment: Between 15% and 25% of the conurbation’s employment places are accessible to residents.

Social contact: Between 15% and 25% of the conurbation’s households are accessible to residents.

Severe Problems Locations where the following accessibility conditions exist:

Education: Less than 15% the conurbation’s school places are accessible to residents.

Healthcare: No doctor’s surgery is accessible to residents.

Hospitals: Less than 15% of the conurbation’s hospital beds are accessible to residents.

Food Retail: No food retail store is accessible to residents.

Employment: Less than 15% of the conurbation’s employment places are accessible to residents.

Social contact: Less than 15% of the conurbation’s households are accessible to residents.

Based on use of the above thresholds, there are firstly no significant accessibility problems for those who have access to a car. In terms of non car accessibility there are significant problems, as highlighted in Figures 7.16 to 7.18. These show the following information: Figure 7.16: Non car based accessibility problems to Schools and Healthcare Facilities, Evening Peak Hour, 2002 Figure 7.17: Non car based accessibility problems to Hospitals and basic food / household goods retailers, 2002, Evening Peak Hour, 2002 Figure 7.18 Non car based accessibility problems to employment places and other households, 2002, Evening Peak Hour, 2002

In summary terms, the percentage of the conurbation’s residents who would experience difficulties in accessing these attractors by non car modes is as set out in Table 7.15.

Attractor being Percentage of the Conurbation’s Households Accessed that Experience Accessibility Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Education Facilities 35.8% 15.3% 26.8% 22.2%

Healthcare Facilities 61.8% 17.4% 14.0% 6.7%

Hospital Beds 48.6% 2.2% 1.3% 47.9%

Basic Food / 48.0% 12.2% 16.6% 23.2% Household Goods

Employment Places 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7%

Social Contact 48.4% 26.6% 18.1% 6.9%

Table 7.15. 2002 Base Year - Summary of Non Car Based Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period)

In each of Figures 7.16 to 7.18 a number of areas are shown as having moderate or serious non car accessibility problems to each of the attractors assessed. Particular examples include Figure 7.16 (b) which shows that a number of areas within the conurbation, including parts of Crackley, Chesterton, Bradwell, Talke Pits, Norton in the Moors, Trentham and Kidsgrove, do not have access to any doctors surgeries within a 20 minute travel time.

Figure 7.17 (a) shows that large parts of the north and east of the conurbation can access less than 15% of the hospital beds available in the conurbation. Given that a very high proportion of the hospital beds are located either at the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary or the City General Hospital, which are soon to be located on a joint site to the south east of Newcastle-Under-Lyme, this effectively means that the whole of the area shown in red cannot access the two main hospitals within a 45 minute travel time by non car modes. It is also interesting to observe that even parts of the conurbation which are relatively close to the two main hospitals, such as Chesterton, Bradwell and Burslem, have serious non car accessibility problems. b) Employer Based Accessibility. A significant issue within the North Staffordshire conurbation is accessibility for employers to their potential workforces and to their potential markets (both for buying incoming raw materials and for exporting / selling commodities). These issues have therefore been examined separately.

In the case of the first, (i.e. access to workforce) the adopted approach to analysis is similar to that utilised for examining resident accessibility, except in this case the problems analysis has concentrated on examining the number of residents that can reach employment locations within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes.

For the second, the analysis has been split into two parts. The former examines the ease with which goods can be transported between employment sites and the highway access gateways and the latter concentrates specifically on examining the population catchments of each of the town centres, by car and non car modes. i) Access to W orkforce For the purposes of assessing access to workforce a maximum travel time of 45 minutes, has been adopted (compatible with residents maximum travel times to work). As with resident based accessibility, there are currently no accessibility issues for those who have access to a car.

The resulting non car accessibility analysis, based on the percentage of the conurbation’s workforce that can reach an employment location within 45 minutes is set out in Figure 7.19. (It should be noted that this figure is based on the available workforce, rather than simply population).

Figure 7.19 shows that it is primarily sites in the inner areas of the conurbation that have the potential to maximise their attractiveness to non car available workers.

So as to identify those employment locations that will have greatest problems in attracting non car available employees a series of workplace based accessibility thresholds have been established. These, together with the adopted methods of measurement, are as follows:

M ethod of M easurement Levels of accessibility to the workforce will be calculated from each location based on a Maximum Acceptable Travel Time of 45 minutes. The total accessible workforce can then be summed and expressed as a percentage of the conurbation’s overall workforce. Thresholds

No Problem Similar to the methods adopted to assess resident based accessibility, locations where the number of jobs per hectare is below 10 have been shown as having no accessibility problems (so as to concentrate on real problems, rather than potential problems). It should be noted,

however, that if any of the locations shown to have low levels of non car based accessibility in Figure 7.19 were to be considered for employment uses they are likely to have accessibility problems.

Employment locations where at least 35% of the conurbation’s workforce can access the site without the need to use a car.

Slight Problem Employment locations where between 25% and 35% of the conurbation’s workforce can access the site without the need to use a car.

Moderate Problem Employment locations where between 15% and 25% of the conurbation’s workforce can access the site without the need to use a car.

Severe Problems Employment locations where less than 15% of the conurbation’s workforce can access the site without the need to use a car.

Based on use of the above thresholds, the degree to which employment locations have non car accessibility problems are also shown in Figure 7.19. This shows that the moderate and serious problems are predominantly at locations away from the central part of the conurbation. Examples include Keele University, Trentham Lakes, Sideway, W olstanton Retail Park and areas to the north of Newcastle such as Lymedale.

In summary, the percentage of the conurbation’s employment places that are difficult to reach by non car modes is set out in Table 7.16.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Employment Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Accessibility to W orkforce by non 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% car modes

Table 7.16: 2002 base Year - Summary of the Percentage of Employment Places within the Conurbation that have W orkforce based Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period)

ii) Access to UK Gateways Equally important for employers within the conurbation is the issue of getting goods in and out of their premises. In particular, this relates to required travel times to access the Motorway / Trunk Road Gateways at the M6, Junctions 15 and 16 and the rural section of the A50 beyond Blythe Bridge.

To understand this issue a composite average travel time from each location to the three Gateways has been computed. W here sites are situated immediately adjacent to the to the A50 / A500 Trunk road network average access times during the evening peak period are less that 15 minutes. For sites that are further afield this can increase to over 30 minutes.

This access issue relates not only to journey time alone, but also to the “hassle” issue associated with using the non Trunk road network. Sites that are therefore any significant distance from the Trunk Road network tend to have poor accessibility in the eyes of industry. This has been borne in mind in setting the Gateway accessibility thresholds shown below.

M ethod of M easurement Road based accessibility to Gateways will be calculated as the average travel time by road to the three Gateways from each employment location.

Thresholds No Problem Similar to the above, locations where the number of jobs per hectare is below 10 have been shown as having no accessibility problems (so as to concentrate on real problems, rather than potential problems). It should be noted, however, that any new locations that are remote from the Trunk Road / Motorway network are likely to have Gateway based accessibility problems.

Employment locations where the average travel time to the road based Gateways is less than 20 minutes.

Slight Problem Employment locations where the average travel time to the road based Gateways is between 20 and 25 minutes.

Moderate Problem Employment locations where the average travel time to the road based Gateways is between 25 and 30 minutes.

Serious Problems Employment locations where the average travel time to the road based Gateways is in excess of 30 minutes.

Based on use of the above thresholds, employment locations that have poor accessibility to Gateways are shown in Figure 7.20. This shows that there is only one location, within Hanley City Centre, which shows a serious problem. Moderate problems exist in the area between Burslem and Sneyd Green, which straddles the A53 and also in the area around Kidsgrove Town Centre. Overall, the overwhelming majority of the conurbation does not experience significant problems in terms of road based accessibility to the areas Gateways. This is highlighted in Table 7.17, which summarises the percentage of the conurbation’s employment places that are difficult to reach from the road based Gateways and shows that only 2.6% suffer from moderate or serious problems.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Employment Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Accessibility to the Conurbation’s 77.4% 20.1% 1.8% 0.8% Road based Gateways

Table 7.17 2002 Base Year - Summary of the Percentage of Employment Places within the Conurbation that have Road Based Gateway Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period) iii) Access to Town Centres Finally, many businesses within the conurbation are located within the primary centres of Hanley and Newcastle or the secondary centres of Kidsgrove, Tunstall, Burslem, Stoke and Longton and rely on custom from the surrounding residential areas.

In order to assess the current accessibility of these centres by non car modes, a series of time based isochrone maps have been produced for each centre. These are set out in Figures 7.21 to 7.23 and show the following:

Figure 7.21: Non car based accessibility to Hanley and Newcastle Centres, 2002 Evening Peak Hour, 2002 Figure 7.22: Non car based accessibility to Tunstall and Burslem Town Centres, 2002 Evening Peak Hour, 2002 Figure 7.23: Non car based accessibility to Stoke and Longton Town Centres, 2002 Evening Peak Hour, 2002

As previously, access by car to each of the centres is not an issue, with the 30 minute isochrones for the two primary centres extending beyond the conurbation and the 20 minute isochrones for the local centres going well beyond each centres natural catchment boundary.

Turning to non car accessibility however, the story is significantly different, with many of the town centres having extended access times. Table 7.18 provides a summary of the percentage of the conurbation’s population that live within 30 minutes non car travel time of the primary centres and 20 minutes travel of the secondary centres.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Population Within the Non Car Accessibility Catchment

30 M in 20 M in Hanley Hanley Newcastle Kidsgrove Tunstall Burslem Stoke Longton

55.1 31.9 1.4 6.7 4.6 11.5 8.0

Table 7.18 2002 Base Year - Summary of the Percentage of the Conurbation’s Residents who Live within the Catchments of the Primary and Secondary Town Centres (Evening Peak Hour Period)

Figures 7.21 to 7.23 highlight that for each of the main centres shown above, the size of the surrounding areas where non car access is achievable within 30 minutes varies considerably. For Hanley, and to a lesser extent Newcastle, the areas where this access time can be achieved cover a relatively wide area of the conurbation. There are, though, a number of examples of places which are located within a short distance of Hanley or Newcastle, where access by non car modes cannot be achieved within 30 minutes. The most striking examples of this are listed below:

• Middleport, Longport, Porthill, Bradwell, W estlands, Sideway and Trentham Lakes to Hanley; and • Crackley, Middleport, Burslem, Tunstall, Cobridge, Mount Pleasant, Sideway and Trentham Lakes to Newcastle.

Examination of the access to the secondary town centres, shown in Figures 7.22 and 7.23, shows that the areas which can access each centre by non car modes within 30 minutes are smaller than the equivalent areas for the two primary centres, which is to be expected given the more limited range of facilities

available and the lower numbers and frequency of bus services serving each of them.

As with the primary town centres, there are again areas which are located within only a short distance of each of the secondary town centres, where access cannot be achieved in under 30 minutes by non car modes. The most striking examples are listed below:

• Bradwell, Chesterton, Talke Pits, Butt Lane, Newchapel, Norton in the Moors and Etruria to Tunstall; • Bradwell, Chesterton, W olstanton, Etruria, Shelton and Chell to Burslem; • Sideway, Trentham Lakes, Clayton, W olstanton, Cobridge and Berry Hill to Stoke; and • Berry Hill, Mount Pleasant, Trentham Lakes, Newstead and southern parts of Meir to Longton.

7.6 The Perceptions of Stakeholders

In all of the above sections the data presented has been collated through objective analysis. The success or failure of any transport system is, however, determined by those who make daily use of it. It is therefore important that the above analysis is collaborated, or otherwise, through consideration of the views expressed by the system’s Stakeholders.

The following provides an overview of the main issues raised within the Stakeholder workshops held in May 2004.

The information is set out in bullet point format under a series of topic headings and is supported, where appropriate, through the use of figures that add more detail regarding the spatial distribution of the identified problems and issues.

a) Public Transport - Buses • Poor reliability; • Poor vehicle condition / cleanliness; • Lack of service information; • Lack of shelters for bus passengers; • Hanley Bus station need refurbishing; • Lack of capacity at Newcastle Bus Stations; • Bus connections are good to Hanley but there are poor connections to everywhere else, particularly:

- to industrial estates; - to new developments; and - between communities within the Newcastle area.

Figure 7.24 provides more detailed information regarding Stakeholder perceptions of locations that have poor accessibility by public transport. So as to provide a basis for comparison with the objective analysis, the information is presented against a background made up of the previous Figure 7.19, which classified locations in terms of their of ease of accessibility from the viewpoint of the workforce. This shows that in many cases those areas identified as having poor accessibility by stakeholders coincide with those where accessibility by non car modes has been shown to be poor in the modelling work undertaken using the Multi-Modal Transport Model. b) Public Transport - Rail • low service frequency at local stations; • stations poorly located in relation to centres; • local access routes to stations are poor; • poor accessibility for mobility impaired; • poor personal security at local stations; and • lack of through ticketing. c) W alking • traffic speeds and illegal parking make walking unattractive; • there is a fear of crime, partly associated with poor quality of street lighting; • the A50 / A500 cause severance; • poor condition of footways; • poor environment discourages walking; • inadequate crossing times at traffic lights; and • lack of safe, attractive pedestrian routes.

Figure 7.25 provides more detailed information regarding stakeholder perceptions of locations where pedestrians experience severance problems because of high levels of traffic activity or because of the physical layout of the transport network. The locations identified are spread widely across the conurbation and are concentrated on those routes carrying higher levels of traffic. d) Cycling • poor driver behaviour;

• poor road surface condition; • obstruction from illegal parking; • lack of cycle parking facilities; • cycle routes are badly lit and unsafe; • disjointed routes, where they exist; • poor environment discourages cycling; and • weather / topography discourages.

Figure 7.26 provides more detailed information regarding Stakeholder perceptions of locations where cyclists experience difficulties because of poor safety conditions, difficulty in negotiating major intersections or because of discontinuities in the current off-road cycle networks. As with the pedestrian severance problems, those locations identified are primarily located on heavily trafficked routes. e) Car User Issues (as perceived from inside the car)

• Congestion is the major problem, with the key contributors being: - east – west movement difficult because of barriers (A500, railway, canal, rivers). - the “School Run”, - new development in peripheral locations. - accidents on the M6, causing diversion. - road network not suited to 21st century.

Figure 7.27 provides more detailed information regarding stakeholder perceptions of locations where road vehicles experience delays. So as to provide a basis for comparison with the objective analysis this information is presented against a background made up of the previous Figure 7.2 which identified intersections where general traffic currently experiences average delays on all approaches to the intersection in excess of 40 seconds. It should be noted that the number of perceived problems far outweighs the objective analysis, suggesting that stakeholders have a much lower threshold of tolerance to delay.

Almost all of the junctions shown to be causing significant delays to traffic by the Multi-Modal Transport Model developed for this study have also been identified by the Stakeholders. The only exceptions are the junction of the A50 and Pitt Street south of Burslem and the junction of the A53 and Norton Lane north of Milton. This shows a fairly strong correlation between those locations identified by Stakeholders and those intersections where significant delays are currently observed.

• parking , with the key issues being: - illegal parking and lack of enforcement, on main roads, within town centres and in vicinity of schools. - parking charges are too expensive, particularly in Hanley. - parking difficulties deter visitors from coming to Hanley centre. - a general resistance to higher parking charges, workplace parking charges and congestion charges. • inadequate direction signs; • disruption caused by roadworks; and • generally poor levels of highway maintenance.

Figure 7.28 provides more detailed information regarding stakeholder perceptions of locations where there are parking related problems, either in the form of a lack of parking facilities or in the form of illegal parking activity. These are primarily located in and around the largest settlements within the conurbation including Hanley, Newcastle, Burslem and Fenton. Other areas identified included the A527 as it passes through May Bank and Wolstanton and the Stoke Road / College Road area, where the main generators or parking demand are the Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, Staffordshire University and the residential streets in this area, which largely consist of terraced properties with limited off road parking provision. f) Road Traffic Issues (as perceived from outside the car) • excessive travel speeds; • rat-running through residential areas; • illegal parking activity; • air pollution / traffic noise; and • too many lorries using the road system. g) Factors affecting Social Inclusion • high cost of travel; • perceptions of personal safety; • lack of access to public transport, particularly outside the working day and in rural areas; • lack of local facilities (shops, etc); and • lack of car availability, particularly the young, old, low waged and mothers at home.

7.7 Summary of 2002 Base Year Problems and Issues

A summary of the information presented in this Chapter is shown in Tables 7.19 and 7.20, which follow.

Table 7.19 quantifies the existing problem severity for Efficiency, Safety and the Environment. Examination of the figures for Efficiency show that just over 5% of all links and 2% of intersections are suffering from congestion problems in the 2002 evening peak hour. This shows that traffic congestion is an issue which only affects limited parts of the road network, which is reinforced by the average observed private vehicle speed of 31 kph, which, when compared to other large conurbations is relatively high.

Despite this, traffic congestion is still an important issue for the conurbation, although it could be argued that compared with some of the other issues such as Accessibility, that it has a lesser impact on the local population. Also, the analysis presented in Figure 7.27, which compares the perception of stakeholders of where road users experience delays versus the objective analysis presented in Table 7.19, suggests that stakeholders have a low tolerance and high awareness of delay and that their perceptions may not fully reflect the actual situation.

Examination of the Road Safety figures suggests that around one third of links and junctions are currently experiencing safety problems. The more detailed figures reported in Section 7.3, show that there is a high occurrence of both pedestrian and child accident casualties within the conurbation and that many of the child victims are pedestrians. This accords with the perceptions of stakeholders regarding a lack of safe, attractive pedestrian routes in the area, inadequate crossing times at traffic lights and excessive travel speeds.

Additionally, there were strong views expressed by stakeholders on issues around personal safety whilst travelling, particularly by non-car modes, with the fear of crime whilst walking and inadequate personal security at rail stations being particularly important issues.

The Environmental figures shown in Table 7.19 highlight that traffic noise is a problem across a significant part of the conurbation’s road network, with just under one third of it suffering from problems, with just under 10% of the network suffering from Moderate or Severe problems. Additionally, over half of

the road network is suffering from air pollution issues from PM10s. This accords with the views of stakeholders who raised air pollution and traffic noise as a significant issue in the participation workshops.

Table 7.20 summarises the existing problems faced by the local population in accessing goods and services. These problems are almost exclusively faced by people who do not have access to a car for their journey, who therefore have to

travel by non-car modes (walking / public transport) to make their journey and are based on the thresholds set out in Section 7.5. This section and the figures which accompany it, clearly set out the problems faced and show those locations which are most affected and the goods and services they face difficulty in accessing.

The summary of the Accessibility problems faced in Table 7.20, show that for many of the goods and services assessed a high proportion of residents are experiencing problems in accessing them within the thresholds set, which represent a ‘common sense’ maximum time which should be achievable for that journey. Particular examples include access to hospital beds, where just over half of residents are experiencing problems, with 47.9% experiencing severe problems. This is largely a function of the fact that the two main hospitals in the conurbation are located within a short distance of each other in the south western part of the conurbation away from the main urban centres, meaning that non-car journey times are very high from the northern and eastern parts of the conurbation.

Additionally, Table 7.20 shows that just over one third of residents suffer from problems in accessing employment opportunities by non car modes and around a quarter of all workplaces have problems in terms of their accessibility to potential staff members. Finally, over half of the population currently experience problems in making social contact.

All of the figures presented in Table 7.20 accord with the views of stakeholders who raised the problems experienced both with the existing public transport services and network coverage and the difficulties experienced in accessing these facilities in the participation workshops. Further to this a problem which has recurred throughout this study is the difficulties experienced by residents in accessing employment opportunities by non car modes. This particularly applies to those employment sites located in the more peripheral parts of the conurbation.

7.8 Overall Conclusions

The information set out within this Chapter provides an in-depth understanding of the current transport system and its implications in terms of transport efficiency, road safety, environmental impact and accessibility.

This data will form the basis for understanding: • firstly how conditions will worsen in the future, if no interventions are made; and • secondly, in assessing how any future transport strategy might help to improve all of these issues.

No Slight M oderate Serious

Problem Problem Problem Problem

Link Based Efficiency Problems (% of Links 94.7 3.6 1.6 0.1 Experiencing Problems)

Intersection Efficiency Based Problems (% of 97.8 1.8 0.4 0.0 Intersections Experiencing Problems)

Link Based Road Safety Problems (% of 67% 8% 8% 17% Links Experiencing Problems)

Intersection Based Road Safety Problems (% of Intersections 68% 11% 11% 10% Experiencing Problems)

Traffic Related Noise Problems (% of Links 68.8% 21.5% 7.5% 2.1% Experiencing Problems)

Local Air Quality Related Problems – PM 10 (% of Links 44.5% 55.5% 0% 0% Experiencing Problems)

Local Air Quality Related Problems – NO2 (% of Links 89.4% 0% 0% 10.6% Experiencing Problems)

Table 7.19: Problem Severity, Efficiency, Road Safety and Environment – 2002 Base Year

No Slight M oderate Serious Access to: Problem Problem Problem Problem

Education Facilities (% of Conurbation’s 35.8% 15.3% 26.8% 22.2% Households Experiencing Problems)

Healthcare Facilities (% of Conurbation’s 61.8% 17.4% 14.0% 6.7% Households Experiencing Problems)

H ospital Beds (% of Conurbation’s 48.6% 2.2% 1.3% 47.9% Households Experiencing Problems)

Food / Household Goods (% of Conurbation’s 48.0% 12.2% 16.6% 23.2% Households Experiencing Problems)

Employment Places (% of Conurbation’s 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7% Households Experiencing Problems)

Social Contact (% of Conurbation’s 48.4% 26.6% 18.1% 6.9% Households Experiencing Problems)

W orkforce (% of Conurbation’s W ork 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% Places Experiencing Problems)

Gateways (% of Conurbation’s W ork 77.4% 20.1% 1.8% 0.8% Places Experiencing Problems)

Table 7.20: Problem Severity, Accessibility Issues – 2002 Base Year

8 The 2021 Reference Case Situation

8.1 Introduction

Between now and 2021 there are likely to be changes within the North Staffordshire conurbation, resulting from the redistribution of populations, changes in household size, changes in the age structure and changes in the availability of employment opportunities. In addition, with increasing wealth generation, there is likely to be an increased demand to travel.

These factors, combined with the introduction of new committed infrastructure, will result in a change in the levels of travel activity within the conurbation and on its approaches. This Chapter sets out to quantify these changes.

8.2 Future Populations, Households and Employed Residents

Based on a series of discussions with officers from each of the Planning Authorities, together with officers working for RENEW and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone, a consensus view has been reached as to the likely pattern of development within the conurbation and the remainder of the study area in 2021.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the significant future land use pattern changes, which will result from the RENEW and Regeneration Zone strategies, the Reference Case used for this study represents a compromise situation between the existing planning policies and development pipeline. The forecast lies part way between these two, although it should be noted that it is much closer to a ‘trend based’ forecast in line with existing policies. In order to show the potential impact of the RENEW and Regeneration Zone policies and the likelihood of a greater concentration of development within the central part of the conurbation, a number of alternative land use scenarios have been assessed in Chapters 17 and 20 of this report.

The Reference Case consensus view is set out in tabular form in Table 8.1. This details the number of people, households, employed residents and employment opportunities that are likely to exist in differing parts of the study area in 2021.

In overall terms the key differences between these figures and those presented for the 2002 Base Year, in Chapter 5, are as follows: • over the Study Area as a whole there is very little change in the overall size of the population. There is, nonetheless, a very slight migration from the Inner Study Area to the Outer Study Area

Location Population Households Employed Employment Residents Places Core Area Stoke On Trent 232500 99500 83500 113000 Stafford (part) 750 500 500 250 Newcastle under Lyme (part) 97500 44500 37500 42750 Total 330750 144500 121500 156000

Inner Study Area (including Core Area) Stoke On Trent 232500 99500 83500 113000 Newcastle under Lyme (part) 105500 48000 40750 45000 Stafford Moorlands (part) 21500 9750 9250 3750 Stafford (part) 5000 2250 1750 1750 Total 364500 159500 135250 163500

Outer Study Area Newcastle under Lyme (part) 5500 2500 2500 1500 Stafford Moorlands (part) 56000 25500 29000 16250 Stafford (part) 57250 26250 31250 33000 Congleton (part) 20500 9500 8750 6250 East Staffordshire (part) 47250 21750 25750 25500 Crewe and Nantwich (part) 71000 32750 37250 34500 North Shropshire (part) 48250 21750 25500 19000 Total 305750 140000 160000 136000

Overall Stoke On Trent 232500 99500 83500 113000 Newcastle under Lyme (part) 111000 50500 43250 46500 Stafford Moorlands (part) 77500 35250 38250 20000 Stafford (part) 62250 28500 33000 34750 Congleton (part) 20500 9500 8750 6250 East Staffordshire (part) 47250 21750 25750 25500 Crewe and Nantwich (part) 71000 32750 37250 34500 North Shropshire (part) 48250 21750 25500 19000 Total 670250 299500 295250 299500

Table 8.1: 2021 Reference Case - Populations, Households, Employed Residents and Employment Opportunities

• despite this limited change in population levels, there is nonetheless, a 6% increase in the total number of households, reflecting a continuing move towards smaller family units in the future. However, this trend occurs primarily within the Outer Study Area; • in terms of the number residents available for work, future trends tend to mirror those seen in terms of household size. In the Outer Study Area, where household numbers increase, there is a complimentary increase in the number of residents available for work. In the Core Area however, the size of the workforce remains more or less static over the next 20 years; and • finally, in terms of employment opportunities, the overall number of jobs within the Study Area increases by around 12 %, with the highest increases being in outlying areas such as Crewe, Uttoxeter and Stafford.

Figures 8.1 and 8.2 show the future distribution of population and employment opportunities, in the form of density maps. Figure 8.3 then shows the relative changes in population and employment opportunities between 2002 and 2021.

By necessity, the future year planning forecasts presented here very much represent a compromise between all of the views of all the parties involved and, to some extent, reflect the current commitments towards the creation of new employment sites at Trentham Lakes, Lymedale, W hitfield Colliery, Chatterley Valley, Keele Science Park and in the vicinity of Bentilee.

So as to ensure that any future strategy is robust, its performance will be re- assessed under alternative land use scenarios, based around more concentrated land uses within the Core Areas.

8.3 Future Year Travel Demand and Travel Movement Patterns

The consequence of the above changes in population, households, employed residents and employment opportunities, combined with the impacts of continuing underlying economic growth, will be that the overall demand for travel will increase from the current level of some 1.35 million motorised person trips per day to around 1.55 million. This equates to 120,000 motorised person trips during the future 2021 evening peak hour period, travelling in some 82,500 cars and 225 individual bus services.

In terms of where and how these people are travelling, Tables 8.2 and 8.3 provide details regarding the orientation of trips between differing parts of the study area and the modal split between private transport and public transport. W here applicable, comparable figures for 2002 are shown in parenthesis.

In terms of trip orientation, the percentages shown in Table 8.2 are reasonably similar for each of the two years. The impact of higher numbers of households within the Outer Study Area is, however, reflected in the minor changes, with

the percentage of travel to and from the conurbation rising and movement wholly within the conurbation reducing. Similarly, the impact of increased employment opportunities at peripheral sites such as Trentham Lakes, Whitfield Colliery, Lymedale, Keele Science Park, Chatterley Valley and Bentilee is reflected in the changes in trips to and from Hanley and Newcastle centres (the impact of reversing this latter trend will be explored later within sensitivity tests).

Again, in terms of the modal split between private and public transport the percentages shown in Table 8.2 are fairly similar for 2002 and 2021. Closer examination shows, however, that there is generally a slight shift further towards the car. The only locations where this is not apparent is in terms of trip making are to and from Hanley and Newcastle town centres, where public transport services are better than elsewhere.

Private Public Transport Transport Overall 51% 83% 52.5% W holly within the urban area (53.5%) (83.0%) (55.0%)

36.5% 16.5% 35.5% To and from the urban area (35.0%) (16.5%) (34.0%)

12.5% 0.5% 12%

Through the Urban area (11.5%) (0.5%) (11.0%)

7% 34% 8% To / from Hanley and immediate area (8.0%) (34.5%) (9.5%)

4.5% 8.3% 4.8% To / from Newcastle and immediate area (5.5%) (8.4%) (5.7%)

Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 8.2: 2021 Reference Case - Travel Orientation, by Mode (W eekday Evening Peak Hour Period)

These two minor influences of increased travel from the Outer Areas to the Core and minor transfers from public transport to car are more noticeable when one examines future average trip lengths, particularly by car, and reconsiders the modal shares in terms of kilometres travelled, rather than simply the numbers of people travelling. This information, which is set out in Table 8.4 shows that there is a continuing trend towards ever increasing car dependency.

Private Public Transport Transport 93.3% 6.7% W holly within the urban area (92.9%) (7.1%) 98.0% 2.0% To and from the urban area (97.8%) (2.2%) 99.9% 0.1% Through the Urban area (99.9%) (0.1%)

To / from Hanley and its immediate 77.3% 22.7% area from other parts of the urban area (78.6%) (21.4%) To / from Hanley and its immediate 96.5% 3.5% area from the rural areas (96.2%) (3.8%)

To / from Newcastle and its 89.8% 10.2% immediate area from other parts of the urban area (91.0%) (9.0%) To / from Newcastle and its 96.9% 3.1% immediate area from the rural areas (97.1%) (2.9%) 95.8% 4.2% Overall (95.3%) (4.7%) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 8.3: 2021 Reference Case - M odal Choice, by Location (W eekday Evening Peak Hour Period)

Average Average Percentage Travel Time Trip Length (in KM (M ins) (KM ) travelled) of all travel

Private Car and Goods 38.9 42.2 97.5% Vehicle (33.4) (37.6) (97.1%) 18.1 5.4 1.7% Urban Bus (16.0) (5.4) (2.0%)

Rail (Based only on Trips 23.7 28.1 0.8% starting or finishing in the study area) (23.6) (28.0) (0.9%) 37.9 40.7 100% Overall (32.7) (35.9) (100%) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 8.4: 2021 Reference Case - Traveller Based Travel Characteristics by M ode (Evening Peak Hour Period)

It should also be noted from the table that the increases in car based travel times are proportionately greater than the increases in travel distance. This reflects the impact that additional travel demand will have in increasing road based network congestion. Issues associated with the form of the future transport network and the efficiency of its operation are discussed next.

8.4 The 2021 “Reference Case” Transport Network

During the period between 2002 and 2021 there are a number of infrastructure improvements that have either already been implemented, or are fully programmed for implementation within this time horizon.

Infrastructure schemes that have already been implemented, since 2002 include: • Improvements to Smallthorne Roundabouts - These roundabouts, which are located at the junctions of Hanley Road with Sneyd Hill, Moorland Road / Ford Green Road and Bank Hall Road have been modified so as to improve safety. These modifications include the introduction of solid islands on the approaches, so as to increase deflection angles and the introduction of improved pedestrian and cycle facilities; • A34 Stone Road / B5041 London Road - Traffic signal control has been introduced at this location. • College Road / Cleveland Road – The priorities on the approaches to the intersection have been modified, with the northern arm (College Road) now giving way to College Road (south) and Cleveland Road. • B5047 Town Road / Hulton Street – The operational layout of this intersection has been extensively changed since 2002. This has included conversion from roundabout control to signal control, introduction of bus priority measures and the making of Town Road (between Merrick Street and Hulton Street), one way westbound.

In addition to the above the A500 Pathfinder Scheme is currently under construction – this scheme involves grade separation of the A500(T) at the Stoke Road and City Road intersections. The improvements extend from the Shelton New Road intersection in the north to the A50 (T) Sideway intersection in the south, with through traffic passing beneath both the Stoke Road and City Road intersections. Traffic wishing to leave the A500(T) to enter the urban conurbation will travel on new purpose built collector / distributor roads.

At ground level, the Stoke Road and City roundabouts will be replaced by new traffic signal controlled intersections, which will incorporate bus priority measures, improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities and widened footways.

This scheme, once implemented, will reduce the severance impacts of the A500(T) and will significantly increase the capacity of the A500(T) itself, providing traffic relief within the surrounding area.

At the present time there are no committed proposals in the wider area, designed specifically to channel the benefits of this scheme towards a particular road user group. Therefore, as indicated above, although the scheme will bring initial traffic relief in the surrounding areas this is likely to be eroded over the period up to 2021. In developing any future year transport strategy there is a clear opportunity to introduce measures that will prevent such erosion.

Other schemes that are programmed for implementation include the following:

• A50 (T) / Stanley Matthews W ay Grade Separation (Due for completion before 2011)– the current left in / left out access from the A50(T) to Stanley Matthews W ay will be replaced with a fully grade separated interchange. As the distance between this new intersection and the Blurton Intersection is short, new collector / distributor roads will be introduced between the two intersections. In addition, so as to increase capacity at the nearby A500(T) / A50(T) junction, new signal control, together with local widening, will be introduced at that location. Finally, once this scheme is fully implemented, the current bus gates on Stanley Matthews W ay will be removed. This scheme, coupled with the full opening of Stanley Matthews W ay, will again increase traffic capacity within the area, bringing traffic relief within neighbouring areas. Again, there may be an opportunity within any future transport strategy to ensure that the wider area benefits are channelled to specific user groups rather than simply being eroded over time. • A527 Tunstall Northern Bypass (Due for completion before 2011) - this scheme forms the final stage of the Tunstall Bypass. It will be single carriageway in format and will commence at the intersection of the current bypass with the A50, High Street, Sandyford. It will then continue eastwards before joining with the existing A527 at two new roundabout intersections, the first at the bottom of Pitts Hill bank (near Furlong Road) and the second at the junction with Turnhurst Road (half way up Pitts Hill bank). Included within the scheme package are complementary traffic management measures on St Michael’s Road. Completion of the scheme will allow east - west through traffic to be removed from the centre of Tunstall, thus reducing the current congestion and providing greater scope for the introduction of bus priority, pedestrian and cyclist facilities. • W olstanton Link Road (Expected to be built prior to 2011) - this developer funded scheme will provide a single carriageway link between the A527 Church Lane and the existing A500 (T)/ W olstanton Retail Park junction access. The link is being promoted in connection with a nearby housing development that has the benefit of planning permission.

No changes to public transport services have been assumed as such changes are generally made in response to changes in demand, which are difficult to forecast.

There are no committed public transport infrastructure schemes in the local area, although improvements to the infrastructure provided on Quality Partnership routes will continue to be implemented. The on-going improvements to the W est Coast Main Line may have implications for rail services. No specific alterations to the Multi-Modal Transport Model coding were made to account for these alterations, either because the precise nature of the changes is not known or the impact is not significant enough to warrant any alterations.

Finally, it should be noted that for the purposes of this study, the proposed closure of Etruria Station has not be considered as committed, as no firm decisions have been made.

It should further be noted that, from the perspective of this study, it has been assumed that all of the above changes have previously been justified and that necessary funding has been already allocated. Their impacts, costs and benefits will therefore not be assessed as part of the strategy appraisal.

8.5 Travel Conditions in the 2021 Reference Case Situation

W ith both the above infrastructure changes in place and the planning / demographic assumptions fulfilled there will be inevitable changes in vehicular activity within the conurbation and on its approaches. These will lead to changes in the transport network’s efficiency and will also impact on road safety, the environment and accessibility.

So as to understand the magnitude and distribution of the changes, relative to the 2002 Base Year, Table 8.5 provides information, by mode and location, regarding the number of vehicle kilometres driven in the evening peak hour, the overall number of vehicle hours that these vehicles operate for and average vehicular travel speeds. For comparison purposes data for 2002 is set out in parenthesis.

From examination of this table it can seen that: In terms of Private Vehicles (Cars and Goods Vehicles)

• the highest increases in travel occur on the M6 Motorway where overall levels of traffic growth are influenced by changes in the national economy, rather than the local economy. The increases are of the order of 37%. • when the influence of the Motorway is excluded, traffic levels in terms of vehicular kilometres driven increase by around 17 %, with increases on the A50(T)/A500(T) being 20 % and the increases on other roads being around 16 %. W ithin the urban area itself there is an increase of 16 % in the number of vehicle kilometres driven

Vehicular Vehicular Average Travel Travel Travel Distance Time Speed (KM x 1000s) (Hours) (KM /h)

Private Car and Goods Vehicle a) By Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 488.4 17985 27.2 (421.1) (13575) (31.0) ii) Travel in Rural Areas 574.4 7290 78.8 (including M6 M otorway) (438.8) (5340) (82.2) b) By Road Type i) M otorway 390.4 4155 93.9 (285.7) (2960) (96.5) ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 180.1 4445 40.5 / A500) (150.7) (3085) (48.9) iii) Other Roads 492.3 16675 29.5 (423.5) (12870) (32.9) c) Overall 1062.8 25275 42.1 (859.9) (18915) (45.5) Urban Bus 3.1 175 17.9 ( 3.1 ) ( 150 ) (20.4 ) Rail (Based only on Trips 0.5 7 70.9 starting or finishing in the ( 0.5) ( 7) (70.9 ) study area) All M odes 1066.4 25457 41.9 ( 863.5 ) ( 19072 ) ( 45.3) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 8.5: Vehicle Based Travel Characteristics by M ode, Location and Road Type, 2002 Evening peak Hour Period

• in terms of the number of vehicular hours that cars and goods vehicles spend travelling within the urban area during the 2021 evening peak period, this increases by around 32 %, reflecting higher levels of congestion and lower travel speeds; and

• within the urban area, travel speeds fall by around 12%, from 31 kph to 27.2 kph, with the highest reductions in travel speed being on the A50(T)/A500(T) Trunk Roads where speeds fall by 17 %, from 48.8 kph to 40.5 kph.

In terms of Public Transport Vehicles (Buses and Trains) • the overall distance travelled changes little between the two year, simply reflecting the fact that no committed service changes have been allowed for.

• The number of hours that buses operate for during the 2021 evening peak hour period does nonetheless, increase because buses generally suffer similar congestion problems to those experienced by cars and goods vehicles. This will have the consequence of increasing overall bus operating costs between now and 2021; and • trains are, of course, excluded from road congestion and therefore overall operating times and travel speed remain constant over time.

Figure 8.4 provides more detailed information regarding the spatial distribution of private vehicle (cars and goods vehicles) activity in the 2021 evening peak hour period, and Figure 8.5 shows those locations where there are significant changes in private vehicle activity between 2002 and 2021. The distribution of public transport vehicles and public transport passengers remains very similar to that noted in the 2002 Base Year.

The traffic flows shown on Figure 8.4 are all shown as two way private vehicle flows. Those routes with the highest flows, in excess of 5000 in the evening peak hour, are shown in brown. The M6, A500 (T) between the Alsager junction and the A34 Northwood junction, and the A50 (T) between the A500 (T) and Blythe Bridge, are carrying this high level of private vehicle traffic.

The main locations away from the trunk road network, where traffic flows are high (above 3000 private vehicles per hour two way) are shown in red and include: • the A34 between the A500 (T) at Hanford and Trentham, just to the north of the Newcastle Ring Road and as it passes through Chesterton; • the A53 between the A500 (T) and Etruria Road; • the A50 Potteries W ay between Town Road and Bucknall New Road and Botteslow Street and Lichfield Street; and • the A5272 between Limekiln traffic lights and Dividy Road.

Figure 8.5 highlights the predicted change in traffic flows between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case. Most of the significant predicted changes in traffic flows (flows which change by more than 500 either way) can at least, in part, be attributed to the impact of the committed highway schemes

100

listed in Section 8.4. An example of this is the significant increase in traffic flow predicted for the A500 (T) between the A50 (T) and M6 Junction 16 and corresponding decrease in flow on the A500 (T) just to the east of M6 Junction 15. This is primarily caused by the A500 (T) Pathfinder Project improvements, which will have the effect of encouraging a greater proportion of through traffic to use the northern section of the A500 (T) to access junction 16, due to the predicted reductions in delays on this section when compared with those experienced in the Base Year.

Further evidence of the impact of the committed highway schemes is the predicted increase in traffic flows on the A527 either side of the section of the Tunstall Northern Bypass, which it has been assumed is part of the Reference Case highway network.

The above increases in traffic activity, both in terms of distance travelled and the number of hours (each hour) that vehicles operate have direct impacts on the efficiency of the transport network, the numbers of personal injury accidents that occur, the number of people that suffer the impact of noise and local air pollution and overall levels of accessibility.

101

102

9 2021 Reference Case Problems and Issues

9.1 Introduction

Chapter 8 has examined how conditions will change between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case Situation. This Chapter now examines how such changes will impact on the efficiency of the transport network and on other related issues such as road safety, the environment and accessibility.

The information provided within this Chapter should be viewed as the “Reference Case” situation against which the performance of any future strategy will be assessed.

9.2 Efficiency Issues

a) Road Based Efficiency Road based efficiency problems in the 2021 evening peak hour period are as shown in Figures 9.1 and 9.2. These show the following: Figure 9.1: Link Based Efficiency Problems in the 2021 Evening Peak Hour Figure 9.2: Intersection Based Efficiency Problems in the 2021 Evening Peak Hour The relative changes in road based efficiency problems, from the 2002 Base Year situation to the 2021 Reference Case situation, are also set out within Figures 9.3 and 9.4.

The total percentage of links and intersections experiencing differing levels of efficiency problems in 2021, compared with 2002, are summarised in Table 9.1.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Link Based 90.7 5.7 3.4 0.2 problems (94.7) (3.6) (1.6) (0.1)

Intersection 96.5 2.6 0.8 0.1 Based Problems (97.8) (1.8) (0.4) (0.0) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table: 9.1: 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Network Efficiency Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period)

Although at first sight these changes might look small, they represent a 70% increase (285 links rather than 165) in the number of road links operating at, or

103

near, to capacity and a 60 % increase (35 intersections rather than 22) in the number of intersections where each vehicle using the intersection is delayed by more than 40 seconds. It should be recognised though, that this increased figure only represents a small proportion of the total links / junctions in the conurbation, which are included in the Multi-Modal Transport Model.

This worsening in overall conditions occurs despite the completion of the Pathfinder improvements on the A500(T) and the introduction of the other committed schemes outlined above. Some of the main locations where link conditions are expected to worsen include:

• Parts of the A500 (T) between its junction with the A527 at Longport to the B5045 Shelton New Road junction, where traffic flows are expected to increase significantly because of the effect of the A500 (T) Pathfinder Project; • A number of sections of the A50 (T) between the A500 (T) and Blythe Bridge are predicted to be suffering from Moderate rather than Slight Problems; • A Severe Problem is predicted for the southern end of Stanley Matthews W ay, which will provide access to Trentham Lakes from the south, which has possibly been caused by the opening up of Stanley Matthews W ay to through traffic following the completion of the junction improvements at the A50 (T) / Stanley Matthews W ay junction, which is treated as a committed scheme in the 2021 Reference Case; • The A34 between its junction with the A500 (T) at Talke to Kidsgrove is predicted to be suffering from a Slight Problem in 2021, with its junction with the A500 (T) suffering from delays of 40 to 90 seconds per vehicle;

In addition to this junction, a number of key intersections are predicted to suffer from increased delays in the 2021 Reference Case, including:

• The junctions between the A34 and Parkhouse Road West, B5041 London Road, the A500 (T) at Hanford and the Barracks Road / London Road roundabout at the south eastern corner of the Newcastle Ring Road; • A52 W errington Road / Dividy Road; • A5009 Leek Road / Bagnall Road / Millrise Road; • A50 W edgwood Street / B5051 Moorland Road / Market Place junction in the centre of Burslem; • A50 Liverpool Road / The Avenue in Kidsgrove Town Centre; and • A50 (T) / Stanley Matthews W ay.

Conversely, conditions at a small number of intersection improve significantly in the 2021 Reference Case when compared with the 2002 Base Year. These

104

include the following junctions, which have all benefited from the introduction of Committed highway improvements (shown in brackets):

• A500 (T) / Stoke Road (A500 (T) Pathfinder Project); • A500 (T) / City Road (A500 (T) Pathfinder Project); and • A50 High Street / Scotia Road junction in Tunstall (Tunstall Northern Bypass).

b) Car Based Efficiency – Occupancy Levels in the 2021 Reference Case Published research suggests that as the population becomes more wealthy overall levels of car occupancy will reduce. It is anticipated that by 2021, without any targeted interventions, overall car occupancy levels during the evening peak hour period will fall from their current level of 1.44 people per vehicle to a future level of around 1.39 people per vehicle. This factor has been taken into account in predicting future levels of vehicular activity. It is anticipated that vehicle occupancy levels, by travel purpose, will generally change in the same way.

c) Public Transport Based Efficiency – Occupancy Levels in the 2021 Reference Case As the 2021 Reference Case rail and bus service levels, and rail and bus passenger levels, will be similar to those that exist in 2002, bus and train occupancy levels will also remain similar. 2002 bus based occupancy levels were set out in Figure 7.3. Local rail occupancy levels were not considered to be a significant issue (from a capacity perspective).

9.3 Safety Issues

In terms of road safety, increasing levels of traffic activity will lead to a decline in road safety conditions. However, Government research also indicates that improvements in vehicle design, highway / traffic management engineering standards and road user awareness will lead to a reduction in the overall numbers of accidents occurring for the same amount of vehicle travel.

Overall, with a 16 % increase in the number of vehicle kilometres travelled in the urban area, and a predicted complimentary decrease in accident rates of around 22 % between 2002 and 2021 one would expect a marginal overall reduction in the number of Personal Injury Accidents that are recorded by 2021. W hether this will materialise in reality will depend on the distribution of the changes in travel.

Using the actual 2002 Base Year Personal Injury Accident Data, and adjusting this on a link by link / intersection by intersection basis, so as to take account of changes in vehicular activity over time, suggests that the future number of

105

Personal Injury Accidents within the Inner Study Area will be as shown in Table 9.2. 2002 Base Year Personal Injury Accident Levels are shown in parenthesis.

P.I. Accidents P.I. Accidents on Links at Intersections

All P.I. Accidents 935 505 occurring in one year (995) (575)

Pedestrian P.I. 165 65 Accidents occurring in one year (180) (70)

Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table: 9.2: 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Predicted Personal Injury Accident Occurrences

If the above information is translated into locations that experience slight, moderate or severe road safety problems in 2021, the future road safety “hot spot” locations, for both P.I. Accidents and for Pedestrian based accidents, are likely to be as shown on Figures 9.5 and 9.6 respectively. Changes in road safety problems for both P.I. Accidents and for Pedestrian based accidents are shown on Figures 9.7 and 9.8. In summary terms, the total number of links and intersections experiencing differing levels of road safety problems in 2021 will be as set out in Table 9.3. Comparative figures for the 2002 Base Year are included in parenthesis.

9.4 Environmental Issues

In terms of traffic related environmental problems in 2021, the most significant changes from today will be changes in traffic related noise and in local air quality.

In respect of traffic related noise, there will generally be discernible changes in noise levels at all locations where traffic flows increase or decrease by more than 25%. Such changes will be of particular concern in areas where the road system is fronted by sensitive land uses.

Impacts with respect to local air quality are more complex as improvements in vehicle technology will reduce the overall levels of emissions per vehicular kilometre travelled. At the same time however, legislation in respect of acceptable emission thresholds will be tightened over time, meaning that conditions that may not constitute a problem today could be problematic in the future.

106

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

All Personal Injury Accident Link Based 73% 10% 6% 11% problems (67%) (8%) (8%) (17%) Intersection 72% 10% 9% 9% Based Problems (68%) (11%) (11%) (10%)

Pedestrian Based Personal Injury Accidents Link Based 86% 2% 1% 11% problems (82%) (1%) (3%) (14%) Intersection 85% 3% 2% 10% Based Problems (81%) (4%) (3%) (12%) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 9.3. 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Personal Injury Accident Problems

So as to fully understand the future regime, in respect of traffic related noise and traffic related local air quality the 2002 Base Year analysis has been repeated for the 2021 Reference Case, with comparisons being made between the two situations.

This analysis is set out in Figures 9.9 to 9.13 and shows the following: Figure 9.9: Sensitive locations that experience Traffic Related Noise Problems the 2021 Reference Case. Figure 9.10: Sensitive Locations that Experience Significant Changes in Absolute Traffic Related Noise Levels between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case. Figure 9.11: Sensitive Locations that Experience Local Air Quality related

Problems (PM10 emissions) in the 2021 Reference Case. Figure 9.12: Sensitive locations that experience Significant Changes in Local Air

Quality Related Condition (PM10 emissions) between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case.

107

Figure 9.13: Sensitive locations that experience Significant Changes in Local Air

Quality Related Condition (NO2 emissions) between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case.

It should be noted that no figure is included showing NO2 problems, as these will not exist.

In summary terms, the percentage of the conurbation’s roads that will experience traffic related noise problems in the 2021 Reference Case situation is set out in Table 9.4.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Significant Roads No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2021 Reference Case 64.9% 22.4% 10.3% 2.4% 2002 Base Year 68.8% 21.5% 7.5% 2.1%

Table 9.4. 2021 Reference Case - Percentage of the Conurbation’s Significant Roads W here Frontages Experience Traffic Related Noise Problems

In terms of local air quality the results indicate that local air pollutant concentrations of PM×º and NO¹ will not exceed current Government objectives (Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000), or EU limit values (Air Quality Limit Values Regulations 2001), in 2021 anywhere at roadside. There are, however, a number of locations where PM×º emission levels are in excess of the Government’s provisional targets.

Roadside emission levels in the vicinity of the two existing AQMAs in Stoke- on-Trent, Cliff Vale (East) and Fenton (Burnham Street) will be well below the current target levels.

Tables 9.5 and 9.6 summarise the percentage of the conurbation’s road links that will be subjected to local air quality related problems in the 2021 Reference Case situation. For convenience, comparative figures for the 2002 Base Year situation are given in parentheses. c) Greenhouse Gases

In terms of green house gas emissions, total annual emissions increase in the 2021 Reference Case situation by some 1,655 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Table 9.7 provides an overview regarding the distribution of these pollutants across the core study area. Again for comparative purposes, information is included for the 2002 Base Year situation.

108

Percentage of Network Subjected to Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems No Problem Slight Serious Problem Problem Percentage of Network subjected to 80.1% 19.9% 0% Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems (44.5%) 55.5%) (0%) – PM 10 Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 9.5. 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Local Air Quality Related Problems – PM 10

Percentage of Network Subjected to Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems No Problem Serious Problem Percentage of Network subjected to 100% 0% Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems (89.4%) (10.6%) – NO2 Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 9.6. 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Local Air Quality Related Problems – NO2

Area Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tonnes) 2002 Base Year 2021 Reference Case Stoke 11,400 11,220 Stafford 625 720 Staffordshire Moorlands 1,900 1,890 Newcastle-under-Lyme 11,300 12,100 Crewe & Nantwich 600 610 Congleton 6,450 7,390 Totals 32,275 33,930 Change 1,655

Table 9.7 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by District, Carbon Dioxide

109

9.5 Accessibility Issues

Increases in congestion between the 2002 Base Year situation and the 2021 Reference Case situation will give rise to slower travel times for road based public transport. This, in turn, will have a negative impact on both resident and employer based accessibility. The scale of these impacts is discussed next.

a) Resident Based Accessibility Figures 9.14 to 9.19 depict: • absolute levels of non car based accessibility in the 2021 Reference Case situation; • locations that will have non-car based accessibility problems in the 2021 Reference Case situation; and • comparative non-car based accessibility problems in 2002 Base Year;

These figures show information for each of the above in respect of access to school places, healthcare, hospital beds, basic food / household goods retailers, employment opportunities and other households.

The overall story from all these figures is that non car based accessibility conditions get worse between 2002 and 2021. This is despite investment in new highway infrastructure such as the A500 (T) Stoke Pathfinder scheme.

In summary terms, the percentage of the conurbation’s residents who would experience difficulties in accessing these attractors by non car modes in the 2021 Reference Case is as set out in Table 9.8. Comparative figures for the 2002 Base Year situation are provided in parenthesis.

Some of the main locations where non car based accessibility is predicted to worsen significantly (as shown on Figures 9.14 to 9.19) include:

• Access to Education Facilities from Longport, Middleport and Etruria; • Access to Hospitals from the Northwood area to the east of Hanley and the area around Botteslow Street, much of which is an Area of Major Intervention in the Housing Market Renewal programme, the area around Cobridge, and the area to the south and west of Burslem including Middleport; • Access to Employment Places from Silverdale, Florence and Longton; and • Access to Social Contact from the Butt Lane area to the west of Kidsgrove and Bentilee.

110

Attractor being Percentage of Conurbation’s Accessed Households that have easy access No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Education 20.8% 17.6% 29.7% 31.9% Facilities (35.8%) (15.3%) (26.8%) (22.2%)

Healthcare 58.8% 20.0% 14.5% 6.7% Facilities (61.8%) (17.4%) (14.0%) (6.7%) 43.5% 1.5% 1.4% 53.6% Hospital Beds (48.6%) (2.2%) (1.3%) (47.9%)

Basis Food / 46.2% 9.3% 19.6% 24.9% Household Goods (48.0%) (12.2%) (16.6%) (23.2%)

Employment 54.0% 22.8% 14.8% 8.3% Places (65.2%) (22.0%) (8.0%) (4.7%) 36.0% 28.8% 27.2% 8.0% Social Contact (48.4%) (26.6%) (18.1%) (6.9%) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 9.8: 2021 Reference Case - Summary of Resident Related Non Car Based Accessibility Problems, (Evening Peak Hour Period) b) Employer Based Accessibility. i) Access to W orkforces Figures 9.20 depicts: • absolute levels of non car based accessibility from employment places to the workforce in the 2021 Reference Case situation; • locations that will have non car based accessibility problems from employment places to the workforce in the 2021 Reference Case situation; and • comparative non car based accessibility problems from employment places to the workforce in the 2002 Base Year;

Again, the general conclusions are that non car based accessibility will be worse in the 2021 Reference Case than in the 2002 Base Year. Particular examples of locations where conditions are predicted to worsen the most include Bentilee, Adderley Green, Sandyford, Goldenhill, Butt Lane and areas to the east of the A50 in Burslem and Tunstall

111

In summary, the percentage of the conurbation’s employment places that will be difficult to reach by non car modes in the 2021 Reference Case is as set out in Table 9.9. Again, comparable figures for the 2002 Base Year are provided in parenthesis.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Employment Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Accessibility to 67.0% 15.5% 8.1% 9.4% W orkforce by non car modes (72.9%) (13.0%) (5.8%) (8.3%) Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 9.9: 2021 Reference Case - Summary of the Percentage of Employment Places within the conurbation that have W orkforce based Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period) ii) Access to UK Gateways In terms of accessibility to the road based UK Gateways, conditions again worsen. Figure 9.21 depicts firstly locations that will have poor accessibility to Gateways in the 2021 Reference Case and secondly, provides a comparison with the problems that existed in the 2002 Base Year.

The percentage of the conurbation’s employment places that will be difficult to reach from the road based Gateways is set out in Table 9.10. Again, 2002 base Year figures are given in parenthesis.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Employment Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem Accessibility to the Conurbation’s 38.5% 43.4% 17.3% 0.8% Road based (77.4%) (20.1%) (1.8%) (0.8%) Gateways Note: Figures for 2002 shown in parenthesis Table 9.10. Summary of the Percentage of Employment Places within the conurbation that have Road Based Gateway Accessibility Problems, 2021 Reference Case Evening Peak Hour

112

There is a substantial increase in the percentage of the conurbation’s employment places suffering from moderate car based accessibility problems to the main road based Gateways from 1.8% in the Base Year to 17.3% in the 2021 Reference Case. The main areas affected by this are the Tunstall, Fenton Low and Bentilee areas.

Additionally, a number of areas are predicted to have slight problems, where no problem existed in 2002. These include large parts of the Chesterton area to the north of Newcastle, the Hartshill area and a number of districts located on either side of the A50 (T) between the A500 (T) junction and Longton, such as Trentham Lakes, Mount Pleasant and Heron Cross.

All this emphasises the potential detrimental impact on car based accessibility of the predicted increases in traffic congestion in the 2021 Reference Case. This should be set alongside the predicted detrimental impact on non car based accessibility described in the remaining sections of this Chapter. iii) Access to Town Centres Lastly, in terms of accessibility to town centres, car based accessibility generally worsens, relative to the 2002 Base Year, but there are still no real accessibility issues. Non car based accessibility also gets worse, further increasing the problems identified in the 2002 Base Year.

In respect of non car based accessibility, Figures 9.22 to 9.27 show absolute conditions in the 2021 Reference Case situation and also show the 2002 Base Year situation. The figures relate to each of the six centres (Hanley, Newcastle, Tunstall, Burslem, Stoke and Longton).

Table 9.11 (shown overleaf) summarises these worsened non car based accessibility conditions, setting out the percentage of the conurbation’s population that live within 30 minutes non car based travel time of the primary centres and 20 minutes travel of the secondary centres. Comparable figures for the 2002 Base Year are given in parenthesis.

Some of the main locations where non car based access to town centres is predicted to worsen significantly (as shown on Figures 9.22 to 9.27) include a number of areas located within a short distance of the towns, where non-car based access times were under 30 minutes in 2002 and have increased to a level above this. Some of the main examples include:

• Access to Hanley City Centre from Mount Pleasant and the area surrounding the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary; • Access to Newcastle Town Centre from Parkhouse Industrial Estate and the area just to the south of A52 Leek Road, which contains part of Staffordshire University;

113

• Access to Tunstall Town Centre from the Sneyd Green area; • Access to Burslem Town Centre from Dimsdale, Etruria and the area just to the south east of the A50 / A52 Joiners Square junction to the south of Hanley; • Access to Stoke Town Centre from the W estlands area; and • Access to Longton Town Centre from Hanley City Centre.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Population Within the Non Car Accessibility Catchment

30 M in 20 M in Hanley Hanley Newcastle Kidsgrove Tunstall Burslem Stoke Longton

2021 Reference Case 46.0 30.2 1.4 5.7 4.6 9.9 7.6

2002 Base Year (55.1) (31.9) (1.4) (6.7) (4.6) (11.5) (8.0)

Table 9.11: 2021 Reference Case - Summary of the Percentage of the Conurbation’s Residents who Live within the Catchments of the Primary and Secondary Town Centres, 2021 Evening Peak Hour Period.

9.6 Summary of 2021 Reference Case Problems and Issues

A summary of the 2021 Reference Case Base Year problems and issues is provided in Tables 9.12 and 9.13, which contain information for both the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year for comparative purposes. These tables show that the predicted increases in traffic flows have a significant impact on the conurbation’s transport problems and issues.

Examination of Table 9.12 highlights that traffic congestion is predicted to increase in the 2021 Reference Case versus the 2002 Base Year situation. The percentage of links predicted to experience capacity problems has increased from just over 5% to just over 9% and the percentage of intersections predicted to suffer from capacity problems has increased from just over 2% to around 3.5%.

Figures 9.9 to 9.13 show the predicted changes in Environmental problems and issues between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case. Figure 9.10 shows those routes where a significant increase in noise levels is predicted (increase of over 1 dBA). These increases are predicted to be widespread and

114

are distributed across a significant part of the road network. A small number of locations linked to traffic relief provided by the Committed highway schemes benefit from a significant reduction (decrease of over 1 dBA) in traffic noise.

Figure 9.12 shows that large parts of the conurbation will see PM10 levels fall, which is linked to improvements in vehicle technology. Additionally, the levels

of NO2s are also predicted to reduce meaning that no links are predicted to be suffering problems in 2021, although there are some areas where the

Government’s provisional targets for PM 10s are expected to be exceeded. Greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to increase in the 2021 Reference Case by around 5%

Table 9.13 summarises the predicted changes in Accessibility by non car modes to goods and services and it shows that the problems are predicted to become more widespread across the board. Examples of this include increases in the percentage of the conurbation’s households predicted to experience problems accessing Education facilities, from just over 64% to around 80% and an increase in the percentage predicted to experience problems accessing other households to maintain Social Contact from just over 50% to 64%.

Table 9.13 also shows that car based accessibility to the main UK Gateways is predicted to get significantly worse, with the percentage of the conurbation’s work places predicted to experience problems increasing from just under 23% to over 60%.

9.7 Conclusions

Overall therefore, in all respects, conditions in the 2021 Reference Case will be significantly worse than they are today. The challenge will be to find a future transport strategy that is able to firstly reverse this decline, and then also resolve the key issues that already exist today.

115

No Slight M oderate Serious

Problem Problem Problem Problem

Link Based Efficiency Problems (% of Links Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 94.7 3.6 1.6 0.1

2021 Reference Case 90.7 5.7 3.4 0.2 Intersection Efficiency Based Problems (% of Intersections Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 97.8 1.8 0.4 0.0 2021 Reference Case 96.5 2.6 0.8 0.1 Link Based Road Safety Problems (% of Links Experiencing Problems)

2002 Base Year 67% 8% 8% 17% 2021 Reference Case 73% 10% 6% 11%

Intersection Based Road Safety Problems (% of Intersections Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 68% 11% 11% 10%

2021 Reference Case 72% 10% 9% 9% Traffic Related Noise Problems (% of Links Experiencing Problems)

2002 Base Year 68.8% 21.5% 7.5% 2.1% 2021 Reference Case 64.9% 22.4% 10.3% 2.4%

Local Air Quality Related Problems – PM 10 (% of Links Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 44.5% 55.5% - 0% 2021 Reference Case 80.1% 19.9% - 0% Local Air Quality Related Problems – NO2 (% of Links Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 89.4% - - 10.6%

2021 Reference Case 100% - - 0%

Table 9.12: Problem Severity, Efficiency, Road Safety and Environment - 2002 Base Year and 2021 Reference Case

116

No Slight M oderate Serious Access to: Problem Problem Problem Problem

Education Facilities (% of Conurbation’s Households Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 35.8% 15.3% 26.8% 22.2% 2021 Reference Case 20.8% 17.6% 29.7% 31.9% Healthcare Facilities (% of Conurbation’s Households Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 61.8% 17.4% 14.0% 6.7% 2021 Reference Case 58.8% 20.0% 14.5% 6.7%

Hospital Beds (% of Conurbation’s Households Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 48.6% 2.2% 1.3% 47.9%

2021 Reference Case 43.5% 1.5% 1.4% 53.6% Food / Household Goods (% of Conurbation’s Households Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 48.0% 12.2% 16.6% 23.2% 2021 Reference Case 46.2% 9.3% 19.6% 24.9% Employment Places (% of Conurbation’s Households Experiencing Problems)

2002 Base Year 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7% 2021 Reference Case 54.0% 22.8% 14.8% 8.3% Social Contact (% of Conurbation’s Households Experiencing Problems) 2002 Base Year 48.4% 26.6% 18.1% 6.9% 2021 Reference Case 36.0% 28.8% 27.2% 8.0% W orkforce (% of Conurbation’s W ork Places Experiencing Problems)

2002 Base Year 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% 2021 Reference Case 67.0% 15.5% 8.1% 9.4% Gateways (% of Conurbation’s W ork Places Experiencing Problems)

2002 Base Year 77.4% 20.1% 1.8% 0.8% 2021 Reference Case 38.5% 43.4% 17.3% 0.8%

Table 9.13: Problem Severity, Accessibility Issues – 2002 Base Year and 2021 Reference Case

117

118

10 What Might the Solutions be ?

10.1 Introduction

The analysis in Chapters 7 and 9 has identified that the transport system within the conurbation contributes to many of the problems currently experienced by residents and businesses alike. These range from: • issues of road safety; • traffic noise and local air pollution; • travel delay; through to • difficulties in reaching basic services such as education and healthcare.

The current transport system also: • impedes the range of employment opportunities that are available to many residents; and • stifles regeneration opportunities by limiting the employment catchment areas of new developments and reducing the ease with which new business can import raw materials, export finished goods or reach their customers within the conurbation.

If no action is taken between now and 2021, most of these problems will worsen.

There are, of course, many ways in which the future transport network could be developed, ranging from the construction of new ring roads and bypasses through to the creation of a new Light Rail network linking together all of the major centres within the conurbation. The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the full range of possible solutions that might be employed, prior to examining each and reaching a view as to their likely usefulness, either as solutions in their own right or as elements of a wider strategy.

The following ideas are available for examination.

10.2 Improve Public Transport Services and Infrastructure

i) Service Improvements • Increased bus service frequencies; • New bus services; • New Demand Responsive bus / taxi services; • Park and Ride Services; and • Increased train frequencies;

119

ii) Infrastructure Improvements • Bus priority; • Guided bus; • Park and Ride Sites; • Interchange and Passenger Facilities; • Light rail; and • Heavy rail.

10.3 Encouragement of Walking and Cycling

• Improve existing facilities (crossings, etc); • Provide new pedestrian / cycle networks; • Provide cycle facilities at schools, work places, within town centres, at stations, etc; and • Change attitudes through education.

10.4 Encourage Less Car Use

• Encourage car sharing: - Green Travel Plans; and - High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes.

• Reduce the Overall Need to Travel: - Internet Shopping; and - Teleconferencing, etc.

10.5 Increase Highway Capacity

• Control / regulate on-street parking; • Improve junction capacities through selective improvements; • W iden existing roads; • Build local relief roads; and • Build major new roads.

10.6 Increase the Cost of Car Use

• Increase long stay public car park charges; • Increase short stay public car park charges; • Reduce the supply of car parking spaces;

120

• Conversion of long stay parking to short stay (which could lead to increases in long stay prices); • Impose a W ork Place parking charge levy; and • Impose Congestion Charges.

10.7 The Way Forward

The following six Chapters (Chapters 11 to 16) provide a discussion regarding the possible form of such initiatives within the context of the North Staffordshire conurbation and then assess the likely impact that each is likely to have with respect to the key issues of efficiency, safety, environmental impact, accessibility and integration.

Chapter 17 then addresses the issues from a different perspective, looking at how changes in land use patterns might contribute towards resolving some of the transport problems identified in the earlier parts of the report.

121

122

11 The Role of Urban Public Transport

11.1 Introduction

The foremost issue of complaint at the study stakeholder workshops was that of the poor quality of the urban public transport system, both bus and rail.

For the bus network these concerns centred around issues of: • poor reliability; • poor vehicle condition / cleanliness; • lack of service information; • lack of shelters for bus passengers; • the need to refurbish Hanley Bus station; • lack of capacity at Newcastle Bus Station; and • poor connections everywhere else.

Many of these themes were also raised in connection with the local rail network. specific issues being: • low service frequency of trains at local stations; • stations poorly located in relation to centres; • local access routes to stations poor; • poor accessibility for mobility impaired; • poor personal security at local stations; and • lack of through ticketing.

Many of these issues could be addressed through the use of capital monies obtained under the Local Transport Plan settlement processes. However, the underlying issues relating to a mismatch between the operational costs associated with running the local bus and rail services and the revenues currently being obtained through ridership will remain. These issues, therefore, need to be examined first, prior to looking at any infrastructure improvements.

11.2 The Issues

In the case of the bus network, under the present regulatory regime (which applies to all parts of the UK except London), the vast majority of the conurbation’s bus services are operated on an individual, route by route, commercial basis.

Discussions with the local bus operator, First, suggest that at current levels of revenue generation it would be impossible to make significant improvements,

123

either in the quality of the vehicles or the levels of service, without some form of subsidy.

It might be argued, as many did at the Stakeholder workshop meetings, that these problems would be overcome if an alternative bus operator were to enter the market. The reality, however, is that bus operations within the city are already deregulated and if there were money to be made through providing a better quality service, it is highly likely that other operators would have already entered the market, thus making a serious challenge to First’s dominant position. It is likely that this hasn’t happened in the period since Deregulation was introduced in 1986, because any incoming operator would face the same costs and constraints faced by First. There is currently only limited on road competition between operators within the study area and this is often only on limited sections of routes. There are very few examples of operators competing against each other on a whole route basis.

Against this background it is likely that substantial improvement to the bus network will only come about if significant additional investment in both bus services and associated infrastructure is made through a combined local authority / bus operator initiative. The best way to achieve this would be through the setting up of a partnership agreement between the local authority and a bus operator, under either a Quality Partnership or a Quality Contract.

These operate as follows:

Quality Partnerships are agreements reached between the local transport authority and one or more local bus operators where each side agrees to invest in measures to improve bus service provision. Typically, this involves the local authority agreeing to invest in improved infrastructure, such as improved bus stops, shelters, bus boarders, bus priority measures and /or interchange facilities in return for the operator agreeing to perhaps increase service frequency, extend periods of operation, introduce low floor buses and/or improve driver training.

The Transport Act 2000 now gives local authorities the power to enter into statutory Quality Partnerships, allowing them to be binding on both parties, with agreed penalties if either party should fail to deliver its agreed investment.

Although there is already a Quality Partnership operating in the North Staffordshire conurbation, relating to specific Quality Bus Corridors, this was entered into prior to the Transport Act 2000 and therefore has no statutory standing, although it is understood negotiations regarding a revised Partnership agreement are ongoing.

Under this Partnership, the main local bus operator, First, have introduced accessible low floor vehicles on a number of routes and the local transport authorities have made improvements, such as the provision of new shelters, bus

124

boarders (Kassel Kerbs) allowing level access to the bus and in Selective Vehicle Detection at traffic signals. Patronage has increased on many of these routes, but the improvements have been limited by the insufficient levels of investment available to both parties.

In terms of moving forward, a Quality Partnership could be developed for the whole of the conurbation, with enforceable standards being agreed in terms of service provision and infrastructure. The likelihood though, is that this would not achieve a step change in bus service provision unless significantly higher levels of funding were to be made available.

Quality Contracts allow local authorities to go a step further, through specifying minimum standards / levels of service for all aspects of bus service provision within the geographical contract area. This would include for example defining the routes to be served, service frequencies, type of vehicle to be used, ticketing arrangements, driver training, hours of operation etc.

Under such an arrangement the local authority would invite bids from bus operators for the cost of operating bus services to the agreed specification, with the bid offering the best mix of price and quality winning the right to provide bus services across the area. The contract would be likely to contain strict penalty clauses ensuring that the winning operator and the local authority each fulfil their requirements.

This is, in effect, a system of franchising, with the local transport authority buying a given level of public transport provision for a stated price. The operator, when making his bid, would have to match expected revenues with operating costs so as to decide on a bid price. In theory, the system pitches different operators against each other at the bidding stage and in order to win, bidders should be innovative in their approach, identifying within their bids measures that maximise patronage and minimise operating cost, within the confines of the defined service regime. W hilst this regime is precisely defined, the Department for Transport guidance on Quality Contracts does makes it clear that contracts should have sufficient flexibility to allow for innovation and service changes to meet passenger demand.

For a Quality Contract to be successful in improving the standards of public transport it is likely, in the short term at least, that the local transport authority would have to set aside a substantial amount of monies to meet the financial terms of the winning bidder. In the longer term however, if mechanisms could be put in place that substantially increased patronage, then such costs could be reduced or removed.

As yet, no local authority has applied for powers to set up a Quality Contract and indeed, the Department for Transport has clearly stated that the Quality

125

Partnership route has to be fully explored prior to a Quality Contract being considered.

W ithin the North Staffordshire context, the achievement of either a Quality Partnership or Contract is potentially difficult for a number of reasons, not least of which are that: • the conurbation is administered by two local authorities so a joint agreement would have to be reached concerning the implementation of such an area wide Partnership or Contract. and • while local authorities can relatively easily secure, through the Local Transport Plan system, capital funding for infrastructure improvements, it is much more difficult to raise revenue funding to support non-commercial bus services.

W hile it should be possible to overcome the first of these issues, particularly as this study itself it supported by both local authorities, the second issue will be problematic, particularly if there is no long term end to the need to provide subsidies.

In the case of the local rail network the problems are even more difficult. W hilst the local authorities can make capital provision to improve conditions at the railway stations they have, until recently, had no control over the provision of the service. The new community rail initiative may change this situation slightly, but the key issue on the local rail network, as mentioned earlier in this report, is the general lack of track capacity, combined with an increasing demand for InterCity services.

Given the already low patronage levels at local stations it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a case for any improvement in the current levels of service provision without a significant step change in local patronage levels.

Nonetheless, despite all of these reservations, it has been shown in Chapter 5 that: • current levels of car ownership are low; and • current levels of public transport accessibility are relatively poor, particularly for journeys that are not to and from Newcastle and Hanley.

The net result of this is that a significant proportion of the population experiences some form of transport related social exclusion at the current time, be it in the form of: • limited employment opportunities; • limited choice in terms of schooling; or • simply a lack of ability to easily visit friends and relatives.

126

For this transport strategy to be successful it therefore has to overcome these problems, not simply by stating that there must be more buses, but through putting forward a sustainable mechanism whereby such improvements can be sensibly funded in the longer term. (Albeit that there may still be a need for substantial levels of subsidy in the short to medium term).

At this stage in the strategy development process the key issues are therefore not whether public transport should be improved, but how such improvements can be funded.

11.3 Urban Public Transport - Patronage and Funding

One obvious way forward is to raise patronage, thereby generating higher levels of revenue. There are a variety of measures which can be introduced to help to achieve increases in patronage and past experience and research has shown that their impact varies considerably, and that this varies according to whether they are introduced individually or collectively. If a number of the measures listed below are introduced at the same time, their whole impact can be greater than the sum of their individual parts.

Overall though it is clear that the most significant influence on bus patronage is the level of service reliability, particularly in terms of whether the bus arrives at the stop on time and the journey time to the destination is consistent. As part of our work on this study, a number of meetings were held with First regarding bus service provision in the conurbation and these included discussions with their Business Development department, who provided information on the relative impact of a number of the service improvement measures listed below. This information, combined with information gathered from other locations has been used to briefly describe the potential impact of each measure:

• new bus services – a key determinant of the impact of new services is what potential demand exists for their introduction and whether this is sufficient for a service to operate commercially; • higher frequencies on existing routes – the impact of increased frequency will vary according to the existing service frequency and the degree of change. For example increasing an hourly service to half hourly is likely to lead to a greater percentage increase in patronage versus increasing a service from running every ten minutes to every five, as a ten minute frequency is already regarded as a ‘turn up and go’ frequency, meaning that travellers don’t really need to refer to a timetable; • newer vehicles on existing routes – the main step change in vehicle quality is to move from a stepped vehicle to one with low floor access. Information provided by First suggests that a patronage increase in the order of 6% can be achieved purely as a result of the introduction of such vehicles;

127

• real time information – there is little direct evidence of patronage increase purely resulting from the introduction of real time information, although information provided by First suggests that it can increase patronage by around 3%. The key patronage impact of real time information is in improving service reliability, perhaps with the associated introduction of Selective Vehicle Detection at traffic signals to give late running buses priority to improve their reliability; • better passenger based facilities (such as weatherproof bus shelters with seating and lighting, good interchange facilities, easily understood timetables) – information provided by First suggests that the provision of new bus shelters increases patronage by around 4%; • on street ticket machines – there is little direct evidence of patronage increase from the installation of on street ticket machines, although there are potential benefits in reducing boarding times. Given that bus passenger flows would most likely already be high in order to justify their installation, the potential for increase is limited. Linked to this is the potential introduction of off bus ticket sales and simplified fare structures. First already offer a simplified fare structure and period tickets are available for off bus purchase to the potential for further increases in North Staffordshire is limited; • through ticketing – the introduction of tickets which can be used on all local public transport service has most benefit when there are a large number of operators running services in the area covered. Given that First operate around 85-90% of all services in North Staffordshire and already sell tickets for use on the whole of their network the potential increase is more limited, but it still would provide benefits for those passengers having to use two buses run by different operators for their journey by removing the fare ‘penalty’ which currently applies; and • high quality bus priority measures – the main impact of introducing priority measures is to improve service reliability, which is the main determinant of patronage increase. Information provided by First suggests that the introduction of such measures can lead to a 6% increase in patronage over and above that which results from the associated journey time improvements.

All of the above measures will contribute to increasing overall patronage through raising the image of the bus, improving reliability and enhancing public transport penetration into outlying areas of the conurbation. Information supplied by First suggests that their typical collective impact in the absence of any other measures, could be to lead to an increase in patronage of up to 20%. This is emphasised by the fact that First estimate that they are currently losing approximately 20% of their mileage as a result of buses getting caught up in traffic congestion.

128

The new patronage could come from three sources, these being: • non car owners who cannot currently travel because the public transport services do not cater for their needs; • existing car users, who might be persuaded to change mode because of a step change in the image of public transport; and • existing bus users making additional journeys as opportunities are improved.

The first group, although a very important market, both in terms of its revenue generation and its social need, is unlikely to be sufficiently large in size to generate the missing revenues required. Indeed, if the size of this group were such that it could fill the revenue gap in its own right, such improvements would already be in place. The second group is however potentially enormous, given that at the current time there are some 19 car journeys within the conurbation to every single public transport journey. Persuading even 5 % of current car users to change mode to bus would double bus usage in the city. As current bus and local rail occupancy levels tend to be medium to low for most parts of the day, the additional cost associated with carrying these new passengers would also be relatively low – such a transfer, if it were achievable, could therefore transform the operational viability of the current bus network and contribute to the viability of the rail network.

As with the first group, the third group of existing bus users making additional journeys is also an important one to take into account in evaluating the potential success of introducing enhanced bus services, although its size is small.

The obvious question then is: “will simply improving the image of the bus bring about a significant modal transfer from car to bus ? ”

Indeed, taking this question a step further one could also ask: “would substituting the current bus network with a guided bus, light rail or heavy rail based system achieve significant levels of transfer ? ”.

11.4 Willingness to Use Urban Public Transport

To answer these questions a series of surveys were undertaken during the early part of the study to ascertain the circumstances under which current car users would be willing to trade in their car journey for an alternative trip on a bus, by train, or indeed, by a new facility such as Park and Ride, a Guided Bus Service or a Light Rail service.

129

In essence, these surveys set out to understand how much of a relative change in the attractiveness of car use and public transport use would be needed to persuade an individual to change mode. Obviously, the answer to this question depends on the income of the individual, the length of journey he or she is making and the reason why they are making the journey.

Nonetheless, through the use of a carefully structured survey technique, and through cross referencing to “real life” experiences elsewhere in the UK, a series of relationships were established that will allow estimates to be made of the likely behavioural response, in terms of travel based mode choice, of the average individual when undertaking a particular journey within the conurbation.

11.5 Urban Public Transport Service Improvements

These relationships have been used, in conjunction with the study’s purpose built multi-modal travel model, to assess what overall levels of ridership could be expected with different types of public transport service improvement. The improvements examined were as follows: • doubling the frequency of all bus routes within the conurbation; • greatly improving the reliability of existing bus services, the quality and ease of interchange and the standard of passenger facilities at stations and bus stops; • reducing all bus fares to half their current levels; • introducing a new bus service linking directly between Hanley City Centre, Festival Park, W olstanton, Chesterton and the new employment centres at Lymedale; • introducing a new Circular bus service linking Keele University - Knutton - Talke Road (Chesterton Industrial Area) - Chatterley Valley - Tunstall - Burslem - Sneyd Green - Northwood - Bucknall - Bentilee - Longton - Trentham Road - Trentham Lakes - Northwood - W estlands - Keele University; • increasing the frequency of existing local rail services to 10 minute intervals in each direction, together with introducing high quality station improvements and good station accessibility improvements; • re-opening the moth-balled rail line to Leek and introducing a 10 minute service in each direction; • re-opening the redundant rail line to Biddulph and introducing a 10 minute service in each direction; • re-opening the redundant “Loop” rail line between Etruria, Burslem, Tunstall and Kidsgrove and introducing a 10 minute service in each direction;

130

• re-opening all three of the above, with 10 minute services in each direction; • re-opening all three of the above, with a new Light Rail based service at 6 minute intervals in each direction; and • introducing a new Light Rail service between the new General Hospital (south of Newcastle), Newcastle, Stoke, Stoke Station, Hanley Centre, Sneyd Green.

Each of these new initiatives was added separately to the 2021 Reference Case (evening peak hour period) transport scenario so as to determine what affect, if any, it would have in persuading current car users to change mode from the car to public transport. The results of this analysis are set out in Table 11.1.

The most striking finding from all of these tests is that the transfers from car to public transport are small, with the highest transfers arising from doubling service frequencies. Even in this case, however, the overall increase in bus usage is only of the order of some 8 %.

W hen viewed from the perspective of the total number of journeys made by car the modal transfer is miniscule. Consequently, none of these measures will have any perceptible impact on the 2021 Reference Case conditions relating to road safety, the environment or network efficiency.

It is nonetheless worth noting that, in terms of non car based accessibility many of the bus service improvements examined here will make a significant difference.

Tables 11.2 and 11.3 provide an overview of the effect that the key bus service improvements could have in increasing overall levels of resident and business based non car accessibility. The first looks at non car based accessibility from home to work and the second looks at changes in employee catchment areas. These tables present the information in a similar format to that used in Chapters 7 and 9 (i.e. In the case of resident access to employment the “No Problem” category shows the percentage of the conurbation’s population who can reach 25 % or more of the conurbation’s employment places within 45 minutes by non car modes). For comparison purposes bench mark information is included for the 2002 Base Year, the 2021 Reference Case situation and for the suggested introduction of a new Light Rail Service.

Interestingly, when viewed in isolation from other measures, the establishment of a new single axis Light Rail system, with all its inherent costs and its implications in terms of physically creating a corridor within which it could operate, has less success in increasing public transport patronage and in improving overall non car based accessibility than a more modest doubling of service frequencies. Its main impact is to attract existing bus users, rather than generate new patronage.

131

Discussions with the local bus operator, First, suggest that the doubling of existing bus frequencies could be achieved at a fraction of the cost of implementing a Light Rail scheme, the required subsidy being in the order of some £10,000,000 per annum. Additionally, the time required to implement the increased services would be much shorter, although some time would still be required, for example, to have new vehicles and depots built and recruit and train sufficient drivers. The dilemma as always, though, is that the revenue funds needed to double bus frequencies are harder to come by than the capital costs associated with a mega showcase project that has political kudos. However, neither doubling bus frequencies, nor building Light Rail schemes makes much sense without significantly increased levels of patronage.

Turning back to Table 11.1 , the increased patronage generated by heavy rail based improvements, be they increased service provision or the reopening of disused lines, all have smaller patronage increases than bus / Light Rail based schemes. This can be attributed primarily to the fact that the rail corridors do not generally pass through those areas that have the highest levels of population and employment densities. This fact is illustrated in Figures 11.1 and 11.2.

A number of other interesting, albeit obvious, conclusions can also be drawn from the information set out in Table 11.1, particularly in respect to the impact that various bus related changes have on passengers’ willingness / need to interchange between bus services. These can be summarised as follows: • doubling bus frequencies or improving reliability / ease of interchange increases people’s willingness to change between bus services; • halving bus fares has a significant impact on the number of passengers that are willing to interchange; and • the introduction of an Outer Circular bus service would obviate the need for some current interchange activities.

132

Change in Bus Change in Bus Passengers Passengers Local Rail Local Rail

(Using more (Change in No.s Passengers Passengers than one bus) using more than

one bus) 2021 Reference Case 4675 (650) - 425 - Double Bus Frequencies 5050 (700) 375 ( + 50 ) 425 - Improve Bus Reliability, Interchange and Passenger Facilities 4875 (675) 200 ( + 25 ) 425 - Halve Bus Fares 4800 (950) 125 ( + 300 ) 425 - Introduce New Bus service between Hanley to Lymedale 4700 (650) 25 ( - ) 425 - Introduce a Outer New Circular Bus Service 4850 (500) 175 ( - 150 ) 425 - Increase local rail services to 10 M inute Frequency 4650 (650) - 25 525 100 Re-open the moth-balled Rail Line to Leek (10 minute Service) 4675 (650) - 475 50 Re-open the dismantled Rail Line to Biddulph (10 M inute Service) 4675 (650) - 475 50 Re-open the dismantled Loop Line (10 minute Service) 4675 (650) - 500 75 Re-open all Three of the above Lines (10 minute Service) 4675 (650) - 550 125 Replace all three lines with LRT Service (6 minute Service) 4675 (650) - 600 175 Bus passengers Light rail carries Introduce Light Rail Service Newcastle – Hanley – Sneyd Green 4275 (500) reduce by 400 450 passengers - Local Rail = 425

Table 11.1: Patronage Impacts of Differing Urban Public Transport Service Improvements (2021), Relative to 2021 Reference Case

133

Percentage of Conurbation’s

Households No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7% 2021 Reference Case 54.0% 22.8% 14.8% 8.3% Doubling Bus Service 79.0% 13.7% 5.6% 1.7% Frequencies New Service between 56.6% 23.5% 14.4% 5.5% Hanley and Lymedale New Outer Circular 69.9% 18.3% 10.3% 1.5% Service New Light Rail Service 55.8% 23.9% 13.8% 6.5% Newcastle – Stoke – Hanley – Sneyd Green

Table 11.2: Impact of Urban Bus Service Improvements on Non Car Based Accessibility to Employment Opportunities (Evening Peak Period 2021 - Non Car Based M odes)

Percentage of Conurbation’s

W ork Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% 2021 Reference Case 67.0% 15.5% 8.1% 9.4% Doubling Bus Service 82.4% 7.4% 7.4% 2.8% Frequencies New Service between 68.0% 15.2% 8.6% 8.2% Hanley and Lymedale New Outer Circular 81.8% 9.8% 6.5% 1.8% Service New Light Rail Service Newcastle – 68.4% 14.1% 9.3% 8.2% Stoke – Hanley – Sneyd Green

Table 11.3. Impact of Urban Bus Service Improvements on the Accessibility Problems from Employment Locations to W orkforce (Evening Peak Period 2021 - Non Car Based M odes)

134

11.6 Initial Conclusions Regarding Service Level Improvements to Urban Public Transport

Based on the above analysis, the following immediate conclusions can be drawn in respect of improvements to bus and rail services: • neither bus or rail service level improvements, if introduced in isolation from other measures, are likely to give rise to any significant increase in public transport patronage; • the provision of additional bus services will, however, significantly reduce non car based accessibility problems, albeit at a cost in terms of bus subsidy; • for the above reason, improvements to both bus services and infrastructure should form a key part of the future transport strategy. However, the issue of funding, both in the short term and the longer term, still needs to be addressed; • improving service levels on the current local rail network will lead to a small increase in usage levels. These increases are, however, such that they would be very unlikely to generate enough additional income to justify the costs associated with running extra trains or the disruption such service provision would cause to existing InterCity services. Hence, the case for including local rail service improvements within the strategy is not proven; and • based on the levels of new patronage that would be attracted to any of the currently moth-balled or dismantled rail lines there is no passenger based case for reinstating any of the disused rail routes.

Further, in respect of rail, the information set out here, together with other discussions earlier on this report, tend to lead to the following wider conclusions: • on balance, if choices had to be made between subsidising bus or rail, the peripheral nature of the rail network in the context of population and employment centres means it would be come a poor second; and • nonetheless, the existing local rail system does still fulfil two important roles, these being: - firstly, it provides a local first point of entry into the wider InterCity network, through interchanging at Stoke; and - secondly, while not necessarily the first choice mode of transport within the conurbation, local rail still provides a valuable alternative public transport option for longer distance journeys through the conurbation, particularly between locations such as Blythe Bridge, Longton, Stoke and Kidsgrove.

135

W hile a case for significant improvements in rail services may not exist, its total loss would be detrimental to the flexibility of the conurbation’s overall transport system. W ith this in mind, measures that can be introduced at reasonable cost to enhance the image of local stations and their pedestrian and cycling access networks should be encouraged.

During the course of this study, an announcement was made by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) proposing the closure of Etruria station, the case for and against this will need to be looked at from both the local and national perspective. At a local level, given current usage levels, it is difficult to argue in favour of retention.

However, in the short term its loss will further undermine the arguments for the overall retention of the local rail system; and in the longer term, with the proposed development of the Festival Park / Etruria Valley area, there must be a strong case for seeking to ensure that some form of rail access is maintained at this location. W hether this should be in the form of the existing Etruria station, or a combined local station bringing together both Longport and Etruria stations into a single, more accessible site or indeed, a relocated Stoke InterCity Station is an issue that will need more detailed consideration when development plans for both this area and the Stoke Station site are taken forward.

In respect of the last of these options, it might, in transport terms, have significant merit, particularly if Hanley City centre were to be effectively extended to include the Festival Park / Etruria Valley site and a new Park and Ride facility were to be located at Etruria – See Chapter 13. From other perspectives however, the costs associated with such a solution would be very difficult to justify on transport grounds alone and the station’s relocation would have significant implications in respect of the current station building and the further viability of Stoke town centre.

Finally, the SRA published its Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for the W est Midlands region early in 2005. Of the recommendations contained in the RUS, just one potentially has an impact on travellers to and from the North Staffordshire conurbation. This would involve the cessation of the local service from Stoke to Stafford, with the closure of the four local stations located along the route, namely W edgwood, Barlaston, Stone and Norton Bridge.

136

Given the low usage levels at each of these stations, the impact on travel conditions in the conurbation would be limited. The RUS suggests that feeder bus services to Stoke and Stafford stations could be introduced to replace the train service.

11.7 Giving Public Transport Priority Over Other Vehicles

The above discussion has revolved primarily around improvements to the level of public transport service provision. In reality however, one of the key problems for road based public transport is that it has to compete with other traffic for roadspace and it therefore inevitably suffers the same delay problems as are experienced by other road users. This has a significant impact on the reliability of bus services, which, as discussed in Section 11.3, is an important determinant in people’s propensity to use bus services.

Although there are some examples within the conurbation where buses are already given priority over other traffic, these tend to be exceptions rather than the norm, and are limited primarily to town centres, although the introduction of Urban Traffic Control (UTC) at traffic signals across the conurbation, which include Selective Vehicle Detection provide priority for bus services.

There are a number of factors which have limited the introduction of bus priority measures in the conurbation. These include the nature of the road layout, which generally consists of single carriageway routes with narrow footways and frontage development allowing limited scope for the introduction of conventional priority measures such as bus lanes.

Reference to the bus usage and passenger usage figures in Chapter 7 shows that the key bus corridors within the conurbation are as follows: • Longton – Fenton – Hanley; • Fenton – Stoke – Newcastle; • Stoke - Stoke Station – Hanley; • Newcastle - Festival Park – Hanley; • Hanley - Bucknall – Bentilee; • Hanley – Burslem – Tunstall; and • Hanley – Smallthorne – Sneyd Green.

Further reference in Chapter 9 shows that many of the links and intersections that make up these corridors will suffer from efficiency problems in the 2021 Reference Case situation. In particular: • King Street, Longton;

137

• City Road, Fenton; • Victoria Road, Fenton; • Dividy Road and Bucknall New Road, Bucknall; • Chell Street, Hanley Road and High Lane, Sneyd Green; • Etruria Road, Etruria; and • W aterloo Road, Hanley.

Regardless of any improvements in service levels, public transport vehicles will therefore continue to suffer delays at these locations.

These congestion problems could, however, be tackled in a number of ways, ranging from: ° the traditional approach of protecting buses from the worst of the queues through to the provision of bus lanes; to ° changing the nature of these routes so as their principal function is that of a public transport corridor, rather than a traffic corridor. a) Bus Lanes and Localised Bus Priority In reality, the traditional approach would be difficult to achieve on many of the corridors without resorting to extensive demolition of adjacent properties, particularly on the approaches to the major intersections. To use the old adage, if it were easy it would have already been done.

It is nonetheless recognised that there may be some locations where, through the Housing Renewal initiative, it might be possible to make a case for demolition on the grounds that the current traffic dominated environment is incompatible with residential living. If this is the case then it might also be possible to create wider transport reserves along each of the above corridors and to allow public transport and the general traffic to operate in harmony. Such an approach could still have the possible downside, however, of creating wider roads that would be more difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to negotiate.

A further possible alternative would be to investigate opportunities for removing parking provision from locations where it causes delay for buses. In order to achieve this though, alternative parking provision is required, which can be difficult to identify. b) Traffic Free Bus Corridors The latter approach could be particularly attractive from the viewpoint that it would effectively create a series of traffic free public transport corridors, that in the short term, could be used by buses, and in the longer

138

term might be utilised by other forms of public transport vehicles (i.e. electronically guided buses or, if demand were high enough, street running trams).

The corridors assessed are shown in Figure 11.3 and are based on the key bus corridors identified earlier in this section. For each corridor some sections have not been assumed to be traffic free, because it was found when the whole of the corridors were assumed to be traffic free, it resulted in an unacceptable level of increased congestion on alternative routes. Examples of this include the A50 W aterloo Road between the A53 and Potteries W ay and the A52 between Newcastle Ring Road and Shelton New Road.

The exclusion of general traffic from these corridors would lead to a significant improvement in the environment within these streets, thereby negating any arguments under the Housing Renewal programme for demolition on the grounds of a currently poor traffic dominated environment. Removing general traffic would additionally reduce pedestrian and cyclist problems within these corridors.

The downsides are, however, greater than for bus lanes, in that: • at an overall level, the excluded traffic either has to use alternative roads, resulting in greater efficiency problems elsewhere (thereby delaying buses on other routes), or the occupants of some vehicles (not necessarily the excluded vehicles) have to either change mode to public transport or stop travelling, thereby freeing up some of the available capacity on these alternative routes; and • at the local level, such a policy also has implications in terms of enforcement and local vehicular access. General traffic could be excluded in one of two ways, either through the introduction of physical barriers such as bus gates, or through the use of a series of “Bus and Access Only” street sections within each corridor. Use of the first approach could result in severe inconvenience to local traffic, particularly if the diversion route to avoid the bus gate is circuitous. The second approach, although much more “user friendly” to local car users has, in the past, resulted in enforcement problems, particularly in non town centre locations where there is little obvious policing.

Notwithstanding all of the above reservations, if road based public transport is to operate efficiently there is a need to reduce its exposure to general traffic congestion, either through introducing one of the above types of solution or through reducing overall congestion levels through some alternative policy approach such as extensive road building or some form of road pricing. Both of these issues are discussed in subsequent

139

Chapters. However, before moving on, the implications of the above interventions have been examined using the study’s purpose built multi modal transport model, so as to ascertain the impact that such approaches might have both in terms of increasing bus usage and in terms of congestion.

For simplicity it has been assumed that: ° in the case of bus lanes, these can be introduced without significantly inconveniencing general traffic (i.e. there will be a need for some level of property demolition); and ° in the case of the traffic free bus corridors two different approaches have been examined - the first based on the premise that traffic will not be able to use key sections of each of the traffic free bus corridors; and - the second based on the assumption that traffic will be able to use short sections of one corridor to gain easy access to premises but will not be able to use the corridors for through movement (this has be modelled by placing a time penalty on key sections of each of the bus corridors).

The findings of this examination are set out in Tables 11.4 and 11.5. The first provides a comparison of conditions for general traffic under each scenario and the second gives details of bus usage, on the basis that buses gain travel time savings through the introduction of such schemes. For comparative purposes, each table also provides data for the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case situations.

From these tables two distinct trends can be seen: ° in terms of highway conditions, the creation of traffic free bus corridors has a detrimental impact on general traffic travel times, particularly if such a solution is imposed through the construction of bus gates – the latter approach results in local traffic having to reroute and thereby incur significant increases in travel times through congested neighbouring streets; • in terms of bus patronage however, the combined impact of improved bus travel speeds (a common feature of all options) and reduced general traffic speeds (a feature of the traffic free bus corridor solutions) gives rise to a noticeable modal transfer (in bus passenger terms rather than car usage terms) from the car to the bus; • this type of transfer is not evident in the bus lanes based option. In addition, comparison of the two traffic free bus corridor options reveals that, provided buses can be protected from general traffic

140

congestion, patronage will increase as general traffic speeds reduce; and • this is a significantly different trend to that which is likely to be experienced between the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case situations. The key difference being that, at present, buses will not be protected from congestion in the intervening years between 2002 and the 2021.

These findings are important as they suggest a possible way forward that could lead to an increased level of public transport usage, without the need for the significant revenue subsidies associated with service only based public transport improvements.

The key however, lies in finding a mechanism that allows the attractiveness of car use to be reduced, without also suffering the disadvantages that are inherent in creating increased congestion.

These issues will be revisited in Chapter 16.

141

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021 Reference reduced) (Assumes not Lanes is Bus 2021 with Capacity H ighway Gates Bus 2021 with Only Access and Bus 2021 with

Private Car and Goods Vehicle a) By Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 27.2 21.1 25.9 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 82.2 78.8 78.8 75.4 78.1 (including M6 M otorway) b) By Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 93.9 93.5 93.6 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 48.9 40.5 40.5 31.1 38.1 / A500) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 29.5 24.3 28.7 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 42.1 34.7 40.7 Urban Bus 20.4 17.9 20.6 17.8 20.1 Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 study area) All M odes 45.3 41.9 41.9 34.7 40.6

Table 11.4: Differing Bus Priority Solutions - Average Travel Speeds (kph), (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

142

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021 Reference reduced) (Assumes not Lanes is Bus 2021 with Capacity H ighway Gates Bus 2021 with Only Access and Bus 2021 with

Bus Passengers 4600 4650 4700 5175 5100 Bus Passengers Using More 450 650 650 475 525 than one Bus Change in No. of Bus - - + 50 + 525 + 450 Passengers (2021 Ref Case)

Change in No. of Bus - - - - 175 - 125 Passengers Using M ore than one Bus Local Rail Passengers 425 425 425 425 425 Change in Number of Local - - - - - Rail Passengers

Table 11.5: Differing Bus Priority Solutions – Changes in Patronage Levels (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

143

144

12 Resolving the Rural Public Transport Problem

12.1 Introduction

Nearly all of the Stakeholder workshop comments, in respect of urban public transport, are equally valid in the case of rural public transport. Indeed, in many cases rural public transport currently only exists through the provision of local authority subsidies to bus operators. These are made available through local authorities drawing on their own revenue resources, through the Central Government Rural Bus Subsidy Grant or through the more recent Rural Bus Challenge initiative.

The existing pattern of bus services which operate from the rural areas surrounding the North Staffordshire conurbation into the urban area, consists of conventional fixed route services most of which terminate in the centre of either Hanley or Newcastle. They mostly operate during Monday to Saturday daytimes at an hourly or poorer frequency, with frequencies falling further during evenings and Sundays and many of them operating with the assistance of financial subsidies provided by the local transport authorities served.

The revenue funding available to operate such services is limited, although in recent years central Government has provided additional funding through the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) awarded to all local transport authorities and the Rural Bus Challenge (RBC) competition, where authorities compete for funding for innovative rural services. Examples of services which have benefited from these two new funding sources are the 351, which runs from Hanley to Eccleshall and Telford, which is funded using RBSG and the Telford Cross Boundary service which provides feeder connections for rural communities in the Eccleshall area to the X64 Hanley to Shrewsbury route, which is funded from the RBC.

These fixed services are complemented by a range of Community Transport initiatives, which provide a vital lifeline for those without access to a car and those with mobility difficulties in the rural communities which surround the North Staffordshire conurbation. Examples of such services include the Leek Link bus service and the Gillow Heath Community Travel Scheme, which provide bus services from poorly served areas into nearby towns of Leek and Biddulph respectively. Many of these services are funded using funds drawn from the two Rural Transport Partnerships covering the area, namely the W est Staffordshire and North Staffordshire / W est Derbyshire.

145

W ithin these rural areas, which surround the North Staffordshire conurbation, the issues of social exclusion are much greater, as many communities have lost the convenience of a local post office, school and corner shop. For most people the simple answer is that they have to buy a car regardless of their income level, and this fact is often reflected in the quality of the vehicles that rural residents own. It is additionally reflected in the current levels of car ownership, as discussed in Chapter 5.

For many however, car ownership or car usage is simply not an option because of age, health issues, low income levels or an inability to drive. For this sector of the community there will be an ever continuing need to maintain / improve current rural bus service provision.

Unlike the urban situation however, it is our opinion that it needs to be recognised from the outset that in most rural areas it is never going to be possible to provide a rural bus service that is of a sufficiently high frequency that it can effectively compete with the car.

In most cases therefore, the rural bus service needs to be designed in such a way that it maximises its ability to meet the needs of the non car owning rural community, while at the same time ensuring that the level of subsidy required for each journey is kept to a minimum.

12.2 The Case for Demand Responsive Transport

In many of the smaller rural communities, and indeed in some of the outlying urban communities within the conurbation, there may be a case for switching away from a regular bus service that operates on a fixed timetable to a more flexible demand responsive system. At one end of the scale this could be in the form of a scheduled “Wiggly Bus” that operates to an overall timetable, but varies its route to pick up / set down passengers on a pre booked basis. At the other it might be much more like a conventional taxi service, with vehicles making specific trips on demand, perhaps with the addition of a shared vehicle booking facility designed to maximise vehicle occupancy.

To this end, the study team have had a number of discussions with representatives from the bus industry, taxi operator organisations and the local authorities, to explore what might be possible.

From these discussions it would appear that, at present, there are a number of obstacles, which prevent such a system being provided.

The first, and perhaps most obvious, is that if such services were to be introduced formally somebody would have to lead in setting up such a facility.

146

From the bus operator’s viewpoint, there is no money to be made out of operating rural public transport services with conventional bus or minibus based vehicles, and therefore they will only participate on a tendered service basis. It would also appear that at present the bus operators have no desire to move into the “taxi” based market.

In terms of the taxi operators, there is an underlying interest in participating in any new initiative that might generate greater income. The problem however, appears to lie in the structure of the local taxi industry. The licensed “Hackney Carriage” sector of the taxi market is very small, in comparison to the licensed mini-cab sector and the latter, although represented collectively through a limited number of umbrella organisations, tends to be highly competitive and often at loggerheads with the councils on basic issues such as vehicle road worthiness and driver based credentials. Constructive partnership working is therefore difficult.

Nonetheless, if an outcome of this study was to be the need to establish a much more demand responsive rural public transport system then measures could be put in place through Local Transport Plan capital funding initiatives to set up a co-ordinated demand responsive travel management system, with such monies being used for construction and equipping of a local authority operated call centre and, perhaps, for the purchase of a taxi fleet, should that be considered appropriate.

Operators (be they bus or taxi based) could tender on a minimum subsidy basis for the right to operate in a given area, responding to calls from the local authority based call centre. In return the operator would have to agree to operate within a predefined fare structure and provide vehicles and drivers that met minimum standards.

However, one of the reasons why such as system does not already exist (or at least operate in a form that fully meets day to day needs) is that it is unlikely to be profitable. Alternative sources of revenue based funding will therefore need to be found so as to subsidise the difference between fare income and the on-going operational costs associated with paying the successful tenderer and operating the call centre. It should be noted that such a system would, in the eyes of the user, be more akin to a public transport system, rather than a taxi service. He or she is therefore unlikely to be willing to pay conventional taxi service rates.

One possible way in which revenue subsidies might be raised would be through the equivalent of the DfT’s Rural Bus Challenge initiative. This allowed local authorities to submit bids, on a competitive basis, for the funding of innovative rural public transport initiatives and allow bidders to seek a mixture of both capital and revenue funding. This initiative

147

however expired at the end of 2004 and at the time of writing no replacement scheme has been announced.

12.3 Market Town Bus Services

The need for Demand Responsive Transport is much less strong on the main arterial routes, between neighbouring Market Towns and the conurbation. Here there is a strong case for continuing to maintain regular timetabled bus services, and for trying to capture, to some degree at least, some of the car based travel market.

Particular example corridors would be from Leek, Market Drayton and W hitchurch, where there is no available rail alternative and each town has a substantial population with retail, employment and social ties with the centres of Hanley and Newcastle.

Again, as with other rural services, it is unlikely within the present transport regime that such services could compete with the car. However, within a wider transport regime, where the relative costs of bus and car travel could be changed (as alluded to at the end of the last Chapter) they could become more viable.

For these Market Town services to be attractive they need to operate at a minimum headway of 30 minutes and to operate into the evening and at weekends. This implies providing return journeys from Hanley and Newcastle at the end of the evening at say 11.00pm or 11.30pm.

148

13 The Case for Park and Ride

13.1 Introduction

At the present time the vast majority of trips between the conurbation and it surrounding rural areas are made by private car. As has been shown in Chapter 5, such trips account for around 35% of all vehicular movement within the conurbation.

In the previous Chapter it has also been recognised that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to persuade many of these car users to transfer the whole of their journey to public transport. Nonetheless, each of these cars adds to the current congestion problems within the conurbation, interfering with the delivery of essential goods, disrupting public transport services and delaying other road users.

If it were possible to persuade some of these car users to transfer to public transport based services at some point during their journey then the impact of their current travel behaviour on the efficiency of the transport network could be reduced.

This could be done through introducing a Park and Ride system within the conurbation. If such a system were to be introduced the key issues that would need to be addressed are: • where would you build the Park and Ride sites? and • how many people could you expect to persuade to use them?

These questions are addressed within this Chapter.

13.2 The Location of Park and Ride Sites

In most other cities and towns Park and Ride sites are constructed at the urban edge, generally within new development areas or on greenbelt land. In many cases access to the Park and Ride sites is gained not only from the nearby radial that passes the site but also from other nearby radials, via some form of ring road or outer bypass.

Also, within most other towns and cities somewhere in excess of 25% of the traffic travelling from the rural area to the conurbation is going to a single central business district area.

However, the North Staffordshire conurbation is uniquely unusual as it: • has its bypass or ring road passing through the centre of the conurbation, rather than around its edge; and

149

• rather than having a single centre, it has up to nine major attractors distributed throughout the conurbation, these being: - Hanley City Centre; - Newcastle Centre; - New General Hospital; - Stoke (the current administrative centre); - Stoke Railway Station; - Festival Park (the developing commercial area); - Tunstall; - Burslem; and - Longton.

For this reason past studies of Park and Ride provision have concluded that the accepted conventional approach of providing Park and Ride sites at the periphery of the conurbation is not appropriate in the case of North Staffordshire. Instead, it has been mooted that up to three centrally located sites should be provided, these being in the vicinity of Bucknall, Sideway and Etruria Valley.

As a starting point in this current study we have gone back to the drawing board and re-examined the whole issue regarding the most sensible form for a Park and Ride strategy. In this context we have, however, recognised that the optimum solution should be able to meet as many of the following criteria as possible. • patronage at each of the chosen sites needs to be high enough to justify running a bus service at a minimum frequency of one bus every 10 minutes; • when viewed in combination, the sites need to be able to provide a Park and Ride choice for all those who travel to the conurbation from outside; • the sites need to be located in such a way as they can serve as many of the destinations outlined above as possible; • the construction of the sites themselves should have minimum impact on the environment; • the accesses to the sites need to be located in areas where they will cause minimum disruption to local communities; • the relative difference in travel time between using a car for the whole journey and using the Park and Ride system needs to be minimised. This should involve the introduction of comprehensive bus priority measures throughout the routes served; • the chosen solution should seek to minimise car based travel; and

150

• the chosen strategy needs to maximise improvements in road safety.

Based on previous experience however, some of the above can be viewed as show stoppers while others are desirable aims. The key amongst these is that any site, no matter where it is located, needs have the potential to generate sufficient patronage so as to make it viable.

Based on the above, the starting point in our investigation was to identify some 10 potential Park and Ride locations and then to examine the number of cars passing each site and the destinations of that traffic (i.e. to establish the potential size of the Park and Ride market).

The identified sites fall into two broad categories. These being: • a ring of seven sites around the edge of the conurbation at: - A525, by M6 Motorway west of Newcastle; - A34 by A500 at Talke; - A527 at Great Chell; - A53 at Stockton Bridge; - A52 west of Bucknall; - A50 at Blythe Bridge; and - A500 / A34 at Northwood. • three sites at the heart of the conurbation, adjacent to the A500 (T) at: - A50 (T) / A500 (T) intersection at Sideway. - Etruria Valley; and - Chatterley Valley.

The identified sites are set out in Figure 13.1 and the potential market size is shown in Table 13.1

It will be seen from this table that there is a significant difference between the potential markets of the outer “edge of conurbation” sites and the internal ”heart of conurbation” sites. Also, based on experience elsewhere, it is unlikely that any Park and Ride scheme, even with extensive complementary parking restraint etc, will persuade more than around 20 % of the potential market to divert onto Park and Ride. Combining these two pieces of information, it would appear that in the case of the North Staffordshire conurbation a non conventional approach, employing “heart of conurbation” sites should be explored.

Turning to the second of the locational criteria, reference to Figure 13.1 reveals that the “heart of conurbation” sites, even if all provided, do not cater for traffic entering from:

151

• the east, along the A52 and A53 corridor; and • from the west along the A525 and A53 corridors.

In the case of the former this traffic could be catered for if an eastern site were to be provided at Bucknall.

Passing Traffic with a Origin / Destination in:

Hanley and Festival Park Park Festival and Hanley Newcastle Hospital General New Station and Centre Stoke Tunstall Burslem Longton

Edge of Conurbation Sites A525 by M6 Motorway 25 200 50 0 10 0 0 A34 by A500 (T) 600 300 25 100 25 100 25 Great Chell 100 25 5 30 150 175 0 Stockton Bridge 150 50 10 30 10 65 0 Bucknall 400 50 5 75 10 25 0 Blythe Bridge 300 300 25 375 25 50 500 A500 (T) at Northwood 850 175 50 175 10 25 50 Heart of Conurbation Sites A50, Sideway 850 300 50 350 20 50 50 Etruria 1250 50 75 125 0 0 75 Chatterley Valley 1000 100 50 175 0 50 75

Table 13.1 2021 Reference Case – Analysis of the Origins and Destinations of Traffic Passing Potential Park and Ride Sites (Evening Peak Hour Period)

On the western side, most traffic using the A53 approach could divert on to the A5182 to join the A500(T) to the east of junction 15 on the M6 Motorway and then proceed to a site at Sideway. Similarly, longer distance traffic on the A525 could divert via the A51. The remaining movements on this corridor, principally from the “Madeley” villages could be catered for through a strengthened rural “Market Town” bus service on the Whitchurch corridor.

152

In terms of the “heart of conurbation” sites, not all three are needed. The possible combinations of Park and Ride Sites are as follows: Option 1 • Bucknall; • Chatterley Valley; and • Sideway.

Option 2: • Bucknall: • Etruria; and • Sideway.

Option 3: • Bucknall: and • Etruria.

These options, together with their associated access strategies and Park and Ride bus services are shown in Figures 13.2 to 13.4. The assumptions regarding site access for each of the sites assessed can be summarised as follows:

Bucknall: It was assumed that a new road link would be required from the A52 Leek Road to access this site, given that the Hanley – Bentilee Link Road, which would otherwise provide access, is not included in the 2021 Reference Case.

Chatterley Valley: It was assumed that access to this site would be directly gained from the A527 Tunstall Bypass, a short distance to the east of its junction with the A500 (T). The route to Hanley City Centre was assumed to operate via Etruria Valley, using a new bridge crossing of the W est Coast Main Line built adjacent to the existing W olstanton Retail Park junction on the A500 (T).

Etruria Valley: Access was assumed to be provided by the construction of a new bridge crossing of the W est Coast Main Line built adjacent to the existing W olstanton Retail Park junction on the A500 (T).

Sideway: Access to this site was assumed to be provided from the existing access junction for the Sainsbury’s / incinerator site, allowing access to be gained from the A50 (T) and A500 (T).

153

The third criteria in terms of determining a Park and Ride strategy is to maximise the number of locations that can be accessed by bus from the Park and Ride sites. Re-examination of Table 13.1 shows that the key destinations, in terms of demand, are Hanley City Centre, together with Newcastle and Stoke town centres. Each of these, together with Festival Park, the new General Hospital and Stoke Station could be easily served from any of the above three combinations of Park and Ride site? Possible arrangements for internal Park and Ride service patterns are also shown on Figures 13.2 to 13.4

In respect of the remainder of the siting criteria, performance of the three alternative Park and Ride options can be summarised as follows:

The construction of the sites themselves should have minimum impact on the environment. In general, all four of the potential Park and Ride locations are situated on former industrial lands and this should therefore minimise their direct impact on national, regional of local environmental assets. Nonetheless, all of the sites lie close to the conurbation’s canal and river basins. Care would have to be taken therefore, when developing any of these sites, to safeguard established wildlife corridors, to protect the canal based conservation areas and to ensure that adequate measures are taken in respect of flooding risk and protection of the fluvial flood plains.

The accesses to the sites need to be located in areas where they will cause minimum disruption to local communities – In the case of Sideway, Etruria and Chatterley Valley, it is anticipated that access would be provided directly from the A50 (T) / A500(T) Trunk Road network, via the existing or modified neighbouring grade separated intersections.

If a site were to be built at either Etruria or Chatterley Valley it will be necessary to create a new link into the Etruria Valley site from the W olstanton Retail Park intersection on the A500 (T). In the case of the first the new link would be needed so as to allow traffic to enter the site. directly from the A500(T). In the case of the second, the new link would be needed so as to allow Park and Ride bus services, operating between Chatterley Valley and Hanley, to travel via Etruria Valley and Festival Park. This new link road would need to cross the railway. In either case it was assumed that buses would be given a high priority through the Etruria Valley site, with the introduction of a bus gate preventing private vehicle through traffic movements.

In terms of the Bucknall site, local access could be problematic and could again necessitate some limited new road construction. Also, in terms of wider access, traffic on the A53 corridor would have to divert via the A5009, which is adjoined by development that is sensitive to both noise

154

and poor air quality. As referred to earlier in this section, access to this site was assumed to be gained from the A52 Leek Road as the Hanley- Bentilee Link is not included in the 2021 Reference Case.

The relative difference in travel time between using a car for the whole journey and using the Park and Ride system needs to be minimised - The location of all the potential sites, within the conurbation rather than at the edge, means that travel times by Park and Ride bus will be minimised. Comprehensive bus priority measures will be introduced along each of the routes served.

The chosen solution should seek to minimise car based travel and the chosen strategy needs to maximise improvements in road safety – The choice of sites within the conurbation, rather than externally, will mean that reductions in car based travel and accident savings are reduced. However, the external sites are unlikely to be viable for other reasons. In terms of choice between the three identified options, Option 1 is likely to perform best under each of these two criteria, as the adoption of the Chatterley Valley will minimise traffic activity on the A500 (T).

13.3 Potential Performance of the Short Listed Park and Ride Options

So as to assess the likely performance of each of the Park and Ride strategy options their impact in terms of reducing highway congestion and attracting potential passengers has been assessed using the study’s purpose built multi modal transport model.

The findings of these assessments are set out in Tables 13.2 and 13.3, with the first providing details of network travel conditions and the second detailing patronage levels.

It can be seen from these tables that in terms of both these issues the Etruria based three site solution, i.e. Option 2, tends to perform better than Option 1, which utilises Chatterley Valley. This is because Etruria, with its very centralised location, is attractive to more car users than Chatterley Valley.

The downside of this site however, is that it draws traffic much further into the core urban area thus negating some of the original reasons for promoting Park and Ride.

In general the two site option, Option 3, performs worst of the three in operational terms, again because traffic is travelling further into the centre on the D road, rather than transferring to buses at Sideway and Chatterley Valley.

155

2002 Base Year Year Base 2002 Case 2021Reference 1 Option – Ride and Park 2 Option – Ride and Park 3 Option – Ride and Park

Private Car and Goods Vehicle a) By Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 27.4 27.6 27.3 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 82.2 78.8 78.9 79.0 78.9 (including M6 M otorway) b) By Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 93.9 93.9 94.0 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 48.9 40.5 40.9 40.8 40.3 / A500) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 29.7 30.0 29.8 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 42.3 42.6 42.2 Urban Bus 20.5 17.9 18.1 18.1 18.0 Park and Ride Bus - - 22.7 19.7 17.8

Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the study area) 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 All M odes 45.3 41.9 42.2 42.4 42.1

Table 13.2: Differing Park and Ride Options - Average Travel Speeds (kph) by Mode (2021 Evening peak Hour Period)

The choice between these options is not clear cut and will depend on the importance placed of maximising car park usage / revenues and reducing over all traffic impacts. The obvious conclusion that can be draw at the present time however, is that which ever combination is adopted, the number of cars using each of the sites is fairly low. Based on these demand levels it is questionable whether the system would be viable in operational terms.

156

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021 Reference 1 -Option Ride and Park 2 -Option Ride and Park 3 -Option Ride and Park

Chatterley Valley - - 125 - - Etruria - - - 350 400 Sideway - - 225 175 - Bucknall - - 30 30 30 Overall Total - - 380 555 430

Table 13.3: Differing Park and Ride Options – Cars Entering and Leaving Park and Ride Sites (Evening Peak Hour Period, 2021)

It should be noted however, that the above analysis has been undertaken on the basis that Park and Ride is the only measure to be introduced. In reality, where Park and Ride has been introduced elsewhere it has been part of a package of measures, centred around increasing parking charges and reducing parking supply within the core central areas. Indeed, in respect of the last, Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG 13 clearly states that for Park and Ride schemes to be acceptable the new Park and Ride provision should be seen as a replacement for city centre parking places, rather than an addition.

W ithin this context, Park and Ride may have a key part to play within the final transport strategy, as it not only has the potential to reduce traffic levels in the central areas, but could also release, for development, valuable lands that are currently being consumed for central area parking.

157

158

14 Winning Over Hearts and Minds

14.1 Winning Hearts and Minds

The key thrust within the existing Local Transport Plan is the need to minimise the need for motorised travel through: • encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport; and • changing social attitudes so that people rationally consider all of the alternative options that are available before they embark on a journey. The latter would particularly include consideration of whether it is really necessary to make the journey at all.

The existing Local Transport Plan has given a high priority to measures such as School and W orkplace Travel Plans, Safe Routes to Schools and the implementation of the W alking and Cycling Strategies (further details of this were provided in Section 2.9).

Despite the good intentions of the existing Local Transport Plan, the implementation of such measures have only had a limited impact to date. This is caused by factors such as the levels of funding available, particularly in terms of revenue funding and also a lack of complimentary measures to help to achieve the desired modal shift from the private car, such as improvements to public transport provision.

Such initiatives, termed here as ‘Winning Over Hearts and Minds’ must be taken more seriously and implemented much more vigorously, if we have any chance of stemming the current trends towards increasing car dependency, higher levels of congestion, worsening traffic related noise and a deteriorating public transport system.

W ithin this Chapter each of the component issues that might make up a “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” component of the strategy are discussed. These would encompass:

• A W alking Plan; • A Cycling Plan; • School Travel Plans; • W orkplace Travel Plans; • Teleconferencing; • Internet Shopping; and • Personal Journey Planning;

159

14.2 Development of a Walking Plan

Since 1975 the distance walked per person has fallen by around 25% and is now 192 miles/person/year (National Travel Survey 2003). The W est Midlands region has the lowest level of walking across the UK, with only 172 miles/person/year (Regional Transport Statistics 2004).

In order to reverse this trend there is a need to devise a well thought through W alking Plan for the conurbation as a whole and to make a positive decision to allocate substantial funds to turn it into a reality. The Plan itself will probably need to be focused around six areas, each of which will concentrate on one of the following:

• The Active Promotion of W alking – this should include the development and publication of locally based literature and “Walking Maps” that can be circulated through local libraries, education establishments, health centres and other outlets. It should also include the development of a media strategy with regular walking events and activities. A key part of this promotion programme should be the development of a well designed, regularly updated and heavily advertised “Walking” website targeted at bringing together information on walking and walking routes; • Development and signing of “walking routes” and “walking” networks – The walking routes, some of which have already been completed, should link the major centres of Newcastle, Hanley, Stoke, Burslem, Tunstall, Kidsgrove and Longton/Fenton while the networks should be designed to link local communities to local centres, health centres, schools and railway stations. The location of many of these facilities has been discussed in Chapter 7 and Figure 14.1 shows, in outline terms, the 30 minute walking catchments to each of the conurbation’s town centres. These local networks might be separate from traffic routes, but should nonetheless be well lit, safe from both a road safety and personal security viewpoint, well maintained or themed and appropriately signposted. Such networks, as they are developed, should be added to the W alking Map. • Improve interchanges – walking forms the first and last part of most non car based journeys. It is vital, therefore, that key routes to and from all forms of interchanges, from the local bus stop to Stoke InterCity railway station, are well designed and pedestrian friendly. This extends from simple measures, such as ensuring that if you join a bus at a bus stop on the west side of the street on your outbound journey it is easy to re-cross the road on your return, to ensuring that it is easy to interchange within the main bus stations at Hanley and Newcastle and within other key town centres such as Stoke. A key part of this initiative should be the undertaking of an accessibility

160

audit for each of the conurbations’ interchange facilities, from bus stop to InterCity station; • Improve development – ensure that the needs of pedestrians are fully included into proposals for all future developments from the outset, rather than tagged on as an afterthought. This can only be done if there are clear guidelines and standards set out within the Local Development Framework. These should consider not only the internal layout of the development but also the linkages between the development and the surrounding communities and facilities. The upgrading of such linkages should be a key part of any Section 106 agreement. Conditions within planning permissions should also be carefully thought through so as ensure that hard won facilities are not lost once the development opens through the inappropriate placement of advertising signs, litter bins or on-site parking. A key part of this will be the need for enforcement visits as appropriate; • Improve street conditions – A key barrier to walking is poor street conditions, both within the public realm and adjacent to the public realm. The latter is a serious issue in many parts of the conurbation, where disused industrial or residential buildings have fallen into a state of disrepair and therefore affect the overall walking environment. Many of the issues that need to be addressed are, however, outside the limited remit of Local Transport Plan expenditure. It is therefore important, when developing the W alking Plan that every effort is made to engage other organisations, council departments and the private sector. Key partners in this regard will be RENEW and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. W ithin the public realm the W alking Plan will need to improve street conditions by improving the immediate streetscape, for example through widening pavements, removing or upgrading unnecessary street furniture, improving maintenance and cleaning standards and adopting whole route or area treatments (for example the Green Areas project in London); and • Improve safety and security – another barrier to increased walking is poor safety and security. The safety of walking can be improved by introducing calmed areas or 20mph zones where appropriate, traffic signals can be reviewed to ensure that pedestrian phases and facilities reflect the needs of walkers, Safer Routes to School measures can encourage walking trips to school, new developments can be reviewed to ensure that footways are illuminated and CCTV can be introduced in key locations where safety is an issue, such as in town centres or waiting at railway stations or bus stops.

A well designed W alking Plan of the type outlined above could cost in the order of £10 million to implement within this conurbation with a further £0.5 million to £1.0 million per annum to promote and publicise (these

161

costs are based on the London plan and are based on a vigorous pro- active approach). However, such a Plan, if implemented with other measures that seek to persuade people to consider walking as a real alternative for local journeys, could give rise to an increase in the overall number of walking trips by 10%. This compares with a current trend that has seen walking decline by 25% in 30 years.

By their very nature, all of these new trips would be for short distances of less than 5 miles, with the vast majority being less than 2 miles. Nationally, 84% of these potential new walkers are currently travelling by car, therefore the net result of promoting walking will be to reduce short distance car use.

Research has shown that a 10% increase in walking trips can be expected to result in a 4% reduction in local car trips (trips under 5 miles in length).

The vast majority of walk trips are therefore likely to come from car, trips, reducing car vehicle trips under 5 miles by around 4%. This equates to an overall reduction in car trips within the conurbation of around 2%.

It should be emphasised that this level of increase in walking trips would not be exceptional. A 10% increase in walking trips would restore walking trips to their level in the late 1980s. Other benefits of the W alking Plan would be improvements to public health through increased physical activity, a better environment, improved social inclusion (walking is open to all) and an increase in local economic activity (walking provides local shopping opportunities).

14.3 Development of a Cycling Plan

Nationally, since 1975 cycling has fallen by a third to 34 miles per person per year, a mode share of just 0.5%. In towns cycling can often be the quickest method of transport, although cycle use is usually limited by poor perceptions of safety. A Cycling Plan could reverse much of the recent decline in cycling, for example, increased investment in cycling measures in London has lead to a 23% increase in cycling between 2003 and 2004. Similar plans in Leicester led to a 54% increase in cycling. Typical measures that could be part of a Cycling Plan are:

• Development of a Cycle Network – a network of safe, fast and comfortable routes on high demand links. These should either be on lightly trafficked roads or provide some degree of segregation. The Trent and Mersey Canal and the network of disused railways within North Staffordshire provide a backbone for this network and it is envisaged that this should be extended to include links to major centres;

162

• Junction Treatments – junctions, particularly roundabouts and signalised gyratories can be dangerous for cyclists. It is important that junctions with poor safety records for cyclists, even though they are not on the Cycle Network, are treated. Such treatment can reduce cycle accidents by as much as 80%; • Cycle parking – the lack of secure cycle parking is often quoted as a major deterrent to cycling. The Cycle Plan should therefore include the provision of cycle stands at key locations such as town centres, railway and bus stations and leisure facilities; • Cycle training – it is important that people are given the confidence and skills to cycle in an urban environment. The Cycle Plan should therefore include high quality cycle training for children and adults, improving safety and increasing the take-up of cycling; • Promotion of cycling – Promotional activities and targeted marketing can increase cycling. This should encompass general campaigns such as Cycle to W ork week, and more targeted information such as the free distribution of cycle maps; and

• W orking with Employers – W ithin a community such as North Staffordshire, where many residents have low employment based travel horizons there should be an excellent opportunity to develop a “cycle to work” culture. However, the census shows that travel to work based cycling activity is much lower here than elsewhere. This could be reversed through working with local employers to encourage them to provide safe cycle storage facilities at the workplace, together with in-house changing and showering facilities. This could be promoted through W orkplace Travel Plans (See below).

Based on experiences within other Cities (e.g. London) it is estimated that some £8 Million would be needed to implement a good quality Cycle Plan within the conurbation. An additional £1.5 Million per annum would also be needed to cover recurring maintenance costs. Expenditure of this type could however increase current levels of cycling by around 50%, restoring cycling activity to 1975 levels. This would result in local car trips reducing by a further 0.7%, giving an overall reduction in car vehicles of 0.4%.

Other benefits of the Cycling Plan are improved health and physical fitness, time savings for cyclists, improved safety and an improved environment.

14.4 School Travel Plans

School traffic makes up a small proportion of total traffic but is often seen as a significant contributor to peak hour congestion. Indeed, at the

163

Stakeholder workshops it was cited as one of the main causes of congestion.

Nationally, since 1992 the proportion of children travelling to school by car has increased by nearly a third and now stands at 34% in the W est Midlands region. School Travel Plans seek to reverse this trend by introducing measures such as traffic calming, 20mph zones, road safety training, education and initiatives such as “Walking Buses”.

There is a considerable wealth of evidence on the positive impacts that

school travel plans can have, (see Cairns et al 20042 for a summary) with schools which have successfully implemented a school travel plan being likely to see reductions in car traffic of between 8% and 15%.

The Government now requires all schools to have a travel plan in place by 2010. Progress towards this target has already been made in North Staffordshire, with around a third of the conurbation’s schools having plans. Assuming that the Government programme is achieved within the North Staffs conurbation, home based education car trips could be expected to fall by between 10% (central) and 15% (high), thereby reducing evening peak hour car traffic by around 0.2% (reduction in the morning peak would be higher). Other benefits would include improved safety and improved physical fitness.

Typically, the cost of implementing an effective school travel plan is of the order of £65,000. W ith the number of schools still requiring travel plans being in the order of 100, the cost of developing effective school travel plans could be around £6.5 million, with on-going education and road safety training costs of £30,000 per year.

14.5 Workplace Travel Plans

Commuting trips make up 34% of car trips in the evening peak hour period. W orkplace travel plans can be used to reduce car access to workplaces, largely by employees. W orkplace travel plans are a package of measures introduced by employers to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport. W orkplace travel plans can encompass: • providing public transport information; • public transport fare discounts; • walking and cycling initiatives;

2 Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel : Cairns et al 2004. Prepared by UCL, Robert Gordon University andEcoLogica and submitted to the Department for Transport

164

• promotion of car sharing schemes; • parking restrictions; • teleworking; and • company transport provision.

There is little empirical evidence on the impact of W TP, with results heavily skewed by those companies that have introduced parking restrictions which tends to have a large impact. Cairns et al (2004) suggest that travel plans could reduce car commuting by 5% to 18%, with a typical reduction of 10%.

For the main part however, really effective workplace travel plans will only be applicable to larger companies or those that could implement a joint travel plan (for example all companies within a building or the same business park or industrial estate). At most it is likely that workplace travel plans could reach a third of the workforce with a more typical penetration likely to be 20 %. This could reduce car commuting trips by around 2 % (central) to 6 % (high) by 2016, thus reducing evening peak hour car traffic by 0.5 % (central) and 1.6 % (high). Nearly all of the costs of workplace travel plans, such as physical measures and public transport support, would be borne by companies, with the cost to public authorities probably limited to the provision of free advice. This would typically work out at £4 per employee.

14.6 Teleconferencing

Teleconferencing is the use of telecommunications (phones or video links) to facilitate contacts that might otherwise have involved business travel. Teleconferencing can be provided in a variety of ways including telephones, facilities available from individual PCs or by special rooms fitted with video equipment. There is considerable uncertainty over the impact of teleconferencing.

As with workplace travel plans, it is unlikely that teleconferencing will be applicable to all employers, for example certain blue collar professions. However, by 2016, it is not unreasonable to assume that teleconferencing would apply to 20 % (central) to 24 % (high) of the workforce, with a 15 % (central) to 25 % reduction in car based business travel. This would reduce car business trips by between 2 % to 5 %, reducing evening peak hour car traffic by 0.3 % (central) to 0.7 % (high). Nearly all of the costs of teleconferencing would fall on employers, with public sector involvement probably limited to setting up shared facilities in say public libraries. This has not been costed.

165

14.7 Home or Internet Shopping

Internet or home shopping is the purchase of goods at home, obviating the need for travel to purchase goods. Forms of home shopping include: • internet shopping; • telephone shopping; • catalogue shopping; and • TV shopping.

All of the above require home deliveries, small items can generally be delivered using conventional postal services however, larger items may require special delivery journeys. There is little evidence on the impact of home or internet shopping. The general consensus from the literature is that home shopping could reduce car driver shopping trips by around 10 % by 2010, increasing to possibly 15 % by 2015 (see Cairns et al 2004 for a discussion). This would reduce car home based shopping trips by 3 %, reducing evening peak hour traffic by 0.8 %. Consumers would bear all of the costs of increased home shopping. These reductions would, however, be off-set to some extent by an increase in white-van activity.

14.8 Personal Journey Planning

Personal journey planning is a direct technique in which information is provided to individuals or households to help them change their travel behaviour. The technique can be seen as a tool to fill the information gap which typically exists for car users on the characteristics for travelling by alternative modes. Information is individually tailored to the individuals transport needs so as to encourage modal shift away from car.

Several successful pilot projects of this technique have been carried out in the Gloucester and Frome areas and large scale roll outs are being undertaken in London, Bristol and Nottingham. The studies point to a reduction in car travel by targeted individuals of between 5 and 15 %, averaging around 10 %. Large scale roll outs in London are covering some 125,000 people per year.

W ith an intensive programme of personal journey planning, it should be possible to cover everybody in the study area in a period of five years. This would reduce evening peak hour car travel by 10 % (central) to 15 % (high). The costs associated with a large scale personal journey planning initiative are around £14 per head, giving a total cost for the conurbation of around £4.5 million. It is likely that such a Personal Journey Planning initiative would need to be repeated every five years to ensure that impacts are maintained.

166

14.9 Conclusions

Taking into account the impacts of double counting it is estimated that a highly focused, well implemented initiative aimed at “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” could reduce evening peak hour traffic activity by between 3 % (central) and 8 % (high).

To achieve the upper limit however, it would be necessary to introduce “hard” complementary measures that seek to reinforce a transfer away from the car, either through using physical measures that remove road capacity or through introducing financial disincentives such as congestion charging. Either approach would have the affect of ensuring that any reduction in congestion does not simply induce further traffic growth.

Like many of the other measures discussed so far, introducing these types of initiatives in isolation will be less effective than introducing them within an overall strategy, a key element of which will need to be some form of restraint.

To illustrate this last point, the study’s purpose built multi modal model has been used to assess the benefits that might accrue through introducing these types of measures, both with and without “hard” complementary measures in place.

So as to ensure that the findings from these tests are as realistic as possible the full travel demand matrices for the 2021 Reference Case has been subdivided into its component travel purposes and then the reductions outlined above have been made at trip purpose level.

The findings from these tests are set out in Tables 14.1 to 14.3.

The first thing that is noticeable from these tables is that there is a significant difference between what is achievable with and without the introduction of “hard” complimentary measures.

Looking at the tables in turn, the first (Table 14.1) provides an overview of the levels of trip and travel reduction that might be expected, with and without “hard” complementary measures in place.

Three things are of particular note from this table: • as many of these types of initiatives are aimed towards persuading people to transfer to other modes (i.e. walk, cycle or use public transport) they therefore tend to be more effective for short distance trips, rather than longer distance trips. Hence the reductions in terms of vehicular distance travelled are lower than the reductions in person trips made;

167

• for small percentage reductions in private vehicle trips there are significant percentage increases in public transport usage; and • as most buses operating within the conurbation are operating below their full capacity, at these levels of transfer there is no need for significant increases in vehicular bus travel. This means, in effect, that buses can operate more efficiently, with higher revenues per kilometre travelled.

At a conurbation wide level, these reductions in vehicular travel provide time savings in terms of reduced delays and increased travel speeds. This can be see from the information provided within Table 14.2.

However, at an individual street level the net effect is likely to be small, with the numbers of vehicles passing through any particular road or intersection changing by only a relatively low amount. Consequently changes in noise, local air pollution, road safety and pedestrian severance will also be small. This is illustrated in Table 14.3, which shows changes in the overall position with respect to road safety. Additionally, Figure 14.2 shows flow changes between the “Low Impact” option without “hard” complimentary measures in place and the 2021 Reference Case, with Figure 14.3 showing the same comparison with the “High Impact” option with “hard” complimentary measures.

This situation could be altered however, if specific interventions were taken to channel any traffic reductions into specific corridors. For instance, instead of creating small benefits for all, it would be possible instead to remove traffic completely from some roads, while leaving traffic levels in others at their original level. Such an approach might allow the traffic free bus corridors, discussed in Chapter 11, to be implemented. Alternatively, some roads with sensitive retail frontages could be pedestrianised. These issues will be returned to later.

168

2002 Base Year Year Base 2002 Case 2021 Reference Option 1: W ithout “Hard” “Hard” W ithout 1: M easures Option Complementary “Hard” W ith 2: M easures Option Complementary

People Based Travel Trips Demand to Travel By Private 102,000 115,000 111,500 106,000 Vehicle (People)

Change in Private Vehicle Travel - 3500 - 9,000 - - (relative to 2021 Reference Case) (- 2.9%) (- 7.8%) Demand to Travel By Bus (People) 4600 4650 5250 7850

Change in Bus Travel (relative to + 600 + 3200 - - 2021 Reference Case) (+12%) (+68%) Demand to Travel By Rail (People) 425 425 425 425 Change in Rail Travel (relative to - - - - 2021 Reference Case) Vehicle Based Travel Kilometres (x 1000) Private Vehicle Kilometres 859.9 1062.8 1042.5 998 Travelled (Veh) Change in Car Kilometres Travelled (relative to 2021 - - -1.9% -6.2% Reference Case) Bus Kilometres Travelled (Buses) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Change in Bus Kilometres Travelled (relative to 2021 - - - - Reference Case) Rail Kilometres Travelled (Trains) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Change in Rail Kilometres Travelled (relative to 2021 - - - - Reference Case)

Table 14.1: W inning Over Hearts and M inds – Impacts on Trip M aking and Travel (201 Evening Peak Hour Period)

169

2002 Base Year Year Base 2002 Case 2021 Reference Option 1: W ithout “Hard” “Hard” W ithout 1: M easures Option Complementary “Hard” W ith 2: M easures Option Complementary

a) Private Vehicle Travel by Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 28.2 30.4 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 82.2 78.8 79.5 81.0 (including M6 M otorway) b) Private Vehicle Travel by Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 94.2 94.6 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 48.9 40.5 41.7 44.6 / A500) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 30.5 32.4 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 43.4 46.2 Urban Bus 20.4 17.9 18.6 20.0

Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the study area) 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 All M odes 45.3 41.9 43.2 46.0

Table 14.2 “Winning Over Hearts and M inds” Average Travel Speeds (kph), (2021 Evening peak Hour Period)

170

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem All Personal Injury Accident – Link Based Problems

2002 Base Year 67% 8% 8% 17% 2021 Reference Case 73% 10% 6% 11% W ithout “Hard” M easures 73% 10% 6% 11% W ith “Hard” M easures 73% 10% 6% 11% All Personal Injury Accident – Intersection Based Problems

2002 Base Year 68% 11% 11% 10% 2021 Reference Case 72% 10% 9% 9% W ithout “Hard” M easures 74% 9% 9% 8% W ith “Hard” M easures 75% 10% 7% 7% Pedestrian Personal Injury Accidents – Link Based Problems

2002 Base Year 82% 1% 3% 14% 2021 Reference Case 86% 2% 1% 11% W ithout “Hard” M easures 86% 2% 1% 11% W ith “Hard” M easures 86% 2% 1% 11% Pedestrian Personal Injury Accidents– Intersection Based Problems

2002 Base Year 81% 4% 3% 12% 2021 Reference Case 85% 3% 2% 10% W ithout “Hard” M easures 86% 3% 2% 9% W ith “Hard” M easures 87% 3% 2% 8%

Table 14.3. “Winning Over Hearts and M inds” Summary of Personal Injury Accident Problems, 2021

171

172

15 The Case for Increased Highway Capacity

15.1 Introduction

The preceding Chapters have examined how improvements in public transport, the promotion of alternative sustainable modes and the promotion of measures that increase travel awareness might all be used to overcome the current and future transport problems within the conurbation.

Although all of these components are likely to contribute towards the future strategy, the impacts of each, if introduced in isolation, on the issues of congestion, environmental nuisance and road safety, are limited.

The conventional solution to most transport problems over the last fifty years has revolved around creating new or replacement highway capacity so as to either: • alleviate congestion through creating additional road capacity; or • to bring about improvements in road safety and environmental conditions through relocating traffic from inappropriate streets within sensitive areas to new purpose built highways.

In the past the creation of both the A500 (T) D Road and the new section of the A50 (T) between the A500 (T) and Blythe Bridge have generally set out to achieve both of these objectives. Similarly, the current A500 (T) Pathfinder improvements on the A500 (T) D Road at Stoke are designed with similar aims in mind, reducing congestion on the D Road itself, allowing non essential traffic in neighbouring areas (which may currently be diverting away from the A500 (T) due to the congestion at the Stoke Road and City Road junctions) to relocate to the D Road and at the same time improving conditions for pedestrians and public transport at each of the D Road intersections with City Road and Stoke Road.

Many might argue that a further extension of this approach would be the most suitable way of resolving the traffic problems that exist today. The purpose of this Chapter is firstly to examine the opportunities that might exist for creating new highway infrastructure and then to examine what the provision of such infrastructure might be capable of achieving.

Before proceeding however, it is perhaps worth noting that although traffic related issues formed a major part of the discussions at the stakeholder workshops, held in May 2004, it was the improvement of

173

public transport, rather than the creation of new roads, that was put forward as the most important improvement needed.

15.2 The Proposals Considered

In the following sections the benefits and impacts that might be associated with a wide range of alternative highway improvement options are examined. These improvements range from the provision of localised relief roads at Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley and Stoke through to the creation of major access roads, relief roads and bypass improvements on the western, eastern and southern fringes of the conurbation.

In all some 11 different highway improvements, together with a number of variants, have been examined, and from this analysis more generalised conclusions have also been drawn. The ideas examined are described below under two broad headings, these being localised improvements and major schemes.

15.3 Localised Improvements - Possible Schemes

The local schemes that have been examined are described below and shown in locational terms on Figure 15.1. The descriptions are set out geographically, from north to south through the conurbation.

a) Tunstall South Western Bypass This scheme, which is identified within the Local Plan, would allow traffic travelling through Tunstall town centre to be removed. This would be achieved through building a new single carriageway road between: • the roundabout at the intersection of the Tunstall W estern Bypass and Chatterley Road; and • the A5271 Brownhills Road, near to its junction with W illiamson Street and Tunstall High Street.

In addition to removing traffic from Tunstall town centre, the road could also provide opportunities for providing vehicular access to potential development sites located on either side of the new route. It is envisaged that this scheme, if implemented, would be substantially funded through developer contributions.

b) Burslem Ring Road Various options for the creation of a Ring Road to Burslem have been assessed in previous studies.

For the purposes of this study it has been assumed that a two way relief road will be provided around the western side of the town centre. This

174

route has been assumed to be of single carriageway standard, with local widening at its intersections. In the south western segment the road utilises the existing section of Woodbank Street, between W aterloo Road and Market Street. It then runs northwards via Greenhead Street to rejoin the A50 at a new four arm junction at W edgwood Place. c) Hanley Ring Road This scheme, if implemented, would complete the Hanley Ring Road, linking the south-western end of Potteries W ay with the northern end of Potteries W ay, via a new alignment on the western side of the city centre. This new link, if constructed, would be divided into two phases as follows:

Phase 1 - This part of the scheme (also referred to as the City Centre Link) would be dual carriageway in form, providing two traffic lanes in each direction and connecting the roundabout at the western end of Potteries W ay (at Broad Street) with the A5010 Etruria Road.

It is envisaged that the intersections at each end of the route would be signal controlled, and that a new signal controlled intersection would be provided mid way along the route so as to provide access to a potential development site (a new Tesco supermarket).

This road is identified within the Local Plan as a Major Transport Infrastructure Proposal. If built, it is envisaged that it would be funded through private sector developer contributions, with its construction being a condition of any planning consent given for the potential supermarket site.

Phase 2 - This part of the scheme would be of a lower standard, but would still complete the Hanley Ring Road. As such it would link the A5010 Etruria Road with the northern end of Potteries W ay (at its intersection with Vale Place and York Street) through the construction of a new single carriageway standard road, with signal controlled intersections being provided at each end.

Again, this part of the scheme is seen as providing opportunities to improve access to neighbouring potential development sites. In particular the Fuchs site, which it is envisaged will consist of a mixed use retail and leisure development. If implemented, it is expected that this part of the route will again be developer funded, with its construction being a condition of any planning consent given for the Fuchs development.

175

d) Hanley-Bentilee Link Road This scheme consists of a single carriageway road, connecting the Bentilee area with Hanley City Centre. The scheme, as currently envisaged, would commence at a new traffic signal junction on Dividy Road (just south of Fenton Road), then continue westwards towards the City Centre, via a new signalised intersection with Leek Road. To the west of Leek Road the scheme would follow the existing alignment of Botteslow Street, before terminating at a modified roundabout junction, at the south-east corner of the A50 Potteries W ay.

If this scheme were to be introduced it is envisaged that it would act as a replacement route for traffic travelling between Bentilee and Hanley City Centre. As such, it is assumed that complementary traffic management / traffic calming measures would be introduced on the sections of Dividy Road, Bucknall Road and Bucknall New Road, where traffic activity will be reduced.

Additionally, if this scheme were introduced, it would provide access to a Park and Ride site at Bucknall, which would be located part way along its length.

It should also be noted however, that the creation of such a road could have a detrimental impact on the established wildlife corridor that extends through the eastern section of the proposed road’s route. Additionally, the impact of the scheme on the Hanley South Area of Major Intervention, which is to be redeveloped at an early stage of the RENEW programme, is one which is potentially significant.

Two possible variants to the above have also been looked at within this study. These being: • the eastern extension of the Bentilee Link Road to the A52 W errington Road at Stewart’s Farm; and • the creation of a southern spur to the Bentilee Link Road, following the disused railway line to join Victoria Road at Fenton Low.

In terms of the first of these, such an alignment could have an unacceptable impact on two locally proposed heritage sites, these being the Bucknall Glacial Erratic and Causeley Brook. The second would again impact on another wildlife corridor, following the disused rail line. e) Stoke Inner Ring Road This scheme, which is identified in the Local Plan, consists of a replacement, one-way single carriageway road connecting the B5041 London Road, (just to the south of its junction with Fleming Road) to

176

Hartshill Road, at its junction with Elenora Street and Epworth Road. If constructed, it would allow traffic to be removed from the northern part of Church Street and Campbell Place, thus enhancing the town centre environment within these two streets.

f) Improvements to M6 Junction 15 The M6 motorway intersection at Junction 15 is currently sub-standard and is often subject to congestion. This results from a combination of factors including the short length of the on and off slip roads, the extremely tight radii on the northbound carriageway slip roads and the layout of the ground level intersections.

W hile minor improvements have previously been made, both in terms of introducing signalisation and changing road markings, there are still often congestion problems at peak times.

To overcome these problems it is likely that the whole intersection will need to be remodelled, so as to create a free flowing intersection.

15.4 Localised Improvements – The Benefits and Impacts

All of the above ideas have been assessed through the use of the study’s purpose built multi model transport model and the overall conclusions that have been reached can be summarised as follows: • in terms of providing a solution that addresses the overall congestion, road safety and environmental problems identified within the conurbation none of the above, when introduced in isolation, will make any significant difference to overall conditions; • at a local level they do have the effect of changing the routeing of traffic and thereby provide localised changes in road safety conditions, together with localised changes in traffic noise levels, local air quality and congestion; and • in terms of public transport operations: - when such schemes simply provide replacement capacity, as would be the case with the Stoke Inner Relief Road, there are generally localised benefits for public transport vehicles within the roads where traffic activity has been reduced; and - where such schemes provide additional capacity, they tend to cause a change in the relative travel times of private vehicles and public transport vehicles, such that car use becomes more attractive after implementation of the scheme, than prior to its implementation. The net result of this is that public transport usage decreases. This issue is discussed in more detail in the next section.

177

Hence: Localised highway schemes may be of benefit in so far as they allow specific local problems to be overcome. However, where such schemes lead to an overall increase in the capacity of the conurbation’s road network their net effect is to increase the attractiveness of car travel, relative to the use of public transport. W hile the impact of introducing one scheme in isolation may be small the combined impact of a number of such schemes will be to further undermine the viability of public transport.

It can therefore be concluded that there are probably two alternative ways of viewing local highway improvements. These being:

1. Provided some other mechanism can be found to generally reduce congestion and improve road safety and environmental conditions then local highway schemes should only be promoted in cases where the following conditions are met: • the local highway improvement simply provides replacement capacity, rather than increasing capacity; • it can clearly be demonstrated that the benefits that the local highway improvement will provide in terms of improving road safety, reducing environmental nuisance and promoting opportunities for regeneration will outweigh any disbenefit that the scheme may cause; and • it has been fully concluded that there is no other identifiable way in which similar benefits can be achieved.

2. If no alternative mechanism can be found (to generally reduce congestion and improve road safety and environmental conditions) then local highway schemes may have a role to play in increasing network capacity at locations where such problems directly impact on the viability of the conurbation.

Possible examples of the first might be the Stoke Inner Relief Road, while a possible example of the second might be improvements to the M6 Junction 15 Motorway intersection, whose layout is currently sub standard, causing problems with congestion and road safety.

15.5 Major Highway Improvements

In addition to the local highway schemes described in the previous section, a number of more strategic highway schemes have also been evaluated. These are as follows: • a W estern Bypass or Link Road;

178

• an Inner or Outer Eastern Bypass; and • a Southern Bypass.

Each is described below: a) A Western Bypass or Link Road A scheme of this type could either provide a continuous connection between the M6 (in the vicinity of Keele services) and the A500 (T) D Road (at the A527 Tunstall W estern Bypass Junction) or it could simply be a spur road, linking into either the M6 or the A500 (T). The general alignment of such a road is shown in cartoon form in Figure 15.2.

In principle the exact alignment of such a road could be fairly flexible. However, given the development and environmental constraints within this area it could be difficult to define an acceptable route. The key issues would be finding an acceptable alignment: • in the vicinity of the A525 and B5044 corridors (west of Newcastle) without impacting on either the settlements of Silverdale and Knutton or the nationally designated ancient woodlands to the west; and • in the vicinity of Chesterton without having an adverse impact on the nationally designated ancient woodlands and Country Park at Apedale, housing in Chesterton itself and the nationally designated ancient woodlands on the western side of A500 (T) intersection with the Tunstall W estern Bypass.

Notwithstanding the above, if such a road were built its primary purpose would be to open up development sites at Keele, Silverdale, Knutton, Lymedale and Chesterton, by providing much better connections between these areas and the Trunk Road network. It could additionally provide improved access into the Chatterley Valley Site from the M6.

In practical terms, if such a road were to be built, with a connection to the M6 Motorway at Keele, issues are likely to be raised regarding: • the close proximity of such a junction to both Keele Services and the existing M6 Motorway Junction 15; and • the possibility that the provision of such a road would generate a demand for local traffic movements on this section of the M6 Motorway.

Possible solutions might be: • to site the new intersection at Keele Services, and then to add an additional lane to the M6 between Junction 15 and Keele Services; or

179

• to create additional collector / distributor roads between Keele Services and Junction 15.

Either of these options would have a significant impact on the costs associated with providing a new road on this side of the conurbation. b) An Eastern Bypass or Relief Road On the eastern side of the city the two disused railway lines, the loop line and the Biddulph line, both provide possible opportunities for creating new highway capacity.

In the case of the loop line, a new Inner Eastern Relief Road could be created between the eastern end of Tunstall Northern Bypass and Hanley City Centre, thus bringing relief to both the A50 and A5272 corridors and perhaps adding the possibility of converting both of these parallel roads into traffic free bus corridors.

In the case of the Biddulph line, an Outer Eastern Bypass could be created through the eastern fringe of the conurbation, linking Brindley Ford, W hitfield, Ford Green, Milton, Bucknall and Fenton, with intersections being provided with the A53 between Sneyd Green and Milton, the A5009 at Abbey Hulton and with the A52 / A5272 at Bucknall.

A possible line for both routes is shown in cartoon form in Figure 15.2.

The construction of a new road in either of these corridors is likely to be problematic however, from an environmental / heritage viewpoint.

In the case of the Inner Eastern Relief Road alignment (which follows the old loop railway line) the key issues are likely to be: • protection of the established wildlife corridor; • protection of the glacial erratic within Tunstall Park; • the impact that such a route is likely to have on National Cycle Route No.5; and • the general issues of newly created visual impacts, traffic related noise problems and local air quality problems, albeit that each of these will be accompanied with improved conditions on parallel routes.

In the case of the Outer Eastern Bypass (which follows the disused railway line to Biddulph) the issues are much greater, with the key points being: • protection of the Ford Green Reedbed, which is a nationally designated Site of Special Scientific Interest;

180

• protection of the established wildlife corridors that run throughout the length of such a scheme; • protection of the Caldon Canal Conservation Area, in the section of the route between the A53 and the A5009; • protection of the proposed W hitfield Valley Natural Heritage site; • protection of the proposed Holden Lane Pools Natural Heritage site; • protection of the proposed Cromer Road Natural Heritage site; • protection of the water courses that run through the northern and central sections of the route; • the impact that such a route is likely to have on National Cycle Route No.55; and • the general issues of newly created visual impacts, traffic related noise problems and local air quality problems, albeit that each of these will be accompanied with improved conditions on parallel routes.

Possible variants on the second route (Outer Eastern Bypass) might be: • the construction of a northern link to the eastern end of the Tunstall Northern Bypass, via an alignment that leaves the railway corridor to the north of Bradeley and then proceeds in a north-westerly direction to Pitts Hill; or • simplification of the intersections between the new road and the A52 / A5272 through the construction of a spur link to the new road, following the alignment of an extended Bentilee Link Road. Under this arrangement the new road could pass under the existing A52 at Bucknall. The creation of this spur would, however, raise additional environmental / heritage issues as outlined under the description for the Bentilee Link Road. c) A Southern Bypass If a southern bypass were to be created it is likely that it would be in the form of a new strategic route, running outside the built up area and connecting the A50 (T), in the vicinity of Blythe Bridge, directly to the M6 Motorway in the vicinity of Barlaston. Such a road could include intersections where it crossed the A520 and the A34.

Its impact would be to remove longer distance traffic from both the western part of the A50 (T) and from the A500 (T), allowing both of these roads to cater simply for traffic generated within the conurbation.

For such a road to be built however, it would need to pass through the designated Greenbelt area that separates the conurbation from Stone. It would additionally pass close to a number of nationally designated ancient

181

woodlands, national heritage sites at Great Hartwell Farm (Moated site), Tittensor Common (Saxon’s Lowe) and Bury Bank (multivallate hill fort) and the National Trust site at Downs Bank.

As with any new western route, the creation of a new intersection with the M6 Motorway could also be problematic, possibly requiring the removal of the existing Junction 15.

A possible alignment for a southern bypass is also shown in cartoon form on Figure 15.2.

15.6 Major Highway Schemes – The Benefits and Impacts

In order to understand the contribution that each of the above ideas might make in terms of reducing congestion, improving road safety and overcoming environmental problems, each has been assessed through use of the study’s purpose built multi-model transport model. Tables 15.1 and 15.2 provide an overview of the impacts that differing major schemes might have in terms of travel speeds and the operational efficiency of the road network.

Figures 15.3 to 15.6 illustrate how each type of scheme may give rise to changes in traffic flows in individual streets and thereby alter prevailing levels of traffic noise, local air pollution and road safety.

Figures 15.7 to 15.10 then illustrate how such schemes would change car based accessibility between home and employment places, both from the viewpoint of the employee seeking work and from the viewpoint of the employer, seeking access to the work force. It needs to be noted that the presentation approach used in each of these accessibility drawings varies significantly from that used in other parts of this report. Given the already high levels of car based accessibility in the 2021 Reference Case (relative to non car based accessibility) it has been necessary to base these figures on 30 minute car based travel time, rather than a 45 minute car based travel time and the figures show the percentage change in the number of employment places or employees that can be reached within 30 minutes, rather than the change in problem level. This has been necessary as there are no accessibility problems for car based travellers in the 2021 Reference Case Situation.

From inspection of these figures and tables the following conclusions can be drawn:

From Tables 15.1 and 15.2 it can be seen that the introduction of major road schemes can have a significant impact in increasing overall network efficiency. In particular, the Southern Bypass, by removing through traffic

182

from the A50 (T) and the A500 (T) D Road, offers opportunities to significantly reduce congestion within the urban area. None of the schemes however, when introduced in isolation, will restore travel speeds in the urban area back to the levels that existed in the 2002 Base Year. In addition, it is worth noting that through increasing general travel speeds bus operating speeds are also increased. This in itself will lead to some minor improvement in non car based accessibility.

Reference to Figures 15.3 to 15.6 also shows that each of the major schemes, to differing degrees, has the ability to reduce traffic in other roads which are less suited to carry such traffic. This will give rise to reductions in traffic related noise and improvements in local air quality within such streets. All of the above benefits are, however, gained at the expense of new problems which are likely to be created within the new road corridors. These problems have already been highlighted in earlier sections of this Chapter.

Perhaps the most significant impact of such roads however is to increase car based accessibility, to a much greater extent than the above recorded increases in public transport based accessibility. This issue is clearly highlighted in Figures 15.7 to 15.10. In each case, other than that of the Eastern Inner Relief Road, the provision of the new road has significantly improved car based accessibility in the outer urban areas of the conurbation.

If the only consequence of this were to be that potential development sites such as those at Silverdale, Knutton and W hitfield Colliery were to become more attractive to developers, because they had better access to the UK’s gateways, then it could be argued that such roads are good in that they will both aid regeneration in these areas and allow goods vehicles to reach such sites without having to use unsuitable roads.

The downside of the argument is that they also make such sites very accessible by car, thereby undermining any possibility that there might have been of providing commercially viable bus services to such areas.

The above gives rise to a serious dilemma – if it is desired to continue to promote edge of conurbation “brownfield sites” such as those mentioned above (as is currently the policy within the Local Plan), then providing better access, perhaps through building some of the schemes outlined in this Chapter, may be desirable. Once such sites are established however, the ease of car based access that the new roads will provide, will mean that the vast majority of the workforce, where they have a choice, will prefer to travel by car, rather than bus. This has two consequences: • it will be difficult to establish commercially viable bus services to such sites, from many parts of the conurbation; and

183

• the lack of good public transport connections will mean that those who do not have access to a car will be excluded from taking up employment in such areas.

In reality, the above problems are already arising along the A500 (T) / A 50 (T) corridors where new employment opportunities have been created at Sideway and Trentham Lakes. Discussions undertaken during the course of the study, with employers representatives, suggest employers in these areas (and at Lymedale) already experience difficulties in attracting employees from non car owning income groups within the conurbation.

15.7 Overall Conclusions

This Chapter has considered a range of potential highway improvement schemes for the North Staffordshire conurbation. It should be noted that the Committed Schemes (described in Chapter 8) and routes providing access to regeneration sites were taken as ‘given’ and were therefore not assessed as part of this study.

The overall conclusion from this Chapter must be that road building, be it in the form of local road schemes or the provision of major new highways, could be used to both reduce overall levels of congestion and to take traffic away from sensitive areas.

Road building alone will not, however, resolve any of the problems associated with poor public transport based accessibility. Indeed, it is very likely that road building will simply further undermine the viability of the current public transport system. Additionally, obtaining funding for road schemes through the Local Transport Plan Major Scheme Bid process is likely to become increasingly difficult in the foreseeable future.

There may, nonetheless, be a case for including new roads in the final strategy if it is found that the provision of such roads is essential so as to facilitate the implementation of other strategy measures.

Possible examples might be that: • the congestion impacts associated with creating traffic free bus corridors are unacceptable and replacement highway capacity is therefore needed – a possible example of this might be the need to construct an Eastern Inner Relief Road so as to allow traffic free bus corridors to be established between Hanley and Tunstall and between Hanley and Sneyd Green; and • the boundary impacts of implementing a congestion charging zone (to be discussed next in Chapter 16) are such that new roads are needed to prevent diverting traffic from using unsuitable streets.

184

These issues will be revisited in the context of finalising the preferred transport strategy.

The issues raised above regarding the continued promotion of the development of edge of conurbation “brownfield sites” are also addressed later within Chapter 17.

185

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base 2021 Reference Case Bypass W estern Inner Road Eastern Relief Bypass Eastern Bypass Southern

b) Private Vehicle Travel by Area

i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 28.0 27.5 28.6 29.8

ii) Travel in Rural Areas (including M6 Motorway) 82.2 78.8 79.3 78.8 78.8 80.7

b) Private Vehicle Travel by Road Type

i) Motorway 96.5 93.9 93.6 93.9 94.0 91.5

ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 /A500) (including Southern bypass) 48.9 40.5 41.6 40.6 41.7 54.6

iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 30.6 29.9 30.8 31.5

c) Overall 45.5 42.1 43.2 42.4 43.4 47.0

Urban Bus 20.4 17.9 18.4 18.1 18.9 19.6

Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the study area) 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9

All M odes 45.3 41.9 43.0 42.2 43.3 46.8

Table 15.1: M ajor Highway Schemes, Average Travel Speeds (kph) (2021 Evening Peak Hour)

186

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems

No Problem Slight Problem Moderate Problem Serious Problem

Link Based Efficiency Problems

2002 Base Year 94.7% 3.6% 1.6% 0.1%

2021 Reference Case 90.7% 5.7% 3.4% 0.2%

W estern Bypass 91.2% 5.2% 3.3% 0.2%

Eastern Inner Relief Road 91.0% 5.3% 3.5% 0.2%

Eastern Bypass 91.5% 5.3% 3.1% 0.2%

Southern Bypass 92.4% 5.1% 2.4% 0.1%

Intersection Based Efficiency Problems

2002 Base Year 97.8% 1.8% 0.4% 0.0%

2021 Reference Case 96.5% 2.6% 0.8% 0.1%

W estern Bypass 97.2% 2.1% 0.6% 0.1%

Eastern Inner Relief Road 96.8% 2.6% 0.5% 0.1%

Eastern Bypass 97.3% 1.9% 0.7% 0.1% Southern Bypass 97.6% 2.1% 0.3% 0.0%

Table 15.2 M ajor Highway Schemes, Summary of Link and Intersection Based Efficiency Problems (2021 Evening Peak Hour)

187

188

16 Increasing the Costs of Car Travel

16.1 Introduction

None of the measures examined in the preceding Chapters can fully deliver a transport strategy that meets the aims and objectives set out in Chapter 3. Their main deficiencies are as follows:

a) Public Transport Based Improvements W hile public transport initiatives, such as increased services, bus priority and Park and Ride all have the potential, to varying degrees, to increase both non car based accessibility and travel choice, they have only limited success in persuading car users to change mode to bus, train or a Park and Ride vehicle.

The consequence of this is that: • such schemes do not give rise to any significant reductions in traffic activity, therefore identified issues relating to congestion, road safety and environmental improvement are not addressed; and • as much of the cost associated with public transport improvements tends to be revenue based, rather than capital based, the lack of success in generating a step change in public transport ridership means that such schemes will be very difficult to finance, particularly in the longer term.

b) Winning Over Hearts and M inds These initiatives will be key to any future transport strategy. However, as has been demonstrated they have two major failings when introduced in isolation, these being: • for such measures to be fully successful they need to be supported by other “hard” complimentary measures that alter the attractiveness of the car, relative to other modes; and • although such an initiative will lead to reduced congestion, changes in traffic activity within specific streets will be indiscernible. Such an initiative will therefore not fulfill the road safety and environmental objectives.

c) Increasing Road Based Capacity These initiatives, whether they be small scale or grandiose, will reduce congestion to varying degrees, with small schemes having a very localised effect and larger schemes, such as the Eastern Bypass or Southern Bypass having much wider decongestion benefits.

If introduced in parallel with complementary traffic management measures it might also be possible to channel these decongestion benefits into specific

189

areas, so as to ensure that improvements in road safety and local environmental conditions are maximised.

On the negative side however, such schemes are expensive to construct and could have impacts on local environmental assets. In addition, such schemes have the effect of increasing car based accessibility, thereby altering the relative balance in travel times towards the car, rather than public transport.

The most significant schemes, the Eastern and Southern Bypasses, also have the effect of increasing car based accessibility in the peripheral urban areas, which could undermine attempts to concentrate new development within the inner core of the conurbation.

In terms of public transport the key theme that has come out so far is that unless we can increase public transport patronage it will be very difficult to raise the necessary funding to achieve service improvements. W ithout service improvements however, we cannot improve social inclusion.

The only identified way of raising public transport patronage, so far, has been to create congestion by creating traffic free bus corridors. W hilst the traffic free bus corridors themselves have significant merit, their implementation will be fraught with difficulties if they simply worsen congestion elsewhere.

Both “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” and new road construction provide some opportunity to reduce the congestion problems that would be associated with introducing the traffic free bus corridors, particularly if the resulting decongestion benefits associated with each were channelled into these areas.

Such an approach is, however, self defeating, as reducing overall congestion (again) will simply mean that the original reason for car users to transfer to bus has gone, and therefore the transfers identified will not materialise.

To address this dilemma a new approach is required. This is likely to lie in some form of mechanism that deliberately sets out to make car use less attractive, without, at the same time, having the unacceptable side effect of increasing congestion.

Such mechanisms are termed “Road User Charges”. These could be in the form of: • higher on-street and off-street public car parking charges; • charges on the use of private non-residential off-street parking places; or • charges for entering or travelling within certain areas of the city.

190

Although each will have the effect of reducing the attractiveness of the private motor vehicle their impacts vary, both in effectiveness and in terms of the number of vehicle users who are affected. These issues are discussed next.

16.2 Public On-Street and Off-Street Parking Charges

Parking charges / controls are generally introduced selectively, both in terms of their geographical location and in terms of the road user groups that they target. Parking charges are also only effective in areas where there are no alternative places to park (i.e. within town centres). It therefore follows that parking charges will only be able to influence the travel behaviour of a minority of car users (i.e. those travelling to a central area location for employment, shopping or education purposes).

In the case of the North Staffordshire conurbation there are currently three areas where car users have little option but to pay parking charges if they want to park on-street or in public off-street car parks. These are Hanley City centre, Newcastle town centre and Stoke town centre. Elsewhere, although there are currently some on-street parking controls and some charged off-street car parks there are usually other locations nearby where parking is free.

In terms of these three locations it would be relatively easy, in practical terms at least, to increase current on-street and public off-street parking charges and extend the area of coverage. From a commercial viewpoint it would also, up to a point, be possible to do this without having a major impact on the commercial viability of these three centres. In the case of Hanley and Newcastle, both offer retail and commercial facilities that are not available elsewhere in the conurbation or nearby. Stoke town centre is different in that its retail offer is poor. The majority of its parking activity, however, is thought to be associated with either employment activity or public administration.

Outside these three areas it would be much more difficult to introduce meaningful on-street and public off-street parking controls without resorting to the need to introduce extensive areas of on-street residential parking control. This, with its associated need for permit purchases, is likely to be unpopular with residents and could have a detrimental impact on the commercial vitality of non-central areas. If parking controls are to be used, to make car usage less attractive than it is now, then measures such as those outlined above will need to be introduced.

It is interesting to note at this point that the issue of parking charges within Hanley town centre was raised consistently at each of the Stakeholder workshops held in May 2004 – the issue being that the charges were already perceived to be too high. It is also worthy of note that Hanley City centre is one of the few destinations within the conurbation where visitors currently exercise any form of mode choice decision. This is probably primarily due to its

191

relatively good bus connections. The current level of parking charges are also likely to have affected mode choice, although given that only around 1 in 10 bus passengers across the conurbation chose to use the bus when they had a car available for their journey, this is likely to be a less important factor.

It is estimated that, in terms of the total number of cars travelling within the conurbation during the evening peak hour period, only some 5 % of these actually use charged public on-street or public off street parking facilities. This calculation is based on the assumption (supported by data) that: • less than 20 % of all car trips made during the evening peak hour within the conurbation have an origin in Hanley, Newcastle or Stoke town centres; and • of these, a maximum of around 25 % (i.e. 5% of all car trips) use public on- street or public off-street car parks. The remainder use private car parks or are simply picking up or setting down passengers within the centre.

Based on the above, increasing both long stay and short stay public on-street and public off-street parking charges within the three town centres will have only a very small impact on the overall number of vehicles using roads within the conurbation, the overall reduction being less than 1 % (this represents the fact that 20% of the 5% maximum car trips affected referred to above, are predicted to switch modes). Even if on-street control were to be extended over a much greater area the overall impact would still be low, as outside the three town centres most people either park on-street as residents or off-street within private car parks as employees.

In terms of impacts on congestion, road safety and environmental conditions, these will again be low, and lower than those experienced as a result of “Winning Over Hearts and Minds”.

Another feature of parking based charges that is worthy of note is that they are only applied at the point of the journey’s commencement or termination. They therefore have no direct impact on the usage of a particular section of street. This means that within a congested area, where traffic is competing for road space, any reductions that do occur in overall demand are not necessarily reflected in the immediate vicinity where that demand is reduced. In other words, the net effect of reducing car based trips to the centre of Hanley is to allow other through traffic to take more direct routes, hence any traffic relief that does materialise is more likely to be in the suburbs rather than in the town centres.

Although, when introduced by themselves, increases in public on-street and off- street parking charges will have very little impact, they could have three very useful roles in the context of an overall strategy:

192

• increasing public parking charges will be much more successful (albeit that the overall impact will still be limited) within a strategy that offers real alternatives to central area parking, in the form of improved public transport and Park and Ride, • if differential increases in public parking charges were introduced, with long stay increases being much higher than short stay increases, the net result would be that there would be an increase in the available number of parking opportunities for short stay use (if this type of approach were employed then those travelling in the peak periods could be persuaded to use Park and Ride or public transport while those visiting the centres to shop could continue to park within the centre). The merits of such an approach would, however, need careful consideration, as it could result in higher levels of car use during the inter-peak period, undermining the viability of public transport services during these periods; and • the added bonus associated with increasing parking charges is that the revenues so collected could be “ring fenced” and used towards meeting the increased revenue needs of other elements of the strategy. It is realised however, that this last issue will be contentious as parking revenues have, in the past, been seen by many local authorities as a useful additional source of funds for use in financing a much wider range of services than simply public transport. A possible solution to this might be to view the “increased charges” as a public transport levy. The adoption of such an approach might also make it much easier to convince the public at large of the merits of a higher parking charge initiative.

16.3 Private Non-Residential Off-street Parking Charges

The term, “private non-residential off-street parking” in its widest form applies to all private car parks, whether they be for the use of employees or visitors and whether they be associated with locations that are primarily employment orientated or retail / commercial orientated. In general however, the notion of charging a levy on parking within private non-residential car parks is seen primarily as being aimed at workplace parking. Nonetheless, for completeness, this section examines the issues associated with both workplace and retail / commercial off-street car parks.

a) W ork Place Parking Charges W ork place parking, where it is available, is free of charge and is often well utilised. Introducing a charge on the use of these spaces could therefore be an important mechanism for use in both reducing the relative attractiveness of car travel and in generating revenue.

The introduction of such schemes has been investigated in many parts of the UK, most notably within the W est Midlands conurbation and in Nottingham. However, none have yet been implemented. The principles of such schemes

193

are reasonably simple. In essence, each workplace is assessed so as to determine how many off-street works related car parking spaces it has and then a levy is charged on the employer for each space that is identified.

W hether or not such a scheme will lead to any significant reduction in car use depends on the answers to three key questions, these being: • if work place parking charges were to be levied, would the charge levied on the employer be passed on to the vehicle user, or simply absorbed by the company; • given that such parking is currently free, will there be an initial threshold cost that has to be levied prior to any significant levels of traffic reduction being achieved; and • assuming all the above are not an issue, what percentage of the traffic within the conurbation would actually be affected by such a charge.

In terms of the first question it is likely that many employers would see the charge as a tax on their business, rather than a charge to be passed on to their employees. This problem could perhaps be overcome if there was a very strong link between the active promotion of workplace travel plans and the introduction of a work place parking levy.

In terms of the second question, it is reasonable to assume that even if the charge were to be passed on to the employee, in the short term at least, there would be a high resistance to changing mode in locations outside the town centres simply because current public transport accessibility to non town centre locations is fairly poor. A fairly significant charge would therefore need to be made if it were to have any real impact.

On the last issue, the answer is highly dependent on the extent of any W ork Place charging zone. If, like public on-street and off-street parking areas, the work place parking zone were limited to the three centres, the numbers of people who would potentially be affected would again be small, at around 6 % at maximum and probably much lower in reality, after some employers had absorbed the cost.

If it covered a wider area, say the whole conurbation, then the number of people who would potentially be affected would be much higher, at a maximum of around 25 %. However, for such a scheme to be practical at this wider level it would either have to be viewed simply as a tax levy, with no real intentions of displacing parking (in which case it would have no traffic reduction benefits), or it would be necessary to implement controlled on-street parking schemes throughout the conurbation, so as to prevent employees simply avoiding the charge by parking on-street. If the first option was to be employed then it might be better just to adopt a much more simplistic “transport levy” on the

194

local business rate, as is being explored in some other cities. The second option, by contrast, would probably be impractical and unacceptable.

Based on the above discussion it is likely that a W ork Place parking levy would be no more successful in reducing traffic activity than increased parking charges. Such a scheme also suffers from the same problems of applying the charge at the origin / destination, rather than within the street being used.

The one potential advantage that a W ork Place charge may have over increasing public on-street and off-street parking charges is that the overall market (in terms of users) could be much larger and therefore the revenue raising potential of such a scheme would be significantly greater. Additionally, as it would be a new charge it would be much easier to “ring fence” the revenues.

This advantage is also its greatest problem. Unlike other types of charge, there is no possibility for the employer, in the short term at least, to exercise choice as the levy is likely to made on an annual basis and will apply regardless of whether the spaces are actually occupied or not. In this respect it is likely to be seen simply seen as another tax on business, and another deterrent to any investor who is thinking of moving into the area.

This last point is also relevant to the issue of the zone size. If it were decided that the zone should be centred just around the three town centres the presence of the levy could have an adverse affect on any policies aimed at concentrating new businesses into these areas. It could also make developments located around the edge of the conurbation more attractive to developers.

It is worth noting that all of the above issues were identified by participants at the strategy development Stakeholder workshops held at the end of November 2004 and the censuses view was that while there might be merit in using some form of road user charging mechanism to reduce car based travel activity and to raise revenues to subsidise public transport improvements, Work Place charging was not the correct approach. b) Out of Town Retail Parking Charges The introduction of parking charges at other short stay private non-residential car parks is a much more complex and interesting issue. Generally, such spaces are in the ownership of major retailers or other visitor based establishments. It is therefore very unlikely that any user based parking charges will, in reality, be passed on directly to the user, as to do so would reduce the competitive attractiveness of the retailer. Nonetheless, if such charges were to be imposed they could have beneficial outcomes.

Typically, to provide compatibility with current public parking charges within the conurbation’s town centres, the annual value to a retailer (and ultimately the

195

customer) of providing and maintaining a parking space within an out of town retail park is in the order of £750 to £1000 per space.

If it were decided, as part of the ultimate transport strategy, that short stay parking charges within town centres should be increased then, at the very least, a charge equivalent to such increases should be imposed on out of town retail sites so as to ensure that the competitive edge of out of centre retail parks is not increased further.

In the longer term, if parking levies were to be imposed at out of centre retail outlets, they could conceivably be used to bring about two possible outcomes, both of which could significantly assist traffic reduction: • the competitive edge that such stores have over the ‘corner shop’ could be eroded, thus encouraging the return of the community based shop; and/or • the retailer may seek to reduce his overheads, through the introduction of a delivery based service, thereby effectively transforming the role of the hypermarket from that of a car based retail outlet to a locally based distribution warehouse.

It may well be that introduction of charges on short stay parking places at out of town retail parks will be the only way to initiate either of these changes, both of which would in themselves address current transport based inequalities.

16.4 Cordon or Area Based Road User Charges

The last mechanism that is available to alter the relative costs of car and public transport travel is that which is commonly called Congestion Charging or Road Pricing.

This approach is significantly different from charging at the point of parking, in that the charge is levied for use of the road, rather than for use of a particular type of parking place. This has two important consequences that are particularly relevant in the context of developing a transport strategy for North Staffordshire:

• because the charge is road based, rather than parking based, it will be possible to use the charges to encourage traffic to use some roads rather than others. For instance, the charge could be imposed on all the streets in the central part of the conurbation, with the exception of the A50(T) and the A500 (T) D Road. The effect of this would be to confine traffic that does not have business within the central area to the A50 (T) and the A500 (T) D Road; and • unlike parking charges, the congestion charge is not applied selectively and would therefore be levied on all car users travelling within the charged area, whether they were travelling to work, shopping, on the school run or

196

simply passing through. This would mean that the charge could either be used to raise significantly more revenue, or it could be set at a much lower level. In theory, it could also replace parking charges, thereby ensuring that everyone pays for using the road, not just those who happen to have to use a public car park space.

For the purposes of illustration we have developed an indicative congestion charging scheme that covers an area of approximately 30 sq. kilometres and extends from Longport and Smallthorne in the north to Bucknall in the east, Sideway and Northwood in the south and Silverdale, Knutton and Dimsdale in the west. W e have assumed that traffic travelling solely on the A50(T) and the A500(T) will be excluded from any charges and anyone entering or leaving the congestion charge area will pay a flat fee of £3.00 per day to travel on roads within the zone. Such a scheme could be implemented using similar technology to that currently being used for enforcement of the Central London Congestion Charging scheme. The scheme area is shown in outline format in Figure 16.1

The numbers of people that would be affected by such a scheme would be much greater than under any of the parking options examined above and the impacts would be much more complex as drivers effectively have to make decisions between: • paying the charge and travelling by car, as usual; • changing route so as to avoid the charge, if that is possible; or • changing their mode of travel to a bus or train (or Park and Ride, if it were available).

For this reason the impacts of such a scheme have been fully assessed using the study’s purpose built multi modal model. In common with all of the tests undertaken to date, this test has been undertaken on the basis that congestion charging will be introduced as a stand alone scheme. In reality however, if congestion charging were to be introduced within the final transport strategy we would see it as very much being a necessary last addition, that it is there to make the overall strategy viable, rather than as a starting point.

In this context it should be noted that the impacts of the stand alone scheme are likely to be worse than they would be if the scheme were part of a wider package that included better public transport, some form of Park and Ride scheme, elements of the “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” initiative and maybe some road improvements.

Table 16.1 outlines the changes in car usage, public transport usage and vehicular travel that would result through introducing a £3.00 per day charge for using the streets within the central area of the conurbation.

197

W ithout the presence of some form of Park and Ride system and step change improvements in the bus services it is anticipated that some 3,150 people would transfer from car to bus. Although this figure is small in relation to the overall number of car users, it still represents a 67% increase in bus usage. The only other initiative found so far to give similar levels of transfer was the “high” version of the “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” initiative. In reality, that particular test was unreal in that the high levels of success that were modelled are not achievable without the presence of other measures such as congestion charging.

Looking to the effect that a stand alone Congestion Charging Scheme might have on traffic speeds and congestion, Table 16.2 provides a comparison of travel speeds.

It will be seen from this table that travel speeds in the urban area increase while those in the rural areas and on the Motorway remain fairly similar to the 2021 Reference Case situation. This reflects the fact that less people are driving within the inner areas of the city (both because they are transferring to public transport and because they are avoiding the central area where possible) and more people are making journeys via the outer area.

Figures 16.2 and 16.3 show absolute flow levels with the congestion charging scheme in place and the difference in flows between the 2021 Reference Case and the stand alone Congestion Charging Scheme. From the latter of these figures the impacts outlined above can be clearly seen.

In terms of personal injury accidents, overall there are very few differences between the 2021 Reference Case and the stand alone Congestion Charging Scheme, as illustrated in Table 16.3. W hen the situation is examined more closely though it is found that at a local level there are changes in the severity of problems (by location) with a small but identifiable trend towards less severe problems in the internal area and increased problems in the external area, mirroring the traffic redistributions.

In summary, it can be concluded from the above that a stand alone congestion charging scheme, although by no means a solution in its own right, does offer a number of interesting new opportunities. These are as follows: • of all the initiatives examined to date it is the first that, in its own right, is capable of bringing about a substantial modal transfer from the car to public transport; • this transfer has been achieved in parallel with a general increase in travel speeds. Under this type of solution we do not need to create increased congestion to effect a modal transfer to bus;

198

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021Reference Stand Alone Congestion Congestion Alone Scheme Stand Charging

People Based Travel Trips Demand to Travel By Private 102,000 115,000 111,600 Vehicle (People)

Change in Private Vehicle Travel - 3400 * - - (relative to 2021 Reference Case) (- 2.8%) Demand to Travel By Bus (People) 4600 4650 7800

Change in Bus Travel (relative to + 3150 * - - 2021 Reference Case) (+67%) Demand to Travel By Rail (People) 425 425 550

Change in Rail Travel (relative to + 125 * - - 2021 Reference Case) (+29%) Vehicle Based Travel Kilometres (x1000) Private Vehicle Kilometres 859.9 1062.8 1043.7 Travelled (Veh) Change in Car Kilometres Travelled (relative to 2021 - - -1.8% Reference Case) Bus Kilometres Travelled (Buses) 3.1 3.1 3.1 Change in Bus Kilometres Travelled (relative to 2021 - - - Reference Case) Rail Kilometres Travelled (Trains) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Change in Rail Kilometres Travelled (relative to 2021 - - - Reference Case)

Table 16.1: Congestion Charging, As a Stand Alone Scheme - Impacts on Trip M aking and Travel (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

* Note – numbers do not sum to zero due to a small switch to walk mode.

199

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021 Reference Stand Alone Congestion Congestion Alone Scheme Stand Charging

a) Private Vehicle Travel by Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 28.9 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 82.2 78.8 78.7 (including M6 M otorway) b) Private Vehicle Travel by Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 93.8 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 48.9 40.5 41.9 / A500) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 31.4 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 44.4 Urban Bus 20.5 17.9 19.0 Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the 70.9 70.9 70.9 study area) All M odes 45.3 41.9 44.2

Table 16.2: Congestion Charging, As a Stand Alone Scheme – Summary of Average Travel Speeds (kph) (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

• through the targeted application of road pricing it is possible to influence the behaviour of those who choose to continue to use their car (in this case by far the majority) so as to reduce traffic flows in key areas, albeit at the expense of increases in other areas; and • as the vast majority of road users continue to travel, with many of them still using roads within the congestion charging area, it provides a significant opportunity to raise revenues that can be used to cross subsidise public transport service improvements.

200

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem All Personal Injury Accident – Link Based Problems 2002 Base Year 67% 8% 8% 17% 2021 Reference 73% 10% 6% 11% Case Stand Alone 73% 10% 6% 11% Congestion Charging Scheme All Personal Injury Accident – Intersection Based Problems 2002 Base Year 68% 11% 11% 10% 2021 Reference 72% 10% 9% 9% Case Stand Alone 74% 10% 8% 8% Congestion Charging Scheme Pedestrian Personal Injury Accidents – Link Based Problems 2002 Base Year 82% 1% 3% 14% 2021 Reference 86% 2% 1% 11% Case W ithout “Hard” 86% 2% 2% 10% M easures Pedestrian Personal Injury Accidents– Intersection Based Problems 2002 Base Year 81% 4% 3% 12% 2021 Reference 85% 3% 2% 10% Case Stand Alone 86% 3% 1% 10% Congestion Charging Scheme

Table 16.3. Congestion Charging, As a Stand Alone Scheme - Summary of Personal Injury Accident Problems, 2021

All of the above sounds positive, and if congestion charging were to be combined with some of the initiatives discussed earlier it could offer a real way forward where it is possible to meet most of the objectives set out in Chapter 3.

201

Before moving on however, there is a real need to explore further some of the major downsides that might accompany a Congestion Charging Scheme.

• The first relates to traffic that continues to travel, but re-routes around the charged area. – The lack of suitable boundary roads at the edge of the congestion charging area could give rise to serious boundary effects, similar to those experienced at the edge of a controlled parking zone. W hether this will be a significant issue will depend on the extent of the overall traffic reductions that can be achieved within a combined strategy and the available opportunities to introduce ameilioratory measures, such as the introduction of 20mph calmed areas, as described in Chapter 14;

• People who live within the charged area would have no option but to pay the congestion charge, if they wished to use their car. - In the Central London based scheme this has been overcome by designing the scheme so that internal residents receive a 90 % discount on the congestion charge costs. The one drawback of this approach is that residents inside the scheme area may be more likely to use their car for travel within the charged area than previously;

• The exclusion of traffic travelling through the charging zone on the A50 (T) and A500 (T) from the charge means that some traffic may use these routes to avoid payment. There will be a need to ensure that the role of both of these routes, which form part of the national Core trunk road network is not prejudiced by any unacceptable increase in traffic congestion caused by this additional traffic; and • Finally and most importantly, as with all of the other mechanisms discussed in this Chapter, the imposition of an additional charge simply to drive within the congestion charging area may act as a deterrent to new businesses who may be considering relocating within to the area. Equally importantly, if the charged zone was a subset of the total conurbation (as in the tested illustration) it might encourage developments in the outer areas, rather than the inner areas.

In terms of the general issue of a congestion charge having a negative impact on regeneration, in perception terms at least, this will be a major obstacle that needs to be overcome. W hile it might be possible to sell the concept within an overall strategy that includes much better public transport, this is likely to be very difficult. The reality therefore is that such a scheme would almost certainly need to be pursued within the context of a regional or national presumption that all major cities / conurbations will need to introduce similar types of schemes. given that: • Central London already has such a scheme;

202

• Cardiff is seriously promoting its own scheme; and • Central Government has indicated that it is examining the merits of a national road pricing scheme.

It does not appear to be unreasonable to consider that such a presumption will be a reality by 2016 or 2021. To ensure that this does become a reality however, it would be highly beneficial if a groundswell of support could be generated within areas such as North Staffordshire. For this reason alone, if congestion charging were to be added into the final strategy, it will be very important that the concept, if not the immediate reality, is fully supported at all levels within the local authority and regionally.

The second part of the problem (i.e. businesses relocating to the outer areas of the conurbation, rather than the central areas) is already a reality, with most of the new jobs proposed over the next 10 years being located on the edges of conurbation. This will only be reversed if there is a step change in attitudes to land use planning within the conurbation. A first step towards this would be to adopt an over-riding principal of intent within the forthcoming Local Development Framework that states that there will be a general presumption against granting planning permission for any new employment or housing development that lies within an area that has below average levels of public transport based accessibility.

Such an approach could be implemented, in reality, through the adoption of a strategy based S106 developer contribution system, where developers are required to contribute considerably higher payments, on a pro rata basis, for developments located in inaccessible locations. In effect, the conurbation could be sub-divided into a number of accessibility based areas, with the level of developer contributions increasing with the site’s level of inaccessibility.

The difficulty with adopting such a policy is that many of the currently identified development areas (e.g. W hitfield Colliery, Trentham Lakes, Bentilee, Chatterley Valley and Keele Science Park) would be subject to the higher band charges.

Lastly, and to finish this Chapter on a positive note, it is worthy of comment to say that at the Stakeholder W orkshops, held in November and December 2004 (held to discuss the form of the emerging strategy) the concept of congestion charging was generally the best supported of all of the initiatives discussed in this chapter.

Indeed, there was a general consensus that such a scheme, if introduced in parallel with similar schemes in neighbouring cities, would be acceptable as a last resort solution if it made the difference between having a good public transport system or not.

203

204

17 Land Use Issues

17.1 Introduction

In all of the discussions so far the population and employment estimates set out in Chapter 8 have been taken as a given. As was noted within that Chapter however, the 2021 forecasts represent a compromise situation between a number of different bodies and to a significant extent they reflect current commitments and continuing trends, rather than a widely expected step change in land use policy.

Since the study commenced the issues surrounding future land use patterns have started to become clearer, with the recent publication of RENEW ’s intentions. However, there is still much debate to be had on this issue.

So as to both ensure that our final transport strategy is robust under differing land use assumptions and to try and provide some inputs to the debate itself we have reviewed the future land use allocations set out in Chapter 8, with a view to developing a limited number of alternative land use scenarios.

17.2 The Issues of Peripheral New Development

Based on this review it would appear that there are two particular elements of the current forecasts that might be contrary to the current aspirations of RENEW . Both of these relate to the level of development that is currently being assumed away from the inner part of the conurbation.

Firstly, in terms of new employment places, a comparison of the 2002 Base Year and 2021 Reference Case employment levels, shown in Chapters 5 and 8 respectively, show that there are over 16,000 new jobs being created over the next 20 or so years within the conurbation. A high proportion of these are on large sites away from the inner part of the conurbation. These are concentrated as follows: Adderley Green 1,700 Chesterton / Lymedale area 2,500 Knutton / Silverdale areas 1,500 Trentham Lakes 2,000 W hitfield Colliery 800 Keele University / Science Park 2,300 Chatterley Valley 4,500

205

In addition, in terms of housing assumptions, there are also some 3,500 new households forecast to be established within areas away from the inner part of the conurbation. These being primarily at:

Tunstall North East 700 Former Norton Colliery 1,100 Talke Road, Chesterton 150 Silverdale Colliery 400 Berryhill North 250

Many of these forecast developments are allocated within current planning policy documents and some have outline planning permission.

Nonetheless, the provision of so much new development, particularly employment development, away from the central areas of the conurbation does raise issues regarding the overall sustainability of such sites in transport terms, given that many of the existing, newer employment areas such at Sideway, Trentham and Lymedale are already difficult to access, other than by car. It is recognised however, that certain types of industrial development are more suited to locations away from the central area, such as distribution warehouses.

17.3 The Alternative Land Use Scenarios

In order that we can understand the impact that possible changes in these existing policies might have in transport terms we have developed three illustrative alternative land use scenarios. These are all based around the assumption that some of these peripheral developments will not take place as planned, and each assumes that future proposed developments will be redirected back into the inner area of the urban core.

It should be noted that these tests represent alternative ‘what if’ scenarios, which have been undertaken in order to show the impact of moving a greater proportion of future residential and employment expansion into the central area of the conurbation. Therefore the precise redistributions of employment and housing figures referred to below have been made purely to illustrate this impact and it is not necessarily suggested that these precise reallocations are made.

As referred to earlier, it is likely that not all of the employment moved could in reality be located in the central area (such as distribution warehouses due to space constraints), but these scenarios have been developed purely to show the potential impact of the emerging change in direction in land use policy in North Staffordshire.

206

These scenarios are as follows: a) Scenario 1: Under this scenario it has been assumed that the majority (80%) of the forecast employment development at each of the following sites: • Adderley Green; • Chesterton / Lymedale area; • Trentham Lakes; and • W hitfield Colliery. does not go ahead as currently envisaged and instead, these new jobs are provided primarily within the urban core area. In terms of this redistribution it has been assumed the number of employment places in 2021, in each of the following inner areas, will increase above current forecast levels by the following amounts: • employment within Hanley City Centre and its immediate hinterland will increase by a further 20% above 2002 levels; • employment within the remainder of the Stoke on Trent City inner core area will increase by a further 10% above 2002 levels; and • employment within the Newcastle core areas will increase by a further 3% above 2002 levels. b) Scenario 2: Under this scenario it has been assumed that the majority (80%) of the forecast housing developments on the following sites:

• Tunstall North East; • Former Norton Colliery; • Norton Green; • Silverdale Colliery; and • Talke Road, Chesterton. will not go ahead as currently envisaged and instead, these new households will be provided for within the urban core area. In terms of this redistribution it has been assumed that the number of people, households and employed residents in 2021, in each area, will increase above current forecast levels by the following amounts: • the number of households within Hanley City Centre and its immediate hinterland will increase by just under 15% above 2002 levels; and • the number of households within the remainder of the Stoke on Trent City inner core area will increase by a further 5% above 2002 levels.

207

b) Scenario 3: Under scenario 3 it has been assumed that both of the two changes, included in Scenarios 1 and 2 materialise.

In all three scenarios it has been assumed that the overall magnitude of population, households, employed residents and employment places remains constant.

17.4 The Expected Impact of Differing Land Use Distributions

In order to understand the impact of these changes in land use to the 2021 Reference Case situation, the above revised planning assumptions have been fed into the study’s purpose built multimodal model and then the impacts on the future committed transport network have been assessed.

Tables 17.1 and 17.2 provide details of the likely changes that will occur in terms of network activity and network performance. Tables 17.3 and 17.4 then detail the impact that these land use changes will have in terms of non car based accessibility between people’s places of residence and employment. The first of these tables details accessibility from the viewpoint of the employee to employment opportunities and the second details accessibility from the viewpoint of the employer, looking at potential employee catchments.

17.5 Conclusions

From above, it would appear that the impacts of differing land use patterns are more complex than might originally have been envisaged. In terms of car based activity, solely re-allocating either new employment places or new housing from the outer areas of the conurbation to the centre tends to increase overall levels of congestion within the heart of the conurbation, with people, under either scenario, having to travel further distances to reach employment locations. By contrast, if both new employment opportunities and new housing are both located within the core area then congestion reduces, relative to the position with the “central” land use forecasts, although the improvements are still small in terms of changes in vehicle speeds or distance travelled.

In terms of overall levels of non car based accessibility, any move towards bringing new employment into the centre will improve conditions, while the changes that result from bringing new housing into the central areas are smaller. Nonetheless, again the combined option of bringing both new employment and new housing into the centre shows the greatest levels of improvement. This is highlighted in Tables 17.3 and 17.4, which show reductions in the proportions of residents and workplaces predicted to suffer from non car accessibility problems under each of the three alternative scenarios.

Based on the above and despite the relatively small changes in vehicle speeds and distance travelled, there would appear to be an argument, both from a

208

traffic problem orientated viewpoint, and from an accessibility viewpoint to review current land use allocation policies, so as to concentrate new developments within the central core of the conurbation, rather than at the edge.

This issue will be revisited in the context of the preferred transport strategy, so as to confirm whether similar arguments continue to exist.

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021Reference Alt. Land Use Scenario 1 1 Scenario Use Land Alt. 2 Scenario Use Land Alt. 3 Scenario Use Land Alt.

People Based Travel Trips Demand to Travel By Private 102 115 115 115 114.5 Vehicle (People) (1000s) Demand to Travel By Bus (People) 4600 4650 4850 4700 4750 Demand to Travel By Rail (People) 425 425 425 425 425 Vehicle Based Travel Kilometres (x1000) Private Vehicle Kilometres 860 1063 1075 1069 1062 Travelled (Veh) Bus Kilometres Travelled (Buses) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Rail Kilometres Travelled (Trains) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Table 17.1: Differing Land Use Development Scenarios – Impacts on Trip M aking and Travel (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

209

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base 2021 Reference Case 1 Use Land Alt. Scenario 2 Use Land Alt. Scenario 3 Use Land Alt. Scenario

a) Private Vehicle Travel by Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 25.1 26.9 27.4 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 82.2 78.8 78.1 78.9 79.7 (including M 6 M otorway) b) Private Vehicle Travel by Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 94.4 94.0 93.8 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 / 48.9 40.5 42.0 39.6 41.9 A500) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 27.3 29.4 29.7 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 39.5 41.8 42.4 Urban Bus 20.5 17.9 16.5 17.7 18.0 Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the study 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 area) All M odes 45.3 41.9 39.4 41.6 42.3

Table 17.2 Differing Land Use Development Scenarios - Average Travel Speeds (kph) (2021 Evening peak Hour Period)

Percentage of Conurbation’s

Employed Residents No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7% 2021 Reference Case 54.0% 22.8% 14.8% 8.3% Alt. Land Use Scenario 1 58.0% 19.7% 14.0% 8.3% Alt. Land Use Scenario 2 55.0% 22.4% 14.5% 8.2% Alt. Land Use Scenario 3 58.8% 19.3% 13.6% 8.2%

Table 17.3 Differing Land Use Pattern Scenarios – Impact on Non Car Based Accessibility to Employment Opportunities (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

210

Percentage of Conurbation’s

W ork Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% 2021 Reference Case 67.0% 15.5% 8.1% 9.4% Alt. Land Use Scenario 1 70.4% 14.4% 6.5% 8.7% Alt. Land Use Scenario 2 67.0% 15.5% 8.1% 9.4% Alt. Land Use Scenario 3 70.4% 14.4% 6.5% 8.2%

Table 17.4 Differing Land Use Pattern Scenarios – Impact on Non Car Based Accessibility of Employment Locations to Workforce (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

211

212

18 Development of the Preferred Strategy

18.1 Introduction

The preceding eight chapters have examined a wide range of possible components that might be used to resolve the transport problems within the North Staffordshire conurbation. It is however, very obvious that none of these solutions, in their own right, will satisfy all of the objectives set out in Chapter 3.

The discussion at the commencement of Chapter 16 has set out the advantages and disadvantages of the options. Chapter 16 itself has then gone on to look at how monetary based components might help to bring the overall strategy together. From this analysis it has been concluded that it is only congestion charging that has the ability to create the necessary step change that is required both to bring about a large modal transfer to bus and raise significant amounts of revenue for use in subsidising public transport improvements. Such a scheme however, has many downsides, not least of which is its possible incompatibility with the wider regeneration aims of both the regional bodies and the local authorities.

As has been discussed several times before however, it will be very difficult to overcome the conurbation’s transport related social exclusion problems without investing in the public transport network. The dilemma is that many of the costs associated with this have to come from revenue sources, and while subsidy may be acceptable in the short term, as a long term option it is not sustainable.

This leaves us with two possible ways forward. Either: • we accept that the objective of improving public transport accessibility will not be met and adopt a road based solution (such as the southern bypass), relying on decongestion to bring about improvements in road safety and environmental conditions. This approach implies an additional underlying acceptance that the population, as a whole, will have to buy or find access to a car if it wants to fully participate in society; or • we bite the bullet now and accept that in the longer term congestion charging will need to be a reality and devise a strategy that can be implemented over a 15 year period, with the palatable parts being implemented during the early years and the more difficult issues being addressed towards the end, by which time it is highly likely that the current resistance to schemes such as congestion charging will have been overcome.

The first approach could be all quick wins, with funding being made available through capital based LTP settlements. In the longer term however, it does not address the underlying issues and such a strategy will probably, in its own right, further widen the gap between different sectors of the conurbation’s society.

213

The second option will be much more painful. W hile many parts of the strategy will be fundable through capital based LTP settlements there will be a need for significant revenue based subsidies up until the time that congestion charging is implemented and the source of this revenue is as yet unclear. Nonetheless, in the longer term, the adoption of such a strategy will be much more in line with the overall aims of regional and local government, and should ultimately result in a much more inclusive society.

It is our view that it is the second option that should be adopted as the basis for developing the conurbation’s transport strategy for the next 20 years. It is also our view that the issue of short to medium term funding needs to be met head- on and discussed with all parties, from Central Government through to the bus operators and local residents, so that an acceptable way forward can be formulated.

Against this background we have set out, within this final part of the report, to refine the final format of the strategy.

From the work undertaken so far it is clear that the following will form fundamental components of the ultimate strategy:

• an initiative aimed at “Winning Over Hearts and Minds”; • improvements to both urban and rural bus services, the former being in the form of a much better quality service and an increased network presence (achieved through a statutory Quality Partnership or a Quality Contract), and the latter being achieved through the implementation of a much improved core Market Towns bus network, supported by the creation of a demand responsive network of bus / taxi services linking the more remote rural areas (and some outer suburban areas) with the conurbation;

• a Park and Ride system, based around a heart of conurbation approach; and

• ultimately, the introduction of a congestion charging scheme, covering a significant part of the conurbation, but excluding the A50 (T) and A500 (T) through corridors.

The continuing unknowns, in terms of the overall benefits and impacts, are as follows:

If we were to create a network of traffic free bus corridors, extending throughout the inner area of the conurbation, would: • the expected benefits in terms of improved public transport operation, improved overall public transport accessibility and increased ridership materialise?; and • would conditions, away from the bus corridors remain acceptable?

214

In terms of Park and Ride, in the ultimate strategy with congestion charging in place: • is it better to provide a two or three site based system?; and • if a three site system is preferred, should the central northern site be located at Etruria Valley or Chatterley Valley?

Finally, given that in the stand alone tests of the Congestion Charging Scheme one of its significant draw backs was the re-routeing of traffic through unsuitable streets in the outer areas of the conurbation, is there merit in introducing some form of eastern bypass into the longer term vision for the strategy?

Each of these issues is addressed in later chapters of the report.

However, prior to discussing these issues, it is easier from the viewpoint of the reader’s understanding to move directly forward and set out now the form of our preferred transport strategy. Each of the above issues will then be examined in the context of this final strategy, so as to illustrate / justify the final choices that have been made.

215

216

19 The Preferred Transport Strategy

19.1 The Strategy in Outline

Our preferred transport strategy for the North Staffordshire Conurbation will replace the existing version of the North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Strategy, which was drawn up by Stoke-on-Trent City and Staffordshire County Councils and which formed the basis of their five year Local Transport Plans submitted in July 2000. This five year period is now almost complete and the updated Integrated Transport Strategy set out in this Chapter will build on the progress made during this period, which was summarised in Chapter 2 of this report.

This updated Transport Strategy sets out the priorities for the North Staffordshire conurbation for the next 15 years and it will form the basis of the second Local Transport Plan, which is to be submitted by Stoke-on-Trent City and Staffordshire County Councils as a joint North Staffordshire Plan. This is due to be submitted in July 2005 in provisional form, with the final plan due for submission in March 2006.

The strategy is set out in pictorial form in Figure 19.1 and consists of the measures listed below. Please note, for each strategy the Chapters within which the element is discussed are shown in brackets:

• Public transport service and infrastructure improvements (Chapters 11 and 12), including: - Establishment of a Quality Partnership or Quality Contract. - Improvements to the definition and quality of the urban bus network. - Introduction of Traffic Free Public Transport Corridors. - Improvements to existing interchange facilities. - Remodelling of the rural bus network including the provision of a flexible Demand Responsive Transport system.

• Establishment of a three site Park and Ride system (Chapter 13), based on the provision of Park and Ride sites at Chatterley Valley, Sideway and Bucknall, together with an initial temporary site at Etruria Valley.

• The aggressive promotion of increased walking and cycling (Chapter 14), through the development and implementation of a walking and cycling plan.

• The aggressive promotion of other measures aimed at “Winning Over Hearts and M inds” (Chapter 14), including programmes aimed at:

217

- Extending the work already begun in the areas of School Travel Plans and W orkplace Travel Plans. - Promoting, both through the above and through other means, the development of teleconferencing and home and internet based shopping. - The initiation of a programme of Personal Journey Planning.

• A limited number of replacement capacity based highway improvements (Chapter 15), where the following conditions are met: - W here an appropriate case has been made on the grounds of environmental improvement, public transport enhancement or economic regeneration.

- W here the net impact of the scheme, together with its accompanying complementary traffic management measures do not give rise to a noticeable increase in conurbation wide traffic speeds, or lead to any noticeable increase in overall car base accessibility, particularly in the more fringe areas of the conurbation.

- W here the scheme has a direct impact on the viability of the conurbation

• A limited number of highway schemes aimed at reducing congestion, improving road safety and environmental conditions, where no alternative can be found where the problems the scheme is designed to address directly impact on the viability of the conurbation (Chapter 15).

• The introduction of wider controls on parking in Hanley, Newcastle- Under-Lyme and Stoke centres (Chapter 16), including: - Extension of the on-street parking charges to all parts of each centre. - The introduction of parking controls in the surrounding ‘walk in’ areas. - A year on year increase in real terms in the parking charges, with the extra revenue generated used to provide funding to implement the transport strategy.

• The ultimate implementation of a Congestion Charging Scheme (Chapter 16), covering at least the inner area of the conurbation (except for the A50(T) and the A500(T)) and levying a daily charge on all vehicles entering the area.

• The adoption of land use planning policies that seek to encourage new development to locate in the Inner Core Area, rather than in the outer areas of the city (Chapter 17).

218

The primary aim of this overall strategy is to aid regeneration and social inclusion through reversing the continuing trend towards increased car dependency.

The remainder of this Chapter discusses each element of the strategy in more detail.

19.2 Public Transport Service and Infrastructure Improvements

The core element of the strategy lies in bringing about a step change in the image, reliability and operational performance of the public transport network. A number of different measures are needed to achieve this. These include:

Establishment of a Quality Partnership or Quality Contract This should be achieved initially through exploring the benefits that can be gained through establishing a statutory Quality Partnership covering the whole of the conurbation, with the local transport authorities committing to provide infrastructure improvements and bus operator(s) guaranteeing to provide a minimum level of service on each route.

In the event that initial discussions reveal that it is not possible to achieve the required step change in bus service quality through this mechanism, an alternative approach should be adopted, through the use of a much more flexible Quality Contract. It is our view, based on the work undertaken in this study, that this second mechanism is likely to be the more successful of the two, as it gives the local authority much more control over the overall pattern of public transport services. The issue however, is whether the will exists at all levels of government to commit the associated levels of necessary revenue support that will be needed in the short to medium term.

The key issue, regardless of which approach is finally adopted, will be the need to agree how the necessary revenue support will be secured in the short to medium term.

Improving the Urban Bus Network

Service and Frequency Improvements - At a minimum, the service coverage of the current urban bus system should be improved such that the vast majority of residents within the conurbation have a satisfactory level of non car based accessibility to key facilities, services and employment opportunities at most times of the day.

In some areas this is likely to mean that new or improved bus services will have to be introduced, linking the more peripheral employment areas to the remainder of the conurbation and a greater emphasis will need to be placed on

219

providing orbital services that reduce the need for most public transport journeys to be made via Hanley or Newcastle.

In other areas the key changes are likely to be that the frequency of some day time services linking outer residential areas to the centre will need to be improved and more generally there will be a need to review the extent to which current services operate in the early morning period, in the early and late evening periods and on Saturdays and Sundays. One of the major deterrents to recreational public transport usage in the evenings and at weekends is the lack of certainty and the non availability of return services.

Network Quality Improvements- In parallel with the above there needs to be a step change in the quality of the vehicle fleet, the training and regulation of staff, the monitoring and response to security issues on the bus, within interchanges at other key boarding / alighting locations and in the approach to fare collection and ticketing structures, with off bus ticket purchase and through ticketing being introduced. These last two desires could be combined through the adoption a time limited ticketing system (as used in many eastern and western European cities), with tickets being time stamped on street or on vehicle at the commencement of the journey.

W ith respect to the form of the vehicle, the important issue is that the vehicles are clean (inside, outside and emission wise), easily accessible and portray an overall positive image for public transport. The latter means that the vehicle fleet should be distinctive, modern and uniform in appearance.

Improving the Urban Bus Infrastructure

Introduction of Traffic Free Public Transport Corridors - It is our view that the key to determinant of public transport performance lies in separating buses from general congestion. This will greatly improve the reliability of bus services, which is an important determinant of people’s propensity to use bus services. Unless this is achieved public transport will always have a secondary image to the car. This can be done in a number of ways, ranging from simple bus priority through to creation of a new light rail system.

The study has concluded that creating priority through widening streets and introducing bus lanes is inappropriate, especially as most buses within the conurbation operate within single carriageway residential or commercially fronted streets. Furthermore, since the majority of bus patronage originates from land uses in close proximity to the current bus routes, it has also been concluded that it would be inappropriate to move buses, or any other form of public transport vehicle, away from these corridors. The solution must therefore lie in creating traffic free public transport corridors within the existing road network.

220

How these corridors are used, in terms of the type of vehicle operated, be it bus, guided bus or light rail, is of secondary importance. Nonetheless, the introduction of guided busways, with high-sided restraining kerbs would be inappropriate within such a street system. Light rail is also considered to be inappropriate as the overall levels of patronage, even with congestion charging in place, make it very difficult to justify the cost of introducing such a system. Nonetheless, there may be merit, once the corridors themselves have been created, in looking at other forms of intermediate transport vehicles such as the “wired” guided bus systems currently being trialled in France..

It is proposed that these traffic free corridors should be introduced along those routes which are currently carrying the highest numbers of bus services and passengers. These were selected by referring to the figures provided in Chapter 5 and are listed below: • Longton – Fenton – Hanley; • Fenton – Stoke – Newcastle; • Stoke - Stoke Station – Hanley; • Newcastle - Festival Park – Hanley; • Hanley - Bucknall – Bentilee; • Hanley – Burslem – Tunstall; and • Hanley – Smallthorne – Sneyd Green.

The sections of the above corridors, where through traffic is to be removed are shown in Figure 19.2. For each corridor, some sections have not been assumed to be traffic free, because it was found when the whole of the corridors were assumed to be traffic free, it resulted in an unacceptable level of increased congestion on alternative routes. Examples of this include the A50 W aterloo Road between the A53 and Potteries W ay and the A52 between Newcastle Ring Road and Shelton New Road.

It is envisaged that within these corridors general traffic will be allowed to gain access into restricted streets for the purpose of servicing or accessing premises. Such traffic will not, however, be allowed to use consecutive sections of restricted streets for the purposes of undertaking longer distance through movements. Such a system could be easily policed, using readily available Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology (such as that in operation in London to enforce the Congestion Charge) and legislation now available to local transport authorities, which allows local enforcement of bus lanes / bus only roads using cameras. Alternatively, appropriate Traffic Regulation Orders enforced by cameras could be used to prevent through traffic in these corridors. Vehicles would be penalised if they were recorded within two consecutive sections of restricted street within a given time of say 15 minutes.

221

W ithin each of the restricted street sections, the overall streetscape would need to be changed so as to create an environment where the car driver perceives his presence to be tolerated, rather than accepted. This could be achieved by narrowing carriageway widths to 7.3 metres, creating purpose built parking bays adjacent to the main carriageway (where this is appropriate) and creating widened footways. Changes to the carriageway surfacing, coupled with raised tables at all entry and exit points and the adoption of themed road markings in the form of “paint bus roundals” could also be used, although consideration would need to be given to only introducing raised tables at selected junctions where a significant reduction in vehicle speeds is required, due to their impact on bus passenger comfort and safety.

Throughout these corridors, buses should be given priority over other traffic at all signalled crossings within the general traffic network. This should be easily achievable through the use, or extension of, the Urban Traffic Control System that is already in place.

A consistent branding theme should also be adopted at all locations where passengers board or alight from services. This should include the provision of bus shelters with lighting, seating, weather screens, real time information systems, wider timetable and network information and ticket purchasing machines / stamping machines (where levels of passenger demand are sufficient to warrant their introduction). The footway and carriageway areas around bus stops should also be themed, through the use of Kassel kerbing to assist easy access to buses and the introduction of easily used pedestrian crossing facilities to allow passengers access to both sides of the street. Given the low volume of traffic activity within these restricted streets the latter are more likely to be in the form of dropped kerbs and use of coloured / tactile paving treatments rather than the installation of islands and formal crossings.

Illustrations showing, in cartoon form, the possible layout of such streets and alighting/boarding areas are shown in Figures 19.3 to 19.7. As identified within each figure, these relate to locations within the proposed corridors.

Urban Infrastructure Improvements in Other Areas - In other areas away from the traffic free bus corridors, many of the above improvements, particularly those at passenger alighting / boarding points, should again be introduced so as to create an overall quality branding image for public transport. The key differences being that outside the traffic free corridors pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of bus stops are more likely to require the installation of central islands or even formal crossing facilities.

In isolated locations in the wider area there may also be a need to introduce more conventional forms of bus priority, so as to allow buses to avoid the worst of any anticipated traffic queuing in such areas. At an extreme, the provision of

222

these facilities outside the traffic free routes may entail limited property demolition if this was felt appropriate.

Interchange Facilities - In conjunction with the provision of high quality passenger waiting facilities at stops located on the Traffic Free Public Transport Corridors, it is important that the facilities available to passengers at the two main bus stations located in the study area at Hanley and Newcastle are improved.

Currently Hanley Bus Station is in need of significant investment to bring it up to modern standards and Newcastle Bus Station, whilst providing a more modern facility, suffers from problems caused by a lack of capacity for existing bus movements.

The implementation of the transport strategy will lead to substantial increases in the number of bus services in operation (both conventional service buses and Park and Ride), the numbers of passengers carried by bus and the numbers of passengers interchanging between bus services. These increases will be focussed on movements to / from and through Hanley and Newcastle centres, which emphasises the clear need to improve the existing facilities at both of these stations.

Additionally, the increasing trend of splitting routes, which currently pass through Hanley and Newcastle centres, will lead to increased requirements, both for passengers to interchange between services and in terms of the space required for services to layover.

It is understood that the city centre site currently occupied by Hanley Bus Station has been the subject of a number of enquiries from developers interested in redeveloping the site, which may require the bus station to be relocated to an alternative site. It is our view that were this to happen, it is imperative that the alternative site is in a prominent city centre location with good access to city centre retail and employment sites. Indeed, this access should be at least as good as that which exists from the current site.

In summary, the following represent minimum requirements for any improved or relocated bus station, either in Hanley or Newcastle:

• it should be located in a prominent central location with ‘seamless’ access to both retail and employment facilities; • it should be ensured that sufficient capacity exists to accommodate both existing and predicted future services with the transport strategy in place, with a full assessment of interchange and layover needs undertaken. The design of the station and assessment of its operational requirements should be undertaken by experts in this field; and

223

• the routes to and from the station should minimise operational disadvantage to bus services e.g. in terms of additional mileage or time.

The Rural Bus Network

Remodelling of the Rural Bus Network – This remodelling should achieve the provision of a much higher quality and frequent series of links between the conurbation and the more significant market towns and settlements within the hinterland. In particular, this would include improved services to Leek, Market Drayton and W hitchurch. It could, in addition, also include service improvements to other towns including Crewe, Uttoxeter and Stafford, where such services are not in direct competition with rail. Where possible, the branding themes used within the urban area should be extended out to cover these services. In the wider area, the strategy should include for the setting up of a flexible demand responsive public transport system, based around either small minibuses or shared taxis. The creation of such a system will need to be initiated by the local transport authorities through the creation and marketing of a single call centre, with the call centre related service provision being tendered out in a similar way to that utilised at present to purchase subsidised rural services.

19.3 The Park and Ride System

The Park and Ride system will be developed in phases, with a temporary site being established initially at Etruria. Additional sites will subsequently be added at Sideway / Trentham Lakes and Bucknall, with the Etruria site eventually being replaced with a new site at Chatterley Valley.

High quality, frequent and direct bus links should be provided between each of the Park and Ride Sites and Hanley City Centre, Newcastle and Stoke town centres, the new General Hospital, Stoke Station and Festival Park. Comprehensive measures to give priority for buses will be introduced for each of the routes, which for the most part are located on the Traffic Free Public Transport Corridors described in Section 19.2.

As part of the Etruria site development it will be necessary to provide a new link road into the site from the W olstanton Retail Park Interchange on the A500(T). In the short to medium term this will be used to provide direct vehicular access to the Etruria Valley Park and Ride site from the A500(T). In the longer term, when the Etruria Valley site is replaced by a new site at Chatterley Valley, the new link will be used primarily by Park and Ride services travelling between Chatterley Valley, Festival Park and Hanley. In order to maintain priority for Park and Ride buses, once the Etruria Valley site is redeveloped, access by private vehicles to the site should be restricted, either by

224

just allowing bus access on the new link road, or perhaps by the introduction of a bus gate preventing through traffic passing through the Etruria Valley site.

The Park and Ride system has been designed to serve a dual function. In addition to its primary Park and Ride role, the system will also provide a high quality public transport network linking the new development sites at Sideway / Trentham Lakes, Festival Park, Etruria Valley and Chatterley Valley with Hanley, Newcastle, Stoke and Stoke Station. The exact timing of the transfer of the Etruria site to Chatterley Valley will depend on the development timetable for the Chatterley Valley area. The possibility would also exist, should the levels of demand warrant it, to keep both sites open and operate the Park and Ride buses to both sites (especially as the route from Chatterley Valley to Hanley would pass through Etruria Valley). This option would need to be examined carefully at the appropriate time.

The short term and longer term Park and Ride sites, together with the proposed bus service patterns are shown on Figures 19.8 and 19.9.

19.4 The Walking and Cycling Plans

The W alking Plan should be focused around six areas, these being:

The Active Promotion of W alking – this should include the development and publication of locally based literature and “Walking Maps” that can be circulated through local libraries, education establishments, health centres and other outlets. It should also include the development of a media strategy with regular walking events and activities. A key part of this promotion programme should be the development of a well designed, regularly updated and heavily advertised “Walking” website targeted at bringing together information on walking and walking routes.

Development and signing of “walking routes” and “walking” networks – The walking routes, some of which have already been completed, should link the major centres of Newcastle, Hanley, Stoke, Burslem, Tunstall and Longton/Fenton while the networks should be designed to link local communities to local centres, health centres, schools and railway stations. Figure 14.1 shows in outline terms the 30 minute walking catchments to each of the conurbation’s town centres. These local networks might be separate from traffic routes, but should nonetheless be well lit, safe from both a road safety and personal security viewpoint, well maintained, themed and appropriately signposted. Such networks, as they are developed, should be added onto the “Walking Map”.

Improve interchanges – walking forms the first and last part of most non car based journeys. It is vital, therefore, that key routes to and from all forms of interchanges, are well designed and pedestrian friendly. This extends from

225

simple measures such as ensuring that if you join a bus at a bus stop on the west side of the street on your outbound journey it is easy to re-cross the road on your return, ensuring that it is easy to interchange within the main bus stations at Hanley and Newcastle and within other key town centres such as Stoke. A key part of this initiative should be the undertaking of an accessibility audit for each of the conurbation’s’ interchange facilities, from bus stop to main line railway station.

Improve development – ensure that the needs of pedestrians are fully included into proposals for all future developments from the outset, rather than tagged on as an after thought. This can only be done if there are clear guidelines and standards set out within the Local Development Framework. These should consider not only the internal layout of the development but also the linkages between the development and the surrounding communities and facilities. The upgrading of such linkages should be a key part of any Section 106 agreement. Conditions within planning permissions should also be carefully thought through so as ensure that hard won facilities are not lost once the development opens through the inappropriate placement of advertising signs, litter bins or on-site parking. A key part of this will be the need for enforcement visits as appropriate.

Improve street conditions – A key barrier to walking is poor street conditions, both within the public realm and adjacent to the public realm. The latter is a serious issue in many parts of the conurbation, where disused industrial or residential buildings have fallen into a state of disrepair and therefore affect the overall walking environment. Many of the issues that need to be addressed are, however, outside the limited remit of Local Transport Plan expenditure. It is therefore important, when developing the W alking Plan that every effort is made to engage other organisations, council departments and the private sector. Key partners in this regard will be RENEW and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. W ithin the public realm the W alking Plan will need to improve street conditions by improving the immediate streetscape, for example through widening pavements, removing or upgrading unnecessary street furniture, improving maintenance and cleaning standards and adopting whole route or area treatments.

Improve safety and security – another barrier to increased walking is poor safety and security. The safety of walking can be improved by introducing ‘calmed areas’ or 20mph areas where appropriate, traffic signals can be reviewed to ensure that pedestrian phases and facilities reflect the needs of walkers, Safer Routes to School measures can encourage walking trips to school, new developments can be reviewed to ensure that footways are illuminated and CCTV can be introduced in key locations where safety is an issue, such as in town centres or waiting at railway stations or bus stops.

The Cycling Plan should include the following measures:

226

Development of a Cycle Network – in particular a network of safe, fast and comfortable routes on high demand links. These should either be on lightly trafficked roads or provide some degree of segregation. The Trent and Mersey Canal and the network of disused railways within North Staffordshire already provide a backbone for this network and it is envisaged that this should be extended to include links to major centres.

Junction Treatments – junctions, particularly roundabouts and signalised gyratories can be dangerous for cyclists. It is important that junctions with poor cyclist safety records, even though they are not on the Cycle Network, are treated.

Cycle parking – the lack of secure cycle parking is a major deterrent to cycling. The Cycle Plan should therefore include the provision of cycle stands at key locations such as town centres, railway and bus stations and leisure facilities.

Cycle training – it is important that people are given the confidence and skills to cycle in an urban environment. The Cycle Plan should therefore include high quality cycle training for children and adults, improving safety and increasing the take-up of cycling.

Promotion of cycling – Promotional activities and targeted marketing can increase cycling. This should encompass general campaigns such as Cycle to W ork week, and more targeted information such as the free distribution of cycle maps.

W orking with Employers – W ithin North Staffordshire, where many residents have low employment based travel horizons, there is an excellent opportunity to develop a “cycle to work” culture. However, the census shows that travel to work based cycling activity is much lower here than elsewhere. This could be reversed through working with local employers to encourage them to provide safe cycle storage facilities at the workplace, together with in- house changing and showering facilities. This could be promoted through W orkplace Travel Plans (described in Section 19.5, which follows).

19.5 Aggressive Promotion of Measures Aimed at “Winning Hearts and Minds” School and W orkplace Travel Plans

The Government now requires all schools to have a School Travel Plan in place by 2010. It is proposed that this target should be actively pursued throughout the North Staffs conurbation, with the introduction of plans at all schools which do not already have one achieved by that date.

227

As with School Travel Plans, a number of employers in North Staffordshire have already introduced W orkplace Travel Plans. Under the strategy, it is proposed that they are introduced at all large employment locations within the conurbation.

W here possible, these should be introduced on a collective basis, with employers on the same business park or industrial estate working together so as to maximise the effectiveness of each scheme. Employers should be actively encouraged to introduce measures that encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport and the plans should encompass the provision of public transport information; public transport fare discounts, the promotion of car sharing schemes, the provision of company based shared transport, the introduction of on-site parking restrictions and the promotion of walking, cycling and teleworking.

Personal Journey Planning

Personal journey planning is a direct technique in which information is provided to individuals or households so as to help them change their travel behaviour. The technique is a useful tool for filling the information gap which typically exists for car users, regarding the merits of travelling by alternative modes. Information is individually tailored to the individual’s transport needs so as to encourage modal shift away from the car.

It is proposed that an intensive personal journey planning programme should be adopted within the conurbation, with each household being counselled over a five year period, with the initiative then being repeated so as to ensure that impacts are maintained.

19.6 Replacement Capacity Based Highway Improvements

In overall terms, the strategy does not envisage that there will be any significant road building over the next 15 to 20 years, other than those highways schemes that are already committed. It is nonetheless recognised that there may be instances where the creation of a new road or the improvement of current intersection layouts is the only way in which key problems can be addressed. On these limited occasions it may be necessary to promote local highway improvements. Such improvements should, however, be viewed as a measure of last resort, when all other options have been explored and rejected.

In addition, the strategy should include a general presumption that new road building will only be considered where: • the primary reason of need relates to environmental improvement, public transport enhancement, regeneration or road safety; and

228

• it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the improvement will neither increase overall road capacity or increase car based accessibility above the levels that exist today.

19.7 Highway Improvements to Reduce Congestion, Improve Road Safety and Environmental Conditions

A limited number of such schemes should be introduced where no alternative can be found where the problems the scheme is designed to address, directly impact on the viability of the conurbation.

A possible example of a scheme which come under this category is the need to improve the access to the M6 Motorway at Junction 15. This access is currently sub standard in terms of merge and diverge lengths and the northbound off and on slips have very tight radii, with advisory speed limits of 30mph. There is a need to introduce short term improvements to the layout and in the longer term to examine a full remodelling of the junction.

19.8 Parking Controls in Hanley, Newcastle and Stoke Centres

It is proposed that the following measures are introduced as part of the strategy:

• extension of the on-street parking charges to all parts of each centre; • the introduction of parking controls in the surrounding ‘walk in’ areas; and • a year on year increase in real terms in the parking charges, with the extra revenue generated used to provide funding to implement the transport strategy.

The increased revenues collected should be “ring fenced” and the monies used to meet the increased revenue funding needs of other elements of the strategy. It is recognised that this may be a contentious issue as existing revenues are used to fund a much wider range of services. It is therefore suggested that the increased charges are introduced as a public transport levy and that the public are made aware of this and of strategy measures which have been funded by this levy at the time of their implementation in order to give it greater public acceptance.

Each of the measures listed above will be aimed at persuading car users to use both the improved public transport facilities and the Park and Ride facilities. They will be much more effective once these high quality alternatives to driving into each of the three centres exist, and it is likely that the scale of the increased charges may have to be limited in the first few years of the strategy, with the increases becoming larger as these other measures are introduced.

229

19.9 Congestion Charging

Although it is accepted that there are many concerns regarding the inclusion of congestion charging within the Preferred Strategy it is our view that it is an essential element of the scheme. W ithout it, it will not be possible to achieve any significant: • reduction in future congestion levels; • improvements in road safety; • reductions in traffic related noise levels; or • reduction in green house gas emissions.

It will also be impossible to finance the necessary improvements in public transport services, if there is no longer term income stream from which the required revenue subsidies can be financed.

The Preferred Strategy therefore requires that some form of Congestion charging Scheme is introduced in the longer term, towards the end of the strategy period, which ends in 2021.

For the purposes of developing the strategy it has been assumed that such a scheme will cover about a third of the urban conurbation, including Hanley City Centre, together with Newcastle and Stoke town centres. It is additionally envisaged, however, that both the A50(T) and the A500(T) will lie outside the charged area. These roads will therefore provide the main corridors for moving across the conurbation, with roads within the central charged area being reserved primarily for those who wish to gain access. The introduction of 20 mph ‘calmed areas’ for areas around the periphery of the scheme will be considered once the location of the cordon is finalised and this impact can be precisely quantified.

It is envisaged that once congestion charging is introduced the higher parking charges, which will be introduced in the short and medium term (which were discussed in Section 19.7) will be removed, thus for many road users the congestion charge will be lower than the prevailing parking charges.

19.10 Changes in Land Use Policy

W hilst this element of the strategy appears at the end of this Chapter, it needs to be implemented at the earliest time, so as to ensure that future developments are constructed in sustainable locations. It is proposed that: • the existing Local Plan site designations should be re-examined and the overall sustainability of those sites that lie in inaccessible areas should be reviewed in the context of the forthcoming Local Development Framework; and

230

• that a conurbation wide developer contribution package should be introduced, whereby the developer contributes an agreed sum towards the costs associated with implementing the strategy. This sum being based on the number of housing units or square metres of employment space being constructed and the location of the site, in respect of its accessibility by non car modes, with less accessible sites falling into higher charge banded areas.

231

232

20 The Strategy’s Overall Performance

20.1 Introduction

The overall performance of the strategy has been assessed against the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation. The approach adopted for this assessment is similar to that employed to describe the performance of both the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case transport networks. Where reference is made to absolute levels of particular problems and relative changes in problems, the definition of the thresholds used to define these problems is as set out previously in Chapter 5.

A full appraisal of the preferred transport strategy is set out in Chapter 22. The assessment presented there utilises the Appraisal Summary Tables discussed in Chapter 4 and draws heavily on the information presented below.

20.2 Modal Choice

Under the Preferred Transport Strategy, with congestion charging in place, and the availability of a much improved bus service and a new Park and Ride facility, a much higher proportion of car users are able to exercise some form of modal choice. This is illustrated in Table 20.1. Comparable figures for the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year are set out in square and rounded parenthesis respectively.

It can clearly be seen from the information contained in Table 20.1 that the strategy is highly successful in bringing about a step change in people’s attitudes to using alternative modes to the car.

In terms of trips to Hanley City centre the following changes have occurred: There is a significant decrease in the percentage of trips being made directly to the City Centre by car, with the vast majority of transferring urban based trips moving from car to bus and the majority of transferring rural based trips making use of the new Park and Ride facilities.

Nonetheless, it is worth noting that despite the imposition of congestion charging, over half of urban based trips and 75% of rural based trips still opt to use the car.

In the case of trips to Newcastle town centre the story is similar, albeit that the resulting overall modal split between car, bus and Park and Ride is considerably more biased toward the car, reflecting today’s differences between the two centres.

233

Private Bus and Park and Transport Rail Ride 53.7% 41.2% 5.1% To / from Hanley and its immediate area from other [ 77.3% ] [ 22.7% ] [ 0.0% ] parts of the urban area (78.6%) (21.4%) (0.0%) 76.5% 9% 14.5% To / from Hanley and its immediate area from the [ 96.5% ] [ 3.5% ] [ 0.0% ] rural areas (96.2%) (3.8%) (0.0%) 75.0% 22.8% 2.2% To / from Newcastle and its immediate area from other [ 89.8% ] [ 10.2% ] [ 0.0% ] parts of the urban area (91.0%) (9.0%) (0.0%) 90.6% 4.5% 4.9% To / from Newcastle and its immediate area from the [ 96.9% ] [ 3.1% ] [ 0.0% ] rural areas (97.1%) (2.9%) (0.0%) To / from the rest of the 78.9% 16.1% 5.0% Congestion Charging Area [ 95.6% ] [ 4.4% ] [ 0.0% ] from other parts of the urban area (95.0%) (5.0%) (0.0%) 89.4% 5.1% 5.5% To / from the rest of the Congestion Charging Area [ 96.6% ] [ 3.4% ] [ 0.0% ] from the rural areas (96.2%) (3.8%) (0.0%) 97.8% 2.0% 0.2% To / from the remainder of the Urban area from the [ 99.5% ] [ 0.5% ] [ 0.0% ] rural areas (99.4%) (0.6%) (0.0%) Note: 2021 Ref Case in square brackets [ ] and 2002 Base Year in round parenthesis ( ) Table 20.1: 2021, Preferred Transport Strategy - M odal Choice by Location (W eekday Evening Peak Hour Period)

In respect of the remainder of the charged area, levels of transfer from the car to bus and Park and Ride are lower. Nonetheless, there are still over 20% of urban based travellers opting to use the bus or Park and Ride, compared with only some 5% today. The provision of Park and Ride services to both Stoke town centre and the new General Hospital has contributed to these successes.

It is worthy of note that the rigorous introduction of a new regime for walking and cycling , together with the introduction of personal journey planning education will mean that together with the above changes, there will also be an

234

additional reduction in motorised travel.

20.3 Overall Levels of Car Use with the Preferred Transport Strategy

The overall consequence of all of these changes is that the number of car users travelling on the streets of the conurbation will return to 2002 levels, with bus patronage increasing from the current level of 4,600 passengers in the evening peak hour period to nearly 12,500 (an increase of some 170%).

The introduction of the congestion charge, coupled with improved interchange facilities and through ticketing, has also meant that there is likely to be a step change in the numbers of passenger that use more than one bus to complete their journey when compared with the 2021 Reference Case. This number is expected to increase from the 2021 Reference Case level of 650 passengers per hour to 2,000. In percentage terms there will be slightly more passengers interchanging under the preferred strategy (16% as against 14% in the 2021 Reference Case).

A summary of future travel demand by mode is set out in Table 20.2. For comparative purposes this table also includes information for the 2002 Base Year and the 2021 Reference Case situations.

20.4 Travel Conditions with the Preferred Strategy in Place

These predicted reductions in car use will mean that, even after restricting traffic activity within the traffic free bus corridors, travel speeds within the conurbation will rise in comparison with the 2021 Reference Case situation. Indeed, away from the M6 Motorway and the A500(T) / A50(T) trunk road system, traffic speeds are expected to return to today’s levels.

For public transport bus services this will mean that future average travel speeds are likely to be higher than today. In effect, buses will be able to travel faster within the inner core, where they are using the traffic free bus corridors, and they should experience no greater delays elsewhere than they do today. Information regarding travel conditions in 2021, with the Preferred Transport Strategy in place is set out in Table 20.3. Again, for convenience, comparative figures are provided.

In terms of traffic activity on individual streets within the conurbation, the impact of the congestion charge, coupled with the introduction of traffic free bus corridors and the other elements of the strategy, will mean that there is an overall redistribution of traffic.

235

2002 Base Year Year Base 2002 2021 Reference Case Preferred Strategy The Transport

Car Users Continuing to 102,000 115,000 99,000 Travel by Car Car Users Transferring to - - 2,650 * Park and Ride Overall No. of Car Users 102,000 115,000 101,650 Bus Passengers 4,600 4,650 12,450 Bus Passengers Using More 450 650 2,000 than one Bus

Change in No. of Bus 7,800 - - Passengers (2021 Ref Case) ( +168% ) Change in No. Bus Passengers Using M ore 1350 - - than one Bus (2021 Ref (+207% ) Case) Local Rail Passengers 425 425 500

Change in Number of Local 75 - - Rail Passengers ( + 20% ) Overall No. of Public 5,025 5,075 12,950 Transport Users Car Users opting to W alk, - - 5,500 Cycle or not Travel Overall Demand 107,000 120,100 120,100

Table 20.2: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy, Summary of Travellers, (Evening Peak Hour Period)

* Note – A breakdown of Park and Ride usage by site is given in Table 23.3.

236

Vehicular Vehicular Average Travel Travel Travel Distance Time Speed (KM x 1000s) (Hours) (KM /h) Private Car and Goods Vehicle a) By Location 427.9 13630 31.4 i) Travel in Urban Areas [ 488.4 ] [ 17985 ] [ 27.2 ] (421.1) (13575) (31.0) 554.0 6900 80.3 ii) Travel in Rural Areas [ 574.4 ] [ 7290 ] [ 78.8 ] (including M6 M otorway) (438.8) (5340) (82.2) b) By Road Type 382.9 4050 94.5 i) M otorway [ 390.4 ] [ 4155 ] [ 93.9 ] (285.7) (2960) (96.5) 172.7 3885 44.5 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 [ 180.1 ] [ 4445 ] [ 40.5 ] / A500) (150.7) (3085) (48.9) 426.4 12595 33.9 iii) Other Roads [ 492.3 ] [ 16675 ] [ 29.5 ] (423.5) (12870) (32.9) 981.9 20530 47.8 c) Overall [ 1062.8 ] [ 25275 ] [ 42.1 ] (859.9) (18915) (45.5) 4.2 185 22.7 Urban Bus [ 3.1 ] [ 175 ] [ 17.9 ] ( 3.1 ) ( 150 ) (20.4 ) 0.7 28 23.2 Park and Ride [ 0.0 ] [ 0.0 ] [ 0.0 ] ( 0.0 ) ( 0.0 ) ( 0.0 ) Rail (Based only on Trips 0.5 7 70.9 starting or finishing in [ 0.5 ] [ 7 ] [ 70.9 ] the study area) ( 0.5) ( 7) (70.9 ) 987.2 20755 47.6 All M odes [ 1062.8 ] [ 25457] [ 41.9 ] ( 863.5 ) ( 19072 ) ( 45.3) Note: 2021 Ref Case in square brackets [ ] and 2002 Base Year in round parenthesis ( ) Table 20.3 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Vehicle Based Travel Characteristics by M ode, Location and Road Type (Evening Peak Hour Period)

237

Two-way traffic flow activity in the 2021 evening peak hour with the Preferred Strategy in place is shown in Figure 20.1. Changes in two way flows relative to the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year are shown in Figures 20.2 and 20.3.

The key features that can be seen from these three figures are: Relative to the 2021 Reference Case situation, there is a general reduction in traffic, with the largest reductions being within the traffic free bus corridors. Although there are some roads in the outer areas that experience an increase in traffic relative to the 2021 Reference Case situation these are much more limited than when the Congestion Charging Scheme was tested as a stand alone solution. Similarly, in the inner area the impacts associated with creating the traffic free bus corridors are much less marked than when these schemes were introduced in isolation.

Nonetheless, there are still a limited number of problems on parallel sensitive routes that will need to be addressed through the introduction of traffic calming measures.

W hen compared with the 2002 Base Year situation flow changes with the strategy in place are mixed, with the inner areas of Newcastle and Hanley generally experiencing reduced traffic levels, when compared with today, and the outer areas experiencing increases. Overall though, the strategy goes a long way to reduce the traffic growth problems that were recorded for the 2021 Reference Case.

In terms of bus activity, Figures 20.4 and 20.5 show bus vehicular flows and bus passenger flows in the 2021 evening peak hour with the strategy in place. It will be noted, through reference back to Chapter 5, that both have increased significantly. Figure 20.6 compares the bus passenger flows for the 2021 Preferred Strategy with the 2021 Reference Case.

W ithin the remainder of this Chapter the impacts of the preferred transport strategy on the key issues of efficiency, road safety, environmental conditions and accessibility are examined.

20.5 Efficiency Issues

a) Road Based Efficiency Road based efficiency problems in the 2021 evening peak hour period, with the Preferred Strategy in place, are as shown in Figures 20.7 and 20.8. These show the following: Figure 20.7: 2021, Preferred Transport Strategy, Link Based Efficiency Problems Figure 20.8: 2021, Preferred Transport Strategy, Intersection Based Efficiency Problems

238

The relative changes in road based efficiency problems, from both the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation, can be seen through comparing the information provided in Figures 20.9 to 20.12.

In summary terms, the total percentage of links and intersections experiencing differing levels of efficiency problems in 2021 with the Preferred Strategy in place are set out in Table 20.4 Information is also provided for the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year situation.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem

Link Based Problems

The Preferred Transport 94.7 3.4 1.7 0.1 Strategy

2002 Base Year 94.7 3.6 1.6 0.1 2021 Reference Case 90.7 5.7 3.4 0.2

Intersection Based Problems

The Preferred Transport 97.9 1.6 0.4 0.1 Strategy

2002 Base Year 97.8 1.8 0.4 0.0 2021 Reference Case 96.5 2.6 0.8 0.1

Table 20.4: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Summary of Network Efficiency Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period)

It will be noted from Table 20.4 and from the Figures 20.7 to 20.12, that the overall impact of introducing the strategy is to revert road based efficiency conditions back to a similar level as today. The introduction of congestion charging, coupled with the creation of the traffic free bus corridors has, however, resulted in a redistribution of delay problems.

It is worthy of note that in both the 2021 Reference Case and in the 2002 Base Year, buses are subjected to the same delays as general traffic. The creation of the traffic free bus corridors within the strategy will mean that the majority of the buses moving within the inner areas of the conurbation will be exempt from delays.

239

As was noted in Chapter 9, the overall changes in road based efficiency problems may at first sight appear small. In reality however, between the 2002 Base Year situation and the 2021 Reference Case situation there was a 70% increase in the number of road links operating at or near to capacity and a 60% increase in the number of intersections that experienced problems. Through introducing the preferred transport strategy these trends have been reversed.

b) Car Based Efficiency – Occupancy Levels in the 2021 Reference Case Although no specific attempt has been made within this analysis to explicitly identify the impact that the strategy may have on car occupancy levels it is reasonable to assume that one of the impacts of the “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” initiative, when introduced in combination with congestion charging, will be to increase the level of car sharing activity. This impact is partially included within Table 20.2, under the heading of car users who transfer to walking, cycling or stop travelling.

c) Public Transport Based Efficiency – Occupancy Levels in the 2021 Reference Case One of the key impacts of the Preferred Strategy is to increase public transport usage. In the first instance the effect of this will be to increase overall occupancy levels on current buses and trains. However, as was found in the London experience, we fully anticipate that as part of this strategy it will be necessary to increase the vehicle fleet, simply to cater for demand. W here possible this has been reflected in the evaluation of the preferred transport strategy and is part of the reason for the 35% increase in bus mileage shown in Table 20.3

Figure 20.13 shows expected levels of bus occupancy on a link by link basis, after implementation of the Preferred Strategy. For comparison purposes similar information for 2002 is also presented in this figure. It will be noted that, even after allowing for increases in the number of buses being operated, there is a step change in the prevailing levels of bus occupancy.

As in the Base Year 2002 and the 2021 Reference Case, local rail occupancy levels are not considered to be a significant issue (from a capacity perspective). It should nonetheless be noted that the strategy does have some impact in increasing rail usage, albeit small.

20.6 Safety Issues

It is envisaged that the preferred transport strategy will have the effect of considerably improving road safety conditions within the conurbation. Through its combined ability to reduce overall traffic levels back to 2002 levels, and through its ability to achieve greater traffic reductions within the inner core area, it will, in effect, remove substantial volumes of traffic from those areas where there is currently the greatest level of road user conflict.

240

P.I. Accidents P.I. Accidents on Links at Intersections

All P.I. Accidents Occurring in One Year

The Preferred 795 430 Transport Strategy

2002 Base Year 995 575

2021 Reference Case 935 505

Pedestrian P.I. Accidents Occurring in One Year

The Preferred 135 55 Transport Strategy

2002 Base Year 180 70

2021 Reference Case 165 65

Table 20.5: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy: Summary of Personal Injury Accident Occurrences

Table 20.5 provides a summary of the expected reductions in all personal injury accidents and in pedestrian related personal injury accidents.

In terms of reducing accident problems, Table 20.6 provides information regarding the percentage of the conurbation’s links and intersections that will continue to experience road safety problems once the Preferred Strategy is implemented.

At first sight it appears that the strategy has little impact on the link based accident problems. This, however, is a function of the assessment approach adopted, rather than reality. The adopted methodology reduces link based accident thresholds as traffic flows reduce. This is because the accident thresholds are directly related to the traffic flow level recorded on each link.

In the case of intersection based personal injury accidents however, the thresholds are absolute, and it can be clearly seen that the implementation of the Preferred Strategy will reduce the number of intersection based road safety ‘hot spots’ within the conurbation.

Figures 20.14 and 20.15 summarise the location of road safety problems in the 2021 Preferred Strategy situation. The first figure relates to all road users and the second relates solely to pedestrians. Figures 20.16 and 20.17 then provide a comparative analysis, showing how accident problems differ between the 2021

241

Preferred Strategy, the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem All Personal Injury Accident – Link Based Problems The Preferred 73% 10% 6% 12% Transport Strategy 2002 Base Year 67% 8% 8% 17% 2021 Reference Case 73% 10% 6% 11% All Personal Injury Accident – Intersection Based Problems The Preferred 79% 8% 7% 6% Transport Strategy 2002 Base Year 68% 11% 11% 10% 2021 Reference Case 72% 10% 9% 9% Pedestrian Personal Injury Accidents – Link Based Problems The Preferred 86% 2% 1% 11% Transport Strategy 2002 Base Year 82% 1% 3% 14% 2021 Reference Case 86% 2% 1% 11% Pedestrian Personal Injury Accidents– Intersection Based Problems The Preferred 89% 2% 2% 7% Transport Strategy 2002 Base Year 81% 4% 3% 12% 2021 Reference Case 85% 3% 2% 10%

Table 20.6: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Summary of Personal Injury Accident Problems

20.7 Environmental Issues

a) Impact on Environmental Assets Firstly, the Preferred Strategy involves very little new construction outside of existing highway limits. Its direct impact on the environmental assets of the conurbation and its hinterland are therefore also limited, although the

242

diversionary affects of measures such as the Traffic Free Bus Corridors and Congestion Charging will have some impact on those areas affected by increases in traffic.

In specific terms, new construction will be limited to the three proposed Park and Ride sites at Chatterley Valley, Sideway and Bucknall. As has already been recounted in Chapter 13, care will have to be taken in designing all three of these sites as they lie close to the conurbation’s canal and river basins, where there exists established wildlife corridors, the canal based conservation areas and the fluvial flood plains. In connection with the last, this may also give rise to risks of flooding at all three sites.

In more general terms the strategy is likely to necessitate the construction of new buildings, or the reuse of existing buildings, for the purposes of establishing a Congestion Charging Control Centre and a demand responsive transport call centre. W ith the increased demand for public transport vehicles there may also be a need to construct new off-street bus depot facilities. In deciding on the siting of all of these facilities due regard will need to be taken of the impact they may have on the environmental assets detailed in Chapter 6.

In the outer urban areas of the conurbation there may be a need for limited highway improvements so as to facilitate the provision of bus priority measures. In extreme cases there may also be a need for limited property demolition. If this is the case it will be necessary to undertake specific environmental assessments of the impact of such schemes.

Similarly, if it is decided that there is an overwhelming justification for the implementation of any local highway improvements so as to achieve wider environmental or regeneration aims, each of these proposals will need to be assessed in its own right. b) Traffic Related Noise Impacts In terms of the traffic related environmental impacts of the Preferred Strategy, Figure 20.18 provides details of the prevailing traffic related noise after implementation of the strategy. Figure 20.19 then summarises those links that will experience a change in L10 18 hour noise levels (recorded 10 metres from the kerbside) as a direct result of the strategy’s implementation. This figure provides information regarding change relative to both the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation.

So as to understand how noise related problems might change after the Preferred Strategy has been implemented Figures 20.20 and 20.21 provide direct comparisons of L10 18 hour noise levels (recorded 10 metres from the kerbside) within sensitive streets. The first figure (20.20) shows comparisons with the 2021 Reference Case Situation and the second (20.21) provides comparisons with the 2002 Base Year situation.

243

It can be noted from Figure 20.20 that the vast majority of noise problem changes between the 2021 Preferred Strategy situation and the 2021 Reference Case situation are positive. There are nonetheless a limited number of locations where noise levels could increase as a direct result of the strategy’s implementation. These are limited in number and result either from the boundary impacts of the congestion charging zone or from localised traffic re-routeing as a consequence of the implementation of the traffic free bus corridors. These issues will need further detailed investigation when individual schemes are developed fully and, if necessary, appropriate traffic calming measures will need to be devised.

In terms of overall levels of noise problems, Table 20.7 provides a summary of the expected changes in the percentage of the conurbation’s roads that will experience noise problems. It can be seen from this table that in overall terms the Preferred Strategy will reduce traffic related noise problems in 2021 back to 2002 levels. The distribution of these noise problems is set out in Figures 20.19 and 20.20. So as to enable convenient reference back to the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year situation these conditions are also identified within these figures.

Percentage of Conurbation’s Significant Roads No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem The Preferred Transport Strategy 67.6% 22.0% 8.0% 2.5% 2002 Base Year 68.8% 21.5% 7.5% 2.1% 2021 Reference Case 64.9% 22.4% 10.3% 2.4%

Table 20.7: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Percentage of the Conurbation’s Significant Roads W here Frontagers Experience Noise Problems c) Local Air Quality Future conditions in terms of local air quality are set out in Figures 20.22 to 20.25. These show the following:

Figure 20.22: Changes in Local Air Quality – PM10 Levels, 2021 Preferred Strategy compared with the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year

Figure 20.23: Changes in Local Air Quality Problems – PM10, 2021 Preferred Strategy compared with the 2021 Reference Case

Figure 20.24: Changes in Local Air Quality Problems – PM10, 2021 Preferred Strategy compared with the 2002 Base Year

244

Figure 20.25: Changes in Local Air Quality – NO2 Levels, 2021 Preferred Strategy compared with the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year

As in the 2021 Reference Case, the findings in terms of local air quality indicate that local air pollutant concentrations of PM 10 and NO2 will not exceed current Government objectives (Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000), or EU limit values (Air Quality Limit Values Regulations 2001), for the preferred strategy.

There are, however, still a limited number of locations where PM 10 emission levels are in excess of the Government’s provisional targets.

Tables 20.8 and 20.9 summarise the percentage of the conurbation’s road links that will subjected to local air quality related problems in 2021 with the Preferred Strategy in place. For convenience, comparative figures for the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year situation are given in square and curved parentheses respectively.

Percentage of Network Subjected to Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems No Problem Slight Serious Problem Problem Percentage of Network subjected to 82.9% 17.1% 0% Traffic Related Local [80.1%] [19.9%] [0%] Air Quality Problems (44.5%) 55.5%) (0%) – PM 10 Note: 2021 Ref Case in square brackets [ ] and 2002 Base Year in round parenthesis ( ) Table 20.8 2021 Preferred Strategy - Summary of Local Air Quality Related

Problems – PM 10

Percentage of Network Subjected to Traffic Related Local Air Quality Problems No Problem Serious Problem Percentage of Network subjected to 100% 0% Traffic Related Local [100%] [0%] Air Quality Problems (89.4%) (10.6%) – NO2 Note: 2021 Ref Case in square brackets [ ] and 2002 Base Year in round parenthesis ( ) Table 20.9 2021 Preferred Strategy - Summary of Local Air Quality Related

Problems – NO2

245

d) Greenhouse Gases

In terms of green house gas emissions, total annual emissions decrease relative to the 2021 Reference case by some 2,700 tonnes of carbon dioxide. More significantly, they are also some 1000 tonnes lower that in the 2002 Base Year. This is a particularly significant benefit of the strategy, given that there is little that can be done to reduce emissions from vehicles.

Table 20.10 again provides an overview regarding the distribution of these pollutants across the core study area. Again for comparative purposes, information is included for the 2002 Base Year and 2021 Reference Case situations. It is particularly noticeable from this table that the strategy has the impact, in terms of reduction relative to the 2002 Base Year, within the heart of the conurbation.

Carbon Dioxide emissions (tonnes) Preferred Area Base Reference Strategy (2002) Case (2021) (2021) Stoke 11,400 11,220 9,560 Stafford 625 720 650 Staffordshire Moorlands 1,900 1,890 1,675 Newcastle-under-Lyme 11,300 12,100 11,500 Crewe & Nantwich 600 610 575 Congleton 6,450 7,390 7,250 Totals 32,275 33,930 31,100 Difference against 2002 Base -1,065 Year 1,655 Difference against the 2021 -2,720 Reference Case

Table 20.10 2021 Preferred Strategy - Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by District, Carbon Dioxide

20.8 Accessibility Issues

One of the key aims throughout this report has been to try to develop a transport strategy that meets the objectives discussed in Chapter 3. Reference back to these will show that many revolve around the need to improve accessibility within the conurbation, particularly non car based accessibility. The following sections set how the preferred transport strategy has achieved this through increasing the level of public transport provision, increasing pubic transport travel speeds and increasing service frequencies as appropriate.

246

As in previous sections, all of the tables set out below include comparisons back to the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year. a) Resident Based Accessibility Figures 20.26 to 20.37 depict: • absolute levels of non-car based accessibility with the 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy in place, together with comparisons to conditions in the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year; • locations that will continue to have non-car based accessibility problems in 2021, despite implementation of the preferred transport strategy, together with comparisons to the problems that existed in the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year. These figures show information for each of the above in respect of access to school places, healthcare, hospital beds, basic food / household goods retailers, employment opportunities and other households.

The overall story from all these figures is that, with the preferred transport strategy in place, there is a step change in the levels of non car based accessibility, when compared with both the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation.

In summary terms, the percentage of the conurbation’s residents who will continue to experience difficulties in accessing key services, facilities and employment opportunities is dramatically reduced, as can be seen from Table 20.11. It is anticipated that these changes will make a significant contribution to improving the quality of life for all residents within the conurbation. b) Employer Based Accessibility. i) Access to the Workforce Figures 20.38 and 20.39 depict: • absolute levels of non car based accessibility from employment places to the workforce with the 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy in place, together with comparisons to conditions in the 2021 Reference Case and the 2002 Base Year; • locations that will continue to have non car based accessibility problems from employment places to the workforce in 2021, despite implementation of the preferred transport strategy, together with comparisons to the problems that existed in the 2021 Reference Case and 2002 Base Year.

247

Percentage of Conurbation’s Households that have Accessibility Problems No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem Education Facilities The Preferred Transport Strategy 70.3% 15.6% 9.3% 4.7% 2002 Base Year 35.8% 15.3% 26.8% 22.2% 2021 Reference Case 20.8% 17.6% 29.7% 31.9% Healthcare Facilities The Preferred Transport Strategy 75.6% 12.3% 8.9% 3.2% 2002 Base Year 61.8% 17.4% 14.0% 6.7% 2021 Reference Case 58.8% 20.0% 14.5% 6.7% Hospital Beds The Preferred Transport Strategy 71.4% 0.6% 7.7% 20.4% 2002 Base Year 48.6% 2.2% 1.3% 47.9% 2021 Reference Case 43.5% 1.5% 1.4% 53.6% Basis Food / Household Goods The Preferred Transport Strategy 60.5% 11.9% 16.2% 11.4% 2002 Base Year 48.0% 12.2% 16.6% 23.2% 2021 Reference Case 46.2% 9.3% 19.6% 24.9% Employment Places The Preferred Transport Strategy 94.1% 4.7% 1.1% 0.0% 2002 Base Year 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7% 2021 Reference Case 54.0% 22.8% 14.8% 8.3% Social Contact The Preferred Transport Strategy 87.9% 7.3% 4.8% 0.0% 2002 Base Year 48.4% 26.6% 18.1% 6.9% 2021 Reference Case 36.0% 28.8% 27.2% 8.0%

Table 20.11: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Summary of Non Car Based Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period)

248

Again, the general conclusions are that implementation of the preferred transport strategy will greatly improve the attractiveness of key inner core area employment locations, making it significantly easier for prospective employers to gain access to the conurbation’s workforce.

In summary, the percentage of the conurbation’s employment places that continue to be difficult to reach by non car modes after implementation of the preferred transport strategy will be reduced to some 6%. Comparative information for each of the situations under study is contained in Table 20.12.

Percentage of Conurbation’s W ork Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem The Preferred Transport Strategy 94.4% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2002 Base Year 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% 2021 Reference Case 67.0% 15.5% 8.1% 9.4%

Table 20.12: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy: Percentage of Employment Places within the Conurbation that have W orkforce based Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period) ii) Access to UK Gateways The strategy is, however, not just about increasing non car based accessibility. Through reducing overall levels of car use it has also been possible to reduce the future year congestion problems identified for the 2021 Reference Case situation.

This achievement is equally important as employers are not just dependent on the availability of a workforce. They also need to have good access to both their raw materials and their onward sales markets. In this regard Figure 20.40 shows those locations that will still have poor accessibility to conurbation’s UK road Gateways and then goes on to compare these conditions with those that existed in the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation. Table 20.13 provides an overall summary of Gateway related accessibility problems.

It can be noted from all of these sources that, with the preferred transport strategy in place, accessibility to the conurbation’s Gateways in 2021 will be similar to today. This reverses the significant decline in accessibility that was forecast with the 2021 Reference Case situation.

249

Percentage of Conurbation’s W ork Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem The Preferred Transport Strategy 76.6% 22.0% 1.4% 0.0% 2002 Base Year 77.4% 20.1% 1.8% 0.8% 2021 Reference Case 38.5% 43.4% 17.3% 0.8%

Table 20.13: 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Percentage of Employment Places within the Conurbation that have Road Based Gateway Accessibility Problems (Evening Peak Hour Period) iii) Access to Town Centres Finally, in terms of non car based accessibility to town centres, Figures 20.41 to 20.46 show absolute conditions in 2021, with the preferred transport strategy in place, together with comparisons to both the 2021 Reference Case situation and the 2002 Base Year situation

As in all the above situations, these figures confirm that non car based accessibility to each of the town centres, with the exception of Kidsgrove, improves significantly with the preferred transport strategy in place.

Table 20.14 confirms this conclusion, setting out the percentage of the conurbation’s population that live within 30 minutes non car travel time of the primary centres and 20 minutes travel time of the secondary centres. c) General Car Based Accessibility. For the most part this report has concentrated on non car based accessibility issues, rather than car based ones, because car based accessibility is not viewed to be a problem. It is nonetheless worth commenting at this point on the impact the Preferred Strategy is likely to have in changing car based accessibility, relative to today’s conditions (2002 Base Year).

Figure 20.47 attempts to do this by showing the change in car based accessibility from the resident’s viewpoint when travelling to work and from the employer’s viewpoint when looking for a workforce. (As with the previous car based accessibility analysis contained in Chapter 15 this has been done using a 30 minute drive time, rather than the 45 minutes adopted to assess similar non car based accessibility).

250

Percentage of Conurbation’s Population Within the Non Car Accessibility Catchment

30 M in 20 M in Hanley Hanley Newcastle Kidsgrove Tunstall Burslem Stoke Longton

The Preferred Transport Strategy 66.6 38.0 1.4 11.5 9.8 14.6 11.0

2002 Base Year 55.1 31.9 1.4 6.7 4.6 11.5 8.0

2021 Reference Case 46.0 30.2 1.4 5.7 4.6 9.9 7.6

Table 20.14:. 2021 Preferred Transport Strategy - Summary of the Percentage of the Conurbation’s Residents who Live within the Catchments of the Primary and Secondary Town Centres (Evening Peak Hour Period)

It will be seen from this figure that the net impact of the strategy, relative to the 2002 Base Year is more or less neutral. The Preferred Strategy does, however, generally increase car based accessibility within the core area of the conurbation and reduce accessibility in the outlying areas. This, in our view, is compatible with the overall aims of Central, Regional and Local Government, in that it will reduce development pressures in the outer area. This move towards greater car based accessibility (and mobility) within the central areas will additionally help to compensate for the user charges that are imposed through the Congestion Charging Scheme.

20.9 Land Use Issues

In Chapter 17 the impact of different future land use patterns was assessed in the context of the 2021 Reference Case situation and it was concluded that:

In terms of car based activity: • solely re-allocating either new employment places or new housing from the outer areas of the conurbation to the centre has the effect of increasing overall levels of congestion within the heart of the conurbation; • by contrast however, if both new employment opportunities and new housing are located within the core area then congestion reduces, relative to the position with the “central” land use forecasts.

251

Further, in terms of overall levels of non car based accessibility: • any move towards bringing new employment into the centre improves conditions while the changes that result from bringing new housing into the central areas are smaller. Again however, it was found that through bringing both new employment and new housing into the centre the highest level of improvement was achieved.

The purpose of the last section of this Chapter is to review this situation within the context of the Preferred Transport Strategy. This has been achieved by repeating the previous analysis.

Tables 20.15 and 20.16 provide details of the likely changes that will occur in terms of network activity and network performance while Tables 20.17 and 20.18 detail the impact that the three previously tested land use changes will have in terms of non car based accessibility between people’s place of residence and employment. For convenience the results of the previous analysis, against the 2021 Reference Case situation, are also included within the table in parentheses.

The three alternative land use options examined within Chapter 17 were: Scenario 1: - This scenario assumed that the majority (80%) of the forecast employment development at Adderley Green, Blythe Bridge, Chesterton / Lymedale, Trentham Lakes and W hitfield Colliery does not go ahead as currently envisaged and instead, these new jobs are provided primarily within the urban core area. Scenario 2: - This scenario assumed that the majority (80%) of the forecast housing developments at Ravenscliffe, Brindley Ford, Milton / Smallthorne, Norton Green and Red Street will not go ahead as currently envisaged and instead, these new households will be provided for within the urban core area. Scenario 3: - This assumed that both of the two changes, included in Scenarios 1 and 2 materialise.

The information set out in these four tables reiterates the previous findings, albeit that the impacts in terms of congestion reduction and transfers to public transport and Park and Ride are more marked.

This finding suggests that the already high benefits of the preferred strategy could be further increased through the adoption of land use policies that concentrate both housing and employment land uses within the core area.

This gives added justification for adopting a strategy based developer contribution policy that has an underlying presumption against promoting new developments in locations that are poorly accessible by public transport.

252

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Strategy 2021Preferred Alt. Land Use Scenario 1 1 Scenario Use Land Alt. 2 Scenario Use Land Alt. 3 Scenario Use Land Alt.

People Based Travel Trips

Demand to Travel By Private 99 101.5 101.5 101 102 Vehicle (People) (1000s) (115) (115) (115) (114.5)

12450 12500 12500 13500 Demand to Travel By Bus (People) 4600 (4650) (4850) (4700) (4750)

Demand to Travel by Park and 2650 2400 2750 3000 - Ride ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( - )

500 475 500 525 Demand to Travel By Rail (People) 425 (425) (425) (425) (425) Vehicle Based Travel Kilometres

Private Vehicle Kilometres 982 991 987 979 860 Travelled (Veh) (1063) (1075) (1069) (1062)

4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Bus Kilometres Travelled (Buses) 3.1 (3.1) (3.1) (3.1) (3.1)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Rail Kilometres Travelled (Trains) 0.5 (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) Note: For clarity, all numbers in this table have been rounded and numbers in parenthesis represent previous comparison against 2021 Reference Case Table 20.15: Differing Land Use Development Scenarios – Impacts on Trip M aking and Travel (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

253

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Strategy 2021 Preferred 1 Scenario Use Land Alt. 2 Scenario Use Land Alt. 3 Scenario Use Land Alt.

a) Private Vehicle Travel by Location 31.4 29.8 31.1 31.9 i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 (27.2) (25.1) (26.9) (27.4)

ii) Travel in Rural Areas 80.3 80.0 80.6 81.2 82.2 (including M 6 M otorway) (78.8) (78.1) (78.9) (79.7) b) Private Vehicle Travel by Road Type 94.5 95.0 94.5 94.7 i) M otorway 96.5 (93.9) (94.4) (94.0) (93.8)

ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 / 44.5 44.0 43.7 46.3 48.9 A500) (40.5) (42.0) (39.6) (41.9) 33.8 32.3 33.7 34.2 iii) Other Roads 32.9 (29.5) (27.3) (29.4) (29.7) 47.8 45.8 47.6 48.5 c) Overall 45.5 (42.1) (39.5) (41.8) (42.4) 22.4 21.8 22.3 22.6 Urban Bus 20.5 (17.9) (16.5) (17.7) (18.0)

Rail (Based only on Trips 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 starting or finishing in the study 70.9 area) (70.9) (70.9) (70.9) (70.9) All M odes 47.6 45.5 47.3 48.2 45.3 (41.9) (39.4) (41.6) (42.3) Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent previous comparison against 2021Reference Case Table 20.16 Differing Land Use Development Scenarios - Average Travel Speeds (2021 Evening peak Hour Period)

254

Percentage of Conurbation’s

Employed Residents No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 65.2% 22.0% 8.0% 4.7% 2021 Preferred Strategy 94.1% 4.7% 1.1% 0 (54.0%) (22.8%) (14.8% (8.3%) Alt. Land Use Scenario 1 94.6% 4.3% 1.1% 0 (58.0%) (19.7%) (14.0% (8.3%) Alt. Land Use Scenario 2 94.3% 4.6% 1.1% 0 (55.0%) (22.4%) (14.5% (8.2%) Alt. Land Use Scenario 3 94.7% 4.2% 1.1% 0 (58.8%) (19.3%) (13.6%) (8.2%) Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent previous comparison against 2021Reference Case Table 20.17 Differing Land Use Pattern Scenarios – Impact on Non Car Based Accessibility to Employment Opportunities (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

Percentage of Conurbation’s

W ork Places No Slight M oderate Serious Problem Problem Problem Problem 2002 Base Year 72.9% 13.0% 5.8% 8.3% 2021 Preferred Strategy 94.4% 5.6% 0 0 (67.0%) (15.5%) (8.1%) (9.4%) Alt. Land Use Scenario 1 95.7% 4.3% 0 0 (70.4%) (14.4%) (6.5%) (8.7%) Alt. Land Use Scenario 2 94.6% 5.4% 0 0 (67.0%) (15.5%) (8.1%) (9.4%) Alt. Land Use Scenario 3 95.8% 4.2% 0 0 (70.4%) (14.4%) (6.5%) (8.2%) Note: Numbers in parenthesis represent previous comparison against 2021Reference Case Table 20.18 Differing Land Use Pattern Scenarios – Impact on Non Car Based Accessibility of Employment Locations to Workforce (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

255

256

21 The Strategy’s Costs and Benefits

21.1 Introduction

This Chapter concentrates on setting out the economic and financial performance of the Preferred Strategy. The work contained herein has been undertaken in accordance with the recommendations set out within WEBTAG, and it has utilised both the study’s multimodal transport model and the Department of Transport’s TUBA programme suite.

In order that it is possible to fully understand which elements of the strategy contribute most and least to the strategy’s overall economic and financial performance the analysis contained herein not only looks at the performance of the strategy itself, but also considers the performance of each of its elements.

The following sections provide details regarding the overall costs associated with implementing, operating and maintaining the individual elements of the strategy and the economic benefits that are expected to accrue from each element of the strategy. The Net Present Value and the Benefit Cost Ratio associated with each element of the strategy and the financial revenues and operating costs attributable to each of the strategy components are also detailed.

Based on this information conclusions are drawn regarding both the overall worth of the Preferred Strategy and its overall financial sustainability in the short, medium and longer term.

21.2 The Implementation Costs – An Overview

For the purposes of undertaking the economic and financial analysis, assumptions have been made regarding the costs associated with implementing each part of the strategy. Where possible these cost estimates have been based on experience elsewhere or on the use of typical unit rate construction prices. All figures quoted are in 2002 prices and exclude a correction for the “Optimism Bias”, although it should be noted that this correction has been made in the economic analysis.

21.3 Costs for Improvements to Public Transport

a) Creation of Traffic Free Bus Corridors In order to create the new traffic free bus corridors it will be necessary to change the appearance of the streets that form part of these corridors. As outlined in Chapter 19, this will include the need to create gateway features at each of the locations where the bus corridors intersect with the general traffic network and the need to create a themed identity at all locations where passengers board and alight bus services. The route sections outlined on Figure 11.3 amount to some 20 kilometres of existing streets. In addition, there are a

257

further five or so kilometres of linking road sections where some form of identity treatment will be needed.

Based on experience in other conurbations the costs of introducing such measures could amount to as much as £0.5 million per kilometre within the traffic free streets and a further £0.25 million in the other key streets. The combined costs associated with implementing the traffic free bus corridors is therefore likely to be in the order of £11.5 million. b) Implementation of Other Public Transport Based Infrastructure Improvements In addition, there will also be a need to undertake specific public transport improvements at key interchange locations such as Hanley and Newcastle bus stations and at local railway stations. An additional allowance of £5.0 million has been included to cover these costs. Possible examples could include the refurbishment of Hanley Bus Station or the provision of increased capacity at Newcastle Bus Station. c) Enhancement of the Quality of Existing Bus Services At the current time buses travel some 3,100 kilometres in the evening peak hour – this equates to some 15.5 million kilometres a year. If the quality of these current bus services is to be improved then the overall cost associated with operating such services is also likely to increase. Experience from elsewhere suggests that the costs that are likely to be incurred in bringing about such improvements could amount to as much as £ 0.5 per kilometre of bus travel.

Based on this information an annual allowance of £7.75 million pounds has been included to cover such quality improvements. d) Provision of Additional Urban Bus Services The work undertaken to date in developing the strategy suggests that in order to achieve significant improvements in non car based accessibility it is likely to be necessary to increase the current number of bus kilometres driven within the urban area by at least a third. On this basis, it will be necessary to operate a further 5 million kilometres of bus services per annum. The cost of so doing is likely to be in the order of £ 7.5 million per annum (based on a typical cost of £1.50 per bus kilometre). e) Improvements to Rural Public Transport Finally, an annual allowance of £ 2 million per annum has also been included within the assessment for the cost of providing a demand responsive bus / taxi service within the rural areas and to increase the quality and frequency of the Market Town based services.

258

21.4 Costs for Introducing Park and Ride

a) Implementation Costs The costs associated with providing Park and Ride are made up of three elements, these being land purchase, the laying out of the site and the provision of access.

The outputs from the multimodal transport model suggest that there will be 2,650 people using the Park and Ride facility in the evening peak hour when the full strategy is in place. This equates to some 1900 car movements per hour (based on an average car occupancy of 1.39 people per car). After allowing for the fact that the peak period extends for longer than just the evening peak hour period and after making allowances for inter-peak usage (based on experience from Park and Ride operations elsewhere) of the Park and Ride site, it is estimated that it is necessary to provide around 6,000 car parking spaces, distributed between the three sites as follows: Chatterley Valley 2,000 (5.75 hectares) Sideway 3,250 (8.75 hectares) Bucknall 750 (2.25 hectares)

Based on a construction cost for ground level parking of £2,500 per space this gives a total implementation cost of £15.0 million.

Land costs have been assumed to be £1.0 million per hectare, giving an overall land cost for the three sites of £16.75 million.

In terms of site access it is envisaged that this will not be a particular issue at either Chatterley Valley or Sideway, with access being shared with the remainder of the development site. For Sideway, access is assumed to be gained via the existing access to the Sainsbury’s / incinerator site, which would make the site accessible from the A50 (T) and A500 (T). No allowance has been made for direct access from the A50 (T), which would require a bridge across the W est Coast Main Line. Therefore, a notional sum of £0.5 million has been included for each site to cover any necessary works adjacent to the Park and Ride site.

At Bucknall there is likely to be the need to provide a new access road linking the site to the surrounding road network. A notional allowance of £ 2.0 million has been made for the construction of the road (including 0.5 million for the purchase of land).

As has been highlighted in Chapter 15, there will also be the need to construct a new bus only link road, connecting the Etruria Valley and Festival Park areas to the W olstanton Retail Park intersection on the A500(T). The provision of this road will allow Park and Ride buses to operate in a congestion free environment between Chatterley Valley, Etruria Valley, Festival Park and Hanley City Centre.

259

For the purposes of the economic analysis it has been assumed that the cost of this road (and the bridge crossing which is required over the W est Coast Main Line) will need to be financed as part of the capital costs associated with providing the Park and Ride component of the Strategy. An overall allowance of £7.5 million has been included for this purpose (including some £ 0.75 million for land acquisition). In reality, this new link might be provided as part of the overall developer contribution package for the Etruria Valley Site.

Based on the above the overall capital costs associated with Park and Ride provision are estimated to be £ 42.25 million. It should be noted that the costs associated with the provision of a temporary site at Etruria in the short term have not been included in the Economic and Financial Assessment presented in this Chapter.

b) Operating Costs In terms of the annual operating costs associated with the Park and Ride component, these are estimated to be £4.8 million per annum. This figure has been derived using an average operating cost of £1.50 per kilometre and through assuming that the Park and Ride service will be fully operational for 5000 hours per year (this equates to the service being operated for 350 days per year for the full day, with reduced services in the evenings).

These operating cost assumptions also assume that each of the three Park and Ride sites will be served by frequent Park and Ride bus services (at least 6 per hour on each route) linking each site directly to Festival Park, Hanley, Newcastle, Stoke, Stoke Station and the new General Hospital. The routeings being as follows: • Chatterley Valley – Etruria Valley – Festival Park – Hanley – Bucknall; • Chatterley Valley – Stoke Station – Stoke – Sideway; • Chatterley Valley – Newcastle – new General Hospital; • Bucknall – Stoke Station – Stoke – Newcastle – new General Hospital; • Sideway – Stoke Station – Hanley – Festival Park; and • Sideway – Stoke – Newcastle – new General Hospital.

21.5 Costs Associated with “Winning Over Hearts and Minds”

The costs associated with “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” are high and cover both capital and revenue expenditure. The cost associated with each of the different proposals that are likely to make up this component of the final strategy have already been outlined in Chapter 14. For completeness however they are restated here. It should be noted that the costs of the W alking and Cycling Plans are based on the London plan and are based on a vigorous pro- active approach.

260

a) W alking Plan A well designed W alking Plan of the type outlined in Chapter 14 could cost up to £10 million to implement within this conurbation with a further £0.5 million to £1.0 million per annum being needed to promote and publicise the plan.

For the purposes of preparing the economic assessment it has been assumed that expenditure within the conurbation, between now and 2016, will be as follows: Improvements within the City / Town Centres £ 6.0 million Access improvements to the City / Town Centres £1.2 million Improvements in Pedestrian signage £ 0.5 million Improvements to the wider “Walking Network” £1.6 million Annual Budget for promoting the W alking Plan £ 0.7 million per annum b) Cycling Plan Based on experiences within other Cities it is estimated that some £8 million would be needed to implement a good quality Cycle Plan within the conurbation. An additional £1.5 million per annum would also be needed to cover training and promotion costs. Extension of the current cycle network £ 6.0 million Introduction of cycle measures at intersections £ 1.5 million Introduction of cycle parking facilities £ 0.5 million Cycle training £ 0.75 million per annum Promotion £ 0.7 million per annum c) School Travel Plans Typically, the cost of implementing an effective school travel plan is of the order of £65,000 per school. W ith well in excess of 100 schools within the conurbation, a large number of which are yet to develop effective school travel plans, the cost associated with this initiative could be around £6.5 million, with on-going education and road safety training costs of £30,000 per year. d) W ork Place Travel Plans Nearly all of the costs of workplace travel plans, such as physical measures and public transport support, would be borne by companies, with the cost to public authorities probably limited to the provision of free advice. This would typically work out at £4 per employee per Work Place Travel Plan. On the basis that such plans covered around a third of all employees and each plan needed to be updated every five years the public sector cost would be around £75,000 per annum.

261

e) Teleconferencing and Internet / Home Shopping Nearly all the costs of these initiatives would fall on employers or individuals with public sector involvement probably limited to setting up shared teleconferencing facilities in public libraries.

f) Personal Journey Planning Finally, the costs associated with undertaking a large scale personal journey planning initiative are around £14 per head, giving a total cost for the conurbation of around £4.5 million. It is likely that such a Personal Journey Planning initiative would need to be repeated every five years and therefore the annual costs associated with this initiative would be in the order of £ 1.0 million per annum.

21.6 Costs Associated with Implementing Congestion Charging

The strategy envisages that the Congestion Charging Scheme will be based around the use of Automated Number Plate Recognition cameras linked to a central control room. This scheme is similar in operation and complexity to that which was considered for implementation in Edinburgh. Costs developed for the Edinburgh scheme have therefore been used.

Based on information available from the Edinburgh scheme an overall allowance of £23.35 million has been included within the strategy costs. This covers the costs associated with setting up the central control system and installing on-street enforcement equipment. In addition, a further allowance of £7.0 million has been included for the wide spread introduction of traffic calming measures such as calmed areas or 20mph zones within the suburban areas that are likely to straddle the congestion charging zone boundary. These measures are aimed at reducing the traffic related boundary affects that might otherwise be experienced as a direct result of the scheme’s implementation.

In addition to the above, an annual operating cost allowance of just under £20 million per annum has also been included within the overall cost estimates.

21.7 The Strategy Costs – A Summary

Based on the above, the overall costs associated with implementing and operating the Preferred Strategy are summarised in Table 21.1. These amount to a one off implementation cost of slightly less than £115 million and a recurring annual cost of around £ 45 million. W hile the first can possibly be financed through the Local Transport Plan system the revenue costs will need to be met through either complimentary income streams or through Central, Regional or Local Government subsidy.

The next sections of this Chapter examine the economic case for the strategy and then the financial case.

262

The economic case is of importance as it will be difficult to get funding for the capital elements of the strategy if it cannot be shown that it provides good value for money.

The financial case is important because the strategy needs to be self financing in operational terms, if not in the short to medium term, then at least in the longer term. W ithout an assurance that the longer term revenue needs of the strategy can be met from income there will have to be a continuing commitment to revenue based support over an infinite period.

21.8 The Economic Case

The economic performance of the overall strategy and its key components has been assessed using accepted procedures set out within WEBTAG and Department of Transport publications. In undertaking this work preliminary assumptions have had to be made regarding the phasing of the strategy implementation. For the purposes of this economic analysis it has been assumed that the strategy will be implemented between 2011 and 2016, with the congestion charging component being added at the end of this period. The benefit, implementation cost and revenue cost streams have then been examined for the period between 2011 and 2045 (i.e. 30 years after implementation of the Preferred Strategy) and all costs and benefits have been discounted back to 2002 prices and values.

In terms of the full Preferred Strategy, Tables 21.2 to 21.4 set out the discounted benefits, discounted costs and details of the Net Present Value and the Benefit to Cost Ratio. In summary the key values (in 2002 prices and values) are as follows:

Net Present Benefit = £1647 million

Net Present Cost = £ 225 million

Net Present Value = £1422 million

Benefit to Cost Ratio = 7.32

It will be seen from these figures that the strategy performs well in overall economic terms and provides good value for money.

A number of important points need to be noted.

Reference to Tables 21.5 and 21.6 shows that although the overall strategy is very worthwhile the impact of each component, when introduced separately, is generally mixed with only the “Winning Over Hearts and Minds” component having a BCR greater than 2.0 and the Park and Ride component being the only other element with a BCR greater than 1.0. It particularly needs to be noted

263

that, in their own right, neither the public transport improvements nor the Congestion Charging Scheme have any significant economic value. It is only when these two elements are combined with the other components that the full potential of the strategy is realised.

It needs to be noted that in all of the analysis that has been undertaken it has been assumed that the impact of the Congestion Charging Scheme will be primarily to force car drivers to make one of three choice choices, these being to: • continue to travel as before and to pay the charge; • to transfer to public transport; and • to continue to travel by car, but reroute around the outside of the congestion charging area.

There is, of course, a fourth option, this being to reallocate the journey to a new destination outside the congestion charging area This issue has been discussed at length in Chapter 16 and it has been concluded that any Congestion Charging Scheme would only be viable if it were to be introduced as part of a wider policy, encompassing both the implementation of congestion charging zones in neighbouring conurbations and the introduction of much tighter planning controls within the North Staffordshire conurbation.

Nonetheless, even if all of the above were in place there is still a possibility that the assumptions used within the economic assessment are optimistic. To explore this a limited number of simplistic “Worst Case” sensitivity tests have been undertaken. These are set out in Table 21.7 and are based on the “Worst Case” assumption that there will be three negative impacts and one positive impact if traffic diverts away from the congestion charge area. These could be a reduction in the magnitude of the toll revenue, a reduction in levels of bus usage, a reduction in overall time and vehicle operating cost benefits and a reduction in government losses in indirect taxation.

The information within Table 21.7 has been based on the assumption that 10%, 25% or 50% of traffic diverts away from the congestion charging area and this leads to a comparable reduction in all of the above (i.e. toll revenue, bus usage, time / vehicle operating cost savings and indirect tax losses). This in itself is an over exaggerated impact because a significant part of the Preferred Strategy’s time and operating cost saving benefits result from decongestion within the inner areas of the conurbation and these benefits might, in reality, increase if traffic diverts away, rather than decrease. Nonetheless, even using these exaggerated assumptions, the Preferred Strategy’s BCR value still remains above 2.0 up to the point where some 40% of the traffic to be affected by the toll has changed its destination location. In the London example, initial research suggests that less than 5% of traffic previously crossing the congestion charging boundary has changed its time of travel (to outside the charging period) or has

264

changed its destination. This therefore suggests that this Preferred Strategy will provide a high return in terms of value for money, even if some of the implicit modelling assumptions are optimistic.

21.9 The Financial Case

It has been a key issue throughout this report to ensure that the finally selected Preferred Strategy is capable, in the longer term, of standing financially on its own feet, without the need for on-going subsidies.

Table 21.8 provides a summary of the revenue incomes and the on-going revenue costs that are likely to be associated with the Preferred Strategy. This shows, based on the assumptions set out in the previous section, that the future operating costs, revenues and net financial status of the strategy in 2021 will be as follows (all figures are quoted in 2002 prices):

Operating Cost per Annum = £ 44.6 million

Income per Annum = £ 71.3 million

Net Financial Position = £ 26.8 million surplus per annum

This table also sets out operating costs and associated revenues attached to each of the key component schemes within the Preferred Strategy. It will be seen from this information that the congestion charging component is essential if the strategy is to be financially sound in the longer term.

This finding is reinforced by the information in the last two rows of Table 21.8. These show the incomes and revenues that can be expected in the year 2021, if the strategy were to be implemented either without the congestion charging component or with the congestion charging component replaced with a higher parking charge component. It is seen in the first case that there would need to be annual revenue support in the order of £ 15.7 million per annum and in the second case this figure would reduce to £ 9.8 per annum. In computing both of these revenue support figures account has been taken of the changes in revenue and operating costs that would arise due to lower usage of the bus and Park and Ride systems.

As in the previous section, a series of “Worst Case” sensitivity tests have again been undertaken so as to assess the impact that any over optimistic assumptions within the modelling approach might have on the strategy’s long term financial performance. As can be seen from Table 21.9 the strategy will continue to at least break even financially up to the point where, at a minimum, 40% of the car users that are anticipated to pay the toll decide to divert instead. Again, it is worth bearing in mind that in the London example only some 5% of traffic

265

previously crossing the congestion charging boundary has changed time of travel or destination.

The key messages from this financial analysis can be summarised as follows: • once the full strategy is in place it can be expected that there will be an annual financial surplus; and • prior to the introduction of congestion charging however, the strategy could require a subsidy of between £16.5 million and £25 million a year. The lower end figure would be achievable if long stay parking charges were increased in real terms to three time existing levels and the extent of the controlled areas in Hanley City Centre, Newcastle town centre and Stoke town centre were extended to cover the “full walk in area”.

The latter of these two conclusions still gives rise for concern given the other calls on local authority revenue. W hile it might be possible to reduce the size of the subsidy to some extent, through imaginative uses of capital account monies for purchasing of new buses for example, there will still remain a substantial need in the short to medium term for revenue support, ranging from say an initial £2.0 million per annum up to £10 million per annum by 2019.

Possible sources of such monies include: • local authorities funds; • the adoption of a strategy based developer contribution scheme, whereby the developer pays a sliding contribution per dwelling or per square metre of employment space, based on the locational accessibility of their development; and • the Government’s new “Transport Innovation Fund”, which it is understood is being established specifically to address funding gaps within demand management based transport strategies.

21.10 Transport Funding Context

It is important to examine the financial resources required to implement the strategy within the context of both the level of funding currently allocated to transport in North Staffordshire and available estimates of future funding. This funding is primarily through LTP capital resources and revenue resources made available from within overall local authority budgets.

W ithin this section the level of funding currently allocated from revenue resources to transport by both SoTCC and SCC are summarised in Table 21.10. Additionally, a summary of the recently announced Provisional Planning Guidelines for Local Transport capital funding for each transport authority is provided in Table 21.11. These allocations cover the five year period covered by

266

LTP2 (2006/07 to 2010/11) and they just apply to the Integrated Transport Block element of LTP funding.

The DfT has issued guidance regarding the determination of the final LTP2 funding allocations, which has the potential to alter the Integrated Transport Block figures presented in Table 21.11 quite significantly. The implications of this, along with a summary of potential additional sources of LTP funding (such as for Major Schemes), will be discussed following Table 21.11.

It should be noted that this summary just includes potential funding available through the LTP process directly from central government for the period covered by LTP2 and does not include any of the wide range of potential additional funding sources such as that received from developer contributions and regeneration sources. These were discussed fully in the Funding Opportunities Report completed as part of this study.

2003/04 2004/05 Outturn Budget (£m) (£m) Stoke-on-Trent City Council Public Transport 1.603 1.645 Highway and Bridge Maintenance 7.368 8.343 Traffic M anagement and Road Safety 0.673 0.652 Transport Planning, Policy and Strategy 0.601 0.705 Stoke-on-Trent City Council TOTAL 10.245 11.345

Staffordshire County Council Highway Management 28.4 30.3 Passenger Transport 2.8 3.2 Transport Policy and Strategy 1.7 1.8 Community Programmes / Safety 0.8 0.8 Other 1.5 1.6 Staffordshire County Council TOTAL 35.2 37.7 Note: Figures taken from SoTCC and SCC 2004 Annual Progress Reports – SCC figures are for the whole County Table 21.10: Summary of Existing Revenue Funding for Transport

267

Integrated Transport Block – Provisional Planning

Guidelines (£m) 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total Stoke-on-Trent City Council 4.856 4.856 5.099 5.355 5.623 25.789 Staffordshire County Council 5.416 5.416 5.687 5.972 6.271 28.762 Note: SCC figures are for the whole County and include the allocation for the North Staffordshire Joint LTP

Table 21.11: Integrated Transport Block: Provisional Planning Guidelines

The funding guidelines shown in Table 21.11 just apply to the Integrated Transport Block element of LTP funding. If, say 15% (based on the approximate existing percentage of SCC LTP funding allocated to the NSITS area) of the SCC funding were to be directed towards the North Staffordshire Joint LTP, then the overall level of Integrated Transport Block funding which would be available (assuming funding equivalent to the guidelines was awarded) for the first five years would be in the order of £30 million. If this funding were to be rolled forward for the remainder of the strategy period and the year on year increases shown above were to be continued, around £90 to £100 million of funding could be available. It should be stressed, however, that the funding guidelines are provisional and will be subject to alteration following the submission of the next LTP. The LTP2 guidance sets out two reasons why the eventual funding allocated to local authorities might differ from the provisional figures as follows:

• based on the quality of the LTP submission, the above figures may be increased or decreased by up to 25%; and • following the introduction of a revised ‘formulaic’ funding formula (which would be a more ‘needs based’ funding system taking into account factors such as local road casualty baselines, public transport patronage and possibly congestion and accessibility). The impact of this is expected to be announced in late 2005.

In addition to the above Integrated Transport Block funding, the following additional funding could be available for the strategy through the LTP: • Major Scheme Bids (for schemes costing in excess of £5 million), although the LTP2 guidance stresses that schemes will need a strong positive case to gain funding given budgetary limitations; • Exceptional Scheme Bids (for individual schemes costing less than £5m). Such schemes are aimed at authorities with low Integrated Transport Block allocations, where an individual scheme costs in excess of 75% of the total allocation. For example (referring to Table 21.11 above) this could apply if SoTCC were promoting a scheme in 2006/07 costing under £5 million, but

268

in excess of £3.642m (75% of the ITP allocation of £4.856m). Only one such scheme would be permitted per local authority per annum and bids should be submitted in Annual Progress Reports; • Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) which is designed to provide funding for strategies combining significant improvements to bus services, perhaps through a Quality Contract combined with car restraint schemes; and

• Maintenance Block Funding which could perhaps provide a minor part of the funding for strategy measures likely to involve carriageway reconstruction / surfacing such as the bus and access only corridors.

In summary, the potential funding available through the LTP process would appear to be close to the levels of capital funding required to implement the strategy (£115 million) and this is without the addition of other sources of funding, for example through developer contributions or regeneration sources. In order that sufficient revenue funding can be made available, it is likely that this will need to come from a combination of increased resources being made available through local authority budgets, in combination with possible revenue funding available through a TIF application.

269

One off Annually Implementation Recurring Costs Costs (£ M ) (£ M per annum) Public Transport Improvements Implementation of Traffic Free 11.5 - Bus Corridors Implementation of Other 5.0 - Infrastructure Improvements Enhancement of the Quality of - 7.75 Existing Bus Services Provision of Additional Urban Bus - 7.5 Services Introduction of Demand - 2.0 Responsive Rural Bus Services Park and Ride Construction of Park and Ride 15.0 - Sites Provision of Access Roads 9.75 - (including new Access to Festival Park from the Wolstanton Retail Park Interchange Acquisition of Land for both of 17.5 - above Provision and Operation of the - 4.8 Park and Services W inning Over Hearts and M inds W alking Plan 9.3 0.7 Cycling Plan 8.0 1.45 School Travel Plans 6.5 0.03 W ork Place Travel Plans - 0.075 Personal Journey Planning - 1.00 Congestion Charging Scheme Implementation Costs, excluding 23.35 - any traffic mitigation measures Traffic mitigation measures 7.0 - Annual Operating Costs - 19.3 Totals 112.9 44.6

Table 21.1: The Preferred Strategy – Summary of Costs (2002 Prices)

270 Consumers ALL MODES (All) ROAD BUS & COACH RAIL OTHER User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time £1,328 £931 £397 Vehicle operating costs £282 £282 User charges -£684 -£684 £0 During construction and maintenance £0 NET CONSUM ER BENEFITS £926 (1) £529 £397 £0 £0 Business (All) Goods User benefits Vehicles Business Cars & LGVs Passengers Freight Passengers Travel time £798 £136 £615 £46 Vehicle operating costs £107 £74 £33 User charges -£206 -£84 -£122 £0 During construction and maintenance £0 Subtotal £699 (2) £126 £527 £46 £0 £0 £0

Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue £22 £22 Operating costs £0 Investment costs £0 Grant/subsidy £0 Subtotal £22 (3) Other business impacts Developer contributions £0 (4) Notes: NET BUSINESS IMPACTS £720 (5)=(2)+(3)+(4) 1. Benefits appear as positive numbers, whilst costs appear as negative numbers. 2. All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values in TOTAL £millions Present Value of Transport 3. For the purposes of this appraisal all PT revenues have been assumed to Economic Efficiency Benefits £1,647 (6)=(1)+(5) accrue to the private sector. In practice this is likely to be split between (PVB) private operators and the public sector (through reduced subsidies)

Table 21.2 The Preferred Transport Strategy - Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE)

271

(All) ALL M ODES ROAD BUS & COACH RAIL OTHER Local Government Funding TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE Revenue -£1,005 -£1,005 Operating Costs £587 £587 Investment Costs £136 £136 Developer and Other Contributions £0 Grant/Subsidy Payments £0 -£282 -£1,005 £723 NET IMPACT (7)

Central Government Funding

User benefits (All) Revenue £0 Operating Costs £0 Investment Costs £0 Developer and Other Contributions £0 Grant/Subsidy Payments £0 Indirect Tax Revenues £507 £507 £507 £507 Subtotal (8)

TOTAL Present Value of Costs (PVC) £225 (9)=(7)+(8)

Notes: Revenues, 'Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers, whilst costs appear as positive numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values in £millions The allocation of costs between sectors is somewhat arbitrary and so it has all been allocated to the 'Other group'

Table 21.3 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Impact on Public Accounts

272

Noise - Local Air Quality - Greenhouse Gases - Journey Ambience - Accidents - Consumer users £926 Business Users and Providers £720 Reliability - Option Values -

Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) £1,647

Public Accounts £225

Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) £225

OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) £1,422 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 7.32 BCR=PVB/PVC

Note: This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. W here this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.

Notes: 1. All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values in £ millions

Table 21.4 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Summary of M onetised Costs and Benefits

273

Vehicle Operator Revenues User Charges Operating Costs Indirect User time Total taxes PT_fares LA_off- VOC VOC PT_fares LA_off- LA_tolls LA_tolls (private) street fuel non_fuel _(private) street Highway 1683.0 0.0 -1036.0 145.6 125.5 264.3 5.5 1015.1 -9.9 -504.1 1688.9 The Preferred PT 442.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 -2.7 456.2 Strategy Total 2125.6 0.0 -1036.0 145.6 125.5 264.3 21.8 1015.1 -9.9 -506.8 2145.1 The Components The Traffic Free Bus Highway -142.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.1 -5.2 0.0 0.0 -0.4 4.6 -153.2 Corridors & Quality PT 53.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 -0.1 53.8 Improvements Total -88.9 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -10.1 -5.2 0.8 0.0 -0.4 4.4 -99.4 Highway 84.8 0.0 0.0 17.1 1.3 5.7 1.1 0.0 -0.7 -9.9 99.4 Park and Ride PT 15.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.1 16.0 Total 100.5 -0.1 0.0 17.1 1.3 5.7 1.5 0.0 -0.7 -9.9 115.4 Highway 392.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 49.0 0.0 0.0 -1.5 -64.0 398.9 W inning Over PT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.8 Hearts and M inds Total 392.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 49.0 1.0 0.0 -1.5 -64.1 399.7 Highway 723.9 0.0 -1171.0 0.0 62.3 68.4 0.0 1278.4 -2.9 -274.2 684.8 Congestion PT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 -1.2 6.1 Charging Total 723.9 0.0 -1171.0 0.0 62.3 68.4 7.3 1278.4 -2.9 -275.4 690.9

Highway 0.1 0.0 0.0 -69.1 -12.0 -7.3 0.0 0.0 70.4 6.8 -11.0 Higher parking PT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 charges Total 0.1 0.0 0.0 -69.1 -12.0 -7.3 0.0 0.0 70.4 6.8 -11.0

Notes: 1. Benefits appear as positive numbers, whilst costs appear as negative numbers. 2. All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values in £millions

Table 21.5 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Summary of Economic Benefits by Component

274

Strategy Components

Preferred Traffic Free Bus Parking “Winning Over Strategy Corridors and Congestion charges Park and Ride Hearts and Quality Charging M inds” Improvements

User benefits Highways Travel time 1,683.0 -142.1 84.8 392.4 723.9 0.1 Vehicle operating costs 389.8 -15.3 6.9 71.9 130.7 -19.3 User charges -890.5 0.0 17.1 0.0 -1,171.0 -69.1 Public transport

Travel time 442.6 53.2 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 User charges 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Private sector Fares revenue 21.8 0.8 1.5 1.0 7.3 0.0 PVB 1,646.7 -103.4 126.0 465.4 -309.1 -88.2 Pu b li c S e cto r Revenues -1,005.2 0.4 0.7 1.5 -1,275.4 -70.4 Costs 723.4 133.5 71.8 87.7 293.3 0.0 Indirect taxes 506.8 -4.4 9.9 64.1 275.4 -6.8

PVC 225.0 129.5 82.4 153.3 -706.8 -77.2 NPV 1,421.7 -232.9 43.6 312.0 397.6 -11.0 Net Public 7.32 -0.80 1.53 3.04 1.14 BCR Sector Surplus Notes: 1. Benefits appear as positive numbers, whilst costs appear as negative numbers. 2. All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values in £millions

Table 21.6 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Summary of Economic Costs and Benefits by Component

275

Assumptions Regarding Losses in Toll Revenues and Other Benefits Preferred Strategy All reduce by 10% All reduce by 25% All reduce by 50%

User benefits Highways Travel time 1,683.0 1500 1250 850 Vehicle operating costs 389.8 350 300 200 User charges -890.5 -800 -650 -450 Public transport Travel time 442.6 400 330 220 User charges 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Private sector Fares revenue 21.8 20 15 10 PVB 1,646.7 1450 1230 820 Public Sector Revenues -1,005.2 -900 -750 -500 Costs 723.4 723.4 723.4 723.4 Indirect taxes 506.8 450 400 300

PVC 225.0 273.4 373.4 523.4 NPV 1,421.7 1176.6 856.6 296.6 BCR 7.32 4.30 2.30 1.76 Notes: 1. Benefits appear as positive numbers, whilst costs appear as negative numbers. 2. All entries are discounted present values, in 2002 prices and values in £millions

Table 21.7 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Sensitivity Test on the Impacts on Economic Performance of Traffic Diverting Away from the Congestion Charging Scheme

276

Incremental Revenues (£1000s) Incremental Operating Costs (£1000s) Bus & W inning Park Net Park Congestion Over Parking PT Toll and Total Total Position and Charge Hearts and Ride PT Ride M inds Ref Case ------

Preferred Strategy -790 1,130 70,575 375 71,300 21,975 19,300 3,200 44,475 26,825

Component Schemes Traffic Free Bus Corridors + -30 60 - - 30 8,900 - - 8,900 -8,870 Quality Improvements Park and Ride -55 25 - 75 45 3,750 - - 3,750 -3,705 W inning Over Hearts and M inds – -310 380 - - 70 - - 3,200 3,200 -3,130 with W inning Over Hearts and M inds – -120 70 - - -50 - - 3,200 3,200 -3,250 without Congestion Charging -220 475 89,635 - 89,890 - 19,300 0 19,300 70,590

The Situation without Congestion Charging Preferred Strategy, but without -210 215 - 70 75 12,640 - 3,200 15,840 -15,765 Congestion Charging in place As above, but with Higher Parking 5,700 220 - 100 6,020 12.640 - 3,200 15.840 -9,820 Charges Notes: 1. Increased incomes appear as positive numbers, whilst reduced incomes appear as negative numbers. 2. All entries in 2002 prices

Table 21.8 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Summary of Net Revenues

277

Incremental Revenues (£1000s) Incremental Operating Costs (£1000s) Net Bus & W inning Park Position Park Congestion Over Parking PT Toll and Total Total and Charge Hearts and (£1000s) Ride Ride M inds Ref Case ------

Preferred Strategy -790 1,130 70,575 375 71,300 21,975 19,300 3,200 44,475 26,825

Assumptions All reduce by 10% -790 1,000 62500 330 63,040 21,975 19,300 3,200 44,475 18,565 Regarding Losses in Toll All reduce by 25% -790 800 52500 275 52,785 21,975 19,300 3,200 44,475 8,310 and other Revenues All reduce by 50% -790 550 35000 175 34,975 21,975 19,300 3,200 44,475 -9,500

Notes: 1. Increased incomes appear as positive numbers, whilst reduced incomes appear as negative numbers. 2. All entries in 2002 prices

Table 21.9 The Preferred Transport Strategy – Sensitivity Test on the Impacts on Net Revenues of Traffic Diverting Away from the Congestion Charging Scheme

278

22 The Strategy Appraisal

22.1 Introduction

The information set out within Chapters 19, 20 and 21 provides a wide ranging assessment of the performance of the Preferred Strategy. The purpose of this Chapter is to use the information within these preceding Chapters so as to appraise the overall performance of the Preferred Strategy in the context of the shared Central, Regional and Local objectives set out in Chapter 3.

For this purpose, use has been made of the three Appraisal Summary Tables discussed earlier within Chapter 4. These have been used to appraise the strategy’s performance against:

• Central Government Objectives; • Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives; and • W ider Local and Regional Objectives.

The findings of this appraisal are set out on Tables 22.1 to 22.3, which appear overleaf.

Following on from these tables, in Sections 22.2 to 22.4, the Supporting Analysis of the strategy will be presented to appraise the performance of the strategy against:

• Distribution and Equity; • Affordability and Financial Sustainability; and • Practicality and Public Acceptability.

279

Preferred Strategy Problems

OBJECTIVE SUB- QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE M EASURE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE ENVIRONM ENT Noise Overall, conditions will be similar to today. The traffic free bus corridors 22% of links experience slight problems, 8% Small Benefit will, however, bring about noticeable improvements. experience moderate problems and 2.5% experience severe problems. Local Air Quality Local air quality issues are not significant in the future when compared PM10 levels exceed provisional 2010 levels on 17% Small Benefit with current limits. Some links, however, have PM10 levels in excess of of the conurbations roads. There are no NO2 the provisional 2010 limit levels. problems.

Greenhouse Overall levels of emissions are lower than today and significantly better Overall emissions reduced by 2,700 tonnes when

Gases than the 2021 Reference Case situation. compared with the 2021 Reference Case and 1000 Significant Benefit tonnes when compared with today. Landscape No negative impact. - No change Townscape Generally positive impacts, but Park and Ride sites may have slight Slight Impact before mitigation No change impacts on canal Conservation Areas. Mitigation measures may be needed. Heritage of No negative impact. Slight Impact before mitigation No change Historic Resources Biodiversity Park and Ride sites may have slight impact on wildlife corridors. Slight Impact before mitigation No change Mitigation measures may be needed. W ater Park and Ride sites may have slight impact on fluvial flood plains. Slight Impact before mitigation No change Environment Mitigation measures may be needed. Physical Fitness Positive impact through encouraging walking, cycling and use of public Significant Improvement Significant Benefit transport. Journey Improved journey ambience for bus users within traffic free bus corridors Significant Improvement Significant Benefit Ambience and for pedestrians and cyclists within improved areas. Improved setting within congestion charge area. No significant other changes SAFETY Accidents Significant reduction in personal injury accidents, particularly those 15% reduction in all P.I.A., 20% reduction in Significant Monetary involving pedestrians. pedestrian P.I.A.s. Benefits Security Significant improvement in public transport based security through Significant Improvement Significant Benefit introduction of Quality Partnership / Contracts.

Table 22.1 Central Government Appraisal Summary Table

280

Core Strategy Problems

OBJECTIVE SUB- QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE M EASURE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE

ECONOM Y Transport Significant reductions in overall private motorised transport usage, Car travel speeds restored to today’s level. NPB = £1647 M Economic significant reductions in congestion, much increased utilisation of public Bus travel speeds 10% better than today. NPC = £ 225 M Efficiency transport services and significant improvement in public transport Bus usage increased by 150% over today. NPV = £1422 M operating speeds 2,650 Park and Ride users in evening peak hour. BCR = 7.32 Congestion charge revenues finance all revenue based operational costs in the longer term. Reliability Significant improvements in public transport reliability through creation Significant Improvement Significant Benefit of traffic free corridors and overall reduction in congestion levels. W ider Economic Will assist economic regeneration of the conurbation by increasing access Significant Improvement Significant Benefits Impacts to labour supply and improving accessibility to suppliers and markets.

ACCESSIBILITY Option Values Creation of much improved public transport system, together with Park Moderate Improvements Moderate Benefits and Ride system and walking and cycling networks increases travel options. Severance Reductions in traffic activity, particularly within traffic free bus corridors Moderate Improvements Moderate Benefits reduces severance problems Access to the Significantly improved non car based accessibility to all facilities, including Substantial Improvements, for example Substantial Benefits Transport employment, will radically reduce current social exclusion problems 95% of all jobs accessible within 45 minutes by non System (improvements are in terms of both travel time and travel quality). car modes to at least 35% of the conurbation’s employees. Increased from 54% of all jobs in the 2021 Reference Case situation. INTEGRATION Transport Improved by through ticketing, significant interchange improvements and Significant Improvement Significant Benefits Interchange other enhancements.

Land-Use Policy Significantly assists the concentration of new developments within the Significant Improvement Significant Benefits urban areas and will aid regeneration agenda. Other Significantly assists policies in the areas of health, education, housing and Significant Improvement Significant Benefits Government employment. Policies

Table 22.1 Central Government Appraisal Summary Table (Cont.)

281

Objective Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Strategy Minimise the need Manage traffic and travel demand High Positive The Preferred Strategy sets out to manage travel demand through firstly incorporating a to travel Impact Personal Journey Planning Programme designed to educate the traveller of the available choices (including non travel) and secondly through providing real alternatives to car travel. Its success is demonstrated in the study findings that suggest that car based travel (in terms of vehicle kilometres travelled) will reduce by 7.5% with the strategy in place. Some 65% of those who stop travelling by car transfer to public transport and the remainder either transfer to non motorised transport or stop travelling. Encourage integration between High Positive Key themes of the strategy are to strengthen the public transport systems within the core transport, land use planning and Impact area, while at the same time not promoting increased car based accessibility within the outer implementation urban areas. This will reinforce the aims of strengthening the attractiveness of the city centre and the urban core areas. Also, in recognition of current and future development proposals at Chatterley Valley, Etruria Valley, Trentham Lakes, Sideway and at Lymedale, another key element of the strategy will be the improvement of public transport services to these areas. In the case of the first four this will be achieved through doubling up the function of the Park and Ride buses, so as to cater for reverse direction movements to these development areas. In the case of the last, it is suggested that new orbital and radial bus services be introduced to serve this area. Encourage more sustainable High Positive Through creating a step change in both the image and penetration of public transport patterns of travel Impact services real modal choice is being provided within the strategy. This is expected to increase public transport usage at peak times from 4,650 passengers per hour to some 12,450 (an increase of 170%). In addition a further 2,650 people per hour are expected use the Park and Ride facilities.

The strategy also includes for the active promotion of walking and cycling, through the creation of new area networks to town centres and between town centres, the targeting of individual intersections and other problem locations and the general raising of awareness. Sensitivity testing has also suggested that the strategy’s overall performance would be further enhanced if the majority of proposed new developments were to be located within the core area, rather than on the periphery to the conurbation.

Table 22.2 - 1 – Appraisal Summary Table – Specific Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

282

Objective Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Strategy Encourage travel awareness and The introduction of good quality public transport and a comprehensive Park and Ride behavioural change system, coupled with the introduction of congestion charging within the central area will lead to a significant rebalancing of the relative attractiveness of travelling by bus and car. This in itself should help to bring about a significant level of behavioural change. High Positive To reinforce this however, the strategy’s implementation will commence with a wide Impact ranging campaign aimed at “Winning Over of Hearts and Minds”. This will, in particular, ensure the wide spread introduction of School Travel Plans and W ork Place Travel Plans. It will also include a Personal Journey Planning programme, targeted at every resident within the conurbation. So as to ensure that these impacts will be on-going the strategy envisages that each of the above initiatives will be updated and repeated every five years. Improve Public Provide high quality sustainable The strategy’s key emphasis is targeted towards providing improved high quality sustainable Transport transport modes transport modes (in particular improved bus services in both the urban and rural areas and a new Park and Ride service). In terms of sustainability the emphasis has not only been in Very High ensuring environmental sustainability but also financial sustainability. It is envisaged that Positive Impact improved quality will be achieved through the introduction of a conurbation wide Quality Partnership or Quality Contract and longer term financial viability will be ensured through the introduction of a revenue generating Congestion Charging Scheme. Encourage modal transfer from In developing the strategy the key emphasis has been on encouraging modal transfer to the car to public transport bus. It has been concluded, however, that this will only happen if there is a radical realignment of the relative attractiveness of the two competing modes (bus and car). This High Positive realignment has been achieved through creating traffic free bus corridors within the heart of Impact the conurbation, improving the quality of the service through use of a Quality Partnership / Quality Contract and reinforcing all of these initiatives through the imposition of a Congestion Charging Scheme within the inner parts of the conurbation.

Table 22.2 - 2 – Appraisal Summary Table – Specific Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

283

Objective Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Strategy

Improve travel information and A key part of the Quality Partnership / Quality Contract will be to improve travel ticketing information and introduce a through ticketing system. In terms of the former, the strategy envisages the introduction of Real Time Passenger Information systems at street level and Very High the establishment of a Demand Responsive Bus / Taxi service in the outer urban areas and Positive Impact within the rural hinterland. The work undertaken in development of the strategy also indicates that the lack of through ticketing (at present) is a key deterrent to interchange, thereby restricting people’s willingness to use the public transport system. Promote other Encourage walking through The strategy includes for the establishment of a W alking Plan, aimed at encouraging walking sustainable modes improving facilities and from all angles, from improving infrastructure through to getting people to think “Walking” maximising accessibility as a travel mode. A key issue within the conurbation is that of poor streetscape and it will Very High be important for the strategy to bring together a wide range of bodies and individuals so as Positive Impact to address this problem. A sum of £10 million has been allocated within the strategy budget for implementing this W alking Plan, together with a further £0.7 million per annum to promote the think “Walking” concept. Encourage cycling through A parallel Cycling Plan is also included with the strategy, with similar aims to the W alking improving facilities and Plan. This will target the introduction of new cycle routes, the provision of cyclist facilities maximising accessibility away from these routes at key intersections, the provision of cycling parking facilities within High Positive town centres, at modal interchanges and other locations and a cycle education programme Impact within schools and within the work place. Cycling is a very underused mode at present within the conurbation and a sum of £8 million, together with an annual allowance of £1.5 million per annum has been allocated to the Cycling Plan. Improve People’s Encourage travel by non The introduction of the Cycling and W alking Plan, coupled with the promotion of Park and Health motorised modes Very High Ride and public transport will all lead to increased levels of healthy activity. The use of Positive Impact these new initiatives will be further encouraged through overall improvements in road safety, air quality and noise nuisance as outlined below.

Table 22.2 - 3 – Appraisal Summary Table – Specific Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

284

Objective Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Strategy Reduce exposure to road safety It is envisaged that the strategy, in its own right, when compared with the 2021 Reference problems Case, will give rise to an overall reduction in personal injury accidents, with the number of such accidents that occur on the conurbation’s significant road network reducing from a Very High predicted total of 1440 per annum to 1225 per annum (a reduction of some 15%). As the Positive Impact strategy has a greater impact in reducing P.I. accidents in the inner urban areas, the percentage reduction in pedestrian personal injury accidents is higher at 20%. Improve local air quality Local air quality issues will improve anyway over time, through improved vehicle technology. Nonetheless, with the strategy in place there will be further improvements over and above those that result solely through technological advancement. As with accident savings, these High Positive will be particularly concentrated in the inner urban areas where people live, work and shop Impact within an environment that is much closer to traffic (and its emissions) than in the outer urban areas. Although not directly covered by this topic heading, the Strategy will lead to a significant reduction in green house gas emissions when compared with today, whereas in the ‘do nothing’2021 Reference Case scenario such emissions increase. Improve accessibility to a full W ith the strategy in place, some 88% of the conurbation’s population will be able to reach a range of healthcare facilities least two healthcare centres or doctors surgeries within 20 minutes by non car modes. This compares with 79% today and 79% in the 2021 Reference Case situation. Additionally, only High Positive some 3% of the conurbation’s residents will be more that 20 minutes non car travel time Impact from any such facility. This compares with 7% today and in the 2021 Reference Case.

Table 22.2 - 4 – Appraisal Summary Table – Specific Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

285

Objective Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Strategy Assist Freight Reduce the impacts of road based The strategy does not specifically set out to address the issue of freight traffic as the current freight movement road system, centred around the A500 (T) and the A50 (T), provides generally good access to most employment sites, without an excessive need to use local roads. This is illustrated by the fact that today (and with the strategy in place in 2021) over 95% of all employment places (jobs) are located within 25 minutes average travel time to the three road gateways Positive Impact (i.e. Junctions 15 and 16 on the M6 and Blythe Bridge on the A50(T)). This figure reduces however to 82% in the 2021 Reference Case. Nonetheless, by removing through traffic from many of the principal bus corridors within the inner area of the city, and through introducing congestion charging in the inner core area, there will be an overall reduction in numbers of freight vehicles using the secondary road network (and a complementary increase in usage of the core Trunk road network). Encourage longer distance freight The strategy, being locally based on the conurbation and its surrounding area, has not set movement onto the railways No adverse out to specifically address this issue. There is, however, nothing within the strategy that Impact would have an adverse affect on possible proposals to establish a rail based trans-modal freight liner terminal within Chatterley Valley. Improve Maintain level of service on the In overall terms the strategy has the net effect of maintaining the status quo in terms of Accessibility strategic road network that “levels of service” on the road network, with future travel speeds in the urban area and on safeguards efficient movement roads other than the core Trunk road system being similar to those of today. This Improvement compares with a general worsening of around 10% (in terms of travel speeds) in the 2021 over the Reference Case situation. Reference Case On the core Trunk Road network however travel conditions are slightly worse than today with average travel speeds being 44.5 kph compared with 48.8 kph today. Nonetheless, in the 2021 Reference Case they fall to just over 40 kph (all values relate to the evening peak hour period). Reduce overall levels of Overall, with the strategy in place, travel conditions for general traffic are similar to what congestion, particularly in urban Positive Impact, they are today, albeit with slightly improved conditions within the inner areas of the areas conurbation. However, the creation of traffic free bus roads, together with the introduction particularly for of the congestion charging in the inner urban areas will significantly reduce congestion buses problems for buses.

Table 22.2 -5 – Appraisal Summary Table – Specific Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

286

Objective Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Strategy Improve accessibility for the All elements of the strategy, be they improvements to buses or infrastructure, or the disabled and those with reduced Positive Impact introducing of the W alking Plan will be designed with the disabled and the mobility mobility impaired in mind. The provision of better public transport services, both in the urban and rural areas will also provide much increased travel choice to those who cannot drive. Reduce social disadvantage and The strategy has specifically set out to improve non car based accessibility so as to provide inequality real travel options for those who are socially disadvantaged. To this end the strategy has transformed non car based accessibility to employment opportunities, with 95% of all residents being able to get to at least 35% of the conurbations Very High employment places within 45 minutes by non car modes. The comparable figures today and Positive Impact in the 2021 Reference Case are 65% and 54% respectively. Accessibility is, however, not just about travel times. Through the introduction of a Quality Partnership / Quality Contract the quality of bus services, the ease of interchange (improved by better bus stations and through ticketing) and the availability of information (through RTPI systems) will all improve, making public transport travel much more acceptable to the majority of people.

Table 22.2 – 6 – Appraisal Summary Table – Specific Local and Regional Transport Related Objectives

287

Table 22.3 – Appraisal Summary Table – W ider Local and Regional Objectives

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Assist overall Address the decline in the The key transport related problem for new employers is that of securing access to a suitable regeneration of the regional economy thereby trained workforce. At the present time many of the employment sites have poor Study Area increasing confidence, attracting accessibility by non car modes. W ith low levels of car ownership this is a key issue.

inward investment and The strategy has been designed to create a step change in non car based accessibility, both encouraging economic enterprise through reducing public transport based access times and through altering the overall and employment. perception of public transport and its ease of usage. In terms of travel times, with the strategy in place, nearly 95% of all future employment places will have access, with 45 minutes by non car modes, to at least 35%of the conurbation’s workforce. This compares with access to 73% today and 67% in the 2021 Reference Case situation. Through buying in now to the longer term aim of introducing congestion charging the strategy will also provide certainty to employers that the promised improvements in public High Positive transport quality and service provision will materialise. Impact In the wider view, improved public transport accessibility (both during the day and in the evening) will also mean that it is easier for the non car owning portion of the population to gain access to adult based further education centres, thereby leading to a general increase in the skill base amongst the workforce. From the viewpoint of new employers the issues associated with gaining access to raw materials and onward markets are currently a major attraction. One of the notable successes of the conurbation in recent times has been its ability to attract the logistics based industries. W ith the Preferred Strategy in place these good connections to the national road system are maintained. However, in the Reference Case situation in 2021 they deteriorate.

288

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Address the decline in the Many new employers will also be dependent on the local community to sell their finished regional economy thereby products. In travel time terms, the preferred strategy will make it slightly easier to drive increasing confidence, attracting within the inner areas of the city and much easier to travel around generally by public inward investment and transport. encouraging economic enterprise In terms of Hanley and Newcastle, 20% more people will be able to access these two and employment. (Cont.) centres within 30 minutes by non car modes than can today. Compared with the 2021 Reference Case the increase is some 25% to 30%. Similarly, for the other centres such as Tunstall, Burslem, Stoke and Longton the increases, from within 20 minutes travel time, vary from 25% to 90% when compared to today (and more when compared to the 2021 Reference Case). The downside of all the above improvements is the need to ensure certainty of achievement. This certainty can only be provided if a positive approach is taken now to the longer term aim of introducing congestion charging. Many might argue that in the present day climate this is too high a price to pay – however, this commitment relates to the year 2016. By that time it is highly likely that attitudes in general will have changed on this issue. It should also be remembered that we don’t have an alternative way forward – the past approach of building roads has not stopped the decline of the North Staffordshire conurbation over the past 20 years. In this respect it is worth noting that the attitudes of the business community to issues such as congestion charging and transport related business rate levies is much more positive now than it has been in the past.

289

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Reverse the movement of people W ith the Strategy in place, overall car based accessibility will be similar to what it is today. and jobs away from the major However, in spatial terms the strategy is likely to make it easier to move around by car urban areas within the inner areas of the conurbation and less easy in the outer areas. Nonetheless, conditions in all areas will be significantly better than in the 2021 Reference Case.

By contrast, in public transport terms, the strategy will bring about a step change in public transport accessibility, both in terms of travel times and travel quality. High Positive Both of these factors should provide an opportunity to reverse the trend towards people Impact and employment opportunities moving away from the central area. However, it needs to be noted that the transport strategy cannot achieve this end in its own right, particularly as the longer term proposal to introduce congestion charging could, if other measures are not taken, have the opposite effect to all of the above. It is therefore important, if this strategy is to be successful, for the local authorities to adopt a planning based land use policy that has an underlying presumption against new developments in the outer urban areas of the conurbation. Such a policy should be supported through the adoption of an accessibility based developer contributions system that favours development within the highly accessible urban core. Achieve more balanced and The Preferred Strategy, in combination with a land use policy that favours development sustainable patterns of High Positive within the core area, will lead to much more sustainable patterns of development. This has development Impact been shown by examining alternative land use scenarios that concentrate more development, both housing and employment, within the urban area. Promote urban Concentrate high generating The provision of a high capacity public transport system, based around traffic free bus Regeneration development in major urban corridors and an extensive Park and Ride network will assist the concentration of high areas generating developments within the central core areas of the city. High Positive Impact Although the work undertaken to date has not allowed us to identify a case for upgrading the public transport system beyond a bus based system, the creation of these traffic free bus corridors does, in the much longer term, keep open the opportunity of upgrading the system beyond that of bus operation.

290

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Concentrate new business The proposed Park and Ride system, with its linkages for Hanley through Festival Park to development in urban areas High Positive Etruria Valley and Chatterley Valley will make it possible to open up new areas within the where it is easily accessible Impact urban area that have high public transport accessibility. Although questionable as to whether it forms part of the true urban core, the Park and Ride system additional provides opportunities, if it were wanted, to bring the Trentham Lakes and Sideway development areas into this highly accessible (by public transport) urban area. Support existing urban businesses The overall increases in non car based accessibility within the urban core will lead to existing by increasing accessibility High Positive businesses having significantly increased catchment areas, both in terms of the workforce Impact that they can attract to their employment opportunities and, where appropriate, in terms of the local markets that they can gain access to. The improvements of public transport services, proposed under the Quality Partnership / Quality Contract will also ensure that existing businesses that are sited in more fringe locations, such as Lymedale, will have improved non car based accessibility, thereby increasing their potential to attract a workforce from a wider area. Avoid the introduction of The inclusion of congestion charging within the Preferred Strategy could be seen as measures that deter investment in negative in terms of this objective. However, without the revenue raising abilities that the core urban areas congestion charging will add to the strategy none of the other elements are possible. Possible negative impact if W hile in theory there is an alternative way forward, through road building, such an Congestion approach will not provide any benefit in terms of improving accessibility amongst non car Charging owning households, and it is therefore likely to have negative impacts in terms of many of Introduced in the other shared objectives of Central Government, Regional Government and Local isolation Government. In reality therefore, this alternative theoretical approach will receive low priority by those who make funding decisions and therefore is unlikely to become a reality. (This is not proposed) As has been stated against other objectives, the congestion charging initiative is a longer term aim. Buying into the concept now however, is necessary if any degree of confidence is to be built around the strategy’s overall achievability.

291

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Strengthen viability Encourage the attraction of the Through significantly increasing the 30 minute non car based accessibility catchments to of Key Town widest possible range of High Positive both Hanley and Newcastle Centres, and through providing car based choice in the form of Centres (i.e. shopping and commercial Impact the Park and Ride Systems, the overall 30 minute population catchments of the two centres Newcastle and services will increase, even when the impact of congestion charging is taken into account. The effect Hanley) of these increased catchments will be to increase the “spend” potential within the two centres, thereby increasing the range and number of shops and commercial activities. Maximise opportunities for The improvements in non car based accessibility to key development sites in Hanley and at creation of quality employment High Positive Festival Park, through provision of improved public transport and the Park and Ride based sites, particularly those that Impact transport links will help to maximise the employment creation opportunities in these areas, create a balanced economy through significantly increasing the size of the potential workforces that can be accessed. In particular, both Hanley and Newcastle will become more accessible to the high numbers of households within the core area who either do not own a car or only have one car available to the whole household. Encourage high activity The proposed linkages between the transport strategy and land use development policies, generating developments to High Positive through the adoption of an accessibility lead developer contribution package, will ensure locate within the key centres Impact that high activity generating developments are encouraged to locate within the key centres, rather than in more peripheral outer areas. Promote the quality of urban The strategy, particularly through the infrastructure elements of the “Winning Over Hearts living through regeneration, High Positive and Minds” component will improve the quality of urban living. environmental improvement and Impact In addition, through bringing about an overall move toward travel reduction (the strategy better personal security reduces car based travel by 7.5% when compared with the 2021Reference Case) the strategy will reduce P.I accidents and green house gas emissions significantly below today’s levels and bring about other environmental improvements. In particular, the strategy will have the impact of transforming the quality of urban living within the traffic free bus corridors and within the roads that adjoin these corridors.

292

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Maintain the Protect and enhance the vitality The strategy, through greatly increasing the 20 minute non car based catchment populations viability of other and viability of other secondary High Positive that can access the key secondary centres of Tunstall, Burslem, Stoke, and Longton, will town centres and district centres Impact provide the potential for enhancing the vitality and viability of these centres. In addition, it is proposed that the “Walking and Cycling Plans” will specifically set out to develop local pedestrian and cyclist based networks that link these centres to their immediate hinterlands. Strengthen the Support retention and provision The encouragement of walking and cycling, coupled with the creation of calmed areas / viability of existing of convenient and accessible High Positive 20mph zones and the promotion of School Travel Plans and Personal Journey Planning local communities social and community facilities Impact programmes will generate a renewed feeling of community spirit, encouraging the use of local facilities wherever possible. Increases in overall public transport accessibility will also mean that a much greater number of people are able to participate in a much more inclusive society. Promote new employment Again, the improvement of overall non car based accessibility will help to make employment opportunities and assist/ High Positive locations more accessible and will give employers greater accessibility to local markets. The strengthen conditions that Impact maintenance of car based travel conditions that are similar to today’s will also ensure that support retention of existing local businesses can continue to gain easy access to their suppliers and markets in the wider employment UK area. Maximise opportunities to The strategy, through adopting an approach of removing traffic from the key public revitalise the housing stock, transport corridors, rather that widening such corridors, provides opportunities for the promote renovation and assist housing stock that fronts such roads to be revitalised through renovation and infilling. It provision of new development will additionally improve the environment within which such housing is sited and thus Positive Impact remove the need for demolition on the grounds of traffic blight. In the wider inner urban core area, the various components of the preferred strategy will lead towards the creation of more sustainable neighbourhoods, where overall levels of traffic are lower than they would be in the 2021 Reference Case and there is much greater transport choice, brought about through improvements in public transport and the creation of walk and cycling networks.

293

Sub- Objective Impact of Comments and Remarks Objective Strategy Support development patterns of The land use sensitivity tests that have been undertaken suggest that if greater levels of sufficient density, extent and housing and employment are concentrated within the core urban area, rather than at the diversity so that they are more periphery of the conurbation, then the overall performance of the strategy improves, rather self contained, thereby reducing Positive Impact than worsens. The strategy is therefore fully compatible with the objective of encouraging commuting and introducing development patterns of sufficient density, extent and diversity so that they are more self travel choice contained. Encourage commuting, where it The creation of a much improved public transport offer, coupled with the opportunities does take place, to be by offered through creating Park and Ride sites will mean that it is generally easier in the future sustainable modes to centres in to commute within North Staffordshire than it is at present. Even with congestion charging North Staffordshire, rather than in place, those who wish to enter the centres of Hanley, Newcastle, Stoke, Festival Park and outside Etruria Valley will all be able to make such journeys, by car and Park and Ride, or by bus, without incurring the charge if they so wish. In terms of the possibility of commuters deciding to change destination to an area outside North Staffordshire it could be argued that the congestion charge may encourage this. It needs to be remembered however, that the strategy does not envisage congestion charging being introduced until the latter part of the strategy period, and even then, it is recognised that North Staffordshire cannot go it alone with such a policy. It will be important however, for all parties to lobby decision makers so as to ensure that such proposals are adopted regionally / nationally, as the financial sustainability of the strategy depends on congestion charging to bridge the revenue gap.

294

22.2 Supporting Analysis – Distribution and Equity

W ithin this section, the strategy’s impact on the following is discussed:

• the spatial distribution of noise, air quality and accident impacts; • the spatial distribution of accessibility impacts, so as to relate accessibility issues to social inclusion, economic regeneration and community strengthening / enhancement; and • the distribution of costs, together with the distribution of economic benefits / disbenefits between different user groups.

Noise, Air Quality and Road Accidents

The impact of the strategy on noise and air quality is discussed in Section 20.7. This is shown spatially in Figures 20.18 to 20.25. The main impacts can be summarised as follows:

• Figure 20.19 highlights that the strategy will lead to a significant reduction in traffic noise in 2021 when compared with the Reference Case. The routes which benefit are shown in green and they predominantly lie within the central parts of the conurbation which are inside the Congestion Charging cordon. The main concentrations of these reductions are in the area to the north of Newcastle and the A50 corridor through Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley and Fenton;

• In Figure 20.20, the changes in traffic related noise problems between the 2021 Reference Case and the strategy show a similar pattern, with the main reductions occurring in the central part of the conurbation. The strategy therefore shows a clear benefit, with a significant reduction in traffic noise predicted;

• The changes in air quality predicted with the strategy are shown in

Figures 20.22 and 20.25, which compare the levels of PM10s and

NO2s respectively, with changes between the Reference Case and strategy highlighted. These show that the number of links showing benefits far outweigh the small number, where conditions are predicted to worsen. The benefits are concentrated on the busiest routes through the centre of the conurbation, including the A50 from north of Tunstall to Fenton, the A53 from Newcastle to Hanley, the A52 from Newcastle to Stoke and the A5272 from Chell to Hanley.

The impact of the strategy on road accidents is discussed in Section 20.6. This is shown spatially in Figures 20.14 to 20.17. The main impacts can be summarised as follows:

• The predicted impact of the strategy on the location and number of

295

sites in the conurbation with road safety problems road safety problems is shown for all accidents in Figure 20.16 and for pedestrian accidents in Figure 20.17;

• Given that the strategy will remove substantial volumes of traffic from the central part of the conurbation, where most existing problems occur, the strategy will provide considerable benefits in improving road safety. This is highlighted in Figure 20.16, which shows that the number of intersections predicted to suffer from serious road safety problems falls from 27 to 18 when comparing the 2021 Reference Case and the strategy. There is not a strong spatial pattern to these improvements, although as with the noise and air quality improvements, there is perhaps a marginally greater impact in the more central parts of the conurbation; and

• The impact of the strategy on pedestrian casualties is similarly positive and the spatial pattern of these improvements is similar to that for all casualties.

Accessibility Impacts

The impact of the strategy on accessibility is reported in detail in Section 20.8 and is shown in Figures 20.26 to 20.47. Access to goods and services by non car modes will be significantly improved as a result of the strategy and this will impact most significantly on those people who do not have access to a car for their journey. An example of this is that with the strategy in place, 95% of all residents will be able to access at least 35% of the conurbation’s employment places within 45 minutes by non car modes compared with only 65% who can today. W ithout the introduction of the strategy this figure would fall to 54%. This will greatly assist the regeneration of the conurbation as discussions held during this study have shown that employers in locations which are difficult to access by public transport are finding it difficult to attract staff, with agencies having to provide taxis and minibuses to enable staff to travel to work.

Additionally, all of the improvements to the transport system, including improvements to bus infrastructure and infrastructure introduced as part of the W alking Plan will be designed with the needs of those with mobility impairments in mind.

This will lead to a significant reduction in the levels of social disadvantage and inequality experienced in the transport system and its associated social exclusion.

The main impacts are shown spatially in Figures 20.26 to 20.47, which highlight that many of the areas which will benefit from improved

296

accessibility by non car modes coincide with those areas where socio economic conditions are unfavourable. Such areas are often suffering from a combination of problems such as low car ownership, poor job quality, low public transport usage and high taxi usage and it is these areas where the improvements in accessibility which will be delivered by the strategy will have the greatest impact. Particular examples of this include:

• Figure 20.27, which shows that the strategy will reduce the problems currently experienced in accessing education in a number of areas where socio economic conditions are particularly unfavourable. These include Bentilee, Berryhill, Knutton and Cross Heath, Longport, Middleport and Etruria;

• Figure 20.31, shows that the strategy reduces or eradicates non car accessibility problems to hospitals in a number of areas such as Middleport, Longport, Goldenhill, Sandyford and Cobridge; and

• Figure 20.35 shows highlights the spatial distribution of improvements in non car accessibility problems to employment opportunities. This shows a widespread improvement across the conurbation, with particularly marked improvements in areas such as Silverdale, areas to the south west of Longton, including Florence, Dresden and Newstead, Knutton, Chesterton and Oxford (north of Chell).

Impact on User Groups

The impact on individual user groups is summarised in Table 22.4, which is shown overleaf.

22.3 Supporting Analysis - Affordability and Financial Sustainability

The affordability and financial sustainability of this strategy is a key consideration. Chapter 21 sets out the financial impact of the strategy and the potential sources of funding in considerable detail. It also summarises the existing levels of funding allocated by both local and central government for transport schemes and initiatives in North Staffordshire.

The Economic Case for the strategy (set out in Section 21.8) is strong, showing that it provides good value for money, with a Cost to Benefit Ratio of 7.32. Additionally, this case remains strong even with up to 40% of traffic diverting away from the area to avoid paying the Congestion Charge (which given that only around 5% of traffic has diverted in Central London is highly unlikely to occur).

297

User Group Description of Impact Score

Private Car The strategy is predicted to maintain levels of congestion at or below that experienced today (without the Positive Impact strategy average traffic speeds would reduce by around 10%). The introduction of Park and Ride will provide a high quality alternative means of access to the main destinations in the conurbation. The introduction of Congestion Charging and the Traffic Free Bus Corridors will cause drivers to switch from the private car to high quality alternative bus or Park and Ride services reducing congestions for those journeys which have to be made by car. Additionally, the introduction of further measures to make best use of the existing highway network such as Urban Traffic Control and Variable Message Signing will lead to benefits. Bus Passengers The step change improvement in all aspects of bus service provision will deliver significant benefits to bus Very High Positive Impact passengers. These include: introduction of new services which will significantly improve access to goods and services by bus, increased reliability and journey times resulting from the traffic free bus corridors, improved interchange facilities with improvements at Hanley and Newcastle Bus Stations, reduction in fares from inter operator ticketing, introduction of real time passenger information. Rail Passengers W hilst the strategy does not propose any specific improvements to rail services it does propose improvements Small Positive Impact to stations, in particular to their accessibility, both in terms of the interchange with bus services and to the station infrastructure. Inter operator ticketing will bring minor benefits. Cyclists The introduction of a well resourced Cycling Plan will target the introduction of new cycle routes and provide Very High Positive Impact significant improvements to existing facilities, including improvements to parking facilities within town centres and at key interchanges. School Travel Plans (and the associated introduction of Safe Routes to Schools) will promote the use of cycles by children for their journey to school, which should lead to greater cycle use in the future. Pedestrians The introduction of a well resourced W alking Plan will aim to encourage walking from all angles, from Very High Positive Impact improving infrastructure to getting people to “think walking” as a travel mode. The issue of poor streescape in the conurbation will be addressed with input from a number of parties.

298

Freight The strategy maintains the current good access to most employment sites for freight, with 99% of all Positive Impact employment places (jobs) being located within 25 minutes average travel time to the conurbation’s three road gateways (M6 Junctions 15 and 16 and the A50 (T) at Blythe Bridge. Access for deliveries will be maintained in the Traffic Free Bus Corridors. Bus Operators The introduction of a Bus Quality Partnership / Contract along with the step change improvement in the Positive Impact provision of all aspects of bus services proposed will lead to increases in bus patronage which will then be magnified by the introduction of Congestion Charging. All of this will increase the viability of operating bus services in the conurbation and allow operators to be innovative and to invest in improved services. Train Operators The strategy will have no direct impact on train operators. Neutral Coach Operators The provision of improved bus stations at Hanley and Newcastle will improve facilities available for coach Positive Impact services and their passengers. There is a possibility that Park and Ride sites could be investigated as possible stops for long distance coach services.

Table 22.4: Appraisal of Impact on User Groups

299

Additionally, whilst the strategy requires subsidy in the short to medium term, it produces a considerable financial surplus once Congestion Charging has been introduced in the long term. This shows that the strategy is financially sustainable in the long term, subject to the introduction of Congestion Charging.

A full Affordability and Financial Sustainability Table has not been included in this report as the levels of funding available from the wide range of potential sources is very difficult to predict, as much of it is subject to bidding processes which have yet to take place. This funding will be derived from a wide range of sources, including:

• Local Transport Plan capital funding; • Other central Government grants, e.g. Rural Bus Subsidy Grant; • Transport Innovation Fund monies (which may consist of revenue as well as capital funding and will be subject to a successful application to central Government); • Local authority revenue resources; • Developer contributions (collected via a mechanism linking strategy contributions to site accessibility by non car modes); and • Regeneration sources, e.g. North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone and Renew North Staffordshire.

The above sources will need to provide sufficient funding for the strategy to be implemented. In saying this, it needs to be recognised that the strategy does not just require capital funding, but it also requires significant levels of ongoing revenue funding support for measures such as improved bus services and W inning Hearts and Minds.

The overall funding requirement is in the order of £115 million for capital, with ongoing revenue subsidy ranging from £3.5 million in 2006 rising to £17 million in 2019, the last year before the introduction of the Congestion Charge.

The illustration of the potential capital funding available through the LTP process shown in Section 21.10, suggests that funding allocations in line with those given currently would provide much of the capital funding required. W hen monies which will hopefully be secured through regeneration sources and developer contributions are added to this, the capital funded elements of the strategy are likely to be affordable. Indeed should extra monies be secured through the LTP process as a result of the submission of a high quality LTP, this may mean that LTP funding could pay for all or nearly all of the capital funded elements. This would mean that more funding derived from other sources would be available to provide revenue funding for the strategy. This could apply particularly to

300

developer contributions.

The revenue subsidy requirement in contrast gives some cause for concern. There may be some possibility of reducing the revenue subsidy required through the innovative use of capital resources (e.g to purchase new buses using LTP capital funds to increase service capacity), but it is still likely that up to £10 million per annum could be required for the period immediately preceding the introduction of the Congestion Charge. There are three main sources of funding potentially available address this:

• local authorities funds (although transport will have to compete with other calls on funding); • the adoption of a strategy based developer contribution scheme, whereby the developer pays a sliding contribution per dwelling or per square metre of employment space, based on the locational accessibility of their development; and • the Government’s new “Transport Innovation Fund”, which it is understood is being established specifically to address funding gaps within demand management based transport strategies.

The pursuance of each of these three funding sources will be essential to the success of the strategy. The components of the strategy would appear to be consistent with the requirements of the Transport Innovation Fund, which will hopefully mean that the strategy will be able to obtain funding through this source, although it is recognised that competition for such funding is likely to be fierce.

A key element in the application for such funding will be the long term affordability and financial sustainability of the strategy, which, with the introduction of Congestion Charging is predicted to provide a considerable financial surplus. This would provide some assurance to Government that they would not have to make an open ended commitment to provide such funding. There could also, on the face of it, be a possibility that this funding could be provided on the condition that a proportion of the financial surplus predicted to be available in the long term, is paid back to central Government.

Overall therefore, the strategy is likely to be affordable in terms of the capital funding required. Securing the revenue funding required from the potential sources listed earlier in this section will be an important challenge faced during the early years of the strategy.

22.4 Supporting Analysis – Practicality and Public Acceptability

The assessment of the strategy is presented in summary form in Table 22.5, which is shown overleaf.

301

Category Assessment

Feasibility – W hat is the The strategy is highly likely to be implemented, subject to the approval of elected members in the two local highway authorities. likelihood of the strategy being It is likely that sufficient funding will be available and given elected member approval, political backing will be in place. implemented? Enforcement – Does the strategy The introduction of Traffic Free Bus Corridors and Congestion Charging will both require a range of enforcement measures to require other supporting be introduced, including the possible use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems and traffic regulation orders. W ere a enforcement measures to ensure it Quality Contract to be required for bus services, the local transport authorities would be required to apply to the DfT to is effective? introduce the necessary legislative powers. The introduction of wider parking controls in Newcastle would require the Borough Council to introduce decriminalised enforcement (it is already in place in the Stoke-on-Trent City Council area). Area of interest (‘breadth’ of The strategy applies to the whole of the North Staffordshire conurbation (shown as the Core and Inner Study Areas in Figure the decision). W hat is the scale 2.1). It applies to transport movements within, to and from and through this area, in particular from the Outer Study Area (also of the strategy? shown on Figure 2.1), which represents the typical travel to work area. The two local transport authorities, Stoke-on-Trent City and Staffordshire County Councils will be adopting the strategy jointly and submitting a joint North Staffordshire LTP. Complexity (‘depth’ of the The strategy does involve a wide range of transport schemes, initiatives and measures, which are very much complimentary. decision). Does the strategy or Strong co-ordination will be vital, both between these measures and with other key policy areas such as land use planning, health plan involve numerous co- and education to ensure the strategy’s success. ordinated elements? Timescale – W hat is the The strategy is for 15 years, running from 2006 to 2021, but the effects of the strategy will be significant beyond this period, strategy’s timescale and its effects? particularly as Congestion Charging is not introduced until the end of the strategy. Phasing – W hat is the phasing of The phasing over the 15 years covered is set out in detail in Chapter 24. In essence it involves the creation of a much improved the strategy? ‘offer’ of non car mode provision to be implemented in the short to medium term, including a step change improvement in bus services, introduction of Park and Ride, measures aimed at W inning Hearts and Minds, aggressive promotion of walking and cycling and the introduction of traffic free bus corridors. These will combine to create a non car mode ‘offer’ of high quality to allow the introduction of Congestion Charging in the long term.

302

Partitioning – can the strategy be The strategy has been broken down into a series of discrete measures (shown in Chapter 19). There is a high degree of broken down into a series of interaction between these measures though and the withdrawal of any one of them from the strategy would significantly weaken simpler, discrete components? its impact. This particularly applies to Congestion Charging, which if it was removed from the strategy would fundamentally Does the strategy have the ability weaken it as the economic and financial case for the strategy depend heavily upon it. Overall, therefore, the strategy needs to be to be broken down into smaller implemented in its entirety to ensure its positive impact. manageable units?

Complementarity – Do the The strategy is consistent with both the regional and national transport strategies. It is also consistent with emerging land use measures conflict with others that policy in North Staffordshire, which is looking to strengthen the Urban Core of the conurbation. This strengthening will increase have been or are likely to be the effectiveness of the strategy, in particular those elements which are aimed at improving public transport provision. The made? allocation of a number of employment sites located away from the central part of the conurbation does conflict to an extent with the strategy as these sites (if they are included in the Local Development Frameworks) will be difficult to serve by public transport. The strategy is also consistent with the aims of the Housing Market Renewal Programme, which is aimed at significantly enhancing the urban environment, including improvements in the facilities and conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. The measures contained within the strategy will also help to deliver the regeneration of the North Staffordshire conurbation, examples include the improvements to non car based accessibility to employment sites and an increase in the viability of the main centres resulting from the introduction of improved bus services and Park and Ride.

Political nature of policies and The strategy will need to be ratified by both local transport authorities. It is recognised that this strategy is not an ‘easy option’ in proposals – How does the that some of its measures are likely to be controversial, for example the introduction of Traffic Free Bus Corridors and strategy relate to the way that Congestion Charging. Subject to the strategy being ratified, it will require strong political support to ensure its success. This political choices are made? support will need to recognise that a realistic alternative strategy which does not promote non car modes ahead of the private car is highly unlikely to be deliverable as it would be unlikely to attract Government funding.

303

Public Acceptability of the Opinions on the strategy have been gathered from a series of three Participation W orkshops attended by over 100 local strategy Stakeholders, which were held in late 2004. Whilst some concerns were expressed about some of the measures, there was overall support from Stakeholders for the strategy. Strong support was given for the proposed improvements to bus services, the introduction of Park and Ride, measures aimed at W inning Hearts and Minds and the promotion of walking and cycling. The policy of only including limited highway improvement schemes met with little opposition, with there being no strong call for a ‘roads based’ strategy. Some concerns were expressed about the introduction of Traffic Free Bus Corridors, particularly about their possible impact on traffic congestion and difficulties in enforcement. The unilateral introduction of Congestion Charging in North Staffordshire in the absence of similar schemes in competing neighbouring settlements was strongly opposed. The proposed introduction of Congestion Charging in the long term, only as part of a national scheme where neighbouring settlements have also introduced it, sharply divided Stakeholder opinion, with around half of Stakeholders favouring its introduction under these circumstances. The proposed increases in parking charges generated some opposition as a significant proportion of Stakeholders thought that existing charges in Hanley are already too high.

Table 22.5: Practicality and Public Acceptability

304

23 The Rejected Strategy Variants

23.1 Introduction

The preceding four Chapters have described the Preferred Strategy and its overall performance. In developing this strategy however, a number of difficult issues had to be addressed as indicated at the start of Chapter 19. These revolved around three key issues. These being:

If the strategy is to include a network of traffic free bus corridors, extending throughout the inner area of the conurbation, would: • the expected benefits in terms of improved public transport operation, improved overall public transport accessibility and increased ridership materialise?; and • would conditions, away from the bus corridors remain acceptable?

In terms of the Park and Ride component of the strategy: • is it better to provide a two or three site based system?; and • if a three site system is preferred should the central northern site be located at Etruria Valley or Chatterley Valley?

Is there merit in introducing some form of eastern bypass into the longer term vision for the strategy so as to minimise the boundary impacts of the congestion charging component of the strategy.

This Chapter sets out to examine each of these issues and to provide reasons as to why decisions were made in selecting the Preferred Strategy in its final form.

23.2 The Impact of Removing the Traffic Free Bus Corridors

W ithin the previous four Chapters it has been shown that the provision of the traffic free bus corridors will help to improve the reliability and image of public transport. It has also been shown however, that in their own right, the traffic free bus corridors do not provide economic benefits and also, to a limited extent, they create some new traffic problems on neighbouring roads. The issues that needed to be addressed were therefore: • In terms of the overall strategy, is it better to include these traffic free bus corridors so as to enhance public transport, albeit that their inclusion will create some minor new problems? or • Is it better to leave them out?

A second sub question was also raised, this being:

305

• would it be sensible to create a new road corridor, along the alignment of the Eastern Inner Relief Road (See Chapter 15) so as to provide replacement capacity to mitigate for the removal of the two northern traffic free bus corridors from the general road network?

In terms of answering both of these questions the starting point must be to ask what we are ultimately trying to achieve through implementing the strategy. Is it: • much improved travel times for general traffic; or is it • the creation of a better public transport system and an improved environment.

It is our opinion that while it is important to try and at least maintain existing conditions for general traffic, it is not necessarily imperative that these conditions should be made better than those which exist today, particularly if the costs associated with such improvements are realised in the form of a poor public transport system or a compromised environment.

On this basis we set out to examine, using the study’s purpose built multimodal model, the impact of removing the traffic free bus corridors from the strategy. The key findings are set out in Table 23.1. As before the figures in curved parentheses relate to 2002 Base Year and those in square parentheses relate to the 2021 Reference Case. The final set of numbers within the remaining set of parenthesis relate to the situation in the 2021 Preferred Strategy situation.

This shows that the key impact of removing the traffic free bus corridors is to: • increase general traffic speeds in the urban area from 31.4 kph to 33.15 kph. This latter figure compares with today’s average speed of 31.0 kph; • to reduce bus based public transport travel speeds from 22.7 to 21.0 kph. This latter figure compares with today’s average speed of 20.4 kph; and • to reduce the overall number of vehicle kilometres travelled by general traffic, on the core trunk road system, by 1.68 percent.

306

Vehicular Vehicular Average Travel Travel Travel Distance Time Speed (KM x 1000s) (Hours) (KM /h) a) Private Car and Goods Vehicle By Location 421.3 12700 33.2 {427.9} {13630} {31.4} i) Travel in Urban Areas [ 488.4 ] [ 17985 ] [ 27.2 ] (421.1) (13575) (31.0) ii) Travel in Rural Areas 547.7 6770 80.9 {554.0} 6900} {80.3} (including M6 [ 574.4 ] [ 7290 ] [ 78.8 ] M otorway) (438.8) (5340) (82.2) b) Private Car and Goods Vehicles By Road Type 380.0 4015 94.7 {382.9} {4050} {94.5} i) M otorway [ 390.4 ] [ 4155 ] [ 93.9 ] (285.7) (2960) (96.5) 169.8 3580 47.5 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 {172.7} {3885} {44.5} / A500) [ 180.1 ] [ 4445 ] [ 40.5 ] (150.7) (3085) (48.9) 419.1 11875 35.3 {426.4} {12595} {33.9} iii) Other Roads [ 492.3 ] [ 16675 ] [ 29.5 ] (423.5) (12870) (32.9) 968.9 19470 49.8 {981.9} {20530} {47.8} c) Overall [ 1062.8 ] [ 25275 ] [ 42.1 ] (859.9) (18915) (45.5) 4.2 195 21.0 {4.2} {185} {22.7} Urban Bus [ 3.1 ] [ 175 ] [ 17.9 ] ( 3.1 ) ( 150 ) (20.4 ) 0.7 28 22.8 {0.7} {28} {23.2} Park and Ride [ 0.0 ] [ 0.0 ] [ 0.0 ] ( 0.0 ) ( 0.0 ) ( 0.0 ) 0.5 7 70.9 Rail (Based only on Trips {0.5} {7} {70.9} starting or finishing in [ 0.5 ] [ 7 ] [ 70.9 ] the study area) ( 0.5) ( 7) (70.9 ) 974.2 19700 49.4 {987.2} {20755} {47.6} All M odes [ 1066.4 ] [ 25457 ] [ 41.9 ] ( 863.5 ) ( 19072 ) ( 45.3)

Note: { }= 2021 Preferred Strategy; [ ] = 2021 Reference Case; ( ) = 2002 Base Year Table 23.1 Removal of Traffic Free Bus Corridors from the Preferred Transport Strategy - Vehicle Based Travel Characteristics by Mode, Location and Road Type (2021 Evening Peak Hour Period)

307

It is our view that the benefits that are likely to be gained through increasing general traffic speeds by 2.15 kph above today’s levels, coupled with the marginal (unnoticeable) reductions in overall levels of traffic activity (as measured in terms of vehicle kilometres travelled) will be far outweighed by: • the benefits associated with increasing public transport travel speeds by 10% above today’s levels, rather than 3%; • the step change that the creation of the corridors will have in terms of transforming the overall image of public transport; • the benefits associated with the relative improvements in public transport accessibility, gained through improving bus travel speeds (relative to today), while maintaining general traffic speeds at today’s levels; and • the environmental and road safety benefits that will be captured (at a noticeable level) within the traffic free bus corridors.

23.3 The Impact of Providing Replacement Capacity for the Northern Traffic Free Bus Corridors

Adding a new road into the Preferred Strategy, running in a north-south direction between the two northern traffic free bus corridors will undoubtedly have advantages in general traffic terms, reducing congestion in this part of the conurbation and removing some of the minor environmental problems that might arise in parallel roads to the east.

The disadvantages of providing such a road were, however, set out in Chapter 15 and are as follows. The new road could have impacts: • on an established wildlife corridor; • the glacial erratic within Tunstall Park; • the National Cycle Route No.5; and • properties along the line of the new road, the occupiers of which would be subjected to newly created traffic related noise and local air quality problems.

These considerations, coupled with the fact that such a road would: • cost several million pounds to construct; and • be incompatible with the overall strategy aims of encouraging the exercise of travel choice decisions, particularly for those travelling to the city centre (this road would form a new radial into the city centre) have lead us to conclude that, on balance, it would be better to address the issues that may arise in streets to the east of the northern traffic free bus corridors through the use of traffic calming measures rather than adding a new road into the city’s road network.

308

23.4 The Impact of Adopting Different Park and Ride Solutions

The form of the strategy’s Park and Ride component was discussed in detail in Chapter 13. It was concluded within that Chapter that the sites needed to be located within the “heart of the conurbation” rather than at the edge. It was also generally concluded that a solution based on three Park and Ride sites would perform better than one based on two sites.

The difficult issue that was not resolved at that time was whether it was better to provide a three site solution utilising sites at Chatterley Valley, Sideway and Bucknall or sites at Etruria Valley, Sideway and Bucknall.

The key choices being that the package that included Etruria tended to attract more Park and Ride activity, because of its central location, but it also resulted in an increase in private vehicle kilometres driven..

W ithin the final Preferred Strategy, the introduction of congestion charging further complicates the Park and Ride debate, because the Etruria site is placed within the general confines of the congestion charging zone (albeit, it can still be accessed from the A500(T) without paying the charge), while the Chatterley Valley site is located to the north (see Figure 23.1).

Because of all these factors it was decided that it was necessary to revisit the whole issue of Park and Ride site locations within the context of the Preferred Strategy. This section of the report therefore re-examines the operation of all of the “heart of conurbation” Park and Ride options in the context of the Preferred Strategy. The options examined in Chapter 13 were:

a) Option 1 (The Preferred Strategy) • Bucknall: • Chatterley Valley; and • Sideway.

b) Option 2: • Bucknall: • Etruria; and • Sideway.

c) Option 3: • Bucknall: and • Etruria.

309

The format of each has already been depicted in Figures 13.2 to 13.4. It should be noted, however, that with the congestion charging scheme in place, access to Etruria site from the east will be more difficult as the A53, Limekiln lights area will be within the congestion charging zone.

Again, the operation of each option has been assessed using the study specific multimodal transport model and the same statistics, as extracted in Chapter 13, have been examined These are set out in Tables 23.2 and 23.3. In this instance, however, the statistics relate to the operation of the different options within the context of the Preferred Strategy, rather than the 2021 Reference Case. For completeness, Table 23.2 also sets out conditions with the Park and Ride element of the strategy removed.

The first two key findings from these tables is that the three site Park and Ride options (Option 1 and 2) tend to perform better that the two site option (Option 3).

The second finding, however, is that the overall impact of any Park and Ride scheme within the Preferred Strategy is small. Despite this second finding however, it is our view that Park and Ride must be included within the strategy as it offers car users, particularly those coming from outside the conurbation, a viable alternative to paying the congestion charge. The proof that this choice is being exercised is illustrated by the fact that usage of the Park and Ride sites increases to around 2000 vehicle movements per hour (in the 2021 evening peak hour) with the Preferred Strategy in place, compared with a meagre 400 to 550 movements per hour when Park and Ride was introduced in isolation.

The third finding is that in usage terms the three site solution based around Etruria still tends to attract more users than the alternative solution utilising Chatterley Valley. The other key difference between the two three site options is that the Chatterley Valley based option will be more expensive to operate as it involves Park and Ride buses travelling for longer distances.

Based on the above two findings it would appear to be logical to adopt the three site Park and Ride solution based around Etruria, rather than the Chatterley Valley based option.

W e have however not made this choice for the following reasons: Both the Etruria Valley and Chatterley Valley areas are seen as being prime development sites within the current Local Plan, with the second being designated as a location where good quality employment opportunities should be provided.

310

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 1 2021 Reference Option Strategy) Ride and Park 2 Preferred (2021 Option – Ride and Park 3 Option – Ride the and Park within Strategy Ride and Park No Preferred

Private Car and Goods Vehicle

a) By Location i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 31.4 31.7 31.2 31.2 ii) Travel in Rural Areas 82.2 78.8 80.3 80.4 80.3 80.4 (including M6 M otorway) b) By Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 94.5 94.5 94.4 94.6 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 48.9 40.5 44.5 44.6 43.9 43.9 / A500) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 33.9 34.1 33.7 33.6 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 47.8 48.1 47.6 47.5 Urban Bus 20.4 17.9 22.7 22.5 22.3 22.3 Park and Ride Bus - - 23.2 19.7 17.8 - Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 study area) All M odes 45.3 41.9 47.5 47.9 47.4 47.3

Table 23.2: The Preferred Strategy with differing Park and Ride Options - Average Travel Speeds by Mode (kph) (2021 Evening peak Hour Period)

311

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021 Reference 1 Option Strategy) Ride and Park Preferred (2021 2 Option – Ride and Park 3 Option – Ride and Park

Chatterley Valley - - 650 - -

Etruria - - - 1000 1050

Sideway - - 1100 1050 -

Bucknall - - 200 200 225

Overall Total - - 1950 2250 1275

Table 23.3: The Preferred Strategy with differing Park and Ride Options – Cars Entering and Leaving Park and Ride Sites (Evening Peak Hour Period, 2021)

At the current time however, both sites (and Chatterley Valley in particular) are very poorly served by public transport and unless action is taken, any new development at either location is likely to be highly car dependent.

This situation could be reversed however, if good quality public transport connections could be provided between Chatterley Valley, Etruria Valley and the other key locations within the conurbation (i.e. Hanley, Newcastle, Stoke town centre and Stoke Railway Station).

Through providing the northern most Park and Ride site at Chatterley Valley, rather than at Etruria Valley, the opportunity arises to gain a high quality public transport link to both development sites, through the creation of a link road through the Etruria site to the W olstanton Retail Park interchange on the A500 (T).

312

In reality, the additional travel time between the sites is only some five minutes via the “D road” and through providing the Park and Ride site at Chatterley Valley, rather than at Etruria, it would be located at the northern gateway to the conurbation, rather than within the central area.

It should be noted, as an aside, that an additional reason for choosing the three site based solution over the two site based solution, is that the provision of a Park and Ride site at Sideway could have a similar impact to that described above, with the Park and Ride services doubling up as a high quality public transport link between Sideway (and the Trentham Lakes development) and Hanley, Newcastle and Stoke / Stoke Station.

W e realise that making this decision will have moved away from the currently preferred Park and Ride strategy that we recently identified for the Council. W e additionally realise that the above approach seeks to address the longer term development issues at Chatterley Valley, rather than addressing immediate need.

There is no doubt that in the context of today, without congestion charging in place and without any development at Chatterley Valley, it would be more sensible to provide the northern most Park and Ride site at Etruria Valley. W ith this in mind, there may be a rationale in adopting a phased approach to the provision of this site. In the • short to medium term a smaller Park and Ride site, of say 1000 spaces, could be established at Etruria Valley, with the new access link being constructed between the Wolstanton Retail Park Interchange and the Etruria Valley; then • longer term, with the development of Chatterley Valley the site could be re-located, with the new link road being used primarily as a public transport access corridor between the A500(T) and Etruria Valley, Festival Park and Hanley.

It would also be possible, in the longer term, should the levels of demand warrant it, to keep both sites open and operate the Park and Ride buses to both sites (especially as the route from Chatterley Valley to Hanley would pass through Etruria Valley). This option would need to be examined carefully at the appropriate time.

23.5 The Impact of Adding an Eastern Bypass to the Strategy

The final outstanding question relates to the introduction of new roads on the eastern side of the conurbation, so as to mitigate any possible impact from the boundary effects of a congestion charging scheme.

In Chapter 15 the idea of promoting an Eastern Bypass was mooted. At that time it was found that such a scheme, if introduced in isolation,

313

primarily had the impact of increasing car based accessibility in the outer eastern areas of the conurbation, while at the same time potentially raising a number of new environmental problems within the corridor where the new road might be created.

Nonetheless, the introduction of the congestion charging scheme might give rise to some minor rerouting problems on the eastern side of the conurbation which could either be addressed, as suggested, through the introduction of traffic calming measures or through the creation of an alternative outer route.

This last section of this Chapter looks again at the impact of an Eastern Bypass within the context of the Preferred Strategy.

So as to fully understand the issues two alternative schemes have been examined. The first extends along the full eastern side of the conurbation and the second simply links together the roads in the south eastern quadrant of the conurbation. The two schemes that have been examined are shown in cartoon form in Figure 23.2.

These two additions to the Preferred Strategy have again been assessed through the use of the study specific multimodal transport model. Table 23.4 sets out the resulting average travel speeds with each of the new roads in place and Figures 23.3 to 23.6 show how traffic flows change and how the addition of the roads increases car based accessibility over and above that which exists in the Preferred Strategy situation.

The net effect of introducing these road schemes is to increase travel speeds significantly above those that exist today and to further increase car based accessibility in the eastern suburbs.

W hile the addition of either road will ensure that any boundary effects related to the congestion charging scheme are completely removed, the cost related to gaining this benefit is high. This would be the case not only in terms of the costs associated with road construction and land acquisition, but also in terms of the environmental impact that such roads will have. The latter have been fully set out in Chapter 15 and could include impacts on the nationally designated Ford Green Reedbeds, impacts on established wildlife corridors and impacts on the Caldon Canal Conservation Area.

It is our considered view that the benefits that are to be gained through providing either of these road schemes are far outweighed by the likely impacts.

314

2002 Base Year Year 2002Base Case 2021Reference Strategy Preferred with Strategy Bypass Preferred Eastern full with Strategy Bypass Preferred Eastern South

a) Private Vehicle Travel by Area i) Travel in Urban Areas 31.0 27.2 31.4 33.5 32.5 ii) Travel in Rural Areas (including M 6 M otorway) 82.2 78.8 80.3 80.6 80.7 b) Private Vehicle Travel by Road Type i) M otorway 96.5 93.9 94.5 94.9 94.6 ii) Core Trunk Road (A50 /A500) (including Southern 48.9 40.5 44.5 46.7 46.1 bypass) iii) Other Roads 32.9 29.5 33.9 35.7 34.8 c) Overall 45.5 42.1 47.8 49.9 49.1 Urban Bus 20.4 17.9 22.7 23.1 22.8 Rail (Based only on Trips starting or finishing in the study area) 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 70.9 All M odes 45.3 41.9 47.5 49.6 48.8

Table 23.4: The Preferred Strategy with Different Forms of Eastern Bypass, Average Travel Speeds (kph) (2021 Evening Peak Hour)

315

316

24 Phasing and Implementation

24.1 Introduction

The work undertaken in this study forms the beginning of a very long and difficult process, rather than an end point.

As has been stated at several points throughout this report, the implementation of this strategy will be far from easy, not least because much of the funding will have to come from as yet unidentified revenue sources and the end point to securing such revenue funding will only be realised when the congestion charging component of the strategy is added.

Nonetheless, if it is the desire of decision makers to make a real positive difference to the day to day lives of those who live, work, own businesses or simply visit the conurbation then the adoption of this visionary transport strategy will contribute significantly towards that goal.

The purpose of this last Chapter is to put forward an outline implementation plan, that will allow the full strategy to be achieved within a period of just over ten years.

This plan envisages the need for capital expenditure averaging around £8 million per annum between 2006 and 2021. It also envisages that there will be a need to secure an annual revenue subsidy during this period. This will commence at around £3.5 million in 2006 and increase to around £15 million per annum by 2012, remaining at between £15 and £18 million until around 2020 when the congestion charging scheme is implemented. Beyond this date the Preferred Strategy is predicted to generate a revenue surplus of up to £25 million a year.

24.2 The Implementation Plan

The overall Implementation Plan is set out on Tables 24.1 to 24.5, which appear at the end of this chapter. These show the following: Table 24.1: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Public Transport - 1 Table 24.2: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Public Transport - 2 Table 24.3: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Park and Ride Table 24.4: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, "Winning Over Hearts and Minds" Table 24.5: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Fiscal Measures and Expenditure

317

24.3 Short Term - The First Five Years

This Strategy will effectively commence, with the submission of the joint second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) for the North Staffordshire conurbation. This is to be submitted in Provisional form in July 2005 and in Final form in March 2006. It will build upon the work already done in implementing the first Local Transport Plans (LTP1) produced for the area by Stoke-on-Trent City and Staffordshire County Councils. The key early activities within the first five years of the Strategy, which will coincide with the period covered by this joint North Staffordshire LTP2 (2006 to 2011), will include: • establishment of a conurbation wide Quality Bus Partnership or Contract that will secure a step change in the quality of existing bus services, together with the introduction of new bus services to the less well served urban areas. Examples of such services could be the Hanley to Lymedale and Outer Circular bus services outlined in Chapter 11. Additionally, Network Ticketing for all public transport services in North Staffordshire should be introduced. All of these issues were discussed within Chapter 11; • establishment of a Demand Responsive Rural Transport Call Centre, together with the implementation of demand responsive rural transport services and improvements to the existing Market Town based rural services. These activities were discussed in Chapter 12; • establishment of School Travel Plans, W orkplace Travel Plans and a Personal Journey Planning programme. These activities were discussed in Chapter 14; • creation of traffic free bus corridors in some of the less trafficked areas or in areas where the completion of the A500(T) pathfinder project will create surplus capacity in the short to medium term. These will initially include the corridor routes between Longton and Fenton, Fenton and Stoke, Stoke and Hanley and Festival Park and Hanley. The creation of traffic free bus corridors was discussed in Chapter 11; • improvements to Hanley Bus Station. This improvement was discussed in Chapter 19; • provision of Park and Ride sites, initially at Etruria and then additionally at Sideway. Park and Ride was discussed in Chapter 13; • establishment and implementation of a W alking Plan for the conurbation, concentrating initially on improving town centres and the pedestrian links into town centres. This was discussed in Chapter 14; • establishment and implementation of a Cycling Plan for the conurbation; concentrating on completing the existing cycle network, providing cycle

318

parking facilities and generally improving conditions for cyclists at key intersections This was discussed in Chapter 14; • adoption of a development planning policy that seeks to secure developer contributions that contribute, to some extent at least, towards funding of the revenue related elements of the strategy. This policy was discussed in Chapter 16; and • extension of current on-street parking controls within Hanley, Stoke and Newcastle and the gradual increase of on and off-street public car parking charges. The increased revenue created could be redirected towards addressing the revenue deficit of the strategy and paying for measures such as increased bus services. This was discussed in Chapter 16.

24.4 Medium Term - The Next Five Years

The intermediate phase of the Plan, between 2011 and 2016 will concentrate on: • completing the implementation of all of the above initiatives; • providing the remaining Park and Ride site at Bucknall. Park and Ride was discussed in Chapter 13; • creating additional traffic free bus corridors between Stoke and Newcastle and Hanley and Sneyd Green. The creation of traffic free bus corridors was discussed in Chapter 11; and • implementing future public transport interchange improvements, including improvements to Newcastle Bus Station. These activities were discussed in Chapter 11, with specific improvements to Newcastle Bus Station discussed in Chapter 19.

24.5 Long Term - The Last Five Years

Finally, during the period between 2016 and 2021 the strategy’s overall implementation will be completed through: • creating a new Park and Ride site at Chatterley Valley, to replace the site at Etruria. Park and Ride provision was discussed in Chapter 13, with an assessment of the relative merits of Chatterley Valley and Etruria Valley Park and Ride sites set out in Chapter 23; • completing the remaining four traffic free bus corridors between Hanley and Bucknall, Fenton and Hanley, Newcastle and Festival Park and Hanley and Tunstall. The creation of traffic free bus corridors was discussed in Chapter 11; • ultimately implementing the Congestion Charging Scheme This was discussed in Chapter 16; and • identifying and implementing calmed areas / 20 mph zones in the suburban areas of the conurbation. These activities were discussed under the W alking Plan section of Chapter 14 and were also discussed in Chapter 16 and

319

would be located in areas predicted to suffer from ‘boundary affects of the Congestion Charging scheme.

24.6 The Need for Ownership and Co-ordination

It will be seen from the above that much of the early part of the strategy implementation programme is aimed at putting processes in place, educating people about transport choices and “making a difference” in terms of improving the softer, more people orientated part of the transport system.

Many of these initiatives will require joint working between: • not only the three highway authorities of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Staffordshire County Council and the Highways Agency; but • the planning authorities in Newcastle-Under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands; • the regeneration organisations of Advantage W est Midlands, the North Staffordshire Regeneration Board and Renew; • local public transport operators, both at the formal bus based level and at the more informal taxi trade level; and • a wide range of other bodies and organisations including the local employers, the chambers of commerce, the health service, education departments and private sector developers.

Many of these organisations are represented at officer level within the current North Staffordshire Integrated Transport Study Steering Group and it would therefore be sensible to retain this forum, in an extended form, to oversee the implementation of the strategy.

It needs to be recognised however, that this strategy will only come to fruition if it has the full backing of those decision makers who can make a difference. It will therefore be important to raise the profile of the strategy by engaging both Councillors and Members of the relevant bodies in the decision making process at the earliest opportunity, perhaps through the creation of a Joint Member Level Board that has ultimate responsibility of securing the strategy’s funding and overseeing it financial management.

24.7 The Next Steps

In order to move the strategy forward it will need to gain the endorsement of all the participating local authorities and regeneration organisations. The strategy will additionally need to be discussed with a wider audience through the Local Transport Plan development process.

Subject to general approval being meet at these two stages the overall vision for the strategy will need to be set out within the forthcoming Local Transport Plan

320

and an outline indicative bid for the first tranche of necessary funding, up to the end of 2011, will need to be made.

In this respect it would be sensible to hold exploratory discussions at the earliest time with representatives from the Government Office for the W est Midlands to ascertain the likelihood of the required capital funding being made available (which should be done in the context of the recently published Planning Guidelines on LTP funding allocations described in detail in Section 21.10) and also to explore whether there is an opportunity to secure revenue funding for the revenue elements of the strategy through the Transport Innovation Fund.

Additionally, these discussions should explore the likelihood of securing Major Scheme Bid funding for elements of the strategy which are likely to cost in excess of £5million. A number of elements of the strategy could potentially be submitted as Major Scheme Bids including:

• Etruria Valley Park and Ride site and its associated bridge access over the W est Coast Main Line; • Traffic free bus corridors; • Hanley Bus Station (either redeveloped on its existing site or rebuilt on an alternative city centre site); and / or • Congestion Charging.

It would additionally be sensible to explore if there are any elements of revenue expenditure, such as the purchase of new buses or minibuses, that could be financed through the LTP capital settlement. Following on from receiving approval for the Local Transport Plan submission the key areas where resources will need to be allocated over the next 18 months will be in: • setting out the proposed form of the Bus Quality Partnership / Contract; • establishing an overall approach for providing demand responsive bus services in the rural areas; • developing an overall programme for the development of School Travel Plans, W orkplace Travel Plans and a Personal Journey Planning initiative; • establishing an overall W alking Plan and Cycling Plan for the conurbation; • formulating a strategy lead developer contribution scheme for the conurbation as a whole; • undertaking initial designs and consultations in connection with the extension of current on street parking controls within Hanley, Stoke and Newcastle;

321

• investigating the issues involved in securing lands for Park and Ride sites within the Etruria Valley, Chatterley Valley, Trentham Lakes/ Sideway and Bucknall areas; • investigating the issues surrounding the provision of a new access to the Etruria Valley area from the W olstanton Retail Park Interchange; and • undertaking initial designs for the first of the traffic free bus corridors.

322

Short Term Medium Term Long Term 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Implement Public Transport Component (Part 1)

Negotitate Quality Partnership / Contract

Implement Traffic Free Bus Corridors

Stoke - Hanley Fenton - Longton Stoke - Fenton Festival Park - Hanley Stoke - Newcastle Hanley to Sneyd Green Fenton - Hanley Newcastle - Festival Park Hanley- Tunstall Hanley - Bucknall

Real Time Information

Table 24.1: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Public Transport - 1

Short Term Medium Term Long Term 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Implement Public Transport Component (Part 2)

Implement Other Public Transport Infrastructure Improvements

Hanley Bus Station Newcastle Bus Station Other Interchange Improvements

Implement Through Ticketing

Improve Public Transport Services

Establishment of Demand Responsive Call Centre Introduce Demand Responsive Services Undertake Improvement of Existing Bus Services Improve Market Town Services Addition of New Orbital Bus Services Enhancement of Services to Outlying Business Parks Increase Overall Service Capacity

Table 24.2: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Public Transport - 2

323

Short Term Medium Term Long Term 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Implement Park and Ride Component

Etruria (Short Term)

Acquire Lands - Etruria (Short Term) Access Link - Wolstanton Interchange to Etruria Valley Layout Site - Etruria (Short Term) Commence Park and Ride Services - Etruria

Sideway

Acquire Lands - Sideway Access to Sideway Layout Site - Sideway Commence Park and Ride Services - Sideway

Bucknall

Acquire Lands - Bucknall Access to Bucknall Site Layout Site - Bucknall Commence Park and Ride Services - Bucknall

Chatterley Valley (Longer Term)

Acquire Lands - Chatterley Valley (Long Term) Access to Chatterley Valley Layout site Chatterley Valley (Long Term) Commence Park and Ride Services - Chatterley Valley

Table 24.3: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Park and Ride

324

Short Term Medium Term Long Term 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

"Winning Over Hearts and Minds" Component

Implement Non Motorised Mode Improvements

Walking Plan

Access to Town Centres Improvements within Town Centres Pedestrian Signage Improvement Wider Network Improvements Promotion

Cycle Plan

Extensions to Current Network Measures at Intersections Cycle Facilities Training and Promotion

School Travel Plans

Work Place Travel Plans

Personal Journey Planning

Calmed Areas / 20mph Zones

Table 24.4: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, "Winning Over Hearts and Minds"

325

Short Term Medium Term Long Term 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fiscal Measures COSTS TOTAL

Establish an Accessibility Based Developer Contribution Scheme Increase Extent of On-Street Parking Controls Increase Parking Charges in Real Terms Reduce Parking Charges to today's levels Construct Congestion Charging Infrastructure Commence Congestion Charging

Expenditure Profile (all in 2002 prices)

Capital 6.0 9.0 9.0 12.0 7.5 8.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 8.2 9.5 9.5 10.0 114.2

Revenue Expenditure 3.5 5.0 8.0 11.0 13.5 15.5 17.5 18.0 19.5 19.5 19.5 21.0 21.0 25.0 44.6 262.1 Predicted Income - 0.6 1.3 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 71.0 129.4 Revenue Subsidy Required 3.5 4.4 6.7 9.0 11.0 12.5 13.5 13.5 14.5 14.0 13.5 13.5 13.0 16.5 -26.4 132.7

Table 24.5: Implementation Plan for Preferred Strategy, Fiscal Measures and Expenditure

326