A483 Wrexham Local Model Validation Report

March 2020

NMWTRA

Mott MacDonald 2 Callaghan Square Cardiff CF10 5BT United Kingdom

T +44 (0)29 2046 7800 mottmac.com

NMWTRA A483 Wrexham

402166 0017 A P:\Cardiff\ERA\ITD\Projects\402495 A483 Wrexham KS2\6.0 Local ModelReports\LMVR\402495_A483 Validation WrexhamLMVR_v1.7 Report accepting changes.docx Mott MacDonald

March 2020

Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, NMWTRA United Kingdom

Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham Local Model Validation Report

Issue and Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A November W Davies/N Johnson/ S Arthur/C N/A DRAFT 2019 A Shaw Currie B January W Davies / A Shaw S Arthur C Currie FINAL 2020 C March 2020 W Davies / A Shaw S Arthur C Currie FINAL

Document reference: 402166 | 0017_C

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This Re por t has be en p rep are d solely for use by t he p arty w hich c om mission ed it (the 'Client') i n co nnecti on wit h the cap tione d p roject . It s hould not be used for any oth er p urp ose. N o p erso n ot her tha n th e Client or any party who has expr essly a gre ed t er ms of relia nce wit h us (the 'Recipie nt(s )') m ay r ely on the cont ent, info rma tion or any view s exp ress ed in the R epo rt. This R epo rt is co nfide ntial and c ont ains p rop riet ary in tellect ual p rop erty and we ac cept no duty of ca re, resp onsibility or li ability t o any oth er recipi ent o f this R epo rt. N o re pre sent ation , wa rran ty o r un dert aking , exp ress or i mplie d, is made an d no res ponsi bility or liability is acce pted by us to any p arty oth er t han the Cli ent or a ny Reci pient (s), as t o the accu racy or c om plete ness of th e info rm ation cont aine d in t his Rep ort. Fo r t he av oida nce o f do ubt t his Re port do es no t in any way pu rpo rt to includ e a ny leg al, ins ura nce or fin ancial advic e or opini on.

402166 | 0017 | A | March 2020 P:\Cardiff\ERA\ITD\Projects\402495 A483 Wrexham KS2\6.0 Reports\LMVR\402495_A483 WrexhamLMVR_v1.7 accepting changes.docx Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham Local Model Validation Report

Contents

Executive summary 1 Background 1 Base Model Construction 1 Base Model Calibration and Validation 1

1 Introduction 2 1.1 Project Background 2 1.2 Strategic Objectives 2 1.3 Purpose of the Local Model Validation Report 3 1.4 Layout of Report 3

2 Model Description and Data Requirements 4 2.1 Transport Model and Data Requirements 4 2.2 Existing Models and Data 4 2.3 Development of the A483 Wrexham Traffic Model – Overview 4 2.4 Geographical Model Coverage 5

3 Data Collection Summary 6 3.1 Data Used in Model Development 6 3.2 Traffic Count Data 6 3.3 Roadside Interview Surveys 12 3.4 Mobile Phone Data 13 3.5 Journey Time Data 16

4 Model Development – Network 18 4.1 Summary of Approach 18 4.2 Geographical Extent of Model and Network Hierarchy 18 4.3 Highway Link Coding 19 4.4 Simulation Area Junction Coding 20 4.5 Priority Junctions 21 4.6 Roundabouts 22 4.7 Signal Junctions 26 4.8 Merges and Diverges 28 4.9 Assignment User Classes 28

5 Model Development – Matrices 31 5.1 Overview 31 5.2 Zone Structure 31 5.3 Prior Matrix Construction 33

5.4 Roadside Interview Survey Matrix Build 34 5.5 Mobile Phone Data Matrix Build 36 5.6 Synthetic Matrix Build 38 5.7 Merged Matrix Build – Prior Matrix 40 5.8 Matrix Estimation 42

6 Model Development – Assignment 44 6.1 Overview 44 6.2 Highway Assessment Algorithm and Generalised Cost Parameters 44 6.3 Assignment Model Convergence 45

7 Model Calibration 48 7.1 Summary of Approach 48 7.2 Network 48 7.3 Matrix Estimation 48 7.4 Matrix Zonal Cell Values and Trip Ends 49 7.5 Trip Length Distribution 51 7.6 Analysis of Sector to Sector Movements 52 7.7 Conclusions 55

8 Validation – Network 56 8.1 Analysis of Paths 56

9 Validation – Assignment 64 9.1 Validation 64 9.2 Journey Time Validation 79

10 Conclusions 94 10.1 Base Model Construction 94 10.2 Network Construction 94 10.3 Matrix Construction 94 10.4 Base Model Calibration and Validation 94

Appendices 95

A. Speed Flow Curves – Network Coding Manual 96

B. Link Flow Validation Results 99

Executive summary

Background Mott MacDonald has been appointed by the North and Mid Wales Trunk Road Agent (NMWTRA) to construct a strategic model for the A483 at and to the south of Wrexham. The model will be utilised as a tool in assessing possible transport infrastructure options for the A483 at Wrexham and to contribute to the economic appraisal.

The purpose of the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) is to illustrate the development of the 2018 base model of the local highway for the A483 at Wrexham.

Base Model Construction The A483 Wrexham Model has been developed with the use of June 2018 traffic data as the base year. The model covers three time periods for an average weekday:

● AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00); ● Inter Peak Average Hour (10:00-16:00); and ● PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00). OS digital mapping and Google Maps have both been utilised, as well as additional site visit observations, to construct the network.

Origin destination trip information, which serves as the input to the trip matrix construction was derived from three principal sources of data:

● Roadside Interview Survey Data, ● Mobile Phone Data; and ● Census and Land Use Data – for constructing the Synthetic Gravity Model Traffic count data which was commissioned for the model time periods was utilised in multiple ways. This included the production of factors for both for expansion and time period adjustments for the construction of the trip matrices.

Base Model Calibration and Validation Both the traffic data and journey time data for the modelled time periods was separately and independently used in the calibration and validation of the traffic model.

The base year for the A483 Wrexham strategic model was validated in accordance with the appropriate WebTAG guidance (WebTAG – Unit M3.1).

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 2 Local Model Validation Report

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Background 1.1.1 The North and Mid Wales Trunk Road Agent (NMWTRA) has appointed Mott MacDonald Ltd to develop transport modelling tools for use in the assessment of infrastructure improvements on the A483 at Wrexham as part of the Key Stage 2 (KS2) of the Welsh Government’s linear Key Stage Approval process.

1.1.2 Wrexham is one of the key towns in Wales located in the north east corner of the country and serves as a key driver of economic, social and cultural activity. Wrexham’s main connection to the national road network is the A483. The A483 is part of the Strategic Route Network (SRN) running from Swansea to Chester through the heart of Wales.

1.1.3 In the vicinity of Wrexham, the A483 runs just to the west of the town, generally in a north/south direction. For the majority of its length the A483 is a single carriageway road. The section between the A5 at Ruabon (Junction 1) and Junction 38 of the A55 to the south of Chester is an all-purpose dual carriageway containing seven junctions, all of which are grade separated and Junctions 3 to 6 provide access to Wrexham.

1.1.4 The A483 Wrexham Bypass was constructed in the late 1980s and is perceived to experience congestion and delay at times.

1.1.5 The Welsh Government are seeking to maintain the operational capacity and robustness of the A483 and its junctions at Wrexham, while maximising the economic development potential of Wrexham.

1.1.6 As part of KS2, a Stage 2 WelTAG appraisal and technical assessment of options will be undertaken with a view to identifying a preferred solution. The work undertaken for the WelTAG Stage 1 in 2017 identified the requirement for more extensive and detailed modelling of the A483 at Wrexham. In advance of the WelTAG Stage 2 traffic modelling a comprehensive data collection exercise was undertaken to collect the traffic data required for construction, calibration and validation of the traffic models.

1.2 Strategic Objectives 1.2.1 Following stakeholder workshops undertaken as part of the Key Stage 1 (KS1) study, a set of objectives were defined, which covered all of the identified issues and nested these within the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 goals that have been established at a national level by the Welsh Government.

1.2.2 The objectives have been prioritised and placed into two tiers as listed in Table 1. Top tier objectives have equal highest weighting, with second tier objectives having equal weighting with each other.

Table 1: A483 Wrexham Scheme Objectives Tier Objective Top Tier Support and enable the LDP growth aspirations of Wrexham. Maintain the strategic function of the A483/A5 corridor by improving resilience and journey time reliability. Second Tier Reduce the high car mode share for journeys starting or ending within the Wrexham CBC area. Ensure the A483 is effective in serving local movements

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 3 Local Model Validation Report

Tier Objective Enhance connectivity, accessibility and transport network coherence for journeys that cross the A483 corridor. Source: Welsh Government

1.2.3 A set of three design objectives have also been established based on stakeholder workshop feedback. The design objectives are intended to guide the way in which short listed options are developed and will therefore need to be carried through to subsequent WelTAG stages. So, wherever possible any interventions should take account of these objectives too:

● Provide safe and convenient access for active modes at all new developments along the corridor; ● Future-proof the transport network for increased demand; and ● Future-proof the transport network with regard to maintenance liabilities.

1.3 Purpose of the Local Model Validation Report 1.3.1 The purpose of the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) is to demonstrate the development of the 2018 base model of the local highway for the A483 at Wrexham, detailing:

● The principal characteristics of the model; ● The data used to develop it; ● The methodology adopted to develop the highway demand; and ● The calibration and validation of the model 1.3.2 This report constitutes the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) of the A483 Wrexham KS2 SATURN highway traffic model. The data collected for the development of the model is detailed further in the A483 Wrexham Initial Traffic and Collision Report (ITCR) and the Traffic Data Collection Report (TDCR).

1.4 Layout of Report 1.4.1 The report is laid out in the following sections:

● Chapter 2 gives a description of the model and data requirements ● Chapter 3 establishes the data that has been used for the development of the model ● Chapter 4 illustrates the composition of the highway network ● Chapter 5 demonstrates the building-up of highway trip matrices ● Chapter 6 covers the assignment process in relation to model development ● Chapter 7 presents the work involved in calibrating the network and matrices ● Chapter 8 describes the model network and matrix validation ● Chapter 9 covers the model validation; and ● Chapter 10 provides a summary and conclusion.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 4 Local Model Validation Report

2 Model Description and Data Requirements

2.1 Transport Model and Data Requirements 2.1.1 The main requirement for the A483 Wrexham Transport Study is to have a robust model that can be used to facilitate optioneering for Wrexham and steer the WelTAG appraisal towards a preferred option. The model is to be capable of giving traffic forecasts to inform the economic appraisal, environmental appraisal and the operational design. Both the foundation of data and the model itself is to withstand scrutiny and have a geographical coverage representative enough to mirror strategic alternative routes.

2.1.2 The model was purpose-built to serve as an analytical and design tool for use in the A483 Wrexham Key Stage 2 (KS2) Study. In its construction the model incorporates a number of collected data sets, including traffic counts, roadside interviews and mobile phone data.

2.2 Existing Models and Data 2.2.1 Correspondence with the client, as well as a desktop review, revealed that at that time there were no available models already in existence that would be of any practical use in the Wrexham Transport Study.

2.2.2 The only readily available and suitable data sets are from the Traffic Wales permanent traffic count sites situated at various points on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) across Wales.

2.2.3 Data from these permanent count sites have been incorporated to highlight the historic traffic trends (long-term) in the proximity of the A483 Wrexham Study Area. These have been reported in the Initial Traffic and Collision Report.

2.3 Development of the A483 Wrexham Traffic Model – Overview 2.3.1 The A483 Wrexham Strategic Model has been built to characterise strategic traffic movements on the A483 between Junction 1 at Rosset and Junction 7 at Ruabon, while also representing traffic in Wrexham and its surrounding area, including Wrexham Industrial Estate.

2.3.2 The time periods modelled are as follows:

● AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00); ● Inter Peak Average Hour (10:00-16:00); and ● PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00). 2.3.3 The model comprises the following vehicle classes:

● Car - Commuting ● Car – Employers Business ● Car - Other ● LGV – Light Goods Vehicles ● HGV – Heavy Goods Vehicles 2.3.4 A plethora of traffic data has been collated for use in the building, the calibration and the validation of the A483 Wrexham Strategic Model, including traffic counts, journey time observations, and origin/destination data. The data collection completed has been reported in the Traffic Data Collection Report.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 5 Local Model Validation Report

2.4 Geographical Model Coverage 2.4.1 The model for the A483 Wrexham Study is broken down into three main areas, which are illustrated in Figure 1 and listed below:

● Core Model Area (CMA) - subject to detailed simulation network coding; ● Intermediate Model Area – subject to relatively detailed buffer network coding; ● External – a sparse buffer network connecting the model area with the remainder of the UK.

Figure 1: A483 Wrexham Strategic Model Extent

Source: Mott MacDonald/Ordnance Survey

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 6 Local Model Validation Report

3 Data Collection Summary

3.1 Data Used in Model Development 3.1.1 In order to build the base year model information is necessary in terms of both network performance and travel demand where,

● Network performance is an indication of network operation in the form of junction delays and travel times, and; ● Travel demand denotes travel patterns for a person’s travel both to and from locations and the traffic volumes between each origin and destination point. 3.1.2 A plethora of traffic data has been collated for use in the build, the calibration and the validation of the A483 Wrexham Strategic Model, including traffic counts, journey time observations, and origin/destination data. The data collection involved has been reported in both the Initial Traffic and Collision Data Report and the Traffic Data Collection Report. The formats of the data sets collected are listed below:

● Traffic Count Data – Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC); – Manual Classified Link Counts (MCLC); and – Manual Classified Turning Counts (MCTC). ● Origin Destination Data – Roadside Interview Survey (RSI); – Mobile Phone Data (MPD); – TEMPro data, and – Travel To Work (TTW) data. ● Journey Time Data – Trafficmaster Data – Moving Observer Surveys (Junctions 4 and 5 only).

3.2 Traffic Count Data 3.2.1 The traffic data used to establish the A483 Wrexham model is itemised in Table 2 with Figure 2 displaying the location of each survey. The ATC and MCLC data were used for either calibration and validation purposes, but not both, and the MCTC dataset was used for calibration purposes only. The traffic survey data is also utilised for conversion of various survey time periods to a June 2018 weekday average.

3.2.2 Traffic Count data recorded at the RSI sites (Ruthin Road and Mold Road) was used to calculate expansion factors for taking the interviewed sample to the full level of vehicles passing through the RSI sites.

Table 2: A483 Wrexham Traffic Count Locations ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location Manual Classified Link Counts (MCLCs) 1 336784, 360180 A483: A55- 2 334595, 355282 A483: J7 - J6

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 7 Local Model Validation Report

ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location 3 333210, 352537 A483: J6 - J5 4 331899, 350744 A483: J5 - J4 5 330959, 349315 A483: J4 - J3 6 331472, 346638 A483: J3 - J2 7* 331045, 344814 A483: J2 - J1 8 329858, 341555 A483: J1 - A5 Halton Roundabout 9 329963, 338525 A5 Halton Roundabout - Gledrid Roundabout 10 338348, 362523 A55 West of A483 (J38) 11 339251, 362950 A483 North of A55 J38 12 339671, 362604 A55 East of A483 (J38) ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) 13 338694, 361364 B5455 South of A483, Belgrave 14 336196, 356763 B5102 Between Rossett Interchange and B5445 15 338917, 355057 B5102, Between Holt and Trevalyn 16 341123, 354338 Bridge Street Farndon (south of River Dee) 17 340875, 353376 A534 Wrexham Road, East of B5130 at Holt 18 338359, 346194 A525 East of Cross Lanes 19 337221, 345316 A5426 between A528 (Cock Bank) and A525 (Bangor on Dee) 20 335440, 343053 A528 between Overton and Overton Bridge 21 331992, 345695 B5426 East of A483 J2 22 332091, 343271 A539 East of A483 J1 & B5097 23 330271, 336276 B5070 East of Gledrid Roundabout 24 329986, 335386 A5 South of Gledrid Roundabout 25 329817, 336202 Station Road, Rhoswiel, West of Gledrid Roundabout 26 328342, 337327 B4500, Chirk, West of B5070 27 328143, 340637 A5, Canal Side, West of B5605 28 329073, 343098 B5605 South of A539, Rhosymedre 29 328571, 343469 A539 West of B5605 30 330148, 343514 A539 West of A483 J1 31 329308, 344607 B5097 east of B5097 32 330903, 345831 B5426 East of A483 J2 33 324644, 353008 A525 Ruthin Road West of B5430 34 324693, 353342 B5430 North of A525 Ruthin Road 35 328688, 354925 B5101, Ffrith, North of B5102 36 331025, 356286 A541, Cefn-y-Bedd, between B5102 and A550 37 332324, 357176 B5373 between B5102 and Rhyddyn Hill 38 336405, 360280 Pulford Lane West of A483, Dodleton 39 338262, 362316 Rough Hill between A483 & Lache lane 40 332922, 350759 A541 Mold Road, West of Wrexham General Station 41 333241, 351149 Rhosddu Road, between B5101 & A5152 42 333618, 350938 A5152 between Price's Lane & A5152 43 333831, 350861 Park Avenue North of Powell Road 44 334020, 350605 Stryt Holt east of Tesco Extra 45 334011, 350162 Smithfield Road between Bertie Road & Oxford Street 56 333884, 350011 Caia Road East of Salop Road 57 333785, 349748 A525 East of Bennion Road

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 8 Local Model Validation Report

ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location 58 333683, 349708 Salisbury Road west of Bennion Road 59 333371, 349986 Chapel Street East of A5152 Bridge Street 50 333043, 349597 Fairy Road East of A5152 Bridge Street 51 332792, 349535 A5152 West of Fairy Road 52 332693, 349686 Bersham Road West of A5152 53 332564, 350042 A525 West of A5152 54 332734, 350397 Watery Road West of A5152 55 334094, 353764 B5445 North of A483 J6 56 334453, 353455 Old Wrexham Road North of A5156 57 334137, 353152 A5156 East of A483 J6 58 333853, 353103 A5152 South of A483 J6 59 335541, 352466 Borras Road North of A5156 60 336227, 351810 A534 East of A5156 61 336258, 351254 Bryn Estyn Road East of Cefn Road 62 335918, 349034 Cefn Road East of Abenbury Road 63 334768, 348842 A525 South of Bryn Y Grog Hill 64 333593, 348607 Sontley Road South of Ithens Way 65 332319, 348879 Hafod Road South of A5152 66 331398, 348416 Church Street South of A5152 67 330749, 347983 B5605 West of B5098 at A483 J3 68 330854, 348416 B5098 between B5097 & B5605 69 330607, 348564 B5097 West of B5098 at A483 J3 70 330835, 349213 UC Road West of B5098 (Bersham Heritage Centre & Ironworks) 71 330990, 350536 A525 West of A483 J4 72 331720, 350938 B5101 West of A483 at Caego 73 331843, 351124 Gatewen road West of A483 at Caego 74 332109, 351569 Summerhill Road West of A484 J5 75 332214, 351650 A541 Mold Road West of A484 J5 76 332431, 352070 Stansty Road between A541 Mold Road & A483 77 332969, 352775 Llay New Road West of A483 78 333080, 353177 Plas Action Road East of Llay New Road 79 334137, 355156 B5373 Gresford Road, West of A483 80 335368, 356961 Llay Road RSI 1 331956, 350062 Ruthin Road RSI 2 332644, 351010 Mold Road ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location Manual Classified Turning Count (MCTCs) 1 339016, 362529 A55/A483 (J38) 2 338911, 362208 A483/Rough Hill 3 338762, 361917 A483/Wrexham Road 4 335974, 356896 A483/B5102 Rossett Interchange (J7) 5 333884, 353341 A483/B5156 Gresford Interchange (J6) 6 332301, 351319 A483/A541 Mold Road (J5) 7 332455, 351201 Mold Road/B5101 8 331169, 350360 A483/A525 Ruthin Road (J4) 9 330971, 348202 A483/A5152 Wrexham Road (J3) 10 331416, 345729 A483/B54262 Bangor Road (J2)

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 9 Local Model Validation Report

ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location 11 330402, 343515 A483/A539 Llangollen Road (J1) 12 329926, 339842 A483/A5 Halton Roundabout 13 329976, 336275 A5/B5070 Gledrid Roundabout 14 335338, 352205 A5156/Boras Road 15 335879, 351750 A5156/A534 16 335131, 351259 Stryt Holt/Dean Road 17 334742, 351444 Borras Road/Rhosneni Lane 18 333953, 350159 Smithfield Road Roundabout 19 333632, 351351 A5152/Rhosneni Lane 20 333134, 351299 B2101/Rhosddu Road/Prices's Lane 21 333372, 350804 A5152/Rhosddu Road 22 333607, 350789 A5152/Powell Road 23 333848, 350470 A5152/Stryt Holt 24 333805, 350291 A5152/Smithfield Road 25 333761, 350090 Salop Road/Eagles Meadow Car Park 26 333697, 349914 A525/St Giles Way 27 333721, 349756 A525/Bennion Road 28 333409, 350130 St Giles Way/Bridge St/Brook St/Town Hill 29 333227, 349852 A525/A5152 30 332883, 349985 A525/A5152 31 332985, 349635 A5152/Fairy Road 32 332920, 349737 A5152/Bersham Road 33 333013, 350638 A541/Regent Street 34 333155, 350523 A5152/Regent Street 35 333063, 350464 A541/A5152 36 332206, 350949 B5101/Berse Road 37 332187, 350704 Croesnewydd Rd/Rhyd Broughton Lane 38 331767, 350092 A525/Croesnewydd Road 39 331284, 350278 A525/B5098 40 331099, 349202 B5098/B5099 41 333748, 350042 Salop Road/Caia Way 42 333818, 350703 A5152/Wrexham Asda/Waterworld 43 332992, 350333 A5152/Watery Rd 44 335737, 347651 A525/A528, Marchwiel 45 337554, 346952 A525/B5130, Cross Lanes 46 335668, 345821 A528/B5130, Cock Bank 47 340601, 353280 A534/B5102/Francis Lane, Holt 48 337228, 351867 A534/Industrial Estate Road 49 338088, 350877 Industrial Estate Road/Adenbury Way 50 339875, 348744 B5130/Oak Road 51 339600, 351153 B5130/Ridley Wood Road 52 337142, 348410 Cefn Road/Fffordd Sesswick 53 336315, 356749 B5102/B5445, East of Rossett Interchange 54 336771, 357283 B5102/B5445, Rossett 55 334652, 354380 B5445/B5373, Gresford 56 335641, 345141 A528/B4246 57 335382, 343225 A528/A529, Overton Bridge

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 10 Local Model Validation Report

ID Ordnance Survey Reference Road & Location 58 334478, 349230 A525/Abenbury Road 59 337299, 347215 A525/Ffordd Sesswick 60 333285, 356330 B5102/B5373, Llay 61 330858, 348126 B5605/B5908 62 330808, 348658 B5097/B5908 63 324983, 353119 A525/B5430, Coedpoeth 64 330895, 350633 A525/Heritage Way 65 332026, 350935 B5101/Gatewen Road 66 327800, 351804 A525/B5430/B5426, Bwlchgwyn 67 329542, 354924 B5101 High Street/B5102 Vicarage Road 68 331139, 356070 A541/Llay Road 69 332932, 356045 B5102/Llay New Road 70 329097, 337622 B5070/B4500, Chirk 71 331045, 356143 A541/B5102, Cen Y Bedd 72 328877, 339787 A5/B5070 73 328394, 340430 A5/B5605 74 329859, 343550 A539/B5605, Ruabon 75 330127, 346072 B5426/B5605 Johnstown Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 11 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 2: A483 Wrexham Traffic Count Locations

Source: Mott MacDonald/Ordnance Survey

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 12 Local Model Validation Report

3.3 Roadside Interview Surveys 3.3.1 Roadside Interview Surveys (RSIs) were undertaken at two locations in the vicinity of Wrexham on Tuesday 26 June 2018, covering the 12-hour period (07:00-19:00) at the following locations:

● A525 Ruthin Road (north-westbound direction between Croesnewydd Road and Homestead Lane) ● A541 Mold Road (westbound direction between Yale Park and Lilac Way) 3.3.2 In tandem with these interview surveys, a Manual Classified Link Count (MCLC) was undertaken at each of the two sites for the duration of the RSIs.

3.3.3 The surveys were undertaken by a well-established specialist data collection company, Nationwide Data Collection, who have considerable experience of undertaking these types of specialist surveys. As there were no suitable areas to remove traffic from the road at the survey locations in order to undertake the interviews off line the RSI sites were set up to operate on a stop/start basis with enumerators handing out a self-completion questionnaire to each driver. This survey method also helps to minimise traffic delay during periods of heavy traffic flows.

3.3.4 Table 3 and Table 4 show the expansion factors calculated at the RSI sites.

Table 3: RSI Expansion Factors (RSI 1 Ruthin Road) Hour Expansion Factors Car LGV HGV 07:00-08:00 4.6 31.3 6.7 08:00-09:00 4.7 24.3 24.6 09:00-10:00 5.1 10.7 22.9 10:00-11:00 4.8 17.0 9.8 11:00-12:00 5.1 13.7 28.5 12:00-13:00 5.8 50.2 14.6 13:00-14:00 5.1 21.3 20.5 14:00-15:00 11.4 56.7 20.0 15:00-16:00 8.3 15.6 12.7 16:00-17:00 5.8 49.4 5.4 17:00-18:00 6.4 25.8 3.2 18:00-19:00 7.2 16.9 5.3 Source: Mott MacDonald/NDC

Table 4: RSI Expansion Factors (RSI 2 Mold Road) Hour Expansion Factors Car LGV HGV 07:00-08:00 9.3 11.1 14.7 08:00-09:00 4.5 15.3 28.4 09:00-10:00 6.3 17.2 27.9 10:00-11:00 6.0 60.7 25.2 11:00-12:00 8.4 13.4 12.5 12:00-13:00 6.9 24.2 8.8 13:00-14:00 7.9 25.0 12.7 14:00-15:00 7.3 13.8 18.8 15:00-16:00 10.1 36.9 18.5

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 13 Local Model Validation Report

Hour Expansion Factors Car LGV HGV 16:00-17:00 6.5 15.0 12.2 17:00-18:00 11.1 21.1 2.6 Source: Mott MacDonald/NDC

3.4 Mobile Phone Data 3.4.1 Mobile phone data for June 2018 has been acquired from Citi Logik. The raw data is sourced from Citi Logik’s data supplier, Vodafone, and analysed using mathematical and spatial processes including the latest bespoke algorithms to produce trip matrices for the geofenced area shown in Figure 3.

3.4.2 The geofenced area was adopted following discussions between Citi Logik and the Mott MacDonald’s modelling team. The geofenced area is defined to be wider than the detailed model area as used by the Mott MacDonald’s modelling team as shown above in Figure 1, ensuring it covers both the simulation and intermediate model areas. This area will ensure the inclusion within the dataset of all trips travelling inside, from, to or through the study area. Citi Logik captured true trip start/ends for trips interacting with the study area.

3.4.3 Data was collected for each day of the week in June 2018 and trips aggregated into the following categories:

● Monday – Friday; and ● Saturday – Sunday. Trips are provided for the following four requested time period bands:

● AM Peak (07:00-10:00); ● Inter-Peak (10:00-16:00); ● PM Peak (16:00-19:00); and ● Off-Peak (19:00-07:00). The time period definition corresponds to the trip start if the trip started inside the study area, or to the time it entered the study area if it started outside the study area.

3.4.4 The Wrexham data collection period covered all weekdays from 02/06/2018 to 29/06/2018. This period is representative of 20 working days (Monday – Friday), with the trip matrices provided on a zonal basis based on census areas. These areas being a mixture of Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA) for rural areas and Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOA) for urban areas.

3.4.5 The data has been disaggregated within the Wrexham urban area and in the vicinity of the A483 between junctions 3 and 6. Census areas have been aggregated in the buffer and external network. The mobile phone data zoning system is compatible with the A483 Wrexham model zoning system.

3.4.6 No issues have been observed by Vodafone or Citi Logik with regards to possible abnormalities to observed traffic flows or operational procedures in the collected area.

3.4.7 While the coverage of trips in the geofenced area was good there were some rural areas where there was little or no mobile network coverage. These areas generally have low traffic volumes and will not impact significantly upon the validity of the use and spatial coverage of the data.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 14 Local Model Validation Report

3.4.8 For trip definition purposes, ‘dwell time’ refers to the time during which events for a particular mobile device are registered by the same cell. If such dwell time for a certain mobile device exceeds a minimum time threshold (currently set to 30 minutes) then its user experiences a ‘dwell’ and is deemed to be ‘static’ within the coverage area of the ‘dwell cell’.

3.4.9 Therefore, a ‘trip’ (or a ‘movement’) for a mobile device’s user is measured between any two of its adjacent dwells - from the time of the last event registered in the trip starting dwell cell until the time of the first event registered within the finishing dwell cell.

3.4.10 At the first stage of trip mode allocation all trips are split into three key categories based upon journey length and travel speed parameters:

● Static Trips – refer to mobile devices not moving for more than 30 minutes or moving within the coverage area of a single cell; ● Slow Mode Trips (walking and cycling) – refer to mobile devices that travel between trip starting and trip finishing cells at low speeds; and ● Motorised Trips – refer to mobile devices travelling between trip starting and trip finishing cells at higher speeds or for long distances. 3.4.11 Research indicates that the best thresholds in terms of speed and distance are:

● Speed - > 2.2 m/s = Motorised Trips; and ● Distance - > 5km (regardless of speed) = Motorised Trips 3.4.12 The vehicle type of the motorised trips cannot be identified and data from other sources, such as traffic count data is used to provide vehicle type proportions.

3.4.13 The inferred day-time (work) and night-time (home) location of a device is used to assign the trip origin and destination into one of the following:

● Home; ● Work; and ● Other. 3.4.14 Trip purpose is derived from rules relating to the trip Origin Destination (OD) combinations, such as home to work, other to home, etc. All trips have been allocated one of the following five trip purposes:

● Home Based Work; ● Home Based Other; ● Non-Home Based Work; ● Non-Home Based Other; and ● Unknown. 3.4.15 Any further disaggregation of trip purposes is undertaken using other sources of data, including census data and RSI data.

3.4.16 The processed trip data is available on a census area basis and is compatible with the model zoning system developed, which is based upon the various census area levels, primarily Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) and Middle Super Output Areas (MSOA).

3.4.17 Citi Logik have undertaken a number of verification checks, which are reported in detail in a technical note (TN02 – Mobile Phone Data Verifications), including:

● Device Trip Rates;

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 15 Local Model Validation Report

● All Modes Symmetry; ● All Purpose Symmetry; and ● Correlation between trips and Population. 3.4.18 Mott MacDonald has also undertaken a number of verifications comparing the data received with other data sources available, including:

● Census data; ● National Trip End Model; ● National Travel Survey; and ● RSI data.

Figure 3: Mobile Phone Data – Geofenced Area

Source: Citi Logik

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 16 Local Model Validation Report

3.5 Journey Time Data 3.5.1 Trafficmaster data has been sourced from the Welsh Government to provide journey time data for the highway network in the model area. This data was used to define journey time routes for the base model validation. The Welsh Government have Trafficmaster data for 2016 and hence this data has been used as a proxy for the 2018 data. The A483 Wrexham Traffic Model Journey Time Routes proposed for use in the model validation are shown in Figure 4. These cover all the key routes and a number of other routes across the entire CMA network area and were sufficiently robust data exists these will be used to validate the traffic model. Futher reporting on the Journey time data is provided in Section 9.2 and Journey Time Techical Note 402166-0093.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 17 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 4: A483 Wrexham Journey Times

Source: Mott MacDonald/Trafficmaster

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 18 Local Model Validation Report

4 Model Development – Network

4.1 Summary of Approach 4.1.1 The model network has been coded principally by utilising the Highways England Regional Traffic Models’ Network Coding Manual v 0.4 - 09 October 2015 (referred to as the ‘Network Coding Manual’ in this report).

4.2 Geographical Extent of Model and Network Hierarchy 4.2.1 The A483 Wrexham Traffic Model is split into three distinct areas:

● Core Model Area (CMA): Area of detailed simulation network coding focusing on the A483 between Junction 3 at Bersham and Junction 6 at Rossett together with the Wrexham urban area and the Wexham Industrial Estate. Modelling in this area is characterised by representation of all trip movements, small zones and detailed network representation with junction modelling; ● Intermediate Model Area: Area of relatively dense buffer network covering the immediate hinterland of Wrexham. Buffer model coding is based upon link capacities and does not include junction delay. This is used to ensure the correct loading of trips to/from Wrexham and the Wrexham Industrial Estate; and ● External Area: Network surrounding the CMA, which provides the robust loading and routeing of longer distance strategic trips. Buffer model coding is based upon link capacities and does not include junction delay. It is characterised by a great deal of zonal aggregation and a minimal road network. 4.2.2 The geographical extent of the CMA and Intermediate model areas are shown above in Figure 1.

4.2.3 The model network’s skeleton was built by drawing along the road network using a detailed OS background map in ArcMap (a GIS software tool). The SATURN simulation and buffer networks are shown in Figure 5. The location of the SATURN nodes and links coincides with the geographical location of the road network and junctions. The Simulation network is shown in yellow.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 19 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 5: A483 Wrexham SATURN Network – Simulation and Buffer Links

Source: Mott MacDonald

4.3 Highway Link Coding Speed Limits 4.3.1 For the majority of the CMA, speeds are based on the speed limit, and they are only adjusted where the characteristics of the road or driver behaviour observations showed a lower speed as being more representative of driver behaviour. Link speeds in the external network are based on signed speed limits.

4.3.2 Information on speed limits on the modelled road network (CMA, intermediate and external areas) has been gathered through the use of Google Maps Street View, supplemented by site visit data. SATURN defines speeds in terms of kilometres per hour (kph), with the various speed limits on UK roads being:

● 20mph = 32kph; ● 30mph = 48kph; ● 40mph = 64kph; ● 50mph = 80kph; ● 60mph = 96kph; and ● 70mph = 112kph.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 20 Local Model Validation Report

Link Capacities 4.3.3 Link capacities are taken from the Network Coding Manual, where they depend on road standards and number of lanes. For each link, the capacities have been checked for appropriateness and amended where appropriate.

Speed Flow Curves 4.3.4 In the CMA the most appropriate speed flow curves have been applied to the majority of links. The External Area contains few links and has been modelled as buffer, with the most appropriate free flow speed applied to the buffer links. The list of speed flow curves used is taken from the Network Coding Manual and these are listed in Appendix A.

Vehicle Restrictions 4.3.5 Google Maps, in conjunction with on-site observations, was used to identify links with Height, Width and Weight restrictions which were then coded in the model network. Figure 6 shows links with banned HGV movements related to low railway overbridges and narrow river bridges.

Figure 6: HGV Restrictions in the Model Area

Source: Mott MacDonald

4.4 Simulation Area Junction Coding 4.4.1 In the simulation area the effective operation of junctions will have a significant impact on network performance and route choice. As such, within this area junctions are coded in detail to include the junction type, number of approach lanes, priority/conflicts, signal timings, saturation flows and gap acceptance parameters (for give ways and roundabouts). As a result of this

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 21 Local Model Validation Report

approach the delay at junctions, by individual turning movements, can be modelled as well as junction interaction including the effects of blocking back of traffic and flow metering.

4.4.2 It is impractical to calculate a unique saturation flow for each individual movement at each junction. Instead, a series of typical values can be applied during the model build. During the calibration of the model at those junctions where this generic approach gives rise to any minor issues the junctions can be investigated and individual parameter values adjusted within the acceptable ranges.

4.4.3 For this model junctions within the simulation area have been coded using the Network Coding Manual. Figure 7 shows a graphical representation of the junctions coded in the CMA.

Figure 7: Simulation Area Junctions

Source: Mott MacDonald

4.5 Priority Junctions 4.5.1 The majority of the coded junctions in the CMA are priority junctions. Of the 498 nodes in the model 343 are simulated nodes in the CMA and the remainder are buffer nodes and external links to zone connectors.

4.5.2 Of these simulated nodes 292 (85%) are coded as priority junctions. A number of the nodes coded as priority junctions will be part of complex junctions which are coded as a series of priority junctions, as discussed in the roundabout, signals and merge/diverge sections below.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 22 Local Model Validation Report

4.6 Roundabouts 4.6.1 There are 28 individual nodes coded as roundabouts in the CMA. In addition, there are 12 large roundabouts coded as a series of complex junctions. This provides a total of 40 roundabouts coded in the CMA, which are shown in Figure 8.

4.6.2 The 12 complex junctions, modelled as a series of priority nodes and in some cases signalised nodes, are listed below. Junctions 5 and 6 of the A483 as well as the Plas Coch roundabout are all partially traffic signal controlled:

● A483 Junction 3; ● A483 Junction 5; ● A541 Plas Coch Roundabout; ● A483 Junction 6; ● A5156/Borras Rd/Borras Park Rd; ● A5156/A534/Stryt Holt; ● A534/Industrial Estate Rd; ● Industrial Estate Rd/Abenbury Way/Bryn Lane/Ash Rd North; ● A5152/ASDA Superstore; ● A5152 Stryt Holt/Tesco Superstore; ● A5152/Smithfield Rd/Market Street; and ● A5152 Smithfield Rd/Eagles Meadow Shopping Centre/A525. 4.6.3 The simulation node structures of the A483 complex roundabout junctions are shown in Figure 9 to Figure 11 for A483 Junctions 3, 5 (including Plas Coch) and 6 ,respectively.

4.6.4 The A483 Junction 4 is a 4-arm grade separated priority roundabout.

4.6.5 The A483 Junction 5 is a 5-arm grade separated roundabout, with partial traffic signal control of the A483 northbound and southbound offslips. Junction 5 of the A483 is located in close proximity to the Plas Coch roundabout and is also subject to partial signal control of both the A541 Mold Rd arms and the B5101 arm of the junction.

4.6.6 The traffic signals at the A483 Junction 5 and Plas Coch roundabout are operated together as part of a MOVA signal control system.

4.6.7 The A483 Junction 6 is a 7-arm grade separated junction subject to partial signal control on 4 arms, which are also controlled by a MOVA traffic control system:

● A483 Northbound offslip; ● A483 Southbound offslip; ● A5156; and ● A5152. 4.6.8 The MOVA traffic control layout and configuration files for the A483 Junctions 5 and 6, as well as the Plas Coch junction, were obtained from NMWTRA.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 23 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 8: Simulation Area Roundabouts

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 24 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 9: A483 Junction 3 – Junction Coding

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 25 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 10: A483 Junction 5 and Plas Coch – Junction Coding

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 26 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 11: A483 Junction 6 – Junction Coding

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

4.7 Signal Junctions 4.7.1 There are 23 signal-controlled simulation nodes in the CMA, some of which are part of complex junctions that are subject to partial signal control. Three of these partial signal controlled complex junctions are described in section 4.6 above. The traffic signal controlled junctions are shown in Figure 12.

4.7.2 A483 junction 4 is a grade separated traffic signal controlled junction and has been coded as a complex junction as shown in Figure 13;

4.7.3 The traffic controller information, including junction and signal configurations, was obtained by NMWTRA and has been supplemented by site visit observations at the A483 Junctions 4 and 5 and the Plas Coch junction.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 27 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 12: Signal Controlled Junctions

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 28 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 13: A483 Junction 4 – Junction Coding

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

4.8 Merges and Diverges 4.8.1 Junctions 3 to 6 of the A483 are grade separated junctions with merge and diverge slip roads to and from the A483 mainline. These merges and diverges have been coded as part of these complex junctions with special priority nodes with merge and diverge functionality.

4.9 Assignment User Classes 4.9.1 The car user class was divided further to named categories ‘Car Commute’, ‘Car Employers Business’ and ‘Car Other’ trips to allow for dissimilarities in the perceived costs of travel between various journey purposes. Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) have been given a default of ‘Employer’s Business’ trips. Other Goods Vehicles (OGV1 and OGV2) along with Passenger Service Vehicles (PSV) form the final two user classes, as shown in Table 5 and Figure 14.

4.9.2 The factors used to convert from vehicles to Passenger Car Units (PCUs) are shown in Table 6. TAG M-3.1 suggests a PCU factor of 2.5 should be used for HGVs on motorways and all-

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 29 Local Model Validation Report

purpose dual carriageways and a factor of 2.0 should be used on all other road types. For the purposes of this model, particularly in relation to the A483 and the Wrexham Industrial Estate, an HGV PCU factor of 2.5 has been used.

Figure 14: COBA Vehicle Classification

Source: Figure 8.1 COBA Vehicle Categories, DMRB Volume 13 Section 1

Table 5: Model User Classes SATURN User Class Vehicle Type Description 1 Car Commuting 2 Car Employer’s Business 3 Car Other 4 LGV Employer’s Business 5 HGV OGV1, OGV2 & PSV Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 30 Local Model Validation Report

Table 6: PCU Factors Vehicle Type PCU Factor Car/LGV 1.0 HGV 2.5 Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 31 Local Model Validation Report

5 Model Development – Matrices

5.1 Overview 5.1.1 This section covers the development of the base year travel demand. Given that variable demand modelling (VDM) will not be used, the 2018 demand matrices have been built in an origin-destination format as opposed to a production-attraction format.

5.1.2 The demand matrices produced represent the average vehicles in PCUs per hour for the following time periods:

● AM Peak: 08:00-09:00 ● Inter-Peak: 10:00-16:00 ● PM Peak: 17:00-18:00 5.1.3 The base year trip matrix construction has three basic stages for each of the three specified time periods:

● Prior Matrix – built prior to matrix estimation, using observed trip data from various sources; ● Matrix Estimation – a statistical process, using independent traffic count data, to improve the validation of the model, by refining the estimates of trips in parts of the model area where trips have not been fully observed or synthesised; and ● Post Matrix – final base year matrix produced in the matrix estimation process. 5.1.4 The latest WebTAG guidance has stringent criteria for the changes in flows ‘allowed’ by the matrix estimation process. The effects of matrix estimation upon the prior trip matrix should be minimised. Thus in order to achieve a validated model in line with the WebTAG validation criteria it is necessary to construct prior matrices as carefully and robustly as possible to avoid the need for significant matrix estimation.

5.1.5 The matrix merging process, used in the construction of the prior matrix for each time period, involved the combining of three sources of trip data in conjunction with traffic count data:

● Roadside Interview Data (RSI); ● Mobile Phone Data (MPD); and ● Synthetic Matrix Data (SMD). 5.1.6 The matrices created from merging RSI and MPD, which have been calibrated to the surveyed count data obtained, were further merged with synthetic trip matrices constructed from census and land use data.

5.1.7 These “prior” demand matrices were then put through a matrix estimation process, with the intent of covering trips that were generally very short and local in nature, which otherwise would not be covered by any of the data sources.

5.2 Zone Structure 5.2.1 The zoning system was based on the Census output area, utilising a combination of aggregated and disaggregated Medium Level Super Output Areas (MSOAs), Lower Level Super Output Areas (LSOAs) and Output Areas (OAs) in the different model areas:

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 32 Local Model Validation Report

● Core Model Area (CMA) – detailed zone structure using LSOAs and OAs, aggregated in some areas (e.g. suburban Wrexham) and split into smaller areas in certain locations for new development zones, such as the Western Gateway and the large residential Key Strategic Site at Lower Berse Farm, both of which are currently greenfield sites adjacent to the A483 Junction 4; ● Intermediate Model Area – a combination of LSOAs and MSOAs; and ● External – aggregated MSOAs to represent the remainder of the UK.

Figure 15: Model Zone Structure

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 33 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 16: Model Zone Structure (Wrexham Extent)

Source: Mott MacDonald

5.3 Prior Matrix Construction 5.3.1 The prior matrices for each of the three specified time periods were constructed using the observed trip data (RSI, MPD, SMD) in conjunction with traffic count data, National Trip End Model Data and Census Data.

5.3.2 RSI data provides a rich source of data with regards to vehicle trips, including trip patterns, and different trip purposes with vehicle classifications and demand segmentation. While individual RSI’s will provide a sample of fully observed trips in the vicinity of the survey site those trips away from the site trip movements will be only be partially observed.

5.3.3 To maximise the effectiveness of RSI’s it would be necessary to undertake a comprehensive series of such surveys covering the majority of traffic movements in the model area. But RSI’s are expensive to undertake with the potential for traffic disruption and delay. Particularly if there is a lack of suitable sites to safely and efficiently survey traffic without creating severe issues of congestion.

5.3.4 The two RSI’s that were undertaken were located in close proximity to Junctions 4 and 5, observing two of the main routes serving Wrexham and the A483. Therefore traffic accessing Wrexham and the A483 via the A525 (Junction 4) and A541 Mold Road are well represented in the survey data, but by necessity traffic further away from the RSI sites will only be partially observed, if the trip is observed at all.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 34 Local Model Validation Report

5.3.5 RSI’s are undertaken on one day over a 12 hour period, so they provide a small sample snapshot of trips across the model network on that day.

5.3.6 In the absence of numerous RSI’s covering the whole of the model network MPD was sourced from Citi Logik who gain their data from the Vodaphone network. This data was collected for the whole model area for the whole month of June 2018. This provides a large amount of trip data allowing for average trip matrices to be constructed over a much longer period than with RSI’s. The MPD data does not provide data on journey purposes or vehicle classifications, which is sourced from the available RSI, NTEM and census data sets.

5.3.7 While MPD provides a larger sample of trips that RSI’s there is still the necessity for expanding the sample to the whole population and this is undertaken using census population on a zonal basis. While this approach will be robust for residential areas, there tends to be an under estimate of commercial and employment trips. This issue with MPD can be resolved using other sources of data, such as census and land use data as well as traffic count data.

5.3.8 As with the MPD the synthetic trip matrices provide trip data across the whole of the model area and is reliant upon census, NTEM and land use data to provide zone to zone trip totals. While there is a degree of demand segmentation possible (e.g. Census Travel to Work Data) journey purpose data is required from other sources, i.e. RSI data.

5.4 Roadside Interview Survey Matrix Build 5.4.1 For the purpose of this model, Roadside Interviews were carried out on Ruthin Road and Mold Road respectively on Tuesday 26 June 2018, during the hours of 07:00-19:00 at the following locations:

● A525 Ruthin Road (north-westbound direction between Croesnewydd Road and Homestead Lane) ● A541 Mold Road (westbound direction between Yale Park and Lilac Way) 5.4.2 The following information was collected from motorised vehicle users:

● Time of the interview (determined by the card ID number); ● Vehicle type; ● Vehicle occupancy; ● Origin address; ● Origin purpose; ● Destination address; and ● Destination purpose. 5.4.3 Data processing of the raw interview data involved a number of checks to ensure only clean data records were used in the subsequent matrix construction. The raw data records were allocated into one of four categories, with logical and reversed trip records retained as valid records and the illogical and void records discarded as invalid records:

● Logical - trip origin and destination logical ● Reversed – trip origin and destination logical if direction of recorded trip reversed ● Illogical – trip origin and destination illogical to be captured by the RSI site, even if direction of recorded trip reversed ● Void – interview data incomplete

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 35 Local Model Validation Report

5.4.4 Trips were then allocated an origin and destination zone, based on the addresses provided, and an overall purpose, based on the purposes provided, from the following:

● Commute; ● Employer’s Business; and ● Other. 5.4.5 Table 7 presents the sample sizes and traffic flows from the associated manual classified count for the RSIs. These sampling rates are for the number of completed interview forms received and for the number of valid records identified during the data processing, checking and cleaning undertaken. The sample rates for the roadside interviews are similar for both sites and exceed 14% valid records, which is an excellent return and confirms that this is a robust sample rate for the RSIs. Therefore, the data provides a good evidence base for the production of trip matrices from the surveyed data.

Table 7: RSI Traffic Flows (All Vehicles) and Sample Rates Location MCLC Interviews Raw Data Clean Data Count Collected Sample Rate Sample Rate RSI1: A525 (Ruthin Road) 6,392 1,150 18% 16% RSI2: A541 (Mold Road) 6,177 1,029 16% 14% TOTAL 12,569 2,179 17% 15% Source: Mott MacDonald/NDC.

5.4.6 The RSIs were carried out in the westbound direction only heading away from Wrexham, and eastbound trips were inferred from these as return trips distributed according to the time periods set out in section 5.1.2. In a few instances, the trip purpose had to be modified when transposing the trip to the opposite direction. The only trips affected are those going from (Employer’s Business) to (Educational Attendance/Leisure/Obtaining Services/Shopping/Visiting Friends) which have been classified as “Other” on the way there and as “Employer’s Business” when reversed. All other trips have the same purpose in both directions.

Table 8: RSI Data Estimated Trip Return Times Observed Time Transposed Time 07:00:00 16:00:00 08:00:00 17:00:00 09:00:00 18:00:00 10:00:00 13:00:00 11:00:00 14:00:00 12:00:00 15:00:00 13:00:00 10:00:00 14:00:00 11:00:00 15:00:00 12:00:00 16:00:00 07:00:00 17:00:00 08:00:00 18:00:00 09:00:00 Source: Mott MacDonald

5.4.7 The recorded trips were then factored on the basis of vehicle type to match the Manual Classified Link Count (MCLC) carried out simultaneously at the RSI site. This resulted in a matrix of observed trips in both directions at the RSI site.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 36 Local Model Validation Report

5.5 Mobile Phone Data Matrix Build 5.5.1 Mobile Phone Data (MPD) is an emergent data source for use in demand matrices. This methodology makes use of the most recent guidance captured by the Department for Transport (DfT) in the Catapult Recommendation Papers, utilising RSI data whenever possible.

5.5.2 Additional checks to those carried out by Citi Logik were made by Mott MacDonald once the data was obtained, which included:

● Ensuring that trips collected between external zones do logically pass through the simulation area; ● Checking that movements which generated the most trips are movements where high levels of traffic were expected; ● Comparing the trip purpose split per time period for the unexpanded and expanded data sets; ● Comparing total trip numbers in set areas where the A494 River Dee Crossing model and the A483 Wrexham model overlap. ● As part of these checks, it was observed that a number of zones were not allocated any trips, despite there being developments included in them. This was queried with Citi Logik, who refined the data to correct this. However, large areas of poor network coverage showed that some zones remained “trip-less”; this has been corrected by merging the identified zero trip zones with neighbouring ones. ● Additionally, the trip purpose pattern throughout the day did not evolve in a way that classical data sets (RSI, TEMPro, etc.) would suggest. For example, the percentage of HBW trips remaining broadly unchanged throughout the day and due to this inconsistency the trip purposes in the demand model were separately deduced using independent sources. 5.5.3 Between commissioning the Mobile Phone Data and obtaining it, the zoning system used in the model was revised. This corrected for the lack of trips allocated by the MPD to zones with poor network coverage and these were merged with neighbouring zones to which trips would most likely to have been misallocated. The area of poor network coverage was relatively small, particularly with regards to population as the area concerned is located to the south west of Wrexham (the mostly rural and sparsely populated upland area including Ruabon Mountain and Eglwseg Mountain).

5.5.4 The difference between the two zone systems is displayed in Figure 17, with overlaps of the two zoning systems in purple.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 37 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 17: Model and Mobile Phone Data Zone Systems

Source: Mott MacDonald

5.5.5 Most changes related to small zones surrounding Wrexham being aggregated into larger zones. However, a number of large zones were also split to allow for more detail model assignments. To determine how trips were allocated in these situations, the Ordnance Survey product AddressBase was used, which allocates land use using Royal Mail data. This allowed for trips from a larger zone to be allocated to smaller zones based on density of settlements within those zones.

5.5.6 Once verifications and adjustments have been made, the MPD matrices was disaggregated to the A483 Wrexham Model segmentations. RSI and NTEM data were used to disaggregate the data with regards to journey purpose,traffic count data and vehicle classification.

5.5.7 The split between Car, LGV and HGV trips was deduced from the link and turning counts surveyed in June 2018. This was done by allocating to each zone one or more complimentary counts based on where trips would join and exit the simulation network, both in real life and in the model. These can either be a:

● Manual Classified Link Count (MCLC); ● Manual Classified Turning Count (MCTC); or ● Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) and a Manual Classified Turning Count (MCTC). 5.5.8 Note that no site was allocated one ATC site only, as ATC sites cannot differentiate between Car and LGVs whereas MCLCs and MCTCs can provide this level of differentiation.

5.5.9 The trip purposes used in the A483 Wrexham Model are as follows:

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 38 Local Model Validation Report

● Car – Commute; ● Car – Employer’s Business; ● Car – Other; ● LGVs; and ● HGVs. 5.5.10 Mode segregated was only carried out for the Car trips which were split into separate purposes using TEMPro data on car users extracted for this purpose.

5.5.11 Vehicle occupancy data was collected as part of the two RSI sites surveys. These were compared to standard values included in the most recent WebTAG data book and were deemed more appropriate for use than default values due to:

● High levels of response; ● Data obtained more recently; ● Data more specific to Study Area.

Table 9: Average Weekly Vehicle Occupancy per Vehicle Type Source Overall Car LGV HGV Number of counts RSI Site1 1.37 1.37 1.14 1.55 1150 RSI Site 2 1.35 1.36 1.25 1.14 1029 RSI Site - 1.36 1.36 1.21 1.39 2179 Overall WebTAG - 1.48 1.23 1.00 Reference 2010 values Source: Mott MacDonald and TAG Data Book v1.12

5.5.12 Due to the relative similarity of vehicle occupancy rates per vehicle type within the model area, the overall factor was applied to the Mobile Phone Data to convert from trips per person to trips per vehicle.

5.5.13 Citi Logik data was aggregated into the three hour-long intervals 07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 for the AM and PM time periods respectfully, so these data sets were factored down to represent the peak hours needed for the model. The link counts surveyed on the A483 mainline were utilised for this by comparing flows in the three hour-long and one hour-long intervals, resulting in the factors listed in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Modelled Time Periods Conversion Factors Description Factor AM (07:00-10:00) to AM Peak (08:00-09:00) 0.390 PM (16:00-19:00) to PM Peak (17:00-18:00) 0.368 Source: Mott MacDonald

5.5.14 As travel patterns vary slightly from hour to hour, additional factors will need to be applied during the matrix merging stage to adjust flows on key roads to and from trip generators.

5.6 Synthetic Matrix Build 5.6.1 The purpose of the synthetic matrix is to provide a complete representation of demand to, from and within the model area. This is used in two ways, firstly to strengthen the observed matrices and secondly to infill any areas where observed data is not available.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 39 Local Model Validation Report

5.6.2 The synthetic matrices were developed using a gravity model using zonal deterrence functions to represent the relative magnitude of trip production and attraction of each model zone.

5.6.3 In order to infill the matrix with the short, localised trips that the Mobile Phone Data is unable to represent, a synthetic matrix was constructed in the format of a gravity-distributed 24 hour Production-Attraction (PA) matrix.

5.6.4 Construction of the synthetic matrix was informed by:

● Travel To Work (TTW) data to inform commuter movements; ● Cost skims extracted from model assignments created using Mobile Phone Data and RSI demand data; ● National Trip End Model (NTEM) Data - TEMPro 7.2; and ● A target mean trip time of 14 minutes, deduced from observational data and prior model construction experience, as both MPD and RSI data are lacking in observed short trips. 5.6.5 As the short trips are uncharacteristic of LGV and HGV trips these will all the additional trips will be allocated to car movements.

5.6.6 The MPD, RSI and census TTW data was combined to produce the synthetic matrices, but all trip ends were then constrained to NTEM at model zone level. The trips generated were distributed using a gravity model calibrated to NTS average trip lengths.

5.6.7 The methodological approach used was:

● Commute Matrix – Convert census TTW to model zones (including all trips with a ‘home’ in the study and buffer area, and attractions for the entire model area) – Constrain census TTW to TEMPro 7.2 average weekday PA trip-end totals (by purpose) over each district; ● Other and Business Matrix – Convert TEMPRO 7.2 from MSOA to model zones for the non-commute purposes; – Non-commute matrices have been constructed from TEMPRO 7.2 trip ends. This provides details of the total numbers of trips to and from each zone. A distribution process links the two to determine how many trips travel between each zone. – The distribution has been undertaken using a standard gravity model which uses the travel cost between each zone combined with the productions and attractions to determine the number of trips between each zone for Other and Business purposes. – This process is calibrated to an observed mean trip cost to ensure the distribution is realistic. The mean distance has been used to calibrate the model. NTS values were used as the starting point, and compared to the mean trip length from the RSIs to ensure they were representative of Wrexham. 5.6.8 This produced a 24 hour matrix, which was converted to Origin Destination format, for compatibility with the MPD and RSI matrices. The synthetic matrix was converted to origin- destination format using NTS tour proportions adjusted based on local traffic counts; and factored to model time periods for assignment.

5.6.9 To convert from the 24hr car trips to the modelled time periods, TEMPro data for each user class was used to convert to AM (07:00-10:00), Inter-Peak (10:00-16:00) and PM (16:00-19:00) time periods before utilising factors from Table 10 to further adjust the AM and PM trips to match the peak hour trips.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 40 Local Model Validation Report

Table 11: 24hr to Modelled Time Period Conversion Factors Description Car Commute Car Employer’s Car Other Business 24hr to AM Peak 0.149 0.097 0.052 24h to Inter-Peak 0.028 0.068 0.080 24hr to PM Peak 0.105 0.086 0.079 Source: Mott MacDonald

5.7 Merged Matrix Build – Prior Matrix 5.7.1 The matrix merging process involved the combining of the three sources of trip data:

● Roadside Interview Data (RSI); ● Mobile Phone Data (MPD); and ● Synthetic Matrix Data (SMD). 5.7.2 While the MPD would provide trip matrices over the whole of the model area the RSI data would provide fully observed movements for specific parts of the model area and in these areas would provide a richer data set for the areas covered.

5.7.3 The MPD and RSI matrices were merged together to produce an initial observed prior matrix. The RSI observed trips replaced the observed MPD trips where appropriate in order to avoid double counting.

5.7.4 A further merging process was undertaken using the synthetic matrix to more fully represent short trips. This process involved the removal of any short trips, which were already included in the observed prior matrix, from the synthetic matrix to avoid double-counting.

5.7.5 The data sources used to construct the synthetic matrix, listed in 5.5.2 above and the mobile phone data are based upon three hour peak periods for the AM (07:00 -10:00) and PM (16:00- 19:00) periods.

5.7.6 Therefore, for compatibility with the A483 Wrexham model peak hours (AM: 08:00-09:00; PM: 16:00-17:00) traffic count data was used to provide adjustment factors to the data used in the synthetic matrix construction process.

5.7.7 These factors were manually reviewed at key locations to account for potential double-factoring. This process was kept to a minimum and any ATC and MCTC sites used were not used later in the model validation process, ensuring independence of data sets.

5.7.8 Following the merging of these three prior matrix components the modelled trip ends for each zone were analysed and compared with observed trip end data where available. The observed trip end data was taken from the MCTC data collected at certain locations where the count data can be used as observed trip end data for the self contained zones below.

5.7.9 The count data for such self contained zones included:

● Tesco Extra & Border Retail Park (Zone 86); ● ASDA (Zone 61); ● Eagles Meadow Shopping Centre (Zone 90); ● Commercial Units, including Matalan & Hlafords (Zone 67); ● Wrexham Industrial Estate (Zones 78 & 107); and ● Bangor University Campus (Zone 101).

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 41 Local Model Validation Report

5.7.10 It was evident that for zones dominated by commercial (shopping) and employment land uses the MPD, whose initial expansion is based upon population, would underestimate the trip generation of these zones. RSI data, for areas where trip movements would be fully observed, would provide observations to cater for this shortfall in some locations. While the SMD introduces an element of land use data to the process it is evident that at some locations the trip generation has been underestimated.

5.7.11 Where appropriate count data is available the individual expansion factors have been calculated from selected zones in order to increase the trip generation and more accurately reflect the observed trip generation for these zones.

5.7.12 This seeding of certain zones has been incorporated into the overall matrix construction process, which had been undertaken in an iterative manner to provide a balance between the various trip and count data sources.

5.7.13 At each stage of the matrix construction and merging process a comparison of observed and modelled flows was undertaken as part of the calibration and validation process. The prior matrix is constructed in an iterative manner with associated network modifications in order to produce a high level of model validation.

5.7.14 The overall validation statistics for the final prior matrix are shown in Table 12. The validation criteria are as stated in Table 2 of WebTAG unit M3.1, Highway Assignment Modelling, which is reproduced with further detail in Chapter 9 (paragraphs 9.1.1 to 9.1.3), the assignment validation chapter, which reports upon the results of the final post matrix validation process.

5.7.15 From this table it is evident that the final prior matrix produced base year model assignments that were close to meeting the WebTAG validation criteria across all time periods in terms of flow differences and the GEH comparisons for both cars and for total vehicles.

Table 12: Validation Summary Table – Prior Matrix Validation Criteria Cases AM IP PM Target Cars Individual Link Flows (proximity) 70 80% 81% 80% >85% of cases Individual Link Flows GEH<5 70 76% 74% 74% >85% of cases Both Criteria 70 67% 67% 84% >85% of cases All Traffic Individual Link Flows (proximity) 70 81% 96% 89% >85% of cases Individual Link Flows GEH<5 70 83% 91% 83% >85% of cases Both Criteria 70 89% 96% 90% >85% of cases Source: Mott MacDonald

5.7.16 In order to achieve the resulting final base year matrix, the prior matrix was then subjected to matrix estimation (ME) in order to produce a post ME matrix that would result in base year model assignment runs that would be in accordance with the WebTAG validation criteria.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 42 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 18: MCTCs used to inform Matrix Merge

Source: Mott MacDonald

5.8 Matrix Estimation 5.8.1 To further improve the three demand matrices produced, and in particular to adjust the synthetic matrix produced, a matrix estimation process was run with respect to two cordons:

● The first cordon surrounds the A5152 ring road in the centre of Wrexham. This was to adjust an area where the model was previously underperforming, likely to be due to the importance of short trips in this central, urban area; and ● The second cordon surrounds the A483 Junction 6. This cordon was included to adjust flows to and from the Industrial Estate at that junction, which was only included as a separate zone at a later stage of the matrix construction.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 43 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 19: Matrix Estimation Cordons

Source: Mott MacDonald

5.8.2 To restrict those trips to be adjusted to only be short trips through this process, zones which were unlikely to produce short trips of relevance to the simulation network were “frozen”, ensuring that these were not modified through the ME process. Those which were not “frozen” had trip numbers altered slightly by the process, are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Zones Adjusted by the Matrix Estimation Process

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 44 Local Model Validation Report

6 Model Development – Assignment

6.1 Overview 6.1.1 Using SATURN software, the highway model has been developed. Version 11.3.12U was utilised for the purpose of this model. The model represents an average weekday in June for a base year of 2018.

6.1.2 SATURN models have been developed for the average hour in the AM, Inter-Peak and PM periods. The time periods used are:

● AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00); ● Inter Peak Average Hour (10:00-16:00); and ● PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00).

6.2 Highway Assessment Algorithm and Generalised Cost Parameters 6.2.1 In highway assignment, the route choice is ascertained from the generalised perceived travel cost incurred on each route. The cost for a particular route between a given Origin (O) point and Destination (D) point is a function of the travel time for a route and the distance travelled on that route plus any fares/tolls that apply to it, as shown in the equation below.

6.2.2 Generalised Cost = VOT*Time + VOC*Distance + Tolls, where:

● VOT = value of time (pence per minute; PPM); and ● VOC = vehicle operating cost (pence per km; PPK). 6.2.3 Generally, time is the most important aspect of the equation for ‘private’ trips including cars and goods vehicles, and distance less so. This relative weighting of time and distance is subject to the nature of the trip – for instance, commuter trips will be more time-critical, whereas leisure trips are more sensitive to distance.

6.2.4 The assignment uses the Wardrop Equilibrium assignment algorithm, which aims to arrange traffic on congested networks. This is so the cost of travel on all routes, used between each O-D pair, is equivalent to the minimum cost of travel and all unused routes have equal or greater cost.

6.2.5 The assignment PPM and PPK values used were generated using values of time (VOT) and operating costs from the most recent WebTAG data book published in May 2018. The values used in the SATURN model are summarised in Table 13.

6.2.6 All LGV and HGV trips have been assumed to be ‘Employers Business’ trips.

Table 13: PPM and PPK Values for Base Year of 2018 (Pence) Class Purpose AM IP PM PPM PPK PPM PPK PPM PPK Car Employer’s Business 30.82 12.50 31.59 12.50 31.27 12.50 Car Commute 20.67 06.09 21.01 06.09 20.74 06.09 Car Other 14.26 06.09 15.19 06.09 14.93 06.09 LGV Employer’s Business 21.79 14.11 21.79 14.11 21.79 14.11 HGV Employer’s Business 44.24 43.00 44.24 43.00 44.24 43.00

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 45 Local Model Validation Report

6.3 Assignment Model Convergence 6.3.1 WebTAG unit M3.1 lists the convergence criteria to be met and these are included in Table 14. The Model Convergence Summaries for each modelled time period are shown in Table 15, Table 16 and Table 17. The table headers for these are defined as such:

● Ass. – DELTA FUNCTION (%) / NUMBER OF ITERATIONS ● Sim. – FINAL AVER ABS CHANGE IN OUT CFP (PCU/HOUR) / NUMBER OF ITERATIONS ● A/S Step – Step Length used on Ass/Sim Loop / Simulation Iterations ● %FLOWS – LINK FLOWS DIFFERING BY < 1% BETWEEN ASS-SIM LOOPS ● %V.I. – VARIATIONAL INEQUALITY – SHOULD BE > 0 ● %GAP – WARDROP EQUILIBRIUM GAP FUNCTION POST SIMULATION

Table 14: Summary of Convergence Measures and Base Model Acceptable Values Measure of Convergence Base Model Acceptable Values ● Delta and %GAP ● Less than 0.1% or at least stable with convergence fully documented and all other criteria met ● Percentage of links with flow change (P)<1% ● Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% ● Percentage of links with cost change (P2)<1% ● Four consecutive iterations greater than 98% ● Percentage change in total user costs (V) ● Four consecutive iterations less than 0.1% (SUE only) Source: WebTAG UNIT M3.1 Highway Assignment Modelling, January 2014

6.3.2

Table 15: AM Peak Convergence Summary LOOP Ass. Sim. A/S Step %FLOWS %DELAYS %V.I. %GAP 1 0.0425/41 0.198/10 1.000/ 1 51.7 1.057 2 0.0482/11 0.141/ 9 1.000/ 1 34.5 95.9 0.101 0.108 3 0.0475/ 4 0.084/ 7 1.000/ 1 62.8 98.7 0.0025 0.047 4 0.0263/ 8 0.088/ 7 1.000/ 1 59.1 98.5 0.0029 0.068 5 0.0209/ 5 0.061/ 3 0.599/ 4 74.8 98.7 0.00038 0.017 6 0.0086/13 0.049/ 7 1.000/ 1 73 99.2 0.0056 0.018 7 0.0111/ 4 0.046/ 4 0.718/ 2 85.9 99 0.00052 0.009 8 0.0165/12 0.051/ 7 1.000/ 1 81.9 99.3 0.0017 0.0073 9 0.0044/ 8 0.039/ 7 1.000/ 1 89.2 99.2 0.00084 0.0051 10 0.0026/ 9 0.043/ 7 1.000/ 1 91.2 99.2 0.00055 0.0063 11 0.0025/ 3 0.041/ 4 0.586/ 2 95.9 99.3 0.00004 0.0032 12 0.0015/12 0.033/ 7 1.000/ 1 95.9 99.3 0.0005 0.0027 13 0.0013/ 6 0.029/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.4 99.3 0.00014 0.004 14 0.0012/ 7 0.027/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.1 99.1 0.00012 0.003 15 0.0013/ 3 0.024/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.8 99.3 0.00002 0.0026 16 0.0012/ 8 0.026/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.6 99.5 0.00008 0.002 17 0.0008/ 9 0.027/ 7 1.000/ 1 98 99.4 0.0001 0.0031 18 0.0007/10 0.033/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.6 99.6 0.00003 0.0014 19 0.0010/12 0.031/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.1 99.4 0.00007 0.002 20 0.0006/ 8 0.027/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.9 99.5 0.00002 0.0013 21 0.0012/ 4 0.022/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.8 99.6 0.00002 0.0007

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 46 Local Model Validation Report

LOOP Ass. Sim. A/S Step %FLOWS %DELAYS %V.I. %GAP 22 0.0005/23 0.020/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.9 99.6 0.00007 0.0014 23 0.0005/23 0.022/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.4 99.7 0.00006 0.00049 24 0.0006/18 0.016/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.6 99.8 0.00004 0.00046 25 0.0005/23 0.010/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.6 99.7 0.00003 0.00039 26 0.0004/23 0.009/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.6 99.8 0.00003 0.00045 27 0.0004/21 0.012/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.6 99.7 0.00002 0.00044 Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 16: Inter-Peak Convergence Summary LOOP Ass. Sim. A/S Step %FLOWS %DELAYS %V.I. %GAP 1 0.0483/42 0.106/ 7 1.000/ 1 50.8 0.146 2 0.0481/12 0.057/ 7 1.000/ 1 41.9 98.6 0.034 0.073 3 0.0352/ 6 0.049/ 7 1.000/ 1 68.5 99.2 0.0073 0.045 4 0.0216/11 0.051/ 7 1.000/ 1 64.9 99.2 0.011 0.022 5 0.0156/15 0.045/ 7 1.000/ 1 80.2 99.2 0.0047 0.013 6 0.0063/26 0.102/ 7 1.000/ 1 86.4 99.6 0.003 0.014 7 0.0064/ 7 0.100/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.6 99.6 0.00061 0.011 8 0.0055/ 9 0.098/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.3 99.7 0.00062 0.0093 9 0.0049/13 0.114/ 7 1.000/ 1 96.5 99.7 0.00082 0.0068 10 0.0033/25 0.119/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.6 99.7 0.00082 0.0063 11 0.0031/15 0.124/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.8 99.7 0.00045 0.0047 12 0.0044/22 0.137/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.7 99.6 0.00041 0.003 13 0.0015/29 0.131/ 7 1.000/ 1 94.6 99.7 0.00068 0.0038 14 0.0014/14 0.141/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.4 99.6 0.00016 0.0026 15 0.0024/17 0.132/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.3 99.7 0.00019 0.0014 16 0.0009/70 0.142/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.9 99.7 0.00044 0.0015 17 0.0007/17 0.135/ 7 1.000/ 1 99 99.9 0.00008 0.0015 18 0.0013/ 6 0.134/ 7 1.000/ 1 100 99.9 0.00002 0.00089 19 0.0008/51 0.134/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.8 99.7 0.00016 0.00056 20 0.0008/11 0.127/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.7 100 0.00002 0.00049 21 0.0003/64 0.132/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.4 99.9 0.00011 0.00051 22 0.0005/ 8 0.132/ 7 1.000/ 1 100 99.9 0 0.00034 23 0.0003/10 0.131/ 7 1.000/ 1 100 100 0.00001 0.00058 24 0.0005/ 4 0.133/ 7 1.000/ 1 100 100 0 0.00033 25 0.0003/12 0.133/ 7 1.000/ 1 100 100 0.00001 0.0005 Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 17: PM Peak Convergence Summary LOOP Ass. Sim. A/S Step %FLOWS %DELAYS %V.I. %GAP 1 0.0572/87 0.175/16 1.000/ 1 50.4 5.119 2 0.0918/38 0.113/ 4 0.933/ 3 28.6 93.3 0.092 0.562 3 0.0467/21 0.131/ 8 1.000/ 1 47.8 97.2 0.017 0.157 4 0.0493/ 8 0.077/ 7 1.000/ 1 64.2 98.2 0.0015 0.09 5 0.0431/ 8 0.062/ 7 1.000/ 1 77.1 98.9 0.0058 0.065 6 0.0321/13 0.050/ 7 1.000/ 1 74.5 99 0.0084 0.046

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 47 Local Model Validation Report

LOOP Ass. Sim. A/S Step %FLOWS %DELAYS %V.I. %GAP 7 0.0229/19 0.039/ 7 1.000/ 1 76.8 98.9 0.0078 0.029 8 0.0172/21 0.042/ 7 1.000/ 1 81.4 98.8 0.0051 0.02 9 0.0151/21 0.038/ 7 1.000/ 1 87.3 98.9 0.0027 0.013 10 0.0105/21 0.035/ 7 1.000/ 1 89.4 99.2 0.0017 0.012 11 0.0088/21 0.031/ 7 1.000/ 1 93.8 99.6 0.0011 0.0093 12 0.0070/21 0.026/ 7 1.000/ 1 95.6 99.6 0.0009 0.0071 13 0.0052/21 0.027/ 7 1.000/ 1 96.2 99.5 0.00065 0.0075 14 0.0069/21 0.024/ 7 1.000/ 1 98 99.5 0.00055 0.0044 15 0.0059/21 0.029/ 7 1.000/ 1 97.9 99.4 0.00052 0.0043 16 0.0030/21 0.029/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.5 99.5 0.00031 0.0043 17 0.0027/21 0.025/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.5 99.4 0.0003 0.0033 18 0.0043/21 0.029/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.7 99.4 0.00027 0.0024 19 0.0029/21 0.023/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.1 99.6 0.00023 0.0025 20 0.0019/21 0.025/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.7 99.5 0.00019 0.0027 21 0.0022/21 0.020/ 7 1.000/ 1 98.6 99.6 0.00018 0.0025 22 0.0015/21 0.023/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.2 99.6 0.00012 0.0027 23 0.0020/21 0.022/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.5 99.6 0.00012 0.0015 24 0.0017/21 0.017/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.4 99.8 0.00011 0.0019 25 0.0015/21 0.018/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.5 99.6 0.0001 0.0015 26 0.0009/21 0.019/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.3 99.7 0.00008 0.0014 27 0.0011/21 0.015/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.4 99.8 0.00008 0.0011 28 0.0010/21 0.019/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.7 99.7 0.00006 0.0013 29 0.0010/10 0.020/ 7 1.000/ 1 100 99.7 0.00001 0.0013 30 0.0010/21 0.016/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.7 99.6 0.00006 0.0013 31 0.0009/21 0.020/ 7 1.000/ 1 99.9 99.6 0.00005 0.0011 Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 48 Local Model Validation Report

7 Model Calibration

7.1 Summary of Approach 7.1.1 During calibration some elements of the model were adjusted, as is standard industry practice, in order to achieve a better fit between the model and various observations providing data sets for traffic flows and journey time. As well as changes made to the network, adjustments were also made to the trip matrices through matrix estimation at the hourly peak period assignment level.

7.1.2 The calibration of the A483 Wrexham Traffic Model was undertaken in an iterative manner, with improvements being implemented in such a way that several assignments were undertaken prior to reaching a state in which the model was deemed to be adequately calibrated and validated. The results presented below are based on the final assignments – where indicators of goodness of fit have been improved to a point where further effort to adjust the model was not deemed to be necessary in the context of preparing a 2018 base model suitable for forecasting and option testing.

7.2 Network 7.2.1 During model calibration, some elements of the network were reviewed following comparisons of model data against observations of traffic counts and journey times. In addition, ongoing checking of the model network coding also identified improvements to be made to the representation of the highway beyond the confines of the generic approach adopted for the initial coding.

7.2.2 Network calibration was driven by aiming to achieve a good fit between the modelled and observed link flows/turning movements at junctions and journey time routes. Modifications made to the network during the calibration process included changes to link free flow speeds (where speed-flow relationships were not coded) and, more importantly, revisions to the speed-flow curves relationships following a comparison with the observed Trafficmaster link journey times.

7.2.3 The signal timing configurations, provided by Wrexham County Borough Council, were adjusted where necessary to improve the calibration at the signal-controlled junctions and better reflect the on site operation of the traffic signals.

7.3 Matrix Estimation 7.3.1 The Matrix Estimation (ME) procedure attempts to improve the “prior” matrices built, as described in Chapter 5 of this report, such that a good fit between the modelled flows and observed flows can be achieved.

7.3.2 ME was undertaken within SATURN using the SATPIJA and SATME2 modules and was based on counts by vehicle type (Car, LGV, HGV). Counts were prepared for each site as listed below by direction to input into the process:

● ATC-48: Salisbury Road ● ATC-49: Chapel Street ● ATC-50: Fairy Road ● MCTC-05, A483 Junction 6: – To/From B5445

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 49 Local Model Validation Report

– To/From Industrial Estate – To/From Blue Bell Lane – To/From A5152 – To/From A5156 ● MCTC-18: A5152, To/From Smithfield Rd East ● MCTC-21: A5152, To/From Rhosddu Road North ● MCTC-22: A5152, To/From A5152 ● MCTC-23: A5152, To/From A534 ● MCTC-27: A5152, To/From King Mills Road East ● MCTC-30: A5152, To/From Ruthin Road West ● MCTC-31: A5152, To/From Ruabon Road West ● MCTC-32: A5152, To/From Bersham Road ● MCTC-33: A5152, To/From Regent Street North ● MCTC-43: A5152, To/From Watery Road West 7.3.3 To understand the impact of ME on prior matrices and to ensure effects are reasonable it appropriate to undertake additional analysis. This includes regression analyses of both cell values and trip ends, comparison of trip length distributions and comparisons of sector to sector movements for pre and post ME matrices. Table 18, taken from WebTAG, summarises the tests to be undertaken to understand the changes between the prior and post ME matrices. WebTAG recognises that achieving all these criteria could be challenging and therefore the ME effects should be explored in conjunction with each other rather than being considered as a strict pass or fail criteria for anyone measure.

Table 18: Significance of ME Changes Measure Significance Criteria Matrix zonal cell values Slope within 0.98 and 1.02 Intercept near zero R2 in excess of 0.95 Matrix zonal trip ends Slope within 0.99 and 1.01 Intercept near zero R2 in excess of 0.98 Trip length distributions Means within 5% Standard deviations within 5% Sector to sector level matrices Differences within 5% Source: WebTAG M3.1 (Table 5)

7.4 Matrix Zonal Cell Values and Trip Ends 7.4.1 As the data sources used for the prior matrix construction had limited coverage of short localised trips, the matrix estimation process was focused on the Wrexham urban area as described in section 5.7 above. All zones which were not in this defined area were frozen during the Matrix Estimation (ME) process, and hence trips to/from them were not changed.

7.4.2 The linear regression analysis of the post and prior ME matrices have been undertaken within SATURN, based on the expression y=A+Bx. The results of this analysis are presented as the intercept ‘A’ and slope coefficients ‘B’, along with the R2 coefficient of determination.

7.4.3 The regression analysis results are shown in Table 19, Table 20, and Table 21 for the matrix zonal cells values, origin trip ends and destination trip ends respectively. The results are shown

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 50 Local Model Validation Report

for all three time periods. The Matrix Estimation (ME) procedure attempts to improve the “prior” matrices built as described in Chapter 5 of this report so that a good fit between the modelled flows and observations could be achieved.

7.4.4 These tables show the impact of ME on matrix zonal cell values and matrix zonal trip ends. WebTAG criteria is met in all instances concerning slopes, R2 values and in terms of intercepts for zonal cell values.

7.4.5 With regards to the origin and destination trip ends, while the majority of the intercepts are between -1 and 1 or can be classed as close to 0, there are a number of outliers for the AM peak car (3.8) that are likely to be related to congestion, but these have a negligible detrimental impact upon the validity of the resulting post ME trip matrices.

Table 19: Zone-To-Zone Regression AM Peak IP PM Peak Slope Intercept R2 Slope Intercept R2 Slope Intercept R2 Car 1.000 0.0260 0.9990 0.9997 -0.0069 0.9991 0.9996 -0.0061 0.9992 LGV 0.9998 0.0068 0.9985 1.000 0.0020 0.9983 1.000 0.0028 0.9984 HGV 0.9999 -0.0022 0.9996 0.9999 -0.0016 0.9992 0.9999 -0.0045 0.9998 Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 20: Origin Trip End Regression AM Peak IP PM Peak Slope Intercept R2 Slope Intercept R2 Slope Intercept R2 Car 0.9993 3.8268 0.9992 0.9992 -0.7423 0.9993 0.9995 -0.7844 0.9995 LGV 0.9964 1.0783 0.9982 0.9982 0.3443 0.9985 0.9980 0.4441 0.9987 HGV 1.001 -0.3061 0.9995 1.0004 -0.2513 0.9995 1.0020 -0.7040 0.9996 Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 21: Destination Trip End Regression AM Peak IP PM Peak Slope Intercept R2 Slope Intercept R2 Slope Intercept R2 Car 0.9992 3.8764 0.9992 0.9996 -0.8750 0.9995 1.0002 -1.1467 0.9996 LGV 0.9979 1.0011 0.9986 0.9994 0.2950 0.9982 0.9960 0.5195 0.9987 HGV 1.0002 -0.3204 0.9997 1.0005 -0.2650 0.9997 1.0021 -0.7077 0.9996 Source: Mott MacDonald

7.4.6 The impact of the matrix estimation process on matrix totals is shown in Table 22. Overall, trip ends increase in all time periods in the defined Wrexham urban area. This was as expected with the approach taken that the impact upon the post ME matrices was only where changes were intended and it is in accordance with the WebTAG guidance.

Table 22: Comparison of Trip Matrix totals Pre and Post ME2 AM IP PM Car LGV HGV Car LGV HGV Car LGV HGV Pre 64258 6802 13253 53013 5802 11701 68721 4969 6241 Post 64723 6922 13214 52873 5838 11672 68581 5019 6159 Difference 465 39 17 378 58 -18 480 35 -28 % Difference 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 1.0% -0.2% 0.7% 0.7% -0.4% Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 51 Local Model Validation Report

7.5 Trip Length Distribution 7.5.1 Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23 compare the network assigned trip length distribution of pre and post matrix estimation trips in the AM, IP and PM respectively. There is very little difference between the prior and post trip length distributions for all 3 model time periods.

7.5.2 The percentage differences of the mean for the AM, IP and PM are 0.47%, 0.03% and 0.23% respectively, which are all well within the specified criteria of 5%. The percentage difference of the standard deviations for the AM, IP and PM are 0.21%, 0.02% and 0.09% respectively, all of which meet the WebTAG criteria.

7.5.3 The trip length distributions are calculated using the distance skims from each model time period, with the number of trip changes involved being small and only for short trips. For the AM peak the slight decrease in trips for the 0-10km range is balanced out by the increse in trips in the suceedding bands.

Figure 21: Trip Length Distribution prior and post Matrix Estimation – AM

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 52 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 22: Trip Length Distribution prior and post Matrix Estimation – IP

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 23: Trip Length Distribution prior and post Matrix Estimation – PM

Source: Mott MacDonald

7.6 Analysis of Sector to Sector Movements 7.6.1 The Analysis of sector to sector movements before and after matrix estimation are presented in Table 23, Table 24, and Table 25 for the AM, IP and PM peaks respectively. The sectors defined are listed below and are shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25:

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 53 Local Model Validation Report

● Sector 1: Wrexham Town ● Sector 2: Wrexham ● Sector 3: North Wales ● Sector 4: Mid & South Wales ● Sector 5: North West England ● Sector 6: West Midlands ● Sector 7: Great Britain

Figure 24: Model Sectors

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 54 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 25: Model Sectors (Wrexham Extent)

Source: Mott MacDonald

7.6.2 This data demonstrates that the Matrix Estimation process matrix changes have only occurred for the Wrexham urban area and the remainder of Wrexham County Borough. The percentage changes in these two sectors are small and are in accordance with WebTAG guidance for the IP and PM peak periods.

7.6.3 For the AM peak period the sector changes of 6%, shown in Table 23, do marginally exceed the 5% WebTAG criteria. Nevertheless, in this instance the change in flows have been confined to a small geographical area as intended, for movements within the Wrexham Town Sector and between the Wrexham Town and Wrexham (Borough) sectors. Therefore a slight relaxation of the WebTAG criteria is acceptable as the change in trip numbers remains sensible relative to total trip totals, as demonstrated in Table 22.

Table 23: Sector Level Matrix Post-Prior Matrix Estimation, Differences – AM Difference % Difference Sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 171 146 0 0 0 0 0 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 231 22 0 0 0 0 0 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 55 Local Model Validation Report

Table 24: Sector Level Matrix Post-Prior Matrix Estimation, Differences – IP Difference % Difference Sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 -20 -104 0 0 0 0 0 -1% -4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 -33 41 0 0 0 0 0 -1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 25: Sector Level Matrix Post-Prior Matrix Estimation, Differences – PM Difference % Difference Sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 -98 85 0 0 0 0 0 -3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2 -117 7 0 0 0 0 0 -4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: Mott MacDonald

7.6.4 This analysis of the Sector movements confirms that the Matrix Estimation process has affected the Prior Matrix only as was intended and has not disrupted the longer strategic movements.

7.7 Conclusions 7.7.1 The Matrix Estimation process has resulted in minimal changes to the prior matrices with the differences between the prior and post ME matrices being in accordance with the WebTAG guidelines.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 56 Local Model Validation Report

8 Validation – Network

8.1 Analysis of Paths 8.1.1 Analysis of the modelled paths for key strategic origin / destination movements has been undertaken to ensure the base model is providing logical and realistic routes for these key traffic movements. Figure 26 to Figure 33 show a selection of SATURN plots from this path analysis for the AM period. These logical paths are also repeated in the Inter Peak and PM peak periods.

Figure 26: Chester to Gledrid Roundabout

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 57 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 27: Chester to Wrexham Industrial Estate

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 58 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 28: Gledrid Roundabout to Wrexham Industrial Estate

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 59 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 29: Gwynfryn to Wrexham Town Centre

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 60 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 30: Brymbo to Wrexham Town Centre

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 61 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 31: Gwersyllt to Wrexham Town Centre

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 62 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 32: Eglwys Cross to Wrexham Town Centre

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 63 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 33: Connah’s Quay to Wrexham Town Centre

Connah’s Quay

Source: Mott MacDonald/SATURN

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 64 Local Model Validation Report

9 Validation – Assignment

9.1 Validation 9.1.1 The acceptability criteria set out in Table 26 for model calibration also apply to the model validation. According to the guidance, the model validation is measured by assessing the goodness of fit between both the assigned hourly flows, journey times and the corresponding independent observed data set.

Table 26: WebTAG Validation Criteria Criteria Acceptability Guidelines Screenline flow validation criterion and acceptability guidelines Difference between modelled flows and counts should be less than All or nearly all screenlines 5% of the counts Link flow and turning movement validation criterion and acceptability guidelines Individual flows within100 vph for flows < 700 vph >85% of cases Individual flows within 15% for flows 700-2700 vph Individual flows within 400 vph for flows > 2700 vph GEH < 5 for individual flows: >85% of cases Source: WebTAG – Unit M3.1 Table 2.

9.1.2 The goodness of fit was assessed by estimating the GEH value at the individual validation points. The GEH formula is as follows:

where:

M = modelled flow (vehicles per hour)

O = observed flow (vehicles per hour)

9.1.3 The WebTAG guidance also states that (Unit M3.1 paragraph 3.2.7)

“These two measures are broadly consistent and link flows that meet either criterion should be regarded as satisfactory”.

9.1.4 These criteria have been used for testing the model against data used in model building, as part of the calibration process and for testing the model against independent data as part of the validation process.

9.1.5 The traffic flow data that has not been used for calibration provided a set of independent data that has been used for the validation instead. This validation data set is comprised of 35 ATC sites which are provided by direction.

9.1.6 Table 27 shows the summary of the link flow validation in each of the three modelled time periods, detailing the proportion of cases that pass the criteria. The validation count sites are located on a number of defined screenlines covering the key traffic movements in the model area. The count sites and screenlines are shown in Figure 34. In accordance with WebTAG the validation is presented for cars and all vehicles together.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 65 Local Model Validation Report

9.1.7 With regards to the validation criteria, overall each of the time periods for total vehicles is well above the 85% acceptability WebTAG thresholds for both the flow difference and the GEH value as shown in Table 27.

9.1.8 For the inter peak average hour car only matrix, which covers the non congested operational times for the network, the GEH and flow difference results are slightly below the WebTAG criteria 85% acceptability threshold.

9.1.9 For assignment purposes and forecasting all vehicle matrices are used therefore all the required WebTAG criterial have been met and can be regarded as “satisfactory”.

Figure 34: Screenline Count Sites used for Link Flow Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 27: Validation Summary Table – Cars and All Vehicles Validation Criteria Cases AM IP PM Target Cars Individual Link Flows (proximity) 70 86% 83% 81% >85% of cases Individual Link Flows GEH<5 70 81% 76% 74% >85% of cases Both Criteria 70 86% 83% 86% >85% of cases All Traffic Individual Link Flows (proximity) 70 87% 97% 91% >85% of cases Individual Link Flows GEH<5 70 89% 91% 86% >85% of cases Both Criteria 70 93% 99% 93% >85% of cases Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 66 Local Model Validation Report

9.1.10 Table 28, Table 29 and Table 30 show the validation achieved for total vehicles for the AM, IP and PM periods respectively. The validation for both cars and for total vehicles is shown in full in Appendix B.

9.1.11 While the overall validation is good for all time periods in terms of total vehicles there are some individual counts and screenlines that do not quite meet the criteria. In those instances the flow differences are low and very close to the validation criteria.

9.1.12 With regards to cars during the IP period the validation does not quite meet the criteria with 83% of validation counts meeting the criteria. This is due to the A483 linear screenlines not validating for cars with modelled flows being greater than the observed flows. For the total traffic this is balanced out by modelled LGV flows being consistently lower than the observed. For the purposes of this study this is not detrimental to the required outputs from the modelling process as the validation is very good for all vehicles and is well above the criteria thresholds set out in WebTAG guidance.

Table 28: Link Flow Validation – AM Peak Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline (Northbound) A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 1721 1709 -12 -0.7% 0.3 a a 2_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2186 2299 113 5% 2.4 a a 3_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2428 2414 -14 -0.6% 0.3 a a 4_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2614 2496 -118 -4.5% 2.3 a a 5_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2138 2032 -106 -5% 2.3 a a 6_Northbound Total 9365 9240 -125 -1.3% 1.3 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline (Southbound) A483_ATC_Site SB 2257 2316 58 2.6% 1.2 a a 2_Southbound A483_ATC_Site SB 2293 2265 -29 -1.3% 0.6 a a 3_Southbound A483_ATC_Site SB 1970 1881 -89 -4.5% 2.0 a a 4_Southbound A483_ATC_Site SB 1760 1797 37 2.1% 0.9 a a 5_Southbound A483_ATC_Site SB 1521 1532 11 0.7% 0.3 a a 6_Southbound Total 7545 7475 -70 -0.9% 0.8

Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 West (Eastbound) B5605_ATC_Site B5605 NB 709 728 19 2.7% 0.7 a a 67_Northbound B5097_ATC_Site B5097 EB 163 128 -35 -21% 2.9 a a 69_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 SB 777 896 119 15 % 4.1 a a 71_Southbound

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 67 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria B5101_ATC_Site B5101 SB 623 619 -4 -0.6% 0.2 a a 72_Northbound Gatewen Gatewen EB 339 253 -86 -25% 5.0 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 73_Eastbound Summerhill Summerhill EB 155 193 37 24% 2.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 74_Eastbound A541 SB 867 729 -138 -16% 4.9 r a A541_ATC_Site75_So uthbound Stansty Stansty SB 204 135 -69 -34% 5.3 a r Road_ATC_Site Road 76_Southbound Llay New Llay New SB 610 505 -105 -17% 4.5 r a Road_ATC_Site Road 77_Southbound Plas Action Plas Action EB 428 464 36 9% 1.7 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 78_Eastbound Total 4875 4650 -225 -4.6% 3.3 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 West (Westbound) B5605_ATC_Site B5605 SB 498 482 -15 -3% 0.7 a a 67_Southbound B5097_ATC_Site B5097 WB 82 84 2 2% 0.2 a a 69_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 NB 583 703 120 21% 4.7 r a 71_Northbound B5101_ATC_Site B5101 NB 115 148 33 28% 2.8 a a 72_Southbound Gatewen Gatewen WB 76 73 -3 -4% 0.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 73_Westbound Summerhill Summerhill WB 95 110 15 16% 1.5 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 74_Westbound A541_ATC_Site A541 NB 651 661 10 1.5% 0.4 a a 75_Northbound Stansty Stansty NB 8 0 -8 -100% 3.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 76_Northbound Llay New Llay New NB 404 356 -48 -12% 2.5 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 77_Northbound Plas Action Plas Action WB 288 221 -67 -23% 4.2 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 78_Westbound Total 2800 2839 39 1.4% 0.7 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 East (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 EB 628 613 -15 -2.4% 0.6 a a 51_Eastbound Bersham Bersham EB 150 104 -46 -31% 4.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 52_Eastbound

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 68 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria A525_ATC_Site A525 EB 472 425 -47 -10% 2.2 a a 53_Eastbound Watery Watery SB 340 329 -12 -3.4% 0.6 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 54_Southbound A541 Mold A541 Mold SB 817 954 137 17% 4.6 r a Road_ATC_Site Road 40_Southbound Rhosddu Rhosddu SB 623 613 -10 -1.7% 0.4 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 41_Southbound A5152_ATC_Site A5152 WB 548 638 90 16% 3.7 a a 58_Westbound A5156_ATC_Site A5156 EB 1673 1541 -132 -8% 3.3 a a 57_Westbound Total 5252 5216 -36 -0.7% 0.5 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 East (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 WB 340 377 37 11% 2.0 a a 51_Westbound Bersham Bersham WB 105 72 -32 -31% 3.5 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 52_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 WB 379 350 -29 -8% 1.5 a a 53_Westbound Watery Watery NB 398 315 -83 -21% 4.4 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 54_Northbound A541 Mold A541 Mold NB 393 454 61 15% 2.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 40_Northbound Rhosddu Rhosddu NB 361 322 -39 -11% 2.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 41_Northbound A5152_ATC_Site A5152 EB 642 431 -211 -33% 9.1 r r 58_Eastbound A5156_ATC_Site A5156 WB 882 790 -92 -10% 3.2 a a 57_Eastbound Total 3501 3112 -388 -11.1% 6.8 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Central East (Outbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 NB 178 300 121 68% 7.8 r r 42_Northbound Park Park Avenue NB 36 11 -26 -71% 5.3 a r Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Northbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt NB 424 436 12 2.8% 0.6 a a 44_Northbound Smithfield Smithfield EB 107 165 58 54% 4.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 45_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 EB 437 597 161 37% 7.1 r r 47_Eastbound Total 1183 1509 326 27.6% 8.9 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 69 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Wrexham Central East (Inbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 SB 671 738 66 9.9% 2.5 a a 42_Southbound Park Park Avenue SB 213 74 -139 -65% 11.6 r r Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Southbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt SB 646 640 -6 -1% 0.2 a a 44_Southbound Smithfield Smithfield WB 230 218 -12 -5% 0.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 45_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 WB 551 545 -6 -1.1% 0.3 a a 47_Westbound Total 2312 2214 -97 -4.2% 2.0 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Outer East (Outbound) B5445_ATC_Site B5445 NB 380 372 -7 -1.9% 0.4 a a 55_Northbound Old Wrexham Old NB 22 0 -22 -100% 6.7 a r Road_ATC_Site Wrexham 56_Northbound Road Borras Borras NB 40 58 18 44% 2.5 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 59_Northbound A534_ATC_Site A534 EB 1653 1660 7 0.4% 0.2 a a 60_Eastbound Cefn Road_ATC_Site Cefn Road WB 330 316 -15 -4.5% 0.8 a a 62_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 SB 247 186 -61 -25% 4.1 a a 63_Southbound Sontley Sontley SB 10 27 17 174% 4.0 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 64_Southbound Total 2673 2592 -80 -3.0% 1.6 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Outer East (Inbound) B5445_ATC_Site B5445 SB 545 523 -23 -4.2% 1.0 a a 55_Southbound Old Wrexham Old SB 35 124 89 252% 10.0 a r Road_ATC_Site Wrexham 56_Southbound Road Borras Borras SB 34 24 -10 -31% 1.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 59_Southbound A534 WB 571 771 130 20.3% 7.7 r r A534_ATC_Site60_Ea stbound Cefn Road_ATC_Site Cefn Road EB 162 135 -26 -16% 2.2 a a 62_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 NB 402 332 -70 -17% 3.6 a a 63_Northbound Sontley Sontley NB 22 29 6 29% 1.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 64_Northbound Total 1749 1909 159 9.1% 3.7 r a

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 70 Local Model Validation Report

Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 29: Link Flow Validation – Inter Peak Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline (Northbound) A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 1577 1484 -93 -6% 2.4 a a 2_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 1702 1743 40 2.4% 1.0 a a 3_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 1768 1977 209 12% 4.8 a a 4_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 1741 1959 218 12% 5.1 a r 5_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 1505 1673 168 11% 4.2 a a 6_Northbound Total 6716 7351 635 9.5% 7.6 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline (Southbound) A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 1503 1438 -65 -4.3% 1.7 a a 2_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 1773 1817 44 2.5% 1.0 a a 3_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 1801 1888 87 5% 2.0 a a 4_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 1730 1867 137 8% 3.2 a a 5_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 1541 1491 -50 -3.2% 1.3 a a 6_Southbound Total 6844 7063 220 3.2% 2.6 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 West (Eastbound) B5605_ATC_Site B5605 NB 567 589 22 3.9% 0.9 a a 67_Northbound B5097_ATC_Site B5097 EB 77 85 8 11% 0.9 a a 69_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 SB 703 759 56 8.0% 2.1 a a 71_Southbound B5101_ATC_Site B5101 SB 231 305 75 32% 4.6 a a 72_Northbound Gatewen Gatewen EB 139 88 -51 -37% 4.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 73_Eastbound Summerhill Summerhill EB 114 158 44 38% 3.7 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 74_Eastbound A541 SB 671 648 -23 -3.5% 0.9 a a A541_ATC_Site75_ Southbound

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 71 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Stansty Stansty SB 61 156 95 156% 9.1 a r Road_ATC_Site Road 76_Southbound Llay New Llay New SB 373 303 -71 -19% 3.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 77_Southbound Plas Action Plas Action EB 232 230 -2 -1.0% 0.2 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 78_Eastbound Total 3168 3321 153 4.8% 2.7 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 West (Westbound) B5605_ATC_Site B5605 SB 569 598 29 5.1% 1.2 a a 67_Southbound B5097_ATC_Site B5097 WB 78 93 15 20% 1.7 a a 69_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 NB 720 786 66 9.1% 2.4 a a 71_Northbound B5101_ATC_Site B5101 NB 250 277 27 11% 1.7 a a 72_Southbound Gatewen Gatewen WB 148 141 -7 -4.5% 0.5 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 73_Westbound Summerhill Summerhill WB 155 199 44 29% 3.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 74_Westbound A541_ATC_Site A541 NB 656 690 34 5.2% 1.3 a a 75_Northbound Stansty Stansty NB 10 0 -10 -100% 4.5 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 76_Northbound Llay New Llay New NB 418 357 -61 -15% 3.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 77_Northbound Plas Action Plas Action WB 247 249 2 0.7% 0.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 78_Westbound Total 3250 3390 140 4.3% 2.4 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 East (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 EB 478 470 -8 -1.6% 0.4 a a 51_Eastbound Bersham Bersham EB 60 110 49 82% 5.3 a r Road_ATC_Site Road 52_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 EB 435 418 -17 -3.9% 0.8 a a 53_Eastbound Watery Watery SB 312 281 -30 -9.8% 1.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 54_Southbound A541 Mold A541 Mold SB 671 815 143 21% 5.3 r r Road_ATC_Site Road 40_Southbound Rhosddu Rhosddu SB 400 444 44 11% 2.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 41_Southbound

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 72 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria A5152_ATC_Site A5152 WB 405 417 12 2.9% 0.6 a a 58_Westbound A5156_ATC_Site A5156 EB 751 677 -74 -9.8% 2.8 a a 57_Westbound Total 3513 3632 119 3.4% 2.0 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 East (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 WB 483 463 -20 -4.1% 0.9 a a 51_Westbound Bersham Bersham WB 56 63 7 13% 0.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 52_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 WB 453 449 -4 -0.9% 0.2 a a 53_Westbound Watery Watery NB 278 219 -59 -21% 3.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 54_Northbound A541 Mold A541 Mold NB 663 557 -106 -16% 4.3 r a Road_ATC_Site Road 40_Northbound Rhosddu Rhosddu NB 481 496 15 3.1% 0.7 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 41_Northbound A5152_ATC_Site A5152 EB 451 394 -56 -12% 2.7 a a 58_Eastbound A5156_ATC_Site A5156 WB 845 836 -9 -1.0% 0.3 a a 57_Eastbound Total 3709 3477 -232 -6.3% 3.9 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Central East (Outbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 NB 320 363 43 14% 2.4 a a 42_Northbound Park Park Avenue NB 34 47 13 38% 2.0 a a Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Northbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt NB 570 633 62 11.0% 2.5 a a 44_Northbound Smithfield Smithfield EB 134 157 23 17.1% 1.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 45_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 EB 374 438 64 17.2% 3.2 a a 47_Eastbound Total 1432 1638 206 14.4% 5.3 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Central East (Inbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 SB 397 411 14 3.4% 0.7 a a 42_Southbound Park Park Avenue SB 115 87 -28 -24% 2.7 a a Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Southbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt SB 549 568 19 3.5% 0.8 a a 44_Southbound

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 73 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Smithfield Smithfield WB 160 202 42 26% 3.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 45_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 WB 540 555 15 2.8% 0.6 a a 47_Westbound Total 1761 1823 62 3.5% 1.5 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Outer East (Outbound) B5445_ATC_Site B5445 NB 328 356 27 8.3% 1.5 a a 55_Northbound Old Wrexham Old NB 16 0 -16 -100% 5.6 a r Road_ATC_Site Wrexham 56_Northbound Road Borras Borras NB 28 51 24 85% 3.7 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 59_Northbound A534_ATC_Site A534 EB 669 754 86 13% 3.2 a a 60_Eastbound Cefn Cefn Road WB 182 197 15 8.5% 1.1 a a Road_ATC_Site 62_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 SB 310 236 -74 -24% 4.5 a a 63_Southbound Sontley Sontley SB 13 32 19 150% 4.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 64_Southbound Total 1532 1595 62 4.1% 1.6 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Outer East (Inbound) B5445_ATC_Site B5445 SB 344 357 14 4.0% 0.7 a a 55_Southbound Old Wrexham Old SB 22 18 -3 -16% 0.8 a a Road_ATC_Site Wrexham 56_Southbound Road Borras Borras SB 26 42 17 65% 2.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 59_Southbound A534 WB 781 876 95 12% 3.3 a a A534_ATC_Site60_ Eastbound Cefn Cefn Road EB 217 218 1 0.3% 0.0 a a Road_ATC_Site 62_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 NB 280 243 -37 -13% 2.3 a a 63_Northbound Sontley Sontley NB 13 45 32 238% 5.9 a r Road_ATC_Site Road 64_Northbound Total 1670 1755 86 5% 2.1 Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 74 Local Model Validation Report

Table 30: Link Flow Validation – PM Peak Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline (Northbound) A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2097 2066 -31 -1.5% 0.7 a a 2_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2148 1966 -182 -8.5% 4.0 a a 3_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2213 2174 -39 -1.8% 0.8 a a 4_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2212 2335 123 5.6% 2.6 a a 5_Northbound A483_ATC_Site A483 NB 2215 2124 -90 -4.1% 1.9 a a 6_Northbound Total 8789 8600 -189 -2.1% 2.0 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline (Southbound) A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 2307 2449 142 6.2% 2.9 a a 2_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 2744 2950 205 7.5% 3.9 a a 3_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 2838 2686 -153 -5.4% 2.9 a a 4_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 2511 2474 -36 -1.5% 0.7 a a 5_Southbound A483_ATC_Site A483 SB 1969 2027 58 2.9% 1.3 a a 6_Southbound Total 10062 10137 74 0.7% 0.7 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 West (Eastbound) B5605_ATC_Site B5605 NB 600 636 36 6% 1.5 a a 67_Northbound B5097_ATC_Site B5097 EB 64 94 30 47% 3.4 a a 69_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 SB 777 789 12 1.6% 0.4 a a 71_Southbound B5101_ATC_Site B5101 SB 241 285 43 18% 2.7 a a 72_Northbound Gatewen Gatewen EB 139 74 -65 -47% 6.3 a r Road_ATC_Site Road 73_Eastbound Summerhill Summerhill EB 145 174 29 20% 2.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 74_Eastbound A541 SB 744 842 98 13% 3.5 a a A541_ATC_Site75_So uthbound Stansty Stansty SB 85 96 11 13% 1.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 76_Southbound Llay New Llay New SB 479 389 -90 -19% 4.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 77_Southbound

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 75 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Plas Action Plas Action EB 313 374 61 20% 3.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 78_Eastbound Total 3587 3751 165 4.6% 2.7 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH

A483 West (Westbound) B5605_ATC_Site B5605 SB 788 695 -93 -12% 3.4 a a 67_Southbound B5097_ATC_Site B5097 WB 110 178 68 62% 5.6 a r 69_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 NB 1045 1071 26 2.5% 0.8 a a 71_Northbound B5101_ATC_Site B5101 NB 460 632 172 37% 7.4 r r 72_Southbound Gatewen Gatewen WB 295 255 -39 -13.3% 2.4 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 73_Westbound Summerhill Summerhill WB 285 270 -15 -5.2% 0.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 74_Westbound A541_ATC_Site A541 NB 1030 946 -84 -8.2% 2.7 a a 75_Northbound Stansty Stansty NB 8 0 -8 -100% 3.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 76_Northbound Llay New Llay New NB 675 590 -85 -13% 3.4 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 77_Northbound Plas Action Plas Action WB 362 281 -82 -23% 4.6 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 78_Westbound Total 5057 4917 -140 -2.8% 2.0 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 East (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 EB 478 613 135 28% 5.8 r r 51_Eastbound Bersham Bersham EB 67 173 106 159% 9.7 r r Road_ATC_Site Road 52_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 EB 496 432 -64 -13% 3.0 a a 53_Eastbound Watery Watery SB 400 366 -34 -8.5% 1.7 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 54_Southbound A541 Mold A541 Mold SB 620 696 76 12% 3.0 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 40_Southbound Rhosddu Rhosddu SB 428 437 9 2.0% 0.4 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 41_Southbound A5152_ATC_Site A5152 WB 626 517 -108 -17% 4.5 r a 58_Westbound A5156_ATC_Site A5156 EB 1098 991 -107 -9.8% 3.3 a a 57_Westbound Total 4213 4225 12 0.3% 0.2 a a

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 76 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 East (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 WB 677 673 -3 -0.5% 0.1 a a 51_Westbound Bersham Bersham WB 80 61 -19 -24% 2.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 52_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 WB 434 435 1 0.2% 0.0 a a 53_Westbound Watery Watery NB 201 301 101 50% 6.4 r r Road_ATC_Site Road 54_Northbound A541 Mold A541 Mold NB 838 781 -56 -6.7% 2.0 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 40_Northbound Rhosddu Rhosddu NB 627 613 -14 -2.3% 0.6 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 41_Northbound A5152_ATC_Site A5152 EB 626 614 -11 -1.8% 0.5 a a 58_Eastbound A5156_ATC_Site A5156 WB 1383 1500 117 8.5% 3.1 a a 57_Eastbound Total 4865 4980 115 2.4% 1.6 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Central East (Outbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 NB 387 474 87 23% 4.2 a a 42_Northbound Park Park Avenue NB 48 22 -26 -54% 4.4 a a Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Northbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt NB 689 688 -1 -0.2% 0.0 a a 44_Northbound Smithfield Smithfield EB 162 200 39 24% 2.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 45_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 EB 499 588 89 18% 3.8 a a 47_Eastbound Total 1784 1972 188 10.5% 4.3 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Central East (Inbound) A5152_ATC_Site A5152 SB 393 374 -19 -4.8% 1.0 a a 42_Southbound Park Park Avenue SB 122 161 40 33% 3.3 a a Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Southbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt SB 609 591 -18 -2.9% 0.7 a a 44_Southbound Smithfield Smithfield WB 192 205 13 6.9% 0.9 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 45_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 WB 615 664 48 7.9% 1.9 a a 47_Westbound Total 1930 1995 64 3.3% 1.5 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 77 Local Model Validation Report

Site Flow Difference Validation Criteria Wrexham Outer East (Outbound) B5445_ATC_Site B5445 NB 532 490 -43 -8.0% 1.9 a a 55_Northbound Old Wrexham Old NB 34 0 -34 -100% 8.2 a r Road_ATC_Site Wrexham 56_Northbound Road Borras Borras NB 34 23 -11 -33% 2.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 59_Northbound A534_ATC_Site A534 EB 784 839 55 7.0% 1.9 a a 60_Eastbound Cefn Road_ATC_Site Cefn Road WB 229 200 -29 -13% 2.0 a a 62_Westbound A525_ATC_Site A525 SB 446 267 -179 -40 9.5 r r 63_Southbound Sontley Sontley SB 14 28 14 99% 3.1 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 64_Southbound Total 2059 1819 -241 -11.7% 5.5 Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Wrexham Outer East (Inbound) B5445_ATC_Site B5445 SB 405 379 -27 -6.6% 1.3 a a 55_Southbound Old Wrexham Old SB 42 14 -28 -6% 5.3 a r Road_ATC_Site Wrexham 56_Southbound Road Borras Borras SB 31 88 58 187% 7.5 a r Road_ATC_Site Road 59_Southbound A534 WB 1489 1661 172 12% 4.3 a a A534_ATC_Site60_Ea stbound Cefn Road_ATC_Site Cefn Road EB 389 408 19 4.9% 1.0 a a 62_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site A525 NB 317 257 -60 -19% 3.5 a a 63_Northbound Sontley Sontley NB 14 24 10 73% 2.3 a a Road_ATC_Site Road 64_Northbound Total 2672 2806 134 5.0% 2.6 Source: Mott MacDonald

9.1.13 With regards to the specified screenlines the validation results are shown in Table 31, Table 32 and Table 33 for the AM, IP and PM periods, respectively. The WebTAG validation criteria in Table 1 of TAG Unit M3.1 states that ‘Differences between modelled flows and counts should be less than 5% of the counts for all or nearly all screenlines.’

9.1.14 For this model the majority of screenlines for each time period are within this 5% threshold. If the individual link criteria are used then only one single screenline, in one direction, in the AM Peak is outside the specified criteria. This A483 Linear screenline heading Northbound has modelled flows that slightly exceed the observed flows only for the AM peak and therefore there will always be a slightly overestimate of flows on the A483 for this period.

9.1.15 Overall, these results are “satisfactory”, are within the require WebTAG criteria and confirm the validation of the A483 Wrexham model.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 78 Local Model Validation Report

Table 31: Link Flow Validation – AM Peak Validation Site Flow Difference Criteria Screenline Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH NB 9365 9240 -125 -1% 1.3 a a A483 Linear SB 7545 7475 -70 -1% 0.8 a a EB 4875 4650 -225 -5% 3.3 a a A483 West WB 2800 2839 39 1% 0.7 a a SB 5252 5216 -36 -1% 0.5 a a A483 East - WB 3501 3112 -388 6.8 r r 11% Outbound 1183 1509 326 28% 8.9 r r Wrexham Central East Inbound 2312 2214 -97 -4% 2.0 a a

Outbound 2673 2592 -80 -3% 1.6 a a Wrexham Outer East Inbound 1749 1909 159 9% 3.7 a a Total 40651 41253 40756 -497 -1% 2.5 a Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 32: Link Flow Validation – IP Peak Validation Site Flow Difference Criteria Screenline Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH NB 7000 7351 351 5% 4.1 a a A483 Linear SB 6921 7063 142 2% 1.7 a a EB 3168 3321 153 5% 2.7 a a A483 West WB 3250 3390 140 4% 2.4 a a SB 3513 3632 119 3% 2.0 a a A483 East WB 3709 3477 -232 -6% 3.9 r a Outbound 1432 1638 206 14% 5.3 r r Wrexham Central East Inbound 1761 1823 62 4% 1.5 a a

Outbound 1532 1595 62 4% 1.6 a a Wrexham Outer East Inbound 1670 1755 86 5% 2.1 a a Total 40651 33957 35045 1089 3% 5.9 a Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 33: Link Flow Validation – PM Peak Validation Site Flow Difference Criteria Screenline Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH NB 8888 8600 -288 -3% 3.1 a a A483 Linear SB 10190 10137 -53 -1% 0.5 a a EB 3576 3751 176 5% 2.9 a a A483 West WB 5060 4917 -143 -3% 2.0 a a SB 4213 4225 12 0% 0.2 a a A483 East WB 4878 4980 101 2% 1.4 a a

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 79 Local Model Validation Report

Outbound 1784 1972 188 11% 4.3 r a Wrexham Central East Inbound 1930 1995 64 3% 1.5 a a

Outbound 2059 1819 -241 -12% 5.5 r r Wrexham Outer East Inbound 2672 2806 134 5% 2.6 a a Total 40651 45251 45202 -48 0% 0.2 a Source: Mott MacDonald

9.1.16 Table 34 shows the summary of the link flow validation, for LGV’s and HGV’s in each of the three modelled time periods, detailing the proportion of cases that pass the WebTAG criteria. This data shows that the model validates well in terms of LGV’s and HGV’s.

Table 34: Validation Summary Table – LGV and HGV Validation Criteria Cases AM IP PM Target LGV Individual Link Flows (proximity) 70 91% 93% 86% >85% of cases Individual Link Flows GEH<5 70 73% 84% 73% >85% of cases Both Criteria 70 90% 93% 87% >85% of cases HGV Individual Link Flows (proximity) 70 93% 97% 100% >85% of cases Individual Link Flows GEH<5 70 86% 86% 83% >85% of cases Both Criteria 70 93% 97% 100% >85% of cases Source: Mott MacDonald

9.2 Journey Time Validation 9.2.1 Journey time validation of the model is generally good on key routes, especially as the Trafficmaster Data is for 2016 and has been used as a proxy for the 2018 Journey times, which have not been observed. The WebTAG criteria is listed in Table 35 and the overall performance of the model compared to observed data is detailed in Table 36, Table 37 and Table 38 for the AM, IP and PM periods, respectively.

Table 35: Journey Time Validation Criteria and Acceptability Guidelines Criteria Acceptability Guidelines Modelled times along routes should be >85% of routes within 15% of surveyed times (or 1 minute, if higher than 15%) Source: WebTAG UNIT M3.1 Highway Assignment Modelling, January 2014

Table 36: Observed and Modelled Journey Times AM Peak (Seconds) Route Dir. Obs. Mod. Diff. % Diff. WebTAG

NB 369 310 -59 -16% a 1. A525 Kingsmill Road SB 371 317 -54 -15% a NB 219 185 -34 -16% a 3. Stryt Road SB 228 201 -27 -12% a NB 285 176 -109 -38% r 4. A5156 - A534 SB 260 179 -81 -31% r 5. A483 NB 454 422 -32 -7% a

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 80 Local Model Validation Report

SB 453 425 -28 -6% a NB 363 205 -158 -44% r 6. A525 Ruthin Road SB 287 213 -74 -26% r NB 561 485 -76 -14% a 8. A5152 - B5445 SB 602 516 -86 -14% a NB 256 198 -58 -23% a 9. Main Road - Rhosddu Road SB 253 207 -46 -18% a NB 210 156 -54 -26% a 10. Mold Road SB 232 173 -59 -25% a

NB 270 275 5 2% a 12. A5152 - Wrexham Road SB 256 255 -1 0% a Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 37: Observed and Modelled Journey Times Inter Peak (Seconds) Route Dir. Obs. Mod. Diff. % Diff. WebTAG

NB 347 306 -41 -12% a 1. A525 Kingsmill Road SB 373 314 -59 -16% a NB 245 192 -53 -22% a 3. Stryt Road SB 242 198 -44 -18% a NB 280 177 -103 -37% r 4. A5156 - A534 SB 261 173 -88 -34% r NB 442 406 -36 -8% a 5. A483 SB 445 403 -42 -9% a NB 407 210 -197 -48% r 6. A525 Ruthin Road SB 313 209 -104 -33% r NB 574 489 -85 -15% a 8. A5152 - B5445 SB 538 473 -65 -12% a NB 239 194 -45 -19% a 9. Main Road - Rhosddu Road SB 253 196 -57 -23% a NB 219 159 -60 -27% a 10. Mold Road SB 242 154 -88 -36% r

NB 265 265 0 0% a 12. A5152 - Wrexham Road SB 263 262 -1 0% a Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 38: Observed and Modelled Journey Times PM Peak (Seconds) Route Dir. Obs. Mod. Diff. % Diff. WebTAG

NB 332 311 -21 6% a 1. A525 Kingsmill Road SB 308 318 10 -3% a NB 217 193 -24 11% a 3. Stryt Road SB 219 198 -21 10% a 4. A5156 - A534 NB 209 180 -29 14% a

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 81 Local Model Validation Report

SB 257 174 -83 32% r NB 429 417 -12 3% a 5. A483 SB 432 433 1 0% a NB 389 217 -172 44% r 6. A525 Ruthin Road SB 310 209 -101 32% r NB 507 530 23 -4% a 8. A5152 - B5445 SB 477 481 4 -1% a NB 220 215 -5 2% a 9. Main Road - Rhosddu Road SB 220 194 -26 11% a NB 201 171 -30 15% a 10. Mold Road SB 229 156 -73 32% r

NB 233 269 36 -15% a 12. A5152 - Wrexham Road SB 244 268 24 -10% a Source: Mott MacDonald

9.2.2 The 2016 Trafficmaster data received from the Welsh Government was compared to 2018 traffic flows in the Initial Traffic and Accident Report 402166-0014 and was shown to be a good overall fit. However, following further detailed processing and analysis of the journey time data on a link by link basis Mott MacDonald’s modelling team identified a number of minor quality issues and gaps within the data supplied. These included a lack of sufficient records on some links to ensure the data was robust enough to be used for calibration and validation and also some data infilling on other links.

9.2.3 Mott MacDonald have not undertaken any interpolation or infilling themselves and have used the data as supplied by the Analytical Team at Welsh Government. As the 2016 Trafficmaster data is the only observed journey time data available for the model area the data has been used for validation of all journey time routes wherever sufficient observation records had been recorded.

9.2.4 Portions of the journey time routes that had less than 6 acceptable observations have been discarded from the analysis as this low number of observations is not statistically robust (Journey Time Technical Note 402166-0093). As an example Figure 35 and Figure 36 show for the PM peak the parts of the journey time routes where the data is lacking and are shown in red. These diagrams show the three discarded journey time routes. For other routes there are small sections of missing data shown, which impact upon the validation of these small sections of the overall route.

9.2.5 Therefore, Routes 2, 7 and 11 have been discarded from the validation process due to lack of observed data as parts of these journey time routes lacked a sufficient number of observations to provide a statistically viable observed average journey times. The remaining 9 journey time routes are compared in the tables above.

9.2.6 Routes 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 12, which includes the A483 (Route 5) all show good journey time validation across all time periods.

9.2.7 Routes 4, 6, and 10 show reasonable validation. However, on parts of these routes the model runs a little faster than the observed data which is reflecting the inherent issue with any mobile phone data set that there is a lack of trips in areas with a high employment or commercial land use and limited or no residential land as the expansion of the mobile phone data is undertaken, at source, using census population data.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 82 Local Model Validation Report

9.2.8 This lack of trips in some areas of the model was mostly resolved using land use data and the synthetic model. However, in order to achieve a good traffic flow validation some links in the model were coded with slightly faster theoretical free flow speeds to ensure that the modelled route choices matched the observed, such as the Wrexham Industrial Estate access road (Route 4). This is standard practice in model development and is a feature of all strategic models which are, by definition, a mathematical representation of driver behaviour. Therefore, on links with no capacity issues and a minimum of junction delay the modelled traffic will invariably travel on the network a little faster than the observed average journey times.

9.2.9 The observed journey time data values for routes 2 and 11 during the PM peak are so low in comparison with the other time periods that the data has not been used as it is clearly incorrect. Journey time validation graphs for the 9 acceptable routes for the PM period are show in Figure 37 to Figure 54.

9.2.10 Taking all journey time routes into consideration shows that the proportion of routes that are in accordance with the WebTAG criteria is 78%, 72% and 78% for the AM, IP and PM peak periods, respectively, with a number of the individual routes being close to the WebTAG validation thresholds.

9.2.11 Notwithstanding the issues with using observed 2016 journey time data as a proxy for 2018 data, the 2018 model validates to a sufficiently robust level for the purposes of the project and in particular the model validates along the length of the A483.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 83 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 35: Observed Journey Time Data – PM Northbound

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 84 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 36: Observed Journey Time Data – PM Southbound

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 85 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 37: Route 1 - A525 Kingsmill Road Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 38: Route 1 - A525 Kingsmill Road Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 86 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 39: Route 3 - Stryt Road Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 40: Route 3 - Stryt Road Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 87 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 41: Route 4 - A5156 A534 Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 42: Route 4 - A5156 A534 Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 88 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 43: Route 5 - A483 Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 44: Route 5 - A483 Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 89 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 45: Route 6 - A525 Ruthin Road Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 46: Route 6 - A525 Ruthin Road Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 90 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 47: Route 8 - A5152 B5445 Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 48: Route 8 - A5152 B5445 Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 91 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 49: Route 9 - Main Road Rhosddu Road Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 50: Route 9 - Main Road Rhosddu Road Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 92 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 51: Route 10 - Mold Road Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 52: Route 10 - Mold Road Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 93 Local Model Validation Report

Figure 53: Route 12 - A5152 Wrexham Road Northbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 54: Route 12 - A5152 Wrexham Road Southbound PM Journey Time Validation

Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 94 Local Model Validation Report

10 Conclusions

10.1 Base Model Construction 10.1.1 The purpose of this Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) is to document the development of the 2018 local highway base model for the A483 Wrexham.

10.2 Network Construction 10.2.1 The A483 Wrexham Traffic Model has been developed with a June 2018 base year, covering three time periods for an average weekday:

● AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00); ● Inter Peak Average Hour (10:00-16:00); and ● PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00). 10.2.2 OS digital mapping, as well as Google Maps Street View, was used with site visit observations to construct the model network.

10.3 Matrix Construction 10.3.1 Origin destination trip information for use in trip matrix construction was obtained from three sources:

● Roadside Interview Survey; ● Mobile Phone Data; and a ● Synthetic Matrix (Census Data) 10.3.2 Traffic count datasets collected for the model time periods were inserted into a count database and used for various purposes, including the building of trip matrices and the generation of factors for both expansion and time period adjustment.

10.4 Base Model Calibration and Validation 10.4.1 Traffic count and journey time datasets collated for the model time periods were used independently in either the calibration or validation of the Wrexham model.

10.4.2 The A483 Wrexham base year traffic model has been successfully validated to the relevant WebTAG criteria in respect to the 2018 traffic flows and to a reasonable level with the observed 2016 journey time data, used as a proxy for 2018 speeds.

10.4.3 Therefore, the 2018 base year SATURN traffic model is proven to be robust enough for modelling purposes and can be used for all future year modelling and forecasting of traffic in the Wrexham Area.

402166 | 0017 | C |March 2020 Mott MacDonald | A483 Wrexham 95 Local Model Validation Report

Appendices

A. Speed Flow Curves – Network Coding Manual 96 B. Link Flow Validation Results 99

A. Speed Flow Curves – Network Coding Manual

Table 39: Speed/Flow Relationships Index Description S0 S2 Capacity N Rural 1 Rural Motorway 113 81 11650 2.80 D5 2 Rural Motorway 113 81 9320 2.80 D4 3 Rural Motorway 113 81 6990 2.80 D3 4 Rural Motorway 100 75 9320 4.7 D3 + Dynamic Hard Shoulder 60mph 5 Rural Motorway 113 74 4659 2.80 D2 6 Rural All- 98 76 8397 2.75 Purpose D4 (60mph) 7 Rural All- 80 62 8397 2.20 Purpose D4 50mph 8 Rural All- 112 80 6298 2.75 Purpose D3 (70mph) 9 Rural All- 98 76 6298 2.75 Purpose D3 60mph 10 Rural All- 80 62 6298 2.20 Purpose D3 50mph 11 Rural All- 112 73 4199 2.75 Purpose D2 (70 mph) 12 Rural All- 80 62 4199 2.20 Purpose D2 50mph 13 Rural All- 64 35 4199 1.60 Purpose D2 40mph 14 Rural WS2 93 55 1686 2.15 10.0m A Road 15 Rural S2 7.3m A 87 58 1328 1.99 Road (TD9/81) 16 Rural S2 7.3m A 82 53 1328 2.04 Road (Older) 17 Rural S2 A Road 64 35 1328 2.39 40mph 18 Rural S2 6.5m 67 45 1010 1.79 Poor 19 Rural S2 Other 54 35 1328 1.53 Road (slow)

Index Description S0 S2 Capacity N 20 Rural S2 Other 82 53 950 2.11 Road (narrow carriageway) 21 Rural S2 Other 54 35 950 1.53 Road (slow, narrow carriageway) 44 Rural Motorway 80 64 5580 2.6 D3 + Roadworks 45 Rural All- 112 80 10,497 2.75 Purpose D5 (70mph) 46 Rural All- 98 76 10,497 2.75 Purpose D5 (60mph) 47 Rural All- 112 80 8,397 2.75 Purpose D4 (70 mph) 48 Rural Motorway 113 81 13,980 2.8 D6 Suburban 22 Suburban D4 71 35 7080 1.42 23 Suburban D3 71 35 5310 1.42 24 Suburban D2 75 35 3540 2.56 (slight development) 25 Suburban D2 71 35 3540 1.42 (typical development) 26 Suburban D2 58 35 3540 0.93 (heavy development)1 27 Suburban D2 48 30 3540 1.28 (30mph) 28 Suburban S4 54 25 3400 2.00 (slight development) 29 Suburban S4 54 25 2500 2.00 (typical development) 30 Suburban S2 71 35 1680 1.52 (50mph) 31 Suburban S2 65 25 1680 2.63 (light development) 32 Suburban S2 61 25 1680 1.58 (typical development) 33 Suburban S2 58 25 1680 1.03 (heavy development) 34 Suburban S2 48 25 1680 1.28 (30mph) Urban 35 Urban Non- 48 30 896 2.22 central 50% development

Index Description S0 S2 Capacity N 36 Urban Non- 48 25 896 1.49 central 80% development 37 Urban Non 46 25 896 1.25 central 90% development 38 Urban Central 37 15 944 1.51 INT = 2 39 Urban Central 33 15 944 1.19 INT = 4.5 40 Urban Central 28 15 896 0.72 INT = 9 Small Town 41 Small Town 35% 63 32 1344 2.91 development 42 Small Town 60% 56 30 1344 2.37 development 43 Small Town 90% 46 30 1344 1.27 development Miscellaneous 99 Buffer Zone 70 50 10000 1.39 Connectors Source: Highways England

B. Link Flow Validation Results

Table 40: Link Flow Validation – AM Peak – Total Traffic and Cars (Vehicles) Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline – Northbound) A483_ATC_Site 2_Northbound A483 NB 1721 1709 -12 -0.7% 0.3 a a 1336 1507 171 12.8% 4.5 a a A483_ATC_Site 3_Northbound A483 NB 2186 2299 113 5.2% 2.4 a a 1766 2005 238 13.5% 5.5 a r A483_ATC_Site 4_Northbound A483 NB 2428 2414 -14 -0.6% 0.3 a a 1978 2084 106 5.3% 2.3 a a A483_ATC_Site 5_Northbound A483 NB 2614 2496 -118 -4.5% 2.3 a a 2177 2160 -16 -0.7% 0.3 a a A483_ATC_Site 6_Northbound A483 SB 2138 2032 -106 -5.0% 2.3 a a 1726 1727 2 0.1% 0.0 a a Total 9365 9240 -125 -1.3% 1.3 7672 7977 304 4.3% 3.7 A483 Linear Screenline – Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Southbound A483_ATC_Site 2_Southbound A483 SB 2257 2316 58 2.6% 1.2 a a 1753 1746 -8 -0.4% 0.2 a a A483_ATC_Site 3_Southbound A483 SB 2293 2265 -29 -1.3% 0.6 a a 1814 1789 -24 -1.3% 0.6 a a A483_ATC_Site 4_Southbound A483 SB 1970 1881 -89 -4.5% 2.0 a a 1496 1587 91 6.1% 2.3 a a A483_ATC_Site 5_Southbound A483 SB 1760 1797 37 2.1% 0.9 a a 1302 1458 155 11.9% 4.2 a a A483_ATC_Site 6_Southbound A483 NB 1521 1532 11 0.7% 0.3 a a 1091 1096 5 0.4% 0.1 a a Total 7545 7475 -70 -0.9% 0.8 5703 5930 227 4.0% 3.0 A483 West Screenline - Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Eastbound B5605_ATC_Site 67_Northbound B5605 NB 709 728 19 2.7% 0.7 a a 576 620 45 7.8% 1.8 a a B5097_ATC_Site 69_Eastbound B5097 EB 163 128 -35 -21.3% 2.9 a a 146 106 -40 -27.7% 3.6 a a A525_ATC_Site 71_Southbound A525 SB 777 896 119 15% 4.1 a a 644 800 156 24.2% 5.8 r r B5101_ATC_Site 72_Northbound B5101 SB 623 619 -4 -0.6% 0.2 a a 420 541 121 28.7% 5.5 r r Gatewen Road_ATC_Site Gatewen Road EB 339 253 -86 -25.3% 5.0 a a 307 237 -70 -22.9% 4.3 73_Eastbound a a

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Summerhill Road_ATC_Site Summerhill Road EB 155 193 37 24.1% 2.8 a a 133 159 26 19.4% 2.1 74_Eastbound a a A541_ATC_Site75_Southbound A541 SB 867 729 -138 -16.0% 4.9 r a 776 670 -106 -13.6% 3.9 a a Stansty Road_ATC_Site Stansty Road SB 204 135 -69 -33.7% 5.3 a r 199 120 -79 -39.8% 6.3 76_Southbound a r Llay New Road_ATC_Site Llay New Road SB 610 505 -105 -17.3% 4.5 r a 547 449 -98 -18.0% 4.4 77_Southbound a a Plas Action Road_ATC_Site Plas Action Road EB 428 464 36 8.5% 1.7 a a 349 410 61 17.5% 3.1 78_Eastbound a a Total 4875 4650 -225 -4.6% 3.3 4098 4113 15 0.4% 0.2 A483 West Screenline - Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Westbound B5605_ATC_Site 67_Southbound B5605 SB 498 482 -15 -3.1% 0.7 a a 364 438 75 20.5% 3.7 a a B5097_ATC_Site 69_Westbound B5097 WB 82 84 2 2.0% 0.2 a a 68 72 5 6.8% 0.6 a a A525_ATC_Site 71_Northbound A525 NB 583 703 120 20.7% 4.7 r a 432 600 168 38.8% 7.4 r r B5101_ATC_Site 72_Southbound B5101 NB 115 148 33 28.2% 2.8 a a 102 132 30 29.3% 2.8 a a Gatewen Road_ATC_Site Gatewen Road WB 76 73 -3 -3.9% 0.3 a a 61 60 -1 -1.3% 0.1 73_Westbound a a Summerhill Road_ATC_Site Summerhill Road WB 95 110 15 15.9% 1.5 a a 71 98 27 37.4% 2.9 74_Westbound a a A541_ATC_Site 75_Northbound A541 NB 651 661 10 1.5% 0.4 a a 536 524 -12 -2.2% 0.5 a a Stansty Road_ATC_Site Stansty Road NB 8 0 -8 -100.0% 3.9 a a 8 0 -8 -100.0% 3.9 76_Northbound a a Llay New Road_ATC_Site Llay New Road NB 404 356 -48 -11.9% 2.5 a a 333 312 -21 -6.3% 1.2 77_Northbound a a Plas Action Road_ATC_Site Plas Action Road WB 288 221 -67 -23.1% 4.2 a a 229 187 -42 -18.3% 2.9 78_Westbound a a Total 2800 2839 39 1.4% 0.7 2204 2424 220 10.0% 4.6 A483 East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site 51_Eastbound A5152 EB 628 613 -15 -2.4% 0.6 a a 516 506 -10 -1.9% 0.4 a a Bersham Road_ATC_Site Bersham Road EB 150 104 -46 -30.7% 4.1 a a 138 92 -46 -33.4% 4.3 52_Eastbound a a A525_ATC_Site 53_Eastbound A525 EB 472 425 -47 -10.0% 2.2 a a 404 363 -41 -10.1% 2.1 a a

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Watery Road_ATC_Site Watery Road SB 340 329 -12 -3.4% 0.6 a a 311 314 2 0.8% 0.1 54_Southbound a a A541 Mold Road_ATC_Site A541 Mold Road SB 817 954 137 16.7% 4.6 r a 654 669 16 2.4% 0.6 40_Southbound a a Rhosddu Road_ATC_Site Rhosddu Road SB 623 613 -10 -1.7% 0.4 a a 562 534 -27 -4.9% 1.2 41_Southbound a a A5152_ATC_Site 58_Westbound A5152 WB 548 638 90 16.3% 3.7 a a 487 410 -77 -15.8% 3.6 a a A5156_ATC_Site 57_Westbound A5156 EB 1673 1541 -132 -7.9% 3.3 a a 1264 1375 111 8.8% 3.1 a a Total 5252 5216 -36 -0.7% 0.5 a a 4336 4264 -72 -1.7% 1.1 a a A483 East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site 51_Westbound A5152 WB 340 377 37 10.9% 2.0 a a 250 220 -30 -11.9% 1.9 a a Bersham Road_ATC_Site Bersham Road WB 105 72 -32 -31.1% 3.5 a a 84 61 -23 -27.2% 2.7 52_Westbound a a A525_ATC_Site 53_Westbound A525 WB 379 350 -29 -7.8% 1.5 a a 334 305 -28 -8.5% 1.6 a a Watery Road_ATC_Site Watery Road NB 398 315 -83 -20.9% 4.4 a a 351 305 -46 -13.2% 2.6 54_Northbound a a A541 Mold Road_ATC_Site A541 Mold Road NB 393 454 61 15.4% 2.9 a a 338 390 51 15.2% 2.7 40_Northbound a a Rhosddu Road_ATC_Site Rhosddu Road NB 361 322 -39 -10.8% 2.1 a a 300 268 -32 -10.6% 1.9 41_Northbound a a A5152_ATC_Site 58_Eastbound A5152 EB 642 431 -211 -32.8% 9.1 r r 549 393 -155 -28.3% 7.2 r r A5156_ATC_Site 57_Eastbound A5156 WB 882 790 -92 -10.4% 3.2 a a 726 649 -77 -10.6% 2.9 a a Total 3501 3112 -388 -11.1% 6.8 2932 2592 -340 -11.6% 6.5 Wrexham Central East Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Screenline (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site 42_Northbound A5152 NB 178 300 121 68.0% 7.8 r r 143 271 128 89.8% 8.9 r r Park Avenue_ATC_Site Park Avenue NB 36 11 -26 -70.5% 5.3 a r 29 8 -21 -73.3% 5.0 43_Northbound a a Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt NB 424 436 12 2.8% 0.6 a a 350 369 19 5.4% 1.0 44_Northbound a a Smithfield Road_ATC_Site Smithfield Road EB 107 165 58 53.7% 4.9 a a 78 126 48 61.1% 4.7 45_Eastbound a a A525_ATC_Site 47_Eastbound A525 EB 437 597 161 36.9% 7.1 r r 370 537 167 45.0% 7.8 r r

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Total 1183 1509 326 27.6% 8.9 r r 970 1310 340 35.1% 10.1 r r Wrexham Central East Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Screenline (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site 42_Southbound A5152 SB 671 738 66 9.9% 2.5 a a 621 514 -107 -17.3% 4.5 r a Park Avenue_ATC_Site Park Avenue SB 213 74 -139 -65.1% 11.6 r r 197 65 -132 -67.1% 11.6 43_Southbound r r Stryt Holt_ATC_Site Stryt Holt SB 646 640 -6 -1.0% 0.2 a a 563 556 -7 -1.3% 0.3 44_Southbound a a Smithfield Road_ATC_Site Smithfield Road WB 230 218 -12 -5.3% 0.8 a a 191 182 -9 -4.7% 0.7 45_Westbound a a A525_ATC_Site 47_Westbound A525 WB 551 545 -6 -1.1% 0.3 a a 482 466 -15 -3.2% 0.7 a a Total 2312 2214 -97 -4.2% 2.0 2054 1783 -271 -13.2% 6.2 Wrexham Outer East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Eastbound) B5445_ATC_Site 55_Northbound B5445 NB 380 372 -7 -1.9% 0.4 a a 314 300 -14 -4.5% 0.8 a a Old Wrexham Road_ATC_Site Old Wrexham Road NB 22 0 -22 -100.0% 6.7 a r 21 0 -21 -100.0% 6.5 56_Northbound a r Borras Road_ATC_Site Borras Road NB 40 58 18 43.6% 2.5 a a 37 41 5 12.5% 0.7 59_Northbound a a A534_ATC_Site 60_Eastbound A534 EB 1653 1660 7 0.4% 0.2 a a 1123 1451 328 29.2% 9.2 r r Cefn Road_ATC_Site Cefn Road WB 330 316 -15 -4.5% 0.8 a a 282 244 -37 -13.2% 2.3 62_Westbound a a A525_ATC_Site 63_Southbound A525 SB 247 186 -61 -24.6% 4.1 a a 194 160 -35 -17.9% 2.6 a a Sontley Road_ATC_Site Sontley Road SB 10 27 17 174.2% 4.0 a a 9 24 15 170.1% 3.7 64_Southbound a a Total 2673 2592 -80 -3.0% 1.6 1970 2196 226 11.5% 4.9 Wrexham Outer East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Westbound) B5445_ATC_Site 55_Southbound B5445 SB 545 523 -23 -4.2% 1.0 a a 486 438 -48 -9.8% 2.2 a a Old Wrexham Road_ATC_Site Old Wrexham Road SB 35 124 89 252.5% 10.0 a r 28 81 53 186.3% 7.1 56_Southbound a r Borras Road_ATC_Site Borras Road SB 34 24 -10 -30.6% 1.9 a a 29 17 -13 -43.1% 2.6 59_Southbound a a A534_ATC_Site60_Eastbound A534 WB 641 771 130 20.3% 4.9 r a 387 643 255 65.9% 11.3 r r

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Cefn Road_ATC_Site Cefn Road EB 162 135 -26 -16.4% 2.2 a a 124 106 -18 -14.8% 1.7 62_Eastbound a a A525_ATC_Site 63_Northbound A525 NB 402 332 -70 -17.3% 3.6 a a 361 286 -75 -20.7% 4.2 a a Sontley Road_ATC_Site Sontley Road NB 22 29 6 29.0% 1.3 a a 21 24 3 13.5% 0.6 64_Northbound a a Total 1819 1909 90 4.9% 2.1 1415 1569 155 10.9% 4.0 Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 41: Link Flow Validation – Inter Peak – Total Traffic and Cars (Vehicles) Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline – Northbound) A483_ATC_Site 2_Northbound A483 NB 1577 1484 -93 -5.9% 2.4 a a 1135 1356 221 19.5% 6.3 r r A483_ATC_Site 3_Northbound A483 NB 1702 1743 40 2.4% 1.0 a a 1290 1530 240 18.6% 6.4 r r A483_ATC_Site 4_Northbound A483 NB 1768 1977 209 11.8% 4.8 a a 1362 1733 372 27.3% 9.4 r r A483_ATC_Site 5_Northbound A483 NB 1741 1959 218 12.5% 5.1 a r 1337 1700 363 27.1% 9.3 r r A483_ATC_Site 6_Northbound A483 SB 1505 1673 168 11.2% 4.2 a a 1153 1448 294 25.5% 8.2 r r Total 6716 7351 635 9.5% 7.6 5495 6412 916 16.7% 11.9 A483 Linear Screenline – Southbound Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483_ATC_Site 2_Southbound A483 SB 1503 1438 -65 -4.3% 1.7 a a 1081 1276 195 18.1% 5.7 r r A483_ATC_Site 3_Southbound A483 SB 1773 1817 44 2.5% 1.0 a a 1369 1589 220 16.0% 5.7 r r A483_ATC_Site 4_Southbound A483 SB 1801 1888 87 4.9% 2.0 a a 1388 1649 261 13.9% 6.7 r r A483_ATC_Site 5_Southbound A483 SB 1730 1867 137 7.9% 3.2 a a 1349 1618 269 18.8% 7.0 r r A483_ATC_Site 6_Southbound A483 NB 1541 1491 -50 -3.2% 1.3 a a 1179 1295 117 19.9% 3.3 a a Total 6844 7063 220 3.2% 2.6 5442 6151 709 13.0% 9.3 A483 West Screenline - Eastbound Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH B5605_ATC_Site 67_Northbound B5605 NB 567 589 22 3.9% 0.9 a a 440 497 57 12.9% 2.6 a a B5097_ATC_Site 69_Eastbound B5097 EB 77 85 8 10.8% 0.9 a a 63 60 -3 -4.3% 0.3 a a A525_ATC_Site 71_Southbound A525 SB 703 759 56 8.0% 2.1 a a 557 589 32 5.7% 1.3 a a B5101_ATC_Site 72_Northbound B5101 SB 231 305 75 32.4% 4.6 a a 193 271 79 40.8% 5.2 a r Gatewen Road_ATC_Site 73_Eastbound Gatewen Road EB 139 88 -51 -36.7% 4.8 a a 121 83 -38 -31.7% 3.8 a a

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Summerhill Road_ATC_Site 74_Eastbound Summerhill Road EB 114 158 44 38.3% 3.7 a a 97 140 43 44.6% 4.0 a a A541_ATC_Site75_Southbound A541 SB 671 648 -23 -3.5% 0.9 a a 569 603 34 6.0% 1.4 a a Stansty Road_ATC_Site 76_Southbound Stansty Road SB 61 156 95 156.2% 9.1 a r 59 149 90 152.5% 8.8 a r Llay New Road_ATC_Site 77_Southbound Llay New Road SB 373 303 -71 -18.9% 3.8 a a 321 251 -70 -21.8% 4.1 a a Plas Action Road_ATC_Site 78_Eastbound Plas Action Road EB 232 230 -2 -1.0% 0.2 a a 178 194 16 8.8% 1.1 a a Total 3168 3321 153 4.8% 2.7 2597 2836 239 9.2% 4.6 A483 West Screenline - Westbound Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH B5605_ATC_Site 67_Southbound B5605 SB 569 598 29 5.1% 1.2 a a 450 498 48 10.7% 2.2 a a B5097_ATC_Site 69_Westbound B5097 WB 78 93 15 19.9% 1.7 a a 65 72 6 9.9% 0.8 a a A525_ATC_Site 71_Northbound A525 NB 720 786 66 9.1% 2.4 a a 568 612 44 7.7% 1.8 a a B5101_ATC_Site 72_Southbound B5101 NB 250 277 27 10.9% 1.7 a a 200 223 23 11.6% 1.6 a a Gatewen Road_ATC_Site 73_Westbound Gatewen Road WB 148 141 -7 -4.5% 0.5 a a 131 133 3 2.0% 0.2 a a Summerhill Road_ATC_Site Summerhill Road WB 155 199 44 28.7% 3.3 a a 128 177 49 38.2% 4.0 74_Westbound a a A541_ATC_Site 75_Northbound A541 NB 656 690 34 5.2% 1.3 a a 569 638 69 12.1% 2.8 a a Stansty Road_ATC_Site 76_Northbound Stansty Road NB 10 0 -10 -100.0% 4.5 a a 10 0 -10 -100.0% 4.5 a a Llay New Road_ATC_Site 77_Northbound Llay New Road NB 418 357 -61 -14.5% 3.1 a a 364 292 -72 -19.7% 4.0 a a Plas Action Road_ATC_Site Plas Action Road WB 247 249 2 0.7% 0.1 a a 193 194 1 0.5% 0.1 78_Westbound a a Total 3250 3390 140 4.3% 2.4 2679 2840 161 6.0% 3.1 A483 East Screenline (Eastbound) Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A5152_ATC_Site 51_Eastbound A5152 EB 478 470 -8 -1.6% 0.4 a a 389 376 -13 -3.3% 0.7 a a Bersham Road_ATC_Site 52_Eastbound Bersham Road EB 60 110 49 81.5% 5.3 a r 50 90 40 79.2% 4.8 a a A525_ATC_Site 53_Eastbound A525 EB 435 418 -17 -3.9% 0.8 a a 380 363 -17 -4.5% 0.9 a a Watery Road_ATC_Site 54_Southbound Watery Road SB 312 281 -30 -9.8% 1.8 a a 274 262 -12 -4.5% 0.7 a a A541 Mold Road_ATC_Site A541 Mold Road SB 671 815 143 21.3% 5.3 r r 582 775 193 33.2% 7.4 40_Southbound r r Rhosddu Road_ATC_Site 41_Southbound Rhosddu Road SB 400 444 44 11.0% 2.1 a a 349 382 33 9.5% 1.7 a a A5152_ATC_Site 58_Westbound A5152 WB 405 417 12 2.9% 0.6 a a 345 334 -11 -3.1% 0.6 a a A5156_ATC_Site 57_Westbound A5156 EB 751 677 -74 -9.8% 2.8 a a 554 563 9 1.5% 0.4 a a Total 3513 3632 119 3.4% 2 a a 2924 3146 222 7.6% 4.0 r a

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) A483 East Screenline (Westbound) Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A5152_ATC_Site 51_Westbound A5152 WB 483 463 -20 -4.1% 0.9 a a 402 384 -19 -4.6% 0.9 a a Bersham Road_ATC_Site 52_Westbound Bersham Road WB 56 63 7 13.1% 0.9 a a 47 60 12 26.2% 1.7 a a A525_ATC_Site 53_Westbound A525 WB 453 449 -4 -0.9% 0.2 a a 379 382 3 0.9% 0.2 a a Watery Road_ATC_Site 54_Northbound Watery Road NB 278 219 -59 -21.3% 3.8 a a 245 179 -67 -27.2% 4.6 a a A541 Mold Road_ATC_Site A541 Mold Road NB 663 557 -106 -16.0% 4.3 r a 576 528 -48 -8.4% 2.1 40_Northbound a a Rhosddu Road_ATC_Site 41_Northbound Rhosddu Road NB 481 496 15 3.1% 0.7 a a 423 429 6 1.5% 0.3 a a A5152_ATC_Site 58_Eastbound A5152 EB 451 394 -56 -12.5% 2.7 a a 375 343 -32 -8.4% 1.7 a a A5156_ATC_Site 57_Eastbound A5156 WB 845 836 -9 -1.0% 0.3 a a 602 674 72 12.0% 2.9 a a Total 3709 3477 -232 -6.3% 3.9 3050 2979 -71 -2.3% 1.3 Wrexham Central East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site 42_Northbound A5152 NB 320 363 43 13.6% 2.4 a a 289 310 20 7.1% 1.2 a a Park Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Northbound Park Avenue NB 34 47 13 37.7% 2.0 a a 31 45 14 44.5% 2.2 a a Stryt Holt_ATC_Site 44_Northbound Stryt Holt NB 570 633 62 11.0% 2.5 a a 513 574 61 11.9% 2.6 a a Smithfield Road_ATC_Site 45_Eastbound Smithfield Road EB 134 157 23 17.1% 1.9 a a 116 118 3 2.3% 0.2 a a A525_ATC_Site 47_Eastbound A525 EB 374 438 64 17.2% 3.2 a a 318 356 39 12.2% 2.1 a a Total 1432 1638 206 14.4% 5.3 1267 1403 137 10.8% 3.7 Wrexham Central East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site 42_Southbound A5152 SB 397 411 14 3.4% 0.7 a a 341 334 -7 -2.1% 0.4 a a Park Avenue_ATC_Site 43_Southbound Park Avenue SB 115 87 -28 -24.0% 2.7 a a 98 80 -19 -19.0% 2.0 a a Stryt Holt_ATC_Site 44_Southbound Stryt Holt SB 549 568 19 3.5% 0.8 a a 484 496 13 2.6% 0.6 a a Smithfield Road_ATC_Site 45_Westbound Smithfield Road WB 160 202 42 26.0% 3.1 a a 136 156 19 14.3% 1.6 a a A525_ATC_Site 47_Westbound A525 WB 540 555 15 2.8% 0.6 a a 467 482 15 3.3% 0.7 a a Total 1761 1823 62 3.5% 1.5 1526 1548 22 1.4% 0.6 Wrexham Outer East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Eastbound) B5445_ATC_Site 55_Northbound B5445 NB 328 356 27 8.3% 1.5 a a 288 271 -17 -5.8% 1.0 a a Old Wrexham Road_ATC_Site Old Wrexham Road NB 16 0 -16 -100.0% 5.6 a r 12 0 -12 -100.0% 4.9 56_Northbound a a

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Borras Road_ATC_Site 59_Northbound Borras Road NB 28 51 24 84.7% 3.7 a a 21 19 -1 -6.0% 0.3 a a A534_ATC_Site 60_Eastbound A534 EB 669 754 86 12.8% 3.2 a a 478 611 133 27.7% 5.7 r r Cefn Road_ATC_Site 62_Westbound Cefn Road WB 182 197 15 8.5% 1.1 a a 132 140 8 6.2% 0.7 a a A525_ATC_Site 63_Southbound A525 SB 310 236 -74 -23.7% 4.5 a a 266 183 -83 -31.2% 5.5 a r Sontley Road_ATC_Site 64_Southbound Sontley Road SB 13 32 19 150.0% 4.1 a a 12 31 19 160.9% 4.1 a a Total 1532 1595 62 4.1% 1.6 1197 1224 28 2.3% 0.8 Wrexham Outer East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Westbound) B5445_ATC_Site 55_Southbound B5445 SB 344 357 14 4.0% 0.7 a a 277 286 9 3.1% 0.5 a a Old Wrexham Road_ATC_Site Old Wrexham Road SB 22 18 -3 -16.0% 0.8 a a 17 0 -17 -100.0% 5.9 56_Southbound a r Borras Road_ATC_Site 59_Southbound Borras Road SB 26 42 17 64.9% 2.9 a a 19 33 13 69.8% 2.6 a a A534_ATC_Site60_Eastbound A534 WB 781 876 95 12.2% 3.3 a a 559 708 149 26.7% 5.9 r r Cefn Road_ATC_Site 62_Eastbound Cefn Road EB 217 218 1 0.3% 0.0 a a 164 152 -12 -7.4% 1.0 a a A525_ATC_Site 63_Northbound A525 NB 280 243 -37 -13.2% 2.3 a a 230 197 -33 -14.5% 2.3 a a Sontley Road_ATC_Site 64_Northbound Sontley Road NB 13 45 32 238.7% 5.9 a r 12 43 30 248.5% 5.8 a r Total 1670 1755 86 5% 2.1 1266 1375 109 8.6% 3.0 Source: Mott MacDonald

Table 42: Link Flow Validation – PM Peak – Total Traffic and Cars (Vehicles) Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles)

Unique ID Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A483 Linear Screenline – Northbound) A483_ATC_Site 2_Northbound A483 NB 2097 2066 -31 -1.5% 0.7 a a 1639 1854 215 13.1% 5.1 a r A483_ATC_Site 3_Northbound A483 NB 2148 1966 -182 -8.5% 4.0 a a 1725 1858 133 7.7% 3.2 a a A483_ATC_Site 4_Northbound A483 NB 2213 2174 -39 -1.8% 0.8 a a 1734 2047 313 18.1% 7.2 a r A483_ATC_Site 5_Northbound A483 NB 2212 2335 123 5.6% 2.6 a a 1753 2160 407 23.2% 9.2 r r A483_ATC_Site 6_Northbound A483 SB 2215 2124 -90 -4.1% 1.9 a a 1831 1752 -78 -4.3% 1.8 a a Total 8789 8600 -189 -2.1% 2.0 7042 7817 776 11.0% 9.0

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) A483 Linear Screenline – Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Southbound A483_ATC_Site 2_Southbound A483 SB 2307 2449 142 6.2% 2.9 a a 1848 2368 521 28.2% 11.3 r r A483_ATC_Site 3_Southbound A483 SB 2744 2950 205 7.5% 3.9 a a 2259 2784 524 23.2% 10.4 r r A483_ATC_Site 4_Southbound A483 SB 2838 2686 -153 -5.4% 2.9 a a 2336 2512 176 7.5% 3.6 a a A483_ATC_Site 5_Southbound A483 SB 2511 2474 -36 -1.5% 0.7 a a 2079 2320 240 11.6% 5.1 a r A483_ATC_Site 6_Southbound A483 NB 1969 2027 58 2.9% 1.3 a a 1561 1880 319 20.5% 7.7 r r Total 10062 10137 74 0.7% 0.7 8236 9496 1260 15.3% 13.4 A483 West Screenline - Eastbound Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH B5605_ATC_Site 67_Northbound B5605 NB 600 636 36 6.0% 1.5 a a 510 600 91 17.8% 3.8 a a B5097_ATC_Site 69_Eastbound B5097 EB 64 94 30 46.7% 3.4 a a 53 83 30 56.8% 3.7 a a A525_ATC_Site 71_Southbound A525 SB 777 789 12 1.6% 0.4 a a 673 738 66 9.8% 2.5 a a B5101_ATC_Site 72_Northbound B5101 SB 241 285 43 18.0% 2.7 a a 215 268 52 24.4% 3.4 a a Gatewen Road_ATC_Site Gatewen Road EB 139 74 -65 -46.8% 6.3 a r 128 69 -59 -45.8% 5.9 a r 73_Eastbound Summerhill Road_ATC_Site Summerhill Road EB 145 174 29 19.8% 2.3 a a 129 165 35 27.4% 2.9 a a 74_Eastbound A541_ATC_Site75_Southbound A541 SB 744 842 98 13.1% 3.5 a a 648 761 113 17.5% 4.3 r a Stansty Road_ATC_Site Stansty Road SB 85 96 11 12.6% 1.1 a a 82 78 -4 -4.5% 0.4 a a 76_Southbound Llay New Road_ATC_Site Llay New Road SB 479 389 -90 -18.8% 4.3 a a 437 364 -73 -16.7% 3.7 a a 77_Southbound Plas Action Road_ATC_Site Plas Action Road EB 313 374 61 19.6% 3.3 a a 276 318 42 15.2% 2.4 a a 78_Eastbound Total 3587 3751 165 4.6% 2.7 3150 3445 294 9.3% 5.1 A483 West Screenline - Westbound Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH B5605_ATC_Site 67_Southbound B5605 SB 788 695 -93 -11.8% 3.4 a a 682 642 -39 -5.8% 1.5 a a B5097_ATC_Site 69_Westbound B5097 WB 110 178 68 61.6% 5.6 a r 99 157 58 58.5% 5.1 a r A525_ATC_Site 71_Northbound A525 NB 1045 1071 26 2.5% 0.8 a a 933 967 34 3.6% 1.1 a a B5101_ATC_Site 72_Southbound B5101 NB 460 632 172 37.4% 7.4 r r 405 598 194 47.9% 8.7 r r Gatewen Road_ATC_Site Gatewen Road WB 295 255 -39 -13.3% 2.4 a a 262 204 -58 -22.2% 3.8 a a 73_Westbound

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Summerhill Road_ATC_Site Summerhill Road WB 285 270 -15 -5.2% 0.9 a a 250 251 0 0.2% 0.0 a a 74_Westbound A541_ATC_Site 75_Northbound A541 NB 1030 946 -84 -8.2% 2.7 a a 926 907 -20 -2.1% 0.6 a a Stansty Road_ATC_Site Stansty Road NB 8 0 -8 - 3.9 a a 7 0 -7 -100.0% 3.8 a a 76_Northbound 100.0% Llay New Road_ATC_Site Llay New Road NB 675 590 -85 -12.6% 3.4 a a 631 513 -118 -18.7% 4.9 r a 77_Northbound Plas Action Road_ATC_Site Plas Action Road WB 362 281 -82 -22.6% 4.6 a a 299 257 -42 -14.0% 2.5 a a 78_Westbound Total 5057 4917 -140 -2.8% 2.7 4495 4496 2 0.0% 0.0 A483 East Screenline (Eastbound) Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A5152_ATC_Site 51_Eastbound A5152 EB 478 613 135 28.2% 5.8 r r 412 370 -42 -10.2% 2.1 a a Bersham Road_ATC_Site Bersham Road EB 67 173 106 159.4% 9.7 r r 62 168 106 171.4% 9.9 r r 52_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site 53_Eastbound A525 EB 496 432 -64 -13.0% 3.0 a a 468 405 -63 -13.5% 3.0 a a Watery Road_ATC_Site Watery Road SB 400 366 -34 -8.5% 1.7 a a 363 360 -3 -0.9% 0.2 a a 54_Southbound A541 Mold Road_ATC_Site A541 Mold Road SB 620 696 76 12.3% 3.0 a a 571 695 123 21.6% 4.9 r a 40_Southbound Rhosddu Road_ATC_Site Rhosddu Road SB 428 437 9 2.0% 0.4 a a 397 392 -4 -1.1% 0.2 a a 41_Southbound A5152_ATC_Site 58_Westbound A5152 WB 626 517 -108 -17.3% 4.5 r a 546 486 -60 -11.1% 2.7 a a A5156_ATC_Site 57_Westbound A5156 EB 1098 991 -107 -9.8% 3.3 a a 978 943 -34 -3.5% 1.1 a a Total 4213 4225 12 0.3% 0.2 3797 3820 22 0.6% 0.4 A483 East Screenline (Westbound) Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH A5152_ATC_Site 51_Westbound A5152 WB 677 673 -3 -0.5% 0.1 a a 619 609 -9 -1.5% 0.4 a a Bersham Road_ATC_Site Bersham Road WB 80 61 -19 -23.6% 2.3 a a 75 58 -17 -22.3% 2.1 a a 52_Westbound A525_ATC_Site 53_Westbound A525 WB 434 435 1 0.2% 0.0 a a 404 408 3 0.8% 0.2 a a Watery Road_ATC_Site Watery Road NB 201 301 101 50.1% 6.4 r r 187 281 94 50.1% 6.1 a r 54_Northbound A541 Mold Road_ATC_Site A541 Mold Road NB 838 781 -56 -6.7% 2.0 a a 748 759 11 1.4% 0.4 a a 40_Northbound

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Rhosddu Road_ATC_Site Rhosddu Road NB 627 613 -14 -2.3% 0.6 a a 590 537 -52 -8.9% 2.2 a a 41_Northbound A5152_ATC_Site 58_Eastbound A5152 EB 626 614 -11 -1.8% 0.5 a a 537 493 -44 -8.3% 2.0 a a A5156_ATC_Site 57_Eastbound A5156 WB 1383 1500 117 8.5% 3.1 a a 1200 1386 186 15.5% 5.2 r a Total 4865 4980 115 2.4% 1.6 4360 4531 171 3.9% 2.6 Wrexham Central East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Eastbound) A5152_ATC_Site 42_Northbound A5152 NB 387 474 87 22.6% 4.2 a a 362 351 -11 -3.1% 0.6 a a Park Avenue_ATC_Site Park Avenue NB 48 22 -26 -54.3% 4.4 a a 45 20 -25 -55.2% 4.4 a a 43_Northbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site 44_Northbound Stryt Holt NB 689 688 -1 -0.2% 0.0 a a 643 647 4 0.6% 0.2 a a Smithfield Road_ATC_Site Smithfield Road EB 162 200 39 23.9% 2.9 a a 147 185 37 25.2% 2.9 a a 45_Eastbound A525_ATC_Site 47_Eastbound A525 EB 499 588 89 17.9% 3.8 a a 458 547 89 19.5% 4.0 a a Total 1784 1972 188 10.5% 4.3 1656 1750 94 5.7% 2.3 Wrexham Central East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Westbound) A5152_ATC_Site 42_Southbound A5152 SB 393 374 -19 -4.8% 1.0 a a 353 348 -5 -1.5% 0.3 a a Park Avenue_ATC_Site Park Avenue SB 122 161 40 32.6% 3.3 a a 110 157 47 42.9% 4.1 a a 43_Southbound Stryt Holt_ATC_Site 44_Southbound Stryt Holt SB 609 591 -18 -2.9% 0.7 a a 561 544 -17 -3.0% 0.7 a a Smithfield Road_ATC_Site Smithfield Road WB 192 205 13 6.9% 0.9 a a 175 178 4 2.1% 0.3 a a 45_Westbound A525_ATC_Site 47_Westbound A525 WB 615 664 48 7.9% 1.9 a a 559 603 44 7.8% 1.8 a a Total 1930 1995 64 3.3% 1.5 1757 1830 73 4.1% 1.7 Wrexham Outer East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Eastbound) B5445_ATC_Site 55_Northbound B5445 NB 532 490 -43 -8.0% 1.9 a a 484 445 -39 -8.1% 1.8 a a Old Wrexham Road_ATC_Site Old Wrexham Road NB 34 0 -34 - 8.2 a r 32 0 -32 -100.0% 8.0 a r 56_Northbound 100.0% Borras Road_ATC_Site Borras Road NB 34 23 -11 -33.1% 2.1 a a 25 18 -7 -28.5% 1.5 a a 59_Northbound A534_ATC_Site 60_Eastbound A534 EB 784 839 55 7.0% 1.9 a a 698 775 77 11.0% 2.8 a a

Site Total Traffic (Vehicles) Cars (Vehicles) Cefn Road_ATC_Site 62_Westbound Cefn Road WB 229 200 -29 -12.7% 2.0 a a 204 179 -26 -12.6% 1.9 a a A525_ATC_Site 63_Southbound A525 SB 446 267 -179 -40.1% 9.5 r r 408 239 -169 -41.5% 9.4 r r Sontley Road_ATC_Site Sontley Road SB 14 28 14 98.7% 3.1 a a 14 27 13 91.9% 2.8 a a 64_Southbound Total 2059 1819 -241 -11.7% 5.5 1852 1656 -197 -10.6% 4.7 Wrexham Outer East Screenline Location Dir. Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH Count Modelled No. % GEH Flow GEH (Westbound) B5445_ATC_Site 55_Southbound B5445 SB 405 379 -27 -6.6% 1.3 a a 366 333 -33 -9.0% 1.8 a a Old Wrexham Road_ATC_Site Old Wrexham Road SB 42 14 -28 -67.1% 5.3 a r 38 0 -38 -100.0% 8.7 a r 56_Southbound Borras Road_ATC_Site Borras Road SB 31 88 58 187.4% 7.5 a r 27 76 49 179.3% 6.8 a r 59_Southbound A534_ATC_Site60_Eastbound A534 WB 1489 1661 172 11.5% 4.3 a a 1348 1531 183 13.6% 4.8 a a Cefn Road_ATC_Site 62_Eastbound Cefn Road EB 389 408 19 4.9% 1.0 a a 360 351 -9 -2.4% 0.5 a a A525_ATC_Site 63_Northbound A525 NB 317 257 -60 -18.8% 3.5 a a 282 232 -50 -17.8% 3.1 a a Sontley Road_ATC_Site Sontley Road NB 14 24 10 73.0% 2.3 a a 14 22 8 60.8% 2.0 a a 64_Northbound Total 2672 2806 134 5.0% 2.6 2421 2523 102 4.2% 2.1 Source: Mott MacDonald

402166 | 0017 | A | March 2020 P:\Cardiff\ERA\ITD\Projects\402495 A483 Wrexham KS2\6.0 Reports\LMVR\402495_A483 WrexhamLMVR_v1.7 accepting changes.docx