BODMIN LOCAL PLAN 2031 VISUM 2031 STRATEGIC MODEL UPDATE
MAY 2016
BODMIN LOCAL PLAN 2031 VISUM
2031 STRATEGIC MODEL UPDATE Cornwall Council
Final
Project no: 70019328 Date: May 2016
– WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff The Forum Barnfield Road Exeter EX1 1QR
Tel: +44 (0) 1392 229 769 Fax: +44 (0) 1392 229 701 www.wsp-pb.com
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3
Remarks Draft for Issue Final Final
Date 08/04/2016 17/05/2016 20/05/2016
Prepared by Gwyn Jones Gwyn Jones Gwyn Jones
Signature
Checked by Chris Rice Chris Rice Chris Rice
Signature
Authorised by Thea Wattam Thea Wattam Thea Wattam
Signature
Project number 70019328 70019328 70019328
ii
PRODUCTION TEAM
CORNWALL COUNCIL
Strategic Transport Planner Rebecca Jackson
Senior Technician Lee Marks
WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF
Principal Transport Planner Thea Wattam
Senior Transport Planner Chris Rice
Assistant Engineer Gwyn Jones
CORMAC CONSULTANCY
Team Leader Rick Clayton
Bodmin Local Plan 2031 VISUM WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Cornwall Council Project No 141-00000-00
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
1 BACKGROUND ...... 2
1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 2
1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...... 2
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE...... 2
2 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS...... 3
2.1 LOCAL PLAN ...... 3
2.2 MODELLED SCENARIOS ...... 3
2.3 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS...... 3
3 MODEL METHODOLOGY ...... 6
3.1 STEPS TAKEN ...... 6
3.2 BASE MODEL ...... 6
3.3 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT ...... 6
3.4 NETWORK UPDATE ...... 6
3.5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT ...... 7
3.6 RESULTS OUTPUT ...... 7
3.7 FURTHER INFORMATION ...... 7
4 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT ...... 10
4.1 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT ...... 10
4.2 DEMAND MATRICES ...... 10
4.3 STEP 1 – TRIP GENERATION...... 11
4.4 STEP 2 – BACKGROUND GROWTH ...... 11
4.5 STEP 3 – HGV GROWTH ...... 12
4.6 STEP 4 – DISTRIBUTION ...... 12
Bodmin Local Plan 2031 VISUM WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Cornwall Council Project No 141-00000-00
iv
4.7 STEP 5 – HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT ...... 14
4.8 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION ...... 14
5 MODEL RESULTS ...... 15
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 15
5.2 JUNCTION CAPACITY ...... 15
5.3 TRAFFIC FLOWS ...... 18
5.4 QUEUE LENGTH ...... 19
5.5 JOURNEY TIMES ...... 23
6 CONCLUSIONS ...... 26
6.1 SUMMARY ...... 26
6.2 CONCLUSION ...... 26
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT SITES ACROSS BODMIN ...... 4 FIGURE 2: PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ...... 4 FIGURE 3: PROPOSED EMPLOYMENT AREAS...... 5 FIGURE 4: 'DO MINIMUM' & 'DO SOMETHING' TRANSPORT MEASURES ...... 5 FIGURE 5: MAP OF TRANSPORT MEASURE LOCATIONS ...... 8 FIGURE 6: BODMIN MODEL SCOPE WITH ZONE BOUNDARIES...... 9 FIGURE 7: JOURNEY TYPES INCLUDED WITHIN THE 2031 BODMIN MODELLED SCENARIOS ...... 10 FIGURE 8: AM & PM ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES (PCUS)...... 11 FIGURE 9: DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS IN VISUM ZONES...... 13 FIGURE 10: VALUES OF TIME AND DISTANCE ...... 14 FIGURE 11: JUNCTION CAPACITY OVERVIEW ...... 16 FIGURE 12: AM JUNCTION CAPACITY ...... 17 FIGURE 13: PM JUNCTION CAPACITY ...... 17 FIGURE 14: AM ‘DO NOTHING’ MAIN FLOW OF TRAFFIC THROUGH BODMIN ...... 18 FIGURE 15: KEY LINKS TRAFFIC FLOW (AM) ...... 18 FIGURE 16: KEY LINKS TRAFFIC FLOW (PM) ...... 19 FIGURE 17 QUEUE LENGTHS PER SCENARIO (AM) ...... 19 FIGURE 18 QUEUE LENGTH IMAGES PER SCENARIO (AM) ...... 20 FIGURE 19 QUEUE LENGTHS PER SCENARIO (PM) ...... 21 FIGURE 20 QUEUE LENGTH IMAGES PER SCENARIO (PM) ...... 22 FIGURE 21: JOURNEY TIME ROUTES ...... 23
Bodmin Local Plan 2031 VISUM WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Cornwall Council Project No 141-00000-00
v
FIGURE 22: AM JOURNEY TIME ...... 24 FIGURE 23: AM JOURNEY TIME COMPARISON...... 24 FIGURE 24: PM JOURNEY TIME ...... 25 FIGURE 25 PM JOURNEY TIME COMPARISON...... 25
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – TEMPRO GROWTH FACTORS APPENDIX B – HGV (RTF GROWTH FACTORS) APPENDIX C – TRAFFIC FLOWS APPENDIX D – QUEUING APPENDIX E – CONGESTED JUNCTIONS
Bodmin Local Plan 2031 VISUM WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Cornwall Council Project No 141-00000-00
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff have been commissioned to assess the effectiveness of proposed transport measures in support of the Bodmin Local Plan using the Bodmin Transport VISUM Model. The work builds on the base VISUM model (developed in 2015), and considers future scenarios in 2031.
In order to understand how Bodmin is likely to operate should the local plan growth be realised, three separate scenarios were modelled:
x ‘2031 do nothing’ scenario - maintains the current road layout of Bodmin and includes additional trips created by development sites already committed up to 2031. x ‘2031 do minimum’ scenario - includes traffic for committed and non-committed developments and also introduces committed transport schemes up to 2031. x ‘2031 do something’ model - includes all developments and both committed and non- committed transport measures up to 2031.
In total, thirteen transport measures were tested; seven of these were tested in the ‘do minimum’ scenario and all thirteen in the ‘do something’ modelling. The three different 2031 scenarios (as defined above) allow for comparison between the different levels of intervention, and the effectiveness of measures in mitigating the effects of additional development traffic.
Flow data, journey times, junction capacity data and queuing results were drawn from the modelling in order to assess how each network is likely to operate with 2031 flow levels. Results data from the AM and PM periods were compared for each scenario.
The overall results show that with the additional development traffic in place the ‘2031 do something’ scenario network operates with higher journey times on some routes, and less spare junction capacity overall than the ‘2031 do minimum’ scenario. Increased delays are predominantly the result of the proposed implementation of signalised junctions to the network – in particular the Launceston Road / Cooksland Road junction in the ‘2031 do something’ scenario increases journey times by approximately 3 minutes longer in the northbound direction for both peak periods than the scenarios in which the junction remains operating under priority control.
The results show reduced queuing in the ‘2031 do something’ model network in comparison to the ‘2031 do minimum’ scenario in the AM peak model. This shows a reduction in queuing on the eastbound Dunmere Road movement into the town centre as well as Turf Street southbound. In the PM peak, queues were shown to increase from the ‘do minimum’ scenario to the ‘do something’ scenario.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the 2031 Bodmin modelling exercise is that while journey times increase on some routes in the ‘do something’ scenarios as a result of transport measures (specifically signalisation of junctions), some benefits are shown in reduced levels of queuing in the AM peak. An added benefit can be seen in the introduction of improved pedestrian and cycle facilities across the town which will improve safety and have a positive effect on public health.
2
1 BACKGROUND 1.1 BACKGROUND
Bodmin holds significant strategic importance within Cornwall, sitting adjacent to the A30 and seeing high volumes of traffic entering the town from the A38 to the east. Due to the connectivity with other major conurbations within Cornwall, including Truro and Newquay, it is important to ensure that any increase in traffic volume is not to the detriment of the local or regional road networks.
A Bodmin transport model was updated by WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff in 2014 at the request of Cornwall Council. This was undertaken with the purpose of creating a fit for purpose base model of the region, suitable for the offline testing of development scenarios in support of the Bodmin Local Plan.
A modelling exercise is now required to consider how Bodmin is likely to operate in 2031 with anticipated Local Plan forecast growth and planned transport intervention measures.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The primary purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the modelling approach which has been applied to the future year demand forecasts and the testing of potential infrastructure schemes and major developments across the Bodmin area.
The second half of the report focuses on the analysis of results which have been output from each of the proposed models. This is in order to explore the potential impacts of additional traffic across the town resultant from the new developments. The effectiveness of proposed transport measures in reducing the impact of any increase in flow will also be investigated.
Specifically the report aims to meet the below objectives to:
x Assess the level of expected increase in traffic resultant from the proposed developments x Assess the performance in terms of journey times, queuing and numbers of congested junctions for each of the tested scenarios x Assess the suitability of the proposed transport measures in mitigating the effects of the expected increase in vehicle flow
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE
The rest of the report will be structured as below:
2) Development Scenarios – This section will explore the developments and transport measures investigated in each of the modelled scenarios. 3) Modelled Assumptions and Methodology – The method taken to complete each of the modelled scenarios is outlined as are assumptions which were taken during the exercise. 4) Model Results – The outputs from each of the modelled scenarios will be explained and comparison between each of the scenarios will be undertaken. 5) Conclusions – A summary of the findings from the modelling is outlined and conclusions drawn from the results.
3
2 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 2.1 LOCAL PLAN
Cornwall Council’s Local Plan1 states that by 2031 there will be a minimum of:
x 3,200 additional domestic dwellings x 38,400 sqm of new employment space x 6,000 sqm of improved retail space x Circa 650 new jobs
2.2 MODELLED SCENARIOS
To assess the potential impact of the proposed Local Plan developments up to 2031, three modelled scenarios are considered within the modelling. These are as seen below and cover three different levels of intervention in support of the Local Plan growth:
x 2031 ‘do nothing’ matrix - TEMPro growth, committed developments only and no transport measures
x 2031 ‘do minimum’ matrix – TEMPro growth, committed & non-committed developments with committed transport measures only
x 2031 ‘do something’ matrix – TEMPro growth, committed and non-committed developments with committed and non-committed transport measures.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Seven areas of development comprising a mixture of housing and employment sites have been put forward in the Local Plan. The proposed developments are spread geographically across the town and are summarised below:
Æ BdH1 – Dunmere Road – 180 dwellings Æ BdUE3 (NE) – Castle Street – 150 dwellings Æ BdUE1 – Priory Road – 750 dwellings Æ BdUE2 – Halgavor Road – 770 dwellings Æ BdUE3 (W) – St Lawrence’s – 780 dwellings & 8,000sqm office & industrial space Æ BdUE4 – Callywith Urban Village – 580 dwellings & 26,800sqm industrial space Æ BdE1 – Beacon Technology Park – 3,600sqm office space
The location of each development can be seen in Figure 1 below:
1 Bodmin Town Framework – Consultation Document, March 2013.
4
Figure 1: Location of development sites across Bodmin
A summary of each development and its status as committed or non-committed can be seen below in Figure 2, this also indicates in which modelled scenario each development appears.
DWELLINGS DO DO DO HOUSING SITES LOCATION STATUS (MAX) NOTHING MINIMUM SOMETHING BdH1 - Dunmere Road 180 North West Committed 9 9 9 Non- BdUE3 - Castle Street 150 North X 9 9 Committed Non- BdUE1 - Priory Road 750 South East X 9 9 Committed Non- BdUE2 - Halgavor 770 South X 9 9 Committed Non- BdUE3 - St Lawrence's 780 West X 9 9 Committed BdUE4 - Callywith Urban Non- 580 North X 9 9 Village Committed Total 3,210
Figure 2: Proposed housing developments As will be seen later on in this report a future demand matrix was produced for each of the scenarios in which the developments are included.
Non-committed schemes appear in both the ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ scenarios, which enables testing of forecast Local Plan development with high and low levels of transport intervention measures.
Similarly employment areas were also categorised as either committed or non-committed. A summary of the proposed employment spaces can be seen within Figure 3 below.
5
SPACE DO DO DO EMPLOYMENT SITES LOCATION STATUS (SQM) NOTHING MINIMUM SOMETHING BdE1 - Beacon Technology Non- 3,600 West X 9 9 Park Committed Non- BdUE3 - St Lawrence 8,000 North East X 9 9 Committed Non- BDUE4 - Callywith 26,800 North East X 9 9 Committed Total 41,610
Figure 3: Proposed employment areas
To mitigate against additional traffic demand arising from the developments a number of transport measures have been designed for inclusion on the network. These measures can be seen in Figure 4:
NUMBER LOCATION TYPE
1 A389 Denison Road / Turf Street / Priory Road 'Church Square' Low Speed Area A30 / A389 Launceston Road ‘Callywith Gate’ Roundabout 2 Junction Improvement
A389 Launceston Road / Priory Road junction 3 Junction Improvement
Camel Trail to Lanhydrock 4 Cycle infrastructure
Boundary Road to Dunmere Road link 5 New Link Road
St Nicholas Street/ Harleigh Road (Bodmin & Wenford Station) 6 New Puffin Crossing
Omaha Rd/ Lostwithiel Road 7 New Toucan Crossing
A389 Launceston Road / Cooksland Road 8 Signalised Junction
A389 / Westheath Avenue 'Fiveways' 9 Junction Improvement
Harleigh Road / Beacon Road (over the bridge) 10 One-way System
Lostwithiel Road Link 11 New Link Road
A389 Westheath Avenue junction / Boundary Road widening 12 Junction Improvement
B3268 Lostwithiel Road / Halgavor Park Roundabout 13 Junction Improvement
Figure 4: 'Do Minimum' & 'Do Something' transport measures
The transport measures highlighted in orange represent those schemes found in both the ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ scenarios, whereas those in blue can be seen in the ‘do something’ scenario only.
The transport measures represent improvements on the current network with the intention of increasing overall network capacity across the town. This is to mitigate an increase in forecast growth in traffic demand expected by 2031. The transport measures also represent a step change in the provision and quality of pedestrian and cycle facilities across the town.
6
3 MODEL METHODOLOGY 3.1 STEPS TAKEN
In order to carry out the model build the following steps were taken:
•A network check of the base model was undertaken to ensure 1 - Base Model the current road network is accurately represented
•2031 future matrices were created for Bodmin using TEMPro 2 - Matrix Development and TRICS data to determine traffic growth
• Commited and non-committed transport schemes were coded 3 - Network Update into the Bodmin VISUM to create proposed networks
• The future matrices were entered into the new model 4 - Trip Assignment networks and run to assign flows across each network
•Results from the model were extracted to obtain journey time, 5 - Results Output queue and capacity data from each scenario
The rest of this section will expand on each step explaining the process taken in producing the proposed modelling.
3.2 BASE MODEL
The base model originally developed in 2012 was subject to a full network review in 2014. This was undertaken to ensure the modelled network matches the existing Bodmin Road network. As a thorough investigation was made for the 2014 model, it is assumed that the existing layout is fit for use.
The original base year model was built specifically as a highway model. This means that no public transport lines were included. Consequently, no public transport lines or non-motorised transport routes have been modelled in the future year scenarios.
3.3 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT
The development of the future demand matrices involved the utilisation of TEMPro and TRICS data in order to establish 2031 traffic forecasts. The matrix construction in itself is an involved process and as such is expanded upon in a separate chapter in section 4.
3.4 NETWORK UPDATE
As with the base version the 2031 Bodmin network update was undertaken using VISUM 15 strategic modelling software.
Three separate networks were developed in line with the 2031 ‘do nothing’, ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ scenarios. The ‘do nothing’ model did not require any changes other than updating the demand matrix with the AM and PM 2031 ‘do nothing’ matrix. The network was not changed in the ‘do nothing’ model as it is assumed that no transport measures are being put in place in this scenario.
7
The ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ modelling involved coding committed and non-committed transport measures into each of the networks respectively. Of the thirteen transport measures proposed seven appear in the ‘do minimum’ network and all thirteen appear in the ‘do something’ model. This allows us to compare and contrast between the two modelled scenarios to establish the extent in which the transport measures make a difference to network operation.
The location of the transport measures across Bodmin can be found in Figure 5 overleaf which represents a map of the modelled area. As before those highlighted in orange appear in both ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ models and the measures highlighted in blue appear in the ‘do something’ scenario only.
As with the original base model the modelled peak hours were established as 08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00 for the AM and PM peaks respectively. These peak hours were maintained for consistency and to allow for fair comparison between the scenarios.
Similarly the overall extent of the model was maintained between the base and proposed modelled networks. The fully modelled area covers the town of Bodmin and the immediate surrounding area as shown in Figure 6.
3.5 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Following completion of the proposed networks the matrices were applied to each of the 2031 models for the AM and PM peak periods. The trip assignment is tied to the matrix development and is further expanded upon in section 4.7.
3.6 RESULTS OUTPUT
For each of the modelled scenarios, results were output from the model for the AM and PM periods. In order to gain an understanding on network operation, flow, journey time, queueing and capacity data was output for comparison. This provided a good indication of which areas in each model are operating well and also provides guidance on which areas required further investigation. A full run down of the modelling results can be found in section 5 of this report.
3.7 FURTHER INFORMATION
Further detailed explanations of the initial network build and subsequent update can be found in the 2014 Bodmin Local Model Validation Report (LMVR). This outlines the construction of the highway network, zone system and the wider network area.
8
Figure 5: Map of transport measure locations
9
Figure 6: Bodmin model scope with zone boundaries
10
4 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT
4.1 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT
The 2031 forecast matrices were created using TEMPro and TRICS data as outlined in the Department for Transport TAG unit 4 ‘Forecasting and Uncertainty’. Future year trip ends for 2031 were produced using information gathered from the Department for Transport’s (DfT) National Trip End Model (NTEM) with information output from NTEM using TEMPro software. As outlined earlier in this report the collation of trip end data allowed for the creation of ‘do nothing’, ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ matrices. Each matrix was created for the eight journey types included within the modelling as seen in Figure 7 below:
TITLE TYPE DESCRIPTION
HBW Home Based Work Journeys between home and work Journeys from home and work at employers HBEB Home Based Employers Business expense HBE Home Based Education Journeys between home and education
HBO Home Based Other Journeys between home and leisure activities Journeys at employers expense to destinations NHBEB Non-Home Based Employers Business excluding home NHBO Non-Home Based Other Leisure journeys which do not originate from home Journeys made by goods vehicles weighing below LGV Light Goods Vehicles 3.5 tonnes Journeys made by goods vehicles weighing above HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles 3.5 tonnes Figure 7: Journey types included within the 2031 Bodmin modelled scenarios
4.2 DEMAND MATRICES
Matrices were produced for each scenario utilising the method outlined in the flow chart below. Each step is described in further detail for the remainder of this chapter.
•To determine the total traffic flow to/from each explicitly 1 - Trip Generation modelled development site.
•To determine growth factors to be applied to trips 2 - Background Growth associated with non-development zones.
• To determine the growth factors to be applied to HGV 3 - HGV Growth trips associated with non-development zones
• To determine the distribution of traffic to, from and 4 - Distribution between explicitly modelled development sites.
•To assign the forecast demand matrices onto the forecast 5 - Highway Assignment network using the highway assignment software VISUM
11
4.3 STEP 1 – TRIP GENERATION
In order to ascertain the level of certainty of each development being implemented an uncertainty log was produced. This was created with assistance from Cornwall County Council and CORMAC consultancy in order to establish the likelihood of each proposed development being taken forward. A table was created categorising each development from certain to be built (e.g. pre-approved schemes) to less likely for those developments still seeking planning approval.
Following the categorisation of each development these were separated into committed and non- committed schemes for implementation into the model. At this stage in the development of the emerging local plan only the Dunmere Road (BdH1) housing development has pre-approved planning permission and therefore this represents the sole development seen in the ‘do nothing’ scenario.
Following the completion of the uncertainty log, trip ends were established using the TRICS database for developments of a similar size and nature. Trips were then point loaded into the matrix within the zones in which the developments are to appear. The resultant trip generation for each development area can be seen in the table below:
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DWELLINGS AM AM PM PM SPACE (SQM) SITE ARRIVALS DEPARTURES ARRIVALS DEPARTURES BdE1 – Beacon Technology 0 3,600 69 7 6 60 Park
BdUE1 – Priory Road 750 0 83 235 191 124 BdUE2 – Halgavor 770 0 85 241 196 128
BdUE3 (NE) – Castle Street 150 0 17 47 38 25
BdUE3 (W) – St Lawrence’s 780 8,000 116 263 202 154
BdUE4 – Callywith Urban 580 26,800 165 245 158 180 Village BdH1 - Dunmere Road 180 0 20 56 46 30
Total 3,210 38,400 555 1,094 837 701
Figure 8: AM & PM arrivals and departures (PCUs)
4.4 STEP 2 – BACKGROUND GROWTH
Background traffic growth has been applied to traffic associated with non-development zones through obtaining growth factors from TEMPro (dataset 6.2)2. Background traffic growth was not applied to new development zones which contained point-loaded trips.
TEMPro growth factors were applied to non-development zones in the model based on the wider
2 TEMPro Growth was only applied to ‘light’ vehicles (i.e. cars) as HGV growth was applied separately
12
NTEM zone within which each model zone lies. County, Regional or National factors were applied to larger external zones that are distant from the study area.
To prevent over-estimating traffic growth within the Bodmin area the planning assumptions within TEMPro were adjusted to remove houses and employment which were explicitly modelled as development sites. Where the number of residential units or jobs explicitly modelled exceeded the estimates in TEMPro, the future level was fixed at the 2010 level (i.e. was not adjusted to assume negative background growth). The latter assumption is considered to provide an appropriate representation of Core Strategy aspirations.
The TEMPro growth factors used in the creation of the 2031 forecast matrices are provided at Appendix A.
4.5 STEP 3 – HGV GROWTH
Growth factors for HGV vehicles were determined using the Department for Transport’s Road Traffic Forecasts 2015 (RTF)3. As with TEMPro growth, RTF growth was only applied HGV trips associated with zones which did not include point loaded developments.
The RTF growth factors used in the creation of the 2031 forecast matrices are provided at Appendix B.
4.6 STEP 4 – DISTRIBUTION
In order to ascertain distribution across the model the locations of the development areas were first identified and then assigned to existing zones within the Bodmin Transport Model. The zones in which the development areas fall can be seen in Figure 9 overleaf.
3 Factors were calculated based upon the RTF ‘Scenario 1’ assumptions.
13
Development No. Type Zone Bd-E1 1 Employment 4 Bd-UE3 2 Employment 42 Bd-UE4 3 Employment 51 BdH1 4 Housing 5 Bd-UE3 (NE) 5 Housing 47 Bd-UE1 6 Housing 40/42/43 Bd-UE2 7 Housing 26/46 Bd-UE3 (W) 8 Housing 5 Bd-UE4 9 Housing 51
Figure 9: Development locations in VISUM zones
14
Once the developments were assigned to the correct VISUM nodes distribution of movements from, to and between zones were calculated. As the zone numbers were maintained from the base model the percentages for vehicle trips between zones broadly remain the same however these now factor in the increased development traffic.
4.7 STEP 5 – HIGHWAY ASSIGNMENT
The demand matrix was assigned onto the forecast network using the highway assignment modelling software VISUM (v.15.03).
The model was set to use VISUM’s ‘Assignment with ICA’ method. This uses a similar method to SATURN’s simulation/assignment loops and uses the following process:
x Establish starting Volume Delay Functions (VDFs) for junction turns; x Assign traffic to network; x Run junction modelling; x Re-calibrate VDFs for junction turns; x Iterate between assignment and junction modelling until convergence is met.
The method of assignment was set to ‘Equilibrium Assignment’, which uses a path based iterative assignment technique to reach Wardrop’s Equilibrium.
Blocking back was also enabled – this means that if flow demand exceeds link capacity over the hour then queues are formed in the network at the bottleneck. Downstream traffic is subsequently reduced while if the queue exceeds the stacking capacity of the link it will block back to upstream links.
For continuity purposes, the same value of time and distance for the assignment as the 2014 Bodmin base model were used. As mentioned in the 2014 LMVR, the following values were established from the DfT Databook for the year 2014, and are presented in Figure 10: Values of Time and Distance
TRIP PURPOSE PENCE PER MINUTE PENCE PER KM Work 11.35 7.06 Employer’s Business 37.03 13.15 Other 10.07 7.06 LGV 20.26 12.82 HGV 20.88 39.58 Figure 10: Values of Time and Distance
4.8 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION
The Furness method was undertaken in order to refine the trip matrices and balance growth across each of the origin and destination zones within the model. This was undertaken for each of the six modelled car journey types as well as LGV and HGV trips.
15
5 MODEL RESULTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the report will outline the modelled results, presenting an overview of the operation of the Bodmin Road network by 2031, as well as highlighting any links or junctions that are operating over capacity.
This section is split into four sections:
Æ Junction Capacity – this section identifies any junctions that exceed capacity, or operate close to capacity Æ Flows – This section presents the vehicle flows along roads that have queuing or capacity issues identified in the two preceding sections Æ Queue Length - this section outlines areas within the model that experience excessive queueing, demonstrating the queue length in PCUs Æ Journey Time – This section presents the journey time along five routes identified within Bodmin. These routes are consistent with those used for the 2014 base study.
Each section presents the results of the ‘do nothing’, ‘do minimum’ and the ‘do something’ scenarios. To recap briefly the models represent the following scenarios:
x Do nothing - a scenario in which only committed developments are seen within the model with the existing road network maintained.
x Do minimum – this model represents the network with committed and non-committed developments and committed transport measures.
x Do something – this model represents a network with both committed and non- committed developments and both committed and non-committed transport measures.
5.2 JUNCTION CAPACITY
Junction capacity is a key indicator of the impact of a junction modification, as well as a method of identifying junctions that require remedial highway alterations. This section of the report will demonstrate which junctions are operating near, or over capacity in all three modelled scenarios.
Junction capacity is measured in Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) which is a principal factor influencing queueing and delays. This is described in terms of junction saturation and indicates how much traffic is able to pass through the junction in relation to its overall capacity. This is dictated by junction geometry and traffic volume.
The assessment has been undertaken in line with general industry practice, where junctions operating above 100% saturation are deemed over capacity, and therefore suffer from gridlocked links. Junctions operating below 100% saturation but above 85% are generally deemed to suffer from traffic congestion, with queues of vehicles starting to form. Junctions below 85% saturation are deemed to be operating at an acceptable level.
Figure 11 summarises the network operation for each of the modelled scenarios for the AM and PM periods. As can be seen, one junction in the ‘do nothing’ scenario exceeds capacity (Dunmere Road / Westheath Avenue Roundabout). While there are no junctions operating above 100% capacity in the ‘do minimum’ scenarios, six junctions operate close to capacity. These junctions would likely be unable to cope with a sudden influx of traffic or abnormal conditions (while appearing on a diversion route for example).
16
NO. JUNCTIONS NO. JUNCTIONS NO. JUNCTIONS < 85% 85% - 99% > 100% AM 1 5 0 DN PM 3 3 0 AM 1 5 0 DM PM 2 4 0 AM 0 5 1 DS PM 0 6 0 Figure 11: Junction capacity overview
In the ‘do something’ scenario, one junction operates above capacity in the AM period (Cooksland Road / Launceston Road Junction). None of the junctions examined appear below 85% in either the AM or PM peak ‘do something’ scenarios.
The capacity outputs inform us that by introducing all thirteen of the transport measures onto the road network in the ‘do something’ scenario, a decrease in overall capacity is seen. Cooksland Road / Launceston Road Junction and Dunmere Road / Westheath Avenue Roundabout are not operating at their optimal efficiency and so are unable to cope with the level of traffic demand seen in the model. The following paragraphs provide more detail on operation by junction in the peak periods.
AM Peak
The following junctions are recorded as exceeding the 85% capacity threshold in all scenarios for the AM peak period:
Æ Boundary Road / St Lawrence Road Junction Æ A389 St Leonards / Dunmere Road Roundabout Æ Turf Street / A389 Priory Road Æ Turf Street Signals Æ A30 Off-slip onto Carminow Cross Roundabout
In addition to these, the Launceston Road / Cooksland Road Junction exceeds the 100% threshold during the ‘do something’ scenario.
Figure 12 provides a comparison of junction capacity between the ‘do nothing’, ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ models for the AM peak period:
17
% RFC
Diff Diff Junction Address DN DM DS DN vs DS DM vs DS Westheath Road / Boundary Road 90% 92% 94% +4% +2% Dunmere Road / Westheath Ave / Barn Lane 97% 99% 97% 0% -2% Turf Street /Car Park Exit 91% 94% 99% +8% +5% Turf Street / Priory Road 99% 97% 99% 0% +2% Launceston Road / Cooksland Road 80% 78% 101% +21% +23% Carminow Cross Roundabout 98% 94% 98% 0% +4% Figure 12: AM junction capacity
As can be seen in figure 12, The Launceston Road / Cooksland Road junction in particular increases from 80% in the ‘do nothing’ scenario to 101% in the ‘do something’ scenario. The 21% increase in saturation at this junction may be explained by the signalisation of the intersection here. While little in the way of delay is seen at this junction with its current layout an element of delay is added by vehicles waiting at stop lines here at the new traffic signals.
Another notable increase in the AM period can be seen at the Turf Street / Car Park exit junction which sees an 8% increase in saturation in the ‘do something’ scenario compared to the ‘do nothing’. This is the likely result of an increase in northbound traffic on Turf Street in the ‘do something’ scenario, due to the additional development traffic within the study area.
PM Peak
In all scenarios during the PM peak period there are no junctions exceeding 100% saturation. However, Dunmere Road / Westheath Ave / Barn Lane (Fiveways) is operating at 100% saturation in all scenarios, and Launceston Road / Cooksland Road operates at 100% saturation in the ‘do something’ scenario.
Figure 13 below summarises the difference between each scenario for junctions which were deemed to be operating at or close to saturation:
% RFC
Diff Diff Junction Address DN DM DS DN vs DS DM vs DS Westheath Road / Boundary Road 84% 90% 90% 6% 0% Dunmere Road / Westheath Ave / Barn Lane 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% Turf Street /Car Park Exit 88% 92% 91% 3% -1% Turf Street / Priory Road 92% 94% 92% 0% -2% Launceston Road / Cooksland Road 73% 75% 100% 27% 25% Carminow Cross Roundabout 80% 82% 90% 10% 8% Figure 13: PM junction capacity
A similar increase is seen at the Launceston Road / Cooksland Road junction during the PM as was recorded in the AM. This is likely the result of vehicles throughput being restricted by the signalled stop lines. A 10% increase is seen at Carminow Cross Roundabout between the ‘do nothing’ and the ‘do something’, which is likely to be a result of an increase in southbound traffic flow from 807 PCUs to 886 PCUs. Elsewhere the differences between the two scenarios are marginal.
Further examination of the design of the Dunmere Road / Weastheath Avenue ‘Fiveways’ junction to improve capacity may be necessary should the proposal be taken forward as part of the transport strategy. Whilst the saturation levels at this junction do not worsen from the ‘do nothing’
18
to the ‘do something’ scenario, the modelling is suggesting that throughput at the junction has not increased sufficiently enough to improve capacity here.
Appendix E presents the location of each junction, and their operational capacity.
5.3 TRAFFIC FLOWS
Figure 14: AM ‘do nothing’ Main flow of traffic through Bodmin
Figure 14 below shows that the arterial flow of traffic through Bodmin is along the A389. The majority of vehicles traveling from the south travel along the B3268, and either merge onto Crinnicks Hill, or diverge onto Beacon Road.
As seen in figures 15 & 16 the flow of traffic along Dunmere Road is greater in the ‘do something’ scenario than both the other scenarios in both peaks. However, the flow along St Leonards westbound is significantly lower in the ‘do something’ than the ‘do minimum’.
DIFF DIFF AM DN DM DS DN VS DS DM VS DS Dunmere Road EB 436 438 570 134 132 A389 St Leonards 659 718 450 -209 -268 WB Turf Street SB 886 874 898 12 24 Launceston Road SB 450 506 300 -150 -206 Total 2431 2536 2218 -213 -318 Figure 15: Key links traffic flow (AM)
DIFF DIFF PM DN DM DS DN VS DS DM VS DS Dunmere Road EB 517 469 527 10 58 A389 St Leonards 734 780 506 -228 -274 WB Turf Street SB 831 852 838 7 -14
19
DIFF DIFF PM DN DM DS DN VS DS DM VS DS Launceston Road SB 415 462 304 -111 -158 Total 2497 2563 2175 -322 -388 Figure 16: Key links traffic flow (PM)
As discussed earlier in the report, there are more queues recorded along St Leonards in the ‘do something’ than either of the other scenarios. This is a clear indication that the modification to the junction does not have as positive an impact on traffic throughput as expected.
The flow of traffic eastbound along Turf Street is fairly constant in all scenarios during both peaks, being approximately 900 vehicles. Based on the capacity and queue length analysis outlined in Section 5.4, the modifications to the Turf Street Junction have a positive effect on the junction operation during the ‘do something’ scenario.
While the flow of vehicles along Launceston Road southbound decreases in the ‘do something’ compared to the ‘do nothing’ and ‘do minimum’, the queue lengths increase, and junction capacity deteriorates.
5.4 QUEUE LENGTH
AM Peak
In the AM peak period, longer queues form during the ‘do minimum’ scenario in the AM peak compared to the ‘do nothing’ scenario. Queues exceeding 30 PCUs extend from the Turf Street / A389 Junction, causing conflict with Castle Street, Rhind Street, and Pool Street. Queues are also recorded along the A389 Dunmere Road from Westheath Avenue, exceeding 50 PCUs.
QUEUE LENGTH (PCUS)
Diff Diff AM DN DM DS DN vs DS DM vs DS Dunmere Road EB 0 53 4 4 -49 A389 St Leonards EB 0 0 16 16 16 Turf Street SB 22 40 5 -17 -35 Launceston Road SB 0 0 1 1 1 Figure 17 Queue lengths per scenario (AM)
From the queuing information for the AM period we can deduce that the queues are shortest in the ‘do nothing’ model, significantly lengthening in the ‘do minimum’ model, and shortening again in the ‘do something’ scenario. Lengthening queues are likely a result of increased traffic flows linked to the developments considered in each scenario. Dunmere Road eastbound for example has 134 extra PCUs in the ‘do something’ model compared to the ‘do nothing’.
Eastbound queuing reduces significantly from 53 PCUs in the ‘do minimum’ to 4 PCUs in the ‘do something’ model. Similarly the southbound queue on Turf Street reduces by 35 PCUs when comparing the ‘do something’ to the ‘do minimum’ models. This would suggest that the capacity enhancing measures seen in the ‘do something’ models are having a positive effect on queuing in the AM period. Signalising the ‘Fiveways’ junction in particular appears to give additional priority to the eastbound traffic reducing the queue lengths here.
20
AM peak queue screenshots
To visualise queue information snapshot images were taken from the AM modelling identifying areas where queuing occurs. The images in Figure 18 below show locations where queues appear as dark purple lines.
AM ‘Do Nothing’ Turf Street x 22 PCU length queue on Turf Street S/B x No significant queuing elsewhere in the town centre
AM ‘Do Minimum’ Dunmere Road x 53 PCU length queue on Dunmere Road E/B x 40 PCU length queue on Turf Street S/B x No significant queuing elsewhere in the town centre
AM ‘Do Something’ St Leonards Road x 4 PCU length queue on Dunmere Road E/B x 16 PCU length queue on St Leonards E/B x 5 PCU length queue on Turf St S/B x 1 PCU length queue on Launceston Rd S/B
Figure 18 Queue length images per scenario (AM)
21
PM Peak
In the PM peak, there are negligible queues within the study area in the ‘do nothing’ scenario. During the ‘do minimum’ scenario, queues form along Dunmere Road (33 PCUs). The queues on Dunmere Road are also seen in the ‘do something’ scenario, with queuing also shown in the westbound direction on St. Leonards during the PM period.
Figure 19 summarises the queue lengths on key routes in Bodmin for each of the modelled scenarios and also provides comparison between the ‘do something’ scenario with the other two scenarios.
QUEUE LENGTH (PCUS)
Diff Diff PM DN DM DS DN vs DS DM vs DS Dunmere Road EB 4 33 35 31 2 A389 St Leonards WB 0 0 32 32 32 Turf Street SB 0 0 0 0 0 Launceston Road SB 0 0 1 1 1 Figure 19 Queue lengths per scenario (PM)
In the PM peak period (unlike in the AM peak), intervention schemes implemented in the ‘do something’ scenario do not reduce queuing – in particular, signalising Fiveways junction has little impact on queues on Dunmere Road, and shows to significantly lengthen queues along St. Leonards Street in the Westbound direction.
More detailed images demonstrating the queuing data for both the AM and PM periods can be found in appendix D.
22
PM peak queue screenshots
To visualise this information a number of snapshot images were taken from the PM modelling to identify areas where queuing occurs. In the images in Figure 20 below anywhere queues appear are shown as dark purple lines.
PM ‘Do Nothing’
Dunmere Road x 4 PCU length queue on Dunmere Road E/B x No significant queuing elsewhere in the town centre
PM ‘Do Minimum’ Dunmere Road x 33 PCU length queue on Dunmere Road E/B x No significant queuing elsewhere in the town centre
PM ‘Do Something’
Launceston Road x 35 PCU length queue on Dunmere Road E/B x 32 PCU length queue on St Leonards E/B x 1 PCU length queue on Launceston Rd S/B
Figure 20 Queue length images per scenario (PM)
23
5.5 JOURNEY TIMES
A total of 5 journey time routes have been identified for this assessment, demonstrated in figure 21 below. These routes correspond to the journey time routes identified for the 2014 analysis.
Figure 21: Journey time routes
Each route corresponds to the following junctions:
Æ Route 1: Berry Lane / Harmer Close Junction – B3268 / College Lane Junction Æ Route 2: Berrycoombe Road / Bodiniel Road Junction – St Mary’s Road / Whitestone Road Junction Æ Route 3: Launceston Road / Old Callywith Road Junction - A381 / Boundary Road Junction Æ Route 4: A381 / Boundary Road Junction – Beacon Road / Crabtree Lane Junction Æ Route 5: Boundary Road / A389 Westheath Avenue Roundabout – Priory Road / A38 Junction
24
AM Peak Journey Time Comparison
14.00
12.00
) 10.00 s n i m (
e 8.00 m i DN Journey Time T
y
e 6.00 DM Journey Time n r u
o DS Journey Time J 4.00
2.00
0.00 1 NB 1 SB 2 NB 2 SB 3 NB 3 SB 4 NB 4 SB 5 NB 5 SB Route/Direction
Figure 22: AM journey time
Figure 22 shows that during the AM peak the variability in journey time between scenarios is minimal, with the exception of route 3 northbound. The ‘do something’ scenario shows a journey time almost 3:29 minutes longer than the ‘do nothing’ for route 3. Similarly, the ‘do something’ scenario shows a journey time 1:39 minutes longer than the ‘do nothing’ along Route 2 southbound. This is primarily as a result of the signalisation of the Launceston Road / Cooksland Road junction leading to additional delay at the stop line.
The ‘do nothing’ scenario shows the shortest journey time for almost every route, while the ‘do minimum’ scenario shows minor increases resultant from additional development traffic.
JOURNEY TIME (MINS) DIFF (SECS)
Diff Diff Route DN DM DS DN vs DS DM vs DS 1 NB 4.45 5.36 5.20 35 -16 1 SB 3.59 4.16 4.20 21 4 2 NB 3.44 3.56 4.14 30 18 2 SB 3.55 4.05 5.34 99 89 3 NB 8.20 8.14 11.49 209 215 3 SB 9.02 9.44 9.43 41 -1 4 NB 4.40 4.52 5.29 49 37 4 SB 5.21 6.04 5.59 38 -5 5 NB 6.46 7.28 7.17 31 -11 5 SB 7.38 8.05 8.15 37 10 Figure 23: AM journey time comparison
25
PM Peak Journey Time Comparison
During the PM peak hour, a similar pattern can be seen to the AM peak, where the ‘do nothing’ scenario consistently shows the shortest journey time along each of the assessed routes. Similar to the AM peak, Route 3 northbound during the ‘do something’ scenario shows significantly longer journey times than either of the other scenarios.
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00 DN Journey Time DM Journey Time 6.00 DS Journey Time
4.00
2.00
0.00 1 NB 1 SB 2 NB 2 SB 3 NB 3 SB 4 NB 4 SB 5 NB 5 SB
Figure 24: PM journey time
In addition, the journey time recorded along routes 2, 4 and 5 southbound are all longer than the ‘do nothing’ in excess of a minute. For short journeys such as route 2 southbound, this is a significant increase.
DIFF (SECS) JOURNEY TIME (MINS) DN VS DS Diff Diff Route DN DM DS DN vs DS DM vs DS 1 NB 4.25 4.57 4.47 22 -10 1 SB 3.34 3.38 3.34 0 -4 2 NB 4.10 4.26 4.44 34 18 2 SB 3.34 3.40 5.48 134 128 3 NB 8.40 8.27 12.15 215 228 3 SB 8.56 9.15 9.53 57 38 4 NB 4.36 4.44 5.36 60 52 4 SB 5.25 5.45 6.37 72 52 5 NB 7.08 7.33 7.35 27 2 5 SB 7.07 7.25 8.22 75 57 Figure 25 PM journey time comparison
26
6 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 SUMMARY
VISUM modelling has been undertaken to support the planned Local Plan development and proposed intervention measures in Bodmin up to 2031. The following scenarios have been assessed:
x Do nothing - a scenario in which only committed developments are seen within the model with the existing road network maintained.
x Do minimum – this model represents the network with committed and non-committed developments and committed transport measures.
x Do something – this model represents a network with both committed and non- committed developments and both committed and non-committed transport measures.
Results have been extracted from the traffic models in the form of junction capacity, traffic flows, queue lengths and journey times to determine the network operation in each modelled scenario.
6.2 CONCLUSION Comparing the performance of the three modelled scenarios against one another for junction capacity, queue length and journey times we can see that in terms of network operation, the ‘do nothing’ scenario (i.e. with no committed and non-committed development, nor any scheme measures) performs with more capacity, and lower queue lengths and journey times than other scenarios.
The ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ scenarios see similar levels of traffic growth through inclusion of both committed and non-committed development schemes. Whilst seven proposed transport measures are assumed to be committed and therefore implemented in the ‘do something’ scenario, all thirteen measures are included in the ‘do something’ scenario.
In terms of queuing, the ‘do something’ scenario shows improved performance over the ‘do minimum scenario, particularly in the AM peak where queue lengths are significantly reduced on Dunmere Road as a result of the signalisation of the Dunmere Road junction. This same reduction is not shown in the PM peak with queuing on Dunmere Road at similar levels between the ‘do minimum’ and ‘do something’ scenarios, and an increase in queues along St. Leonards Street in the westbound direction. Overall however levels of queuing in the ‘do something’ model are lower than in the ‘do minimum’ scenarios.
Journey time analysis shows the highest journey times in the ‘do something’ scenario. The greatest increase is seen along route 3, which runs along the A38 from Launceston Road in the northeast, to the A389 / Boundary Road junction in the west. The combination of traffic signals on Launceston Road, and increased queues along St Leonard increases the journey time by 42% in the AM peak, and by 41% in the PM peak.
27
Appendix A
TEMPRO GROWTH FACTORS
28
HB Work HB Employers Business HB Education HB other NHB Employers Business NHB other NTEM ZONE/AREA Origin Destination Origin Destination Origin Destination Origin DestinationOrigin DestinationOrigin Destination GB GB 1.09060 1.09060 1.09480 1.09480 1.08150 1.08150 1.19320 1.19320 1.09480 1.09480 1.12600 1.12600 15UB0 rural (Caradon) 0.98590 1.07260 0.98820 1.08100 1.02700 1.10670 1.19820 1.23240 1.09600 1.09830 1.16790 1.15660 15UB1 Saltash 0.99610 1.07830 1.00040 1.09040 1.04080 1.10760 1.20160 1.22190 1.10700 1.11770 1.16870 1.15890 15UB2 Torpoint 0.95080 1.06030 0.96000 1.06820 1.00130 1.07800 1.17300 1.22090 1.08360 1.08260 1.15980 1.14790 15UB3 Liskeard 1.00950 1.08640 1.01730 1.09870 1.06130 1.12870 1.23110 1.25320 1.10660 1.11580 1.17160 1.16100 15UB4 Looe 1.02900 1.08400 1.04240 1.09720 1.07600 1.12610 1.25460 1.25210 1.11030 1.11540 1.17770 1.16160 15UB5 Callington 1.00640 1.08020 1.01420 1.09020 1.05930 1.13700 1.23280 1.26460 1.10090 1.10350 1.17870 1.16300 15UC0 rural (Carrick) 1.03350 1.06280 1.02710 1.05890 1.07860 1.10390 1.17400 1.18060 1.07220 1.07560 1.11130 1.11640 15UC1 Falmouth(main) 1.03360 1.06590 1.03170 1.06400 1.06130 1.08530 1.16830 1.17350 1.07410 1.08090 1.10680 1.11390 15UC2 Penryn(main) 1.04650 1.06590 1.04550 1.06290 1.09810 1.11700 1.18940 1.19170 1.07300 1.07710 1.11170 1.11830 15UC3 Truro 1.02860 1.07820 1.03010 1.07780 1.07860 1.09570 1.17010 1.18170 1.08460 1.09670 1.11150 1.12060 15UC4 Perranporth 1.04540 1.06910 1.04210 1.06760 1.09610 1.11150 1.19140 1.18830 1.07920 1.08580 1.11550 1.11990 15UD0 rural (Kerrier) 1.07250 1.04250 1.06760 1.03830 1.11290 1.11660 1.22950 1.22700 1.04790 1.04190 1.11080 1.11130 15UD1 Camborne/Redruth 1.05980 1.04310 1.05830 1.03810 1.10210 1.10550 1.22220 1.22050 1.04920 1.04450 1.10730 1.11010 15UD2 Penryn(part of) 1.14490 1.03880 1.14740 1.03260 1.16930 1.15080 1.28770 1.26280 1.04020 1.02980 1.11200 1.11310 15UD3 Falmouth(part of) 1.10020 1.03730 1.09700 1.03120 1.14860 1.14720 1.26320 1.25220 1.04180 1.02980 1.11850 1.11360 15UD4 Helston 1.04430 1.03190 1.04890 1.02570 1.09400 1.09420 1.20900 1.21390 1.03770 1.03000 1.09890 1.10180 15UD5 Porthleven 1.10890 1.05610 1.10820 1.05670 1.14380 1.13470 1.27270 1.25250 1.05960 1.05580 1.12260 1.11930 15UE0 rural (North Cornwall) 1.03070 1.06090 1.02470 1.05810 1.07730 1.11010 1.22800 1.24960 1.07620 1.07150 1.15460 1.14560 15UE1 Bodmin 0.98390 1.05420 0.98290 1.05040 1.03370 1.08660 1.19300 1.24050 1.06750 1.06240 1.14440 1.13730 15UE2 Launceston 1.04700 1.07270 1.04760 1.07250 1.10180 1.12640 1.25340 1.26980 1.08710 1.08680 1.16180 1.15240 15UE3 Wadebridge 1.05050 1.07090 1.04880 1.07070 1.09840 1.12320 1.25430 1.26270 1.08660 1.08560 1.16250 1.15210 15UE4 Bude/Stratton 1.06180 1.07340 1.06480 1.07410 1.11200 1.12570 1.26420 1.26890 1.08840 1.08820 1.16290 1.15210 15UF0 rural (Penwith) 1.03810 1.04480 1.03410 1.04500 1.07450 1.06930 1.19510 1.19940 1.05610 1.06080 1.10830 1.10610 15UF1 Penzance 1.02940 1.04810 1.03310 1.05010 1.06350 1.04550 1.19090 1.18870 1.05820 1.06760 1.10120 1.10140 15UF2 St Ives (Cornwall) 1.05510 1.05240 1.05750 1.05550 1.09350 1.07130 1.21470 1.20520 1.06560 1.07250 1.11550 1.10820 15UF3 Hayle 1.05330 1.05080 1.04950 1.05210 1.09470 1.08050 1.21450 1.21000 1.06090 1.06850 1.11060 1.10920 15UG0 rural (Restormel) 1.06570 1.02280 1.06180 1.01700 1.10520 1.07180 1.21810 1.20480 1.02680 1.01960 1.08380 1.08440 15UG1 St Austell 1.07130 1.03130 1.07070 1.02760 1.10820 1.06990 1.22390 1.20380 1.03630 1.03460 1.08640 1.08880 15UG2 Newquay 1.07020 1.03210 1.07030 1.02940 1.11200 1.07250 1.22600 1.20630 1.03720 1.03500 1.08860 1.08840 15UG3 St Blazey/Par 1.07540 1.03240 1.07300 1.02980 1.11580 1.08490 1.23570 1.21810 1.03530 1.03270 1.08870 1.08970 15UG4 St Columb Major 1.08480 1.03050 1.08190 1.02660 1.12150 1.08800 1.23840 1.21950 1.03320 1.02700 1.09190 1.08970 18UB8 Ottery St.Mary 1.15160 1.09810 1.15410 1.10550 1.17070 1.13650 1.33360 1.31190 1.10960 1.10760 1.17460 1.16950 18UC1 Exeter 1.13280 1.06120 1.13890 1.05570 1.14410 1.07260 1.21810 1.18510 1.05890 1.04930 1.08060 1.10090 18UD0 rural (Mid Devon) 1.04780 1.08190 1.04600 1.08510 1.06700 1.14020 1.23420 1.27120 1.09910 1.09300 1.18460 1.17910 18UE0 rural (North Devon) 1.03020 1.04990 1.03240 1.05620 1.03840 1.06560 1.18440 1.20730 1.06620 1.06920 1.13010 1.12240 00HG1 Plymouth(main) 1.07970 1.04860 1.08220 1.04940 1.13590 1.10950 1.19990 1.18420 1.05260 1.05130 1.08930 1.09440 South Hams South Hams 1.18370 1.10850 1.18900 1.11150 1.20570 1.17480 1.32670 1.31750 1.11640 1.10950 1.18210 1.17880 18UH0 rural (Teignbridge) 0.96430 1.05510 0.96120 1.05620 0.98550 1.05230 1.15510 1.19030 1.07380 1.07020 1.13720 1.13320 Torridge Torridge 1.12270 1.08910 1.12810 1.09360 1.13300 1.10240 1.31190 1.30960 1.09980 1.09820 1.17100 1.16410 West Devon West Devon 1.00710 1.07470 1.01280 1.08140 1.02880 1.08210 1.20570 1.23040 1.09410 1.09630 1.15740 1.14980 SW SW 1.05940 1.05940 1.05960 1.05960 1.09750 1.09750 1.22100 1.22100 1.06980 1.06980 1.12350 1.12350
29
Appendix B
HGV RTF GROWTH FACTORS
30
NATIONAL ROAD TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Traffic, Congestion and Emissions by Region, Area Type & Vehicle Type Scenario1 - Traffic in Billion Miles, Emissions in Kilo Tonnes
Year INTERPOLATED INTERPOLATED INTERPOLATED South West 2010 2014 2015 2018 2020 2025 2030 2033 2035 South West LGV Miles 3.96 4.21 4.28 4.64 4.88 5.47 6.04 6.34 6.55 South West Rigid miles 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.9 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.96 South West Artic Miles 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.59 SW OGV 1.38 1.37 1.37 1.4 1.42 1.45 1.5 1.53 1.55
Growth Factors 2018 2033 LGV 1.1 1.51 OGV 1.02 1.12
Bodmin
South West - Traffic in Billion Miles, Emissions in Kilo Tonnes Year Row LabelsArea Type3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Row Labels 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 South West LGV Miles 3.96 4.28 4.88 5.47 6.04 6.55 7.06 LGV Miles 8.3% 23.3% 38.3% 52.6% 65.4% 78.3% South West Rigid miles 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.98 Rigid miles -1.8% 0.9% 2.4% 4.6% 6.4% 8.3% South West Artic Miles 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 Artic Miles -2.6% 2.8% 7.3% 14.5% 21.6% 29.2%
31
Appendix C
TRAFFIC FLOW IMAGES
32
AM 2031 ‘do nothing’ flows
33
PM 2031 ‘do nothing’ flows
34
AM 2031 ‘do minimum’ flows
35
PM 2031 ‘do minimum’ flows
36
AM 2031 ‘do something’ flows
37
PM 2031 ‘do something’ flows
38
Appendix D
QUEUEING IMAGES
39
AM 2031 ‘do nothing’ queuing
40
PM 2031 ‘do nothing’ queuing
41
AM 2031 ‘do minimum’ queuing
42
PM 2031 ‘do minimum’ queuing
43
AM 2031 ‘do something’ queuing
44
PM 2031 ‘do something’ queuing
45
Appendix E
JUNCTION CAPACITY IMAGES
46
AM 2031 ‘do nothing’ capacity
47
PM 2031 ‘do nothing’ capacity
48
AM 2031 ‘do minimum’ capacity
49
PM 2031 ‘do minimum’ capacity
50
AM 2031 ‘do something’ capacity
51
PM 2031 ‘do something’ capacity