Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling

Traffic Modelling Report

October 2015

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Document Control Sheet

Project Title Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling

Report Title Traffic Modelling Report

Revision 2.0

Status Final

Control Date 29/10/15

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date 1.0 Draft EA/NSS 09/10/15 PR 09/10/15 PR 09/10/15 2.0 Final PR 29/10/15 PR 29/10/15 PR 29/10/15

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies Lincolnshire County Council Jonathan Wickham Electronic

This Report is presented to Lincolnshire County Council in respect of Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling and may not be used or relied on by any other person or by the client in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the scope of this Report.

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Report, Mouchel Limited working as Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Lincolnshire County Council and Mouchel Limited shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly.

This Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance Report has been prepared by Mouchel Limited. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this Report. By receiving this Report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Contents

1 Introduction...... 1

2 Methodology ...... 3

3 Proposed and Committed Developments ...... 9

4 Highway Impacts: 2056 Scenario A ...... 16

5 Highway Impacts: 2021 Scenario B ...... 38

6 Highway Impacts: 2026 Scenario C ...... 42

7 Highway Impacts: 2036 Scenario D ...... 46

8 Highway Impacts: 2036 Scenario E ...... 50

9 Summary and Conclusions ...... 54

Appendix A – Boston Model Network Extension Local Model Validation Report

Appendix B – BDR Traffic Generation (2056)

Appendix C – TRICS Outputs

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Table of Figures

Figure 1-1 – Boston Distributor Road – Indicative Alignment ...... 2 Figure 3-1 – Location of Committed and Proposed Developments ...... 9 Figure 4-1 – Boston Network Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – AM ...... 18 Figure 4-2 – Boston Town Centre Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – AM ...... 18 Figure 4-3 – Boston Network Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – PM ...... 19 Figure 4-4 – Boston Town Centre Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – PM ...... 19 Figure 4-5 – Select Link Analysis A16 Northbound AM ...... 22 Figure 4-6 – Select Link Analysis A16 Southbound AM...... 22 Figure 4-7 – Select Link Analysis A52 Eastbound AM ...... 23 Figure 4-8 – Select Link Analysis A62 Westbound AM ...... 23 Figure 4-9 – Select Link Analysis BDR Eastbound AM ...... 24 Figure 4-10 – Select Link Analysis BDR Westbound AM ...... 24 Figure 4-11 – Select Link Analysis BDR Northbound AM ...... 25 Figure 4-12 – Select Link Analysis BDR Southbound AM ...... 25 Figure 4-13 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital inbound AM ...... 26 Figure 4-14 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital outbound AM ...... 26 Figure 4-15 – Select Link Analysis A16 Northbound PM ...... 28 Figure 4-16 – Select Link Analysis A16 Southbound PM...... 28 Figure 4-17 – Select Link Analysis A52 Eastbound PM ...... 29 Figure 4-18 – Select Link Analysis A52 Westbound PM ...... 29 Figure 4-19 – Select Link Analysis BDR Eastbound PM ...... 30 Figure 4-20 – Select Link Analysis BDR Westbound PM ...... 30 Figure 4-21 – Select Link Analysis BDR Northbound PM ...... 31 Figure 4-22 – Select Link Analysis BDR Southbound PM ...... 31 Figure 4-23 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital inbound PM ...... 32 Figure 4-24 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital outbound PM ...... 32 Figure 4-25 – Location of Junctions Used in VOC Analysis ...... 34 Figure 5-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – AM ...... 39 Figure 5-2 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – AM ...... 39 Figure 5-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – PM ...... 40 Figure 5-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – PM ...... 40 Figure 6-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – AM ...... 43 Figure 6-2 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – AM ...... 43 Figure 6-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – PM ...... 44 Figure 6-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – PM ...... 44 Figure 7-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – AM ...... 47 Figure 7-2 - Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – AM ...... 47 Figure 7-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – PM ...... 48 Figure 7-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – PM ...... 48 Figure 8-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – AM ...... 51 Figure 8-2 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – AM ...... 51 Figure 8-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – PM ...... 52 Figure 8-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – PM ...... 52

iii

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Tables

Table 2-1 – Growth Factors Summary – AM and PM Peak Hour ...... 6 Table 2-2 – LGV & HGV Traffic Growth Summary - NTM2013 ...... 7 Table 3-1 – Residential Development Site Allocations from 2015 ...... 11 Table 3-2 – Employment Site Allocations from 2021 ...... 13 Table 3-3 – Residential Trip Rate Summary ...... 14 Table 3-4 – Employment Trip Rate Summary ...... 15 Table 3-5 – Quadrant 1 Development Trip Rate Summary...... 15 Table 3-6 – 2056 Vehicle Trip Generation ...... 15 Table 4-1 – Junctions Assessed ...... 33 Table 4-2 – Maximum Volume Over Capacity (VOC) – 2056 ...... 35 Table 4-3 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2056 DM & DS Scenario A ...... 37 Table 5-1 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario B ...... 41 Table 6-1 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario C ...... 45 Table 7-1 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario D ...... 49 Table 8-1 - Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario E ...... 53

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

1 Introduction

Background Mouchel Consulting, working as part of Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance, has been appointed by the County Council (LCC) to undertake traffic modelling using the Boston Traffic Model to test the impact of the proposed Boston Distributor Road (BDR).

Boston Distributor Road The BDR is a proposed highway scheme currently being considered for delivery in support of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (SELLP). SELLP is a joint plan being produced by Boston Borough Council and South Holland District Council and will cover a plan period up to 2036. The BDR is included within the Transport Strategy for Boston 2006 to 2021 and Beyond and significant study work has previously been undertaken.

The broad purpose of the BDR is two-fold with the need to remove through-traffic from the town centre and also provide alternative routes for traffic which has an origin or destination within the town. The construction of BDR is reliant on the delivery of development sites along its alignment and it is envisaged that the road will be delivered in phases as individual sites come forward.

However, whilst the road may be delivered in phases, it is necessary to understand the potential traffic benefits that the BDR could generate as a whole route in addition to benefits delivered as each phase is completed.

The BDR, in its completed form, will run to the west of Boston between the A16 to the south, east of Wyburton, and to the A16 north of the town, north of Pilgrim Hospital. Along its alignment, the BDR will also have junctions with the A52 and A1121, as well as a number of more minor routes. In addition, the road will provide accesses to new development sites. Figure 1.1 shows an indicative drawing of the BDR alignment.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 1-1 – Boston Distributor Road – Indicative Alignment

Contains Ordnance Survey Data @ Crown Copyright Database Right 2015

Purpose of the Report This purpose of this report is to present the findings of traffic modelling undertaken to investigate the impact the BDR at various stages of its development.

This report describes the BDR proposals and the committed and proposed development sites included in the modelling. The report describes the traffic modelling and analysis undertaken and the resulting outputs. Specifically, this report describes the impact, in highway performance terms, of changes to the highway network at various stages of the BDR development (based on indicative timescales of between 2021 and 2056).

The scope of this Traffic Modelling Report has been agreed with officers at LCC.

Structure of the Report Following on from this introduction, Section 2 describes the methodology and tools used to undertake the traffic modelling. Section 3 outlines the details of the BDR and the committed and proposed development sites assessed as part of the modelling work. Section 4 to 8 describe the outputs from the traffic modelling in terms of the impact the BDR has on the highway network for a number of forecast scenarios. Finally, Section 9 presents a summary of the report and conclusions.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

2 Methodology

Boston SATURN Model The Boston SATURN base model has been revalidated to 2013 (in June 2014) and provides Lincolnshire County Council with a tool through which the benefits of the BDR, in traffic terms, can be understood.

This commission has used the model to test the various options for the BDR and its likely traffic impact taking into account background traffic growth and growth related to specific developments. The scheme has been assessed for the base year (2013) and a number of scenarios covering future years of 2021, 2026, 2036 and 2056.

Update and Refinement of existing Base model As part of this commission, the area of the Boston model covered by its simulation network (i.e. where the highway network is modelled in detail) was extended to include the area around the proposed route of the BDR. Appendix A of this report summarises the work undertaken to extend the simulation network.

The updated model has been checked to ensure it provides a good validation (particularly on screen lines and journey time routes near to the BDR) and is suitably robust for testing the BDR proposals. The model validation has been reviewed against observed traffic data for 2013, and based on criteria set out by the Department for Transport in the TAG Unit 3.19 ‘Highway Assignment Modelling’.

The simulation network has been modelled to include the town of Boston for the base year of 2013. The buffer area (i.e. a less detailed representation of more peripheral areas of the highway network) has been modelled to include all the major and strategic routes connecting Boston to the wider area. To ensure the model network is represented in sufficient detail along the route of the BDR, the network has been updated to include additional simulation and buffer links to the north of Boston.

The updated AM and PM peak hour Boston base models provide an accurate representation of the current traffic demands in the wider Boston area. The AM and PM peak hour models are considered to be robust and provide a reliable basis for assessing the impact of the proposed BDR.

Forecasting 2.3.1 Scheme Definition The following information and assumptions have been provided or confirmed by the by the client team

• Scheme details of the approximate alignment have been provided in the form of sketched plans and CAD drawing.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

• The BDR will be a single carriageway route (approx. 7.3 metres wide) with a 40mph speed limit.

• Junctions on the BDR are mainly roundabouts and will have two lane entries along the mainline with single lane entries on the side arms (though the geometry of the roundabouts would provide for two lanes on the side arms if required).

• Signals have been coded at the Tesco access, at the junction of the link road from the BDR and the A1121 Broadsides, and the junction of the BDR with the B1397 London Road. There is also a signalised junction at the access to the Quadrant 1 development site on B1397 London Road.

2.3.2 Development Log Information related to the proposed residential and employment developments up to the design year of 2056 has been provided by Boston Borough Council and this information has formed the basis for identifying development related trips assigned to the model.

The information related to size, land use and phasing from the various developments; in particular to the developments directly related to the BDR has been obtained and agreed with the client team.

Only developments which can be identified as near certain or most likely have been included within a development log. A threshold has been applied to the developments to be included in the Development Log based on the size of developments.

To avoid inclusion of excessive numbers of developments, smaller residential development sites which are anticipated to have less than 50 dwellings have been excluded. All residential developments which are 50 dwellings or greater in size are included in the development log along with all employment sites and land uses associated with the Quadrant 1 development.

The details of the trips generated by the developments included in the modelling are summarised in Section 3 of this report.

For consistency the trip rates for all the developments were obtained from the TRICS database (as agreed with the client team). The total trip generation for each development site are in Appendix B of this report.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Traffic Demand 2.4.1 Traffic Growth The growth factors for forecasting future demand have been calculated for the future years using TEMPRO (NTEM 6.2 data) for cars and NTM1 for both Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). Currently TEMPRO provides growth factor data up to year 2041 and the growth between future design years of 2041 and 2056 has therefore been estimated. Table 2-1 and 2-2 summarise the TEMPRO (split by region and trip purpose) and NTM growth factors used for each development horizon.

TEMPRO indicates a slight declining trend in home and non-home based commute trips and employer’s business trips in Boston. However, the overall levels of traffic increase between the 2013 and 2056 by 12.0% (AM peak) and 11.3% (PM peak). The committed developments in Boston account for about 5% of this growth in the both peak hours.

The traffic forecasts do not make any adjustments for potential mode shift as a result of transport policy interventions. Furthermore, it has been assumed that the full forecast increases in traffic will occur in the peak periods and no account of the potential for peak spreading has been taken (peak spreading occurs when drivers alter their travel patterns to avoid the congested peak hours resulting in traffic growth occurring outside of the peaks).

As per WebTAG A2.3, to obtain the Do-Minimum matrix (without BDR), TEMPRO growth and trips from committed developments/more likely developments (i.e. development sites with planning permission or sites that have the potential to become allocations in the Local Plan) will be added to the base year matrix as per the scenario. Traffic levels in the Do-Minimum matrix have been controlled by growth estimated by TEMPRO at district level. For a robust assessment the Do-Something (with BDR) scenario have been generated by adding the trips from the proposed developments on top of the Do-Minimum matrices.

1 The National Trip End Model (NTEM) forecasts and the TEMPRO (Trip End Model Presentation Program) software are used for transport planning purposes. The forecasts provide traffic growth factors broken down by trip purpose and are based on data from the National Transport Model (NTM).

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Table 2-1 – Growth Factors Summary – AM and PM Peak Hour

Year Trip purpose Region AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Origin Destination Origin Destination 2021 Commute GB 1.07 6.79% 1.07 6.79% 1.06 6.41% 1.06 6.41% Home Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.05 5.12% 1.05 4.57% 1.04 4.43% 1.05 4.93% Based Boston 0.99 -0.98% 1.03 3.12% 1.03 2.88% 0.99 -0.87% Other GB 1.07 7.01% 1.07 7.01% 1.07 7.06% 1.07 7.06% Employers Business and Lincs 1.05 5.04% 1.05 4.69% 1.05 4.91% 1.05 5.23% Non-Home Based Boston 1.01 0.83% 1.04 3.90% 1.03 3.43% 1.01 1.26% All other Home GB 1.09 8.92% 1.09 8.92% 1.09 8.90% 1.09 8.90% Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.09 8.76% 1.09 8.60% 1.09 8.50% 1.09 8.55% Based Boston 1.05 4.62% 1.07 7.04% 1.06 5.56% 1.05 4.83% 2026 Commute GB 1.10 9.68% 1.10 9.68% 1.09 9.21% 1.09 9.21% Home Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.07 6.69% 1.06 5.92% 1.06 5.88% 1.07 6.58% Based Boston 0.98 -1.73% 1.03 3.24% 1.03 3.07% 0.99 -1.49% Other GB 1.10 9.93% 1.10 9.93% 1.10 10.05% 1.10 10.05% Employers Business and Lincs 1.07 6.60% 1.06 6.10% 1.06 6.49% 1.07 6.96% Non-Home Based Boston 1.00 0.48% 1.04 4.26% 1.04 3.74% 1.01 1.13% All other Home GB 1.14 13.92% 1.14 13.92% 1.14 13.62% 1.14 13.62% Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.14 13.83% 1.14 13.59% 1.13 13.03% 1.13 13.11% Based Boston 1.07 7.00% 1.10 10.24% 1.08 7.91% 1.07 6.79% 2036 Commute GB 1.15 14.51% 1.15 14.51% 1.14 13.81% 1.14 13.81% Home Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.09 8.52% 1.07 7.21% 1.07 7.33% 1.09 8.52% Based Boston 0.95 -5.22% 1.02 2.38% 1.02 2.29% 0.95 -4.62% Other GB 1.15 14.88% 1.15 14.88% 1.15 15.14% 1.15 15.14% Employers Business and Lincs 1.08 8.36% 1.07 7.49% 1.08 8.24% 1.09 9.06% Non-Home Based Boston 0.98 -1.86% 1.04 4.08% 1.03 3.31% 0.99 -0.60% All other Home GB 1.22 22.22% 1.22 22.22% 1.22 21.76% 1.22 21.76% Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.22 22.01% 1.22 21.51% 1.21 20.66% 1.21 20.83% Based Boston 1.10 10.33% 1.15 14.79% 1.11 11.19% 1.10 9.62% 2056 Commute GB 1.23 22.72% 1.23 22.72% 1.22 21.58% 1.22 21.58% Home Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.12 11.96% 1.10 9.85% 1.10 10.17% 1.12 12.08% Based Boston 0.90 -10.09% 1.02 1.80% 1.02 1.78% 0.91 -8.96% Other GB 1.23 23.35% 1.23 23.35% 1.24 23.79% 1.24 23.79% Employers Business and Lincs 1.12 11.71% 1.10 10.31% 1.12 11.60% 1.13 12.91% Non-Home Based Boston 0.95 -4.82% 1.05 4.63% 1.03 3.37% 0.97 -2.66% All other Home GB 1.35 35.39% 1.35 35.39% 1.34 34.42% 1.34 34.42% Based and Non-Home Lincs 1.35 35.25% 1.34 34.39% 1.33 32.66% 1.33 32.96% Based Boston 1.16 16.00% 1.22 22.15% 1.16 16.45% 1.14 14.26%

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Table 2-2 – LGV & HGV Traffic Growth Summary - NTM2013

Year LGV HGV 2013 1.0000 1.0000 2021 1.2225 1.0333 2026 1.3812 1.2302 2036 1.6854 1.2319 2056 1.9896 1.2337

2.4.2 Forecast Network Information on highway access was obtained from Boston Borough Council for each of the sites included in the Development Log. The forecast future year Do-Minimum scenario (without BDR) and Do-Something scenario (with BDR) highway networks have been built as per the Development Log taking into account the phasing of various developments and the BDR.

2.4.3 Forecast Scenarios The following forecast Do-Something scenarios have been modelled, as agreed with the client team:

• Scenario A – Existing network plus the full distributor road in 2056 (based on emerging plan period up to 2036 plus next plan period covering years up to 2056).

• Scenario B – Existing network plus Quadrant 1 road and development in 2021.

• Scenario C – Existing network plus Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 road and development in 2026.

• Scenario D – Existing network plus Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 and the North Forty Foot roads and development in 2036.

• Scenario E – Existing network plus Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2, North Forty Foot roads and development, plus a bridge and associated infrastructure over Black Sluice, railway and A1121 Boardsides in 2036.

Modelling has been undertaken for both AM and PM peak hours for each of the above scenarios.

The Do-Minimum (without BDR) scenarios for comparison to each Do-Something scenario exclude BDR and the associated proposed development associated with the scheme i.e. they only include committed developments and their associated network changes, in addition to background traffic growth.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

2.4.4 Software Used The SATURN version 11.3.03G was used for the base model assessment and future year assessment.

2.4.5 Analysis We have undertaken the following analysis for the various scenarios detailed above.

• Volume over Capacity (V/C) at key junctions in Boston town centre and on the BDR

• Traffic flow difference (change in demand flow in Boston town centre and surrounding network) between Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios

• Journey time assessments for three routes:

o between A16 South and A16 North via either the A16 through the town centre or the BDR

o between A52 East and A52 West via either the A16/A52 through the town centre or the BDR

o between A16 South and A52 West via BDR

• Select Link Analysis at various locations on the BDR – this analysis shows the distribution and routing of traffic to and from a particular link (section of carriageway) within a model.

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

3 Proposed and Committed Developments

Background The majority of development sites included in this study are associated with the construction of the BDR and its phased construction. A number of the residential development sites are committed but the majority are proposed and dependant of the BDR for access onto the network.

Figure 3-1 below shows the locations of the various committed and proposed developments.

Figure 3-1 – Location of Committed and Proposed Developments

Contains Ordnance Survey Data @ Crown Copyright Database Right 2015

Boston Distributor Road Traffic Modelling Report

Description of Committed and Proposed Development The committed and proposed residential developments sites account for the majority of development traffic in the forecast scenarios. The committed development sites have been included in the Do-Minimum (without BDR) scenario for each forecast year while the proposed sites are added to the committed sites in the Do-Something (with BDR) scenario.

Table 3-1 and 3-2 show the residential and employment sites included in the assessment. The tables show the buildout of the each development site through the various forecast years.

The majority of proposals for the employment sites are at an early stage. However, a proportion of two of the employment sites has planning permission as follows:

• KIE001: 2.52ha has planning permission, the remaining area being is potential

• BOE006: 1.18 has planning permission, the remaining area being potential

The land at the BOE001, BOE008, BOE012, OLE001 employment sites is all potential.

The Quadrant 1 development site consists of:

• A new community stadium (capacity 5,000)

• 500 residential dwellings (assumed to be private housing)

• A food store (Class A1) gross floor area approximately 7,000sqm and petrol filling station

• Other commercial and leisure uses (Classes A3, A4 and A5 - restaurant, public house and hot food takeaway) with gross floor area approximately 2,200sqm

• 60 bed (approximate) hotel.

In addition to the above, there will be a new distributor road connecting the A16 with London Road, which forms the first phase of BDR.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Table 3-1 – Residential Development Site Allocations from 2015

Total No Site reference Site Status Scenario Units

Quantity 2015 by Quantity 2021 by Quantity 2026 by Quantity 2036 by Quantity 2056 by Do-Minimum (Without BDR) Do-Something (With BDR) QUANTITY NOT CUMULATIVE 2021 2026 2036 2056 2021 2026 2036 2056 1 Cen 005 52 52 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) 2 FEN 006 86 86 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) 3 Wes 005 120 120 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y 4 Sts 001 200 125 75 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) Y Y 5 Wyb 009 500 200 250 50 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) Y Y 6 Fis 14/ 15 328 100 207 21 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) Y 7 Fis 031 96 50 46 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) Y Y 8 Fen 006 240 50 125 65 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) Y Y 9 Fen 014 501 50 250 201 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) Y Y 10 Fis 001 224 50 125 49 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) Y 11 Fis 003 90 50 40 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial)

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Total No Site reference Site Status Scenario Units

Quantity 2015 by Quantity 2021 by Quantity 2026 by Quantity 2036 by Quantity 2056 by Do-Minimum (Without BDR) Do-Something (With BDR) QUANTITY NOT CUMULATIVE 2021 2026 2036 2056 2021 2026 2036 2056 Fis 033 (minus Fis Y Y 12 241 50 125 66 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) 014/015) (Partial) (Partial) Y 13 Fis 038 53 50 3 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) Y 14 Ski 001 109 50 59 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) Y Y 15 Sou 006 1,000 400 500 100 Potential Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) 16 Sou 007 66 66 Committed Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y Y 17 Wes 002 1,378 400 500 478 Potential Y (Full) (Partial) (Partial) Y 18 Wyb 0033 250 50 200 Potential Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) (Partial) Fen 009 (minus 19 976 976 Potential Y (Full) Fen006/014) 20 Nor 014 1,879 1,879 Potential Y (Full) 21 Wit 013 1,730 1,730 Potential Y (Full) Completed 22 WIT 004 67 67 Y Y Y Y Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) ‘15 Completed 23 WES 006 38 38 Y Y Y Y Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) Y (Full) ‘15

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Table 3-2 – Employment Site Allocations from 2021

Site Type of No Site Status Scenario reference Development

(HA) (HA)

Do-Something (With BDR) Gross Site Area Quantity by 2021 Quantity 2021 by Quantity 2026 by Quantity 2036 by Quantity 2056 by 2021 2026 2036 2056 Net land Available 80% B1, 20% sui 1 BOE001 16 6.0 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 Potential Y(Partial) Y(Partial) Y(Partial) Y (Full) generis 80% B2/B8, 20% Part planning 2 BOE006 86.31 17.7 7.6 7.0 3.1 15.0 Y(Partial) Y(Partial) Y(Partial) Y (Full) B1 permission 60% B1, 20% sui 3 BOE008 10.5 8.4 - - 8.4 - generis, 20% Potential Y (Full) B2/B8 60%B2/B8, 20% Part planning 4 KIE001 19.43 12.1 5.4 4.5 2.2 - sui generis, 20% Y(Partial) Y(Partial) Y (Full) permission B1 5 BOE012 7.72 1.0 - 1.0 - - 100% B2/B8 Potential Y (Full) 6 OLE001 1.87 2.8 - 1.4 1.4 - 100% B2/B8 Potential Y (Partial) Y (Full)

Note: No employment sites in Do-Minimum scenario except as small proportion of the KIE001 and BOE006 sites which have planning permission for 2.52ha and 1.18ha respectively.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Trip Generation The vehicle trip generation from each development site (committed and proposed) has been calculated through the use of the TRICS Database (7.2.2.) and the following approach has been used in selecting sites in the database:

• Exclude Greater London, Wales, Scotland and Ireland sites.

• Select only location types that are appropriate to the outskirts of Boston (i.e. suburban area, edge of town and neighbourhood centre).

• Include weekdays only and accept default date range.

• Deselect any outlier sites with either very low or high trip rates.

Table 3-3 and 3-4 summarise the residential (housing privately owned) and employment (business park, industrial estate, warehousing) trip rates used to calculate the trip generation for the development sites included in the BDR study.

Given the wide range of residential developments, trip rates have been broken down into three groups depending on the size of the development (i.e. 0-300 dwellings, 301-600 dwellings and 601+ dwellings. To calculate the residential trip generation, the trip rates are multiplied by the number of dwellings on each site.

The employment trip generation is calculated by multiplying the trip rate by the gross floor area (GFA) and dividing by 100. A plot ratio of 0.4 (as agreed with Boston Borough Council) was assumed to convert the available site area for each employment site into the GFA. The remaining area was then split between the various employment land use types depending on the mix of each development site.

Table 3-3 – Residential Trip Rate Summary

Development size (i.e. Peak Hour Arrivals Departures number of beds) AM 0.167 0.545 Group 1 (0-300) PM 0.353 0.193 AM 0.161 0.429 Group 2 (301-600) PM 0.391 0.237 AM 0.067 0.354 Group 3 (601+) PM 0.257 0.162

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Table 3-4 – Employment Trip Rate Summary

Land Use Peak Hour Arrivals Departures

AM 1.415 0.226 Business Park (B1) PM 0.186 1.170 AM 0.511 0.275 Industrial Estate (B2) PM 0.136 0.469 AM 0.215 0.141 Warehousing PM 0.112 0.196

The trip rates generation for the various land uses that form the Quadrant 1 development site are summarised in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5 – Quadrant 1 Development Trip Rate Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land use Unit Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Food superstore GFS (sqm) 3.21 2.38 5.74 5.85 (plus PFS) Hotel Beds 0.17 0.22 0.18 0.12 Fast-food GFA (sqm) 8.94 7.70 9.96 9.75 Road-side food GFA (sqm) 3.06 3.06 3.81 3.92 Public House GFA (sqm) 0.00 0.00 2.84 2.10

The total number of vehicular trips expected to be generated by the development sites by 2056 is based on analysis using the TRICS database and is shown in the table below. Appendix C shows the detailed TRICS output data.

Table 3-6 – 2056 Vehicle Trip Generation

Trip Generation (PCUs per Hour) Land Use Land Use AM Peak – Trips PM Peak – Trips In Out Total In Out Total Base 18 40 57 37 20 57 Residential 226 565 790 519 303 822 Do-Minimum Do-Something 760 3,161 3,921 2,435 1,492 3,927 Do-Minimum 78 27 105 18 67 85 Employment Do-Something 1,753 581 2,334 538 1,602 2,140 Q1 development 129 104 233 214 213 427 (minus residential) Do-Something

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

4 Highway Impacts: 2056 Scenario A

This section summarises the outputs from the assessment of Scenario A which comprises the existing network plus the full BDR in 2056. This scenario has been tested with all development included.

The impact of Scenario A has been compared to the Do-Minimum scenario for 2056 which excludes BDR and associated development.

Changes in Traffic Flows Figures 4-1 to 4-4 show the change in traffic flow between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hour scenarios for the whole Boston network and the town centre.

The traffic flow difference plots indicate that, broadly, the impact of the BDR and full development (by 2056) is to:

• generally increase traffic on most links across the network and in particular on radial routes around Boston due to the significant increase in development traffic on the Do-Something scenario;

• significantly increase traffic on A16 Spalding Road in both directions south of its roundabout junction with A52 Sleaford Road. Increased delay at this roundabout has increased traffic flow on London Road, particularly in the PM peak;

• the additional traffic generated by the development sites to the south and west of Boston town centre has increased traffic flow significantly on A1121 Broadsides, A52 Swineshead Road and a number of minor roads such as Fen Road and Low Road;

• to the north of Boston, traffic flow has increased on B1183/A1121 Horncastle Road either to avoid increased delays on A16 Sibsey Road or as a route to/from the BDR via Rawsons Lane and Tattersall Road;

• flow increases on A16 John Adams Way through the town centre are less significant largely because this route is already at capacity in the Do- Minimum scenario;

• increases in delay at junctions in the town centre such as A16/South Square signals have resulted in some traffic routing via the BDR to avoid the town centre. In particular traffic travelling between the east and west between A52 Wainfleet Road and A52 Swineshead Road/A1121 Broadsides. This has resulted in a decrease in traffic flow on A16 Spilsby Road;

• the BDR offers an alternative route for traffic accessing Pilgrim Hospital on A16 Sibsey Road which is a significant traffic generator. Some traffic to/from 16

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

the hospital uses the BDR in the Do-Something scenario which likely to benefit the town centre and contribute towards the decrease in traffic flow on A16 Spilsby Road;

• decreases in traffic flow on B1397 London Road between A16 and its junction with the BDR appear to be due to traffic using the Quadrant 1 section of the BDR to route onto A16 Spalding Road;

• decreases in traffic flow on West End Road (north of its junction with Wyberton West Road) which is severed at its northern end in the Do- Something scenario.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-1 – Boston Network Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – AM

Figure 4-2 – Boston Town Centre Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-3 – Boston Network Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – PM

Figure 4-4 – Boston Town Centre Traffic Flow Difference 2056 DM v DS – PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Select Link Analysis Figures 4-5 to 4-26 show Select Link Analysis (SLA) at key locations around the Boston network including:

• A16 northbound south of Saundergate Lane

• A16 southbound north of Pilleys Lane

• A52 eastbound west of the BDR

• A52 westbound between A16 and Willoughby Hills

• BDR northbound and southbound immediately north of A1121 Broadsides link

• BDR eastbound and westbound between A16 and Tattershall Road

• Inbound and outbound associated with Pilgrims Hospital on A16.

The link being analysed is shown as a red line on the LSA figures.

The SLA plots show the routing of all traffic travelling along the selected link in terms of demand flow.

4.2.1 AM peak hour analysis Figure 4-5 shows that in the AM peak hour northbound traffic on the A16 south of Saundergate Lane remains on the A16 through town centre to reach the north side of Boston rather than using the BDR. This is expected given that the journey time on the BDR route is likely to be longer than the town centre route as a result of the additional distance and junction delays. The majority of the northbound traffic is inbound to zones in and around the town centre.

Figure 4-6 indicates that the majority of southbound traffic on the A16 (north of the BDR) continues on the A16 into the town centre, while some traffic continues through to the southern side of Boston. However, some traffic on the A16 uses the BDR to either access destinations along the BDR or as a route through to A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road.

Figure 4-7 shows that about half the eastbound traffic approaching the BDR on A52 Swineshead Road routes onto the BDR to either access destinations immediately off the BDR or use it to bypass the northern edge of the town centre and continue on the A52 east of Boston. All the traffic that remains on the A52 is to destinations in Boston town centre.

Figure 4-8 shows that about half the westbound traffic approaching the BDR on A52 Wainfleet Road routes onto the BDR via A16 to either access destinations along the BDR or again use it to bypass the northern edge of the town centre. The majority of the westbound traffic using the BDR to bypass Boston town centre routes via A1121 20

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Broadsides. All the traffic remaining on the A52 is to destinations in Boston town centre.

Figures 4-9 and 4-10 show the eastbound and westbound traffic movements on the BDR between A16 and Tattershall Road. Figure 4-9 confirms that some of the eastbound traffic on the BDR is using the route to travel from either A1121 Broadsides or A52 Swineshead Road to reach the A16. Figure 4-10 confirms a similar pattern in the westbound direction with a significant amount of traffic using the BDR to route from the A16 Sibsey Road and A52 Wainfleet Road through to A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road.

Figures 4-11 and 4-12 show the northbound and southbound traffic movements on the BDR immediately north of the A1121 link. Figure 4-11 indicates that the majority of the northbound traffic routing onto the BDR from A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road at this point is travelling to destinations accessed off the BDR, while some traffic uses it as a bypass through to the A16. Figure 4-12 confirms a similar pattern in the southbound direction with a significant amount of traffic accessing onto the BDR to reach areas to the south and west of Boston, while some traffic is using the route to bypass the town centre.

Figures 4-13 and 4-14 show the route of traffic entering and exiting the Pilgrims Hospital site. The plots show that the BDR offers an alternative route for traffic to and from the hospital from areas to the north and west of Boston. Which is likely to reduce traffic flow on A16 Spilsby Road.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-5 – Select Link Analysis A16 Northbound AM

Figure 4-6 – Select Link Analysis A16 Southbound AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-7 – Select Link Analysis A52 Eastbound AM

Figure 4-8 – Select Link Analysis A62 Westbound AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-9 – Select Link Analysis BDR Eastbound AM

Figure 4-10 – Select Link Analysis BDR Westbound AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-11 – Select Link Analysis BDR Northbound AM

Figure 4-12 – Select Link Analysis BDR Southbound AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-13 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital inbound AM

Figure 4-14 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital outbound AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

4.2.2 PM peak hour analysis Figure 4-15 shows that like the AM peak, in the PM peak hour northbound traffic on the A16 south of Saundergate Lane remains on the A16 and London Road through town centre to reach the northern and eastern sides of Boston. The journey time on the alternative route via the BDR is much longer and therefore no traffic uses this route to travel across through Boston from south the north.

Figure 4-16 indicates that the majority of southbound traffic on the A16 (north of the BDR) continues on the A16 into the town centre, while some traffic continues through to the southern side of Boston. However, some traffic on the A16 uses the BDR to either access destinations along the BDR or as a route to through to A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road. Much of this traffic is using Pilleys to access onto the BDR rather than the roundabout on the A16.

Figure 4-17 shows that more than half of the eastbound traffic approaching the BDR on A52 Swineshead Road routes onto the BDR to either access destinations immediately off the BDR or use it to bypass the town centre and continue on the A52 east of Boston. Traffic heading north from the BDR appears to use Pilleys Lane to reach the A16 rather than continuing to the eastern end of the BDR and access via the A16 roundabout.

Figure 4-18 shows that more than half the westbound traffic approaching the BDR on A52 Wainfleet Road routes onto the BDR via A16 to either access destinations along the BDR or again use it to bypass the town centre. All the westbound traffic using the BDR to bypass Boston town centre routes via A1121 Broadsides.

Figure 4-19 indicates that some of the eastbound traffic on the BDR is using the route to travel from either A1121 Broadsides or A52 Swineshead Road to reach the A52 Wainfleet Road and A16 Sibsey Road. Figure 4-20 suggests that traffic in a westbound direction is using the BDR to route from the A16 Sibsey Road and A52 Wainfleet Road through to A1121 Broadsides.

Figure 4-21 indicates that the majority of the northbound traffic routing onto the BDR from A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road at this point is travelling to destinations accessed off the BDR, while some traffic uses it as a bypass through to the north and east of Boston. Figure 4-22 confirms a similar pattern in the southbound direction with a significant amount of traffic accessing onto the BDR to bypass the town centre from the A52 Wainfleet Road to A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road.

Figures 4-23 and 4-24 shows that the BDR offers an alternative route for traffic to and from the Pilgrim Hospital in the PM peak hour from areas to the north and west of Boston, which is likely to relieve traffic flow on A16 Spilsby Road.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-15 – Select Link Analysis A16 Northbound PM

Figure 4-16 – Select Link Analysis A16 Southbound PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-17 – Select Link Analysis A52 Eastbound PM

Figure 4-18 – Select Link Analysis A52 Westbound PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-19 – Select Link Analysis BDR Eastbound PM

Figure 4-20 – Select Link Analysis BDR Westbound PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-21 – Select Link Analysis BDR Northbound PM

Figure 4-22 – Select Link Analysis BDR Southbound PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-23 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital inbound PM

Figure 4-24 – Select Link Analysis BDR hospital outbound PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Volumes over Capacity (VOC) To assess the performance of various key junctions in the network, Volume Over Capacity (VOC) data has been extracted from the model for individual junction arms. The VOC value represents a measure of congestion in terms of a percentage. A junction arm with a VOC below 85% is generally considered to be operating within capacity. However, as the VOC approaches 100%, the junction arm is considered to be approaching capacity and will become congested, while a VOC over 100% represents a junction arm that is over capacity resulting in permanent queuing.

Table 4-1 lists the junctions included in this assessment with the locations shown in Figure 4-25.

Table 4-1 – Junctions Assessed

Junction Type No. Junction Do- Do-Minimum Something 1 A16 Sibsey Road/BDR Roundabout Roundabout 2 A16 Sibsey Road/A52 Wainfleet Road Roundabout Roundabout 3 A16 Spilsby Road/A1137 Horncastle Road Roundabout Roundabout 4 A16 John Adams Way/South Square Signals Signals 5 A16 John Adams Way/A52 Liquorpond Street Roundabout Roundabout 6 A52 Sleaford Road/A1121 Broadsides Roundabout Roundabout 7 A52 Swineshead Road/BDR E Roundabout Roundabout 8 A52 Swineshead Road/BDR Roundabout Roundabout 9 B1397 London Road/BDR Q1 access Signals Signals 10 B1397 London Road/BDR Q2 access Signals Signals 11 A16 Spalding Road/BDR Q1 access Roundabout Roundabout 12 A1121 Broadsides/BDR link N/A Signals 13 BDR/New TESCO access N/A Signals 14 BDR Spur/BDR North Forty Foot Drains N/A Roundabout 15 BDR/Roundabout 1 N/A Roundabout 16 BDR/Roundabout 2 N/A Roundabout 17 BDR/Punchbowl Lane N/A Roundabout 18 BDR/Roundabout 3 N/A Roundabout 19 BDR/Roundabout 4 N/A Roundabout 20 BDR/Tattershall Road N/A Roundabout 21 BDR/Roundabout 5 N/A Roundabout 22 BDR/Roundabout 6 N/A Roundabout

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 4-25 – Location of Junctions Used in VOC Analysis

Table 4-2 indicates that the majority of junctions in 2056 Do-Minimum and Do- Something networks are operating within capacity in both peak hours. The main exceptions are the A16 John Adams Way/South Square signalised junction and A16 John Adams Way/A52 Liquorpond Street roundabout. Both these junctions are operating above capacity in the Do-Minimum and this situation exacerbates slightly in the Do-Something as a result of the additional development traffic on the network despite the introduction of the BDR. The A52 Sleaford Road/A1121 Broadsides roundabout is also close to capacity in the Do-Minimum and overcapacity in the Do- Something (PM peak hour).

Most of the roundabout junctions on the BDR are operating within capacity in the Do- Something AM and PM peak hours. Only the BDR Spur/BDR North Forty Foot Drains roundabout is at capacity while the A1121 Broadsides/BDR link signalised junction is approaching capacity, both in the AM peak hour.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Table 4-2 – Maximum Volume Over Capacity (VOC) – 2056

Junction Type No. Junction Do-Minimum Do-Something AM PM AM PM 1 A16 Sibsey Road/BDR N/A N/A 35 47 2 A16 Sibsey Road/A52 Wainfleet Road 64 60 59 56 3 A16 Spilsby Road/A1137 Horncastle Road 75 59 67 58 4 A16 John Adams Way/South Square 102 100 107 101 5 A16 John Adams Way/A52 Liquorpond Street 102 104 112 114 6 A52 Sleaford Road/A1121 Broadsides 85 82 90 101 7 A52 Swineshead Road/BDR E 56 59 73 77 8 A52 Swineshead Road/BDR 32 25 52 69 9 B1397 London Road/BDR Q1 access 60 56 61 47 10 B1397 London Road/BDR Q2 access 39 34 48 47 11 A16 Spalding Road/BDR Q1 access 77 75 76 84 12 A1121 Broadsides/BDR link 45 40 94 78 13 BDR/New TESCO access N/A N/A 76 78 14 BDR Spur/BDR North Forty Foot Drains N/A N/A 100 65 15 BDR/Roundabout 1 N/A N/A 80 63 16 BDR/Roundabout 2 N/A N/A 83 64 17 BDR/Punchbowl Lane N/A N/A 80 60 18 BDR/Roundabout 3 N/A N/A 66 61 19 BDR/Roundabout 4 N/A N/A 52 57 20 BDR/Tattershall Road N/A N/A 53 50 21 BDR/Roundabout 5 N/A N/A 40 37 22 BDR/Roundabout 6 N/A N/A 42 44 Note 1: VOCs presented for the most congested arm of each junction. Note 2: Figures in red indicate performance beyond junction capacity; figures in amber indicate junctions operating within absolute capacity but at a level where there is little spare capacity; figures un-shaded represent ‘within capacity’ performance with a good level of spare capacity.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Journey Times Journey times for selected routes across Boston have been compared between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something Scenarios. The five routes are as follows:

1) A16 through Boston Town Centre : Northbound from A16/Millfield Lane junction to A16/Willoughby Hills junction via A16 through Boston Town Centre and southbound in reverse direction.

2) BDR North-South : as above but routing via the BDR.

3) A52 through Boston Town Centre : Westbound from A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills junction to A52/Wortley's Lane via A52 and A16 through Boston Town Centre and eastbound in reverse direction.

4) BDR East-West : as above but routing via the BDR.

5) BDR South-West : Northwest bound from A16/Millfield Lane junction to A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Road via BDR and southeast bound in reverse direction.

Table 4-3 below summarises the journey times for the Do-Minimum and Do- Something Scenario for the AM and PM peak hours in 2056.

In the AM peak hour, journey times on the existing North-South and East-West routes increase significantly between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something, particularly for the southbound Route 1 (A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield Lane) with an increase of around 3½ minutes (28%), and similar margin (22%) eastbound on Route 3 (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills).

The table shows that in the Do-Something scenario the BDR offers no benefit to traffic travelling north to south (and vice versa) on the A16. In both cases the journey time via the BDR takes about 5 minutes longer and as such the A16 through the town centre remains a more attractive route. However, the BDR provides journey time benefits to traffic travelling east to west (and vice versa) on the A52, reducing the travel time by over 4 minutes eastbound and over 2 minutes westbound in the AM peak hour.

In the PM peak hour, journey times on the existing north-south and east-west routes also increase significantly between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something, particularly for the northbound Route 1 (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) with an increase of almost 5 minutes (37%), and around 2½ minutes (16%) eastbound on Route 3 (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills).

Again, in the PM peak hour the table shows that in the Do-Something scenario the BDR offers no benefit to traffic travelling north to south (and vice versa) on the A16. In particular the journey time via the BDR takes about 7½ minutes longer southbound compared to the A16 route through the town centre. However, the BDR provides journey time benefits to traffic travelling east to west (and vice versa) on the

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

A52, reducing the travel time by almost 5 minutes eastbound and over 1 minute westbound in the PM peak hour.

The journey time between A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Road (and vice versa) via the BDR ranges between around 8½ minutes (northwest bound) in the AM peak and 9½ minutes (southeast bound) in the PM peak hour.

Table 4-3 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2056 DM & DS Scenario A

Journey Time – Reference Case

Route Direction AM peak hour PM peak hour

DM DS % DM DS % A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby S – N 12:32 14:37 17% 12:51 17:39 37% Hills 1 A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield N – S 12:49 16:25 28% 11:37 12:34 8% Lane A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby S – N - 19:06 - - 20:07 - Hills via BDR 2 A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield N – S - 21:26 - - 20:03 - Lane via BDR A52 Wainfleet Rd/Willoughby Hills to E – W 14:56 17:20 16% 14:06 15:00 6% A52/Wortley's Lane 3 A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet W - E 15:41 19:06 22% 16:16 18:49 16% Rd/Willoughby Hills A52 Wainfleet/Willoughby Hills to E – W - 15:07 - - 13:44 - A52/Wortley's Lane via BDR 4 A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 W - E - 14:39 - - 14:02 - Wainfleet/Willoughby Hills via BDR A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside NW – W - 08:36 - - 09:02 - Rd/Fen Rd 5 A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Rd to SE – S - 09:44 - - 09:31 - A16/Millfield Lane

Note: % percentage change between Do-Minimum and Do-Something.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

5 Highway Impacts: 2021 Scenario B

This section summarises the impact the Quadrant 1 road and associated development for the assessment of the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours for year 2021.

Changes in Traffic Flows Figures 5-1 to 5-4 show the change in traffic flow between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something for the AM and PM peak hour scenarios for the whole Boston network and the town centre.

The traffic flow difference plots indicate that broadly, the impact of the Quadrant 1 development and road (by 2021) is to:

• generally increase traffic slightly on most links across the network due to the additional development traffic compared with the Do-Minimum scenario;

• the Quadrant 1 development road opens a new route between B1397 London Road and A16 Spalding Road decreasing traffic flow on London Road north of Quadrant 1 but increasing traffic flow on the A16;

• some traffic generated by the Quadrant 1 development routes to/from areas to the west of Boston increasing traffic flow on West End Road;

• in the PM peak increased delay on the southern and eastern arm approaches to the John Adams Way/A52 Liquorpond Street roundabout causes some traffic to reroute onto High Street. Consideration may be required to investigate measures to mitigate against this impact.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 5-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – AM

Figure 5-2 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 5-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – PM

Figure 5-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2021 DM v DS – PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Journey Times Table 5-1 below summarises the journey times for the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours in 2021.

In the AM peak hour, journey times on the existing north-south and east-west routes increase slightly between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something with an increase of about 30 seconds in both directions Route 1 (A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield Lane) and 40 seconds in both directions on Route 3 (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills). The impact of Quadrant 1 on journey time through Boston appears to relatively minor in the AM peak.

In the PM peak hour, journey times on the existing north-south and east-west routes are relatively minor between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something though on Route 1 northbound the journey time increase by over 1 minute (10%). Again, the impact of Quadrant 1 on journey time through Boston appears to relatively minor in the PM peak.

Table 5-1 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario B

Journey Time – Reference Case

Route Direction AM peak hour PM peak hour

DM DS % DM DS % A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby S – N 12:18 12:39 3% 12:36 13:52 10% Hills 1 A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield N – S 12:32 13:00 4% 11:36 11:49 2% Lane A52 Wainfleet Rd/Willoughby Hills to E – W 14:33 15:13 5% 14:04 14:24 2% A52/Wortley's Lane 3 A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet W - E 15:17 16:06 5% 15:53 16:54 6% Rd/Willoughby Hills Note: % percentage change between Do-Minimum and Do-Something.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

6 Highway Impacts: 2026 Scenario C

This section summarises the impact of the Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 road and associated developments for the assessment of the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours for year 2026.

Changes in Traffic Flows Figures 6-1 to 6-4 show the change in traffic flow between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenario for the AM and PM peak hour scenarios for the whole Boston network and the town centre.

The traffic flow difference plots indicate that broadly, the impact of the Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 development and road (by 2026) is to:

• broadly increase traffic on most links across the network in a similar manor to 2021 though increases are more significant on certain routes;

• routing via the Quadrant 1 development road between B1397 London Road and A16 Spalding Road appears to increase compared to 2021, decreasing traffic flow on London Road north of Quadrant 1 but significantly increasing traffic flow on the A16;

• significantly decrease traffic on West End Road as a result of the introduction of the Quadrant 2 road;

• increased delay at the A52 Sleaford Road/A16 John Adams Way roundabout causes some traffic to reroute onto High Street in both peaks. As with the 2021 scenario, consideration may be required to investigate measures to mitigate against this impact;

• increased traffic flow and congestion on A16 John Adams Way and at the A52 Sleaford Road/A1121 Broadsides roundabout is causing some traffic to reroute on minor roads around the town centre. In particular, traffic flow increases on Norfolk Street, Fydell Street and North Forty Foot Bank as it reroutes to avoid delay.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 6-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – AM

Figure 6-2 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 6-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – PM

Figure 6-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2026 DM v DS – PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Journey Times Table 6-1 below summarises the journey times for the Do-Minimum and Do- Something Scenario for the AM and PM peak hours in 2026. In this scenario on the Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 road and development have been modelled.

• In the AM peak hour, journey times on the existing North-South and East- West routes increase significantly between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something with an increase of almost 3 minutes (23%) on Route 1 northbound (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) and 3½ minutes on Route 3 eastbound (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills).

• In the PM peak hour, journey times on the existing North-South and East- West routes incur similar increases between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something. In particular the journey times increases significantly on Route 1 northbound (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) with an increase of almost 4 minutes (30%) and 3½ minutes on Route 3 eastbound (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills). The impact of Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 2 development traffic on journey time through Boston appears more significant compared to the 2021 scenario in both AM and PM peak hours.

• The journey time between A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Road (and vice versa) via the BDR (introduced as part of Quadrant 2) ranges between around 8 minutes (northwest bound) in the AM peak and almost 9 minutes (southeast bound) in the PM peak hour.

Table 6-1 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario C

Journey Time – Reference Case

Route Direction AM peak hour PM peak hour

DM DS % DM DS % A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby S – N 12:34 15:24 23% 12:57 16:49 30% Hills 1 A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield N – S 12:47 14:13 11% 11:37 12:29 7% Lane A52 Wainfleet Rd/Willoughby Hills to E – W 14:56 16:52 13% 14:13 15:05 6% A52/Wortley's Lane 3 A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet W - E 15:47 19:17 22% 16:20 19:49 21% Rd/Willoughby Hills A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside NW – W - 08:02 - - 08:17 - Rd/Fen Rd 5 A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Rd to SE – S - 08:45 - - 08:54 - A16/Millfield Lane

Note: % percentage change between Do-Minimum and Do-Something.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

7 Highway Impacts: 2036 Scenario D

This section summarises the impact of the Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 and the North Forty Foot roads sections of BDR and associated developments for the assessment of the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours for year 2036.

Changes in Traffic Flows Figures 7-1 to 7-4 show the change in traffic flow between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hour scenarios for the whole Boston network and the town centre.

The traffic flow difference plots indicate that broadly, the impact of the developments and road (by 2036 Scenario D) is to:

• significantly increase traffic on links in the town centre and radial routes to the south and west of Boston;

• the increases and decreases in traffic flow are broadly consistent with 2026 (Scenario C) although increases are more significant on certain routes. In particular, increased congestion at junctions on A16 John Adams Way and rerouting via the new North Forty Foot Road is increasing traffic flow on Norfolk Street and Fydell Street. Increased flow and delay at the A52 Sleaford Road/A1121 Broadsides roundabout is also likely to contribute to this rerouting;

• increased delay at the A52 Sleaford Road/A16 John Adams Way roundabout continues to result in traffic rerouting onto High Street in both peaks;

• traffic flow increases on A1121 Broadsides and A52 Swineshead Road, while there are also increases on some minor routes such as Fen Road and Low Road.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 7-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – AM

Figure 7-2 - Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 7-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – PM

Figure 7-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario D) DM v DS – PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Journey Times Table 7-1 below summarises the journey times for the Do-Minimum and Do- Something Scenario for the AM and PM peak hours in 2036 (Scenario D). In this scenario on the Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 and the North Forty Foot BDR sections and associated development are modelled.

In the AM peak hour, journey times on the existing North-South and East-West routes increase significantly between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something due to the increase in development traffic. On Route 1 northbound (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) there is an increase of almost 4 minutes (30%) and over 3½ minutes on Route 3 eastbound (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills).

In the PM peak hour, journey times on the existing North-South and East-West routes incur similar increases between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something. In particular the journey times increases significantly on Route 1 northbound (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) with an increase of over 5 minutes and the same on Route 3 eastbound (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills). The impact of the additional development traffic by 2036 on journey time through Boston appears significant compared to the 2026 scenario in both AM and PM peak hours.

The journey time between A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Road (and vice versa) via the BDR remain consistent with 2026 and range between just over 8 minutes (northwest bound) in the AM peak and just over 9 minutes (southeast bound) in the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 7-1 – Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario D

Journey Time – Reference Case

Route Direction AM peak hour PM peak hour

DM DS % DM DS % A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby S – N 12:44 16:35 30% 13:04 18:19 40% Hills 1 A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield N – S 12:52 14:46 15% 11:41 12:39 8% Lane A52 Wainfleet Rd/Willoughby Hills to E – W 15:07 17:17 14% 14:13 15:07 6% A52/Wortley's Lane 3 A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet W - E 15:57 20:40 30% 16:26 21:28 31% Rd/Willoughby Hills A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside NW – W - 08:12 - - 08:32 - Rd/Fen Rd 5 A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Rd to SE – S - 09:14 - - 09:09 - A16/Millfield Lane

Note: % percentage change between Do-Minimum and Do-Something .

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

8 Highway Impacts: 2036 Scenario E

This section summarises the impact of the Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 and the North Forty Foot sections of BDR and associated developments plus a bridge over Black Sluice, railway and A1121 Broadsides for the assessment of the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours for year 2036.

Changes in Traffic Flows Figures 8-1 to 8-4 show the change in traffic flow between the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenario for the AM and PM peak hour scenarios for the whole Boston network and the town centre.

The traffic flow difference plots indicate that broadly the impact of the development and road in 2036 Scenario E is the same as 2036 Scenario D, impacts include:

• similar increases in traffic flow on links in the town centre and radial routes around Boston;

• the impact of the bridge over Black Sluice is to reduce traffic flows at the A52 Sleaford Road/A1121 Broadsides roundabout and on the A1121 immediately west of the roundabout through to Great Fen Road;

• traffic flow increases in A52 Swineshead Road as traffic reroutes to use the bridge to access development sites to the north.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 8-1 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – AM

Figure 8-2 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – AM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Figure 8-3 – Boston network traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – PM

Figure 8-4 – Boston town centre traffic flow difference 2036 (Scenario E) DM v DS – PM

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Journey Times Table 8-1 below summarises the journey times for the Do-Minimum and Do- Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours in 2036 (Scenario E). This scenario includes the new bridge over Black Sluice, railway and A1121 Boardsides in 2036.

In the AM peak hour, journey times on the existing north-south and east-west routes increase but not as significantly as 2036 (Scenario D) between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something. On Route 1 northbound (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) there is an increase of almost 2 minutes (18%) and just over 2 minutes on Route 3 eastbound (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills).

In the PM peak hour, journey times on the existing North-South and East-West routes incur similar increases between the Do-Minimum and Do-Something. The journey time on Route 1 northbound (A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby Hills) increases slightly more significantly by just over 3 minutes and by 2 minutes on Route 3 eastbound (A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet Road/Willoughby Hills). The impact of the additional infrastructure including the new bridge of Black Sluice, railway and A1121 provides some relief to journey times through Boston town centre compared to 2036 (scenario D) without the bridge.

The journey time between A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Road (and vice versa) via the BDR remain consistent with 2026 and 2036 (Scenario D) and range between almost 8½ minutes (northwest bound) in the AM peak and just over 9 minutes (southeast bound) in the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 8-1 - Journey Time – AM and PM Peak Hour (mm:ss) – 2036 DM & DS Scenario E

Journey Time – Reference Case

Route Direction AM peak hour PM peak hour

DM DS % DM DS % A16/Millfield Lane to A16/Willoughby S – N 12:44 15:00 18% 13:06 16:23 25% Hills 1 A16/Willoughby Hills to A16/Millfield N – S 12:52 14:47 15% 11:41 12:43 9% Lane A52 Wainfleet Rd/Willoughby Hills to E – W 15:07 17:14 14% 14:14 15:07 6% A52/Wortley's Lane 3 A52/Wortley's Lane to A52 Wainfleet W - E 15:57 18:19 15% 16:32 18:32 12% Rd/Willoughby Hills A16/Millfield Lane to A52 Swineside NW – W - 08:20 - - 08:44 - Rd/Fen Rd 5 A52 Swineside Rd/Fen Rd to SE – S - 09:16 - - 09:12 - A16/Millfield Lane

Note: % percentage change between Do-Minimum and Do-Something.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

9 Summary and Conclusions

Summary Mouchel Consulting, working as part of Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance, has been appointed by the County Council (LCC) to undertake traffic modelling using the Boston Traffic Model to test the impact of the proposed Boston Distributor Road (BDR).

The BDR will run to the west of Boston between the A16 to the south and north of the town. Along its alignment, the BDR will also have junctions with the A52 and A1121, as well as a number of more minor routes. In addition, the road will provide accesses to new development sites. The broad purpose of the BDR is two-fold with the need to remove through-traffic from the town centre and also provide alternative routes for traffic which has an origin or destination within the town.

This assessment uses the updated Boston Saturn model to test the various options for the BDR and its likely traffic impact taking into account background and development growth. The scheme will be assessed for the base year and a number of scenarios covering future years of 2021, 2026, 2036 and 2056. Only in 2056 is the complete BDR route in place and hence this scenario is key in assessing its overall impact and potential benefit.

Conclusion The results 2056 scenario modelling with the full BDR in place indicate that it will have limited impacts on the removal of traffic from Boston town centre. In particular, the BDR provides no benefit traffic travelling through Boston from north to south (and vice versa) via the A16 as the journey time for route through the town centre is considerably quicker compared to the BDR. However, the BDR does provide some relief for the corridor passing to the north of the town centre and also provides benefits in terms of journey time for traffic travelling through Boston from east to west (and vice versa) between A52 Wainfleet Road and A52 Swineshead Road.

The majority of traffic using the BDR in all the forecast scenarios is associated with the development sites along its route. In particular the large residential sites accessing onto the northern section of the BDR that generate a significant number of trips in the peak hours in the 2056.

In the earlier forecast years (i.e. 2021, 2026 and 2036) the BDR does not link through to A16 Sibsey Road and therefore it these scenarios it provides little benefit in removing through traffic form Boston town centre.

The impact of the Quadrant 1 development and road in 2021 is relatively minor in terms of journey times and traffic flows on the network. However, by 2026 the additional development has a more significant impact on traffic flow in and around Boston town centre. In particular, journey times increase considerably south to north and west to east as a result of increases in traffic flow through the town centre.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

These impacts are exacerbated in 2036 (Scenario D) though the North Forty Foot section of the BDR provides an alternative route form traffic to and from the town centre to the west. The inclusion of the bridge over Black Sluice in 2036 (Scenario E) provides some benefit in removing traffic from the town centre as it completes the link between the Quadrant 2 and North Forty Foot sections of BDR. This opens up a new route for traffic between the A16 south of Boston and areas to the west and north and reduces the north – south journey times through the town centre.

It is only when the full BDR is in place in 2056 that it has any impact in acting as an alternative for through-traffic in Boston. However, the benefits appear marginal as overall traffic flows remain high in the town centre and the primary purpose of the BDR is to provide access to the proposed developments along its route.

The results of the analysis should be taken as providing an insight into the combined potential impacts of all of the infrastructure and developments. Caution should therefore be used in attributing impacts to any individual element of the various scenarios.

We have used our reasonable endeavours to provide information that is correct and accurate and have discussed above the reasonable conclusions that can be reached on the basis of the information available. Having issued the range of conclusions it is for the client to decide how to proceed with this project.

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Appendix A – Boston Model Network Extension Local Model Validation Report

Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report Appendix A: Boston Distributor Road Modelling

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

July 2015

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update i Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report Contents

Contents ...... ii List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables ...... iv 1 Introduction...... 5 1.1 Background ...... 5 1.2 Purpose of this Report ...... 6 2 Boston Model Network / Matrix Update ...... 7 2.1 Existing Network ...... 7 2.2 Network Extension ...... 9 2.3 Matrix Development ...... 9 3 Boston Model Validation Update ...... 10 3.1 Introduction ...... 10 3.2 Assignment Flow Validation ...... 10 3.3 Assignment Journey Time Validation ...... 17 3.4 Model convergence ...... 20 4 Summary ...... 22 4.1 Introduction ...... 22 4.2 Summary of Model Development ...... 22 4.3 Summary of Standards Achieved ...... 22 4.4 Assessment of Fitness for Purpose ...... 22

Appendix A: Link Flow Validation (available on request) Appendix B: Journey Time Validation (available on request)

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update ii Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Boston Distributor Road Indicative Alignment ...... 5 Figure 2-1 Boston SATURN Network ...... 8 Figure 3-1 Inner and Outer Cordons ...... 10 Figure 3-2 Validation Screenlines ...... 11 Figure 3-3 Journey Time Survey Routes ...... 17 Figure 3-4 Additional Journey Time Survey Routes ...... 18

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update iii Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report List of Tables

Table 3-1: Calibration Screenline & Cordon Summary Morning Peak Hour (All Vehicles) ...... 11 Table 3-2: Calibration Screenline & Cordon Summary Evening Peak Hour (All Vehicles) ...... 13 Table 3-3: Summary of Link Flow Validation Morning Peak Hour (All Vehicles) ...... 15 Table 3-4: Summary of Link Flow Validation Evening Peak Hour (All Vehicles) ...... 15 Table 3-5: Journey Time Summary - AM Peak Hour ...... 19 Table 3-6: Journey Time Summary - PM Peak Hour ...... 20 Table 3-7: Convergence Summary ...... 21

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update iv Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report 1 Introduction

1.1 Background Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance (the ‘Highways Alliance’) has been commissioned under the Technical Services Partnership to check and update the 2012/13 Boston SATURN model, in order to assess the Boston Distributor Road (BDR).

The BDR is a proposed highway scheme currently being considered for delivery in support of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (SELLP). The broad purpose of the BDR is to remove through-traffic from the town centre and provide alternative routes for traffic which has an origin or destination within the town. The construction of BDR is reliant on the delivery of development sites along its alignment and it is envisaged that the road will be delivered in sections as individual sites come forward. However, while the road may be delivered in sections, it is necessary to understand the potential traffic benefits that the BDR could generate as a whole route as well as its component parts.

The BDR will run to the west of Boston between the A16 to the south and north of the town (see Figure 1-1). Along its alignment, the BDR will also have junctions with the A52 and A1121, as well as a number of more minor routes. In addition, the road will provide accesses to new development sites.

Figure 1-1 Boston Distributor Road Indicative Alignment

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 5 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

1.2 Purpose of this Report The Boston SATURN base model has been revalidated to 2013 and provides Lincolnshire County Council with a tool assess the BDR in terms of traffic benefits. However, based on the current indicative alignment for the BDR, the proposed route is located at the edge of the simulation network to the north of Boston in the SATURN model.

This report summarises work to extend the simulation area to include network around the proposed route of the BDR. The updated model has been checked to ensure it provides a good validation (particularly on screen lines and journey time routes near to the BDR) and is suitably robust for testing the BDR proposals. The model validation has been reviewed against observed traffic data for 2013, and based on criteria set out by the DfT in the TAG Unit 3.19 ‘Highway Assignment Modelling’.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 6 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report 2 Boston Model Network / Matrix Update

2.1 Existing Network The extent of the existing Boston simulation network is shown in Figure 2-1 (see red boundary line). It extends along the A16 beyond Wyberton to the south, west along the A52 and A1121 as far as B1192 Station Road, north along the A16 as far as Pilley’s Lane, and east along the A52 as far as Haltoft End. The simulation network is relatively detailed and includes the majority of the rural and urban roads in and around Boston.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 7 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Figure 2-1 Boston SATURN Network

The alignment of the proposed BDR falls within the boundaries of the simulation network to the south and west of Boston, and here the level of detail is considered sufficient. However, to the north of Boston the route of the BDR falls outside of the simulation network boundary which becomes buffer network north of Rawsons Lane / Pilley’s Lane. It is anticipated that the BCR will cross Rawsons Lane and terminate on the A16 Sibsey Road north of Pilley’s Lane.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 8 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

2.2 Network Extension To ensure the network is represented in sufficient detail to the north of Boston, the model simulation network has been extended to include Rawson’s Lane, Frith Bank, Willoughby Hills. The A16 and B1183 have also been extended north towards Sibsey and Frithville respectively. The additional simulation network has been coded to be consistent with the existing network in terms of link capacity. The extension includes adding the Rawsons Lane / Frith Bank and Sibsey Road / Willoughby Hills priority junctions to the simulation network.

Some additional buffer network has also been added to the model to improve route options available to traffic north of Boston. This includes the B1184 which links the A16 and B1192 via Frithville, and extending the B1183 north to its junction with the A155. The extent of the additional simulation and buffer network is shown in Figure 2-1.

2.3 Matrix Development The existing 2013 Boston SATURN model provides a good validation both in terms of screenline traffic flows and journey times, and as such, any changes to the morning and evening peak hour matrices should be kept to a minimum. However, a minor update was carried out to improve validation between observed and modelled traffic flows across the east-west screen line to the north of Boston town centre (shown in Figure 3-2 - Screenline 3).

The modelled northbound and southbound traffic flow on links that cross this screenline (including Brothercroft Road, Robin Hood’s Walk and Horncastle Road) are light compared to the observed traffic flows in both the morning and evening peak hours. Given that this screenline is relatively close to the northern section of the BDR it was considered necessary to improve the validation here.

The morning and evening peak hour matrices were adjusted to increase traffic flow for zone to zone movements that cross Screenline 3 to ensure a better validation in terms of individual links and across the screenline as a whole. In particular, this involved slightly increasing the southbound traffic flow on Robin Hood’s Walk and Horncastle Road in the morning peak hour, and the northbound and southbound traffic flow on Horncastle Road in the evening peak hour.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 9 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report 3 Boston Model Validation Update

3.1 Introduction The latest Boston SATURN was validated to 2013 and the results of that work are documented in LMVR (v.11). The following section reviews the traffic flows and journey times to ensure the model continues to provide a satisfactory validation flowing the network / matrix updates.

3.2 Assignment Flow Validation The following assignment validation checks were then completed:

 Check if traffic flows on links (at screenlines/ cordons) reflect observed flows

 Compare observed with modelled journey times on defined routes

 Compare results against validation criteria previously defined

 Check model convergence

Two cordons and five screenlines defined within the study area have been used to calibrate the model. An outer cordon has been defined around the main urban area and an inner cordon assesses the volumes of trips into and out of the town centre.

The screen-lines have been defined, as shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, so that the main east-west and north-south movements can be analysed.

Figure 3-1 Inner and Outer Cordons

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 10 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Figure 3-2 Validation Screenlines

Comparisons of modelled and observed flows for the updated model were undertaken for these screen-lines and cordons as shown below in Tables 3-1 to 3-2. The tables indicate whether the ‘update’ modelled traffic flows validate to TAG criteria and include a comparison with the original ‘2013’ Base model.

Table 3-1: Calibration Screenline & Cordon Summary Morning Peak Hour (All Vehicles)

Obs - Obs Modelled TAG Flow Screenline Dir Mod % Diff (vehs) (vehs) 2013 (vehs) Update

Inbound 4,741 4,805 64 1   Outer Cordon Outbound 3,763 4,055 292 8  

Inbound 6,567 6,486 -81 -1   Inner Cordon Outbound 5,166 5,218 52 1  

EB 2,253 2,210 -43 -2   Screenline 1 WB 2,023 2,216 193 10  

SB 1,725 1,812 86 5   Screenline 2 NB 2,181 2,152 -29 -1  

Screenline 3 SB 1,513 1,338 -176 -12  

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 11 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

NB 946 824 -122 -13  

EB 939 859 -80 -8   Screenline 4 WB 1,200 1,170 -30 -3  

EB 902 851 -50 -6   Screenline 5 WB 553 535 -18 -3  

Number passing TAG 3.19 Criteria 14/14 12/14 Percentage passing TAG 3.19 Criteria 100% 86%

It can be seen that during the morning peak period all the cordons/ screenlines pass the GEH validation and flow difference criteria outlined in TAG Unit 3.19. This includes Screenline 3 which was under assigned in the 2013 validation and did not pass GEH validation and flow difference criteria.

Overall, for the morning peak hour model, 100% of the screen lines and cordons pass these criteria which is an improvement compared to the 2013 validation of 86%.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 12 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Table 3-2: Calibration Screenline & Cordon Summary Evening Peak Hour (All Vehicles)

Obs - Obs Modelled TAG Flow Screenline Dir Mod % Diff (vehs) (vehs) (vehs) Update 2013

Inbound 3,928 3,965 37 1   Outer Cordon Outbound 4,654 4,628 -26 -1  

Inbound 5,693 5,614 -80 -1   Inner Cordon Outbound 6,207 6,076 -131 -2  

EB 2,472 2,434 -39 -2   Screenline 1 WB 2,039 2,179 140 7  

SB 1,907 2,097 189 10   Screenline 2 NB 1,751 2,105 354 20  

SB 972 897 -76 -8   Screenline 3 NB 1,184 1,057 -127 -11  

EB 1,088 1,006 -82 -8   Screenline 4 WB 888 836 -52 -6  

EB 586 575 -11 -2   Screenline 5 WB 819 794 -25 -3  

Number passing TAG 3.19 Criteria 13/14 12/14 Percentage passing TAG 3.19 Criteria 93% 86%

In the evening peak hour, all the cordons/ screenlines, except Screenline 2 NB pass the flow difference validation criteria outlined in TAG Unit 3.19. As with the morning peak, the 2013 model did not pass the criteria on Screenline 3 SB which has been remedied as part of this update. Overall, for the morning model, 93% of the screen lines and cordons pass TAG criteria which again is an improvement compared to the 2013 validation of 86%.

Further comparisons at link level are summarised in Tables 3-3 and 3-4 below. These indicate the number of individual links within each screenline passing the flow and GEH criteria previously defined, for the morning and evening peak hour models.

Overall, the link flow criteria are met for 96% of links in both the morning and evening models. This is an improvement compared to the 2013 Boston model validation

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 13 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report which meets the link flow criteria for 93% and 95% of links in the morning and evening peak hours respectively.

Appendix A provides more detailed comparisons of individual links from the screen lines and cordons for both morning and evening peak periods.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 14 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Table 3-3: Summary of Link Flow Validation Morning Peak Hour (All Vehicles) Update Links passing TAG 2013 Links passing TAG Number of Screenline criteria criteria Links Flow GEH Flow GEH 34 31 35 31 Outer Cordon 36 (94%) (86%) (97%) (86%) 33 32 31 29 Inner Cordon 35 (94%) (91%) (89%) (83%) 4 4 4 4 Screenline 1 5 (80%) (80%) (80%) (80%) 6 6 6 6 Screenline 2 6 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 14 14 12 11 Screenline 3 14 (100%) (100%) (86%) (79%) 10 10 10 10 Screenline 4 10 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 6 6 6 6 Screenline 5 6 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 107 103 104 98 All Screenlines 112 (96%) (92%) (93%) (88%)

Table 3-4: Summary of Link Flow Validation Evening Peak Hour (All Vehicles) Update Links passing TAG 2013 Links passing TAG Number of Screenline criteria criteria Links Flow GEH Flow GEH 36 33 36 33 Outer Cordon 36 (100%) (92%) (100%) (92%) 34 33 34 33 Inner Cordon 35 (97%) (94%) (97%) (96%) 4 4 4 4 Screenline 1 5 (80%) (80%) (80%) (80%) 4 4 4 4 Screenline 2 6 (66%) (66%) (66%) (66%) 14 14 12 12 Screenline 3 14 (100%) (100%) (86%) (86%) 10 10 10 10 Screenline 4 10 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 6 6 6 6 Screenline 5 6 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 108 104 106 102 All Screenlines 112 (96%) (93%) (95%) (90%)

Link flow plots for the morning and evening peak hour models are provided in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. These show flows as bandwidths throughout the networks, together with numerical flow values (pcu/ hour) on the majority of links.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 15 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Figure 3-1 Morning Peak Hour Model: Link Flows

Figure 3-2 Evening Peak Hour Model: Link Flows

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 16 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

3.3 Assignment Journey Time Validation The original journey time validation is based on comparisons of observed (obtained from the TrafficMaster database) and modelled journey times along 6 (bi-directional) routes shown below in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3 Journey Time Survey Routes

Additional journey time routes have been included in our checks to ensure the updated model accurately reflects observed journey times on the following routes (shown in Figure 3-4):

 Route 7: A52 / West End Rd junction to B1397 / Garfit’s Lane junction via Chain Bridge Road, Wyberton W Road and Park Road

 Route 8: Punchbowl Lane / Cross Drove junction to Brothertoft Road / A1137 junction via Punchbowl Lane, Langrick Road and Fenside Road1  Route 9: Wide Bargate to A1137 / Rawsons Lane junction via A1137  Route 10: B1397 / B1391 junction to High Street / A16 junction via London Road and B1397

In addition to the above routes extensions have been added to Route 1 at its northern end (from A16 / A52 roundabout to A16 / Pilley’s Lane junction) and at its southern end (from A16 / Millfield Lane West junction to A16 / Saundergate Lane

1 Route 8 was removed due to insufficient sample size in TrafficMaster to obtain a reliable observed journey time.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 17 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report junction). Route 2 to has also been extended at its eastern end from the A16 / A52 roundabout to A52 / Willoughby Hills junction.

The above journey time routes (shown in Figure 3-4) have been added to ensure the model journey times validate on parts of the network where the BDR is likely to have an impact.

Figure 3-4 Additional Journey Time Survey Routes

Tables 3-5 and 3-6 below provide a summary of the journey time validation results for both the modelled time periods. They show that, for both the time periods, the difference between modelled and observed journey times is within 15% for all routes in all periods including the additional routes. All periods therefore meet the journey time validation criteria (as described in TAG unit 3.19) as was the case with the 2013 Boston model.

Detailed journey time validation results for all routes are presented in Appendix B.

These reports indicate that the models meet the adopted validation criteria in their representation of journey times within the Boston area. In particular the model journey times are represented accurately in areas of the network were the BDR route is located.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 18 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Table 3-5: Journey Time Summary - AM Peak Hour

Journey Times (mm:ss) Modelled Route Description Direction Distance Meet Criteria % (km) Observed Modelled Difference Diff Update 2013

A16 Millfield NB 5.378 09:27 08:43 00:44 -8%   Route 1 Lane to A16 Saundergate SB 5.319 08:33 09:03 00:30 6%   Lane

4.885 10:11 11:27 01:16 12% Willoughby WB   Route 2 Hills to A16 Spibey Road EB 4.897 10:57 11:52 00:55 8%  

Saundergate WB 5.288 09:16 08:35 00:41 -7%   Route 3 lane to A52 Sleaford Road EB 5.330 09:19 09:31 00:12 2%   roundabout Saundergate WB 6.398 07:05 07:26 00:21 5%   Route 4 Lane to Elm Cottage EB 6.460 07:15 07:41 00:27 6%   access Horncastle WB 2.081 05:22 05:24 00:02 1%   Route 5 Road to Sleaford Road EB 2.080 05:35 05:19 00:16 -5%   White House WB 1.847 03:15 03:04 00:11 -6%   Route 6 Lane to John Adams Way EB 1.847 02:32 02:35 00:03 2%   West End WB 2.387 02:14 02:51 00:37 27%  - Route 7 Road junction to Garfit’s Lane EB 2.444 02:28 02:36 00:08 5%  -

Cross Drove to  Route 8 Brothertoft Road  Wide Bargate NB 2.279 04:17 03:46 -00:31 -12%  - Route 9 to Rawsons Lane SB 2.350 03:53 03:37 -00:16 -7%  -

3.232 04:31 04:15 -00:16 -6% Route B1391 to High NB  - 10 Street SB 3.229 04:33 04:39 00:06 2%  - Number of routes passing TAG criteria 18 / 18 12 / 12 Percentage of routes passing TAG criteria 100% 100% Note: Route 8 removed due to insufficient sample size in TrafficMaster to obtain a reliable observed journey time

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 19 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Table 3-6: Journey Time Summary - PM Peak Hour

Journey Times (mm:ss) Modelled Direct Route Description Distance ion Modell % Meet Criteria (km) Observed Difference ed Diff Update 2013

Saundergate lane NB 5.378 08:04 09:09 01:05 14%   Route 1 to A16 Spibey Road SB 5.319 07:58 08:32 00:34 7%  

A52 Sleaford Road WB 4.885 10:05 11:13 01:09 11%   Route 2 roundabout-A16 Spibey Road EB 4.897 10:55 12:16 01:22 12%  

Saundergate lane WB 5.288 08:15 09:22 01:07 13%   Route 3 to A52 Sleaford Road roundabout EB 5.330 09:11 10:00 00:49 9%  

Saundergate Lane WB 6.398 07:04 07:23 00:18 4%   Route 4 to Elm Cottage access EB 6.460 07:04 07:37 00:33 8%  

Horncastle Road WB 2.081 05:33 05:19 00:14 -4%   Route 5 to Sleaford Road EB 2.080 04:52 05:33 00:41 14%   White House Lane WB 1.847 03:04 02:47 00:17 -9%   Route 6 to John Adams Way EB 1.847 02:57 02:46 00:11 -6%   West End Road WB 2.387 02:16 02:51 00:35 25%  - Route 7 junction to Garfit’s Lane EB 2.444 02:28 02:36 00:08 5%  -

Cross Drove to  Route 8 Brothertoft Road 

Wide Bargate to NB 2.279 03:35 03:46 00:11 5%  - Route 9 Rawsons Lane SB 2.350 03:39 03:37 -00:02 -1%  -

Route B1391 to High NB 3.232 04:25 04:15 -00:10 -4%  - Street 10 SB 3.229 04:37 04:39 00:02 1%  - Number of routes passing TAG criteria 18 / 18 12 / 12 Percentage of routes passing TAG criteria 100% 100% Note: Route 8 removed due to insufficient sample size in TrafficMaster to obtain a reliable observed journey time

3.4 Model convergence Convergence is the measure used to determine model stability during the assignment process. A suitably converged model can be expected to produce consistent outputs with minimal model noise.

The convergence parameters for each modelled time period are summarised in Table 3-7 below. These show that both models converged relatively quickly, achieving the target stability and proximity criteria described in section 3.3.

It can be seen that both models reached convergence within 50 assignment iterations and the models therefore converged to a stable solution.

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 20 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report

Table 3-7: Convergence Summary

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Iteration %Gap %Flow %Delay Iteration %Gap %Flow %Delay

14 0.0028 99.5 99.9 20 0.0017 99.9 100

15 0.0040 99.7 100 21 0.0060 100 100

16 0.0020 99.8 100 23 0.0055 99.6 100

17 0.0031 99.7 100 23 0.0023 100 100

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 21 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report 4 Summary

4.1 Introduction This report describes the development of an updated version of the morning and evening peak hour 2013 traffic models for Boston to be used as a tool for assessing the impact of the proposed BDR. The report describes the changes made to the model and the subsequent validation.

4.2 Summary of Model Development The simulation network has been modelled to include the town of Boston for the base year of 2013. The buffer area has been modelled to include all the major and strategic routes connecting Boston to the wider area.

To ensure the model network is represented in sufficient detail along the route of the BDR the network has been updated to include additional simulation and buffer links to the north of Boston.

Some minor changes were made to the morning and evening peak hour matrices to improve the screenline validation to the north of Boston Town Centre. Overall, changes were kept to a minimum to ensure that the level of validation achieved by the 2013 Boston model was not adversely affected.

4.3 Summary of Standards Achieved The flow calibration comparisons show that TAG Unit 3.19 ‘Highway Assignment Modelling flow criteria are met in all periods for the almost all the screenlines and individual highway links. This is an improvement on the 2013 model which did not validate on the Screenline 3 to the north of Boston town centre.

The journey time validation process showed that, for each of the model time periods, modelled journey times was within 15% of observed times for all routes in both the morning and evening peak hour models including the additional routes considered as part of the update.

The models are therefore judged to have met the validation criteria adopted for the study.

4.4 Assessment of Fitness for Purpose On this basis, it has been demonstrated that the updated morning and evening peak hour Boston Base SATURN models provide an accurate representation of the current traffic demands in the wider Boston area. The models are considered to be robust, and therefore will provide a reliable basis for assessing the impact of the proposed BDR (as described in Chapter 1 of this report).

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 22 Boston Traffic Model

Local Model Validation Network Extension Report Appendices (available on request)

Appendix A - BOSTON LMVR_update 23 Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Appendix B – BDR Traffic Generation (2056)

Table 1 Employment Site Trip Generation

Total trip generation (2056) Site Type of No

reference (HA) Development AM PM

In Out Total In Out Total Quantity 2036 by Quantity 2056 by Quantity 2021 by Quantity 2026 by Net land Available 80% B1, 20% sui 1 BOE001 6.0 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 342 55 397 45 283 328 generis 80% B2/B8, 20% 2 BOE006 17.7 7.6 7.0 3.1 15.0 751 277 1027 178 654 833 B1 60% B1, 20% sui 3 BOE008 8.4 - - 8.4 - generis, 20% 310 59 369 46 258 304 B2/B8 60%B2/B8, 20% 4 KIE001 12.1 5.4 4.5 2.2 - sui generis, 20% 243 83 326 54 210 265 B1 5 BOE012 1.0 - 1.0 - - 100% B2/B8 15 8 23 5 13 18

6 OLE001 2.8 - 1.4 1.4 - 100% B2/B8 41 23 64 14 37 51

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Table 2 – Residential Site Trip Generation

Total No Site Reference Site Status Total trip generation (2056) Units

Quantity 2015 by Quantity 2021 by Quantity 2026 by Quantity 2036 by Quantity 2056 by AM PM QUANTITY NOT CUMULATIVE In Out Total In Out Total 1 Cen 005 52 52 Committed 9 20 29 18 10 28 2 FEN 006 86 86 Committed 14 33 47 30 17 47 3 Wes 005 120 120 Committed 20 45 65 42 23 66 4 Sts 001 200 125 75 Committed 33 76 109 71 39 109 5 Wyb 009 500 200 250 50 Committed 81 215 295 196 119 314 6 Fis 14/ 15 328 100 207 21 Committed 53 141 194 128 78 206 7 Fis 031 96 50 46 Committed 16 36 52 34 19 52 8 Fen 006 240 50 125 65 Potential 40 91 131 85 46 131 9 Fen 014 501 50 250 201 Potential 81 215 296 196 119 315 10 Fis 001 224 50 125 49 Potential 37 85 122 79 43 122 11 Fis 003 90 50 40 Potential 15 34 49 32 17 49 Fis 033 (minus Fis 12 241 50 125 66 Potential 40 91 131 85 47 132 014/015) 13 Fis 038 53 50 3 Potential 9 20 29 19 10 29 14 Ski 001 109 50 59 Potential 18 41 59 38 21 60 15 Sou 006 1,000 400 500 100 Potential 67 354 421 257 162 419 16 Sou 007 66 66 Committed 11 25 36 23 13 36

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Total No Site Reference Site Status Total trip generation (2056) Units

Quantity 2015 by Quantity 2021 by Quantity 2026 by Quantity 2036 by Quantity 2056 by AM PM QUANTITY NOT CUMULATIVE In Out Total In Out Total 17 Wes 002 1,378 400 500 478 Potential 92 488 580 354 223 577 18 Wyb 0033 250 50 200 Potential 42 95 136 88 48 137 Fen 009 (minus 19 976 976 Potential 65 346 411 251 158 409 Fen006/014) 20 Nor 014 1,879 1,879 Potential 126 665 791 483 304 787 21 Wit 013 1,730 1,730 Potential 116 612 728 445 280 725 Completed 22 WIT 004 67 67 11 25 37 24 13 37 ‘15 Completed 23 WES 006 38 38 6 14 21 13 7 21 ‘15

Sleaford Regeneration Area Traffic Modelling Traffic Modelling Report

Appendix C – TRICS Outputs