Stoke Gifford Bypass Study

Policy Review & Scheme Appraisal

August 2006

JOB NUMBER: 5040208 DOCUMENT REF: StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

v5 Final RCH SB SB 02/08/06

v4 Draft for issue RCH SB SB 18/05/06

v3 Third Draft RCH SB 28/04/06

v2 Second Draft RCH 04/04/06

v1 First Draft RCH 08/02/06

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Revision Purpose Description

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1 Terms of Reference 1.2 This Report 1.3 2. Policy Review 2.1 Introduction 2.1 Objectives of the Stoke Gifford Bypass 2.3 Key Outcomes of the Stoke Gifford Bypass 2.3 Conclusions 2.16 3. Traffic Forecasting 3.1 BATS2 Model 3.1 Model Validation 3.2 Forecast Land-Use/Network Assumptions 3.7 Scheme Alternatives for Testing 3.9 4. Operational Assessment 4.1 Traffic Forecasts 4.1 Traffic Growth 4.1 Forecast Network Performance 4.1 Forecast Traffic Flows 4.2 Forecast Traffic Effects by Area 4.4 Changes in Bus Journey Times 4.5 5. Economic Appraisal 5.1 Construction Costs 5.1 Present Value Costs 5.2 Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits 5.3 TUBA Inputs 5.3 Economic Benefits of the Scheme 5.4 Accident Benefits 5.5 Summary of Accident Benefits 5.7 Summary of the Economic Appraisal 5.7 6. Conclusions 6.1 Appendix A 2016 Forecast Traffic Flows Appendix B 2016 Forecast Changes in Bus Journey Times

5040208/Report/Final i StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

List of Figures Figure 2.1 – The Causal Chain Approach 2.2 Figure 3.1 – Location of Count Sites used for Model validation 3.6 Figure 3.2 – Alternative Options for Stoke Gifford Bypass 3.10 Figure 4.1 – Selected Links for Forecast Traffic Flows 4.10 Figure 4.2 – Forecast Traffic Effects of the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.17 Figure 4.3 – Forecast Traffic Flows on the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.18 Figure 4.4 – Bus Routes in GBBN Corridor 4 (Route 73) 4.19 Figure 5.1 – COBA Network 5.6

List of Tables Table 2.1 – National Policy Scheme Fit Matrix 2.4 Table 2.2 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Regional Transport Strategy 2.6 Table 2.3 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Funding Allocations 2.8 Table 2.4 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Replacement Structure Plan 2.10 Table 2.5 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Greater Strategic Transport Study 2.12 Table 2.6 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Local Transport Plan 2.14 Table 3.1 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 AM Peak Hour 3.4 Table 3.2 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 Inter-Peak 3.5 Table 3.3 – Summary of Scenario F Housing and Employment Forecasts 3.8 Table 4.1 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.6 Table 4.2 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 Average Inter-peak Hour 4.7 Table 4.3 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 AM Peak Hour 4.8 Table 4.4 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 Average Inter-peak Hour 4.9 Table 4.5 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 AM Peak Hour 4.11 Table 4.6 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 Inter-peak Hour 4.12 Table 4.7 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 AM Peak Hour 4.14 Table 4.8 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 Inter-peak Hour 4.16 Table 5.1 – Scheme Costs 5.2 Table 5.2 – Economic Efficiency Benefits of the Stoke Gifford Bypass 5.4 Table 5.3 – Summary of Forecast Accident Benefits 5.7 Table 5.4 – Economic Appraisal of the Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme 5.9

5040208/Report/Final ii StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

1. Introduction 1.1 In November 2005, Atkins Planning Consultants were commissioned by South Council (SGC) to undertake a review of the proposed Stoke Gifford Bypass, which would provide a link between Great Stoke Way (at its southern end) and the A4174 Avon Ring Road. This review was to be independent and impartial. 1.2 This report presents the findings of the Atkins study, including a policy review and an operational and economic appraisal of scheme options.

BACKGROUND Winterbourne Bypass 1.3 The Winterbourne bypass was first proposed in the mid-1980s to provide a strategic route between Yate and Bristol, which would bypass Winterbourne/ Frampton Cotterell, and improve access to the county and motorway network. 1.4 A proposal for the bypass was included in the Avon County Structure Plan of 1994, and assessed as part of the Avon North West Sector Study undertaken by MVA. This study recommended the full scheme on balance, but showed that the economic case for the southern section of the proposed route (from the B4057 to the Avon Ring Road at Harry Stoke) was stronger than that for the northern section (from Iron Acton to the B4057 Winterbourne Road). Subsequent work by Oscar Faber in 1997 confirmed the relative merits of the southern section. It was therefore promoted as a key element of the Bristol North Fringe Multi Modal Project for SGC’s TPP submission of 1997/98. 1.5 However, following further work by Steer Davies Gleave for LTP1 and the Public Examination of the Deposit Structure Plan, the by-pass was excluded from the revised Structure Plan of February 2000. It was formally abandoned by SGC in May 2000. 1.6 More recently, a full Winterbourne Bypass proposal has been re-examined by the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study. An economic appraisal of the scheme, based on a single 2031 AM peak hour assignment and limited to weekday peak period benefits only, showed that it would generate very significant user benefits and return a Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) of 8.3 over 60 years. Most of the user benefits would be travel time savings resulting from relief of congestion in the North Fringe area. Stoke Gifford Bypass 1.7 The most southerly section of the Winterbourne bypass, formerly known as the ‘ Link’ or ‘Winterbourne Bypass Southern Section’ was originally intended to provide a connection between the southern end of Bradley Stoke Way and the A4174 Avon Ring Road. A first section of the bypass (now known as Great Stoke Way) was constructed and opened several years ago. It was constructed to dual carriageway standard between the B4057 Winterbourne Road and the roundabout junction with Hunts Ground Road. 1.8 The current proposal would complete the link between Great Stoke Way and the A4174 Avon Ring Road, traversing the main railway line and bypassing Stoke Gifford on its east side. It would also need to bypass new housing in

5040208/Report/Final 1.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

the Hunts Ground area, which has been developed on land formerly safeguarded for the proposed route. 1.9 The main aim of the bypass would be to provide traffic relief to the road network in Stoke Gifford, which already suffers significant congestion during peak periods, particularly on Winterbourne Road, Hatchet Road, Brierley Furlong and Great Stoke Way. It would also accommodate further traffic growth generated by proposed developments at Harry Stoke and elsewhere in the North Fringe area.

TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.10 The aims and objectives of the study, its requirements, scope of work and key deliverables were set out in the Consultant’s brief of October 2005. These were discussed and clarified at a meeting with Officers and Elected Members of the Council on 19 October 2005. 1.11 The Atkins proposal letter of 2 November 2005 defined our approach to the study, based on our understanding of its requirements. The main aims of the study were outlined as follows: ♦ To assess the benefits and implications of a new link road in Stoke Gifford, between Great Stoke Way and the A4174 Avon Ring Road. A key aim of this road would be to provide relief to Stoke Gifford from existing congestion and future developments; ♦ To carry out an appropriate assessment of alternatives (including bus only); ♦ To consider implications on the highway network and propose, where necessary, a package of complementary measures to ensure traffic uses an appropriate route, that road safety is improved and that use of sustainable modes (cycling, walking and public transport) is encouraged; ♦ To carry out a brief policy review to determine how the bypass fits with local and regional policies; ♦ To carry out a desktop review of major engineering issues; and ♦ To consider the deliverability of the scheme and funding sources. 1.12 It was understood from the outset that officers of SGC would undertake an environmental assessment of the scheme, and that this would not form part of the Atkins brief. 1.13 The SGC scope of work was subsequently extended to include the desktop review of engineering issues, identification of scheme alternatives and estimation of preliminary construction costs for scheme appraisal. 1.14 It was agreed at the meeting of 19 October 2005 that traffic forecasts for 2016 and 2031 would be produced using the Bristol Area Transport Study model (BATS2), which was updated to appraise the JLTP Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Business Case of July 2005. Officers and Elected Members also accepted that study time constraints and the preliminary nature of the assessments required at this stage would not allow for a major recalibration and revalidation of the BATS2 model.

5040208/Report/Final 1.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

THIS REPORT 1.15 This report presents the results of the traffic modelling and economic analysis of the scheme. It includes an assessment of how the scheme ‘fits’ with current local, regional and national transport policy followed by a detailed traffic analysis of scheme impacts on the local highway network. 1.16 The report concludes on whether the scheme should be considered for implementation to address local traffic, transportation and environmental considerations.

5040208/Report/Final 1.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final 1.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

2. Policy Review

INTRODUCTION 2.1 The likely cost of a Stoke Gifford Bypass would be well beyond the financial means of Council and its partners. The only realistic method of funding the scheme would be a combination of developer contributions and Department for Transport (DfT) Major Scheme funding. 2.2 The DfT guidance places heavy emphasis on a major scheme being fully consistent with local, regional and national policies. 2.3 Paragraphs 2.16 and 2.17 of the “Guidance to Local Authorities Seeking DfT Funding for Transport Major Schemes” states: The Strategic Case is essentially the “fit” of the scheme in terms of wider objectives. We expect major scheme bids to be for those schemes that will enhance the objectives of the LTP or the wider objectives of the authority, such as regeneration and social inclusion. Major scheme bids should be explicit about how they would help to deliver LTP targets and to what extent targets could be stretched were the scheme to be funded. Where the benefits of a scheme would only be realised after the second LTP period, bids should make reference to the potential of the scheme to meet the longer term objectives of the authority. The Strategic case will also need to show the fit with the strategies of regional authorities, notably the Regional Transport Strategy/Regional Spatial Strategy, within which the LTP sits. Where appropriate, the Strategic Case should also describe the fit with other transport delivery agencies' plans and objectives. 2.4 The concept of scheme “fit” is not simply about judging whether a scheme is broadly consistent with policy objectives. Rather it is about a scheme making an active contribution to delivering particular objectives. This can be explained by the concept of the causal chain (see Figure 2.1). 2.5 The causal chain approach shows how the inputs, outputs and outcomes the Stoke Gifford Bypass scheme should progress in a logical order so that the various local, regional and national objectives / targets are met. 2.6 The most important part of the causal chain is the link between the scheme outputs (in this case the new highway infrastructure) and the desired outcomes (reduced congestion on local roads and better quality public transport services that are well patronised). If the desired outcomes do not result from the inputs / outputs then the fit of the scheme with objectives will be seriously compromised.

5040208/Report/Final 2.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 2.1 – The Causal Chain Approach Inputs (policy framework, capital / revenue investment and staff resources that are invested in planning and constructing the Stoke Gifford Bypass)

Outputs (the highway and associated bus priority infrastructure delivered by the Stoke Gifford Bypass)

Outcomes (the impact on travel behaviour and travel conditions resulting from delivery of the highway infrastructure)

Objectives (the wider local, regional and national aims - towards which the outputs and outcomes contribute)

Performance Indicators and Targets (a quantifiable measure showing how outputs / outcomes deliver objectives)

2.7 We have therefore undertaken a comprehensive review of the outputs and outcomes of the Stoke Gifford Bypass in order to judge their likely contribution to the following policy and strategy documents: ♦ DfT White Paper The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030. ♦ Regional Planning Guidance 10 and the replacement Regional Spatial Strategy (including the Regional Transport Strategy). ♦ GOSW Regional Funding Allocations Paper. ♦ South Gloucestershire Local Plan. ♦ Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study. ♦ South Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan. ♦ South Gloucestershire Road Traffic Reduction Act Report. ♦ Greater Bristol Joint Local Transport Plan. 2.8 In order to assess the fit of the scheme with the above documents we have devised a five point scale: 4: scheme demonstrably contributes to delivery of all the policy objectives. 3: scheme is broadly consistent with most or all of the policy objectives. 2: scheme is broadly consistent with a few of the policy objectives. 1: scheme has no obvious effect on the policy objectives. 0: scheme is contrary to some or all of the policy objectives. 2.9 For each policy document we have assessed the fit between the objectives, outputs and outcomes of the Stoke Gifford Bypass scheme with the various

5040208/Report/Final 2.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

national, regional and local policy / strategy documents. Depending on the available evidence we have then allocated a score between 0 and 4 for: ♦ Fit between each scheme objective and the related policy document objective. ♦ Fit between each scheme output / outcome and the related policy document objectives. 2.10 The score for each objective and output / outcome will be averaged to provide an overall score between 0 and 4 for the policy fit. The two average scores will then be added together. Therefore for each of the eight policy documents we have reviewed, the Stoke Gifford Bypass could score a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 8 points. 2.11 There is a crucial distinction between the two parts of the scoring process. It is relatively easy to demonstrate a fit between scheme objectives and wider policy objectives. However it is much more challenging for a scheme to actively demonstrate a good fit with the actual or predicted outputs and outcomes (which may or may not deliver the scheme objectives) and the wider policy objectives. 2.12 The purpose of the scoring is not to provide a definitive view on whether this particular scheme - if submitted as a major scheme bid - will meet the requirements of the DfT guidance. Rather it is an attempt to outline how the scheme, as it is currently defined, fits with current local, regional and national policy as a means of identifying strengths and weaknesses that promoters will need to develop and address.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS 2.13 The consultant brief issued by South Gloucestershire Council lists a number of objectives for the Stoke Gifford Bypass: ♦ Provide relief to Stoke Gifford from the current heavy traffic and that associated with future developments. ♦ Ensure (through a range of complementary measures) that traffic follows the appropriate route. ♦ Improve road safety. ♦ Encouragement of sustainable modes including cycling, walking and public transport.

KEY OUTCOMES OF THE STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS 2.14 Tables 2.1 to 2.5 present a summary of how the proposed bypass ‘fits’ with policy. It includes an assessment of the scheme infrastructure and the traffic impacts, details of which are included in Section 4.

5040208/Report/Final 2.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 2.1 – National Policy Scheme Fit Matrix

DfT White Paper The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030.

National Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Objectives Scheme Outputs and Outcomes Road network to provide a more reliable and A key objective is to reduce congestion locally in The bypass provides traffic relief to the centre of freer flowing service for personal travel and Stoke Gifford. There is also recognition of the Stoke Gifford, reducing the considerable impact of freight, with people making informed choices potential wider impact of the bypass. However traffic congestion. The provision of additional local about how and when they travel. Road capacity there no obvious link to the issue about allowing highway capacity also improves journey reliability to be provided where it is needed (and when people to make informed choices. Environmental and results in a more free-flowing network, environmental and social costs are justified). and social benefits are not explicitly stated as reflected in the reduction in overall journey time Benefits of new investment should be “locked in” objectives but could be assumed to result from and delay within the traffic model. This effect is through measures such as car pool lanes and traffic relief. There is some recognition in the however local to the scheme, and in some road tolling. scheme objectives of locking in the capacity instances additional traffic is attracted to other provided (via unspecified traffic management routes as traffic takes advantage of the routing measures) Score: 3 opportunities created by the scheme. Score: 2 The rail network providing a fast reliable and The scheme does have access to Bristol Parkway The scheme provides improved access to Bristol efficient service, particularly for inter urban station as a key part of the wider objective for traffic Parkway from the south east (via the Ring Road journeys and commuting into large urban areas. relief in the Stoke Gifford area. Score: 3 and M32). The reduction of traffic and congestion in Stoke Gifford will also result in better traffic conditions and improved journey reliability for traffic and buses approaching the station from the south west and the north. Score: 4 Bus services that are reliable, flexible, convenient The scheme does aim to mitigate the effects of The relief of congestion through Stoke Gifford will and tailored to local needs. congestion on local bus services and will provide reduce the impact traffic congestion has on bus opportunities for greater bus priority. Score: 4 services through the village. This bus corridor, via Hatchet Road and Brierley Furlong, is included in the Greater Bristol Bus Network. Opportunities for bus priority in the Stoke Gifford section of this corridor are significantly constrained by the Bristol Parkway railway bridge and by residential development in Stoke Gifford itself. Therefore the reduction in traffic and congestion on this route will

5040208/Report/Final 2.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

directly benefit buses, which will in turn increase their attractiveness as an alternative travel mode. Score: 4 Making walking and cycling a real alternative for This is a key objective of the scheme although the The reduction of traffic in Stoke Gifford will benefit local trips. detail of how this will be delivered is less clear. pedestrians and cyclists, by improving the Score: 3 environment in terms of pollution, noise and visual intrusion. The bypass will also include a cycle track as a component of its design, so a new cycle route will be provided between the east of Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke and the Harry Stoke development, UWE and destinations to the east via the Ring Road Cycle track: Score: 4 Ports and airports providing improved No obvious direct link to this objective except as The scheme has very local impacts, so it is difficult international and domestic links. part of a wider strategy for improving access to the to link the bypass to benefits at ports and airports. docks and Bristol Airport. Score: 2 However the provision of link between the M32 and the eastern access to Parkway Station may enable consideration of a Bristol Airport bus service to operate additionally from Bristol Parkway. Score: 2 Overall Assessment and Score The scheme objectives as currently defined are The scheme broadly delivers the national policy broadly consistent with national policy objectives objectives, but it is noted that its impacts are although more detail would be required for generally local, benefiting local travel patterns to submission as part of a major scheme bid Score: 3 Stoke Gifford and Bradley Stoke. Score: 3

5040208/Report/Final 2.5 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 2.2 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Regional Transport Strategy Regional Spatial Strategy

Regional Policy Objective Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Objectives Scheme Outputs and Outcomes • Transport and the Strategically Significant One of the scheme objectives does make reference The bypass supports the regional strategy by Cities and Towns (SSCTs) to heavy traffic associated with future developments reducing traffic congestion in the north of the and its location in the largest SSCT in the south Greater Bristol SSCT and enabling improved west demonstrates good synergy with RTS access to services and facilities. This is shown by priorities. However the RTS places even greater the reduction in traffic congestion in Stoke Gifford emphasis on improving non car modes (which is and in the area around Abbey Wood. However the covered by the study objectives) and demand impact of any demand management measures in management (which is not). Also the bypass is the area has not been explicitly modelled and the essentially local in nature and it is questionable wider impact of the scheme is not the primary whether it is a regionally significant scheme on its source of the benefits. Score: 3 own. Score 3 • Providing reliable connections to the UK, There is no specific scheme objective related to There is some evidence from GBSTS and this European and International markets. impact on the strategic road network although this more recent work that there is a degree of traffic issue was looked at by GBSTS. Score 2 reduction benefit to the M4 / M5. Score 3 Ports and airports No obvious direct link to this objective except as The scheme has very local impacts, so it is difficult part of a wider strategy for improving access to the to link the bypass to benefits at ports and airports. docks and Bristol Airport. Score: 2 However the provision of link between the M32 and the eastern access to Parkway Station may enable consideration of a Bristol Airport bus service to operate additionally from Bristol Parkway. Score: 2 • Setting parking standards through The study is not relevant to this issue. Score 1 The study is not relevant to this issue. Score 1 accessibility planning Regional Connectivity and Freight Transport There is no objective relating to regional The congestion benefits of the Stoke Gifford connectivity although it could be argued that as the bypass will result in a reduction in journey time north of Bristol is a significant generator and and greater journey time reliability for freight attractor of freight traffic then the scheme will movements that have an origin / destination in the provide some benefit at one end of a longer Bradley Stoke area. Score 2 journey. Score 2

5040208/Report/Final 2.6 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Overall Assessment and Score The scheme objectives as currently defined are Although a local scheme with generally local partly consistent with the majority of regional policy impacts, the traffic analysis of the bypass shows objectives although more detail would be required that it is broadly consistent with most of the for submission as part of a major scheme bid. As a regional policy issues listed here. Score: 2 free standing proposal the scheme does not have regional traffic movements as its primary objective. Score: 2

5040208/Report/Final 2.7 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 2.3 – Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Funding Allocations

Regional Funding Allocations: Advice from the South West Region

Regional Policy Priorities for Investment Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Objectives Scheme Outputs and Outcomes Promoting more sustainable patterns of transport The scheme does not have an explicit objective of The scheme does not directly support sustainable promoting more sustainable patterns of travel, but the cycle track alongside the bypass will development but instead seeks to address problems be a new piece of cycle infrastructure and the that have arguably been the result of unsustainable relief of congestion in Stoke Gifford will directly development in the past. However this is not to say benefit bus services in this corridor, which also that the scheme cannot be part of an integrated forms a component of the GBBN. Score: 3 package of measures that could assist with promoting more sustainable travel patterns in the area. Score 2 Supporting development and economic activity in The scheme could well fall into the category of The bypass does demonstrate a benefit to the the strategically significant towns and cities being a “selective” new road if it can be residents of Stoke Gifford, and is the only realistic through improved public transport, demand demonstrated that there is no serious alternative to alternative given the significant constraint of the management and selectively providing for new addressing the traffic problems in the Stoke Gifford railway line and development between Stoke roads area. Score 3 Gifford and the Ring Road. Score: 3 Improving the reliability and resilience of inter and The scheme is not on the strategic road network The scheme is very local in impact, but some relief intra regional connectivity as a strategic route into but could make a contribution to making better use to the M4 is shown between Junctions 19 and 20 the region, on regionally significant transport of the existing motorway network if it could be as the bypass provides an alternative route corridors and on other transport corridors demonstrated that it caters for trips that would between Bristol, the M32 and the Aztec otherwise use the M4 / M5. Score 2 West/ Business Park areas. Score: 2 Tackling access to jobs and delivery of services There is no obvious benefit to any rural areas as a The scheme generally does not provide a in rural areas result of this scheme. Score 1 significant benefit to rural areas, serving primarily an urban area and a suburban hinterland (between Stoke Gifford and Yate). Score: 1 Delivering against DfT / regional “shared The scheme does have explicit objectives related to The scheme does provide significant network-wide priorities” two of the four DfT / LGA shared priorities – decongestion benefits, although accidents are congestion and safety. There is no explicit shown to increase slightly overall because of recognition of accessibility or air quality in the changes in the length of some journeys. However

5040208/Report/Final 2.8 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

scheme objectives – although these could be the reduction of traffic in Stoke Gifford centre, inferred. Score 3 where pedestrian and cyclist activity may be expected, will make this area safer. The bypass also improves accessibility to Bristol Parkway and provides a new cycle link. Score: 3 Overall Assessment and Score The scheme fits slightly less well against a broader The bypass scheme does have largely local range of regional objectives mainly because it does benefits, and the score against the rural objective not make any contribution to rural issues. However is understandably weak. Hence its score against this lower score should be seen in the context that these regional objectives is lower when compared few, if any, schemes are going to perform equally to its ‘fit’ against other objectives. Score: 2 well against rural and urban objectives. Score 2

5040208/Report/Final 2.9 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 2.4 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Replacement Structure Plan

Joint Replacement Structure Plan

Policy 58

Proposals for alterations to the non-trunk road network will be assessed and advanced only where:

Local Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Objectives Scheme Outputs and Outcomes (i) the improved access will assist urban The scheme has development related traffic The scheme is shown to directly address and regeneration or address problems from planned problems as an explicit objective. Score 4 alleviate development-related traffic problems. development or Score: 4 (ii) they are necessary for the solution of a severe The scheme has an explicit objective to improve The scheme is shown to directly address and road safety or environmental problem; and road safety and an implicit objective to improve the alleviate development-related congestion, relieving environment through traffic relief in built up areas in Stoke Gifford and hence improving its the north of Bristol. Score 3 environment. It will also improve safety locally in Stoke Gifford, although overall the effects of the scheme across a wider area suggests a slight increase in the number of accidents as a consequence of the scheme Score: 3 (iii) the potential for benefits to safety, the The scheme should improve safety by removing The scheme delivers against all of the multi modal environment and public transport operations are traffic from roads that are not able to cope with the scheme objectives by ensuring that traffic is clear; and large volumes now present – so that in theory the removed from local roads and space is reallocated potential for conflict between motor vehicles should to walking, cycling and public transport. Score: 4 be reduced. Furthermore the removal of traffic from built up areas should help to reduce potential for collisions between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users. The scheme should deliver improvements to public transport operations through reducing general congestion and allowing implementation of greater levels of bus priority. Score 4

5040208/Report/Final 2.10 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

(iv) no reduction is likely in existing, or future, On its own the scheme cannot deliver this objective The scheme will provide a benefit to buses locally public transport usage; and but can make a contribution by allowing public by reducing traffic flows, delays and journey time transport journeys to become faster and more variability and hence improving service reliability in reliable. Score 2 one of the key GBBN corridors. This is important as opportunities for further bus priority improvements in the Stoke Gifford area are severely constrained by the railway bridge at Bristol Parkway station. Hence the scheme will benefit bus services and their passengers. Score: 3 (v) all alternatives giving priority to other modes The scheme objectives make it clear that alternative The scheme has been developed having than the car have been considered; and modes such as cycling, walking and public transport considered all other options in numerous traffic will be encouraged. Score 4 studies, including the Avon Ring Road and GBBN Major Scheme Bids. It has also been deleted from the Council’s policies in the recent past; its reconsideration now is a consequence of considering all other options. Score: 4 (vi) no significant reduction in journey time will By its nature the scheme is going to allow traffic that The scheme does provide congestion relief and result from car traffic along a main road corridor uses the bypass to reduce its journey time hence journey times for all traffic will be reduced. used for commuting; and compared with the current heavily congested route. However, although the reduction in journey time is The challenge is to ensure that the roads bypassed measurable, it is not significant and hence will not do not experience large increases in journey time result in a marked increase in commuting by car. for traffic that should be using an alternative route. Score: 3 The scheme has an explicit objective to use traffic management measures to ensure that traffic follows the appropriate route. Score 3 (vii) facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are The scheme objectives make it clear that alternative The scheme includes a cycle track within its retained or enhanced. modes such as cycling, walking and public transport planned infrastructure, and the relief to Stoke will be encouraged. The removal of traffic from Gifford will improve conditions for pedestrians and residential roads will allow pedestrian and cycle cyclists. Score: 4 priority schemes to be delivered. Score 4 Overall Assessment and Score Overall there is a good fit between the scheme The scheme strongly supports the policy objectives and the Structure Plan Policy 58. Score objectives detailed in this matrix. Score: 4 3

5040208/Report/Final 2.11 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 2.5 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study

Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study

Local Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Objectives Scheme Outputs and Outcomes Develop a series of integrated, multi-modal There is no specific reference to strategic traffic GBSTS model results show that if the transport strategies over time for the study area movements or networks in the study objectives with Winterbourne Bypass was connected to the A4174 identifying, analysing and appraising solutions to relief to Stoke Gifford being the primary objective. ARR with traffic crossing the M4 via the B4427 Old problems on the national strategic transport However this is not to say that local traffic relief Gloucester Road, the scheme would provide some networks, on the local strategic transport could not also have a benefit to the strategic relief to the M4 and M5. Our more recent work on networks and at the interface between them, so network. Score 2 the Stoke Gifford bypass is consistent with the as to improve strategic transport movements into, findings of GBSTS. Score 2 out of and through the study area Develop transport strategies that support existing The study objective of providing traffic relief to The GBSTS model concludes that there is a economic activity, continue sustainable Stoke Gifford is broadly consistent with the aim of measurable congestion reduction benefit and as a development and assist economic regeneration supporting sustainable economic regeneration and result this will help to assist the attractiveness of of urban areas and the wider process of urban development although much depends on the ability the area for inward investment and regeneration. renewal within the study area to limit future traffic growth and boost patronage of The work we have undertaken on the Stoke non car modes. Score 3 Gifford bypass is clearer on what the sustainability benefits will be – in particular positive impacts on public transport as a result of congestion relief. Score 3 Reduce the impact of transport on the The scheme does aim to enhance the built The bypass does reduce traffic volumes in the environment environment by removing traffic and associated centre of Stoke Gifford, which is the aim of the congestion from residential areas of north Bristol. bypass. However it also results in the redistribution Again there is recognition of the need to encourage of some traffic with a consequential increase in sustainable travel modes. The main concern is that traffic on some other roads, notably on the the additional highway capacity should not result in southern section of Bradley Stoke Way and on a significant increase in demand for car travel. Winterbourne High Street and Beacon Lane. On Score 3 balance it is considered that the bypass provides a greater environmental benefit than it does a disbenefit, and enables local bus service to operate more efficiently. Score: 3

5040208/Report/Final 2.12 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Overall Assessment and Score The main difference between GBSTS and the Stoke The modelling work between GBSTS and the Gifford Bypass study is that the latter is primarily Stoke Gifford bypass study does show broadly concerned with traffic relief of a local area and any consistent results even though the latter is a more benefits to the strategic road network will only come focussed study of a local area. Score 3 about if the bypass removes local traffic currently using the M4 and M5. If this geographical dimension is put to one side then the objectives of GBSTS and the Stoke Gifford bypass are in many ways fairly similar. Score 3

5040208/Report/Final 2.13 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 2.6 – Sub Regional Policy Scheme Fit Matrix: Joint Local Transport Plan

Greater Bristol Joint Local Transport Plan

Local Policy Objective / Theme Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme Objectives Scheme Outputs and Outcomes To tackle congestion: Congestion relief is a key reason for consideration The traffic forecasts show relief to Stoke Gifford of the scheme. However this appears to be village centre. However, because of the generally • promote use of alternatives to the private car primarily because of the removal of traffic from a congested nature of the highway network in the • encourage more sustainable patterns of road that is unable to cope with current and future North Fringe, the effect of the scheme locally travel behaviour volumes and the provision of a new alignment with would appear to have a redistribution effect and • manage the demand for travel by the private enhanced capacity. The extent to which the flows on routes post-implementation are not of an car scheme could deliver a significant increase in use of order of magnitude that is likely to significantly alternative modes (as opposed to mere encourage increased use of single-occupant “encouragement”) is not clear. There is a potential vehicles for commuting; the Ring Road corridor danger that additional road capacity could, in the remains congested and rat-running can also be absence of suitable demand management detected. At the same time, there is a measurable measures, could lead to increased demand for car reduction in journey times on the parallel routes travel. Score 2 through Stoke Gifford and these will benefit bus services in this corridor. Score: 3 To improve road safety for all road users: Safety is a key objective of the scheme. The The traffic model overall does suggest a slight scheme should improve safety by removing traffic network-wide increase in accidents as a result of • ensure significant reductions in the number from roads that are not able to cope with the large the scheme. However the reduction of traffic flows of the most serious road casualties volumes now present – so that in theory the through Stoke Gifford will reduce the incidence • achieve improvements for road safety for the potential for conflict between motor vehicles should and severity of accidents in this corridor. Score: 3 most vulnerable sections of the community be reduced. Furthermore the removal of traffic from built up areas should help to reduce potential for collisions between motor vehicles and vulnerable road users. Score 4 To improve air quality: The scheme is not in a designated AQMA and has The bypass will reduce traffic volumes in Stoke no specific air quality improvement objective. Gifford, whilst those additional properties in • improve air quality in the Air Quality Nevertheless the removal of heavy volumes of developments to the east of Stoke Gifford centre Management Areas traffic from roads that are close to residential represent a smaller population group and will be

5040208/Report/Final 2.14 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

• ensure air quality in all other areas remains receptors could help to ensure that standards in non close to free-flowing rather than stop-start traffic, better than national standards AQMAs will remain better than the national target so the net effect is likely to be a slight limit. Score 3 improvement in air quality. Score: 3 To improve accessibility: The scheme does not have accessibility as an As detailed in earlier matrices, the scheme explicit objective. However the high peak hour satisfies all of the objectives listed in this row. • improve accessibility for all residents to traffic levels in the area is indicative of the demand Score: 3 educational services for home to employment trips and therefore the • improve accessibility for all residents to scheme could well make a significant contribution to health services enhancing accessibility – albeit primarily by car. • improve accessibility for all residents to The removal of high volumes of traffic may also employment make access to local schools safer for children as long as there are cycling and walking facilities provided and that speeds on the traffic relieved roads are managed. Score 3 To improve the quality of life: This is not an explicit objective of the scheme Traffic conditions will be relieved in Stoke Gifford although there will be benefits related to noise which will lead to a small environmental • ensure quality of life is improved through the reduction for some properties (perhaps counter improvement within the village. However other shared priority objectives, contributing balanced by an increase at others). If alternative background traffic congestion across the wider towards the enhancement of public spaces modes are effectively encouraged then there will be network and the need for residents to travel and of community safety, neighbourhood health benefits associated with greater levels of between, say, Bradley Stoke, and Horfield, renewal and regeneration, healthier walking and cycling. Score 2 does mean that there will remain a residual communities, tackling noise and protecting demand for travel through the village. Score: 2 landscape and biodiversity • achieve balanced and sustainable communities Overall Assessment and Score The wide scope of the Provisional LTP objectives The bypass scheme generally supports the JLTP means that the scheme appears to fit less well with objectives. It provides a local benefit to residents, the relatively newer aspects of local transport pedestrians and cyclists in Stoke Gifford and planning such as accessibility and some aspects of complements the GBBN that proposes a the quality of life agenda. However the more showcase bus corridor through Stoke Gifford; the traditional benefits of road schemes such as local traffic relief suggested by the traffic model will congestion relief and safety improvements do tend contribute further to the aims and objectives of the to counter balance this. Score 3 GBBN, which is primarily to improve bus service reliability and to enhance the experience of bus passengers. Score: 3.

5040208/Report/Final 2.15 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

CONCLUSIONS 2.15 The policy review demonstrates that the Stoke Gifford bypass has a reasonable degree of consistency with the various national, regional and local policy objectives. Table 2.7 summarises the summed average scores for the six policy documents that have been reviewed:

Table 2.7: Summary of Policy Scores

Policy Document Summed Average Score (out of 8) The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 6 Regional Spatial Strategy 4 Regional Funding Allocations: Advice from the South West Region 4 Joint Replacement Structure Plan 7 Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study 6 Greater Bristol Joint Local Transport Plan 6

2.16 In general terms, the scheme achieves higher scores against local objectives than regional objectives. This reflects the fact that it is essentially a local bypass scheme, albeit in the largest Strategic City and Town (SSCT) in the south west. There is also a good score against the Transport White Paper 2.17 The scoring in this policy review has also been relatively generous in that it assumes benefits to non car modes. Whilst it is certainly the case that the bypass can assist in delivering better bus services (through congestion relief) and multi-modal infrastructure improvements, it would be unwise to assume that such measures, on their own, will automatically deliver actual changes in travel behaviour away from the single occupancy private car. 2.18 In order to deliver against sustainable transport objectives the scheme needs to be set in its wider strategic context and it is particularly important to identify other capital funded schemes and revenue funded policy initiatives that will actively support travel by non car modes. Therefore the next Local Transport Plan and the longer term Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study recommendations will be important for ensuring that the Stoke Gifford bypass proposals don’t simply encourage more traffic through the reduction of journey times for car drivers.

5040208/Report/Final 2.16 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

3. Traffic Forecasting 3.1 The potential traffic impacts of the scheme in 2016 (assumed year of opening) and 2031 (design year) have been forecast using the BATS2 transport model, which was developed for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Bid. This model and its validation against 2004 transport data are fully described in the “Model Development and Validation Report – 2004”, dated July 2005, which should be consulted for detailed technical information. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the model.

BATS2 MODEL 3.2 The BATS2 model was based on the original Bristol Area Transport Study (BATS) model of the Bristol area which was developed for Bristol City Council (BCC) to appraise the proposed congestion charging scheme and associated improvements to the public transport network, including light rapid transit (LRT) options. As part of the updating process, the base year for the model was brought forward from 2001 to 2004, and the modelled highway network in the northern sector of Bristol was extended and refined using information drawn from SGC’s North Fringe traffic model. 3.3 The model is focussed on the Bristol urban area, bounded by the M5 to the west, the M4 to the north (with an extension along the A432 to Yate), the A4174 outer ring road to the east, and the Bristol City boundary to the south. Within this area, highway and public transport networks are defined in detail, road junctions are simulated for queues and delays, and a fine zoning system is employed to model patterns of trip movement. Outside this area, a coarser zoning system and network covers the rest of South Gloucestershire, , and Bath and North-East Somerset. 3.4 It is clear from our assessment of potential scheme impacts that the BATS2 model covers a much wider area than that which would be affected by the Stoke Gifford bypass. Ideally therefore, the model should be cordoned to represent the area of influence of the scheme, and refined within this cordon to better represent local patterns of movement and travel choices. However, given the study time constraints, it was not possible to undertake this work, and the full model has been used for this preliminary assessment. 3.5 The BATS2 transport model is fully multi-modal, representing travel by all motorised modes. Logit functions calibrated from observed travel data or (where necessary) imported from other studies, are employed in a nested structure to forecast travel demand, including: ♦ levels of trip suppression resulting from increased traffic congestion, and induced traffic resulting from the provision of additional highway capacity; ♦ main mode choice between car, park and ride, and public transport; ♦ with congestion charging in place, the choice for car drivers between paying the charge, parking outside the charging zone and walking in, or retiming the journey to a lower tariff period; ♦ the choice for public transport users between bus, rail and LRT. 3.6 These choices are segmented by car availability and trip purpose, and are based on the generalised cost of travel by alternative modes, including travel time and monetary costs. For car users, these include vehicle operating

5040208/Report/Final 3.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

costs (mainly fuel), parking charges, and time spent searching for a space and walking between car park and destination. For public transport users, the costs include wait time, walking time and fares. 3.7 The demand model is used to forecast trip movements by mode and purpose, based on input generalised costs. These matrices are combined to represent all-purpose movements, and assigned to the modelled highway and public transport networks, which are skimmed for travel costs. The resultant costs are then fed back to the demand model as part of an iterative procedure which seeks to balance travel demand and travel costs, and thus to reach a converged position. 3.8 Trip movements by road are converted from drivers and passengers to vehicles, based on average occupancy, and combined as follows: ♦ Light vehicles (cars and light goods vehicles); ♦ Heavy goods vehicles. 3.9 Two time periods are modelled, as follows: ♦ AM peak hour (0800-0900); ♦ Average inter-peak hour (1000-1600). 3.10 The BATS2 model does not have a PM peak hour component. Therefore, for the purposes of this appraisal, PM peak benefits have been ignored.

MODEL VALIDATION 3.11 Development and validation of the BATS2 model is fully documented in the “Model Development and Validation Report – 2004”. 3.12 The BATS2 traffic model was calibrated using standard matrix estimation techniques, and validated against observed traffic flows and journey times, based on advice contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Traffic Flow Comparisons 3.13 Traffic flow comparisons were based on three cordons (Inner Ring Road, Outer Central, and Outer External), and five screenlines (Bristol North West Outer, River Avon, Bristol North West Inner, Bristol East, and Bristol South). For acceptability, DMRB requires that cordon and screenline totals should have a GEH value of less than 4, and that 85% of the individual links in each case should have a GEH of less than 5. However, given the scale and complexity of the BATS2 model, the consultants (Atkins) recommended that these individual link targets should be relaxed for the Outer External Cordon and all screenlines, and suggested that 85% of these links should have a GEH value of less than 7. 3.14 Information presented in the report for the AM peak hour showed that all cordons and screenlines achieved a GEH value of less than 4 based on total flows, indicating that modelled patterns of movement are broadly correct at strategic level. For individual links, all cordons and screenlines achieved GEH values of less than 7 in 85% of cases (save one at 83%), but the Inner Ring Road and Outer Central Cordons missed their targets of 85% with a GEH of less than 5. (They achieved 78% and 83% respectively). For the Bristol North West Outer and North West Inner screenlines, located in the vicinity of Stoke Gifford, about 80% of links have a GEH of less than 5. As a

5040208/Report/Final 3.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

local model, this would not be adequate for DMRB approval, but is acceptable for a large urban area. 3.15 For the inter-peak model, all cordons and screenlines achieved a GEH value of less than 4 for total flows and in all cases 85% of links had a GEH value of less than 7. The Inner Ring Road cordon again missed the target of 85% of links with a GEH of less than 5 (it achieved 77%). However, most of the screenlines, including those for North West Bristol, had 85% of links with a GEH value of less than 5. On this basis, the inter-peak model is likely to be more reliable in the Stoke Gifford area than the AM peak model. Journey Time Comparison 3.16 The DMRB recommends that modelled journey times should be within 15% (or 1 minute) of the observed times on 85% of routes. 3.17 The “Model Development and Validation Report – 2004” compares modelled and observed journey times on nine routes surveyed in 2004. It shows that only 7 of 16 directional routes (44%) achieved the DMRB target in the AM peak hour, rising to 13 out of 17 (76%) in the average inter-peak hour. However, since most of the modelled journey times fall within the observed bounds, this was considered adequate for a large scale model of the city. 3.18 It should be noted that most of the nine observed routes are located well away from Stoke Gifford, except for the M32 route which validates well in both directions and both time periods. However, the general level of journey time validation achieved would not meet DMRB standards for a local model, and may not be sufficient to support an economic appraisal of the bypass scheme. Validation Improvement 3.19 Given the time-scales for this study, it was not possible to develop a local model of the Stoke Gifford area, or to undertake a significant revalidation of the BATS2 model. This was accepted by SGC officers and members at the meeting of 19 October 2005. However, we have attempted to improve the modelled highway network in the local area of the proposed scheme by refining saturation flows at a number of junctions and revising the allocation of centroid connectors. 3.20 Comparisons of modelled and observed flows at selected sites in the Stoke Gifford area (see Figure 3.1 for locations) are shown by direction for the AM and inter-peak hours in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Table 3.2 shows that base year (2004) modelled flows in the inter-peak period meet the DMRB criteria based on the GEH statistic in 32 out of 35 cases (91%). However, Table 3.1 shows that the AM peak hour model meets these criteria in only 26 out of 37 cases (70%). On this basis, the peak hour model is probably not adequate at local level for scheme appraisal. 3.21 This is not a major concern given the preliminary nature of the appraisal at this stage. However, a further, more detailed appraisal in support of a major scheme bid would require significant improvements to the local model.

5040208/Report/Final 3.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 3.1 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 AM Peak Hour

Count Model OK Ref Location Direction Diff. GEH (pcus) (pcus) ?

N’bd 110 870 760 34.3 2 1 Coldharbour Lane S’bd 1504 1315 -189 5.0 3 N’bd 695 173 -522 25.1 2 2 Coldharbour Lane S’bd 2119 2161 42 0.9 3 N’bd 965 1021 56 1.8 3 3 Great Stoke Way S’bd 1000 882 -117 3.8 3 N’bd 354 359 4 0.2 3 4 Brierley Furlong S’bd 591 331 -261 12.1 2 W’bd 141 49 -92 9.4 2 5 Lane E’bd 671 513 -158 6.5 2 S’bd 934 883 -51 1.7 3 6 Hatchett Road N’bd 558 584 26 1.1 3 N’bd 1158 1127 -31 0.9 3 7 B4427 Bristol Road S’bd 545 874 329 12.4 2 8 M32 Junction 1 Northbound On slip N’bd 1197 1209 12 0.4 3 9 M32 Junction 1 Southbound On slip S’bd 1798 1645 -153 3.7 3 S’bd 388 586 198 9.0 2 10 Filton Avenue N’bd 350 328 -22 1.2 3 E’bd 150 203 53 4.0 3 11 Trench Lane W’bd 656 663 7 0.3 3 12 M4 Junction 19 – M32 Junction 1 S’bd 4577 4295 -281 4.2 3 E’bd 2003 1960 -43 1.0 3 13 A4174 Avon Ring Road (East of M32) W’bd 1964 1963 -1 0.0 3 N’bd 1335 1497 162 4.3 3 14 A38 (North of Gypsy Patch Lane) S’bd 2516 2240 -276 5.7 2 N’bd 1456 1410 -46 1.2 3 15 A38 (South of Bradley Stoke Way) S’bd 1950 2122 172 3.8 3 E’bd 1905 2122 217 4.8 3 16 Station Road W’bd 1431 1499 67 1.8 3 N’bd 714 774 60 2.2 3 17 A38 (North of Toronto Road) S’bd 778 803 25 0.9 3 N’bd 546 437 -110 4.9 3 18 Road S’bd 435 442 7 0.3 3 N’bd 624 568 -56 2.3 3 19 A38 (South of A4174 Avon Ring Road) S’bd 850 671 -179 6.5 2 E’bd 116 190 74 5.9 2 20 Northville Road W’bd 219 412 192 10.8 2 Notes: 1. Locations of count sites are shown in Figure 3.1. 2. Flows are in passenger car units (PCUs). 3. 3/2 = Pass/Fail DMRB requirement for acceptability, based on GEH statistic.

5040208/Report/Final 3.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 3.2 – Comparison of Modelled and Observed Flows – 2004 Inter-Peak

Count Model OK Ref Location Direction Diff. GEH (pcus) (pcus) ?

N’bd 110 413 303 18.7 2 1 Coldharbour Lane S’bd 767 739 -28 1.0 3 N’bd 2 Coldharbour Lane S’bd N’bd 695 697 2 0.1 3 3 Great Stoke Way S’bd 799 807 8 0.3 3 N’bd 75 87 12 1.4 3 4 Brierley Furlong S’bd 231 0 -231 21.5 2 W’bd 91 105 14 1.4 3 5 Hambrook Lane E’bd 91 83 -8 0.9 3 S’bd 676 605 -71 2.8 3 6 Hatchett Road N’bd 806 794 -12 0.4 3 N’bd 696 666 -30 1.2 3 7 B4427 Bristol Road S’bd 651 663 12 0.5 3 8 M32 Junction 1 Northbound On slip N’bd 914 1021 107 3.5 3 9 M32 Junction 1 Southbound On slip S’bd 945 941 -4 0.1 3 S’bd 385 357 -28 1.4 3 10 Filton Avenue N’bd 381 327 -54 2.8 3 E’bd 130 127 -3 0.3 3 11 Trench Lane W’bd 97 125 28 2.7 3 12 M4 Junction 19 – M32 Junction 1 S’bd 3031 2804 -227 4.2 3 E’bd 1893 1923 30 0.7 3 13 A4174 Avon Ring Road (East of M32) W’bd 1676 1782 106 2.5 3 N’bd 1731 1677 -54 1.3 3 14 A38 (North of Gypsy Patch Lane) S’bd 1526 1492 -34 0.9 3 N’bd 1185 1264 79 2.3 3 15 A38 (South of Bradley Stoke Way) S’bd 1328 1187 -141 4.0 3 E’bd 1555 1481 -74 1.9 3 16 Station Road W’bd 1327 1333 6 0.2 3 N’bd 681 771 90 3.3 3 17 A38 (North of Toronto Road) S’bd 689 789 100 3.7 3 N’bd 474 477 3 0.2 3 18 Southmead Road S’bd 446 464 18 0.8 3 N’bd 689 713 24 0.9 3 19 A38 (South of A4174 Avon Ring Road) S’bd 713 781 68 2.5 3 E’bd 138 275 137 9.5 2 20 Northville Road W’bd 81 120 39 3.9 3 Notes: 1. Locations of count sites are shown in Figure 3.1. 2. Flows are in passenger car units (PCUs). 3. 3/2 = Pass/Fail DMRB requirement for acceptability, based on GEH statistic.

5040208/Report/Final 3.5 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 3.1 – Location of Count Sites used for Model validation 0 Rev By Date Chk’d Auth Authorised Date Date Checked . Figure 3.1 SB 18/05/06 Drawn Date Validation Count Site NTS 1 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with permission of of Ordnance permission with material Survey from Ordnance reproduced is map This Office © Stationery Majesty’s Crown of Her Controller of the behalf on Survey to lead may and copyright Crown infringes reproduction Unauthorised copyright. 2005. 100023410, Council.No. Licence Gloucestershire South proceedings. civil or prosecution Atkins Transport Planning West 260 Aztec Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4SY 288362 618844 01454 01454 Fax: Tel: Stoke Gifford Bypass Comparison of Modelled Observed Flows and Sites Reference Data Count Sites Rev Description Project Title Scale (1) Number Drawing (2) Number Drawing

4

d d d

d M a a a

m a m

m 5

o o o

k o k

k 6

R R R

R 4

4 h h h h

g g g g B i i i i

e e e e

l l l l

r r r r

e e e

e Shortwood

t t t t

s s s s

e e e e

3 miles 3 3 miles 3 W W W W

4

d d d d

a a a

a 7 o o o o

R R R R

1

n n n n

o o o o

174 174 174

Emerson’s Green East Green Emerson’s 174 t t t

t 4

n n n n

i i i i

4 4 4

Mixed Use Development Mixed A 4 m m m m

d d d d A A A A

a a a a

B B B B

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 A A A A

m5 m5 m5

e e e

k e k k

m m m m

o o o o

r r r r

F F F F

r r r r

e e e

e l v v v v i i i

i il District Centre District 2½ miles 2½ miles R R R R Park H

Emerson’s Green Emerson’s y Emerald e r Green h

Kendleshire p

Emerson’s m

d d d d o

a a a

a P

o o o

o 5

R R R R

6

h h h

h 4

g g g g

i i i i 4

e e e

e B l l l l

r r r r

e e e e

t t t t

s s s s

8 8 8 8

e e e e

5 5 5 5

d d d d

0 0 0 0

W W W W

4 4 4 4

R R R R

B B B 2 miles B 2 miles

n n n n

o o o

m4 o m4 m4

t t t

d t Down n n n k n k k

i i i

a i

m m m o m

d d d

R d a a a

a

Mangotsfield

B B B

n B Blackhorse

Winterbourne

2 2 2

w 2

3 3 3 o 3

4 4 4 4

4 4 4

D 4

A A A A

7 7 7 7

1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4

A A A

e A n Moorend a L

s

t

i t t t t

e e e

e p

e e e e

r r r

r x

t t t

t Staple Hill

S S S

S a

l

t t t 1½ miles t 1½ miles

h h h h

e e e

Winterbourne e

e e e e

r r r r g g g g F

t t t t i i i

i Heath

S S S S

H H H H

h h h h

t t t t

r r r

Bromley r

o o o o

8 8 8 8

N N N N

5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

A A A A B B B

m3 B m3 m3 Downend

k k k

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R d d d d

h h h h

t t t t

a a a a

e e e e

a a a a H H H H

y y y y

e e e e

l l l

e l

m m m m

o o o o

o o o o

r r r r

B B B B

7 7 7

n 7

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

R R R R

A A A A

a

d d d d

a a a a

o o o

S O U T H o

R R R R

l l l l

o o o o

d d d d

t t t L t

s s s s

i i i i

r r r r

B B B B

8 8 8 8 n n n n

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 e

4 4 4 4 ir n

B B B B

e e e

e rsh

o te n n n n es

c uc w w w w lo

a G o o o o th

e ou

D D D D S

B 4 y 1 mile 1 1 mile 1 y 2 2 2 2 it

7 Ci

7 7 7

7 l 3 3 3 3 o

1 ist 5 5 5

5 M4 r 4 4 4

J19 4 B 4 B

4

0 0 0 0

A A A

A A

4 4 4 4

Hambrook

B B B B 7 12 Hospital Frenchay d m2 m2 m2 Roa k k k ster uce d lo 13 loucester Roa ld G B4427 Old G 27 O B44

½ mile ½ mile

9

s s s s

8

s s s s 5

a a a a

p p p p

y y y y

B B B B

d d d d

r r r r

o o o o

f f f f

f f f f

d d d d i i i 3 i

a a a a

G G G

G L O U C E S T R H I G o o o o

M32 J1

R R R R e e e e

l l l l

k k k k

o o o o

o o o o

t t t t

t t t

e t

e e e e s s s s

i

i i

n i

S S S S

r r r

d r

n n n n

B

B B

a B

4 4 4

a 4 Hotel

a a a

L a d

8 8 8

7 7 7 8

o 7 L L L L

5 5 5 a 5

1 1 1

h R 1 R 0 0 0

4 o 0 k k k

c k

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

7

o o o

n M e o R

B

B B

A A A B

5 A

o o o

e n o

m1 m1 m1

r r r r 0 r r n

k k k

b b b b o T 4 u t 0 miles 0 0 0 miles 0 0 0 y l

a B o i m m m

b m F Bristol

a a a W r a

e e H H H k H o t t n S i Housing y Business Park e W development

11 l

d Broomhill Harry

a Stoke

e e e r e

B Stoke

m m m Gifford m

Bristol Parkway o o o o

r r r

Stoke r 2

5 5 5 5

F F F Bradley F

1

r r r r

Housing

M M M M e e e e

v v v v

i i i i

development

R R R d R a UWE Bradley Stoke Bradley

District Centre District o t R AXA y e

Housing h a tc 4 Ha

W B&Q development 6

d Hewlett

n Packard

a l

s e Stoke Park

v Little w

y A Stoke

o a n

2 2 2

o 2

B yd 3 3 3

W Link Bus 3

ra School

k B M M M o ne M o a High Filton Romney AvenueRomney r L Sainsbury’s B ke to S

e 4 d d d

d tl

Almondsbury t 7 a a a a i

Business Park Business L

1 o o o o

4 4

R R R R

M A Park

r r r r

Retail

e e e e

t t t t Lane Patch ypsy

s s s

s and Employment

G

e e e e

Patchway Station c c c c

housing development housing

u u u u 16

o o o o

l l l l

e

G G G G

u ue ue e ue

B4057 B4057 u n 8 8 8 8 MOD

n e

3 3 3 3 Ground

d v

s e

School

A Aven Aven Aven

A A A A v

R

d d d d

y y y y y

a a a

a A o o o o

R R R R

r r r

r Lockleaze

e e e e

t t t

t

s s s s

e e e e

e e e Combination e c c c c

u u u

u n o o o o l l l

15 l G G G G n 8 8 8 8 3 3 3 3 n n n n A A A

A o o

Roll t i

l m

Royce i t o om om

F a om R R R t R

S

10

e e e Filton e

u u u u

n n n n

e e e College e

v v v

v d

Park 14 A A A A

n n n

Retail n a o o o o a t t t t

l l l l

i i i i F F F F o R

e Almondsbury z Filton Abbey Filton d a Wood Station Wood e R Mail l

Royal k Aztec West Aztec o

t c 20 d d d

d 19 n o a a a

a o L

o o o

o r

R R R R o

T Airbus d d d d

17

Bus Link o o o

M5 16 Junction o

Horfield Aztec West 18 o o o o

d d d d

w w w w

a a a

Employment a e development h h h h

o o o o

d d d

BAE Systems / BAE d

Patchway

a a a

v a

g g g g

o o o o R R R

Employment and Employment R

i i i i

R R R R

r r r

A r

d d d

d

e e e

e H H H t t t t H

s s s s

a a a a

e e e

k e

housing development housing

c c c c

e e e

e r u u u u

o o o o

l l l

a l

m m m m G G G G

e e e e e e

8 8 8 8

r r r r r h h h h r

3 3 3

P 3

i i i i i i

t t t

t A A A A

u u u u

h h h h h

h s

Filton

o o o

o ’

s s s s s s

y y y y y y r r r r r r k S S S S

t t t t t

t

i i i i i i

e e e e e e n

6 6 6

6

t t t t t t

Filton Northfield Link Road Link Northfield Filton o

5 5 5

5

C C C C C C

s s s s s

s

0 0 0

0

l l l l l l

e e e e e

e M 4 4 4 4

o o o o o o

c c c c c c

t t t t t B B B B t

e e e e

u u

u u u

u

s s s s s s

i i i i i i u u u u

o o

o o o

o

r r r r r r

n n n n l l l l l l

e e e e

B B B B B B

v v v v G G G G G G

A A A A

h h

h h h h

y y y y

t t t t t t

a a a a

u u u u u u

w w w w

o o o o o o a a a a

l l l l

l l l l l

l S S S S S S

e e e

Cribbs Causeway Cribbs e

K K K a K

8 8 8 8

6 6 6 M 6

d 4 4 4

a 4

4 4 4

e o Hospital 4

B B B h Filton Airfield R B B R I SB R I T O L C I Y rk Southmead T a P en

P e e e

e d

u u u

u R n n n

n

e e e e r

v v v

v e

Southmead t

A A A A

e e e e s

e e e

e a n n n n

k k k

k c

a a a a

o o o

o n

t t t t L L L

L o

s s s s

e e e e y y y

The Venue y D l l l l

e e e e

o o o o r r r r

n n n n

G G G G

K K K K

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

e e e e

z z z z

a a a a

e e e e

l l l l

n n n n

e e e e

H H H H

6 6 6 d 6

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

4 4 4

a 4 B B B o B

R

d

l

e Lysander Road i

f Road t age s ss a

8 Pa

A401 E

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

y y y y

r r r r

u u u

Westbury-on-Trym u

b b b b

t t t t

s s s s

y y y y

e e e e

a a a a W W W W

8 8 8 8

1 1 1 1 w w w w

0 0 0 0

e e e e

4 4 4 4

A A A A s s s s

u u u u

a a a a

C C C C

s s s s

b b b b

b b b b

i i i i

r r r r

C C C C

M5 Junction 17 Junction M5

8 8 8 8

1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 d 0 0 0

0

4 4 4 4 5 a

A A A

A 5 o

M M M

M 0

4 R

e e e

e B ry n n n

N n u a a a

a b

L

L L L

n 7 7 7

7 e w w w w

5 5 5 5

o o o o 0 0 0 0 H r r r r

4 4 4 4

C C C C B B B B

5040208/Report/Final 3.6 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

FORECAST LAND-USE/NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS 3.22 The BATS2 model has been used to produce forecast AM peak hour and average inter-peak hour trip matrices for 2016 (assumed year of opening of the Stoke Gifford bypass) and 2031 (the design year). In accordance with the SGC terms of reference, these forecasts have been based on Scenario F as recently defined by the JSTPU for the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS). 3.23 Key housing and employment allocations for this scenario are summarised in Table 3.3. It assumes that new dwellings would be built at a rate of 4625 per annum within the four Unitary Authorities, representing a 25% increase on the rate of development proposed in RPG10 and providing 138,750 additional homes between 2001 and 2031; and that employment opportunities would increase at a rate of 3166 jobs per annum, to provide an additional 95,000 jobs by 2031. Forecast trip-ends for Scenario F were provided by the GBSTS study team, and converted for input to the BATS2 model. 3.24 However, given the limited time-frame for the Stoke Gifford Bypass study and the uncertain status of the schemes proposed for the GBSTS Final Strategy, most of the GBSTS schemes have not been included in the BATS2 forecast networks. Instead, the forecasts have been based on the Do Something networks developed for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Business Case, assuming that the showcase bus corridors and associated infrastructure improvements (North Fringe Development Major Schemes) would go ahead and would be completed by 2016. 3.25 To some extent, this approach means that the forecast tests are based on an unsustainable scenario, in which accelerated development growth (Scenario F) is assumed to take place without associated improvements to the highway and public transport networks (GBSTS Final Strategy). This would tend to encourage greater car use, and may therefore overestimate the potential benefits of the Stoke Gifford bypass (by overestimating congestion in the Do Minimum case). However, it is considered unlikely to have a major affect on the operational and economic appraisals of the scheme at this stage, or on the overall findings of the study. 3.26 One scheme included in the GBSTS Final Strategy which may have a direct impact on the Stoke Gifford bypass is the proposed widening of the M4 between Junctions 19 (M32) and 20 (M5). Sensitivity tests have therefore been run to identify the diversionary affects of this scheme. 3.27 The BATS2 model has been run once for each forecast year and time period, based on Scenario F land-use assumptions and the Greater Bristol Bus networks, which include the proposed showcase bus corridors and associated infrastructure improvements but exclude the Stoke Gifford bypass. The matrices of highway-based trips resulting from this multi-modal forecasting procedure represent the reference case for the bypass study. These matrices have then been assigned to test networks excluding the bypass (Do Minimum case) and to a number of Do Something networks including alternative scheme alignments. This testing therefore assumes that the bypass would have no impact on mode choice.

5040208/Report/Final 3.7 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 3.3 – Summary of Scenario F Housing and Employment Forecasts

Scenario F increases in housing and employment between 2001 and 2031:

Scenario F/6 (RPG10 +25%) Housing Employment Within Bristol PUA 47,630 35,350 Urban Extension 15,833 7,550 Urban Extension Whitchurch 10,047 2,000 Urban Extension Hicks Gate 8 4,000 Urban Extension 2,584 5,400 Urban Extension Harry Stoke 4,067 4,350 Urban Extension Pucklechurch 10,157 3,000 Urban Extension Earthcott 2,357 0 Urban Extension East of Coalpit Heath 101 0 Bristol PUA Total 92,784 61,650

Within Bath PUA 5,801 9,800 Urban Extension 226 -123 Bath PUA Total 6,027 9,677

Within Weston-super-Mare PUA 11,299 11,250 Urban Extension Weston-super-Mare 8,350 1,650 Weston-super-Mare PUA Total 19,650 12,900

Within Portishead 5,379 0 Urban Extension Portishead 4,102 3,900 Portishead Total 9,480 3,900

Within Keynsham & Urban Extension 3,485 1,500 Keynsham Total 3,485 1,500

Within Thornbury 434 -250 Within Clevedon 783 -350 Within Nailsea 629 350 Within Yate 886 0 Within Norton Radstock 1,053 500 Rural Windfall 3,536 -877 Bristol Airport 3 6,000 Elsewhere Total 7,324 5,373

Total 138,749 95,000

5040208/Report/Final 3.8 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

SCHEME ALTERNATIVES FOR TESTING 3.28 Alternative bypass schemes tested in the model are shown in Figure 3.2. These were identified by SGC, based on a desktop analysis of engineering opportunities and constraints. Scheme costs were also provided by SGC. 3.29 All four alternative schemes would provide a new dual-carriageway link from the roundabout at the southern end of Great Stoke Way to a signalised junction with the A4174 Avon Ring Road to the east of Coldharbour Lane. All would cross the railway line at a single bridged location. Other key features of the schemes are as follows: ♦ The Purple Route would take the more easterly of the two alignments to the south of the railway line. It would have an at-grade crossing of Hambrook Lane, which is assumed to be a roundabout allowing all turning movements. Further south, it would have a roundabout junction with the access road to the Harry Stoke development, and would link to the more easterly of the two ARR junction locations; ♦ The Pink Route would take the more westerly of the two alignments, requiring an additional roundabout junction at the north end of the scheme, and would link to the more westerly of the two ARR junction locations. It would have a roundabout connection to Harry Stoke, but no connection with Hambrook Lane; ♦ The Turquoise Route would be similar to the Pink Route but would link to the more easterly ARR junction; ♦ The Blue Route would be similar to the Purple Route, but would have a signalised junction with Hambrook Lane, allowing straight-ahead movements only (i.e. no movements between the bypass and Hambrook Lane), and would link to the more westerly ARR junction. 3.30 The four alternative schemes were coded into the test networks in detail, so that the model could simulate traffic movements through junctions and thus forecast their impacts on queues and delays. Roundabouts were assumed to be similar in dimension and capacity to those already in place on Great Stoke Way. The layout and signal timings for the proposed ARR junction were based on those already tested for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Bid (which included the junction to provide access for the Harry Stoke development). 3.31 The eventual route choice for the bypass will be influenced by a number of external developments, including: • Proposals for a special school, currently being investigated by SGC Children & Young People which may be located in Stoke Gifford adjacent to existing development which would not allow for the alignment of Purple and Blue routes; the school is located at the northern end of these routes, immediately to the south of the roundabout junction with Great Stoke Way; • Development proposals for Harry Stoke; • North Fringe major schemes; • Greater Bristol Bus Network; and • Future RSS housing allocations for Harry Stoke.

5040208/Report/Final 3.9 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 3.2 – Alternative Options for Stoke Gifford Bypass

5040208/Report/Final 3.10 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

4. Operational Assessment

TRAFFIC FORECASTS 4.1 The BATS2 model has been used to forecast the traffic impacts of the proposed Stoke Gifford bypass during the AM peak and average inter-peak hours in future years 2016 and 2031. Forecast land-use assumptions for both future years are based on Scenario F, which was developed by the JSPTU for the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study, assuming that the rate of housing and employment growth would be accelerated above RPG10 levels. 4.2 However, given study time constraints and the uncertain status of transport improvements proposed as part of the GBSTS Final Strategy, most of the GBSTS schemes have not been included in the forecast test networks. Instead, the tests have been based on future year Do Something networks developed for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Business Case. 4.3 Four alternative scheme alignments, defined by SGC and shown in Figure 3.2, have been tested in the model, along with a Do Minimum case which excludes a bypass. The BATS2 multi-modal model was run for each year and time period to forecast the level of traffic demand in the Do Minimum network, allowing that increased traffic congestion would cause some drivers to switch modes or suppress trips. Scheme tests were then run using the same (fixed) demand matrix for each time period, assuming that the bypass would not induce any additional trips, and that the potential impacts would therefore be limited to re-routing effects.

TRAFFIC GROWTH 4.4 Forecast trip totals for 2004, 2016 and 2031 are presented in Tables 4.1-4.4. These show that light vehicle traffic demand in the Bristol area, after allowing for modal transfer and trip suppression, would increase by 16%-18% from 2004 to 2016, and by 29%-31% from 2004 to 2031. Heavy vehicles would grow at a higher rate, but form a relatively small proportion of the overall vehicle flow.

FORECAST NETWORK PERFORMANCE 4.5 Traffic growth would have a significant impact on levels of congestion in the Do Minimum network, as shown by the increase in over-capacity queued time. Average speeds in the AM peak hour, based on the full Bristol network, would drop from 42.1 kph in 2004 to 28.6 kph in 2016, and to 19.6 kph in 2031. Average speeds in the inter-peak period would similarly drop from 50.6 kph in 2004 to 44.6 kph in 2016, and to 34.1 kph in 2031. 4.6 Within the local area network (north-west Bristol, including Stoke Gifford, Bradley Stoke, Patchway, Aztec West, Cribbs Causeway and Filton), average speeds are currently higher (by 6-9 kph) than those for the whole of Bristol. However, this difference is likely to become less significant with time, and would be largely eroded by 2031. In fact, the 2031 forecasts suggest that average inter-peak speeds in this area may then be lower than the Bristol average because of increased congestion at Cribbs Causeway. 4.7 Table 4.1 shows that the Stoke Gifford bypass would have a beneficial impact on peak hour congestion in 2016, reducing total travel times within the local area network by 300-500 pcu-hours. However, forecast travel distance would

5040208/Report/Final 4.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

increase as a result of drivers taking longer routes in order to gain access to the bypass. The net result is that average speeds in the local area would increase by about 1 kph, from about 33 kph to about 34 kph. Overall average speeds in Bristol would increase by 0.3 kph. 4.8 In 2031, the scheme would reduce total AM peak hour travel times in the local area network by 600-1000 pcu-hours, and increase average speeds by about 1 kph, from 21 kph to 22 kph (see Table 4.3). Average speeds in Bristol as a whole would increase by 0.4-0.5 kph. 4.9 From Tables 4.2 and 4.4, it is clear that the Stoke Gifford bypass would have a more marginal impact on travel times, distances, and average speeds in the inter-peak period, either in 2016 or 2031. This is because traffic flows in the inter-peak period are only about 70% of those in the peak hour, and would not even by 2031 have grown to current peak hour levels. Therefore, the scheme would offer less congestion relief outside the peak hours. 4.10 All of the bypass options demonstrate broadly similar effects, and there is little to choose between them in terms of network performance, based on either the local area network or Bristol as a whole.

FORECAST TRAFFIC FLOWS 4.11 Forecast AM peak and inter-peak traffic flows on selected links are presented for 2016 and 2031 in Tables 4.5-4.8. Figure 4.1 shows the locations of these sites, as well as a number of others which were identified following a meeting with members on 21 March 2006. Forecast flows for all of these sites in the 2016 AM peak and inter-peak hours are presented in Appendix A and summarised in paragraphs 4.28-4.33. 4.12 Tables 4.5-4.8 show forecast traffic flows, in vehicles per hour summed over two directions, for the Do Minimum scenario and Do Something scheme options, so that the impacts of the bypass can be determined. The results of sensitivity tests, which assume that the M4 would be widened between Junctions 19 (M32) and 20 (M5), as recommended in the GBSTS Final Strategy, are also included in the tables. 4.13 Based on the traffic forecasts shown in Table 4.5, the Stoke Gifford bypass would attract 2-way flows of between 1610 and 1970 vehicles per hour (vph) in the 2016 peak hour. Flows would be at the lower end of this range if no junction was provided at Hambrook Lane (as for the Pink and Turquoise options); and at the higher end of the range if a full roundabout junction was provided (as for the Purple option). By 2031, traffic growth would have increased these peak hour flows to between 1750 vph and 2150 vph (see Table 4.7). 4.14 Tables 4.6 and 4.8 show that forecast traffic flows on the bypass during the inter-peak period would be significantly lower than in the peak hour, with a maximum flow of about 660 vph in 2016 and 920 vph in 2031. 4.15 On this basis, a single carriageway road of 10 metre width would be more than adequate to accommodate forecast traffic demand to 2031. This would significantly reduce the cost of the scheme, assuming that SGC would not want to make provision for later construction of a Winterbourne bypass. 4.16 Traffic attracted to the scheme would increase peak hour flows on southern sections of Bradley Stoke Way by 250 - 450 vph in 2016, rising to 550 – 650 vph in 2031. Two way flows would then be almost 2000 vph, representing a 65%-75% increase on current levels. However, these impacts are localised

5040208/Report/Final 4.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

and quickly dissipate with distance from the scheme. As a result, peak hour flows on northern sections of Bradley Stoke Way (i.e. already congested in 2006) would be increased by less than 250 vph in both 2016 and 2031. 4.17 Traffic flows on Winterbourne Road (to the west of Bradley Stoke Way) would also increase by up to 500 vph in the 2016 AM peak hour. However, the increase in 2031 would be less than 300 vph, suggesting that increased congestion in the local area would discourage access to the scheme via this route, and encourage greater use of Bradley Stoke Way (noted above). 4.18 Peak hour traffic flows on Old Gloucester Road to the north of Winterbourne Road would be reduced by up to 170 vph in 2016 and up to 310 vph in 2031. In both cases, the Purple Route would offer the greatest relief. Old Gloucester Road to the south of Winterbourne Road would also benefit from reduced flows in 2016. 4.19 Most of the bypass options would reduce peak hour traffic on Hambrook Lane to the east of the scheme by about 100 vph in both 2016 and 2031. This is evident even for the Purple Route which provides an all-movement junction with Hambrook Lane. As a roundabout, this junction would give priority to traffic on the bypass and cause delay for vehicles on the minor approaches, sufficient to discourage some rat-running traffic from using the lane. Signalisation of this junction in the Blue Route option would potentially cause greater delay to traffic on Hambrook Lane, encouraging significant diversion away from this route. The model forecasts suggest that some of this traffic would divert to Beacon Lane and Winterbourne Road. Forecast traffic flows on Hambrook Lane to the west of the bypass would similarly be reduced if a junction were provided. 4.20 On the basis of these varying traffic model results, it will be necessary to investigate the form of any potential junction with Hambrook Lane. 4.21 At the southern end of the bypass, traffic attracted to the scheme would increase peak hour flows through the Harry Stoke development on its access road by 450 – 550 vph in 2016, and by 600 – 700 vph in 2031, despite traffic calming on this road which would reduce speeds below 30 mph. 4.22 Peak hour flows on the A4174 ARR to the east of the bypass would also increase significantly by 600 – 700 vph in 2016, and 750 – 850 vph in 2031. However, the model shows that this additional traffic could be accommodated at the signalised ARR junction without imposing delays of more than 1 minute on any movement; minimal peak hour queues would therefore occur at this location in both 2016 and 2031. 4.23 The bypass would have little impact on M32 Junction 1 in the 2016 AM peak, adding a few seconds only to vehicles on the eastbound entry. Traffic growth to 2031 would be more difficult to accommodate, and the increased flow on the A4174 ARR would lengthen peak hour queues and add up to 2 minutes of additional delay to vehicles on the eastbound approach to M32 Junction 1, compared with the Do Minimum case. However, these queues would not stretch back to the junction with the bypass, and the ARR itself would have sufficient link capacity to accommodate the forecast flows. Also, it may be possible to reduce queuing on the approach by adjusting the signal timings at the motorway junction (not tested in the model). 4.24 To the west of the bypass, forecast flows on the A4174 ARR would decrease as a result of the scheme. Nevertheless, westbound flows with the scheme in place would exceed the available capacity at the Coldharbour Lane junction.

5040208/Report/Final 4.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Long queues would form on the approach, although these would not extend back to the bypass junction even by 2031; and delays of about 2 minutes per vehicle would occur in 2016, increasing to almost 5 minutes by 2031. 4.25 Within Stoke Gifford itself, Brierly Furlong would get some limited relief from the scheme, while peak hour flows on Westfield Lane would generally be reduced by about 100 vph in 2016, and 200 – 300 vph in 2031 (given some diversion back to Brierly Furlong). Peak hour traffic on Hatchet Road would also be reduced by 150 – 300 vph in both 2016 and 2031. Congestion within the village centre would therefore be reduced accordingly. For the Blue Route option, these impacts would be even greater because more traffic would divert away from Hambrook Lane (as noted above). 4.26 The model forecasts suggest that all four route options would have broadly similar impacts on traffic routing, and would help to relieve the centre of Stoke Gifford. There is little to choose between them in this respect. The forecasts also suggest that a junction with Hambrook Lane is unlikely to cause a major increase in rat-running. 4.27 Tables 4.5-4.8 also include forecast flows assuming that the M4 would be widened between Junctions 19 and 20. These show that the proposed widening would have little impact on traffic using the bypass, or on other roads in the Stoke Gifford local area. 4.28 Figure 4.2 shows the forecast effects of the Purple Route option on 2016 AM peak hour traffic flows. It confirms that the scheme would increase traffic flows on Bradley Stoke Way, the Harry Stoke development access road, and the Avon Ring Road between the bypass and M32 Junction 1. Some of this traffic would be attracted from the M5/M4/M32 route between M5 Junction 16 and M32 Junction 1. Other roads relieved of traffic would include Hatchet Road, Brook Way, Brierley Furlong, Westfield Lane and Hambrook Lane. The scheme would also cause traffic to divert from Old Gloucester Road to B4058 Winterbourne Hill. 4.29 Forecast traffic using the Purple Route option is identified in Figure 4.3 for the 2016 AM peak hour. This shows that the bypass would be most attractive for traffic between the Bradley Stoke area and central Bristol, which would route via the scheme, the ARR, and M32.

FORECAST TRAFFIC EFFECTS BY AREA 4.30 Forecast 2016 traffic flows (peak and inter-peak) are shown for all links (identified in Figure 4.1) in Appendix A. These have been grouped into a number of broad sectors, which are discussed below. 4.31 Routes which run broadly parallel to the Stoke Gifford bypass, like Hatchett Road, Hambrook Lane, Westfield Lane, Brierly Furlong and Old Gloucester Road would generally be relieved by the scheme, as noted above. This will provide an environmental improvement for residents, pedestrians and cyclists on these routes. 4.32 To the north and west, the bypass would attract additional traffic to routes like Bradley Stoke Way and Winterbourne Road. However, this would relieve other roads in the local area, notably Baileys Court Road, Orpheus Avenue and Braydon Avenue, i.e. through traffic is diverted to more appropriate routes. Some traffic would also be attracted from the A38. 4.33 Immediately to the west of the bypass, traffic flows on the A4174 Avon Ring Road would be reduced by up to 250 vph, some of which would transfer to

5040208/Report/Final 4.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Great Stoke Way and the Harry Stoke Link Road. Flows on the A38 to the north and south of the ARR would also be reduced. 4.34 To the south, the bypass would increase peak hour traffic flows on the A4174 ARR west of the M32 by up to 700 vph, as noted above. This would have limited impact in 2016 (as discussed in paragraph 4.23), and would in part be compensated by a reduction of 300 – 400 vph on the ARR to the east of the M32, which reflects a shift of traffic from the B4058 (Bristol Road and Winterbourne Hill) to the bypass. The M32 itself would be little affected by the scheme, since forecast traffic flows would be constrained by the available capacity whether or not the bypass scheme is implemented. 4.35 To the north and east of the bypass, High Street, Dragon Road and Down Road in Winterbourne would attract slightly higher traffic flows. However, this would be compensated by significant reductions in Hambrook Lane, Hicks Common Road, Winterbourne Hill and the B4058 Bristol Road. Flows on Beacon Lane would increase by over 100 vph. With the bypass in place, this route would carry more traffic to and from the north via High Street and less traffic to and from the south via Winterbourne Hill. The effects of this change can also be seen in Figure 4.2. This may place more stress on the Beacon Lane/High Street junction, but the reduction in through traffic, especially northbound on Winterbourne Hill may result in little net change in queue and delay at the junction. The A432 Badminton Road would be little affected by the scheme.

CHANGES IN BUS JOURNEY TIMES 4.36 Appendix B presents a summary of the net changes in overall journey time for buses generally passing through the Stoke Gifford and Abbey Wood areas. The bus routes, route number and frequencies are those assumed for Corridor 4 of the Greater Bristol Bus Network (which follows bus route 73 between Gloucester Road (at Filton Avenue), Bradley Stoke and Cribbs Causeway (The Mall)) in the forecast year 2010. These routes are shown schematically in Figure 4.4. It should be noted that some bus routes have already changed since the GBBN report was published in June 2005. 4.37 No bus routes are proposed to use the bypass. This is because to do so would mean services between Bradley Stoke, Stoke Gifford and Bristol could not reasonably serve UWE and the Abbey Wood area which would need to be served during the inter peak periods in particular when passenger flows are lower. This does not mean that peak hour only services could not be introduced to use the bypass if adequate demand between Bradley Stoke and Bristol could be realised (for example, diversion of Route X73 could be considered). 4.38 Appendix B shows that the reduction in traffic flows and congestion on Hatchet Road and Brierly Furlong through Stoke Gifford gained by the bypass generally reduces southbound bus journey times using these sections in the AM peak by between one and three minutes (varying by bypass alignment option). Northbound bus journey time reductions are about one minute in this time period. Inter peak journey times are not affected as traffic flows are lower across the whole area. Similar reductions in journey times could be expected in the PM peak period, although this has not been modelled. 4.39 Changes in journey time for all other routes shown in Figure 4.4 are marginal and are not affected by the bypass.

5040208/Report/Final 4.5 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.1 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 AM Peak Hour

2004 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Base Do DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Minimum Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 138,259 163,287 163,287 163,287 163,287 163,287 Heavy vehicles 6,327 7,620 7,620 7,620 7,620 7,620 Total 144,586 170,907 170,907 170,907 170,907 170,907

Simulation Network

Running time (pcu-hrs) 20,001 25,393 25,419 25,423 25,392 25,319 Transient queued time 4,822 6,730 6,744 6,774 6,749 6,754 Over-capacity queued time 2,606 15,072 14,719 14,611 14,881 14,814 Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 27,430 47,195 46,882 46,807 47,022 46,887 Total Travel Distance (pcu- kms) 1,155,500 1,351,019 1,353,921 1,353,740 1,352,940 1,350,245 Average Speed (kph) 42.1 28.6 28.9 28.9 28.8 28.8

Convergence after iteration 9 17 16 17 14 13 Delta function (%) 0.178 0.324 0.361 0.366 0.333 0.351 % links changing by <5% 99.5 95.1 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.6

LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network

Running time 4,954 6,521 6,531 6,523 6525 6,476 Transient queued time 914 1,369 1,385 1,388 1,387 1,374 Over-capacity queued time 562 3,767 3,218 3,281 3,297 3,496 Total Travel Time 6,430 11,658 11,135 11,192 11,209 11,347 Total Travel Distance 328,547 383,341 385,825 385,517 385,419 383,914 Average Speed (kph) 51.1 32.9 34.6 34.4 34.4 33.8

Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4) 2. Travel times are in pcu-hours, distances in pcu-kms 3. Average speed = Total Travel Distance / Total Travel Time 4. The level of convergence of each assignment is defined by the delta function (which measures the % difference between assigned costs and minimum costs), and the % of links with a flow difference of <2% between successive assignment-simulation loops

5040208/Report/Final 4.6 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.2 – Forecast Network Performance – 2016 Average Inter-peak Hour

2004 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Base Do DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Minimum Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 100,318 116.381 116.381 116.381 116.381 116.381 Heavy vehicles 6,903 8.313 8.313 8.313 8.313 8.313 Total 107,221 124,694 124,694 124,694 124,694 124,694

Simulation Network

Running time (pcu-hrs) 14,620 17,665 17,635 17,646 17,630 17,662 Transient queued time 3,382 4,533 4,514 4,529 4,519 4,544 Over-capacity queued time 462 1,879 1,901 1,927 2,009 1,825 Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 18,464 24,077 24,050 24,102 24,157 24,032 Total Travel Distance (pcu- kms) 934,012 1,075,024 1,074,853 1,074,645 1,074,185 1,075,594 Average Speed (kph) 50.6 44.6 44.7 44.6 44.5 44.8

Convergence after iteration 9767 67 Delta function (%) 0.146 0.154 0.172 0.186 0.180 0.164 % links changing by <5% 99.8 97.9 94.8 97.9 94.7 97.1

LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network

Running time 2,894 4,695 4,689 4,684 4,683 4,690 Transient queued time 543 945 938 938 937 946 Over-capacity queued time 96 691 639 700 721 686 Total Travel Time 3,532 6331 6267 6,323 6,342 6,323 Total Travel Distance 201,360 316,012 316,397 315,976 316,086 316,312 Average Speed (kph) 57.0 49.9 50.5 50.0 49.8 50.0

Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4) 2. Travel times are in pcu-hours, distances in pcu-kms 3. Average speed = Total Travel Distance / Total Travel Time 4. The level of convergence of each assignment is defined by the delta function (which measures the % difference between assigned costs and minimum costs), and the % of links with a flow difference of <2% between successive assignment-simulation loops

5040208/Report/Final 4.7 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.3 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 AM Peak Hour

2004 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Base Do DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Minimum Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 138,259 180,478 180,478 180,478 180,478 180,478 Heavy vehicles 6,327 9,438 9,438 9,438 9,438 9,438 Total 144,586 189,916 189,916 189,916 189,916 189,916

Simulation Network

Running time (pcu-hrs) 20,001 27,157 27,288 27,208 27,306 27,210 Transient queued time 4,822 7,130 7,219 7,151 7,213 7,175 Over-capacity queued time 2,606 36,767 35,211 35,537 35,671 35,697 Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 27,430 71,054 69,718 69,896 70,190 70,082 Total Travel Distance (pcu- kms) 1,155,500 1,394,205 1,401,809 1,398,689 1,402,419 1,400,586 Average Speed (kph) 42.1 19.6 20.1 20.0 20.0 20.0

Convergence after iteration 9 20 20 17 18 22 Delta function (%) 0.178 0.620 0.357 0.557 0.450 0.420 % links changing by <5% 99.5 94.5 94.9 94.7 94.6 94.6

LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network

Running time 4,954 6,629 6,675 6,675 6,681 6,631 Transient queued time 914 1,452 1,507 1,485 1,503 1,488 Over-capacity queued time 562 9,972 9,002 9,035 9,212 9,352 Total Travel Time 6,430 18,053 17,187 17,197 17,398 17,472 Total Travel Distance 328,547 378,833 383,622 382,971 383,538 382,435 Average Speed (kph) 51.1 21.0 22.3 22.3 22.0 21.9

Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4) 2. Travel times are in pcu-hours, distances in pcu-kms 3. Average speed = Total Travel Distance / Total Travel Time 4. The level of convergence of each assignment is defined by the delta function (which measures the % difference between assigned costs and minimum costs), and the % of links with a flow difference of <2% between successive assignment-simulation loops

5040208/Report/Final 4.8 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.4 – Forecast Network Performance – 2031 Average Inter-peak Hour

2004 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Base Do DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Minimum Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

FULL NETWORK Forecast Matrices (vehs) Light vehicles 100,318 129,519 129,519 129,519 129,519 129,519 Heavy vehicles 6,903 10,297 10,297 10,297 10,297 10,297 Total 107,221 139,816 139,816 139,816 139,816 139,816

Simulation Network

Running time (pcu-hrs) 14,620 19,230 19,210 19,225 19,169 19,209 Transient queued time 3,382 5,166 5,160 5,175 5,156 5,186 Over-capacity queued time 462 8,796 8,639 8,694 8,883 8,711 Total Travel Time (pcu-hrs) 18,464 33,191 33,009 33,095 33,208 33,106 Total Travel Distance (pcu- kms) 934,012 1,131,031 1,130,924 1,131,906 1,129,696 1,131,204 Average Speed (kph) 50.6 34.1 34.3 34.2 34.0 34.2

Convergence after iteration 9988 88 Delta function (%) 0.146 0.294 0.209 0.232 0.280 0.411 % links changing by <5% 99.8 95.4 95.9 94.5 94.9 94.6

LOCAL AREA NETWORK Simulation Network

Running time 2,894 5,125 5,131 5,130 5,106 5,127 Transient queued time 543 1,145 1,138 1,155 1,142 1,157 Over-capacity queued time 96 6,378 6,290 6,225 6,246 6,273 Total Travel Time 3,532 12,649 12,560 12,512 12,496 12,557 Total Travel Distance 201,360 326,114 327,609 327,328 327,225 327,263 Average Speed (kph) 57.0 25.8 26.1 26.2 26.2 26.1

Notes: 1. pcu = passenger car unit (average pcu value of heavy goods vehicles = 2.4) 2. Travel times are in pcu-hours, distances in pcu-kms 3. Average speed = Total Travel Distance / Total Travel Time 4. The level of convergence of each assignment is defined by the delta function (which measures the % difference between assigned costs and minimum costs), and the % of links with a flow difference of <2% between successive assignment-simulation loops

5040208/Report/Final 4.9 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 4.1 – Selected Links for Forecast Traffic Flows 0 Rev By Date Chk’d Auth Date Authorised Date Checked . Figure 4.1 SB 18/05/06 Drawn Date Stoke Gifford Bypass Parallel routes (1 tothe 6) to bypass Routes(7 to 23) to the north & west (24 to 33) Routes to the west (34 to 43) Routes to the south (44 to 57) Routes to the north & east (58 to 59) Harry Stoke roads NTS 1 7 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with permission Ordnance of permission with material Survey from Ordnance reproduced is map This ©Office Stationery Crown Majesty’s Her of Controller the of on behalf Survey to lead may and copyright Crown infringes reproduction Unauthorised copyright. prosecution or civil proceedings. South Gloucestershire Council. Licence No. 100023410, 2005. Atkins Transport Planning West 260 Aztec Almondsbury Bristol BS324SY 01454 288362 618844 01454 Tel: Fax: Stoke Gifford Bypass Gifford Stoke TrafficForecast Sites Data 24 34 44 58 BP Count Sites Rev Description Project Title Scale (1) Number Drawing (2) Number Drawing

4

d d d

d M a a a

a 5

o o o

o 6

R R R

5km R

5km 4

4 h h h h

g g g g B i i i i

e e e e

l l l l

r r r r

e e e

e Shortwood

t t t t

s s s s

e e e e

3 miles 3 W W W W

4

d d d d

a a a

a 7 4 4 4 4 o o o o

R R R R

7 7 7

1 7

n n n n

o o o o

1 1 1

Emerson’s Green East Green Emerson’s 1 t t t

t 4

n n n n

i i i i

4 4 4

Mixed Use Development Mixed A 4 m m m m

d d d d A A A A

a a a a

B B B B

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 A A A A

e e e e

m m m m

o o o

4km o 4km r r r r

F F F F

r r r r

e e e

e l v v v v i i i i l

i District Centre District 2½ miles R R R R Park H

Emerson’s Green Emerson’s y Emerald e r Green h Kendleshire 53

Emerson’s mp

d d d d o

a a a

a P

o o o

o 5

R R R R

6

55

h h h

h 4

g g g g

i i i i 4

e e e

e B l l l l

r r r

54 r

e e e e

t t t t

s s s s

8 8 8 8

e e e e

5 5 5 5

d d d d

0 0 0 0

W W W 56 W

4 4 4 4

R R R R

B B B B 52

2 miles n n n n

o o o o

t t t

d t n n n Down n

i i i

a i

3km 3km

m m m o m

d d d

R d a a a

a

Mangotsfield

B B B

n B Blackhorse

Winterbourne

2 2 2 w 2

3 3 3 o 3

4 4 4 4

4 4 4

D 4

A A A A

7 7 7 7

1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4

A A A A

e 51 n Moorend a 49 L

s

t

i t t t t

e e e

e p

e e e e

r r r r x

t t t

t 43

a Hill Staple

S S S S

l

t t t

1½ miles t 1½ miles

h h h h

e e e Winterbourne e

e e e e

g g g g

r r r F r

t t t t i i i

i Heath

S S S S

H H H H

h h h h

t t t t

r r r

Bromley r o o o o

8 8 8 8

N N N N

5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

A A A A B B B B

Downend 50

d d d

2km d 2km a a a a

o o o o

d d d d

R R R R

h h h h

t t t t

a a a a

e e e e

a a a a

H H H H

y y y

42 y

e e e e

l l l

e l

m m m m

o o o o

o o o o

r r r r

B B B B

7 7 7

n 7

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

R R R R

A A A A

a

d d d d

a a a a

o o o

S O U T H o

R R R R

l l l l

d d d d o o o o

t t t

L t

s s s s

i i i i

r r r r

B B B B

8 8 8 8 n n n n

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 e

4 4 4 4 r B B B B i n

e e e

e rsh

o te n n n n s 46 e

c c

38 u w w w w lo

a G o o o o th

e ou

D D D D S

B 4 y 1 mile 1 mile 2 2 2 2 t

7 Ci

7 7 7

7

41 l 3 3 3 3 o

1 ist 5 5 5 5 i

M4 r 4 4 4

J19 4 4 B

0 0 0 0

A A A

A A

4 4 4 4

Hambrook

B B B B 45 Hospital Frenchay 48 Frenchay 2 oad ter R 1km 1km ces ad lou 39 loucester Ro ld G B4427 Old G 27 O B44 36

57

½ mile ½ mile

s s s s

s s s s

a a a a

p p p

p 44 y y y

47 y

B B B

B 40

d d d d

r r r r

o o o o

f f f f

f f f f

d d d d i i i

1 i

7

a a a a

G G G

G L O U C E S T R H I G G o o o o

J1 M32

R R R R e e e e

l l l l

k k k k

o o o o

o o o o

t t t t

t t t e t

e e e e BP s s s s

i i i i

S S S n S

r r r d r

n n n n

34

B

B B

a B

Hotel 4 4 4

a 4

a a a

L a d

8 8 8

7 7 7 8

o 7

L L L L

5 5 5

a 5

37

1 1 1

h 1

R 0 0 0

4 0 k k k

c k o

4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

7

o o o

n M e o R

B

B B

A A A B

5 A

o o o

e n o

r r r r 0 r r n

35 b b b b o T 4 u t 6 0 miles 0km 0 miles 0km y l

a B o i m m m

b m F

Bristol

a a a W r a

e 58

H H H k e H o t t n S i Housing y Park Business e W l development Broomhill

14 d Harry

a Stoke 59

e e e r e

B 24 Stoke

m m m Gifford m 8

Bristol Parkway Bristol

o o o o

Stoke

r r r r

9

5 5 5 5

F F F Bradley F

r r r r

Housing 5 25

M M M M e e e e

v v v v

i i i i

development

3

R R R d R a UWE Bradley Stoke

District Centre District o t R AXA y e Housing ch a t Ha 4

W B&Q development

d 10 Hewlett

n Packard

a l

s e Stoke Park 26

v Little w 27

y A Stoke

o

a 12 n

2 2 2

o 2

B yd 3 3 3

W Bus Link 3

a School

13 Br

k 11 M M M o ne M Filton High Filton

o a 22 Romney Avenue Romney r L Sainsbury’s B ke to S

e 4 d d d d l

Almondsbury t

t 23 7 a a a a i

Business Park Business L

1 o o o o

4 4

R R R R

M A Park

r r r r Lockleaze

Retail

e e e e

t t t t

28

s s s

s and Employment

Gypsy Patch Patch Gypsy Lane

e e e e

15 16

Patchway Station c c c c

housing development housing

u u u u

o o o o

l l l l

e

G G G G

u ue ue e ue

n n n

B4057 u n

8 8 8 8 MOD

e e e

n e

3 3 3 3 v v v

Ground e d v

School

v A A A A A

R

d d d d

y a a a a

o o o o A

R R R R

r r r

r Lockleaze e e e e t t t t

s s s s

e e e e Combination e c c c c

u u u

18 u n o o o o l l l l

G G G G 8 8 8 8 n 3 3 3 3 n A A A

A o o

Rolls t i m mney A A mney mney

l t A mney Royce

17 i

F a o 30 R Ro Ro t Ro

S 29

19

e e e Filton e

u u u u

n n n n

e e e College e

v v v

21 v d

Park A A A A

n n n

Retail n a o o o o a t t t t

l l l l i i i i F F F F o R

e Almondsbury z 31 Abbey Filton d a Wood Station e

Mail R l

Royal k Aztec West Aztec o

t c

d d d

d n o a a a

a o L

o o o

o 20 r

R R R

R o

33

T Airbus d d d d

Bus Link Bus o o o

M5 16 Junction o

Horfield Aztec West Aztec o o o o

d d d d

w w w w

a a a

Employment a e development h h h h o o o o

d d d BAE Systems / BAE d Patchway

a a a

v a

g g g g

o o o

Employment and Employment o R R R R

i i i i

R R R R

r r r

A r

d d d

d

e e e

e H H H t t t t H

s s s s

a a a a

e e e

k e 32 housing development housing

c c c c

e e e

e r u u u u

o o o o

l l l

a l

G G G G

m m m

m

e e e e e e

8 8 8 8

r r r r r r

h h h h

3 3 3

P 3 i i i i i i

t t t

t A A A A

u u u u

h h h h h

h s

Filton

o o o

o ’

s s s s s s

y y y y y y r r r r r r S S S

S k

t t t

t t

t

i i i i i i

e e e e e e n

6 6 6

6

t t t t t t

Filton Northfield Link Road o

5 5 5

5 C C C C C C

s s s s s s

0 0 0

0

l l l l l l

e e e e e

e M

4 4 4 4

o o o o o o

c c c

c c c

B B B B t t t t t t

e e e e

u u u

u u u

s s s s s s

i i i i i i u u u u

o o o

o o o

r r r r r r

n n n n l l l l l l

e e e e

B B B B B B

v v v v G G G G G G

A A A A

h h h h h h

y y y y

t t t t t t

a a a a

u u u u u u

w w w w

o o o o o o a a a a

l l l l

l l l l l

l S S S S S S

e e e

Cribbs Causeway e

K K K a K

8 8 8 8

6 6 6 M 6

d 4 4 4

a 4

4 4 4

e o Hospital 4

B B B h Filton Airfield R B B R I S T O L C I T Y B R I S T O L C rk Southmead T a P en

P

e e e

e d

u u u

u R n n n

n

e e e e r

v v v

v e

Southmead t

A A A A

e e e e s

e e e

e a n n n n

k k k

k c

a a a a

o o o

o n

t t t t L L L

L o

s s s s

e e e e y y y

The Venue y D l l l l

e e e e

o o o o r r r r

n n n n

G G G G

K K K K

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

e e e e

z z z z

a a a a

e e e e

l l l l

n n n n

e e e e

H H H H

6 6 6 d 6

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

4 4 4

a 4 B B B o B

R Brentry

d

l

e Lysander Road i

f Road t age s ss a

8 Pa

A401 E

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

y y y y

r r r r

u u u

Westbury-on-Trym u

b b b b

t t t t

s s s s

y y y y

e e e e

a a a a W W W W

8 8 8 8

w w w w 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 e e e e

A A A A s s s s

u u u u

a a a a

C C C C

s s s s

b b b b

b b b b

i i i i

r r r r

C C C C

M5 Junction 17 JunctionM5

8 8 8 8

1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 d 0 0 0

0

4 4 4 4 5 a

A A A

A 5 o

M M M

M 0

4 R

e e e

e B ry n n n

N n u a a a

a b

L

L L L

n 7 7 7

7 e w w w w

5 5 5 5

o o o o 0 0 0 0 H r r r r

4 4 4 4

C C C C B B B B

5040208/Report/Final 4.10 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.5 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 AM Peak Hour

2016 Do-Something M4 Widening Sensitivity Test 2004 2016 Link Location Base Do Min DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Purple Pink Turq Blue Purple Pink Turq Blue 37 M4 Junction 19 – 20 8946 9705 9597 9614 9608 9610 9389 9400 9403 9376 34 A4174 Avon Ring Road (E of Bypass) 3205 3866 4511 4537 4492 4565 4544 4610 4597 4663 26 A4174 Avon Ring Road (W of Bypass) 3950 3805 3658 3724 3615 3694 3611 3677 3586 3669 13 Bradley Stoke Way (north end) 675 917 1163 1068 1077 1082 1250 1154 1161 1158 7 Bradley Stoke Way (south end) 1129 1084 1438 1381 1507 1359 1475 1434 1553 1397 1 Great Stoke Way (N of Bypass) 411 1031 1401 1321 1364 1361 1411 1298 1352 1343 4 Brierley Furlong 1639 1105 997 1096 1101 1052 966 1057 1070 1029 5 Westfield Lane 21 728 628 604 609 461 593 608 613 471 3 Hatchet Road 1915 2081 1748 1825 1833 1736 1731 1822 1827 1753 2 Old Gloucester Road (south) 619 676 591 635 635 612 575 615 613 585 48 Beacon Lane 1583 1628 1733 1735 1740 1867 1758 1776 1773 1892 46 Winterbourne Hill 1140 1262 987 1063 1072 888 990 1079 1056 923 57 Old Gloucester Road (north) 380 676 511 523 521 551 538 549 541 578 8 Winterbourne Road 1423 1776 2161 2113 2008 2252 2180 2150 2048 2284 25 Coldharbour Lane 1347 2329 2286 2275 2271 2291 2263 2255 2251 2275 44 Hambrook Lane (E of Bypass) 544 792 687 659 669 204 716 651 653 199 6 Hambrook Lane (W of Bypass) 267 535 325 547 542 293 294 547 556 310 59 Harry Stoke Link Road - 1003 1553 1469 1508 1519 1563 1446 1502 1506 BP1 S Gifford Bypass (N of Hambrook Ln) - - 1969 1621 1611 1759 1961 1610 1607 1675 BP2 S Gifford Bypass (S of Hambrook Ln) - - 1665 1621 1611 1759 1651 1610 1607 1675 58 Stoke Gifford Bypass (north of A4174) - 1003 2331 2452 2378 2663 2368 2469 2405 2619 Notes: 1. All flows are in vehicles per hour 2. See Figure 4.1 for location of sites

5040208/Report/Final 4.11 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.6 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2016 Inter-peak Hour

2016 Do-Something M4 Widening Sensitivity Test 2004 2016 Link Location Base Do Min DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Purple Pink Turq Blue Purple Pink Turq Blue 37 M4 Junction 19 – 20 7765 8476 8481 8461 8469 8476 8279 8269 8290 8260 34 A4174 Avon Ring Road (E of Bypass) 1831 2252 2175 2204 2205 2240 2160 2200 2223 2233 26 A4174 Avon Ring Road (W of Bypass) 2632 2440 2294 2332 2325 2342 2306 2352 2352 2349 13 Bradley Stoke Way (north end) 312 389 412 416 413 426 413 423 413 417 7 Bradley Stoke Way (south end) 479 601 651 640 633 667 657 650 637 663 1 Great Stoke Way (N of Bypass) 189 612 1039 945 946 976 1045 944 958 977 4 Brierley Furlong 1204 829 679 684 694 668 674 693 697 681 5 Westfield Lane 26 316 308 340 342 319 307 336 345 308 3 Hatchet Road 1286 1269 1110 1129 1142 1088 1104 1127 1142 1087 2 Old Gloucester Road (south) 675 874 795 820 822 825 810 828 840 840 48 Beacon Lane 979 1086 1136 1169 1169 1188 1137 1171 1184 1201 46 Winterbourne Hill 580 793 691 698 696 683 709 715 715 702 57 Old Gloucester Road (north) 150 171 245 239 241 245 267 255 257 264 8 Winterbourne Road 1125 1311 1245 1250 1261 1259 1242 1242 1271 1272 25 Coldharbour Lane 821 1422 1439 1445 1439 1444 1452 1455 1447 1448 44 Hambrook Lane (E of Bypass) 162 173 247 158 154 113 242 156 155 112 6 Hambrook Lane (W of Bypass) 163 207 125 164 159 125 124 165 161 123 59 Harry Stoke Link Road - 608 1039 945 946 976 1045 944 958 977 BP1 S Gifford Bypass (N of Hambrook Ln) - - 522 454 446 531 535 467 465 544 BP2 S Gifford Bypass (S of Hambrook Ln) - - 657 454 446 531 666 467 465 544 58 Stoke Gifford Bypass (north of A4174) - 608 837 822 825 851 835 816 821 839 Notes: 1. All flows are in vehicles per hour 2. See Figure 4.1 for location of sites

5040208/Report/Final 4.12 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final 4.13 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.7 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 AM Peak Hour

2031 Do-Something M4 Widening Sensitivity Test 2004 2031 Link Location Base Do Min DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Purple Pink Turq Blue Purple Pink Turq Blue 37 M4 Junction 19 – 20 8946 9670 9638 9670 9647 9652 9736 9696 9785 9719 34 A4174 Avon Ring Road (E of Bypass) 3205 3795 4653 4576 4627 4606 4652 4669 4660 4699 26 A4174 Avon Ring Road (W of Bypass) 3950 3823 3586 3554 3509 3575 3596 3553 3528 3606 13 Bradley Stoke Way (north end) 675 1067 1212 1179 1171 1169 1430 1399 1399 1421 7 Bradley Stoke Way (south end) 1129 1329 1971 1974 1988 1902 1965 1981 2005 1896 1 Great Stoke Way (N of Bypass) 411 1178 1315 1224 1249 1291 1338 1254 1250 1297 4 Brierley Furlong 1639 1075 1062 1043 1123 915 999 1119 1126 921 5 Westfield Lane 21 904 635 712 687 437 642 703 712 460 3 Hatchet Road 1915 1874 1613 1704 1688 1539 1621 1740 1729 1572 2 Old Gloucester Road (south) 619 717 681 757 845 590 636 862 855 548 48 Beacon Lane 1583 1097 1608 1170 1053 1835 1784 1069 1050 1814 46 Winterbourne Hill 1140 1306 1182 1372 1281 1094 1146 1270 1243 1065 57 Old Gloucester Road (north) 380 1080 767 985 1070 919 865 1126 1156 749 8 Winterbourne Road 1423 1658 1821 1718 1748 1934 2013 1842 1817 2094 25 Coldharbour Lane 1347 2176 2215 2220 2213 2226 2238 2240 2233 2311 44 Hambrook Lane (E of Bypass) 544 867 636 798 806 205 700 892 898 189 6 Hambrook Lane (W of Bypass) 267 658 444 693 686 181 401 767 765 193 59 Harry Stoke Link Road - 994 1700 1631 1658 1696 1721 1677 1672 1725 BP1 S Gifford Bypass (N of Hambrook Ln) - - 2147 1747 1791 1899 2258 1912 1931 2056 BP2 S Gifford Bypass (S of Hambrook Ln) - - 1718 1754 1791 1899 1815 1912 1931 2056 58 Stoke Gifford Bypass (north of A4174) - 994 2539 2623 2640 2675 2623 2756 2780 2861 Notes: 1. All flows are in vehicles per hour 2. See Figure 4.1 for location of sites

5040208/Report/Final 4.14 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final 4.15 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 4.8 – Forecast Traffic Flows – 2031 Inter-peak Hour

2031 Do-Something M4 Widening Sensitivity Test 2004 2031 Link Location Base Do Min DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 DS 4 Year Purple Pink Turq Blue Purple Pink Turq Blue 37 M4 Junction 19 – 20 7765 8765 8704 8719 8689 8684 8590 8556 8588 8525 34 A4174 Avon Ring Road (E of Bypass) 1831 2661 2607 2637 2612 2676 2542 2634 2571 2627 26 A4174 Avon Ring Road (W of Bypass) 2632 2878 2727 2808 2771 2826 2692 2789 2733 2781 13 Bradley Stoke Way (north end) 312 732 865 910 849 882 998 933 958 792 7 Bradley Stoke Way (south end) 479 791 991 983 962 981 1068 997 1016 948 1 Great Stoke Way (N of Bypass) 189 703 1179 1102 1098 1109 1164 1097 1115 1088 4 Brierley Furlong 1204 1108 754 815 813 787 794 823 825 803 5 Westfield Lane 26 462 323 355 366 324 297 347 349 317 3 Hatchet Road 1286 1615 1175 1220 1231 1169 1190 1221 1221 1178 2 Old Gloucester Road (south) 675 882 797 863 860 870 786 861 864 870 48 Beacon Lane 979 1045 1216 1207 1210 1226 1200 1193 1195 1216 46 Winterbourne Hill 580 1001 828 854 853 834 835 869 863 849 57 Old Gloucester Road (north) 150 163 354 320 320 328 365 344 339 326 8 Winterbourne Road 1125 1276 1270 1238 1251 1302 1252 1243 1239 1294 25 Coldharbour Lane 821 1566 1555 1556 1585 1568 1556 1563 1575 1577 44 Hambrook Lane (E of Bypass) 162 207 328 162 163 133 405 172 172 134 6 Hambrook Lane (W of Bypass) 163 249 100 169 168 140 100 177 175 147 59 Harry Stoke Link Road - 688 1183 1105 1097 111 1170 1100 1117 1088 BP1 S Gifford Bypass (N of Hambrook Ln) - - 842 726 689 793 935 749 763 789 BP2 S Gifford Bypass (S of Hambrook Ln) - - 923 726 689 793 957 749 763 789 58 Stoke Gifford Bypass (north of A4174) - 688 937 887 896 912 889 887 876 887 Notes: 1. All flows are in vehicles per hour 2. See Figure 4.1 for location of sites

5040208/Report/Final 4.16 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 4.2 – Forecast Traffic Effects of the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour

5040208/Report/Final 4.17 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 4.3 – Forecast Traffic Flows on the Purple Route – 2016 AM Peak Hour

5040208/Report/Final 4.18 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 4.4 – Bus Routes in GBBN Corridor 4 (Route 73)

1 43 54 X25 625

73 75 X75 309 X18 Cribbs Causeway 318 319 483482 580

Coniston Road Stoke Lane 482 318 319 75 580 75 X75 X18 309 310 312 319318 482 580 via Aztec West Bus Link

Aztec West

A38 A38 215 216 A38 71 216215 X11 309 310 312 X84 309 310 X11 71 X11 71 312 X73 580 75 75A Almondsbury Business Park 1 25216215 X84 Pear Tree Road 483 Bradley Stoke Way

Bus Routes 312 318 319 8 42580482 District Centre 73B } 1 Braydon Ave 71 574 43 }

54 } Baileys Court Rd 73A 70 ¬ Winterbourne Road 482 483 581 73 }¬ 71 517 518 Gipsy Patch Lane via Parkway Bus Link 75 }

99 ¬ Parkway 580 71 ¬ 309 H1 Bypass 310 ¬ X18 Gifford Stoke X73 99 A4174 Station Road 312 ¬ Abbey Wood H1 } Roundabout X18 X84

X18 }

X73 } 574 MOD 581 X75 } Filton Abbey Filton Avenue Filton Wood Station UWE }¬ X84 70 99 Other routes

 New route 71 73 70 312 H1 } Fitted with RTI 318 319 518 581 ¬ Diverted or extended route  Change in frequency

5040208/Report/Final 4.19 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final 4.20 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5. Economic Appraisal 5.1 A preliminary economic appraisal of the proposed Stoke Gifford bypass scheme has been undertaken for all four of the alternative alignments outlined in Chapter 3. 5.2 Traffic forecasts for 2016 (assumed opening year of the scheme) and 2031 (design year), representing the AM peak and average inter-peak hours, have been input to the DfT’s TUBA and COBA programs to assess the transport efficiency and accident benefits of the scheme. These benefits have then been compared against the costs of construction to determine its net present value (NPV) and the benefit/cost ratio (BCR).

CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5.3 The TUBA program has been used to compare the user benefits of the Stoke Gifford bypass scheme with its costs, including: ♦ the costs of construction; ♦ land and property costs; ♦ preparation and supervision costs; ♦ allowances for risk and optimism bias. 5.4 Delay costs during construction are likely to be small, given that most of the scheme would be constructed off line, and have therefore been ignored. Maintenance costs have also been ignored at this stage of the appraisal process. 5.5 The costs of construction, based on current (2006) prices, are itemised in Table 5.1. These were provided by SGC. Main Works Costs 5.6 The main works cost is estimated to be between £5.72m and £8.83m, depending on the alignment. This covers all earthworks, road and footpath construction, drainage, structures (including the bridge over the railway line), signing, lighting, landscaping, and environmental mitigation. Ancillary and other works would increase the total construction cost to between £6.45m and £9.28m. 5.7 It is assumed that the developer of the proposed Harry Stoke development would provide for the construction of a suitable single carriageway access road into the site from a signalised junction with the A4174 ARR. On this basis, the construction costs for the bypass at its southern end include only for an additional single carriageway (for conversion to dual standard), and a roundabout at the junction with the access road immediately to the east of the Harry Stoke site. Land and Property Costs 5.8 Land and property costs are estimated to be between £7.43m and £8.72m, based on current (2006) prices. This includes costs for re-housing, and compensation for mineral and other rights.

5040208/Report/Final 5.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Preparation and Supervision Costs 5.9 Preparation costs are estimated by SGC to be between £0.39m and £0.59m (at 2006 prices), which represents 2.6% - 3.5% of the construction and land costs. 5.10 Supervision costs are estimated to be between £0.26m and £0.40m (at 2006 prices), representing 1.7% - 2.4% of construction and land costs. This is also significantly less than the HA default of 5%. Allowance for Risk and Optimism Bias 5.11 SGC have included a 10% contingency in the total works cost to allow for uncertainty. An allowance for optimism bias has also been included, based on DfT advice. This represents 25% of total works, supervision, and preparation costs. Table 5.1 – Scheme Costs

Cost Category Cost (£000’s) Purple/Blue Pink/Turquoise A Main Works Contract 5,715 8,828

B Survey & Ancillary Works 407 352 C Work by Other Authorities 330 99 Total Works Cost 6,452 9,279

D Supervision Costs 260 401 E Preparation Costs 394 592 Land (cost estimate includes mineral and other F 8,721 7,427 compensation) G Allowance for Optimism Bias 1,776 2,568

Total 17,602 20,267

Notes: 1. All costs in £000s, based on current (2006) prices. 2. Costs for Main Works, Survey & Ancillary Works, and Work by Other Authorities include a 10% contingency. 3. Optimism Bias assumed to be 25% of total works, supervision and preparation costs.

PRESENT VALUE COSTS 5.12 TUBA requires that all costs (and benefits) are measured at constant 2002 prices. The costs shown in Table 2.1 have therefore been adjusted by TUBA, to remove the effects of inflation, as indicated by the relative change in the retail price index (RPI). Construction costs have also been adjusted by the relative price factor (RPF) which takes account of the change in the cost of road construction relative to the general price level. 5.13 Scheme costs have been allocated to future years, assuming that construction would start in 2014 and that the scheme would open in 2016. Construction costs have been distributed through the construction period as follows, based on DMRB advice:

5040208/Report/Final 5.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

♦ 2014 - 47% ♦ 2015 - 50% ♦ 2016 - 3% 5.14 Land and property costs would be incurred largely at the start of construction, in 2014. Preparation costs would be spread through the years up to 2014; supervision costs would be spread through the construction period from 2014 to the 2016 opening year. 5.15 These costs (and benefits) have then been converted by TUBA to ‘present values’, based on the principle that, generally, society prefers to receive goods and services now, rather than later, and to defer costs to future generations. A discount rate of 3.5% per annum is used for the first 30 years of the appraisal (3.0% thereafter), based on the advice of the Treasury’s Green Book.

TRANSPORT ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY BENEFITS 5.16 The economic benefits of the scheme have also been calculated by TUBA, based on input data extracted from the forecast traffic assignments for 2016 (opening year) and 2031 (design year). 5.17 The TUBA program uses input trip matrices, together with associated time and distance skims of the modelled network to calculate the travel time costs and operating costs of all vehicles in the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, for each of the modelled time periods. These hourly costs are expanded, based on input annualisation factors, and combined to estimate annual costs for 2016 and 2031. Annual costs for other years are interpolated, and summed over the 60 year assumed life of the scheme, in accordance with DfT advice. The program then compares these Do Minimum and Do Something travel costs to determine the user benefits for consumers (non-work trips) and business users (work trips, including HGVs).

TUBA INPUTS 5.18 The traffic forecasts were interrogated to provide matrices of trips, journey times and journey distances for each: ♦ modelled year (2016 opening year and 2031 design year); ♦ time period (AM peak hour and average inter-peak hour); ♦ scenario (Do Minimum and Do Something); and ♦ vehicle type (light and heavy vehicles). 5.19 Matrices of journey times and distances were extracted from the models based on the combined routes saved during the assignments, and therefore represent the average travel times and distances for all trips through the network. (They were not based on single least cost trees). These matrices have been input to TUBA for each of the modelled time periods. 5.20 Annualisation factors represent the number of hours in the year that would be similar in traffic terms to each of the hours modelled. For this appraisal, they have been drawn from the TUBA files set up for the appraisal of the Greater Bristol Bus Network, as follows: ♦ AM peak hour factor – 759, assuming that conditions represented by the AM peak hour model would extend over a 3 hour morning peak period, for all 253 working days of the year;

5040208/Report/Final 5.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

♦ Inter-peak hour factor – 1518, assuming that the inter-peak model represents the 6 hour inter-peak period (10:00-16:00) for all 253 working days. 5.21 Benefits which would accrue during the PM peak period, during night-times and at weekends have been ignored. 5.22 Other inputs to the TUBA program are drawn from the DfT’s Transport Economics Note (TEN), and are provided as default values by the TUBA program. 5.23 Based on these input parameters and the forecast traffic data extracted from the model assignments, TUBA calculates the annual time and vehicle operating cost benefits of the scheme for the 2016 opening year and 2031 design year. Benefits for the intervening years are interpolated from the modelled years. Those for the years 2031-2075 are calculated assuming that there would be no traffic growth beyond 2031. Annual benefits for each year in the appraisal period are then discounted to present year (2002) values, and combined.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME 5.24 The economic benefits of the scheme, as calculated by TUBA, are summarised in Table 5.2. This shows that the total discounted present value of the benefits (PVB) would be between £461 and £663 million at 2002 prices, over the 60 year appraisal period. This range is greater than anticipated, given the relatively small differences between the scheme options, and will to some extent reflect high levels of congestion and routing instability in the future year assignments. Sector analysis has shown that only 60% of these benefits would accrue to road users passing through or operating within the local area, with 40% going to other road users outside this area. However, in all cases, the scheme would still generate very significant benefits for users.

Table 5.2 – Economic Efficiency Benefits of the Stoke Gifford Bypass

TRANSPORT ECONOMIC Benefits (£000s) EFFICIENCY BENEFITS (TEE) Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

Consumers User Benefits - Travel Time 246,938 230,317 172,270 172,899 - Vehicle Operating Costs 7,964 9,641 7,112 6,620 - User Charges - During Maintenance Net Consumer Benefits 254,902 239,958 179,382 179,519 Business User Benefits - Travel Time 400,176 369,776 277,960 281,344 - Vehicle Operating Costs 15,886 17,093 10,268 10,100 - User Charges - During Maintenance Net Business Benefits 416,065 386,869 288,228 291,444 Total Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 662,818 618,951 461,742 462,121

5040208/Report/Final 5.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Notes: 1. Output from TUBA 2. All benefits are in £000s, at 2002 prices 3. Based on a 60 year appraisal period (2016–2075) 5.25 Business benefits would contribute about 60% of the total PVB; consumer (non-work) benefits would contribute about 40%. Table 5.2 shows that time savings make up the majority of these user benefits, reflecting the significant level of congestion relief that the scheme would provide. 5.26 The TUBA program compares the discounted travel time and vehicle operating cost benefits of the Stoke Gifford bypass against the discounted costs of constructing the scheme, in order to determine its net present value (NPV) and Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR).

ACCIDENT BENEFITS 5.27 Forecast traffic flows for 2016 (opening year) and 2031 (design year) have been input to the DfT’s COBA program to estimate the number of accidents and casualties by severity that would be saved by the scheme over the 60 year appraisal period, 2016-2075. These savings have then been converted (by the program) to 2002 monetary values, and discounted to 2002 based on the recommended annual discount rates of 3.5% (for the first 30 years) and 3.0% (thereafter). 5.28 Forecast Do Minimum and Do Something traffic flows for 2016 and 2031 were extracted from the traffic model assignments for each time period. These were combined to estimate AADT flows for input to COBA. Traffic flows for other years in the 60 year appraisal period have been interpolated by the program, which projects backwards and forwards from the modelled years based on the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF). No growth was assumed beyond 2031. 5.29 The DMRB recommends that observed accident data covering a 5 year period should be used to determine existing accident rates for appraisal purposes. However, this information generally takes some time to obtain from the relevant authorities, organise for the study area, and analyse for input to COBA. Given the short time-frame for the study, this appraisal has therefore been based on default accident rates supplied by the program. 5.30 Although the BATS2 model covers the whole of Bristol, a localised COBA network has been developed to include only that part of the road network which would be directly affected by the proposed Stoke Gifford bypass. This area, defined by comparing the SATURN model assignments for the Do Something and Do Minimum scenarios, is shown in Figure 5.1 5.31 The COBA program has used the default accident rates and forecast traffic flows to calculate the number of accidents and casualties for the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, for each year of the appraisal period. Accident savings have then been determined by comparing the number of forecast accidents in each year, and summing over all years. These savings are split by severity (using default proportions) and converted to 2002 monetary values, based on the following average (default) casualty costs: ♦ fatal - £1,249,890; ♦ serious - £140,450; ♦ slight - £10,830.

5040208/Report/Final 5.5 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Figure 5.1 – COBA Network COBA Network Links COBA Network Link SATURN thom6981- 03/02/2006 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 2004 All rights reserved Copyright. Crown © Draft Stoke Gifford Bypass Gifford Stoke Figure 5.1 - COBA network network COBA - 5.1 Figure

5040208/Report/Final 5.6 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT BENEFITS 5.32 The results of the COBA accident analysis are summarised in Table 5.3. The table shows that the Stoke Gifford bypass would increase the number of personal injury accidents within the study area (shown in Figure 5.1) by between 180 and 290 over the 60 year appraisal period. This would increase accident costs by between £5.8 and £8.9 million.

Table 5.3 – Summary of Forecast Accident Benefits

No of Casualties Accident Costs Scenario Accidents Fatal Serious Slight (£000) Do Minimum 17594.6 110.6 1555.5 23371.1 592,832

Purple Route 17752.5 112.2 1571.5 23728.6 600,980 Saving -257.9 -1.6 -21.0 -357.5 -8,149 Pink Route 17845.0 112.0 1571.0 23710.6 600,707 Saving -250.0 -1.4 -20.5 -339.6 -7,876 Turquoise Route 17781.3 111.7 1565.6 23630.7 598,700 Saving -186.7 -1.1 -15.1 -259.6 -5,868 Blue Route 17876.9 112.2 1573.9 23754.5 601,674 Saving -282.3 -1.6 -23.4 -383.4 -8,842

Notes: 1. Accident savings calculated by COBA for the study area shown in Figure 5.1 2. Based on a 60 year appraisal period (2016–2075) 3. Accident costs and benefits are in constant 2002 prices, discounted to 2002 at 3.5% per annum (for the first 30 years) and 3.0% (thereafter).

5.33 Although the bypass would be built to high standards and would itself be expected to exhibit a relatively low accident rate, the increase in vehicle- kilometres caused by the scheme would have an adverse impact over the wider network.

SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC APPRAISAL 5.34 The results of the economic appraisal are presented in Table 5.4. All costs and benefits are expressed in 2002 prices. 5.35 The costs of constructing the scheme, including land and property costs, preparation, supervision, and allowances for contingencies and optimism bias, have been estimated at £17.6 million for the Purple and Blue Routes, and £20.3 million for the Pink and Turquoise options, at current (2006) prices. Table 5.4 shows that the discounted cost of this investment would be £10.9 and 12.5 million respectively. 5.36 The appraisal also includes the costs to central government, in the form of lost revenues from indirect taxation.

5040208/Report/Final 5.7 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5.37 The total present value of the transport economic efficiency benefits, excluding accident savings, is estimated to be between £461 million and £663 million. Given the extent of the modelled network and levels of congestion in the forecast networks, some spurious benefits from outside the local area could be included in these estimates. Sector analysis has suggested that these could be 40% or more of the total benefits. On the other hand, the current appraisal takes account of benefits accrued during the AM peak and inter-peak periods only, and excludes potential benefits in other time periods. 5.38 Accident costs have been estimated using the DfT’s COBA program. On this basis, the number of personal injury accidents in the local area would increase as a result of the scheme, by up to 1.5% over the 60 year appraisal period. This reflects an increase in vehicle-kilometres travelled by drivers accessing the bypass. The present value of these additional accident costs, which represent a disbenefit to the scheme, is estimated to be between £5.8 million and £8.9 million. 5.39 The Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) varies between 23 and 31. On this basis, the Stoke Gifford bypass would offer very good value for money. 5.40 At a meeting of 21 March 2006 to discuss the preliminary findings of the study, members expressed concern that the Scenario F land-use assumptions included housing development at Earthcott, to the north of the M4. Sensitivity tests have therefore been undertaken on the Purple Route option in order to determine the potential impact of the site on scheme benefits. 5.41 These tests, which removed trips generated by the proposed housing from the forecast trip matrices without relocating them elsewhere, showed that the BCR (excluding accident benefits) would be reduced from 32 to 15 as a result. This is likely to represent a maximum impact given that the sensitivity test is based on smaller forecast trip matrices. If the housing development is removed from the trip matrices without any adjustment to the travel time and distance skims, the BCR would remain at 32.

5040208/Report/Final 5.8 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Table 5.4 – Economic Appraisal of the Stoke Gifford Bypass Scheme

TRANSPORT ECONOMIC Benefits (£000s) EFFICIENCY BENEFITS (TEE) Purple Pink Turquoise Blue

USER BENEFITS Consumers - Travel Time 246,938 230,317 172,270 172,899 - Vehicle Operating Costs 7,964 9,641 7,112 6,620 - User Charges - During Maintenance Net Consumer Benefits 254,902 239,958 179,382 179,519 Business - Travel Time 400,176 369,776 277,960 281,344 - Vehicle Operating Costs 15,886 17,093 10,268 10,100 - User Charges - During Maintenance Net Business Benefits 416,065 386,869 288,228 291,444 Total Present Value of TEE Benefits 662,818 618,951 461,742 462,121 PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Local Government Funding - Revenue - Operating Costs - Investment Costs 10,915 12,539 12,539 10,915 - Developer Contributions - Grant/ Subsidy Payments Central Government Funding - Indirect Tax Revenues 10,109 11,618 7,395 6,154 Total Present Value of Costs (PVC) 21,024 24,157 19,934 17,069 OVERALL IMPACT – INCLUDING ACCIDENT BENEFITS Total Present Value of TEE Benefits 662,818 618,951 461,742 462,121 Present Value of Accident Benefits -8,149 -7,876 -5,868 -8,842 Total Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 654,669 611,075 455,874 453,279 Total Present Value of Costs (PVC) 21,024 24,157 19,934 17,069 Net Present Value (NPV) 633,645 586,918 435,940 436,210 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 31 25 23 27

Notes: 1. 60 year appraisal period: 2016 – 2075 2. All costs and benefits are at constant 2002 prices with future costs and benefits discounted to 2002 at 3.5% per annum

5040208/Report/Final 5.9 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final 5.10 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

6. Conclusions 6.1 Four route options have been considered for the Stoke Gifford Bypass. Shown in Figure 3.2, the key features of the schemes are as follows: ♦ The Purple Route would take the more easterly of two alignments to the south of the railway line. It would have an at-grade crossing of Hambrook Lane, which is assumed to be a roundabout allowing all turning movements. Further south, it would have a roundabout junction with the access road to the Harry Stoke development, and would link to the more easterly of the two ARR junction locations; ♦ The Pink Route would take the more westerly of the two alignments, requiring an additional roundabout junction at the north end of the scheme, and would link to the more westerly of the two ARR junction locations. It would have a roundabout connection to Harry Stoke, but no connection with Hambrook Lane; ♦ The Turquoise Route would be similar to the Pink Route but would link to the more easterly ARR junction; ♦ The Blue Route would be similar to the Purple Route, but would have a signalised junction with Hambrook Lane, allowing straight-ahead movements only (i.e. no movements between the bypass and Hambrook Lane), and would link to the more westerly ARR junction. 6.2 These alternative schemes were coded into the test networks in detail, so that the model could simulate traffic movements through junctions and thus forecast their impacts on queues and delays. Roundabouts were assumed to be similar in dimension and capacity to those already in place on Great Stoke Way. The layout and signal timings for the proposed ARR junction were based on those already tested for the Greater Bristol Bus Network Major Scheme Bid (which included the junction to provide access for the Harry Stoke development). 6.3 Forecast AM peak and inter-peak traffic flows have been analysed for 2016 and 2031 for each scheme option so that the impacts of the bypass can be determined. Based on the traffic forecasts: ♦ The section of the Stoke Gifford bypass to the north of Hambrook Lane (where it crosses the railway line) would attract 2-way flows of between 1610 and 1970 vehicles per hour (vph) in the 2016 AM peak hour. Flows would be at the lower end of this range if turning movements were restricted at Hambrook Lane (as for the Blue option) or if no connection was made (as for the Pink and Turquoise options), and at the high end of the range if a full roundabout junction was provided (as for the Purple option). By 2031, traffic growth would have increased these peak hour flows to between 1750 vph and 2150 vph. ♦ Other sections of the bypass to the south of Hambrook Lane would attract lower peak hour flows, not exceeding 1760 vph by 2016 or 1900 vph by 2031. ♦ Inter-peak flows on all sections of the route would be significantly lower than peak hour flows, not exceeding 700 vph by 2016 or 925 vph by 2031.

5040208/Report/Final 6.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

6.4 On this basis, a single carriageway road of 10 metre width would be adequate to accommodate forecast traffic demand to 2031. This would significantly reduce the cost of the scheme, assuming that SGC would not want to make provision for later construction of a Winterbourne bypass (Note: the scheme costs and modelling in this assessment have assumed a dual-carriageway bypass link). 6.5 Traffic attracted to the scheme would increase peak hour flows on southern sections of Bradley Stoke Way by 275-425 vph in 2016, and by 575-660 vph in 2031. Two way flows would then be about 1950 vph in 2031. Peak hour flows on northern sections of Bradley Stoke Way would be increased by about 250 vph in both 2016 and 2031. 6.6 Routes which run broadly parallel to the Stoke Gifford bypass, like Hatchett Road, Hambrook Lane, Westfield Lane, Brierly Furlong and Old Gloucester Road would generally be relieved by the scheme. This will provide an environmental improvement for residents, pedestrians and cyclists on these routes. 6.7 To the north and west, the bypass would attract additional traffic to routes like Bradley Stoke Way and Winterbourne Road. However, this would relieve other roads in the local area, notably Baileys Court Road, Orpheus Avenue and Braydon Avenue, i.e. through traffic is diverted to more appropriate routes. Some traffic would also be attracted from the A38. 6.8 Immediately to the west of the bypass, traffic flows on the A4174 Avon Ring Road would be reduced by up to 250 vph, some of which would transfer to Great Stoke Way and the Harry Stoke Link Road. Flows on the A38 to the north and south of the ARR would also be reduced. 6.9 To the south, the bypass would increase peak hour traffic flows on the A4174 ARR west of the M32 by up to 700 vph. This would have limited impact in 2016, and would in part be compensated by a reduction of 300 – 400 vph on the ARR to the east of the M32, which reflects a shift of traffic from the B4058 (Bristol Road and Winterbourne Hill) to the bypass. The M32 itself would be little affected by the scheme, since forecast traffic flows would be constrained by the available capacity whether or not the bypass scheme is implemented. 6.10 To the north and east of the bypass, High Street, Dragon Road and Down Road in Winterbourne would attract slightly higher traffic flows. However, this would be compensated by significant reductions in Hambrook Lane, Hicks Common Road, Winterbourne Hill and the B4058 Bristol Road. Flows on Beacon Lane would increase by over 100 vph. With the bypass in place, this route would carry more traffic to and from the north via High Street and less traffic to and from the south via Winterbourne Hill. This may place more stress on the Beacon Lane/High Street junction, but the reduction in through traffic, especially northbound on Winterbourne Hill may result in little net change in queue and delay at the junction. The A432 Badminton Road would be little affected by the scheme. 6.11 The model forecasts suggest that all four route options would have broadly similar impacts on traffic routing, and would help to relieve the centre of Stoke Gifford. There is little to choose between them in this respect. The forecasts also suggest that a junction with Hambrook Lane is unlikely to cause a major increase in rat-running.

5040208/Report/Final 6.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

6.12 The results suggest that widespread traffic mitigation measures to manage changes in traffic routing are not required since traffic does appear to be routing along the main corridors and away from inappropriate residential routes. However this should be confirmed in future modelling analysis. 6.13 A comparison of bus journey times shows that the reduction in traffic flows and congestion on Hatchet Road and Brierly Furlong as a consequence of Stoke Gifford bypass generally reduces southbound bus journey times through the village in the AM peak hour by between one and three minutes (varying by bypass alignment option). Northbound bus journey time reductions are about one minute in this time period. Inter peak journey times are not affected as traffic flows are lower across the whole area. Similar reductions in journey times could be expected in the PM peak period, although this has not been modelled. 6.14 Traffic model results show that the proposed M4 widening between J19 and J20 would have little impact on traffic using the bypass, or on other roads in the Stoke Gifford local area. 6.15 Preliminary economic analysis of the scheme shows that it is likely to return a very good economic benefit. However further analysis is required to refine the benefit forecast by the modelling work to date.

5040208/Report/Final 6.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final 6.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Appendix A 2016 Forecast Traffic Flows

0 Rev By Date Chk’d Auth Date Authorised Date Checked . Figure 4.1 SB 18/05/06 Drawn Date Stoke Gifford Bypass Parallel routesto(1 to 6) the bypass west & north the to Routes 23) to (7 (24 to 33) Routes to the west (34 to 43) Routes to the south (44 to 57) Routes to the north& east Stoke(58 to 59)roads Harry NTS 1 7 Stoke Gifford Bypass Gifford Stoke ForecastTraffic Data Sites This map is reproducedfrom Ordnance Survey materialwith permissionof Ordnance to lead may and Survey on behalf ofthe copyright Controller of HerCrown Majesty’s Stationery Office infringes © reproduction Crown Unauthorised copyright. prosecutioncivil or proceedings. South Gloucestershire Council. LicenceNo. 100023410, 2005. Atkins Transport Planning 260West Aztec Almondsbury 4SY BS32 Bristol Tel: 01454 288362 Fax: 01454 618844 24 34 44 58 BP Count Sites Count Rev Description Project Title Scale (1)Drawing Number (2)Drawing Number

4

d d d

d M a a a

a 5

o o o

o 6

R R R

5km R 5km 4

h h h h

g g g g B4 i i i i

e e e e

l l l l

r r r r

e e e

e Shortwood

t t t t

s s s s

e e e e

3 miles 3 W W W W

4

d d d d

a a a

a 7 o o o o

R R R R

1

n n n n

o o o

o Emerson’s Green East t t t t 4

n n n n

i i i

i Mixed Use Development A m m m m

d d d d A4174 A4174 A4174 A4174

a a a a

B B B B

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 A A A A

e e e e

m m m m

o o o

4km o 4km

r r r r

F F F F

r r r r

e e e

e l v v v v i i i

i l

i District Centre District 2½ miles 2½ miles R R R R Park H

Emerson’s Green y Emerald e r Green h p Kendleshire 53

Emerson’s m

d d d d o

a a a

a P

o o o

o 5

R R R R

6

55

h h h

h 4

g g g

g 4 i i i i

e e e

e B l l l l

r r r

54 r

e e e e

t t t t

s s s s

8 8 8 8

e e e e

5 5 5 5

d d d d

0 0 0

0 56 W W W W

R R R R

B4 B4 B4 B4 52

2 miles 2 2 miles 2

n n n

o o o on on

t t

d t Down nt

in in in

a i

3km 3km

m m m o m

d d d

R d a a a

a

Mangotsfield

B B B

n B Blackhorse

Winterbourne

2 2 2

w 2

3 3 o 3

4 4 4 43

4 4 4

D 4

A A A A

7 7 7 7

1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4

A A A A e 51 n Moorend a 49 L

s

t

i t t t t

e e e

e p

e e e e

r r r r x

t t t

t 43

Staple Hill S S S S a

l

t t t 1½ miles t 1½ miles

h h h h

e e e

Winterbourne e

e e e e

g g g g

r r r F r

t t t t

i i i

i Heath

S S S S

H H H H

h h h h

t t t t

r r r

Bromley r

o o o o 8 8 8 8

N N N N

5 5 5 5

7 7 7 7

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

A A A A B B B B

Downend 50

d d d

2km d 2km a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

d d d d

h h h h

t t t t

a a a a

e e e e

H H H H a a a a

y y y

42 y

e e e e

l l l

e l

m m m m

o o o o o o o o

r r r r

B B B B

7 7 7

n 7

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4

R R R R

A A A A

a d d d d

a a a a

o o o

S O U T H S O U T o

R R R R

l l l l

d d d d

o o o

L o t t t t

s s s s

i i i i

r r r

r B B B B

8 8 8 8 n n n n

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0 e

4 4 4 4 ir n B B B B

e e e

e rsh

o te n n n n s 46 e

c c

38 u

w w w w lo

a G o o o o th

e ou

D D D D S

B 4 y 1 mile 1 mile 2 2 2 2 it

7 C

7 7 7

7

41 l 3 3 3 3 o

1 st

5 5 5 5 i

M4 r 4 4 4

J19 4 4 B

0 0 0 0

A A A

A A

4 4 4 4

Hambrook

B B B B 45 Hospital Frenchay 48 Frenchay 2 oad ter R 1km 1km ces d lou 39 loucester Roa ld G B4427 Old G 27 O B44 36

57

½ mile ½ mile

s s s s

s s s

a a a

p p p

pas 44

y y y

47 y

B B B B 40

d d d d d

r r r

o o o or

f f f

f

f f f f

d d d d

i i i 1 i

7

a a a a

G G G G

o o o

G L O U C E S T R S H I R E o

J1 M32

R R R R e e e e e

l l l l

k k k

o o o o

o o o ok

t t t t

t t t e t

BP s s s s e e e e

i i i i

S S S n S

r r r d r

n n n n

a 34 B B B

4 4 4 B

a 4 Hotel

a a a

L a d

8 8 8 7 7 7 8

o 7 L L L L

5 5 5 a 5

37

1 1 1

h R 1 0 0 0

4 o 0 k k k

c k

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

7

o o o

n M e o R

B B B

B A A A

5 A

o o o

e n o

r r r r 0 r r n

o 35 b b b T 4 u b t 6 0 miles 0km 0 miles 0km y l

a B o i m m m

b m F Bristol

a a a W r a 58

e e H H H k H o t t n S i Housing y Business Park e W l development Broomhill

14 d Harry

a Stoke

59

e e e r e B 24 Stoke

Gifford m m m 8 m

Bristol Parkway

o o o o

Stoke r r r r

9

5 5 5 5

F F F Bradley F

r r r r

5 Housing

25

M M M M e e e e

v v v v

i i i i

development 3

R R R d R a UWE Bradley Stoke Bradley

District Centre District o t R AXA y e

Housing h a tc Ha 4 B&Q

development W

d 10 Hewlett

n Packard

a l

s

e Park Stoke v 26 27 w Little

y A Stoke

o a 12 n

2 2 2 o 2

B yd 3 3 3

W Link Bus 3

a School

13 Br k 11 M M M o ne M Filton High o a 22 Romney Avenue Romney r L Sainsbury’s B ke to

S

e 4 d d d d l

Almondsbury t

t 23 7 a a a a i

Business Park L

1 o o o o

4 4

R R R R

M A Park

r r r r Lockleaze

Retail

e e e e

t t t t

28

s s s

s Employment and

Gypsy Patch Lane Patch Gypsy

e e e e

15 16 Patchway Station

c c c c

housing development

u u u u

o o o o

l l l l

e e e e

G G G G

u u u

e u

n n n

B4057 u n

MOD 8 8 8 8

e e e

n e

3 3 3 3

v v v Ground d v

s e

School

A A A

v A A A A A

R

d d d

d y y y y

a a a a

o o o o A

R R R R

r r r

r Lockleaze

e e e e

t t t t

s s s s

e e e e e e e Combination e c c c c

u u u

18 u n o o o o

l l l l

G G G G n 8 8 8 8 3 3 3 3 n n n n A A A

A o o

Roll t i m m m

l m

Royce t

17 i o o o

F a o 30 R R R t R

S 29

19

e e e Filton e

u u u u

n n n n

e e e College e

v v v

21 v d

Park A A A A

n n n

Retail n a o o o o t t t t

l l l l

i i i i F F F F o

R

e Almondsbury z 31 Filton Abbey d a Wood Station e

Mail R l

Royal k

Aztec West Aztec o

t c

d d d

d n o a a a

a o L

o o o

o 20 r

R R R R o

33

T Airbus d d d d

Bus Link Bus o o o

M5 Junction 16 o

Aztec West Horfield o o o o

d d d d

w w w w

a a a

Employment a e development h h h h o o o o

d d d

Patchway BAE Systems / d

a a a

v a

g g g

g

o o o o R R R

Employment and R

i i i i

R R R R

r r r

A r

d d d d

e e e

e t t t t H H H H

s s s s

a a a a

e e e housing development e

32 k

c c c c

e e e

e r

u u u u

o o o o

l l l

a l

m m m m

G G G G

e e e e e e

8 8 8 8

r r r r r r h h h h

3 3 3

P 3

i i i i i i t t t t

A A A A

u u u u

h h h h h

h s

Filton

o o o

o ’

s s s s s s

y y y y y y r r r r r r

S S S S k

t t t t t t

i i

i i i i

e e e e e e n

6 6 6 6

t t t t t t

Filton Northfield Link Road o

5 5 5 5 C C C C C C

s s s s s s

0 0 0 0

l l l l l l

e e e e e e M

4 4 4 4

o o o o o o

c c c c c c

t t t t t t B B B B

e e e e u u u u u u

s s s s s s

i i i i i i u u u u

o o o o o o

r r r r r r

n n n n l l l l l l

e e e e

B B B B B B

v v v v G G G G G G

A A A A

h h h h h h

y y y y

t t t t t t

a a a a

u u u u u u

w w w w

o o o o o o a a a a

l l l l

l l l l l

S l S S S S S

e e e

Cribbs Causeway e

K K K a K

8 8 8 8

6 6 6

M d 6 4 4 4

a 4

4 4 4

e o Hospital 4

B B B R B h Airfield Filton BR I SY T OLC I rk Southmead T a P en

P

e e e

e d

u u u

u R n n n

n

e e e e r

v v v

v e

Southmead t

A A A A

e e e e s

e e e e a

n n n n

k k k

k c

a a a a

o o o

o n

t t t t L L L

L o

s s s s

e e e e y y y

The Venue y D

l l l l

e e e e

o o o o

r r r r

n n n n

G G G G

K K K K

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

e e e e

z z z z

a a a a

e e e e

l l l l

n n n n

e e e e

H H H H

6 6 6 d 6

5 5 5 5

0 0 0 0

4 4 4

a 4 B B B o B

R Brentry

d

l

e Lysander Road

i

f Road t age s ss a

8 Pa

A401 E

d d d d

a a a a

o o o o

R R R R

y y y y

r r r r

u u u

Westbury-on-Trym u

b b b b

t t t t

s s s s

y y y y

e e e e

a a a a W W W W

8 8 8 8

w w w w

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 e e e e

A A A A s s s s

u u u u

a a a a

C C C C

s s s s

b b b b

b b b b

i i i i

r r r r

C C C C

M5 17 Junction

8 8 8 8

1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 d 0 0 0 0

4 4 4 4 5 a

A A A

A 5 o

M M M

M 0

4 R

e e e

e B ry n n n

N n u a a a

a b

L L L L

n 7 7 7 7

w w w w e 5 5 5 5

o o o o 0 0 0 0 H

r r r r

4 4 4 4

C C C C B B B B

5040208/Report/Final A.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

1 4 -2 33 61 12 10 29 78 46 43 78 88 89 81 32 -32 -38 -34 -73 -60 -85 -36 -22 -57 -29 -53 -95 -64 -69 -35 -71 357 165 516 476 276 114 239 148 699 330 -137 -319 -130 -110 -107 -161 -290 -125 -124 -242 -266 -375 -374 -345 -588 -705 DS4 - Blue e 0 7 -1 -3 -7 59 72 81 74 15 72 75 33 10 72 52 93 18 91 -48 -58 -69 -18 -61 -76 -31 -17 -78 -16 -31 -97 -49 -41 -88 -41 466 160 505 232 424 116 153 112 627 333 -262 -190 -121 -259 -270 -155 -160 -119 -335 -190 -248 -123 -438 S3 - Turquois D 6 -9 -5 -8 -7 -9 78 99 19 72 13 72 13 79 40 22 86 47 12 80 22 89 16 -80 -54 -69 -65 -75 -59 -93 -13 -92 -41 -66 -31 458 151 466 337 298 166 157 107 671 290 -244 -118 -143 -257 -153 -160 -206 -124 -373 -198 -256 -133 -459 Difference DS-DM 1 -2 98 75 67 11 13 69 12 14 10 69 81 19 33 62 19 -56 -78 -44 -66 -50 -72 -40 -88 -18 -92 -21 -85 -73 -33 469 111 124 246 550 115 385 355 139 105 645 370 -290 -146 -230 -283 -166 -131 -210 -100 -413 -109 -275 -332 -108 -105 -415 967 706 551 323 803 648 298 912 369 293 461 888 204 612 DS4 DS4 - Blue DS1 -Purple DS2 - Pink e 979 695 521 308 809 772 304 810 403 542 609 669 635 S3 - Turquois D 975 702 523 308 795 612 307 764 454 547 604 659 635 990 674 511 312 799 641 302 878 306 325 628 997 1096 1101 1052 987 1063 1072 687 591 2760 2741 2721 2696 3213 3259 3241 3184 2522 2568 2529 2440 1881 1870 1878 1769 4015 4038 4011 3907 1408 1316 1379 1167 3658 3724 3615 3694 2286 2275 2271 2291 2927 3014 2898 2996 1720 1680 1677 1691 1088 1094 1096 1082 3893 3920 3907 3886 1347 1350 1352 1349 2651 2648 2648 2683 3087 3083 3071 3099 2614 2614 2601 2630 2331 2280 2279 2285 1094 1104 1100 1071 2331 2452 2378 2663 1328 1449 1375 1659 1163 1068 1077 1082 1553 1469 1508 1519 1741 1722 1750 1782 3665 3672 3660 3648 2069 2064 2042 2023 1232 1204 1189 1196 2161 2113 2008 2252 1469 1448 1452 1488 1438 1381 1507 1359 3989 3989 4002 3997 1107 1099 1075 1221 4019 4059 4097 4057 1843 1861 1857 1675 8243 8232 8227 8242 1733 1735 1740 1867 87189597 8733 9614 8690 96082678 8670 9610 2706 2707 2765 7638 7635 7612 7623 1748 1825 1833 1736 1690 1646 1667 1400 4511 4537 4493 4565 1296 1303 12812172 1334 2174 2164 2134 16651401 1621 1321 1611 1364 1759 1361 1665 1621 1759 1759 DS1 -PurpleDS1 DS2 - Pink n/a 917 662 676 383 888 772 320 970 287 535 728 792 676 21 n/a 1337 n/a 1003 n/a 1003 n/a 694 1022 820 1025 675 634 380 193 845 638 468 927 823 1106 159 267 544 411 1031 619 2146 2663 3050 3503 1833 2578 1182 1412 3422 3939 1833 1297 3950 3805 1347 2329 3205 3157 1456 1798 3842 4177 2752 2717 3478 3089 3210 2601 1951 2207 1362 1040 1458 1781 3287 3650 1916 2059 1047 1117 1423 1776 1278 1400 1129 1084 3168 3908 3560 4432 1664 1704 6992 8209 1583 1628 1639 1105 66008946 8739 9705 2409 2617 6374 7619 1140 1262 1915 2081 1777 2105 3205 3866 1139 1369 2458 2205 2004Min 2016 Do Two-way Flow(vehicles/hour) 5 4 9 6 7 2 3 1 31 29 23 30 22 21 26 32 19 28 24 25 27 20 17 18 57 14 16 59 11 54 10 15 58 12 51 55 50 42 53 46 48 39 40 41 49 38 52 37 35 34 45 36 33 44 43 BP Ref of Great Stoke Roundabout 8

38, south of Roundabout Filton east4174, of Bromley Heath Roundabout

B4056 B4056 Southmead Road, west of Filton Roundabout A38, north of Filton Roundabout ofA38, north Filton A4174, westA4174, of Filton Avenue Filton Avenue, south of Filton A4174 A4174, west of Abbey westA4174, ofWood Abbey Roundabout A4174, eastA4174, Wood of Abbey Roundabout Great Stoke Way, north Wood of Abbey Roundabout Coldharbour Lane, south of A4174 A4174, westA4174, of Junction Bypass B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane, west of Little StokePatch ofLane, west Little Lane Gypsy B4057 Lane, north of Gypsy Patch Lane StokeLittle north of Lane, Gypsy A38, Patchsouth of Lane Gypsy Filton NorthfieldFilton Link Road A38, north ofA38, north CallicroftRoad A38, south of Aztec West Roundabout A38, north ofA38, north West Aztec Roundabout Bradley Stoke Way,Bradley east of Woodlands Lane WoodlandsStoke north Way Lane, of Bradley Trench Lane Harry StokeHarry Approach Road, north of A4174 Harry StokeHarry Link Road Brook Way, north of Savages Wood Road Bradley Stoke Way, BrookBradley south of Roundabout Patchway 13 Old GloucesterOld Road A432 Badminton Road, south of Wick Wick Roundabout 56 A4174, eastA4174, of Wick Wick Roundabout Braydon Avenue Braydon A432 Badminton Road, south of Downs Road Orpheus Avenue A432 Badminton Road, north of Downs Road Baileys Court Road, Baileys east of Brook Way Down Road, Kendleshire Down B4057 WinterbourneB4057 Road, west A4017 Bromley Heath Road, southA4174 ofA4017 A4174, eastA4174, of Hambrook Crossroads HicksCommon Road, Winterbourne Bradley Stoke Bradley Way, north of Great Stoke Roundabout B4058 Bristol Road, north BristolRoad, B4058 of BegbrookPark Dragon Road, Winterbourne Hambrook ofLane, west Bypass A4174, eastA4174, of M32 J1 B4058 High Street, High WinterbourneB4058 WestfieldLane, south of HambrookLane M4, between Junctions 18 and 19 Junctions and between M4, 18 B4057 Beacon Lane Beacon B4057 Brierly Furlong Brierly M32, north of northM32, JunctionM32 1 20 Junctions and between M4, 19 B4057 WinterbourneB4057 Road, east ofStoke Great Roundabout 47 B4058 WinterbourneB4058 Hill HatchetStoke Road, Gifford M32, M32, south of M32 Junction 1 north BristolRoad, B4058 of HambrookCrossroads A4174, eastA4174, of Junction Bypass HambrookLane, eastBypass of B4427 Old Gloucester Old Road (northHambrookB4427 of Lane) Location Stoke Gifford (central Bypass section) Great Stoke Way, north of Bypass A A

Parallel Routes Parallel west & north the to Routes west the to Routes south the to Routes east & north the to Routes

Stoke Gifford Bypass Forecast Traffic - Flows 2016 AM PeakHour

5040208/Report/Final A.2 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

9 4 0 3 4 0 8 2 -4 -6 -4 31 12 25 40 15 66 74 69 88 84 22 38 24 32 25 -14 -12 -46 -60 -29 -49 -83 -60 -52 -51 -40 -54 -21 -39 -98 -93 -56 -28 -16 -29 531 363 102 133 124 524 244 368 -125 -130 -110 -180 -161 -164 DS4 - Blue e 2 5 5 8 3 -7 -9 -1 -1 -3 -4 26 28 83 13 26 32 70 34 11 17 25 47 27 -13 -47 -19 -96 -27 -52 -49 -47 -10 -50 -10 -62 -42 -40 -24 -93 -81 -26 -10 -19 -16 446 334 111 112 532 217 339 -157 -116 -126 -135 -177 -114 S3 - Turquois D 7 7 2 -4 -7 -6 -7 -2 -1 31 14 29 83 13 24 39 17 68 99 38 22 23 27 25 28 20 -15 -15 -48 -15 -95 -26 -54 -43 -46 -60 -44 -40 -36 -14 -74 -77 -49 -19 -16 -19 454 333 106 533 215 338 -148 -117 -140 -145 -176 -107 Difference DS- DM 5 4 4 4 -8 -1 -8 16 10 21 35 74 65 51 34 12 50 40 74 76 59 17 24 19 31 11 -13 -17 -77 -39 -79 -32 -83 -62 -57 -70 -39 -53 -18 -85 -56 -19 -19 -26 657 426 533 229 197 432 -235 -129 -102 -158 -150 -179 -145 -123 7632- 5633- 8 46 1 394 531 113 976 683 216 825 668 307 598 319 125 667 245 208 851 948 438 976 501 426 366 837 DS4 - BlueDS4 -Purple DS1 DS2 - Pink e 33 18 9 43 2 389 446 154 946 696 217 822 694 306 602 342 159 633 241 195 825 936 435 946 513 413 362 835 S3 - TurquoisS3 D 33 08 9 2 46 391 454 158 945 698 219 820 684 305 603 340 164 640 239 196 822 923 445 945 517 416 363 837 73 38 9 2 47 390 657 247 691 205 795 679 291 639 308 3 125 651 245 194 837 8 441 509 412 366 835 3601 3688 3679 3712 6647 6626 6633 6640 1245 1242 1240 1239 8481 84613330 8469 3341 8476 3335 3341 5573 5563 5574 5581 5380 5378 5380 5379 14952176 1505 2204 1511 2205 1466 2240 1941 1921 1905 1931 1287 1299 1301 1287 1039 1935 1976 1981 2003 1184 1209 1209 1221 1136 1169 1169 1188 1110 1129 1142 1088 2630 2661 2651 2661 1069 1086 1085 1072 1081 1076 1077 1077 1254 1250 1261 1259 1872 1849 1822 1901 17742875 1774 2901 1772 2883 1765 2893 1021 2294 2332 2325 2342 3573 35892737 3585 2700 3572 2696 2750 1292 1255 1244 1318 1439 1445 1439 1444 1683 1732 1713 1767 1039 1925 1931 1953 1931 14511196 1450 1203 1444 1226 1444 1197 2598 2597 2606 2589 12682734 1278 2741 1260 2744 1282 2731 DS1 -Purple DS2 - Pink 86 n/a 398 173 612 793 245 874 292 829 605 316 391 207 601 171 608 372 817 824 459 608 594 389 335 854 26 39 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1448 367 162 189 580 164 675 330 979 1086 559 403 163 479 894 1069 150 229 922 1241 635 408 821 1422 468 312 242 802 3261 3837 5740 6631 1078 1235 7765 8476 3089 3310 4837 5569 4662 5392 13801831 1513 2252 2546 1906 2004 2016 Do Min 1106 1416 1580 1870 1158 1181 1204 1286 1269 2546 2662 1182 1131 1125 1311 1323 1832 2240 2945 1431 2632 2440 2822 3625 2666 2662 1483 1233 1831 1806 2076 1906 1133 1252 2210 2616 11092299 1258 2760 Two-way Flow (vehicles/hour) 3 1 4 7 5 2 6 9 42 39 40 38 33 37 36 35 46 49 34 41 43 51 44 48 45 50 32 53 57 58 54 29 11 52 21 14 59 10 19 31 55 20 27 25 26 12 15 16 17 18 24 30 22 28 23 BP Ref 38, south38, of Filton Roundabout eastRoundabout of 4174, Bromley Heath

B4058 B4058 Bristol Road, north of Begbrook Park A4174, eastA4174, of J1 M32 A4017 A4017 HeathBromley Road, south of A4174 M4, between Junctions 18 and 19 JunctionsM4,18 and between M4, between Junctions 19 and 20 JunctionsM4,19 and between eastA4174, of HambrookCrossroads M32,of southJunctionM32 1 M32,1 of Junction north M32 StokeGifford (centralsection) Bypass A4174, east JunctionA4174, of Bypass Hambrook Lane, eastofBypass Location A A B4058 B4058 Bristol Road, north of Hambrook Crossroads B4058 WinterbourneB4058 Hill Great Stoke Way, north of Bypass Dragon Road, Winterbourne B4057 WinterbourneB4057 of Road, eastGreat Stoke Roundabout 47 B4427 Old Gloucester(northof Old Road HambrookB4427 Lane) B4057 Beacon Lane BeaconB4057 Street,Winterbourne High B4058 HicksCommon Road, Winterbourne Hatchet Road, Stoke Gifford Brierly Furlong Brierly Down Road, Kendleshire Westfield Lane, south of Hambrook Lane A432 BadmintonnorthA432 Road Road, of Downs HambrookofBypass Lane, west A4174, east of Wick Wick Roundabout Bradley StokeWay, Bradley of northGreat Stoke Roundabout Baileys Court Road, eastBrookBaileys of Way A432 A432 Badminton Road, south of Wick Wick Roundabout 56 Old GloucesterRoad B4057 WinterbourneB4057 ofGreat Road, west Stoke Roundabout 8 A432 A432 Badminton Road, south of Downs Road Harry Stoke Harry Approach of Road, north A4174 B4056 Southmead Road, west of Filton Roundabout SouthmeadB4056 of Filton Road, west Little Stoke Patch Lane, north Lane of Gypsy Filton Avenue, south of A4174 Roundabout north A38, of Filton A4174, east Woodof Abbey Roundabout Brook Way, north of Savages Wood Road A4174, west of Filton Avenue ColdharbourLane, southA4174 of GreatStoke Way, Wood north of Abbey Roundabout Orpheus Avenue Bradley StokeBradley Way, south ofBrook Patchway Roundabout 13 Filton Northfield Link Road A4174, west Wood of Abbey Roundabout A38, south of Gypsy Patch A38, southLane of Gypsy A4174, west of Junction Bypass Harry StokeHarry Link Road Braydon Avenue Braydon Trench Lane A38, northA38, of Callicroft Road B4057 Gypsy Patch Lane, west of B4057 Gypsy Little Stoke Lane Woodlands Lane, north Stokeof Bradley Way A38, south of Aztec West Roundabout Bradley StokeBradley Way, east of Woodlands Lane northWestA38, of Aztec Roundabout

Parallel Routes Parallel west & north the to Routes west the to Routes south the to Routes east & north the to Routes

Stoke GiffordBypass Forecast Traffic Flows2016 - Inter-peak Hour

5040208/Report/Final A.3 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

5040208/Report/Final A.4 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc

STOKE GIFFORD BYPASS STUDY

Policy Review and Scheme Appraisal

Appendix B 2016 Forecast Changes in Bus Journey Times All units are minutes.

k a e P r e t n ve Min Max Ave A ith the SGBP scheme. 0.17 0.56 0.34 -1.09 0.00 -0.44 0.03 4.73 2.20 -0.09 0.14 0.02 -0.44-0.98-0.62 2.07-3.46 -0.06-2.93 1.67-1.59 0.50 -2.98 -0.55-3.41 -1.49 0.38 -0.65 -0.09 -3.20 -0.12 -2.10 -2.27 -0.38 -1.12 -0.02 -0.06 0.02 -2.82 0.07 -0.13 -0.07 0.04 0.00 -0.03 0.06 0.17 -0.24 0.14 -0.02 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.10 -0.34 0.07 -0.13 -0.14 0.70 0.17 -1.35-0.71-0.64 3.36-1.06 3.63-0.23 1.07-3.56 0.72 0.61-2.12 1.16 0.21 -0.01 -2.77 -0.42 -0.42-1.21 -1.18 -0.45-2.74 0.05 0.14 -3.27 -0.32-0.92 -0.10 0.11 -1.88-1.53 2.35 -1.64 0.83-6.65 0.41 -0.38 0.75 -0.60 -0.55-1.58 0.32 0.08 -0.09 -2.37 0.49 -0.96 -4.86 0.88 -0.81 0.26 0.81-4.80 0.02 0.72 -1.07 0.22 0.65-1.19 0.08 2.77 -5.53 0.86 -5.18 0.10 -3.19 0.78 0.64 -0.07 -0.03-2.53 0.27 2.37 0.54 -0.45-0.85 0.67 -4.26 -3.87 0.20-0.92 -0.36 -1.96 0.24 0.12-1.29 0.32 -0.29 -0.58 0.29 -0.13 -4.76 -0.50-1.86 -0.72 0.16 -2.27 0.09-3.36 0.07 -1.17 -0.15 -0.35 -0.73 -0.48 0.28 -0.80 0.22 -0.84 -0.11 0.11 -0.41 -1.24 0.26 0.08 0.16 -1.35 0.03 -0.13 0.08 -2.36 0.12 0.07 0.02 3.01 -0.12 0.12 0.17 -0.36 0.12 0.16 1.11 0.17 0.12 1.08 0.12 0.15 0.49 -3.08-3.39-4.45 -1.10 -1.54 -1.83 -2.32 -2.75 -3.58 0.43 0.07 0.07 0.82 0.46 0.33 0.62 0.26 0.21 -1.59 -0.55 -1.25 0.03 0.13 0.09 -0.44-1.76 4.07 0.06 1.25 -0.93 -0.34 -0.28 -0.19 0.15 -0.24 -0.05 -12.84 -6.89 -10.41 -0.30 0.32 -0.04 MI A 2 IP Difference AM ute journey times ute 0.97 -0.51 1.67 -0.62 -0.38 -0.17 -0.27 -0.13 0.66 -0.27 2.07 -0.44 -0.09 -0.09 -0.02 -0.07 3.63 0.440.16 1.28 0.07 -0.71 0.21 0.02 -0.23 0.04 0.88 2.350.44 0.83 -0.45 2.77 0.14 0.87 -0.062.37 0.72 0.86 -0.96 -0.05 -1.58 0.91 -1.19 -0.36 -0.13 0.13 -0.18 -0.01 -0.15 0.090.29 0.00 -0.04 0.01 0.32 -0.01 0.28 0.17 0.26 0.56 -1.09 -0.02 0.00 -0.65 3.36 -0.12 0.97 -1.35 -0.41 -0.42 -0.35 -0.32 4.07 -0.444.73 1.43 0.78 -0.06 3.24 -0.23 0.03 -0.34 -0.09 -0.19 -0.01 -0.21 0.04 0.14 -0.98 -0.69-3.35-1.49 -0.49 -3.00-1.10 -2.03 -0.06-2.10 -3.46 -0.65-1.56 -2.93 -0.03 -2.68 -2.98 -1.12 -0.55 -2.62 -0.12 -3.09 -0.06 -1.59 -1.29 -0.01 0.17 -3.41 -0.02 0.04 -1.59 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.13 -0.01 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.1 -0.13 -0.34 -0.11 0.07 0.70 0.07 -0.14 0.04 -0.64-1.06 -0.31 -0.74-3.49 -0.17-2.12 -0.50 -3.27 1.07 -1.18-0.10 0.61 -3.56-2.56 0.14 -2.09 -0.20 -2.77-0.91 0.11 -2.53 -2.12 0.41-1.49 -1.21 -0.92 0.75 0.32-5.11 -2.74 -1.53 0.18 0.15 -0.70 -0.81 -4.86 0.81 0.13 -1.64 -1.15 0.65 0.36 0.11 -0.60-3.92 -5.50 0.79 0.30 0.08 -0.09 0.08 -3.57 0.64 0.18 -6.65-5.18 0.78 -0.03 0.28-2.53 -4.80 0.19 -0.45 0.02 -4.26 0.10-0.85 0.12 0.27 -2.49 -3.19-0.89 -0.30 -4.99 0.18 0.17 -0.67-1.29 -1.96 0.08 0.54 -0.85 -0.29 0.22 -4.59-1.86 -0.58 0.20 -1.26 -2.11-3.17 0.12 -0.92 -0.36 -0.12 -1.51 0.16 -0.81 -1.23 -3.36 0.11 -0.72 -0.50 -1.22 -0.11 0.59 -1.17 -2.51 -0.12 0.12 0.08 -0.80 -0.48 0.75 0.07 -0.41 0.12 -0.06 0.17 0.15 -0.36 3.01 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.17 1.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.58 0.11 0.12 0.67 -2.67-3.02 -3.08-4.19 -3.39 -2.41 -4.45 -3.03 -1.10 -3.84 -1.54 0.59 -1.83 0.24 0.82 0.22 0.46 0.43 0.21 0.07 0.63 0.07 0.27 0.33 -0.96 -1.76 0.06 -1.06 -0.28 0.06 -0.15 0.15 -12.84 -10.75 -6.89 -11.14 -0.30 -0.06 -0.11 0.32 2016 AM IP DM DM Opt 1Opt 2Opt 3Opt 4Opt 1Opt 2Opt 3Opt 4MinMax 3Opt 2Opt 1Opt 4Opt 3Opt 2Opt 1Opt Opt DM DM Stoke Gifford Bypass Stoke Changes in bus ro X18 NX18 SX73 S 37.26X84 Na 32.87 45.89X84 Sa 36.13 38.58X84 Nb 45.46 26.88 X84 Sb 31.69 44.19 33.49 54.92 37.19 54.45 38.15 H1 NH1 S 34.97 31.22 37.34 29.25 75 N75 Sa75 Sb312 N 86.18312 S 67.33 55.56 54.17 318 N 58.79 45.82 318 S 38.89 31.49 319 N 43.92 29.38 319 S 76.72 54.09 483 E 65.93 44.82 483 W 62.57 48.30 517 E 48.45 38.70 517 W 51.36 54.66 41.91 518 Na 41.83 518 Sa 55.76 49.31 34.80 518 Nb 65.32 34.93 518 Sb 41.02 63.00574 S 41.79 78.55580 N 47.71 74.33580 Sa 48.99 580 Sb 23.98 17.17 581 N 31.37 17.56 17.80 581 S 14.43 15.62624 S 12.85 69.69 48.32 69.86 53.13 21.50 22.10 71 Sa71 Sb73 S73 N 36.59 25.83 48.36 31.09 61.58 44.31 59.89 46.24 Route Number: N - North; S - South; E - East; W - West. Letters a and b indicate route variations. differencesAll are in minutes and represent the full route time. journey A negative value indicates a journey time reduction w 70 N70 S71 N 32.22 21.22 32.66 21.54 39.82 28.23 Route

5040208/Report/Final B.1 StokeGifford_Report_v5.doc