TRANSPORTATION 8
CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 8-1 Consultation ...... 8-1 Staffordshire County Council ...... 8-1 Highways Agency ...... 8-2 Methodology ...... 8-2 Accessibility by a Choice of Transport Modes ...... 8-2 Study Area ...... 8-2 Traffic Effects ...... 8-3 Road Safety ...... 8-3 Policy Context ...... 8-3 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Adopted May 2001) 8-4 Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13: Transport ...... 8-6 Site Location and Highway Context ...... 8-6 Proposed Development ...... 8-6 Introduction ...... 8-6 Operating Periods ...... 8-7 Life of Operation ...... 8-7 Site Access ...... 8-7 Parking ...... 8-7 HGV Movements ...... 8-8 Staff Working Patterns ...... 8-9 Baseline Situation ...... 8-9 Introduction ...... 8-9 Existing Planning Permission ...... 8-9 Poplars Landfill ...... 8-10 Traffic Movements ...... 8-10 Description of Local Road Network ...... 8-13 Accident Analysis ...... 8-14 Traffice Impact Assessment ...... 8-15 Construction Phase ...... 8-15 Operational Phase ...... 8-20 Enviornmental Impact ...... 8-30 Fugitive Material ...... 8-30 Vehicle Operation ...... 8-31 Construction Traffic Management Plan ...... 8-31 Sustainability ...... 8-31 Bus ...... 8-31 Train ...... 8-32 Walking and Cycling ...... 8-32 Car Sharing ...... 8-32 Travel Plan ...... 8-32 Summary and Conclusion ...... 8-33
TRANSPORTATION 8
INTRODUCTION
8.1 This Section of the ES is a Transport Assessment (TA) which considers the impact, in traffic terms, on the adjacent highway network. It considers all of the issues relating to transport impact, including a review of the baseline situation, details of existing trips generation, baseline traffic levels and recorded accidents.
8.2 The TA assesses likely future trip generation and the likely impact caused by these trips on the transport network. Junction capacity assessments have been carries out to confirm the future operation of local junctions.
8.3 The TA is based on traffic and accident data which has been collected to provide a baseline situation. It also assesses the options for sustainable travel to the site.
8.4 This chapter takes advice from the document Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA), published by the Department for Transport in March 2007 and Staffordshire County Council‟s A-Z Guide to Planning Applications Submitted to Staffordshire County Council, March 2008 and Guidance for Transport Assessment and Travel Plans, January 2008.
8.5 Also, advice has been taken from the Supplementary Guidance1 to the Approved Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011.
8.6 It should be noted that the application site already has outline planning consent for the development of industry and warehousing, which would generate more traffic than the proposed development CONSULTATION
Staffordshire County Council
8.7 SLR met with Staffordshire County Council on 29 April 2010 where the following scope was agreed for undertaking the TA.
TA will be based on a facility accepting 400,000 tonnes of waste per annum; 100,000 tonnes of waste from the Poplars landfill would be diverted to the new ERF site access and this would be taken into account; years to be surveyed are year of opening (2014) and five years after opening (2019); traffic growth to be forecast using NRTF adjusted using Tempro; junctions to be assessed are Kingswood Lakeside roundabout, roundabout at Orbital Way/A460 Eastern Way and traffic signals at A5 Watling Street / Washbrook Lane;
1 Code of Practise for the Assessment of the Impact and Determination of Mitigation Measures arising from Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs) generated from Mineral and Waste Developments Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-1 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Construction and Operational phases of development to be assessed. ARCADY to be used for assessing roundabouts, LINSIG to be used for assessing traffic signals. Highways Agency
8.8 The proposed development would generate a number of new HGV trips on the primary highway network under the management of the Highways Agency (HA), namely the A5 Watling Street and the A460 Eastern Way. However, the application site already has planning consent for industry and warehousing (B2 and B8 uses), which would typically generate more traffic than now proposed and therefore the impact on the A5 will be no greater than already consented. The HA were consulted on this matter through a letter from SLR dated 14 May 2010 which detailed the proposals and the subsequent impact on HA maintained roads.
8.9 No response has been received at the time of writing this Section of the ES. METHODOLOGY
Accessibility by a Choice of Transport Modes
8.10 A review of the provision and quality of existing transport infrastructure for all modes of travel has been undertaken to assess the accessibility of the application site against what might be considered to be a realistic standard of provision for the type of development.
8.11 The accessibility of the application site by non-car modes of travel has been assessed against the following three criteria:-
the proximity of the nearest serviced interchanges to the application site and the opportunities for interconnecting links between the site and these interchanges; the frequency of services available from the transport interchanges; and the destinations served by the services.
8.12 The accessibility of the site by car has been considered by reference to its geographical location in the context of infrastructure serving the immediate locality as well as the wider area. Study Area
8.13 An assessment has been made of the local highway network to determine the impact that the proposed ERF could have on key junctions in the locality during the period over which the ERF would be constructed and operational. The junctions included in the assessments are:-
Orbital Way / A460 Eastern Way Roundabout; Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout; and Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-2 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
A5 Watling Street / Washbrook Lane Priority Junction.
8.14 Drawing KW 8/1 shows the application site in the context of the local highway network.
Traffic Effects
8.15 The potential effects of the calculated development trip attraction have been considered in terms of the change in the current operation of junctions local to the application site.
8.16 The baseline traffic situation includes traffic growth based on national traffic forecasts which have been adjusted using TEMPRO data to provide local growth estimates. The resultant base situation therefore implicitly assumes a level of background traffic growth that incorporates an allowance for future development in the area.
8.17 As noted in Section 2 of this Volume, the application site has planning permission for B1/B2/B8 development, and as such has an existing permitted level of traffic generation. The traffic effects of the proposed ERF have been assessed against that of the application site if it were developed in accordance with its extant planning permission.
8.18 A qualitative assessment of the environmental impacts of site traffic has then been undertaken having particular regard to impacts caused by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).
Road Safety
8.19 The potential effects of the calculated development traffic flows in the context of highway safety has been undertaken with regard to the existing pattern of accidents within the agreed study area.
8.20 Based on the existing pattern of accidents, an evaluation has been undertaken to establish if the calculated development traffic flows would lead to an increased safety risk to road users. POLICY CONTEXT
8.21 The following paragraphs provide a review of the local and national transport policies that are relevant to the proposed development. In addition, it should be noted that Section 4 of this Volume also considers the policy basis against which the EIA has been undertaken.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-3 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Adopted May 2001)
Policy T10 Freight Transport
8.22 Policy T10 states:
Priority will be given to reducing the environmental impact of long distance freight movements by:
(a) the safeguarding of existing and disused rail lines and sidings which could be used by freight traffic in the future, following consultation with the rail industry and within available resources; (b) seeking, in conjunction with rail operators, the maintenance of or provision of rail freight terminals taking into account the impact on the local environment; (c) supporting proposals to increase the movement of freight by pipelines, canals and rivers, which do not have significant detrimental effects on the local environment or recreational activities; (d) improving, where appropriate, local roads which serve freight terminals and distribution depots; (e) using traffic management measures to concentrate road freight on the Strategic Highway Network, away from town centres and residential areas; (f) giving priority to locating new developments which are likely to generate significant amounts of heavy goods traffic, in areas where there is good access to the rail network; (g) locating developments generating significant amounts of goods traffic with easy access by an appropriate route to the Strategic Highway Network avoiding residential or environmentally sensitive areas, when rail access is not available or appropriate.
8.23 The proposed development would not generate significant levels of traffic and would have no impact over the permitted situation. That said, the applicant will endeavour to ensure that road trips will be suitably managed to minimise environmental impact. This is likely to be through use of a routing agreement, which could be secured through a Section 106 agreement. Policy T13 Local Roads
8.24 Policy T13 of the Structure Plan states:
The priorities for local roads will be to:
(a) improve safety for all users; (b) improve facilities for people with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists and buses; (c) reduce the impact of motor vehicular traffic on people and environmentally sensitive areas.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-4 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
8.25 The proposed development would have no impact on the above priorities. Safety, accessibility and the environment in sensitive areas would not be significantly affected by the development proposals.
T16 Car Parking
8.26 This policy states:
Maximum standards for off-street parking provision will be set in local plans and these standards shall take into account national standards or any regional standards that may be specified. Policy and standards for both on and off-street parking should be consistent across the area of Staffordshire and Stoke subject to regard being had for the need to:
(a) meet demand management and traffic reduction policies; (b) reduce demand for travel by the private motor vehicle; (c) encourage users of new and existing developments to travel by modes other than the private motor vehicle; (d) make provision for parking for users with disabilities; (e) avoid traffic, environmental and safety problems caused by on-street parking; (f) ensure that non-operational parking requirements reflect the availability or potential availability of alternative modes of travel; (g) maximise the potential for park and ride facilities where these are deemed appropriate.
8.27 Parking at the proposed development would be provided in accordance with the planning authorities adopted guidelines. No over-provision of parking spaces would be provided for the private car.
T18A Transport and Development
8.28 This policy states:
Development will not normally be permitted if it would cause demonstrable harm to the function of the transport network. Prior to new developments being permitted that are likely to create significant movement demand, undertakings will be sought to secure appropriate operational standards on the transport network following the preparation of Transport Assessments. The undertakings may involve:
(a) preparation and implementation of ‘Green Transport Plans’ which make alternative forms of transport to the private motor vehicle more attractive to users of relevant developments; (b) provision of appropriate infrastructure, services and facilities related to the developments to support modes of travel such as walking, cycling and public transport but also, where relevant, highway works or parking provision in order to maintain an acceptable level of service in the transport system.
8.29 The proposed development would have very little impact on the functionality of the highway network. This is particularly the case given that the proposed Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-5 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
development would generate less traffic than that already permitted for the site.
T18B Operational Requirements for Employment Developments
8.30 Policy T18B states:
Developers of industrial and commercial sites will be expected to provide adequate off-street loading and unloading facilities with suitable access from adjoining highways. Operators of heavy goods vehicles should provide adequate parking and servicing facilities off the highway to serve the number of vehicles to be operated from the given site. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 13: Transport
8.31 PPG13‟s objectives are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and moving freight2.
SITE LOCATION AND HIGHWAY CONTEXT
8.32 The application site forms part of the Kingwood Lakeside Employment Park (KLEP). In particular, the application site falls within the first phase of the development, being located within an area referred to as “Zone C”. To the south of the application site runs Orbital Way, which is the main east-west link through the employment park connecting with the A460 Eastern Way to the west and A5 Watling Street to the east.
8.33 Immediately west of the application site is the Leacroft Lake and to the north is the applicants‟ Poplars landfill site. To the northeast lies Zone D of the employment park, which is occupied by very large B8 (distribution and warehousing) buildings operated by Unilever and 3663.
8.34 Drawing KW8/1 shows the location of the application site in the context of the surrounding highways network, whilst Section 2 of this Volume provides a more comprehensive description of the application site and its environs. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
8.35 The proposed development for which planning permission is being sought has been described in detail in Section 3 above. The main features pertinent to transport and highways are summarised below:
2 Extract from PPG13 (Summary) Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-6 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
the import of 400,000 tonnes of residual non-hazardous waste per annum predominantly from Staffordshire and West Midlands conurbation to an „Energy Recovery Facility‟ (ERF); an Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) recycling facility; the export of process wastes; ancillary offices and welfare facilities, including car parking spaces; visitor centre; and an upgraded site access onto the top end of Cley Road.
8.36 In addition to the waste stream accepted at the ERF, some 100,000t per annum of non combustible residual waste would continue to be deposited within the adjoining Poplars Landfill site. Access to the landfill would be gained via the new access to the ERF, with HGVs using the new weighbridge infrastructure and a new internal access road to the active tipping area.
8.37 In view of this, a large proportion of the HGV traffic currently associated with the Poplars landfill site would be diverted from the current entrance to the entrance for the ERF off Blakeney Way. HGVs visiting the new AD facility would continue to use the existing Poplars entrance. This rearrangement of access to the landfill would alleviate pressure on the Lichfield Road roundabout from which the landfill site is currently accessed. Operating Periods
8.38 The ERF process would operate on a twenty-four hour basis seven days per week. However, it is expected that the majority of waste would be delivered between the hours of 0700 and 1900. The KLEP is not subject to any operational hours restrictions and so none are proposed for the ERF. By its nature, waste traffic delivering to the ERF would not tend to coincide with peak rush hour periods. Life of Operation
8.39 The ERF facility is expected to have an operating life of at least 25 years. Site Access
8.40 Access to the application site is currently provided in the form of an informal junction off the end of Cley Road on the eastern edge of the application site. This junction would be upgraded to the local highway authority standard as part of the development proposals. Access to the current landfill site is via a five arm roundabout at the junction of Lichfield Road and the A460 (Eastern Way). Parking
8.41 Parking facilities would be provided at the site for motorists and cyclists. The proposals include the provision of 48 parking spaces in total, four of which (8%) would be designed for disabled staff and visitors only and would be located closest to the entrance to the facility. These parking spaces would be Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-7 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
for use by staff and those attending the visitor centre. This level of parking provision is similar to other facilities around the country. An EfW in Huddersfield, for example, also has around 48 parking spaces.
8.42 Parking for cyclists would be in the form of ten „Sheffield‟ cycle stands which would be located in a secure location and undercover. These stands provide a high degree of security by allowing the cyclist to lock their bicycle frame and both wheels to the stand. Whilst ten stands are proposed, these could potentially accommodate up to twenty bicycles. HGV Movements
8.43 The proposed ERF would manage approximately 400,000 tonnes of residual waste material every year. This would comprise non hazardous commercial and industrial wastes, but could also include residual municipal waste, dependant on Local Authority contracts. Waste would be transported to the application site either directly by refuse collection vehicle (RCV) or by bulkers from waste transfer stations. This mirrors current practice at the landfill site.
8.44 Other inputs to the ERF would be reagents used in the air cleaning process, such as sodium bicarbonate and activated carbon. The requirements for this equate to 2% of the waste input. Consequently, in the case of the proposed development lime input is anticipated to equate to 8,000 tonnes a year.
8.45 Output from the facility would comprise Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA), Air Pollution Control Residues (APCR), which are bi-products of the incineration process, and metals. IBA output is generally equivalent to 25% of the waste input which, in the case of the proposed development, equates to 100,000 tonnes per annum. APCR‟s are produced at a ratio equivalent to 3% of waste input, equal to 12,000 tonnes per annum. Finally, metals are recovered from the IBA and account for between 2% to 5% of the waste input (i.e. 8,000 tonnes to 20,000 tonnes per annum).
8.46 The transportation of reagents, IBA and APCR‟s is anticipated to occur within articulated vehicles (usually bulk powder tankers) having typical payloads of 22 tonnes. Metals would similarly be exported in bulk.
8.47 The ERF is intended to divert non-hazardous wastes from being deposited within landfill sites in line with Government policy. Based on an analysis of wastes deposited within Poplars landfill, it is estimated that between 75,000 tonnes and 100,000 tonnes of waste would not be suitable for the proposed ERF, and would thus still need to be deposited within the landfill. For the purposes of this assessment therefore, it is assumed that 100,000 tonnes of non-combustible residual waste would use the ERF entrance to gain access to the landfill site.
8.48 Paragraph 8.120 below considers further the HGV movements associated with the proposed development proposals.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-8 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Staff Working Patterns
8.49 Experience suggests that the proposed ERF would generate about 40 jobs in order to maintain a 24 hour operation. Of this number, it is anticipated that 16 staff would be employed as day workers, with the remaining 24 employees undertaking shift work.
8.50 The term day-workers refers to those employees whose contracted hours would be 08:00 to 17:00 hours Monday to Friday. Shift workers, however, would be those employees undertaking one of three shifts which are anticipated to commence at 0700, 1400 and 2200 hours.
8.51 Employees are expected to arrive in the 30 minute periods before and after their respective working hours. Therefore, the majority of staff movements occur outside of the busiest times on the road network.
8.52 A more detailed assessment of waste throughput of the ERF facility together with the associated vehicle trip attraction is provided in the sub-section entitled „Future Trip Generation‟. BASELINE SITUATION
Introduction
8.53 This sub-section provides information on the baseline environment with regard to the highway network. In particular, it examines the implications of the extant planning permission, existing traffic movements, traffic accidents and finally provides a description of the local road network. Existing Planning Permission
8.54 Outline planning permission for a proposed employment park (the KLEP) with B1, B2 and B8 uses was granted by Cannock Chase Council in 2002 (planning permission ref. CH/99/0123). This outline permission, and any associated conditions, therefore forms the baseline against which any new highways impacts associated with the proposed ERF are to be assessed.
8.55 The outline planning application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement which included a Transport Assessment3. Consideration has been given to the KLEP Transport Assessment within this Section.
8.56 Section 2 of the planning permission contains site specific conditions, one of which refers to the provision of a Green Travel Plan and is worded as follows:
Any reserved matters submission for the siting and/or design of a proposed B1, B2 or B8 unit must be accompanied by a Green Travel Plan. The submitted Green travel Plan shall indicate the mechanisms by which the
3 Produced by Halcrow Fox, March 1999. Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-9 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
operators of the proposed unit will attempt to minimise the level of motorised journeys in relation to the proposed use.
Poplars Landfill
8.57 The Poplars Landfill is situated to the north of, and contiguous with, the application site.
8.58 There are no traffic or operating hours restrictions on the current landfill planning consent. The applicant has provided figures for overall vehicle movements through the weighbridges at the Poplars site that show an average of 200 deliveries per day during weekdays, with around 100 deliveries per day on Saturdays and Sundays. These numbers include internal movements from the Civic Amenity site to the landfill. Site traffic is reasonably even through the day, with the peaks being between 1100hrs and 1200hrs, and 1300hrs and 1400hrs, i.e. outside of normal highway peak periods. During the busiest periods in the morning and in the afternoon, the maximum site traffic flow is 21 HGV deliveries per hour. During rush hour periods, traffic levels are 15 HGV deliveries in the morning peak (0745hrs – 0845hrs) and 4 deliveries in the evening peak (1645hrs – 1745hrs)4. Traffic Movements
Current Situation
8.59 Baseline traffic data was collected on Wednesday 15 July 2009 by Nationwide Data Collection (NDC), a specialist company which provides data collection services for transport planning, traffic engineering and market research. The surveys undertaken by NDC are shown in Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Traffic Surveys Location Date Type Periods Eastern Way Rbt 15July 2009 MTC 0730 - 0930, 1630 - 1830 Lakeside Rbt 15 July 2009 MTC 0730 - 0930, 1630 - 1830 A5 / Washbrook Lane 15 July 2009 MTC 0730 - 0930, 1630 - 1830 Orbital Way 11-17 July 2009 ATC 24-hour MTC: Manual Traffic Count ATC: Automated Traffic Count
8.60 The above surveys also included the recording of vehicle queue lengths, which have been used for validation purposes.
8.61 From the above traffic surveys, it has been identified that the current highway peak hours are:
0745 hrs – 0845 hrs; and 1645 hrs – 1745 hrs
4 Information taken from „Poplars Anaerobic Digestion Facility Environmental Statement, July 2009‟, produced by Enviros Consulting Limited for Biffa Waste Services Limited. Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-10 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
8.62 Figure 8-1 illustrates the 2009 baseline traffic flows.
Figure 8-1 2009 Baseline Traffic Flows
1333(1103) Site Access
278(262) 2(9) 20(34)
4(11)
2(3) 1(0) 33(12) 18(14) 143(314) Orbital Way
16(8) 166(501)
905(1475)
125(94)
13(24) 254(248)
A460 Eastern Way 5(8)
174(155)
Lane
Washbrook 188(390) 113(60) 52(135) 991(1108) A5 Watling Street
AM Peak (PM Peak) 125(199) 1144(1122)
8.63 The traffic survey data, in its raw state, is included in Appendix 8/1.
Permitted Trip Generation
8.64 In accordance with the extant planning permission, the application site could potentially be developed with 36,000m2 of office, industrial or warehousing development. In order to determine the amount of traffic this size and type of development could generate, the agreed development trip rates, as contained in the Transport Assessment produced by Halcrow Fox for the KLEP development, have been applied to the gross floor area of the proposed development. The agreed trip rates are show in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2 Agreed Development Trips Rates for Kingswood Lakeside
Trip Rates / AM Peak PM Peak 100m2 GFA IN OUT IN OUT B1 Office 1.62 0.18 0.22 1.28 B2 Industry 0.80 0.20 0.18 0.72 B8 Warehousing 0.45 0.15 0.11 0.34
8.65 The planning application for the KLEP envisaged an even split between B1, B2 and B8 developments. To date, the KLEP has already been partially developed with B1 and B8 development and therefore, a conservative view could be that the application site could potentially be fully developed with B2 development. However, it is noted that the apportionment of B1, B2 and B8
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-11 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
would be subject to market demand, and thus, given the proximity of the M6 Toll junctions, it is more probable that a higher proportion of B8 development would occur.
8.66 The B2/B8 trip rates in Table 8-2 have been applied to the GFA of 36,000m2 and therefore the trips shown in Table 8-3 are permitted to be generated.
Table 8-3 Maximum Permitted Traffic Generation (Based on B2 and B8) for the Application Site Use Period Arrivals Departures B2 AM 288 72 B2 PM 65 259 B8 AM 162 54 B8 PM 40 122
8.67 Table 8-3 shows that the application site has permission to potentially generate up to 360 two-way trips in the AM peak and 324 trips in the PM peak if it was to be developed under the B2 land use category. If it was developed as B8 it could generate 216 trips in the AM peak and 162 trips in the PM peak.
8.68 The distribution of the above trips on the local highway network has previously been agreed between Halcrow Fox and the local highway authority. The distribution assumes that, from the site, 75% of the traffic would travel to the Orbital Way / A460 roundabout, with the remaining 25% travelling towards the A5. No agreement has been made with regard to traffic distribution at the A5, as this was outside of the study area for the KLEP scheme. However, it is assumed that the 25% would all turn left at the A5 to head east.
8.69 The distribution agreed at the Orbital Way / A460 roundabout is 23% turning right (heading north) and 52% turning left (heading south).
8.70 The above trips would be distributed on the highway network as shown in Figure 8-2.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-12 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Figure 8-2 Permitted Traffic Generation for the Application Site
134(18)
16(115)
49(345)
437(59) Orbital Way
15(106) 213(20)
303(41)
A460 Eastern Way 34(239)
Lane
Washbrook
16(115)
A5 Watling Street AM Peak (PM Peak)
16(115)
Description of Local Road Network
A460 Eastern Way / Orbital Way Roundabout
8.71 The Eastern Way / Orbital Way roundabout would serve as the main point of access to the primary road network to the west.
8.72 This is a normal roundabout with a diameter of approximately 60 metres. It has a three-lane circulatory carriageway to accommodate the traffic from the three-lane approaches on the A460 and Orbital Way. The A460 approaches have anti-skid surfacing to provide high skid resistance. The roundabout is constructed to modern highway standards.
Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout
8.73 The Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout is located on Orbital Way and would be used to access the road off which the development would be served.
8.74 There are four arms (roads) entering this roundabout although one of these is constructed as a stub only to provide future access to the undeveloped area of land to the southeast of Orbital Way.
8.75 This is a normal 30m roundabout built to modern highway standards. It is lit with lighting columns and has anti-skid surfacing on all three constructed arms. There are pedestrian crossing facilities provided in the form of dropped kerbs and tactile paving on two of the arms only (Orbital Way westbound and the road leading from the north).
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-13 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
8.76 It is noted that there is a footway along one side of the road only leading to the application site for approximately 75m. However, crossing points are then introduced at two locations along the road should staff/visitors wish to travel to the site by public transport or on foot.
Washbrook Lane / Norton Hall Lane Roundabout
8.77 The main purpose of this roundabout is to serve as a route to/from Norton Canes, linking the village to the primary road network. It is located at the north-eastern end of the bridge which crosses the M6 Toll Road.
8.78 It is a „normal‟ roundabout designed and constructed to modern highway standards. The roundabout has anti-skid surfacing on all approaches and is in a good state of repair.
A5 / Washbrook Lane Priority Junction
8.79 This junction would serve as the main point of access to the primary road network to the east.
8.80 The junction is at the south-western end of the bridge over the M6 Toll and forms a signal controlled junction with the A5.
8.81 The junction has been constructed to modern highway standards and has entry and exit tapers to assist HGVs. However, some of the road markings are worn and will require re-laying.
Road Network Conclusion
8.82 The road network local to the application site is relatively new and as such is constructed to a good modern standard and is in a good state of repair. The road network from the primary road is of a standard and design which is suitable for HGVs. Other than the site access junction itself, there are no improvement works necessary to allow the construction and operation of the proposed ERF facility to proceed. Accident Analysis
8.83 Accident data was obtained from Staffordshire County Council for the period 1/5/04 to 30/4/09. The data yielded 15 accidents, all of which resulted in slight injuries.
8.84 The accident study area consisted of Orbital Way/Blakeney Way between the A460 and the A5. However, the accidents were recorded as having taken place at two distinct areas within the study area:
within 0.3km of the A460 / Orbital Way roundabout; and within 0.3km of the A5 / Orbital Way priority junction.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-14 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
8.85 A summary of each of the 15 accidents is provided in Appendix 8/2. A plot showing the accident locations is presented in Drawing KW 8/2.
Conclusion of Accident Analysis
8.86 It appears from the Police reports that all the accidents recorded within the study area were a result of driver error. The majority of the accidents are typical of the accidents that occur at roundabouts and priority junctions (i.e. rear shunts) and are usually the results of motorists driving without due care and attention. From the analysis undertaken, there is no reason to believe that a relatively small number of waste HGVs would give rise to road safety concerns. Therefore, it can be concluded that there would be no material impact on existing accident rates on the local highway. TRAFFICE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Construction Phase
Introduction
8.87 This sub-section assesses the impact on existing traffic as a result of constructing the proposed ERF. The assessment includes a comparison of construction traffic against existing traffic flows. It also includes capacity assessments of the key local junctions.
Elements of Construction and Associated Workforce
8.88 Construction of the ERF is anticipated to occur over a 36 month programme commencing in 2011 and ending in c. 2014.
8.89 It is anticipated that construction operations would require the deployment of up to 250 construction workers and trades people. It is likely that there would be an element of shift working which would mean that a maximum of 200 workers would be on site at any one time.
Construction Traffic
8.90 A number of assumptions have been made in predicting the number of traffic movements during the construction of the ERF facility. These assumptions are summarised below:
some construction workers would travel to the application site together in vans. However, given the location of the application site, and for the purpose of being robust, it is assumed that the majority of trips to the site would be by single-occupancy car or van. the 200 construction workers would travel to the site separately by car;
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-15 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
half of the construction workers would arrive at the site during the AM peak hour (0745-0845) and depart during the PM peak hour (1645 and 1745). a nominal 50 HGV trips would be generated daily in association with the construction process. It is not possible to predict when these trips would be generated during the working day and therefore it has been assumed for robustness that they would all be generated during the peak hours (25 arrivals and 25 departures in each peak hour). the distribution of construction worker trips (i.e. cars/vans) would be commensurate with existing light vehicle movements. The distribution has been based on traffic survey data provided by NDC.
8.91 The distribution of HGV traffic associated with the construction process cannot be defined in detail for this assessment as this would be dependent upon the contractor‟s choice of workforce. However, it is likely that the HGV traffic would be distributed 50/50 at Orbital Way to access the primary road network at the A460 and the A5.
8.92 It is therefore expected that construction phase traffic, as an absolute worst case, would be assigned to the highway network as shown in Figures 8-3 and 8-4.
Figure 8-3 AM Construction Traffic
0 (12)
Site Access 48 (3)
100 (12) 0 (6) 0 (6) A460 Eastern A460 Way
Orbital Way 70 (6)
0 (3) 30 (6)
0 (3) 22 (3)
0 (6) Washbrook A5 Watling Street Lane Cars (HGVs) 30 (6)
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-16 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Figure 8-4 PM Construction Traffic
100 (12)
Site Access 0 (3)
0 (12) 52 (6) 48 (6) A460 Eastern Way Eastern A460 0 (6) Orbital Way
38 (3) 0 (6)
14 (3) 0 (3)
48 (6) Washbrook A5 Watling Street Lane Cars (HGVs) 0 (6)
8.93 As described above, the development traffic flows shown in Figures 8-2 and 8-3 constitute the worst case and have been used for capacity assessment purposes. In reality, the construction traffic would be spread through the day, and therefore, the traffic flows during the peak periods would be far less pronounced than those shown above.
Traffic Impact
8.94 Previously in this Section it has been explained that the application site has a permitted level of traffic generation.
8.95 Table 8-4 shows the difference between the permitted traffic generation (based on B2 use) and the traffic that would be generated by the proposed ERF during the construction period.
Table 8-4 Difference between Permitted Development Traffic and Proposed Construction Traffic Difference Between Permitted Devel. Predicted ERF Junction Permitted and ERF Traffic Const. traffic Construction Traffic AM PM AM PM AM PM A460 / Orbital Way 270 244 83 65 -187 -179 Rbt Kingswood 360 324 125 125 -235 -199 Lakeside Rbt
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-17 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Difference Between Permitted Devel. Predicted ERF Junction Permitted and ERF Traffic Const. traffic Construction Traffic A5 / Washbrook 90 81 43 61 -47 -20 Lane
8.96 Table 8-4 confirms that there would be no impact on the local road network during the construction of the ERF. This is because the construction of the proposed ERF is predicted to generate significantly less traffic than if the site was developed to its full potential under its existing planning permission.
Junction Capacity Assessments
8.97 Junction capacity assessments have been undertaken for the year 2013, as this is likely to be the peak construction year.
8.98 Capacity assessments for the two roundabouts described under paragraph 8.13 have been undertaken using the ARCADY5 (Assessment of Roundabout CApacity and DelaY) computer program. ARCADY is used for predicting capacities, queue lengths, delays (both queuing and geometric) and accident risk at roundabouts.
8.99 Capacity assessments for the A5 / Washbrook Lane priority junction has been undertaken using the LINSIG computer program. LINSIG is used for predicting capacities, queue lengths and delays at stand-alone signalised junctions. Traffic Growth
8.100 In order to establish 2013 baseline traffic flows, traffic growth has been applied using uplift factors derived from the National Transport Model (NTM)6, and then adjusted using TEMPRO7 local growth factors. The calculation of traffic growth uplifts has been undertaken in full accordance with The TEMPRO Guidance Note dated 4th May 2006.
8.101 The resultant traffic growth uplift factors are contained in Table 8-5. The factors apply to both AM and PM peak hours.
Table 8-5 Traffic Growth Factors Period NTM TEMPRO TEMPRO Resultant Growth Car Driver Driver Factor (Cannock Main) Car Driver (GB) AM PM AM PM AM PM 2009 - 2013 1.06 1.025 1.020 1.046 1.046 1.039 1.034
5 Published by the Transport Research Laboratory 6 A disaggregated multi-modal model of land-based transport in Great Britain. 7 A DfT program providing forecast data on trips for transport planning purposes. Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-18 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
ARCADY Results
8.102 ARCADY results are measured as a Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) and queue lengths (vehicles). A roundabout operating with an RFC of 1.00 is considered to be operating at its maximum capacity. A roundabout with an RFC of 0.85 or less is considered to operate satisfactorily. Anything over 0.85 would normally result in mitigation being required to improve capacity, e.g. road widening or an increase in flare length.
8.103 The following tables provide the ARCADY results for the two roundabouts for the year 2013. Table 8-6 Predicted Queues and Capacities at Orbital Way / A460 Roundabout in 2013 Rbt Approach AM Peak PM Peak RFC Queue RFC Queue Eastern Way N 0.666 2 0.588 1 Side Road 0.056 0 0.060 0 Eastern Way S 0.475 1 0.696 2 Orbital Way 0.226 0 0.788 4
8.104 Table 8-6 indicates that in 2013, the construction traffic would not raise any operational concerns at the Orbital Way / A460 Eastern Way roundabout
Table 8-7 Predicted Queues and Capacities at Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout in 2013 Rbt Approach AM Peak PM Peak RFC Queue RFC Queue A - Orbital Way W 0.225 0 0.254 0 B- Site Access Road 0.031 0 0.133 0 C -Orbital Way E 0.234 0 0.210 0
8.105 Table 8-7 indicates that the Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout would operate satisfactorily and with ample spare capacity in 2013.
8.106 The ARCADY computer output can be found in Appendix 8/5. LINSIG Results
8.107 LINSIG results are measured as degree of saturation (DoS) and queue lengths (passenger car units). A signalised junction operating with a DoS of 100% is considered to be operating at its maximum theoretical capacity. A signalised junction with a Reserve Capacity of 90% or less is considered to operate satisfactorily. Anything over 90% would normally result in mitigation being required to improve capacity, e.g. road widening or changes to the signal timings.
8.108 Information provided by the Highways Agency has confirmed that this signalised junction operates using Microprocessed Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) and therefore alters the signal timings to reflect traffic flows, thereby continually operating in the optimum manner. With regard to Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-19 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
this, the LINSIG model has been optimised to provide the maximum available capacity.
8.109 The junction was modelled using LINSIG version 2, which suffers from an inability to model junctions that contain a short right-hand turning lane controlled by a unique phase. To overcome this problem, the short right turning lane at this junction was modelled as being infinitely long and the predicted Mean Max Queue length was cross-checked with the highway geometry to ensure that the predicted queues for traffic turning right into Washbrook Lane did not exceed the available capacity of 8 passenger car units.
8.110 The following table provides the LINSIG results at the signalised junction during the construction phase.
Table 8-8 Predicted Queues and Capacities at A5 / Washbrook Lane Junction in 2014 Junction Approach AM Peak PM Peak DoS (%) Max Q (pcu) DoS (%) Max Q (pcu) A5 w/bound (ahead) 48.0 16.5 43.7 14.0 A5 w/bound (right) 16.1 4.4 71.7 6.2 Washbrook Lane 64.9 7.7 70.7 7.6 A5 e/bound (left / ahead) 63.9 11.5 72.5 14.1 A5 e/bound (ahead) 58.5 10.9 65.5 13.2
8.111 Table 8-8 indicates that this junction is expected to operate within its capacity capabilities at all times during the construction phase of the development with a DoS no greater than 73%.
8.112 The LINSIG computer output can be found in Appendix 8/4.
Construction Phase Conclusion
8.113 The above capacity assessments confirm that the construction of the proposed ERF would not result in any operational issues at junctions on the local highway network. Operational Phase
Introduction
8.114 This sub-section assesses the impact on existing traffic as a result of introducing the proposed ERF. The assessment includes a comparison of operational traffic against existing traffic flows. It also includes capacity assessments of the key local junctions.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-20 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Traffic Generation
8.115 The proposed development would result in two types of traffic being generated:
staff and visitors traffic consisting of cars, small vans, motorcycles etc; and waste traffic (including residual waste destined for the landfill) consisting of RCVs, “Ro-Ro” bulkers and articulated bulkers.
8.116 The following describes the anticipated traffic movements associated with these vehicle types.
Staff Traffic
8.117 The proposed ERF would employ up to 40 staff. These would arrive in the 30-minutes preceding and following the operational working hours.
8.118 Considering the limited opportunities to travel to the site via non-car transport modes, it would be reasonable to assume that all staff would travel to the site by car. However, whereas it is probable that some people would combine their journey to work through car sharing, bus or cycle, this assessment is based on a worst case situation that journeys to work would be single occupancy car trips. The daily profile of staff trips is shown below in Table 8- 9.
Table 8-9 Daily Staff Trip Profile
Time In Out Two-Way 0000 0 0100 0 0200 0 0300 0 0400 0 0500 25 25 0600 10 10 0700 16 10 26 0745 0 0845 0 1000 0 1100 0 1200 0 1300 10 10 1400 10 10 1500 0 1600 16 16 1645 25 25 1745 0 1900 0 2000 0 Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-21 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Time In Out Two-Way 2100 10 10 2200 10 10 2300 0 *shift worker numbers rounded for robustness.
8.119 The rows highlighted with bold typeface in Table 8-9 indicate the highway peak hours. It can be seen that no staff are predicted to be travelling during the AM peak hour and that 25 cars are expected to depart from the site during the PM peak hour.
Waste Traffic
8.120 The trip generation of the ERF has been calculated on a first principles basis, taking account of the input and output of the facility, the delivery times, and typical vehicle payloads.
8.121 Paragraph 8.35 above has described the tonnages of materials imported and exported from the proposed ERF on an annual basis. Waste would be imported to the ERF would in a range of vehicle types, including direct delivery by refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) and articulated HGVs transporting bulk imports from waste transfer facilities. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been assumed, based on an analysis of gate receipts from the Poplars Landfill site, that waste would be imported in vehicles with an average payload of 13 tonnes.
8.122 In addition to the waste delivered to the ERF, around 100,000 tonnes of waste would be delivered to the adjoining landfill site, using the new access infrastructure. Based on an analysis of gate receipts, the average payload would be 18 tonnes.
8.123 In c. 2014 when the proposed ERF becomes operational, the anaerobic digestion (AD) facility at the landfill site will be accepting potentially 120,000 tonnes of waste per annum.. The AD plant is due to come on stream in early 2011. There would be no traffic impact created by the introduction of the AD facility. The effects of the AD facility are discussed further under paragraph Error! Reference source not found. below.
8.124 When the ERF becomes operational, approximately 100,000 tonnes of waste would continue to be imported to the Poplars Landfill per annum. However, instead of using the existing access, inputs to the landfill would be via the proposed new access (i.e. via Orbital Way/Blakeney Way). The traffic generated by this 100,000 tonnes of waste are „diverted trips‟ (trips already on the network but travelling via a different route). However, for the purpose of this assessment, they have been considered „new‟ trips as they would be new to the road network being assessed.
8.125 In respect of IBA and APCR output, the assessment assumes vehicle payloads of 22 tonnes.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-22 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
8.126 The intention is that the site would be capable of undertaking all operations 24 hours per day, seven days per week for 365 days per year. However, allowance has been made for the site to close during bank holidays and therefore it assumed that the facility is operational 356 days per year. The traffic that would be generated during the peak hours has been based on a daily trip profile of landfills in the UK which has been extracted from the TRICS database. The resultant ERF trip generation is in Table 8-10. Table 8-10 Anticipated ERF Traffic (HGVs) Average 2-way trips Traffic Annual Vehicle Source Tonnage Payload Annual Daily AM Peak PM Peak Imports Waste to 400,000 13 61,538 173 17 2 ERF Waste to 100,000 18 11,111 31 3 0 landfill Reagent 10,000 22 909 3 2 0
Exports APCR 12,000 22 1,091 3 0 0 Bottom 100,000 22 9,091 26 3 3 Ash Metal 20,000 22 1,818 5 1 1 Totals 85,559 240 26 6
8.127 Table 8-10 shows that the proposed development would generate in the order of 240 two-way trips per day, 120 arrivals and 120 departures.
8.128 As demonstrated through TRICS, only 10% of the daily traffic flow at landfills is generated during the AM peak hour, so in the context of the proposed ERF, 26 two-way trips would be generated in the AM peak, which is approximately one HGV every two minutes. Due to the nature of the development, i.e. being predominantly a morning operation, HGV trips that would be generated in the PM peak hour reduce significantly to just 6 two- way movements, which equates to 1% of the daily traffic generation.
HGV Timings
8.129 The proposed ERF facility would operate 24 hours a day seven days per week. It is assumed that the facility would not accept waste on Bank Holidays. It has been confirmed by the applicant that, based on the existing Poplars landfill, peak hours are currently 1100 – 1200 and 1300 – 1400; a maximum of 20 inputs (40 two-way trips) are generated during each of these time periods.
8.130 To confirm the accuracy of the data provided by the applicant the TRICS database has been used to investigate the pattern of deliveries to landfill sites within the UK. The TRICS database does not contain trip data relating to ERF sites. However, for the purpose of this assessment, HGV trips to landfill serve an equal purpose (i.e. disposal of residual waste). Figure 8-5
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-23 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
graphically represents the movement of waste imports throughout a typical working day. The TRICS output used to create the profile is included at Appendix 8/3.
Figure 8-5 Profile of Daily Waste Imports
8.131 Figure 8-5 shows that the traffic generated by the existing Poplars site is typical of Landfills throughout the UK and therefore, data obtained through the Poplars landfill is suitable for assessment purposes.
8.132 In terms of highway network peaks, approximately 10% of all daily HGV movements take place during the AM peak period of 0745 - 0845 and approximately 1% takes place during the PM peak period of 1645 - 1745.
Trip Distribution
8.133 The distribution of staff traffic has been assumed to be commensurate with current traffic patterns.
8.134 The distribution of waste traffic has been provided by the applicant. Figure 8- 6 shows the distribution of waste traffic on the road network.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-24 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Figure 8-6 Distribution of Waste Vehicles
100%
Site Access
50% 50% A460 Eastern Way Eastern A460
Orbital Way
10%
40% 50%
A5 Watling Street
Washbrook Lane
8.135 Based on the development trips shown in Table 8-10 and the distribution shown in Figure 8-6, Figure 8-7 illustrates the ERF trips (waste only) that would be assigned to the highway network.
Figure 8-7 Peak Hour Development Traffic (Waste Vehicles)
14 (4)
Site Access 4 (1)
7 (2) 7 (2)
A460 Eastern Way Eastern A460 7 (2) Orbital Way
4 (1) 7 (2)
4 (1)
4 (1) 7 (2) Washbrook A5 Watling Street Lane AM (PM)
7 (2)
8.136 The traffic flows in Figure 8-7 have been rounded up to avoid „half trips‟, which also adds to the robustness of this assessment.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-25 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Employee Trips
8.137 As noted above, the ERF facility would employ in the region of 40 operational staff. The origins of such staff are unknown at present and therefore it has been assumed that the distribution of employee traffic is the same as that of existing traffic movements.
Traffic Impact
8.138 As noted above, the application site has a permitted level of traffic generation.
8.139 Table 8-11 shows the difference between the permitted traffic generation and the traffic that would be generated by the proposed ERF facility during the operational period.
Table 8-11 Difference between Permitted Development Traffic and ERF Operational Traffic Peak Hour
Difference Between Permitted Predicted ERF Junction Permitted and ERF Development Traffic Operational traffic Traffic AM PM AM PM AM PM A460 / Orbital Way 270 244 16 4 -254 -240 Rbt Kingswood 360 324 28 8 -332 -316 Lakeside Rbt A5 / Washbrook 90 81 14 4 -76 -77 Lane
Daily
Vehicle type Two way vehicle trip comparison ERF B8 use B2 use (general (warehousing) industrial) Cars/light vehicles 80 888 2,192 HGVs 240 1100 200 Total 320 1,988 2,392 (355 with diverted landfill traffic)
8.140 Table 8-11 confirms that there would be no impact on the local road network during the operation of the ERF. This is because the operation of the proposed ERF is predicted to generate significantly less traffic than if the site was developed to its full potential under its existing planning permission. The ERF would actually have a reduced impact on the local highway network; in traffic terms, this provides an overall benefit over a site which could potentially be occupied by, e.g. a general industrial or warehousing development generating a much greater number of vehicle trips. Moreover,
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-26 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
there would be a reduction in the number of HGVs using the existing access off the A460/Lichfield Road roundabout.
Effects of Proposed AD Facility at Poplars
8.141 Biffa has planning permission for an AD facility with an 80,000 tonnes per year capacity, which is currently under construction and due to come on stream early 2011. Biffa has recently submitted a separate planning application to increase this capacity to 120,000 tonnes per year. The facility will be in place before the ERF facility at Kingswood. The transport implications of the AD facility have been considered by SKM Enviros as part of that planning application.
8.142 The consented 80Ktpa AD facility was accepted as having no additional traffic impact due to its purpose being to divert current food waste streams from the landfill. It has been calculated by SKM Enviros that the proposed additional AD capacity would generate an additional 22 two-way traffic movements per day. However, this is offset by the cessation of previous composting, wood waste and C&D waste recycling operations, which generated approximately 20 two-way movements per day, has ceased. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, it is assumed that the AD plant would have no impact on the highway network. Traffic movements associated with the AD facility have therefore been dismissed for this Transport chapter of the ES.
Junction Capacity Assessments
8.143 Junction capacity assessments have been undertaken for the three junctions within the study area using ARCADY and LINSIG as described above.
8.144 As agreed with Staffordshire County Council, assessments have been undertaken for the opening year of 2014, and a horizon year of 2019 has been assessed as a sensitivity test.
Traffic Growth
8.145 In order to provide 2014 and 2019 baseline traffic flows, traffic growth has been applied using uplift factors derived from the National Transport Model (NTM)8, and then adjusted using TEMPRO local growth factors. The calculation of traffic growth uplifts has been undertaken in full accordance with The TEMPRO Guidance Note dated 4th May 2006.
8.146 The resultant traffic growth uplift factors are contained in Table 8-12. The factors apply to both AM and PM peak hours.
8 A disaggregated multi-modal model of land-based transport in Great Britain. Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-27 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Table 8-12 Traffic Growth Factors Period NTM TEMPRO TEMPRO Resultant Growth Car Driver Driver Factor (Cannock Main) Car Driver (GB) AM PM AM PM AM PM 2009 - 2014 1.08 1.031 1.025 1.055 1.055 1.050 1.044 2009 - 2019 1.15 1.053 1.042 1.101 1.101 1.100 1.089
ARCADY Results
Year 2014 Assessment
8.147 Tables 8-13 and 8-14 summarise the ARCADY results for the Orbital Way / A460 roundabout and the Kingswood Lakeside roundabout for the year 2014.
Table 8-13 Predicted Queues and Capacities at Orbital Way / A460 Roundabout in 2014 Rbt Approach AM Peak PM Peak RFC Queue RFC Queue Eastern Way N 0.655 2 0.591 1 Side Road 0.055 0 0.062 0 Eastern Way S 0.464 1 0.702 2 Orbital Way 0.230 0 0.756 3
8.148 Table 8-13 indicates that, with a maximum RFC of 0.756 and queue of three vehicles in the year of opening, the Orbital Way / A460 roundabout is predicted to operate satisfactorily with no capacity or queuing issues.
Table 8-14 Predicted Queues and Capacities at Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout in 2014 Rbt Approach AM Peak PM Peak RFC Queue RFC Queue A - Orbital Way W 0.164 0 0.252 0 B- Site Access Road 0.033 0 0.042 0 C -Orbital Way E 0.215 0 0.203 0
8.149 Table 8-14 indicates that in 2014 the Kingswood Lakeside roundabout is expected to operate with considerable spare capacity. With a maximum RFC of 0.252 and no queues predicted, the roundabout would be operating well within its maximum theoretical capacity.
Year 2019 Assessment
8.150 Tables 8-15 and 8-16 provide the ARCADY results for the two roundabouts for the year 2019.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-28 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Table 8-15 Predicted Queues and Capacities at Orbital Way / A460 Roundabout in 2019 Rbt Approach AM Peak PM Peak RFC Queue RFC Queue Eastern Way N 0.688 2 0.620 2 Side Road 0.062 0 0.068 0 Eastern Way S 0.488 1 0.736 3 Orbital Way 0.246 0 0.820 4
8.151 Table 8-15 indicates that, in 2019, the Orbital Way / A460 roundabout will continue to operate satisfactorily and within its maximum theoretical capacity. The maximum predicted RFC is 0.820 and there is a maximum queue of 4 vehicles predicted on Orbital Way, which would not cause any operational problems at the roundabout.
Table 8-16 Predicted Queues and Capacities at Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout in 2019 Rbt Approach AM Peak PM Peak RFC Queue RFC Queue A - Orbital Way W 0.210 0 0.236 0 B- Site Access Road 0.030 0 0.044 0 C -Orbital Way E 0.290 0 0.212 0
8.152 Table 8-16 indicates that in 2019 the maximum RFC predicted at the Kingswood Lakeside roundabout is 0.290, which leaves considerable spare capacity at the roundabout for future traffic growth. There are no queues predicted.
8.153 All ARCADY output can be found in Appendix 8/5. LINSIG Results
Year 2014 Assessment
8.154 The following tables provide the LINSIG results for the A5 / Washbrook Lane junction for the year 2014.
Table 8-17 Predicted Queues and Capacities at A5 / Washbrook Lane Junction in 2014 Junction Approach AM Peak PM Peak DoS (%) Max Q (pcu) DoS Max Q (pcu) A5 w/bound (ahead) 48.9 16.8 41.6 12.7 A5 w/bound (right) 58.4 3.9 66.3 5.8 Washbrook Lane 62.3 7.5 67.4 6.2 A5 e/bound (left / ahead) 63.2 11.2 69.2 13.4 A5 e/bound (ahead) 58.0 10.8 62.5 12.6
8.155 Table 8-17 indicates that this junction is expected to operate within its capacity capabilities when the development becomes operational in 2014 with a maximum DoS of no greater than 70%.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-29 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Year 2019 Assessment
8.156 The following tables provide the LINSIG results for the A5 / Washbrook Lane junction for the year 2019. Table 8-18 Predicted Queues and Capacities at A5 / Washbrook Lane Junction in 2013 Junction Approach AM Peak PM Peak DoS (%) Max Q (pcu) DoS Max Q (pcu) A5 w/bound (ahead) 51.2 18.0 43.4 13.3 A5 w/bound (right) 61.0 4.1 68.9 6.1 Washbrook Lane 65.3 8.0 70.4 6.7 A5 e/bound (left / ahead) 66.1 12.2 72.2 14.5 A5 e/bound (ahead) 60.7 11.5 65.1 13.4
8.157 Table 8-18 indicates that the signalised junction is anticipated to continue to operate within its capacity capabilities five years after the expected year of opening with a maximum DoS of 72.2%.
8.158 LINSIG computer output can be found in Appendix 8/4.
Operation Phase Conclusion
8.159 The above capacity assessments confirm that the operation of the proposed ERF would not result in any operational issues at junctions on the local highway network. This is the case for the opening year and five years after opening.
ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT
8.160 The proposed development could potentially have two forms of environmental impact:
Fugitive Material: waste deposits onto the highway or into the atmosphere; and
Vehicle Operation: direct emissions (traffic noise, exhaust fumes, vibration) from vehicles, including community related impacts (e.g. community severance, congestion, safety, amenity, intimidation). Fugitive Material
8.161 The ERF site would be fully hardsurfaced and regularly maintained, meaning that the potential for fugitive dust from traffic is minimised, as no vehicles would travel on unsurfaced areas. Additionally, all waste-carrying vehicles would be sheeted, which should eliminate spillage onto the road.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-30 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Vehicle Operation
8.162 The Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines recommend that an environmental assessment should be carried out if the heavy goods vehicle traffic is estimated to increase by more than 30% in the opening year due to development traffic, or 10% in sensitive areas.
8.163 Based on the application site‟s permitted traffic generation, the proposed ERF would have no additional impact on the highway and therefore, an environmental assessment is not deemed necessary, although the application as a whole has been subject to an EIA. Construction Traffic Management Plan
8.164 Prior to Construction of the proposed ERF, a Construction Traffic Management Plan will be produced. The plan will outline the proposed routing of construction vehicles to be agreed by Staffordshire County Council and the Highways Agency. The Plan would state the likely delivery times. The Plan would also indicate any enforcement measures that may be required to ensure the Plan is adhered to. SUSTAINABILITY
8.165 The sustainability of the proposed development in sustainability terms depends on to some degree the quality of the existing public transport provision in the area. A review has been undertaken to determine what facilities are currently in place for potential employees at the proposed development. Public Transport in the UK generally consists of either bus or rail travel and these are both considered below along with a review of the options for staff to walk or cycle to work. Bus
8.166 The nearest bus stops to the application site are located at the Kingswood Lakeside Roundabout. This is just 0.25km (approx. 250 metres) away from the site access, which is a walkable distance for most people.
8.167 Whilst a bus stop does exist in this location, there is no bus infrastructure in place.
8.168 It is understood that a bus service has been provided to Kingswood Lakeside in the past but has been withdrawn due to lack of use9.
9 Cannock Chase Council, Minutes of the meeting of the Access to Skills, Economic Development and Enterprise Policy Development Committee, Tuesday 18 November, 2008. Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-31 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
Train
8.169 The most convenient train station for anyone wishing to travel to the ERF facility by train is Cannock Rail Station. However, its distance from the application site is likely to mean that travel by rail would be supplemented by other means of transport, e.g. taxi, bus or cycling.
8.170 The station is located just south of the A5190 Lichfield Road, which is approximately 2.5km (1.6 miles) from the application site if the Lichfield Road – Eastern Way – Orbital Way route was taken.
8.171 Cannock Railway Station, and all trains serving it, is operated by London Midland.
8.172 Typically, Monday to Saturday daytimes, Cannock is served by two trains per hour in each direction. Trains in the morning peak run at an increased 20 minute frequency. During the evenings and on Sundays, Cannock is served by one train per hour in each direction.
Walking and Cycling
8.173 The nature of the KLEP determines its viability to be accessed on foot or bicycle. The KLEP is classed as an out-of-town development and as such does not lend itself well to access on foot. However, there are a number of residential areas within cycling distance including Great Wyrley, Bridgetown, Norton Canes and Cannock.
8.174 Although, according to the Sustrans web site, there are no dedicated cycle routes in the area, there is still significant potential for employees to cycle to work. It is therefore the intention to provide on-site facilities for those wishing to cycle. Facilities would include showers, lockers and secure bicycle storage.
Car Sharing
Staffordshire Share a Lift
8.175 Staffordshire Share a Lift is a free car-share service available to all companies within Staffordshire County. This service is available via the internet and involves inputting some personal details and preferences and the system matches individuals that are compatible for car-sharing.
8.176 This service would be made available to all employees at the proposed facility and promoted as an alternative to travelling to work alone. Travel Plan
8.177 Staffordshire County Council has confirmed that a Travel Plan is not required to be submitted with the planning application. However, it has also been confirmed by Staffordshire County Council that a Travel Plan will be a Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-32 SLR Consulting Limited
TRANSPORTATION 8
condition of any planning permission for the proposed ERF. The applicant accepts its responsibility in ensuring that the proposed development is as sustainable as it could possibly be from a transport perspective and will ensure that an outline Travel Plan is in place prior to any beneficial use of the proposed development. A detailed Travel Plan would be produced when full details of staff residences and travel choices are known. . This would take account of any particular Travel Plan measures relating to the wider employment park planning consent. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
8.178 The proposals would result in the importation of 400,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum to an ERF. The proposals also include for 100,000 tonnes of waste being diverted from the existing Poplars access to the new proposed access off Cley Lane (via Blakeney Way) and this has been taken into account throughout this section of the ES.
8.179 The construction of the facility would generate 50 two-way HGV movements per day and an additional 400 two-way car trips could be generated daily by construction workers.
8.180 During the operation of the facility, it is expected that waste vehicle movements would be in the order of 240 two-way trips per day, which is less than is already consented for the application site. The facility is likely to employ around 40 staff potentially generating up to 80 two-way traffic movements per day.
8.181 The impact of this traffic on the local highway network has been assessed in detail and it has been confirmed that, during the construction and operation of the ERF, the highway network would continue to operate satisfactorily with no capacity or queuing issues predicted.
8.182 An accident analysis of Orbital Way has been undertaken which concluded that 12 accidents have been recorded in the past 5 years, all of which resulted in slight injuries. The accidents were a result of driver error and there is no substantiating evidence to suggest that the layout of the highway network was a contributing factor in any of the recorded accidents.
8.183 A review has been undertaken of the options for travelling to the site by sustainable means. Whilst there are bus stops near the site, there are currently no bus services provided. There is a shared footway / cycleway facility provided on Orbital Way which could be used by employees or those visiting the site from nearby residential settlements.
8.184 In conclusion, from a transport perspective, the site is ideally located. It has good links to the primary road network, there are no safety concerns and the road network could easily accommodate the traffic that would be generated during the construction and operation of the proposed facility.
Kingswood ERF – Volume 3 8-33 SLR Consulting Limited