Land at Manydown,

MSD12aRA2: Transport Assessment Addendum ES Appendix 14.1 MSD13R: Environmental Statement Addendum Appendix K: Transport Assessment (Revised) Appendix P: Transport Assessment Second Addendum

Appendix D: Journey Times Technical Note

shaping a place, creating a community

TECHNICAL NOTE LAND AT MANYDOWN, BASINGSTOKE JOURNEY TIMES ANALYSIS

IDENTIFICATION TABLE County Council Property Services (HCCPS) and Client/Project owner Borough Council (BDBC) Project Land at Manydown, Basingstoke

Title of Document Journey Times Analysis

Type of Document Technical Note

Date 04/12/2019

Reference number ST16020/JTS/002

Number of pages 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. JOURNEY TIMES ANALYSIS 2

1.1 INTRODUCTION 2

2. MANUAL RE-ASSIGNMENTS – OAKLEY, , AND FIVEWAYS 3

2.1 SELECTION OF MANUAL RE-ASSIGNMENT ROUTES 3

2.2 OAKLEY RE-ASSIGNMENT 3

2.3 WOOTTON ST LAWRENCE RE-ASSIGNMENT 6

2.4 FIVEWAYS RE-ASSIGNMENT 10

2.5 A339 TO ALDERMASTON ROUNDABOUT VIA BASINGSTOKE ROAD AND A340 13

3. MAIN STREET ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ASSESSMENTS 18

3.1 BACKGROUND 18

3.2 BASIS FOR THE MANUAL RE-ASSIGNMENT OF TRIPS 18

3.3 MAIN STREET COMPARISON WITH ROUTE VIA B3400 AND RINGWAY 20

3.4 MAIN STREET COMPARISON WITH 22

3.5 SUMMARY OF MAIN STREET TESTS 28

Registered Office SYSTRA Ltd, 3rd Floor 5 Old Bailey, London, , EC4M 7BA. Registered Number 3383212 Page 1/ 30

1. JOURNEY TIMES ANALYSIS

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This technical note provides details of journey time data and analysis in relation the manual route re-assignments which have been applied to a number of routes. This technical note summarises the process of identification for the re-assignment routes and assesses the corresponding journey time data, which has been drawn from Google maps information (for current journey times) and from the North Hampshire Traffic Model (NHTM) for the future year Scenarios 1 and 2 ( without and with Manydown).

1.1.2 This note also includes an assessment of the likelihood of non Manydown traffic using Main Street. This is based on an analysis of junction capacity and journey time analysis between the B3400 and A339 corridors. An initial assessment was reported in the TA addendum (January 2019); these are summarised in this note and the further work which has been undertaken expands upon these assessments in response to comments from HCC Highways.

1.1.3 The method of calculating the journey times for Main Street differs depending on whether the data is taken from the NHTM, or includes information from individual junction assessments. The details of the relevant method are included in each section.

1.1.4 Where relevant, this document contains references to previously issued documents, including the Revised Main TA report (July 2018) and the 1 st TA Addendum (January 2019).

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 2/ 30

2. MANUAL RE-ASSIGNMENTS – OAKLEY, WOOTTON ST LAWRENCE, AND FIVEWAYS

2.1 Selection of Manual Re-Assignment Routes

2.1.1 This section of the technical note presents information relating to the selected manual re- assignment routes for Manydown traffic, for the areas south of Oakley, east of Wootton St Lawrence, and Pack Lane East (via the Fiveways junction).

2.1.2 For each route, a short summary of the information produced to inform the original discussions is provided, followed by the corresponding journey time information.

2.2 Oakley Re-Assignment

2.2.1 Oakley is a village located around 4.5 miles to the west of central Basingstoke, and within close proximity of the Site. HCC Highways have previously highlighted that Oakley may be utilised as an inappropriate route to the M3, as residents of the Proposed Development may access junction 7 of the M3 through Oakley, rather than travelling via Fiveways and the roundabout.

2.2.2 Traffic flows on the local road network within and around Oakley, varies substantially by link. As such, an appropriate mid-point on Oakley Lane has been identified for the purpose of the calculations. Two way flows for 2013 NHTM, Scenario 1 (without Manydown) and Scenario 2 (with Manydown) and the difference in flow as a result of Manydown are summarised in Table 1. Data from 2013 has been adopted as this is the model that has been validated and calibrated.

Table 1. Country Lanes South of Oakley Flow Analysis (two-way flows) 2013 2031 Flow difference Flow difference Peak 2031 Scenario 2 NHTM Scenario 1 (S2-S1) S2-S1 (%)

AM 153 561 741 180 24.96%

PM 627 620 602 -28 -4.70%

2.2.3 The 2013 NHTM data indicates that there is an existing pattern of vehicles travelling south through Oakley and it is concluded that this is an established route for existing traffic seeking to reach the A303 and M3. This also accords with information and views expressed at the pre-application stage by Oakley residents.

2.2.4 The analysis shows that during the AM peak, there is an increase of 180 vehicles as a result of the Proposed Development in 2031, whilst in the PM peak there is a decrease of 28 vehicles. This equates to a rise of 24.9% in the AM peak and a decrease of 4.7% vehicular trips in the PM peak.

2.2.5 The rural nature of this route (with sections of single-track route with passing places) means that in reality, the addition of Manydown traffic would be expected to have a negative effect on the attractiveness of this route, by increasing the likelihood of vehicles meeting and thus

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 3/ 30

creating additional delays. The original analysis of the flow data (undertaken subsequent to the first Manydown submission in March 2017 and set out in SYSTRA’s response to the pre- application HCC comments dated 20 th April 2017), coupled with local knowledge provided by HCC, has led to the identification of this route as one where the NHTM’s assignment of traffic is unlikely to be reflected in reality.

2.2.6 As such, the level of increase in flows predicted by NHTM has been investigated further through the analysis of journey times of this route and alternative routes.

Journey Time Data

2.2.7 Journey time data for the route via Oakley and the alternative route via Fiveways is shown in Table 2 below. Current (2019) journey time data has been obtained from Google, with the future year scenario data obtained from the NHTM model.

2.2.8 The assessed routes are shown graphically in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Oakley NHTM Route and Alternative Route via Fiveways

Table 2. Journey Time Data – Oakley Route and Route via Fiveways (Seconds)

2031 SC2 2031 SC2 2013 AM 2019 AM 2013 PM 2019 AM Route Direction AM PM (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (NHTM)

Route via Oakley NB 531 600 510 516 720 513

Route via NB 854 840 689 894 870 780 Fiveways

Route via Oakley SB 451 840 452 452 720 451

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 4/ 30

2031 SC2 2031 SC2 2013 AM 2019 AM 2013 PM 2019 AM Route Direction AM PM (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (NHTM)

Route via SB 847 810 820 886 780 707 Fiveways

2.2.9 The current (2019) journey time data indicates that:

• the northbound route via Oakley is currently quicker for traffic than the alternative route via Fiveways;

• the southbound route using via Fiveways is quicker than the route via Oakley.

2.2.10 The comparison of the 2013 NHTM data with the 2019 Google data shows that the model consistently calculates the journey times via Oakley as quicker than they are in reality, whereas the journey time for route via Fiveways is much more similar. This suggests that the model is treating the Oakley route too favourably in terms of travel times.

2.2.11 Traffic flows on the route via Oakley route are tidal and the observed journey times for counter peak movements are considered to be longer in the model than those for peak movements as a result of delays caused by having to wait for traffic travelling in the opposing direction when using passing places.

2.2.12 As such, the model has a preference to use this quicker route which could result in higher traffic flows on the routes through Oakley than would actually occur.

2.2.13 Turning to the future year analysis, in all cases the NHTM calculates the 2031 journey times to be quicker than the current observed (2019) journey times. This is consistent with the observation above. On this basis, a manual reassignment of Manydown trips in Scenario 2 has been undertaken, i.e. a reduction in traffic on the routes through Oakley and reassigned these to the routes via Fiveways.

2.2.14 The volume trips that have been reassigned from Oakley to the route via Fiveways has been calculated by identifying the number of Manydown development trips which are observed in the Select Link Analysis on the route which links the area south of Oakley to the A30 in the vicinity of M3 Junction 7. This location has been selected as trips in this area are represented by a single link and are considered to be comprised solely of journeys travelling to the A30 and M3. The volume of trips reassigned is:

• AM peak 155 trips (two way)

• PM peak 89 trips (two way).

2.2.1 It has been observed in the journey times for the Oakley – A30 route in Scenario 2 on the route via Fiveways are noticeably quicker than the comparable journey times from the 2019 Google data. This appears counter-intuitive as this route includes several junctions which are currently congested.

2.2.2 A closer analysis of the data shows the following:

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 5/ 30

• The counter-peak journey times on the route via Fiveways are noticeably faster than the 2019 Google journey times for this route; • The peak direction journey times on the Oakley to A30 route via Fiveways are also faster than the 2019 Google equivalents, but the difference is less pronounced.

2.2.3 Looking first at the AM peak period:

• The northbound journey time on the route via Fiveways is 689 seconds in Scenario 2 (using NHTM), which compares to 840 seconds from Google. • An analysis of the change in flows shows an increase in traffic on the section of the route via Fiveways between the A30 and Road, with a fall in traffic on Worting Road, as set out in the Trip Distribution technical note. • The increase in movements on the northbound route via Fiveways associated with Manydown itself is limited, as there are significantly more trips heading south (i.e. away from the Manydown site) in the AM peak than there are incoming trips.

2.2.4 With regard to the decrease on Worting Road, a proportion of this traffic is using Main Street in preference to the Roman Road / Roman Way route and therefore the demand for travel away from town on this part of the alternative route reduces.

2.2.5 The above leads to the tidal pattern of the increased traffic demands and a reduction of delays in the northbound direction as a result of flow changes in the B3400 area of the route.

2.2.6 In the PM peak period:

• The most significant difference in journey time is in the southbound direction. The journey time on the route via Fiveways in Scenario 2 is 707 seconds, in comparison to 780 seconds from Google. • A similar effect of reduced demand is seen in the Worting Road area, with an increase in demand in the part of the corridor via Fiveways junction. • Delays at the Fiveways junction itself increase, primarily in the northbound (or peak) direction of travel.

2.2.7 It is concluded from the above that there are increases in delay on certain parts of the route and decreases in other locations, which overall leads to the reduction in anticipated travel time on the alternative route in comparison to the 2013 Base model.

2.2.8 It is therefore concluded that the observed falls in journey times in Scenario 2 are consistent with the patterns of flow change on these routes.

2.2.9 In summary, the previously agreed manual re-assignment is further supported by the journey times analysis. It is noted that the further manual re-assignment of a proportion of traffic from Fiveways via Buckskin Roundabout (see section 2.4 below), paired with the model’s assignment of trips across the surrounding network, leads to a robust assessment of both Fiveways itself and surrounding related junctions within the urban area.

2.3 Wootton St Lawrence Re-Assignment

2.3.1 The potential for an increase in traffic on the route between the B3400 and the A339 via Wootton St Lawrence and Upper Wotton has been raised as a concern by local residents. Site observations have shown that these country lanes are narrow, with limited opportunities for

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 6/ 30

two vehicles to pass, and as such the lanes are not considered to represent a preferred route from the B3400 to the A339.

2.3.2 Two way flows for 2013 NHTM, Scenario 1 (without Manydown) and Scenario 2 (with Manydown) and the difference in flow as a result of Manydown are summarised in Table 3 . Data from 2013 has been adopted as this is the model that has been validated and calibrated.

2.3.3 The flow difference between Scenario 2 and Scenario 1 represents the predicted impact that the Proposed Development will have in this location. For the purpose of this assessment, a suitable mid-point on the unnamed road has been chosen, just south of the Wootton St Lawrence junction. This location is deemed the most representative of the through traffic along this road which expresses the total levels of traffic reaching Wootton St Lawrence – the key area of contention raised during consultation events.

Table 3. Wootton St Lawrence Flow Analysis (two way flows)

Baseline 2031 Scenario Flow difference Flow difference Peak 2031 Scenario 2 2013 1 (S2-S1) S2-S1 (%)

AM 351 268 233 -35 -8.6 %

PM 338 250 236 -14 -5.6%

2.3.4 This shows that there will be a reduction of 35 vehicles in the AM peak, and a reduction of 14 vehicles in the PM Peak on this road. This corresponds to a fall of 8.6% from Scenario 1 levels in the AM peak and a fall of 5.6% in the PM peak.

2.3.5 This shows that that the route from the B3400 through Wootton Lawrence will benefit from the Proposed Development. Specifically, the creation of the Main Street through the Site provides existing road users with an accessible and appealing route that connects the A339 to the B3400. In Scenario 1, without Manydown, the capacity constraints at the Roman Road roundabout will lead vehicles to route through to the A339 via Wootton St Lawrence and . Hence, the NHTM anticipates that the infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development will reduce the traffic on this route through Wootton St Lawrence.

2.3.6 On the basis of this information, the distribution of Manydown trips predicted by NHTM has been investigated further through the analysis of journey times of the route via Wootton St Lawrence and the use of Main Street. The decision to model the re-assignment was agreed with HCC to ensure that the modelling and assessment of the site accesses would include all Manydown trips ultimately using the A339 for a part of their journey, including those originating from the southern-most areas of the Manydown site.

Journey Time Data

2.3.7 Journey time data for the route via Wootton St Lawrence and the alternative route via the new Main Street is shown in Table 4 below. Current (2019) journey time data has been obtained from Google, with future year scenario data obtained from the NHTM model. Main Street has been modelled as a road with a design speed of 20mph with two junctions along its length. Further information on Main Street is set out in Section 3 of this TN.

2.3.8 The assessed routes are shown graphically in Figure 2 below.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 7/ 30

Figure 2. Wootton NHTM Route and Alternative Route Via Main Street

Table 4. Journey Time Data – Wootton Route and Main Street (in Seconds) 2031 SC2 2031 2013 AM 2019 AM 2013 PM 2019 AM Route Direction AM SC2 PM (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (NHTM)

Wootton St NB 286 360 330 286 360 288 Lawrence

Main NB N/A N/A 273 N/A N/A 269 Street

Wootton St SB 327 360 298 385 360 468 Lawrence

Main SB N/A N/A 303 N/A N/A 321 Street

2.3.9 The data shows the following:

• AM peak:

o A comparison of the 2013 and 2019 journey times shows that the NHTM model underestimates the journey time in both the northbound and southbound direction. This would suggest that the model is making the route through Wootton St Lawrence more attractive than it is in reality.

o In 2031 Scenario 2, the route via Wootton St Lawrence is quicker than 2019, but as set out above, the model is underestimating the journey time in 2019.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 8/ 30

Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the model will continue to underestimate the journey time via Wootton St Lawrence in 2031.

o The journey time via Main Street is quicker compared to Wootton St Lawrence in the northbound direction but slower in the southbound direction.

o It is concluded that as the model is underestimating the journey time on Wootton St Lawrence, there may be a greater propensity for traffic to use Main Street than the model predicts.

o PM peak

o A comparison of the 2013 and 2019 journey times shows that the NHTM model underestimates the journey time in the northbound direction and overestimates journey time in the southbound direction, but the difference is marginal. This would suggest that the model is making the route through Wootton St Lawrence more attractive in a northbound direction than it is in reality.

o In 2031 Scenario 2 the route via Wootton St Lawrence is quicker than 2019 in the northbound direction but slower in the southbound direction. As set out above, the model is underestimating the journey time in 2019 in a northbound direction and therefore is a reasonable assumption that the model will continue to underestimate the journey time via Wootton St Lawrence in 2031.

o The journey time via Main Street is quicker compared to Wootton St Lawrence in both directions. This suggests that the model has a preference to assign traffic to Main Street compared to the route via Wootton St Lawrence.

o However, as the model is underestimating the journey time on Wootton St Lawrence in the northbound direction, there may be an even greater propensity to use Main Street than the model predicts.

2.3.10 On this basis, a manual reassignment of Manydown trips in Scenario 2 has been undertaken, i.e. a reduction in traffic on the routes through Wootton St Lawrence and reassigned to Main Street.

2.3.11 The volume of trips that have been reassigned from Wootton St Lawrence to the route via Main Street has been calculated by identifying the number of Manydown development trips which are observed in the Select Link Analysis on the route to the east of the Site which links the village of Wootton St Lawrence to the B3400. This location has been selected as trips in this area are represented by a single link and are considered to be comprised solely of journeys travelling to the A30 and M3. The volume of trips reassigned is:

• AM peak 148 trips (two way)

• PM peak 84 trips (two way).

2.3.12 In summary, the journey time analysis based on the NHTM data supports the re-assignment of traffic to Main Street. It is recognised that the journey time data calculated for the Main

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 9/ 30

Street in Section 3 (which uses a more detailed methodology to account for additional signalled junctions on Main Street) indicates that the Wootton route could potentially be quicker than using Main Street. However, it is also necessary to recognise that the driver experience of using the Wootton route will be affected by the many constraints in terms of narrow road widths, frequent bends and lack of lighting, which will make this route less attractive than Main Street.

2.3.13 Additionally, the agreed basis for the re-assignment also relates to the need to to ensure appropriate capacity of the Manydown access junctions to accommodate reassigned traffic.

2.4 Fiveways Re-Assignment

2.4.1 Pack Lane connects the B3400 Andover Road and the Brighton Hill roundabout. Pack Lane East refers to the section of the road between Fiveways and the Brighton Hill roundabout. HCC have requested clarification on the potential impact that the Proposed Development will have on Pack Lane East, in terms of the movement of Manydown development trips to and from zones representing this area of Basingstoke.

2.4.2 Two way flows for 2013 NHTM, Scenario 1 (without Manydown) and Scenario 2 (with Manydown) and the difference in flow as a result of Manydown are summarised in Table 5. For this assessment, a suitable mid-point on Pack Lane East has been selected to provide data which is representative of typical vehicular flow on the link.

Table 5. Pack Lane East Flow Analysis (two way flows) 2013 2031 Scenario Flow difference Flow difference PEAK 2031 Scenario 2 Baseline 1 (S2-S1) S2-S1 (%)

AM 771 520 737 25 1 34.0 %

PM 796 590 615 25 4.0 %

2.4.3 The NHTM outputs show an increase in traffic on Pack Lane East between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 during both peak hours. An analysis of Manydown development trips shows these trips to travel southbound to Fiveways and then eastbound towards Brighton Hill. This would suggest that vehicles are travelling to the residential areas within Kempshott, Buckskin or the business park at Brighton Hill.

2.4.4 A review of this routing suggests this does not fully reflect the choices which drivers are likely to make, which is due to the coding of the residential area zones in NHTM. From Worting Road bridge, there are very few destinations where it is logical to travel via Pack Lane East. Instead, routing via Buckskin roundabout, West Ham roundabout and through to Brighton Hill via the Roundabout better reflects the spatial distribution of properties represented by the zones in question.

2.4.5 As such, the distribution of Manydown development trips between Buckskin Roundabout and Brighton Hill Roundabout which travel via the Fiveways junction and along Pack Lane East have been investigated through the analysis of journey time data.

2.4.6 The manual re-assignment also reflects an aim to ensure that potentail sources of impact on the B3400 corridor between the Worting Road bridge and Thornycroft roundabout are taken into considerationis achieved by re-routing these Manydown trips along the alternative route as shown.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 10/ 30

Journey Time Data

2.4.7 Journey time data for the route via Pack Lane East and the alternative route via the B3400 and West Ham Roundabout is shown in Table 6 below. Current (2019) journey time data has been obtained from Google, with future year scenario data obtained from the NHTM model.

2.4.8 The assessed routes are shown graphically in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Pack Lane East NHTM Route and Alternative Route via West Ham Roundabout

Table 6. Journey Time Data – Pack Lane East Route and Via Five Ways (in Seconds) 2031 2031 2013 AM 2019 AM 2013 PM 2019 AM Route Direction SC2 AM SC2 PM (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (NHTM)

Pack Lane NB 323 360 360 392 360 391 East

West Ham NB 387 315 389 372 330 475

Pack Lane SB 375 420 359 452 390 314 East

West Ham SB 453 345 535 555 420 562

2.4.9 An analysis of this data shows the following:

• AM peak:

o Route via Pack Lane East - a comparison of the 2013 and 2019 journey times shows that the NHTM model underestimates the journey time in both directions. This would suggest that the model is making this route more attractive than it is in reality.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 11/ 30

o Route via West Ham - a comparison of the 2013 and 2019 journey times shows that the NHTM model overestimates the journey time in both directions. This would suggest that the model is making this route less attractive than it is in reality.

o For both directions, in 2013 Pack Lane East is the quicker route compared to the route via West Ham, but the 2019 data suggests that this (Pack Lane East) is the slower route. Therefore the model has a preference for Pack Lane East but in reality West Ham is the quickest route.

o In 2031 Scenario 2, the journey time via West Ham is slower than Pack Lane East in both directions and as such, Pack Lane East is a more attractive route. However, the above analysis suggests that this is not the case in reality.

o This suggests that the volume of traffic assigned in NHTM (2031) to Pack Lane East is overestimated.

• PM peak:

o Route via Pack Lane East - a comparison of the 2013 and 2019 journey times shows that the NHTM model underestimates the journey time in both directions. This would suggest that the model is making this route more attractive than it is in reality.

o Route via West Ham - a comparison of the 2013 and 2019 journey times shows that the NHTM model underestimates the journey time in both directions. This would suggest that the model is making this route more attractive than it is in reality.

o For the northbound route, the 2013 data shows that Pack Lane East is the slower route compared to the route via West Ham and this is supported by the 2019 data. For the southbound route, the 2013 data shows that Pack Lane East is a faster route compared to the route via West Ham and this is supported by the 2019 data.

o In 2031 Scenario 2, the journey time on West Ham is slower than Pack Lane East in both directions and as such, Pack Lane East is a more attractive route. However, this is also supported by the above analysis.

o This suggests that the volume of traffic assigned in NHTM (2031) to Pack Lane East is realistic.

2.4.10 It is concluded that as the model is underestimating the journey time on Pack Lane East in the AM peak and as such, there is likely to be a greater propensity for traffic to use the route via West Ham than the model predicts.

2.4.11 On this basis, a manual reassignment of Manydown trips in Scenario 2 has been undertaken, i.e. a reduction in traffic on the route via Pack Lane East and reassigned to the route via West Ham. For robustness, this has been applied to both the AM and PM peak hours. It is noted that the number of trips re-assigned in the PM peak is very low (as set out below).

2.4.12 The volume of trips that have been reassigned from Pack Lane East to the route via West Ham has been calculated by identifying the number of Manydown development trips which are

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 12/ 30

observed in the Select Link Analysis to approach the Fiveways junction from the north via Buckskin Lane and then make a left turn toward the Brighton Hill roundabout (travelling via the eastern part of Pack Lane). The volume of trips reassigned is:

• AM peak 70 trips (two way)

• PM peak 33 trips (two way).

2.5 A339 to Aldermaston Roundabout via Basingstoke Road and A340

2.5.1 It has been identified that there is a significant additional volume of traffic using Basingstoke Road (approximately 1.2km to the north east of the site) in Scenario 2 that travels to and from the areas to the north of the A339. This route leads toward the villages of , West Heath and . A commentary on these trips is set out in the first TA Addendum report and is summarised below.

AM Peak

2.5.2 Figure 4 shows the change in traffic flows between Scenario 1 (without Manydown) and Scenario 2 (with Manydown) in the AM Peak. This shows an increase of 170 vehicles travelling towards and an additional 164 vehicles travelling towards Tadley. For inbound trips, these are concentrated on the A339, primarily from Newbury and Kingsclere.

2.5.3 This traffic consists of both development traffic and other traffic which has been attracted to the A339 corridor by the improvement in journey times and reliability associated with the new Northern access.

Figure 4. A339 toward Newbury – Scenario 2 vs. Scenario 1 Flow Difference AM Peak

2.5.4 Figure 5 shows the change in flows across the wider network to the northwest of Basingstoke. This shows an small increase in vehicles, typically less than 30 vehicles, on routes connecting

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 13/ 30

into the A339 outside of Kingsclere via minor rural roads (with the exception of Basingstoke Road).

Figure 5. A339 towards Newbury – Scenario 2 vs. Scenario 1 Flow Difference AM Peak

2.5.5 Assessing the change in trips in more detail, there are a proportion of trips predicted to travel towards Tadley via the Basingstoke Road (as shown within Figure 5 ). Of these vehicular trips, 79 of these vehicular trips finish within the zones associated with Tadley village (and 19 are generated by this zone). These vehicular trips would typically travel via Aldermaston Road under existing conditions and in Scenario 1 because of the capacity constraints associated with the Roman Road roundabout.

2.5.6 These capacity constraints at Roman Road / A339 are unlocked in Scenario 2 through the provision of increased capacity at the Proposed Northern Access. This leads to a theoretical benefit for vehicles travelling toward Basingstoke via Basingstoke Road and the A339, rather than travelling via Park Prewett junction and Aldermaston Roundabout. This results in a change in flow which are observed in the model output plots for this area. This effect is believed to be driven by vehicles returning to a previous route (i.e. the route this traffic takes in the 2013 NHTM), rather than being additional new traffic on that route.

2.5.7 Looking at the flows at Aldermaston roundabout, there is an increase of 371 vehicles (two way) in the AM peak from the A340 arm between the base year 2013 and Scenario 1. This figure includes growth in traffic associated with Scenario 1 committed developments as well as existing diverting trips.

2.5.8 The corresponding data for the change between Scenario 2 and Scenario 1 shows a fall of 102 trips. There is also a fall of 186 trips on the Popley Way arm between Scenario 2 and Scenario 1, which is an alternative (if slightly longer) route for traffic from the north and north-east to Aldermaston.

2.5.9 In the PM peak the situation is very similar; there is an increase of 480 trips to and from Aldermaston via the A340 between the Base 2013 and Scenario 1, and a fall of 110 existing diverted trips between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. These changes provide supporting evidence

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 14/ 30

for this wider effect with regard to the changes in driver behaviour caused by the constraints of the Roman Road junction in Scenario 1.

2.5.10 HCC has also acknowledged that the NHTM outputs for rural lanes may over-estimate their attractiveness, which is typical of large strategic models as localised links (small countryside roads) are not validated to the same level of detail as major strategic routes. In contrast, localised links are unlikely to provide the anticipated journey time benefit as vehicles are unlikely to travel at 60mph on these single carriageway roads because of visibility issues and presence of passing locations.

2.5.11 It is therefore considered that these trips which route via Basingstoke Road in the Scenario 2 model are existing trips which currently route via the A340 and Aldermaston Roundabout, and which could continue to do so in Scenario 2 for the reasons described above.

2.5.12 Whilst these trips are not currently represented in the modelling of Aldermaston Roundabout, the number of trips under consideration represents only 3.8% of the total traffic using the roundabout in the AM peak and 5% in the PM peak, and further the trips would be expected to enter and exit the junction from arms (Aldermaston Rd North and Ringway North) which are performing within capacity in Scenario 2 in the AM and PM peaks. Therefore, no material change would be expected to the performance of this junction as a result of the this traffic continuing to use this route to and from Tadley via the A340.

PM Peak

2.5.13 Figure 6 and Figure 7 shows the change in traffic flows between Scenario 1 (without Manydown) and Scenario 2 (with Manydown) in the PM Peak. The main traffic flow in the area is the movement towards the Proposed Development and the central ring road of Basingstoke. There are 367 inbound trips, of which 86 originate from the area around Kingsclere and 293 are from Tadley.

2.5.14 These results demonstrate with the creation of the Northern Access, the capacity on the A339 attracts vehicles which are predicted to divert away from Aldermaston Road and Aldermaston Roundabout, and instead travel to the Northern Access via the Basingstoke Road / A339 to access Basingstoke (this trend is shown in Figure 8 ). These southbound trips have diverted from Aldermaston Road (-277 vehicular trips) and instead travel via the A339 (+293 vehicular trips).

2.5.15 The trips from Tadley and are believed to have diverted because of the benefits brought about by the additional capacity created by the proposed Northern Access. The NHTM outputs for rural lanes may over-estimate their attractiveness and these localised links are unlikely to provide the anticipated journey time benefit as vehicles are unlikely to travel at 60mph on these single carriageway roads because of visibility issues and presence of passing locations.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 15/ 30

Figure 6. A339 towards Newbury – Scenario 2 vs Scenario 1 PM Peak

Figure 7. A339 towards Newbury – Scenario 2 vs Scenario 1 PM Peak

2.5.16 It has also been observed that NHTM predicts an increase in traffic travelling via Monk Sherbourne and Sherbourne St John towards the Aldermaston Roundabout. It is not considered that these two patterns of movement are directly linked as the use of the route via Ramsdell, Monk Sherbourne and Sherbourne St John is considerably longer than the direct route via the A339. To confirm this, journey time data has been assessed for both the A339 route and the route via Basingstoke Road and this data is presented in Table 7 below.

2.5.17 The assessed routes are shown in Figure 8 below.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 16/ 30

Figure 8. A339 to Aldermaston Routes

Table 7. Journey Time data – A339 Basingstoke Road junction to Aldermaston

2031 2031 2013 AM 2019 AM 2013 PM 2019 AM Route Direction SC2 AM SC2 PM (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (GOOGLE) (NHTM) (NHTM)

Via A339 EB 213 255 174 438 140 307 (Route 1)

Via Monk Sherbourne WB 748 870 783 761 780 791 (Route 2)

Via A339 EB 589 255 308 385 264 322 (Route 1)

Via Monk Sherbourne WB 909 840 959 1011 998 1001 (Route 2)

2.5.18 The journey time data demonstrates that the route via is considerably slower in all scenarios, and therefore it is concluded that the increased use of Basingstoke Road and the A340 in Scenario 2 are not directly linked (i.e. the traffic using these routes are making different journeys) as it would not make sense for the model to assign traffic travelling between these two points to the alternative route (via Monk Sherbourne).

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 17/ 30

3. MAIN STREET ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ASSESSMENTS

3.1 Background

3.1.1 The TA Addendum includes a comparison of the differences in delay and journey times of traffic using the proposed the new Main Street as a through route with an alternative route between these two corridors. This alternative route was: the Worting Road bridge, Buckskin Roundabout, West Ham roundabout, Thornycroft roundabout and the A340 to connect back to the A339 at Trumpet roundabout.

3.1.2 HCC have subsequently requested that a similar exercise be undertaken for a route via Winklebury. This section of the TN sets out the analysis of the original alternative route to Main Street and the routes via Winklebury.

3.2 Basis for the Manual Re-Assignment of Trips

3.2.1 Traffic using Main Street within Scenario 2 of the NHTM consists of two types:

 New trips, which consist of vehicles travelling either to or from one of the three model zones which represent the Manydown development in the model (zones 831, 832 and 844); and  Diverted trips, which consist of vehicles which are travelling between other zones in the model and use the new Main Street as part of their route in preference to existing roads.

3.2.2 The NHTM assigns traffic to the routes which offer the best overall journey time, taking into account delays at junctions. It does not distinguish between a new or diverted trip and seeks to achieve a balance of flows, such that large numbers of vehicles will not be routed through a congested location if there is an alternative route available. The model iterates to generate its outputs as traffic travelling from one set of origin and destination points may re-route due to a busy junction, which may in turn make one or more further junctions busier and thus affect the optimum route for traffic travelling between another set of origin and destination points. The flow difference outputs from the model are therefore created from a whole series of interlinked vehicle routes and this explains why the plots of flow differences extend across a large part of Basingstoke, rather than being concentrated around the area of the proposed development.

3.2.3 The model identifies optimum routes for each set of origins and destinations using the travel time on different links of the model, plus the delay at each junction a route passes through. As the model represents a strategic area it does not contain every small local road, and Main Street is therefore represented as a single 20mph link with two intermediate junctions, which represent the entry points to zones 831 and 832, plus the northern and southern accesses (four junctions in total).

3.2.4 In reality, Main Street will have multiple junctions which will inevitably lead to a slower journey time and further analysis undertaken has been undertaken to identify the level of non development trips that may stay on their existing routes. For the purposes of the tests, Main Street is assumed to have seven internal signalised junctions plus the northern and southern accesses and these junctions are all assumed to be designed to operate within capacity during the peak periods.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 18/ 30

Volume and Routing of Traffic to be Reassigned

3.2.5 The total amount of non-development traffic represented in the overall flow difference plots has been calculated by performing a Select Link Analysis for each of the three zones in the model representing the Manydown development, and subtracting this traffic from the figures shown in the flow difference plots.

3.2.6 The majority of non-development trips traffic using Main Street in Scenario 2 is travelling between the B3400 to the west of Basingstoke and the A339 ring road. It has been assumed that traffic which travels the length of Main Street will be most influenced by the additional junctions along it and therefore the traffic to be reassigned has been calculated at a point on Main Street just to the north of the southern access.

3.2.7 There is a smaller proportion of traffic which the model routes via Roman Way / Roman Road and then on to the central part of Main Street via the new Winklebury Way four- arm junction. It is not likely that this traffic will not re-route because any benefits to journey time or delay on alternative routes are considered to be minimal.

3.2.8 Of the non-development traffic identified as potentially benefiting from using an alternative route, tests which assign 50% and 100% of this traffic to the alternative route have been undertaken. Full details of both assessments are set out in the TA Addendum.

3.2.9 The 50% figure is based on an analysis of the existing network and the junctions where the reassignment would take place in Scenario 2. Several of the junctions on the existing alternative route are already expected to be congested in Scenario 1 and these are considered therefore to act as a counter balance to the effect of additional signalled junctions on Main Street. Some non-development on Main Street would continue northwards through or westwards on the B3400 or A339 and would not benefit from diversions. Additionally, it has previously been noted that the NHTM is not able to fully represent the constraint of the existing Worting Road bridge and as such it is considered that the new Main Street would continue to attract a level of non- development trips. The 100% re-assignment tests allow the impacts of the maximum level of diversion to be tested for robustness.

3.2.10 The number of PCUs which have been re-assigned in both directions and both time periods for the purpose of the sensitivity test is therefore shown in Table 8 below. The total diverted trips figures have been used as the basis for the 100% diversion test.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 19/ 30

Table 8. Level of PCU flows identified for reassignment

TOTAL DIVERTED TRIPS FLOWS FOR 50% TIME PERIOD DIRECTION (100% DIVERSION DIVERSION TEST TEST) (PCUS) (PCUS)

AM Northbound 304 152

AM Southbound 96 48

PM Northbound 194 93

PM Southbound 68 34

3.2.11 The tested alternatives are therefore referred as follows:

• Scenario 2 - The original assignment as calculated by the NHTM from the Scenario 2 runs.

• Scenario 2a - 50% of non-development trips remaining on their existing route between the B3400 and A339 using the B3400 and Ringway, with the remaining 50% using Main Street.

• Scenario 2b - 100% of non-development trips remaining on their existing route between B3400 and A339 with no trough traffic using Main Street.

• Scenario 2c - 50% of non-development trips remaining on their existing route between the B3400 and A339 using routes via Winklebury with the remaining 50% using Main Street route.

3.2.12 The following sections provide an analysis of journey times of two alternative route choices for non-development trips as follows:

• Main Street compared to a route via B3400 and Ringway (Worting Road bridge, Buckskin Roundabout, West Ham roundabout, Thornycroft roundabout and the A340 to connect back to the A339 at Trumpet roundabout).

• Main Street compared to a route via Winklebury. There is no northbound on-slip or southbound off-slip to the Ringway West from Brunel Road and therefore traffic travelling via Winklebury has to travel via Houndmills Road to reach Aldermaston Roundabout and re-join the northern part of the Ringway.

3.3 Main Street Comparison with Route via B3400 and Ringway

3.3.1 The Main Street route and re-distribution route (with identified junctions re-modelled for the purposes of this assessment) are shown in Figure 9 below.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 20/ 30

Figure 9. Manual Re-assignment Route for Traffic predicted to use the Main Street by the NHTM

3.3.2 Tables 9 to 12 below summarises the results of the previous tests from the TA Addendum, showing the expected journey times for the Main Street route and the alternative route via B3400 and Ringway for Scenario 2, 2a and 2b.

Table 9. Journey time comparison for AM Peak – Towards Town (Eastbound) MAIN STREET B3400 AND RINGWAY SCENARIO JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S)

Scenario 2 623 471

Scenario 2a 623 543

Scenario 2b 623 680

Table 10. Journey Time Comparison for AM Peak – Away from Town (Westbound) MAIN STREET B3400 AND RINGWAY SCENARIO JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S)

Scenario 2 556 450

Scenario 2a 556 456

Scenario 2b 556 456

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 21/ 30

Table 11. Journey Time Comparison for PM Peak – Towards Town (Eastbound) MAIN STREET B3400 AND RINGWAY SCENARIO JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S)

Scenario 2 642 543

Scenario 2a 642 611

Scenario 2b 642 720

Table 12. Journey Time Comparison for PM Peak – Away from Town (Westbound) MAIN STREET B3400 AND RINGWAY SCENARIO JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S)

Scenario 2 574 456

Scenario 2a 574 460

Scenario 2b 574 462

3.3.3 The journey time comparisons shows that the route via Main Street is slower than the route via B3400 and Ringway. This difference reduces as traffic is assumed to divert to the B3400 corridor. For all journey time except the PM peak towards town, the route via B3400 and Ringway is estimated to be 2 to 3 minutes quicker than using Main Street in Scenario 2 and Scenario 2a.

3.3.4 The analysis therefore shows that up to 50% of the traffic which uses Main Street to travel between the B3400 and the A339 in the NHTM model runs could transfer to the route via B3400 and Ringway without a significant effect on journey times for traffic using the route. The exception to this is for journeys into town in the AM peak, where increases in delays at several junctions begin to exert an influence on the overall journey times. Beyond 50%, the effects of the additional traffic become more pronounced, particularly at the West Ham junction, and this is evidenced in the narrowing of the differences between the journey times on the route via Main Street and the route via B3400 and Ringway.

3.4 Main Street Comparison with Winklebury

3.4.1 Based on the above results, which suggest that 50% of non-development related trips could be attracted to the B3400 and Ringway instead of using Main Street, an additional assessment has been undertaken to consider an alternative route via Winklebury. For clarity, the exercise presented in this technical note does not include any reassignment of traffic to the route via the B3400 and Ringway West.

3.4.2 The route via Winklebury runs between the Southern Access roundabout and Aldermaston Roundabout, via the B3400 Worting Road, Roman Way, Winklebury Way, Brunel Road, Houndmills Road, Houndmills Roundabout and Aldermaston Roundabout.

3.4.3 The assessed alternative route is shown in Figure 10 below.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 22/ 30

Figure 10. Winklebury Alternative Route

3.4.4 In order to assess the likelihood using the route via Winklebury, the operation of the key junctions on this route has been assessed. The results of this analysis are summarised in the following sections.

Winklebury Way Junction

3.4.5 The proposed Winklebury Way access has been modelled in Linsig3 for Scenario 2a. This model was originally produced by the HCC Highway Modelling Team, and has been updated with the Scenario 2c flow data.

3.4.6 Table 13 sets out the results for the morning peak hour.

Table 13. Proposed Winklebury Way Access – Scenario 2c AM Peak

Item Lane Degree Of Average Mean Max Description Saturation Delay Queue (%) (S/PCU) (PCU)

Roman Road 1/1+1/2 North Left 111.4% 280 50 Ahead Right

Winklebury 2/2+2/1 Way Right 107.9% 244 27 Left Ahead

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 23/ 30

Item Lane Degree Of Average Mean Max Description Saturation Delay Queue (%) (S/PCU) (PCU)

Roman Road 3/1+3/2 South Ahead 110.3% 240 95 Right Left

Site Access 4/2+4/1 road Left 107.2% 238 27 Ahead Right

Cycle Time: 120 Seconds PRC: -23.8%

3.4.7 A maximum Degree of Saturation (DoS) of 111% is observed in Scenario 2c during the AM peak. This occurs on the Roman Road North arm. The maximum queue is 95 PCUs on the Roman Road south arm. The PRC value of this junction is -23.8%, suggesting the junction would operate over capacity in the AM peak, with the addition of 50% of non-development trips being assigned to this route.

3.4.8 Table 14 sets out the results for the evening peak hour.

Table 14. Proposed Winklebury Way Access – Scenario 2c PM Peak

Item Lane Degree Of Average Mean Max Description Saturation Delay Queue (%) (S/PCU) (PCU)

Roman Road 1/1+1/2 North Left 112.3% 275 84 Ahead Right

Winklebury 2/2+2/1 Way Right Left 68.3% 64 7 Ahead

Roman Road 3/1+3/2 South Ahead 78.9% 38 14 Right Left

Site Access 4/2+4/1 road Left 110.6% 280 43 Ahead Right

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 24/ 30

Item Lane Degree Of Average Mean Max Description Saturation Delay Queue (%) (S/PCU) (PCU)

Cycle Time: 124 Seconds PRC: -24.8%

3.4.9 A maximum Degree of Saturation (DoS) of 112% occurs on the Roman Road north with a corresponding queue of 84 PCU. The PRC of this junction is -24.8%, suggesting the junction would operate over capacity within the PM peak with the addition of 50% of non- development trips being assigned to this route.

Houndmills Roundabout (VS19)

3.4.10 For the purposes of this assessment, the impact of 50% of non development trips using Main Street reassigning to the route via Winklebury has been assessed on the operation of the Houndmills Roundabout (VS19).

3.4.11 Table 15 summarises the results for the AM peak.

Table 15. VS19 Scenario 2c, AM peak Max Delays Arm Queue RFC (S) (PCU)

Unnamed Road (Car 1 9 0.12 Dealership)

Aldermaston 1 4 0.55 Road South

Kingsclere 1 4 0.41 Road

Knights Park 1 4 0.10 Road

Houndmills 83 189 1.11 Road

Hamilton 0 7 0.14 Close

3.4.12 This shows a maximum RFC of 1.11 on Houndmills Road, with a max delay of 189 seconds, and a queue of 83 PCUs. This demonstrates that the Houndmills Roundabout will operate over capacity in the morning peak hour.

3.4.13 Table 16 sets outs the results for the PM peak hour for Scenario 2c.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 25/ 30

Table 16. VS19 Scenario 2c, PM peak Max Arm Queue Delays (S) RFC (PCU)

Unnamed Road (Car 0 12 0.23 Dealership)

Aldermaston Road 2 6 0.68 South

Kingsclere Road 1 4 0.33

Knights Park Road 0 5 0.11

Houndmills Road 189 465 1.24

Hamilton Close 1 10 0.41

3.4.14 A maximum RFC of 1.24 is observed on Houndmills Road with a corresponding delay of 465 seconds and a queue of 189 PCUs. This demonstrates that the Houndmills Roundabout will operate over capacity under Scenario 2c .

Journey Time Comparisons – Main Street and Winklebury

3.4.15 The journey times and expected average delays have been examined for the two routes (via Main Street and via Winklebury).

3.4.16 This has been based on the following:

1. The time spent to travel the route in uncongested conditions is estimated by assigning a travel speed to the various sections of each route. This is designed to account for variations in road alignment and the need to react to other road users or road conditions.

2. The delays at each of the main junctions on each route are calculated using the outputs from the relevant junction models, or from the NHTM where individual junction models are not available. For the proposed signalled junctions on Main Street, a delay of 40 seconds per junction has been assumed. This is intended to provide a robust estimate of delay which reflects a typical signal arrangement and where the performance of all arms of the junction is satisfactory in terms of its Degree of Saturation (DoS).

3.4.17 The journey times have been calculated by direction of travel, i.e. for vehicles travelling toward the town centre / eastward, and vehicles travelling away from the town centre / westward.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 26/ 30

3.4.18 Table 17 to Table 20 show the calculated journey times for each route by direction of travel.

3.4.19 In the counter peak direction of travel, for journeys on Main Street the reduction in traffic caused by the diversion to the alternative route does not translate into a change in overall journey time. This is because the counter peak movements have spare capacity (to allow them to accommodate demand at peak times) and therefore removing a proportion of the traffic does not change the model outputs to the extent where the expected delay for these movements is altered.

Table 17. Journey time comparison for AM Peak – Towards Town (Eastbound) JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA SCENARIO VIA MAIN STREET WINKLEBURY

Scenario 2 767 786

Scenario 2c 767 1173

Table 18. Journey Time Comparison for AM Peak – Away from Town (Westbound) JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA SCENARIO VIA MAIN STREET WINKLEBURY

Scenario 2 684 621

Scenario 2c 665 795

Table 19. Journey Time Comparison for PM Peak – Towards Town (Eastbound) JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA SCENARIO VIA MAIN STREET WINKLEBURY

Scenario 2 816 615

Scenario 2c 816 1033

Table 20. Journey Time Comparison for PM Peak – Away from Town (Westbound) JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA SCENARIO VIA MAIN STREET WINKLEBURY

Scenario 2 687 667

Scenario 2c 683 681

3.4.20 The journey time comparisons indicate that:

 In the AM peak in Scenario 2, the journey times by each route in an eastbound direction are broadly comparable. In a westbound direction, the route via Winklebury is quicker.

 When Scenario 2c is considered, the route via Winklebury in both directions is significantly slower than the Main Street route, which is due to delays at the Houndmills roundabout and the Winklebury Way / Roman Road junction.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 27/ 30

 For the PM peak, for trips in an eastbound direction, in Scenario 2, the route via Winklebury is faster than the route via Main Street. In Scenario 2c, the route via Winklebury is lower than using Main Street, as a result of increased delays at the Houndmills and Winklebury Way / Roman Road junctions.

 For trips in a westbound direction, the journey time for both routes in both Scenario 2 and Scenario 2c is very similar.

3.4.21 The results of this journey time analysis demonstrates that in most cases there is little or no benefit to drivers (or journey time saving) in using the route via Winklebury in preference to the route via Main Street.

3.4.22 Further, where a significant proportion of drivers are modelled as using the Winklebury alternative route, this leads to major increases in journey times and therefore the incentive to use this route diminishes.

3.5 Summary of Main Street Tests

3.5.1 The journey time data from all of the exercises (Scenarios 2, 2a, 2b and 2c) is summarised below.

Table 21. Journey time comparison for AM Peak – Towards Town JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA JOURNEY TIME (S) SCENARIO VIA MAIN STREET B3400 AND RINGWAY VIA WINKLEBURY (1 ST / WINKLEBURY)

Scenario 2 623 / 767 471 768

Scenario 2a 623 543 N/A

Scenario 2b 623 680 N/A

Scenario 2c 767 N/A 1173 Table 22. Journey Time Comparison for AM Peak – Away from Town JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA JOURNEY TIME (S) SCENARIO (MAIN STREET) B3400 AND RINGWAY VIA WINKLEBURY (1 ST / WINKLEBURY))

Scenario 2 556 / 684 450 621

Scenario 2a 556 456 N/A

Scenario 2b 556 456 N/A

Scenario 2c 665 N/A 795

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 28/ 30

Table 23. Journey Time Comparison for PM Peak – Towards Town JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA JOURNEY TIME (S) SCENARIO (MAIN STREET) B3400 AND RINGWAY VIA WINKLEBURY (1 ST / WINKLEBURY)

Scenario 2 642 / 816 543 615

Scenario 2a 642 611 N/A

Scenario 2b 642 720 N/A

Scenario 2c 816 N/A 1033 Table 24. Journey Time Comparison for PM Peak – Away from Town JOURNEY TIME (S) JOURNEY TIME (S) VIA JOURNEY TIME (S) SCENARIO (MAIN STREET) B3400 AND RINGWAY VIA WINKLEBURY (1 ST / WINKLEBURY)

Scenario 2 574 / 687 456 667

Scenario 2a 574 460 N/A

Scenario 2b 574 462 N/A

Scenario 2c 663 N/A 681

3.5.2 This shows that travel times on the route via B3400 and Ringway (Scenario 2a) are always quicker than the Winklebury route (Scenario 2c). This is due to the Winklebury route being longer and having greater delays.

3.5.3 This analysis therefore supports the conclusion set out in the TA Addendum, that drivers seeking an alternative route between the B3400 and A339 are more likely to use B3400, Churchill Way and Ringway West and are not likely to use routes through Winklebury.

3.5.4 This analysis also supports the conclusion that it is unlikely that 100% of non-development trips on Main Street would reassign to the route via B3400 and Ringway. The analysis shows that it is realistic that 50% of non-development traffic may use this route as opposed to using Main Street.

3.5.5 It is also noted that the comparisons of the performance of the junctions in question as assessed within the Transport Assessments and Environmental Statement (ES) identifies benefits to some junctions in Scenario 2A relative to Scenario 2, as well as adverse impacts at other locations. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed mitigation package would not be expected to differ materially if the re-assignment of traffic were to fall slightly above or below the 50% threshold.

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 29/ 30

APPROVAL

Version Name Position Date Modifications

Author HM Associate 04/12/2019 Checked Projects JS 04/12/2019 1 by Director Final for Issue Approved DD/MM/YY by Author DD/MM/YY Checked DD/MM/YY 2 by Approved DD/MM/YY by

Journey Times Analysis ST16020/JTS/002 Page 30/ 30