High Wycombe Reserve Sites County Council / Wycombe District Council

Transport Framework

HWTP01 | 2 19 January 2016 BCC / WDC

Trans port Framewor k Buc ki nghams hire C ount y C ouncil / Wyc ombe Distric t Council

Transport Framework

High Wycombe Reserve Sites

Project no: B1279891 Document title: Transport Framework Document No.: HWTP01 Revision: 2 Date: 19 January 2016 Client name: Buckinghamshire County Council / Wycombe District Council Client no: BCC / WDC Project manager: Richard Smith Author: Matthew Jopp File name: M:\B1279891 Wycombe Reserve Sites\Technical Work\A. Deliverables\Report\High Wycombe Reserve Sites - Transport Framework - Final.docx

Jacobs U.K. Limited

1180 Eskdale Road Winnersh, Wokingham Reading RG41 5TU United Kingdom T +44 (0)118 946 7000 F +44 (0)118 946 7001 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2016 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

0 30/10/15 Full Draft MJ SM RS

1 11/01/16 Final Draft RS EW RS

2 19/01/16 Final RS EW RS

HWTP01 i Transport Framework

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report ...... 1 1.2 Background and Study Area ...... 1 1.3 Engagement Process ...... 2 1.4 Structure of Report ...... 2 2. Policy and Funding Framework ...... 4 2.1 Overview ...... 4 2.2 Policy Review ...... 4 2.3 National Policy ...... 4 2.4 Regional Policy ...... 6 2.5 Local Policy and Guidance ...... 7 3. Baseline Conditions ...... 11 3.1 Introduction ...... 11 3.2 Population Characteristics ...... 11 3.3 Highway Network ...... 12 3.4 Network Performance ...... 13 3.5 Road Safety ...... 20 3.6 Rail Services ...... 22 3.7 Bus Services ...... 22 3.8 Cycling ...... 24 3.9 Walking ...... 24 3.10 Air Quality ...... 24 3.11 Environment ...... 25 3.12 Economy ...... 26 4. Forecast Conditions ...... 28 4.1 Introduction ...... 28 4.2 Planning Data Assumptions ...... 28 4.3 Development Scenario ...... 29 4.4 Highway Network Assumptions ...... 31 4.5 Growth Factors ...... 32 4.6 Without Reserve Sites Traffic Forecast ...... 33 4.7 Public Transport ...... 36 5. Reserve Sites ...... 37 5.1 Introduction ...... 37 5.2 Land Use Assumptions...... 37 5.3 Abbey Barn North ...... 40 5.4 Abbey Barn South ...... 41 5.5 Gomm Valley & Ashwells ...... 43 5.6 Slate Meadow ...... 45 5.7 Terriers ...... 47 5.8 Overall Highway Network Performance ...... 49

HWTP01 ii Transport Framework

5.9 Public Transport Trip Generation ...... 50 6. Consultation and Engagement ...... 51 6.1 Introduction ...... 51 6.2 Public Infrastructure Workshop ...... 51 6.3 Officer Transport Workshop ...... 52 6.4 Liaison Group ...... 53 6.5 Town-Wide Infrastructure Roundtable ...... 53 7. Transport Framework Development ...... 55 7.1 Introduction ...... 55 7.2 Problems and Objectives...... 55 7.3 Option Generation ...... 56 7.4 Option Development and Appraisal ...... 57 7.5 Prioritised Transport Schemes ...... 58 7.6 Abbey Barn North Site Package ...... 60 7.7 Abbey Barn South Site Package ...... 60 7.8 Gomm Valley & Ashwells Site Package ...... 62 7.9 Slate Meadow Site Package ...... 65 7.10 Terriers Farm Site Package ...... 66 8. Summary and Next Steps ...... 69 8.1 Introduction ...... 69 8.2 Transport Framework ...... 69 8.3 Next Steps ...... 69

Appendix A. Glossary of Terms Appendix B. Historic Traffic Growth Trends Appendix C. Route Journey Time Analysis Appendix D. Route Journey Time Profiles Appendix E. Analysis Appendix F. TRICS Methodology Appendix G. Scheme Prioritisation Table Appendix H. Discounted Schemes Appendix I. Policy Framework

HWTP01 iii Transport Framework

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report

Jacobs is framework consultants to the Transport for Buckinghamshire Alliance (TfB) between Jacobs and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC). Under the terms of this contract, Jacobs has been commissioned jointly by Wycombe District Council (WDC) and BCC to undertake a transportation study to establish potential transport proposals for the High Wycombe area.

In November 2014 WDC agreed to release five strategic development sites in the High Wycombe area, ahead of the production of a new Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP), in order to contribute towards meeting local housing needs. These development sites are identified in the WDC Core Strategy (2008) as ‘Reserve Locations for Future Development’. For the purposes of this report, these sites shall be referred to as ‘Reserve Sites’. As part of further study work associated with the Reserve Sites and wider transport matters, Jacobs has been asked by BCC and WDC to demonstrate transport impacts, and identify a package of measures to enable growth associated with the Reserve Sites to be accommodated. The study process comprises the following key steps:

• refresh the policy and strategy context which guides the development and appraisal of a transport package; • update the information which demonstrates the baseline and forecast conditions in the High Wycombe area; • review and describe the proposed Reserve Sites and local transport provision and conditions; • collate the results from a number of stakeholder engagement exercises and account for the findings as part of transport package development; • establish a ‘long list’ of transport options and appraise these (based on processes consistent with DfT Early Appraisal and Sifting Tool) to form a prioritised list of effective, feasible and deliverable transport schemes; and • review the measures to establish a framework of transport interventions associated with each Reserve Site.

The scope of the study is limited to interventions that could be considered and implemented within a programme to 2026 and limited budget to accommodate transport demand from Reserve Site development growth. Strategic interventions such as major highway network improvements or new strategic rail schemes are not considered within this study. Small to medium-scale schemes have been appraised only. Any major schemes that may be promoted within the area in future would be progressed as separate standalone projects and considered further alongside future emerging New Local Plan development processes.

This study process and reporting informs the production of WDC Development Briefs for each Reserve Site. Evidence from this report will also be used to inform future consideration of wider New Local Plan development growth and future transport strategy development and adoption. It is not intended that the outcomes and recommendations in this study would be adopted as local policy.

1.2 Background and Study Area

In January 2014 Jacobs was commissioned by BCC and WDC to develop a High Wycombe Area Transport Study to form part of the background evidence for the new WDLP. From this assessment, an understanding of the traffic implications of new land use and associated highway infrastructure development in the High Wycombe area was established. The transport study was based on the High Wycombe Highway Assignment Model (HWHAM), owned by BCC. The model has been reviewed and approved by as fit for the purpose of assessing the implications of Local Plan related land use development.

HWTP01 1

Transport Framework

The study area for this package of potential transport proposals is outlined in Figure 1-A which includes the urban area of High Wycombe and an area in the vicinity of Wooburn Town and Bourne End on the A4094 corridor.

N A4128 A404

A40

A4010 A404 A40

M40

A404(M) Wooburn A4094 Town Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 A4094

Figure 1-A Study Area

1.3 Engagement Process

The Transport Framework development and scheme appraisal process described in this report is informed by the outcomes from local Liaison Groups for each Reserve Site and town-wide Infrastructure Roundtable Group meetings. Representatives of the Liaison Groups are also appointed to a town-wide Roundtable to consider the collective impacts on infrastructure across the study area. These meetings and workshops were undertaken between January and March 2015 and were run by consultants AR Urbanism. The workshops were all-day events, allowing for in-depth discussion on transport and other issues and how they might be addressed. Further Infrastructure Roundtable and Liaison Group meetings have taken place during Summer and Autumn 2015.

Supplementary to this stakeholder engagement process, Jacobs also held a workshop with Officers of WDC and BCC to capture existing knowledge and understanding of the transport issues and potential transport options. This workshop took place on 4th April 2015, at BCC County Hall.

1.4 Structure of Report

The structure of this report is as follows:

• Section 1 – Introduction – Outlines the purpose and background of the report.

HWTP01 2

Transport Framework

• Section 2 – Policy and Funding Framework – Reviews relevant policy and strategy documents to ensure consistency with both Wycombe and Buckinghamshire’s existing policies and programmes. • Section 3 – Baseline Conditions – Describes current transport conditions to provide a clear understanding of the existing situation. • Section 4 – Forecast Conditions – Using the Core Strategy horizon of 2026, land use / transport commitments are identified and future baseline traffic conditions are modelled. • Section 5 – Reserve Sites – Land use allocations, likely trip generation and trip distributions are identified. • Section 6 – Consultation and Engagement – Summary of the activities and process, the outcomes of the workshops and a summary of the various aspirations for the Transport Framework. • Section 7 – Transport Framework Development – Clear description of problems and objectives and identification of a long list of options. The methodology for the appraisal process is described and the long list of options is prioritised to form site-based packages. • Section 8 – Summary and Next Steps – A summary of the outcomes of the study and next steps.

HWTP01 3

Transport Framework

2. Policy and Funding Framework

2.1 Overview In appraising the relative benefits of transport measures, it is important to examine and review existing planning policies and objectives to ensure that any schemes appraised and conclusions drawn from this study are consistent with adopted policy and strategy. This section outlines the key strategies and policies relating to planning and transport as articulated at the National, Regional and Local level.

The overall policy framework is illustrated in Figure 2-A, and explored in further detail in the following sub- sections. It should be noted that the national policies were adopted under the previous Coalition Government and may be subject to change.

• NPPF ‘Planning should…actively manage • patterns of growth to make the fullest

Localism Act possible use of public transport, walking • DfT Business Plan and and cycling’ – ‘NPPF, 2012’ Road Investment Strategy • National London to Scotland West Recognition of key junction capacity and Route Based Strategy safety issues at M40 J4 – ‘London to Scotland West RBS, 2014’

• BTVLEP Strategic Regenerating High Wycombe led by investment in the Town Centre

Economic Plan Masterplan and Southern Quadrant • BCC LTP3 & Supporting Strategies ‘Supporting connectivity to a number of • BCC Strategic Plan major settlements and opportunity sites’ Regional in High Wycombe – BTVLEP SEP, 2014’

A focus on ‘transforming previously • Wycombe Core Strategy developed land in High Wycombe to • DSA Plan deliver an urban renaissance’ – ‘WDC • BCC Local Area Strategy Core Strategy, 2008’

Local • Southern Quadrant Managing the network to deliver better Transport Strategy journey times and reduce air quality issues – BCC Local Area Strategy, 2011

Figure 2-A Key Policy Documents

2.2 Policy Review

2.3 National Policy

2.3.1 National Planning Policy Framework Under the previous Coalition Government, planning policy changed significantly. Outlined within the Local Growth White Paper1, the focus for planning and future development is one that helps to deliver strong, sustainable and balanced growth, whilst also being tailored to local aspirations and requirements.

1 Local growth: realising every place’s potential http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/economic-development/docs/l/cm7961- local-growth-white-paper.pdf

HWTP01 4

Transport Framework

In March 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government published the ‘National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)2, which sets out the Government’s economic, environmental and social planning policies. The NPPF aims to reform the planning system and is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable development which for plan making means that ‘local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area’. There is a focus on planning for prosperity, people and places, promoting increased levels of development and supporting infrastructure, whilst also protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment. It is designed, however, to be interpreted and implemented locally; and delegates responsibility for achieving this vision to local planning authorities.

2.3.2 Localism Act The former Coalition Government’s Localism Act3 provides the legislative foundation for this change. The Act decentralises power, giving local government new freedom and flexibilities; provides new rights and powers for communities and individuals; reforms the planning system; and enables decisions to be taken locally.

The former Coalition Government’s vision for transport is also one that encourages growth, but is greener, safer and improves the quality of life in our communities. The Government’s transport priorities and key actions in order to deliver this national vision are set out within the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Business Plan 4, which is updated annually. There is a focus on improving road safety, reducing congestion and pollution and making changes at a local level. The ‘Local Transport White Paper – Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen’5 published in January 2011 sets out the former Coalition Government’s vision for a sustainable local transport system that supports the economy and reduces carbon emissions.

2.3.3 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development The DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’6 (September 2013) sets out that the effective and efficient operation of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) will contribute to creating ‘the conditions that support the realisation of the aspirations of business and communities’ and is an important factor in the delivery of national economic growth.

Policy reduces the burden on developers of mitigating the impacts of traffic generation on the strategic road network. The requirement is now that all development generated traffic and background growth can be accommodated at the date of opening of the development. It is considered that this will incentivise the delivery of development by ensuring that where development comes forward soon after receiving consent there is a significant reduction in the obligations on developers to provide capacity or demand management measures.

2.3.4 Highways England In 2001, Alan Cook published his independent review, A Fresh Start for the Strategic Road Network7, which made a number of recommendations on how the management of the Strategic Roads Network could be improved. The review stated that major savings for taxpayers and benefits for the national economy could be made by reforming the Government’s management of England’s motorways and trunk roads.

In July 2013, the Government published Action for Roads: A network for the 21st century8 which proposed a different model for the funding and delivery of the strategic road network (motorways and major roads). This included steps to turn the Highways Agency into an organisation at arms-length from Government, specifically a Government-owned strategic highways company funded by Government. The new model would be supported by the introduction of a long-term Roads Investment Strategy and establishing a road user watchdog to

2 National Planning Policy Framework https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 3 Decentralisation and the Localism Bill: an essential guide https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5951/1793908.pdf 4 Department for Transport Business Plan 2013-15 http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/11 5 Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen http://www.official- documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7996/7996.pdf 6 The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf 7 A Fresh Start for the Strategic Road Network https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-fresh-start-for-the-strategic- road-network 8 Action for Roads: A network for the 21st century https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-for-roads-a-network- for-the-21st-century HWTP01 5

Transport Framework

represent the views of roads users and a highways monitor to monitor the company’s performance and efficiency. The overall intention of the reforms was to improve long term planning and funding certainty, and provide greater transparency and clear lines of accountability.

The Government consulted on its proposals in October 2013 and published its response to the consultation in April 2014. The Infrastructure Bill (Part 1 of which implements the Government’s roads reforms) was introduced into Parliament in June 2014 and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015. The Government appointed Highways England as the strategic highways company for the whole of England with effect from 1 April 2015.

2.3.5 Route Based Strategies Highways England has developed 18 Route-Based Strategies9 (RBS) which have informed a Roads Investment Strategy10 for the strategic road network covering the 2015/16 – 2019/20 road period. A key objective of the RBS is to help support and sustain economic development. As part of this process, Highways England have engaged with Local Authorities in order to take account of local priorities for growth as well as balancing national and local needs on the network.

The M40 forms part of the London to Scotland West route and an evidence report has been published identifying the network performance 2012/13 on the M40 near High Wycombe (Junctions 3 and 4)11. It is recognised that there is a key junction capacity and road safety issue at Junction 4 and vehicle hours delay (April 2012-March 2013) was in the top 10% on the route between Junction 4 and Junction 5. However average peak time speeds are amongst the highest on the route. An M40 J4 / A404 Roundabout pinch point scheme to install SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique) to reduce congestion at this roundabout was then funded and completed in 2014 to address the issues identified and support growth plans for High Wycombe focussed near the motorway (the Southern Quadrant development).

2.4 Regional Policy

2.4.1 The Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership Included in the Localism Act was the power to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies and with that the South East Plan, which previously set out the region’s targets for housing, economy, transport and environmental challenges. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have taken on Regional Development Agencies’ role in this process, with Wycombe District forming part of the Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP (BTVLEP).

The vision of the BTVLEP is ‘to create a vibrant, balanced, competitive Buckinghamshire economy’ through providing the ‘conditions that support business to invest, grow, and thrive’12. A number of key objectives are identified for the period 2012 - 2031 in order to achieve this vision. These include a focus on bringing forward the necessary business-critical infrastructure and ensuring major transport infrastructure is fit for its economic purpose. In the High Wycombe area, BTVLEP is continuing to promote key strategic employment sites served by the inter-urban A4010 and A40 and the town centre.

2.4.2 BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan 2012-2031 The BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) 2012-2031 includes Local Growth Deal proposals for the periods 2015 - 2016 and 2015 - 2021.

A Business Case supporting the SEP was submitted as part of BTVLEP’s Growth Deal to the DfT earlier this year to support investment in High Wycombe town centre / southern quadrant. £8.5m has been secured through

9 Route-Based Strategies http://www.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/managing-our-roads/improving-our-network/route- based-strategies/ 10 DfT, 2015. Road Investment Strategy: for the 2015/16 – 2019/20 Road Period https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408514/ris-for-2015-16-road-period-web- version.pdf 11 London to Scotland West Route Evidence Report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/365298/London_to_Scotland_West.pdf

12 Buckinghamshire Local Enterprise Thames Valley Partnership 2012 – 2031 - Plan for Sustainable Economic Growth in the Entrepreneurial Heart of Britain http://buckstvlep.co.uk/uploads/downloads/SEQ129_BBF_BusinessPlan_0912_LOW-1.pdf HWTP01 6

Transport Framework

a mixture of previously committed funding and Local Growth Deal funding13. BTVLEP expect to secure further investment of around £7m in public and private sector contributions.

2.4.3 Buckinghamshire’s Local Transport Plan Buckinghamshire’s Local Transport Plan 2011-201614 was adopted in April 2011. It is the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) for the county, setting out policies, strategies and priorities to address transport related issues and challenges across the five years to March 2016. The LTP3 is focused on addressing the five themes of the Sustainable Communities Strategy15 (SCS), which sets the long-term plan for the county up to 2026:

• Delivering a thriving economy • Sustainable environment • Safer communities • Health and wellbeing • Cohesive and strong communities

In supporting the delivery of a thriving economy, LTP3 recognises that encouraging employment growth in the county and delivering sustainable housing growth are two key challenges. Within the District, High Wycombe is identified as an area likely to experience significant housing and employment growth; however, other transport related land use planning issues stemming from this include:

• High Wycombe town centre proposals • Air quality • In-commuting pressure • Rural accessibility • Development pressure on the high quality environment

BCC is currently consulting on a new county-wide policy document for LTP4. If this is adopted by the County Council, it will be followed by the development of area strategies for transport in areas of major projected growth in the county.

2.5 Local Policy and Guidance

2.5.1 Local Area Strategy – High Wycombe and Chepping Wye Valley (2011 – 16) The County LTP3 Strategy is supported by the Local Area Strategy16 for the High Wycombe and Chepping Wye Valley, covering the same period. The Local Area Strategy seeks to deliver a strong economic centre for High Wycombe, and sets out an Urban Strategy to:

• Support delivery of the town centre vision and masterplan • Accommodate new housing and employment growth • Tackle congestion • Increase levels of active travel • Address poor air quality in the town centre

13 Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Growth Deal https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/327619/02_Buckinghamshire_Thames_Valley _Growth_Deal.pdf 14 Buckinghamshire’s Local Transport Plan 2011-2016 http://www.tfbucks.co.uk/documents/ltp/LTP3.pdf 15 Sustainable Community Strategy for Buckinghamshire 2009–2026 http://www.buckinghamshirepartnership.gov.uk/assets/content/Partnerships/BSP/docs/bsp_scs_visual_county.pdf 16 Local Transport Plan Local Area Strategies http://www.tfbucks.co.uk/documents/ltp/LTP3_Local_area_strategies.pdf HWTP01 7

Transport Framework

The approach contains a mix of schemes and initiatives involving the transfer of journeys to sustainable modes, re-routing cross-town journeys to distributor routes, intercepting and transferring car journeys to park and ride, and managing the network to deliver better journey times and reduce air quality issues.

2.5.2 Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy The SQTS17 was adopted in November 2012 by BCC. SQTS sets a ten year vision for transport in the southern area of High Wycombe by establishing priorities and schemes that will deliver positive benefits, supporting WDC land use planning. The strategy sets out BCC’s vision for dealing with increasing travel demands forecast for the area, associated with land use development sites including Hub and RAF Daws Hill.

2.5.3 Wycombe Local Development Framework WDC has an emerging Local Development Framework comprising the following:

18 • Adopted Core Strategy 2008 19 • Emerging New Wycombe District Local Plan 20 • Delivery and Site Allocations (DSA) Plan, June 2012 21 • Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), May 2012 22 • High Wycombe Town Centre Masterplan (TCMP) as part of the DSA

The adopted Core Strategy sets out the vision and spatial strategy for Wycombe District up to 2026. The focus is on transforming previously developed land in High Wycombe to deliver an urban renaissance, with the town acting as a regional hub and principal focus for development. The strategy contains policies for a number of “Key Areas of Change” including Hughenden district and Desborough Avenue.

Policy CS8 describes ‘Reserve Locations for Future Development’ which are the subject of this transport study. The reserve locations (not listed in priority order) are:

• Abbey Barn North, High Wycombe • Abbey Barn South, High Wycombe • Gomm Valley, High Wycombe • Slate Meadow, Wooburn Town (Bourne End) • Terriers Farm, High Wycombe

The emerging WDLP will replace the adopted Core Strategy as well as the saved policies from the existing Local Plan (2004). The new WDLP will also address economic issues and identify land for business development. The need for a new WDLP is triggered by the abolition of the South East Plan housing targets through the Localism Bill, which informed the adopted WDC Core Strategy. The new WDLP will set housing targets for the District and address strategic housing and economic issues. It will also set out the detailed policies to manage development.

The DSA translates the high level policies of the Core Strategy into more detailed policies and site specific allocations for town centres. It also identifies and plans the delivery of the infrastructure needed to support this development.

17 Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy http://www.transportforbucks.net/Strategy/LTP3/Local-Area-Strategies.aspx 18 Adopted Core Strategy http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/wycombe- development-framework/adopted-core-strategy.aspx 19 New Local Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning-policy/new-local-plan.aspx 20 Delivery and Site Allocations Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning- policy/delivery-and-site-allocations-plan-examination.aspx 21 Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning- policy/community-infrastructure-levy/examination.aspx 22 High Wycombe Town Centre Masterplan http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning- policy/wycombe-development-framework/high-wycombe-town-centre-technical-studies.aspx HWTP01 8

Transport Framework

The DSA includes ‘District-wide Development Management Policies’ as per policy DM1 which aims to tackle the transport related challenges created by major developments and adds further detail to supplement Core Strategy policy CS20.

This policy states ‘all developments that require the submission of a Transport Assessment, in line with Appendix B of the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment (March 2007), or any replacement to this guidance, or as required by the Highway Authority, should provide’ a range of transport improvements relating to:

• Public transport • Walking and cycling • Travel plans • Car clubs • Car sharing The design of development should allow for bus penetration through the sites and priority routing; traffic management that ensures queues are managed in a way that mitigates their impact on the primary highway network; and layout and design of transport infrastructure that creates high quality, locally distinct places whilst reducing the dominance of vehicular traffic. WDC will as far as practicable seek to ensure that new development has a neutral effect on the highway network.

2.5.4 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) The Wycombe CIL was formally introduced in 2012. CIL is a local tariff that enables Local Authorities to set a charge for most types of new land use development. The money is available to fund a wide range of local and strategic infrastructure that is required as a result of development such as transport schemes, green infrastructure, schools and community facilities.

The DSA sets out that ‘it is vitally important that new development provides appropriate measures to encourage sustainable transport behaviour as well as, through the CIL, contributions towards the wider strategy as produced by the County Council so as to offset the wider traffic impacts and meet the travel needs of users of the development’.

2.5.5 High Wycombe – Green Belt Assessment WDC is currently consulting on the principle of undertaking a detailed assessment of the Green Belt. The Green Belt in Wycombe District covers 48% of the District and is part of the much wider (London) Metropolitan Green Belt.

Much of the District’s Green Belt is, however, also in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – indeed only 11% of the Green Belt is not in the AONB. It is important to note that the AONB is designated at national level for the quality of the landscape, based on an objective assessment of that quality; the Green Belt is a local policy tool to prevent towns from merging and to prevent urban sprawl. Unlike the AONB, Green Belt is not designated because of its environmental quality.

Given the national policy limitations on major development in the AONB, and the fact that the Council does not control the extent of the AONB, the assessment focuses the area of search for major development on the areas of Green Belt outside of the AONB, mainly in the south east of the District around parts of High Wycombe, Hazlemere, Loudwater, Flackwell Heath, Wooburn, Bourne End, and Marlow.

2.5.6 High Wycombe – Bourne End Railway Line Background Paper In June 2010 Buckinghamshire County Council recommended protecting a 5 metre line to provide a wide “green corridor”. This will achieve a high quality, segregated traffic free walking and cycling route with provision for the inclusion of a bridle way. This is the preferred re-use of the former track bed in the foreseeable future.

If in the longer term, circumstances were to change and a strategic business case led by Central Government were to emerge, a different mechanism for delivery may be employed depending on the line of route. Whilst the

HWTP01 9

Transport Framework

route will not be safeguarded for this purpose this approach would ensure that the potential to implement an alternative use in the longer term would remain.

WDC’s Adopted Delivery & Site Allocations Plan (July 2013) 23, includes Policy DM4, which formalises the BCC recommendation in policy. Sustrans are implementing the first phase, which is the section from High Wycombe rail station to London Road; and from Bourne End Railway Station to the northern end of Town Lane. Later phases provide a high quality walking and cycling route, in discrete sections, eventually forming a continuous link, between High Wycombe Town Centre and Bourne End, potentially as part of the Sustrans national cycle network.

23 WDC adopted DSA plan (July 2013) - http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and-buildings/planning- policy/preparing-our-plans/delivery-and-site-allocations.aspx HWTP01 10

Transport Framework

3. Baseline Conditions

3.1 Introduction

This section reviews the existing population, land use and transportation infrastructure supply and demand. Travel conditions within the study area are described using a variety of existing data sources including traffic volume, journey patterns, and congestion and delay. Provision for public transport and non-motorised users is described with data related to travel volumes where available.

This section describes conditions for the entire High Wycombe urban area, reflecting the fact that the transport network in the town operates holistically, as issues in one part of the network can affect the performance of other areas of the town. Where appropriate, further commentary is provided on the transport network in relation to each Reserve Site.

This analysis is based on that previously presented within the WDLP Transport Study but has been reviewed and updated utilising new and more detailed information and a recent update to the baseline scenario in the High Wycombe Highway Assignment Model (HWHAM). This section also reflects observations during a series of site visits and feedback and local knowledge derived from the Liaison Groups and Infrastructure Workshop.

3.2 Population Characteristics

At the time of the 2011 Census, the study area (see Figure 1-A) had a total population of 100,316. Of these, 98,470 people resided in 38,639 households. The remainder were resident in communal establishments e.g. care homes, boarding schools. Figure 3-A shows the percentage of households owning various numbers of vehicles within the study area. Overall, 83% of households have access to at least one vehicle. This is slightly lower than the overall figure for the District (86%) but higher than the average for England (74%). The main method of travel to work for working age (16 – 74) residents who reside in the study area is also presented.

Figure 3-A Household Vehicle Ownership and Travel to Work

A total of 45% of working age residents drive a car or van as their main method of travel to work, with 7% using public transport. The corresponding percentage for those driving a car or van for this purpose in England is 37%, with 11% using public transport. The statistics for Wycombe District are similar to those for the study area. HWTP01 11

Transport Framework

Overall, the study area is characterised by relatively high car ownership and a relatively high proportion of travel to work by car or van.

There are some differences in levels of car ownership, method of travel to work and levels of working age population resident across the study area. Overall, levels of car ownership are relatively high (compared to national and regional averages) and driving to work is the dominant mode share. Use of public transport services for travel to work is low. Figure 3-B illustrates some of the local differences in method of travel to work within the Wycombe area for those driving a car or van. The red/amber areas indicate areas where the proportion of travel to work trips by private car is relatively low, and light / dark green where the proportion is relatively high. Lower private car mode shares (red/amber) are indicated in the town centre, Hughenden Valley, Oakridge and Castlefield and parts of Bowerdean and Totteridge. The areas with lower car mode shares (red/amber) indicate the areas where alternative modes of travel to work are more prevalent either due to lower levels of car ownership or that travel to work by non-car modes is preferred for other reasons.

Figure 3-B Method of Travel to Work

3.3 Highway Network

High Wycombe is located in the south of Buckinghamshire, situated approximately 29 miles north-west of London. The highway network is shown in Figure 3-C. High Wycombe lies to the north of the M40, with access to the strategic road network via Junction 4 at Handy Cross to the south of the town centre and Junction 3 to the east only at Loudwater. The A4010 in the west of the town provides a strategic route to mid and north Buckinghamshire; connecting with the Handy Cross junction to provide a north-south route for traffic which avoids the town centre.

Wooburn Town is situated in the vicinity of Bourne End to the south-west of High Wycombe and to the south of the M40 Junction 3. There are three main routes into this area including the A4094 from the north, the A4094 south from Maidenhead, and the A4155 Marlow Road from the west.

HWTP01 12

Transport Framework

The primary destinations around High Wycombe include Amersham, Beaconsfield, Maidenhead and the Thames Valley, Oxford and . Traffic travelling between these destinations is served by the M40, A404, A4010 and A355. Another major longer distance route through High Wycombe town centre is the route from Amersham and surrounding areas to Maidenhead and the Thames Valley in the south.

High Wycombe town centre is served by five key radial routes which meet at either end of the elevated Abbey Way flyover in the town centre. The A40 runs east – west through the town with dual carriageway sections from Oxford Road through to Abbey Way at Easton Street, including the flyover. The A4128 Hughenden Road provides a route to / from the north and joins the A40 at the Oxford Road roundabout. The A404 runs north- south through the town, and includes Amersham Hill to the north and the dual carriageway Marlow Hill to the south. Both routes have steep gradients with High Wycombe town centre situated in a valley bottom.

Figure 3-C Local Highway Network

3.4 Network Performance

3.4.1 Journey Patterns Analysis 24 of the origins and destinations of trips based on the HWHAM is illustrated for the AM peak in Figure 3-D,of which 33% of trips have both an origin and destination within the study area (internal trips). A further 46% of trips have either an origin or a destination in the study area, over two-thirds of which come from or are going to locations elsewhere in Buckinghamshire. The remaining 21% are trips passing through the study area, and are shaded grey in Figure 3-D.

24 This analysis excludes M40 through trips which do not enter the High Wycombe urban area. HWTP01 13

Transport Framework

Figure 3-D AM Base Model Trip Distribution

The pattern in the PM peak is very similar to the AM peak, with 31% internal trips, 46% with one end of the trip within the study area and 23% through trips.

Figure 3-E illustrates the pattern of external trips passing through the High Wycombe urban area. The AM and PM peaks show a similar overall pattern in terms of routes and therefore only the PM peak pattern is presented. Trips between the M40 and the A404(M)/Wycombe Road (around 2,500 to 2,700 trips during each peak hour) passing through the Handy Cross junction are not illustrated, as the purpose of this figure is to present through- trips within the urban area. A feature of both peaks is the low level of through traffic on the A40 West Wycombe Road east of Chapel Lane, and the A40 London Road, primarily a result of the presence of the M40 to the south which provides for strategic east-west movement.

HWTP01 14

Transport Framework

Figure 3-E PM Peak Through Trips

In the AM peak the major through movements are in both directions between the A40 West Wycombe Road and the M40 (East) and A404(T) and southbound on the A4128 Hughenden Road to onward destinations via the M40 (East) and the A404(T). There is also a notable through trip movement southbound on Holmer Green Road to the B474 towards Beaconsfield. In the PM peak there is a similar pattern of movement although with a primarily northbound orientation, including the movements from M40 (East) and A404(T) to A40 West Wycombe Road and A4128 Hughenden Road.

3.4.2 Traffic Volumes The HWHAM baseline traffic model reflects current traffic conditions and has been subject to a minor update as part of this study. The model has been used to establish the main traffic movements in and around High Wycombe. Details of the base model development are provided in the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR)25.

Figure 3-F and 3-G present the baseline traffic volumes for the AM and PM peaks respectively with volume indicated by bandwidth and shading. Apart from the M40, the highest traffic volumes are found on the Handy Cross, Abbey Way and Marlow Hill road links and gyratory systems, reflecting the higher road standards and number of lanes at these locations. There are also road links with high flows in excess of 1,000 vehicles per hour on the A40 West Wycombe Road, A4128 Hughenden Road, A404 Amersham Road and A40 London Road. The A4094 in Wooburn Town accommodates 700 – 900 vehicles in the AM peak and 600 – 700 in the PM peak.

25 High Wycombe Highway Assignment Model, Local Model Validation Report, January 2014 HWTP01 15

Transport Framework

Figure 3-F Baseline AM Peak Traffic Volumes

Figure 3-G Baseline PM Peak Traffic Volumes

In relation to the location of the Reserve Sites it is most notable that the A40 London Road and A404 Amersham Road currently accommodate relatively high volumes of traffic. The data for Kingshill Road, Totteridge Lane and Hazlemere Road also indicates high volumes of traffic.

Traffic volumes in High Wycombe have declined over the last decade according to DfT AADF data for the main strategic routes throughout the town (see Appendix B).

HWTP01 16

Transport Framework

3.4.3 Journey Time and Delay

Journey times were calculated for a selection of routes into, through and out of the town based on Trafficmaster data. The routes are illustrated in Figure 3-H.

Figure 3-H Journey Time Analysis Routes

The resulting updated modelled baseline average journey times and vehicle speeds for the AM and PM peaks are presented in Tables 3-A and 3-B.

Non-Peak AM Peak Time Speed Time Speed Diff. Diff. Time No. Description mm:ss mph mm:ss mph Speed 1 Handy Cross to West Wycombe 07:20 25.1 08:36 21.1 01:16 -4.0 2 West Wycombe to Handy Cross 08:10 22.5 11:16 16.1 03:06 -6.4 3 Handy Cross to Amersham Road 11:00 20.2 13:05 17.0 02:05 -3.2 4 Amersham Road to Handy Cross 11:00 20.8 16:29 14.2 05:29 -6.6 5 London Road inbound 07:40 21.2 10:22 14.2 02:42 -7.0 6 London Road outbound 08:40 18.6 14:11 10.4 05:31 -8.2 7 West Wycombe to Town 08:00 17.6 08:37 16.3 00:37 -1.3 8 Town to West Wycombe 07:20 19.1 08:15 17.0 00:55 -2.1 9 Hughenden Valley Road to Town 05:00 21.6 10:42 10.0 05:42 -11.6 10 Town to Hughenden Valley Road 05:00 22.0 05:17 20.5 00:17 -1.5

Table 3-A Baseline AM Peak Journey Times and Speeds

HWTP01 17

Transport Framework

Non-Peak PM Peak Time Speed Time Speed Diff. Diff. Time No. Description mm:ss mph mm:ss mph Speed 1 Handy Cross to West Wycombe 07:20 25.1 10:32 17.3 03:12 -7.8 2 West Wycombe to Handy Cross 08:10 22.5 09:01 20.2 00:51 -2.3 3 Handy Cross to Amersham Road 11:00 20.2 14:27 15.4 03:27 -4.8 4 Amersham Road to Handy Cross 11:00 20.8 13:20 17.6 02:20 -3.2 5 London Road inbound 07:40 21.2 10:30 14.0 02:50 -7.2 6 London Road outbound 08:40 18.6 11.48 12.5 03:08 -6.1 7 West Wycombe to Town 08:00 17.6 08:06 17.3 00:06 -0.3 8 Town to West Wycombe 07:20 19.1 08:46 16.0 01:26 -3.1 9 Hughenden Valley Road to Town 05:00 21.6 05:14 20.4 00:14 -1.2 10 Town to Hughenden Valley Road 05:00 22.0 06:59 15.5 01:59 -6.5

Table 3-B Baseline PM Peak Journey Times and Speeds

Average traffic speeds of up to 25mph are typically achieved on main routes in High Wycombe outside of the peak hours. During the AM Peak congestion results in journey time increases on the main routes and average vehicle speeds can reduce to as low as 10mph.

In the AM peak the lowest vehicle speed is on the A4128 Hughenden Road southbound. The greatest impact of congestion (difference between non-peak and AM peak) is experienced on the A4128 Hughenden Road southbound and the A40 London Road outbound.

In the PM peak the lowest vehicle speed is on the A40 London Road outbound. The greatest impact of congestion is experienced on the A4010 New Road route from Junction 4 of the M40 (Handy Cross) towards West Wycombe, on the A40 London Road inbound, and on the A4128 Hughenden Road northbound.

The performance of the A40 London Road is particularly important for the Gomm Valley and Abbey Barn North and South Reserve sites which are located in close proximity to this corridor. This route would serve to provide the primary access point for Gomm Valley to the primary road network and would provide a route between the Abbey Barn sites and central and eastern High Wycombe and onward destinations via the M40 Junction 3.

A further more detailed analysis of the journey times including a description of the key locations of delay for each route is presented in Appendix C. An analysis of the typical daily 12-hour journey time profile is presented in Appendix D. This shows that the AM peak typically experiences a more significant increase in journey times than the PM peak; however the PM peak generally experiences a longer period of poorer network performance. This is, in part, due to the influence of school-related travel.

Figure 3-I presents the modelled link speeds and maximum delays at key junctions in the updated baseline AM peak. The same information for the PM peak is shown in Figure 3-J. The link speeds are colour coded, with darker colours reflecting slower speeds and greater levels of congestion. The link speeds also reflect the impact of traffic calming measures and different speed limits.

Junction delays are also shown representing the maximum delay across the peak hour with darker colours representing greater levels of delay. Congestion within the network is a result of junction capacity constraints, link capacity constraints or a combination of both. A selection of 20 key junctions is shown to illustrate junction performance.

HWTP01 18

Transport Framework

Figure 3-I Baseline AM Peak Modelled Link Speeds and Delay

The slowest journeys in the AM peak are on the A40 London Road (both directions), Daws Hill Lane, the A4128 Hughenden Road southbound, the southbound approach to the A4010 / Cressex Road junction and Hamilton Road southbound.

A number of key junctions are shown to experience relatively high levels of delay during the AM peak. The junctions most under pressure in the AM peak are the A40 / Chapel Lane, A40 / Pastures, A40 Oxford Road Roundabout, M40 Handy Cross, A40 / Rayners Avenue, A40 / Gomm Road, and the A404 Abbey Way gyratory. In Wooburn Town, the Cores End Road / Kiln Lane / Brookbank Road roundabout is approaching capacity and delays are experienced during this peak.

The level of school travel related delay results in more significant congestion in some sections of the network during the AM peak, including in particular sections of the A404 South (Marlow Hill) and A404 North (Amersham Road).

HWTP01 19

Transport Framework

Figure 3-J Baseline PM Peak Modelled Link Speeds and Delay

The slowest journeys in the PM peak are on the A40 London Road in an inbound direction in particular near to Rayners Avenue, sections of the A4010, Hamilton Road, and the A404 north of Kingshill Road.

A number of other links are shown to experience slow speeds in the PM peak including the A4128 Hughenden Road northbound and Daws Hill Lane, primarily as a result of traffic calming measures. The road links in Wooburn Town operate within capacity during the PM peak.

A number of key junctions are shown to experience relatively high levels of delay during the PM peak. The junctions most under pressure in the PM peak are the A40 / Chapel Lane, A40 / Pastures, M40 Handy Cross, A40 / Rayners Avenue, A40 / Abbey Barn Road, A404 Marlow Hill gyratory and the A404 Abbey Way gyratory. In Wooburn Town, the level of junction delay in the PM peak is less than the AM peak, and junctions typically operate within capacity.

Local experience also suggests occasional severe events associated with incidents, on the M40 for example. This can result in severe impacts to journey times and delays within the study area, in particular on the motorway diversion routes including the A40(W)-A4010 and A404(S)-A40(E). However, severe incidents that would result in markedly detrimental conditions within High Wycombe are relatively infrequent, as shown in Appendix E.

3.5 Road Safety

Analysis of collision data provided by BCC for the five-year period June 2009 to June 2014 highlights a number of collision clusters at junctions in and around the High Wycombe area. These are summarised in Table 3-C.

HWTP01 20

Transport Framework

Collisions No. of Junction per KSI Most casualties ID collisions annum 1 A40 Abbey Way / A404 Marlow Hill 12 2.4 1 Cyclists 2 A404 Handy Cross Roundabout 12 2.4 1 OAPs 3 A40 Oxford Road / Bellfield Road 12 2.4 1 Children / M-cycles A40 West Wycombe Road / Children / 4 10 2.0 2 Desborough Avenue Motorcycles 5 A40 Oxford Road / A4128 Archway 10 2.0 1 Children A404(M) Exit Slip / A4155 Marlow 6 10 2.0 1 OAPs Road 7 Cressex Road / Coronation Road 8 1.6 2 OAPs 8 A4155 Marlow Road / A404(M) 11 2.2 0 Cyclists 9 A404 Crendon Street / Castle Street 9 1.8 1 Pedestrians A4010 John Hall Way / Cressex 10 9 1.8 1 Pedestrians Road 11 West End Road / West End Street 9 1.8 1 Motorcycles A40 London Road outside Shell 12 7 1.4 2 Motorcycles service Station Desborough Avenue / Desborough 13 10 2.0 0 Cyclists Road A40 London Road / Bowerdean 14 8 1.6 1 Pedestrians Road Children / 15 A40 Abbey Way / A40 Easton Street 8 1.6 1 Pedestrians / Cyclists A404 Marlow Road on Handy Cross 16 9 1.8 0 N/A Roundabout 17 A40 London Road / Tesco Exit 9 1.8 0 OAPs A404, Handy Cross Roundabout / 18 9 1.8 0 OAPs A4010 John Hall Way Children / (Approx. 30m SE of) A40 London 19 7 1.4 1 Pedestrians / Road / Micklefield Road Motorcycles 20 Desborough Road / Bridge Street 7 1.4 1 Pedestrians

Table 3-C Collision Clusters at Junctions in Study Area 2009-2014

A route analysis has also been prepared within the study area, looking at KSI per kilometre over a 5 year period, the top 5 routes are: • C74 Station Road/Swains Lane (2.5 KSI per km in 5 years) – includes Treadaway Hill; • A4155 Marlow Road (2.2 KSI per km in 5 years) – includes junction with A404(M); • A40 London Road (2.1 KSI per km in 5 years) – main east-west corridor; • C175 Boundary Road (2.0 KSI per km in 5 years) – section of main road out to Wooburn Town; and • A404 Amersham Road (2.0 KSI per km in 5 years) – includes Amersham Hill.

HWTP01 21

Transport Framework

3.6 Rail Services

Chiltern Railways operate rail services in High Wycombe, with a station on the eastern side of the town centre adjacent to the A404 Amersham Road. This line provides links from High Wycombe to London (Marylebone) in the south east and Bicester in the north, with a connection at Princes Risborough to Aylesbury.

Typical service patterns include eight trains per hour, including five to London (Marylebone) with journey times of approximately 35 minutes for some services; and additional services during the peak periods. High Wycombe is the busiest station in Buckinghamshire. Entries and exits at the station have fluctuated in recent years; however in the two year period between 2010/11 and 2012/13 (latest data available) there has been a sharp increase of 17.4% in passenger usage. Annual rail passenger usage for the station is summarised in Figure 3- K.

2,800,000 2,700,000 2,600,000

2,500,000 2,400,000

persons 2,300,000 2,200,000 2,100,000 2,000,000 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 year Source: ORR

Figure 3-K Total Entries and Exits for High Wycombe Rail Station

Bourne End Railway Station is situated around a mile from Wooburn Town along the A4094 Cores End Road and offers rail services to the west towards Marlow and to the south into Maidenhead for connecting journeys to the wider Thames Valley and London. Bourne End station provides for around 10% of the passenger numbers in comparison to High Wycombe, with usage in the order of 250,000 per annum, with a broadly increasing trend. Amersham Railway Station is situated approximately 7 miles North of High Wycombe. Chiltern Railways and London Underground services are available at Amersham.

3.7 Bus Services High Wycombe forms a hub for the Buckinghamshire bus network, the town is served by over 20 different routes operating 7 days a week and has one of two major bus stations within the County. The public transport network connects High Wycombe with various towns within the region including Aylesbury, Beaconsfield, Amersham, Chesham, Reading, Slough and Oxford for example.

There are currently two major bus service hubs in High Wycombe town centre located at the Eden Bus Station (western side of town centre) and at the railway station (eastern side of town centre). There is also an existing Park & Ride located in the Cressex area (Southern Quadrant). The Handy Cross Hub is also being constructed in the southern area of High Wycombe adjacent to the A404 near the M40 Junction 4.

High Wycombe Eden Bus Station is situated on the western side of the town centre adjacent to Bridge Street and was opened as part of the Eden Centre development. The Eden Bus Station is a well-used, pleasant and modern transport interchange with electronic display screens and seating areas. Although it has only been open for a few years, the bus station is understood to experience capacity issues which can lead to service delays and journey time reliability issues.

HWTP01 22

Transport Framework

High Wycombe is served by an extensive bus network. Regional services operate along the key radial routes between High Wycombe and neighbouring towns, with typical frequencies of every 30-60 minutes daily in particular the A40 London Road corridor is well used by inter-urban services. High Wycombe Park and Ride service PR1 also offers a route to High Wycombe Town Centre from Junction 4 of the M40 at Cressex Island.

Within High Wycombe, the Rainbow Routes network provides high frequency, local services throughout the town. It comprises a series of colour branded bus services developed through quality partnerships, most of which operate every 15 to 20 minutes. The routes are presented in Figure 3-L.

Purple Route 36 generally provides a 30 minute frequency service and passes along Heath End Road to the south of the Abbey Barn South site, however the service is less frequent at peak times and affected by school travel and commuter related congestion on the A404 Marlow Hill and Daws Hill Lane. Purple Route 35 offers a generally hourly service with very limited provision at peak times. The route passes close to Abbey Barn North via Kingsmead Road and Abbey Barn Road.

The Gomm Valley site is relatively large in area and development within the site would be dispersed in accordance with an emerging Masterplan. The bus services in closest proximity would be the 15 minute frequency Blue Route 32 and local and inter-urban services that use the A40 London Road corridor. The northern end of the Gomm Valley site is closer to Green Route 31, a generally 20 minute frequency service. A further accessibility service, the 27, runs to a very limited timetable on a meandering route via Cock Lane, Orchard Road and Robinson Road.

Green Route 31 passes the Terriers site on the A404 Amersham Hill alongside inter-urban services which include service no. 1 to Chesham which provides regular bus services and transferable ticketing between ‘Red 1’ and ‘Blue 1’. Red Route 33, a high frequency service that runs up to every 15 minutes, presently terminates on Totteridge Lane near Tyzack Road.

The principal services for the Bourne End area including Wooburn Town are Rainbow Routes 35 and 36 which provide a frequent service along the A4094.

Figure 3-L High Wycombe Local Bus Network – Rainbow Routes

HWTP01 23

Transport Framework

The bus services in High Wycombe provide an opportunity to access a number of neighbouring settlements by sustainable means. However, for longer distance journeys services are less frequent. There is a target within the LTP3 Implementation Plan for 85% of all bus services across the county to run on time and to increase bus patronage. Recent data indicates increases in bus patronage on the core network of Rainbow Routes, with overall passenger numbers increasing by almost 7% from 2014 to 2015.

3.8 Cycling

Cycling makes up less than 1% of journey to work trips within the High Wycombe area (Census 2011). The use of cycling as a mode of travel is limited within the area, in part due to significant topographical constraints, particularly for trips in a north-south direction. The Abbey Barn South and Terriers sites are located on plateaus to the south and north of the Wye Valley respectively. The Abbey Barn North site is located within the base of the Wye Valley. The Gomm Valley site is characterised by relatively steep topography throughout.

There are a number of areas within the town that offer potential for greater volumes of cycle trips. These include journeys along the Wye Valley bottom along the A40 corridor, including access to High Wycombe Rail Station; journeys within the Cressex and Handy Cross area to the south of the town; and from Terriers and Hazlemere to the north.

The seven kilometre signed High Wycombe East-West Cycle Route26 links Station Road, Loudwater to the east with Chapel Lane at the western end of the town. It passes close to the town centre, where there is a number of cycle parking facilities. The cycle parking facilities introduced at High Wycombe station in recent years are reportedly well used, suggesting that further potential for expansion in the number of cycling trips within the area exists.

3.9 Walking According to the 2011 Census, 7% of people travel on foot as part of their journey to work within the High Wycombe area. The attractiveness of walking as a transport mode is similarly constrained by topographical features, particularly for north-south trips within High Wycombe. Steep topography is not such a limiting factor to walkers as it is to cyclists and will add ‘interest’ for some.

The Walk Wycombe project launched in May 2010 is designed to ‘embed walking in the daily routine for those who live and work in High Wycombe’. BCC has focused Walk Wycombe marketing campaigns on local schools in order to increase the mode shares of non-motorised modes. Online information includes detailed directions for walking journeys in High Wycombe, available on the Walkit27 website.

3.10 Air Quality Wycombe District has a declared Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) covering the M40 south of High Wycombe and has proposed an AQMA in High Wycombe urban area covering major routes and the town centre (shown in Figure 3-M).

According to the Wycombe 2014 Progress Report28 ‘the results highlight that concentrations within the existing M40 AQMA are still exceeding the annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective. Exceedances of the annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective continue to be measured within the proposed High Wycombe AQMA, reinforcing the need for declaration’. WDC intend to review and update the current Action Plan following the expansion of the AQMAs.

26 East-West Cycle Route Map www.wycombe.gov.uk/Core/DownloadDoc.aspx?documentID=1889 27 The urban walking route planner http://walkit.com 28 2014 Air Quality Progress Report: Wycombe District Council (July 2014) http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council- services/environment/pollution/air-pollution/air-quality-management.aspx HWTP01 24

Transport Framework

Figure 3-M Outline of Proposed High Wycombe AQMA

3.11 Environment Wycombe District Council provides mapping of environmental data via the My Wycombe tool (http://mywycombe.wycombe.gov.uk/). An extract showing coverage of Radon levels, a smoke control area, the existing air quality management area and noise abatement zones are illustrated in Figure 3-N.

According to the Wycombe 2014 Progress Report29 ‘the results highlight that concentrations within the existing M40 AQMA are still exceeding the annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective’. AQMAs are managed by DEFRA, who issue daily pollution notifications, forecasts and health advice on http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/.

The noise abatement zones (NAZs) identified in Figure 3-N are both associated with . Wycombe Air Park has established a Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) to establish and monitor observance of the NAZs. In establishing these zones the JCC has had to combine the restrictions of internationally agreed circuit procedures with the best interest of local inhabitants in the more populated areas around the airfield. Having agreed to these routes, the aircraft operators endeavour to follow them as far as safely practicable. Monitoring is carried out by WDC to check compliance.

29 2014 Air Quality Progress Report: Wycombe District Council (July 2014) http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council- services/environment/pollution/air-pollution/air-quality-management.aspx HWTP01 25

Transport Framework

Figure 3-N WDC Environmental Mapping Data

3.12 Economy Over the last decade WDC has had a leading role in working with partners to deliver hundreds of millions of pounds of development investment in High Wycombe. Major developments have included:

• Eden sub regional retail offer in the Town Centre; • Sainsbury’s redevelopment around Dovecot car park in the Town Centre; • Improvements at Junction 4 of the M40 and a new Cressex Link Road in the Southern Quadrant; • Bucks New University’s investment in the main campus, adjacent to the Abbey Way Gyratory in the Town Centre; • Major development at Handy Cross in the Southern Quadrant; and • Retail developments at Cressex Island also in the Southern Quadrant.

These developments bring employment, transport improvements, new homes and urban regeneration to High Wycombe. BTVLEP play an important role in delivering the future economic growth of High Wycombe30.

Wycombe District has witnessed quite a significant ‘shift’ in its industrial structure, with its share of knowledge- based industries decreasing and employment in the wholesale & retail, transportation & storage, real estate and health & social care sectors increasing.

WDC commissioned a detailed economy study and employment land review31 in January 2014, as part of the evidence base that will inform the new Wycombe District Local Plan. This examined the property market, demand and supply in the long term, as well as new land requirements. The study focused on office and industrial uses.

30 Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership Strategic Economic Plan (July 2014) http://www.buckstvlep.co.uk/strategic-economic-plan 31 Wycombe District Council Economy Study and Employment Land Review (January 2014) HWTP01 26

Transport Framework

The WDC Economy Study notes that there is a lack of modern large corporate office space located in the town centre and that in recent years office take-up has been mainly by small and medium local businesses, often on short leases. New investment has focussed on out-of-centre business parks (with significant car parking provision) outside the town centre but within the urban area.

Cressex is one of Wycombe District’s primary industrial locations. It has the largest critical mass of industrial occupiers in the District. It benefits from a highly accessible location, adjacent to Junction 4 of the M40. Other existing industrial estates within the study area include: • Sands Industrial Estate, located two miles north of Junction 4 of the M40, also adjoins Wycombe Wanderers football stadium; • Knaves Beech, located adjacent to Junction 3 of the M40 (one way junction); • Wessex Road, located in Bourne End; • Wooburn, located in Wooburn Town; and • Soho Mills, located between Bourne End and Wooburn Town.

Heathrow Airport, the largest and busiest in the UK, is the nearest international airport for much of the county and is some 20 miles south east of High Wycombe via the M40 and M25.

BTVLEP identify new transport connections to be of key economic importance to High Wycombe and will support implementation of transport schemes in line with the Strategic Economic Plan for the wider area.

HWTP01 27

Transport Framework

4. Forecast Conditions

4.1 Introduction

To inform the assessment, the HWHAM year 2013 AM and PM peak hour base models have been used as a basis for the traffic forecasting work to establish future year land use scenarios. Two scenarios, one with and one without the Reserve Sites have been developed, providing a means to consider the future performance of the High Wycombe highway network. This section describes the ‘Without Reserve Sites’ scenario.

The forecast year for this transport study has been agreed with WDC and BCC to be 2026, in accordance with the existing Core Strategy, providing a forecast consistent with established policy horizons.

4.2 Planning Data Assumptions

The growth in population and households assumed in the modelling process are consistent with those set out in TEMPRO. Table 4-A presents the figures for High Wycombe Town and Wycombe District for population (total persons), households, average household size, total cars and cars per household for the Base and Forecast years. The percentage growth from 2013 to 2026 for each data item is also given.

Geographical Area Year Growth %

Data Item 2013 2026 2013 to 2026

High Wycombe Town

Population 80030 82982 3.7 Households 32353 34726 7.3 Average household size 2.47 2.39 -3.4 Total cars 44342 48429 9.2 Cars per household 1.37 1.39 1.8 Wycombe District Population 170449 178218 4.6 Households 68792 73870 7.4 Average household size 2.48 2.41 -2.6 Total cars 104435 113213 8.4 Cars per household 1.52 1.53 1.0

Table 4-A TEMPRO Residential Planning Data 2013 and 2026

Growth in the number of households is much higher than the growth in population, correlating with a decline in average household size. In addition, the growth in the total number of cars is even higher, resulting in an increasing number of cars per household.

TEMPRO also includes assumptions about the employment characteristics of each area, as shown in Table 4- B.

HWTP01 28

Transport Framework

Geographical Area Year Growth %

Data Item 2013 2026 2013 to 2026

High Wycombe Town

Jobs 44856 50681 13.0 Workers 39953 40981 2.6 Net inflow of workers 4903 9700 - Wycombe District

Jobs 77832 87930 13.0 Workers 84237 86863 3.1 Net inflow of workers -6405 1067 -

Table 4-B TEMPRO Employment Planning Data by Year

Tables 4-A and 4-B highlight a number of factors that may lead to increased rates of trip making over the study period:

• number of households growing at a higher rate than total population; • smaller households with more cars per household; and • growth in jobs outstrips the increase in workers available. By 2026, Wycombe District is assumed to shift from being a net exporter to an importer of workers, while High Wycombe imports nearly twice as many workers as in 2013.

4.3 Development Scenario

This section establishes land use quantum in High Wycombe for the Without Reserve Sites scenario. These assumptions are also used in the With Reserve Sites scenario, which is described in section 5. The information on sites that will deliver housing, employment and other uses was provided by and agreed with the planning authority, WDC.

The Without Reserve Sites land use consists of: • sites with planning permission; • sites that do not yet have planning permission, but have been approved in principle, subject to the completion of a Section 106 or planning obligation agreement; and • sites consistent with the Core Strategy or DSA expected to come forward within the period defined within the current plans (to 2026).

The 2026 development quantum and trip generation for the Without Reserve Sites scenario are presented in Table 4-C. Information has been taken from applicants’ Transport Assessments where available.

The locations of the developments are shown in Figure 4-A, identified by the ID included in the Tables. In Table 4-C, the type of land use is summarised as ‘R’ for Residential-led and ‘E’ for Employment-led.

HWTP01 29

Transport Framework

No. of 2 AM Peak PM Peak ID Description Type Type GFA (m ) dwellings O D O D Wycombe Marsh 1 (assumed 80% R 131 44 27 31 38 complete) Former Compair Site - Student 2 Accommodation (200 R/E 472 B1 419 10 12 18 13 units already complete) Compair Site Office, 3 R/E 240 B1 6952 25 108 92 24 Other Development William Bartlett & 4 R/E 105 Mix 2220 37 41 41 34 Son, Grafton Street

5 Land off Lance Way R 22 10 4 5 9

Bellfield First & 6 R 49 20 7 11 19 Middle Schools Lilys Walk Gas 7 R 130 51 20 24 43 Works Kingswood County 8 R 39 15 6 8 12 First School Former De La Rue 9 R 95 34 3 17 23 Site, Coates Lane Wycombe Sports E Mix 51534 214 837 795 404 10 Centre Springbank House, 11 R/E 42 B1 1091 18 21 21 16 High St, Lane End

12 RAF Daws Hill R 374 243 105 104 186

Next Home & 13 Garden Retail site at E Retail 7261 2 11 49 49 Cressex Island Needham Bowl, 14 R 74 B1 321 31 11 18 29 Desborough Road HXH Coachway / 15 E 0 102 96 0 Park & Ride Wellesbourne 16 Campus, Kingshill R 21 9 3 5 9 Rd (91% complete) Committed Development Total 1794 - - 763 1318 1335 908

Table 4-C 2026 Committed Land Use Quantum in High Wycombe

Note 1: ‘O’ refers to Origin trips and ‘D’ refers to Destination trips

HWTP01 30

Transport Framework

4.4 Highway Network Assumptions

Table 4-D provides details of significant new highway infrastructure which is assumed to be place by 2026 as a result of the land use developments described in Table 4-C, policies related to WDC’s DSA, and Department for Transport (DfT) funding bids. These highway schemes are included in the network assumptions in the forecast modelling. Some of the schemes are part of the wider High Wycombe Town Centre Masterplan (HWTCMP) which is part of the DSA policy framework for the future development of the town centre. It should be noted that the design of some of these schemes continues to evolve during this study process. The location of each scheme is identified in Figure 4-B by the ID number in Table 4-D.

ID Location Summary of Infrastructure Provision

Swan Frontage • Major amendments to Abbey Way Gyratory with no general vehicular access 1 Improvements (HW between Abbey Way and A40/St Mary’s Street TCMP) • Removal of roundabout at the south-eastern end of the A40 Abbey Way flyover

A40 Oxford Road • Alteration of the current A40 Oxford Road/Archway/ Abbey Way Roundabout to a Roundabout raised block paved junction for shared pedestrian and vehicle access. 2 amendment (HW • Capacity reductions on A40 Abbey Way Flyover in the form of a reduction in the TCMP) number of lanes.

Dovecot Gyratory • Implementation of a clockwise gyratory system at Bellfield Road/Parker Knoll 3 (HW TCMP) Way/Archway and Premier Way.

• Three access junctions consisting of an upgrade to the current signalised access junction, a second ‘access only’ to the Coachway / Park & Ride and a third ‘egress only’ Handy Cross Hub 4 • Internal road layout including a roundabout to the east of Fair Ridge • Relocation of school drop-off points for St Michael’s school to the Handy Cross Hub site.

• Upgrade of A4010 John Hall Way / Crest Road junction as per concept plan A4010 John Hall Way 5 presented in the Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy

RAF Daws Hill • Lozenge gyratory junction providing access to the new development 6 Development • Widened left turn at the Daws Hill Lane / Marlow Hill junction

• New road through the Compair and De La Rue sites from Morrison’s to Coates Compair and De La 7 Lane Rue Spine Roads • New 4-arm signalised junction with Hughenden Avenue

A4010 Chapel Lane / • Upgraded junction configuration as per Local Pinch Point Fund Bid incorporating 8 A40 West Wycombe improved Chapel Lane approach and pre-signal arrangement (scheme opened in Road 2014)

• Gas Works Link and An extension of Westbourne Street to the north to connect with A40 West Wycombe Road 9 Westbourne Street • Gasworks Link providing a connection between Queen Alexandra Road / Suffield Link (HWTCMP) Road and Desborough Road / Lily’s Walk

A404 Queen Victoria • Improvements in junction configuration to allow additional movements within the Road/ Easton Street 10 area including southbound movement on Queen Victoria Road Junction (HWTCMP)

Table 4-D Major Transport Infrastructure Provision for 2026 Scenarios

HWTP01 31

Transport Framework

N

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015

Figure 4-A Location Plan for Highway Infrastructure Schemes

4.5 Growth Factors

Traffic growth factors covering the period 2013 to 2026 were derived from the TEMPRO database. TEMPRO is an industry-standard software package created by the DfT which provides access to the National Trip End Model (NTEM) trip forecast data for transport planning purposes. The version of the software used in this assessment (version 6.2 with dataset version 6.2) provides multi-modal trip data for the years 1991 to 2041. Outputs are given in terms of growth factors between the selected base and forecast years or as raw trip-end data.

Origin and destination TEMPRO car driver growth factors for the following areas were extracted: • High Wycombe Town • Rest of Wycombe District • Rest of Buckinghamshire County • Rest of South East Region • Rest of Great Britain

The household and jobs assumptions contained within TEMPRO were reviewed by WDC with the conclusion that the High Wycombe assumptions are reasonably aligned with current local forecasts but the wider Wycombe HWTP01 32

Transport Framework

District TEMPRO assumptions are greater than local estimates suggest. The growth factors applied in the model may therefore over-estimate the level of growth for the District by 2026.

Each of the TEMPRO growth factors is multiplied by fuel price and income adjustment factors, which is appropriate for transport models with fixed trip matrices. These adjustment factors are found in Table M4.2.1 of DfT WebTAG Databook Nov 2014 release v1.3b.

The matrix totals for each vehicle type for 2013 Base and 2026 Without Reserves Sites scenarios are shown in Table 4-E, together with the growth between the Base and Forecast years.

AM (08:00 – 09:00) PM (17:00 – 18:00)

Vehicle Total % Growth Total % Growth type Highway from Base Highway from Base Scenario Trips Trips

2013 Base 33594 32925 Car 2026 Without Reserve Sites 39928 18.9 39141 18.9 2013 Base 1727 1571 LGV 2026 Without Reserve Sites 2320 34.3 2110 34.3 2013 Base 531 284 HGV 2026 Without Reserve Sites 581 9.4 311 9.4 2013 Base 35852 34780 Total 2026 Without Reserve Sites 42829 19.5 41663 19.5

Table 4-E Total Trips for 2026 Without Reserve Sites Scenario

4.6 Without Reserve Sites Traffic Forecast Figures 4-B and 4-C present the 2026 Without Reserve Sites modelled traffic volumes for the AM and PM peaks respectively with volume indicated by bandwidth and shading.

HWTP01 33

Transport Framework

Figure 4-B 2026 Without Reserve Sites AM peak Modelled Flows

Figure 4-C 2026 Without Reserve Sites PM peak Modelled Flows

In comparison to the Baseline traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 3-F and 3-G, it is notable that traffic volumes increase in the 2026 Do Minimum AM peak, particularly on the A4128 (SB), A404, A40, Treadaway Hill, Junction 4 of the M40, Abbey Barn Lane, A4010 (SB), and Desborough Avenue (SB). In the PM peak the

HWTP01 34

Transport Framework

increase is particularly notable on the A4128 (NB), Kingshill Road, B474 Penn Road (WB), A404, A40 (WB), Junction 3 of the M40 (WB), Daws Hill Lane (EB), A404(M) (NB), Desborough Avenue (NB), Coronation Road, and the A4010. Figures 4-D and 4-E show the 2026 Without Reserve Sites modelled link speeds and delay for the AM and PM peaks respectively.

Figure 4-D 2026 Do Minimum AM peak modelled link speeds and delay

Figure 4-E 2026 Do Minimum PM peak modelled link speeds and delay

HWTP01 35

Transport Framework

Compared to the Baseline link speeds and junction delay illustrated in Figure 3-I and Figure 3-J, it is notable that delays are expected to worsen in the AM peak, in particular at the following junctions: • A40 London Road / Abbey Barn Road traffic signals; • A40 London Road / Cock Lane / Micklefield Road / Ryemead Way traffic signals; • A4128 Hughenden Road / Bellfield Road roundabout; and • A404 Marlow Hill / Marlow Road signalised gyratory.

It is also notable that delays are expected to worsen in the PM peak, in particular at the following junctions:

• A40 London Road / Cock Lane / Micklefield Road / Ryemead Way traffic signals; • A404 Marlow Hill / Daws Hill Lane traffic signals; • A404 Marlow Hill / Marlow Road signalised gyratory; and • A4010 New Road / Cressex Road roundabout.

The analysis of forecast traffic conditions indicates a wider economic, population growth and operational performance challenge in the High Wycombe area that is beyond the scope of the Reserve Sites to fully mitigate and resolve. This would need to be addressed by a wider Transport Strategy following on from this Framework.

4.7 Public Transport

4.7.1 Handy Cross Hub Coachway / Park and Ride

Planning permission has been granted for the Handy Cross Hub development which consists of a new Sports Centre, Business Park with associated land use and a Coachway / Park and Ride facility and is currently under early stages of construction. The Hub is located in southern High Wycombe near the M40 Junction 4. The Abbey Barn South site is in relative close proximity to this development.

The Coachway / Park and Ride interchange facility will incorporate a barrier controlled 400 space surface car park, covered waiting area, Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI), designated stands for coaches, local bus services and park and ride services. The Coachway will provide an interurban regional link including routes to London and major airports. The park and ride service and diverted local bus services will provide a public transport link between High Wycombe town centre and the Coachway / Park and Ride. It is also expected that any future north-south coach services at the site will link High Wycombe to the Thames Valley area.

4.7.2 Rail Services Chiltern Railways is now operating London – Oxford trains in each direction throughout the day via a new Oxford Parkway station which opened in October 2015, with most trains stopping at High Wycombe. This has followed the construction of a short connecting line just south of Bicester where the Chiltern Railways London to Birmingham line crosses over the planned East – West railway line.

By 2026 wider transport improvements will include the introduction of Crossrail rail services at Maidenhead Rail Station connecting Buckinghamshire residents at Bourne End via the branch line32. Four Crossrail services per hour will be operated from Maidenhead. It is expected that Crossrail services will commence in 2019.

32 Bourne End assumed operators’ service http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/surface/western-section/ HWTP01 36

Transport Framework

5. Reserve Sites

5.1 Introduction

This section describes the proposed Reserve Sites and described the likely transport characteristics and overall impact of the additional highway trips. Assumptions have been provided by WDC about the land use quantum expected to be developed at each Reserve Site, although these may be subject to change as the Development Briefs for each location emerge. This section includes an estimate of the likely trip generation, vehicle trip distribution and public transport trip distribution for the Reserve Sites.

5.2 Land Use Assumptions

The ‘With Reserve Sites’ scenario has five additional sites: • Abbey Barn South • Abbey Barn North • Gomm Valley and Ashwells • Slate Meadow • Terriers

The location of each reserve site in relation to High Wycombe is illustrated in Figure 5-A.

Figure 5-A Location of Reserve Sites

HWTP01 37

Transport Framework

The trip rates that have been used in this transport study to derive the trip generation of each Reserve Site are based on the latest version of the TRICS database (TRICS 7.1.3). Each applicant for Reserve Site development will be expected to prepare a Transport Assessment that uses trip rates derived using the Standardised Assessment Methodology (SAM) and latest version of TRICS, as outlined in the TRICS Good Practice User Guide33. A technical note detailing the technical considerations involved in the derivation of the trip rates used in this transport study is provided at Appendix F.

Table 5-A provides the average vehicle trip rates for each land use class derived from relevant sites in the TRICS database.

AM PM (08:00 - 09:00) (17:00 - 18:00) Land use class Factor Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Privately owned housing per dwelling 0.394 0.161 0.218 0.367 Employment (B1) per 100m2 0.259 1.432 1.215 0.177 Local shops (A1) per 100m2 4.457 4.524 5.039 4.540 Leisure (D2) per 100m2 0.522 0.634 1.500 1.995

Table 5-A Vehicle Trip Rates from TRICS database by Land Use Class

The estimated housing numbers provided by WDC for assessment purposes are provided in Table 5-B. The assumptions for the future developments were translated into estimates of trip generation utilising trip rates extracted from the TRICS database.

The housing numbers are indicative and may be subject to change as the process moves forward, towards the completion of development briefs for each of the sites and the submission of planning applications. Developers will be required to carry out their own transport assessments for the amount of development being proposed.

Residential Employment AM PM No. of GFA ID Description Type Type 2 O D O D dwellings (m ) R1 Abbey Barn South R/E 465 B1 7000 201 175 186 183 R2 Abbey Barn North R 75 30 12 16 28 R3 Gomm Valley / Ashwells R/E 560 B1 5000 233 162 182 215 R4 Slate Meadow R 170 67 27 37 62 R5 Terriers Farm R 435 171 70 95 160 Reserve Sites Total 1705 - - 702 446 516 648

Table 5-B Reserve Sites Quantums in High Wycombe

The trip generation totals for each vehicle type for 2013 Base and 2026 scenarios are shown in Table 5-B, together with the growth between Base and Forecast years. These growth rates are in line with the TEMPRO projected rates. Both With and Without Reserve Sites scenarios are presented, for comparative purposes.

33 TRICS Good Practice User Guide http://www.trics.org/GoodPracticeGuide.aspx

HWTP01 38

Transport Framework

AM (08:00 – 09:00) PM (17:00 – 18:00)

Total % Growth Total % Growth Highway from Base Highway from Base Scenario Trips Trips

2013 Base 35852 34780 2026 Without Reserve Sites 42829 19.5 41562 19.5 2026 With Reserve Sites 43970 22.6 42723 22.8

Table 5-C Total Trips for 2026 Forecast Scenarios

It is notable from Table 5-C that the majority of growth forecast for High Wycombe between 2013 and 2026 does not relate to the Reserve Sites, rather to other committed land use developments and trend-based socio- economic factors. These factors will be considered in a future wider Wycombe Transport Strategy. The Reserve Sites add an additional 3.1% growth in the AM peak and 3.3% in the PM peak.

Figure 5-B illustrates the overall trip distribution associated with all Reserve Sites based on output from HWHAM for a PM peak scenario. The areas shaded in red indicate Reserve Site development locations.

Figure 5-B Reserve Site Forecast Trip Distribution

HWTP01 39

Transport Framework

5.3 Abbey Barn North

Abbey Barn North is an 11.3 hectare plot of land covered with trees, shrubs and woodland. Over half of the site is designated as Local Wildlife Site (LWS) / Biological Notification Site (BNS). The topography of the site forms a north-facing natural bowl or amphitheatre with steeply rising land on three sides. Abbey Barn Lane is at the top of one of these steep slopes, the natural access point to the site is from the north east of the site via Kingsmead Road.

Figure 5-C (and subsequent similar figures in this section) indicate the location of this site and include one or more red markers which indicate the location of the likely primary access points to the site.

Figure 5-C Abbey Barn North Location and potential Vehicle Access Point

Abbey Barn Lane is a narrow (approximately 5.5m width) carriageway, with a bending alignment and crests restricting visibility in places. According to Manual for Streets34, a 5.5m straight carriageway is the minimum width possible for two large vehicles to pass.

On Abbey Barn Lane there is a one-way give-way controlled crossing of a weak bridge structure at the northern end of the link. The inter-visibility of the give-way control at this location is observed to be insufficient, with conflicting movements frequently meeting on the bridge. A high level of existing ‘link friction’ is observed on Abbey Barn Road, with a school, bus stops, HGV access and informal residential parking resulting in a constrained link capacity.

For the purposes of this report WDC initially estimate that 75 homes could be developed on the Abbey Barn North site. Abbey Barn North is located adjacent to two wards included in the 2011 Census, Ryemead ward and Abbey ward. The combined census main method of travel to work data for these two wards indicates that 42% of employed local residents drive a car or van to work, by comparison 4% are passengers in a car or van, 4% use rail services, 4% use bus services, 1% cycle and 10% travel to work on foot.

34 Street dimensions – Manual for Streets https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/manual-for-streets

HWTP01 40

Transport Framework

The quantum of vehicle trips is indicated by TRICS to be a total of 42 vehicle trips in the AM peak and 44 vehicle trips in the PM peak.

AM (08:00 - 09:00) PM (17:00 - 18:00) Land Use Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Residential 30 12 16 28

Table 5-D Estimated Vehicle Trip Generation of Abbey Barn North

The distribution of these vehicle trips in the peak hours based on assignment within the HWHAM traffic model is shown in Figure 5-D. This indicates that key traffic routes will include Abbey Barn Lane, Daws Hill Lane, Abbey Barn Road, A40 London Road (towards the town centre), Heath End Road, Kingsmead Road and also Marlow Hill (particularly in the PM peak). It is thought that Kingsmead Road is shown as attracting new development trips due to capacity constraints and forecast congestion on the A40 corridor east of Abbey Barn Road.

Figure 5-D Abbey Barn North Traffic Distribution

Near the Abbey Barn North site the following collision clusters have been identified (Table 3-C). The trip distribution plot indicates that the following locations will receive some forecast development traffic distributed from Abbey Barn North: • A40 Abbey Way / A404 Marlow Hill • A40 London Road / Bowerdean Road • A40 Abbey Way / A40 Easton Street • A40 London Road / Micklefield Road

5.4 Abbey Barn South

Abbey Barn South is a 33 hectare plot of land located to the south-east of the town centre. A woodland ride through the site, forming almost half the site, has a ‘Green Space’ designation and TPO on the trees along the

HWTP01 41

Transport Framework

ride. There are public rights of way crossing the site. The topography of the site is relatively level, with the site located along a crest at the top of Daws Hill, a low point exists at the northern corner of the site. To the west of the site work has commenced on the new dwellings and other facilities on the RAF Daws Hill site.

Figure 5-E Abbey Barn South Location and Potential Vehicle Access Points The current alignment of Abbey Barn Lane provides a couple of opportunities to form an access junction onto the site. The Masterplan for the RAF Daws Hill site also includes provision for a connection via that site for all transport modes. The existing priority junction arrangement of Abbey Barn Lane / Heath End Road is constrained by a farm access slightly staggered from Abbey Barn Lane. The description of the local highway network for Abbey Barn North (section 5.3) is pertinent also to Abbey Barn South.

For the purposes of this report it is estimated that 465 homes and 7,000 square metres of employment land could be developed on the Abbey Barn South site. Abbey Barn South is located adjacent to two wards included in the 2011 Census, Ryemead ward and Abbey ward. The data indicates that 42% drive a car or van to work, by comparison 4% are passengers in a car or van, 4% use rail services, 4% use bus services, 1% cycle and 10% travel to work on foot.

The quantum of vehicle trips is indicated by TRICS to be a total of 376 vehicle trips in the AM peak and 369 vehicle trips in the PM peak.

AM (08:00 - 09:00) PM (17:00 - 18:00) Land Use Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Residential 183 75 101 171 Employment 18 100 85 12 Total 201 175 186 183

Table 5-E Estimated Vehicle Trip Generation of Abbey Barn South

The distribution of these vehicle trips in the peak hours based on assignment within the HWHAM traffic model is shown in Figure 5-F. This indicates that key traffic routes will include Abbey Barn Lane, Daws Hill Lane, Heath End Road, Desborough Avenue, A4010 John Hall Way, A404 Marlow Hill, Abbey Way, Abbey Barn Road, A40 London Road, and Kingsmead Road.

HWTP01 42

Transport Framework

Figure 5-F Abbey Barn South Traffic Distribution

Near the Abbey Barn South Site the following junctions are identified with road collision clusters that will receive some traffic distributed from Abbey Barn South: • A40 Abbey Way / A404 Marlow Hill • Cressex Road / Coronation Road • A40 London Road outside Shell service Station • A40 London Road / Bowerdean Road • A40 London Road / Micklefield Road

5.5 Gomm Valley & Ashwells

Gomm Valley is a 73.9 hectare plot of land. Part of the site is an SSSI which is managed by Berks Bucks Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust. The site has a high quality landscape, including woodland and hedgerows. The site is also an Archaeological Notification Site (ANS). There are public rights of way crossing the site. The topography of the site is a valley with high points at the northern end of the site and along each side and the low point at the London Road end of the site.

Hammersley Lane has a 40mph speed limit, the road is constrained, with a narrow uncontrolled pinch-point (below 5.5m carriageway width) beneath a railway bridge at the southern end of the link, the topography creates crests and the alignment includes several bends, which limit the visibility to form a new junction. Hammersley Lane forms a signal controlled junction with the A40 London Road.

HWTP01 43

Transport Framework

4

Figure 5-G Gomm Valley & Ashwells Location and Potential Vehicle Access Points

Cock Lane has a 30mph speed limit; the road is constrained, with narrow one-way sections and uncontrolled passing places, discouraging through traffic. There is a one-way signal controlled bridge crossing over the railway at the southern end of the link. Cock Lane forms a signal controlled junction with the A40 London Road at the southern end of the link and a priority cross-road junction with St John’s Road / Church Road / New Road at the northern end of the link.

There are a number of possible development scenarios. For the purposes of this study an estimate of 560 dwellings has been used being the mid-point of the potential housing capacity of the sites outlined in the January 2014 WDC new local plan options consultation. The site is also estimated to provide 5,000 square metres of employment. A new school is also being considered for the site.

It is also assumed that a new spine road would be provided within the site. This would run from the northern end of Cock Lane south of Ashwells with a meandering alignment through the site reflecting local topography. The route would connect with Gomm Road at the southern end of the site. The concept of a Spine Road arose following an Infrastructure Roundtable Group review of an initial set of transport interventions for the Site. The initial assumptions for the site excluded any form of Spine Road and the model data suggested a significant volume of traffic routing via Cock Lane due to the location of access points from key parcels of development. This led to the initial inclusion of a full upgrade to the narrow section of Cock Lane, north of the existing residential frontage, a scheme that was not well received. From the outcomes of this review, an iteration of the Masterplan for the site was produced and made available to Jacobs for inclusion in this study.

Gomm Valley is located adjacent to two wards included in the 2011 Census, Micklefield ward and Tylers Green & Loudwater ward. The data indicates that 50% of employed people drive a car or van to work, by comparison 3% are passengers in a car or van, 4% use rail services, 3% use bus services, 1% cycle and 4% travel to work on foot.

The quantum of vehicle trips is indicated by TRICS to be a total of 395 trips in the AM peak and 397 trips in the PM peak.

HWTP01 44

Transport Framework

AM (08:00 - 09:00) PM (17:00 - 18:00)

Reserve Site Type Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D)

Gomm Valley / Residential 220 90 122 205 Ashwells Employment 13 72 60 10 Total 233 162 182 215

Table 5-F Estimated Vehicle Trip Generation of Gomm Valley & Ashwells

Distribution of these vehicle trips in the peak hours based on assignment within the HWHAM traffic model is shown in Figure 5-H. This indicates that key traffic routes will include Abbey Barn Lane, Daws Hill Lane, Abbey Barn Road, A40 London Road, Cock Lane, Hammersley Lane, Church Road, School Road, and Hazlemere Road.

Figure 5-H Gomm Valley / Ashwells Traffic Distribution

Near the Gomm Valley & Ashwells site the following junctions are identified road collision clusters that will receive some additional development traffic distributed from Gomm Valley & Ashwells: • A40 Abbey Way / A404 Marlow Hill • A40 London Road outside Shell service Station • A40 London Road / Bowerdean Road • A40 Abbey Way / A40 Easton Street • A40 London Road / Tesco exit • A40 London Road / Micklefield Road

5.6 Slate Meadow Slate Meadow is a 10.2 hectare plot of land. Around a third of the site (at the rear) is designated Village Green. The site provides separation between the settlements of Bourne End and Wooburn.

HWTP01 45

Transport Framework

4 3

Figure 5-I Slate Meadow Location and Potential Vehicle Access Points

There is a disused railway line that now forms the route alignment for a bridleway next to the rear of the site. A project is in process to implement a bridleway to a specification suitable to provide shared equestrian / cycle / walking use. There are a small number of trees in the western corner of the site covered by a TPO. The topography of the site is relatively level, a low point exists beside the River Wye along the front of the site forming an existing flood plain for the River Wye.

There are narrow uncontrolled pinch-points (below 5.5m width) in the carriageway on the A4094, at a location on the A4094 Cores End Road (west of Cores End Road / Brookbank / Kiln Lane roundabout) and at another location on the A4094 Wycombe Lane (north of The Green).

Slate Meadow is located within two wards included in the 2011 Census, The Wooburns ward and Bourne End- cum-Hedsor ward. The data indicates that 51% of employed people drive a car or van to work, by comparison 3% are passengers in a car or van, 5% use rail services, 1% use bus services, 1% cycle and 4% travel to work on foot.

For the purposes of this report WDC initially estimate that 170 homes could be developed on the Slate Meadow site. The quantum of vehicle trips is indicated by TRICS to be a total of 94 vehicle trips in the AM peak and 99 vehicle trips in the PM peak.

AM (08:00 - 09:00) PM (17:00 - 18:00) Land Use Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Residential 67 27 37 62

Table 5-G Estimated Vehicle Trip Generation of Slate Meadow

The distribution of these vehicle trips in the peak hours based on assignment within the HWHAM traffic model shown in Figure 5-J. This indicates that key traffic routes will include A404, A4155 Marlow Road, Little Marlow Road, The Parade, Cores End Road, Town Lane, Wycombe Lane, Boundary Road, Kingsmead Road and Heath End Road.

HWTP01 46

Transport Framework

Figure 5-J Slate Meadow Traffic Distribution

Near the Slate Meadow Site the following junctions are identified road collision clusters that will receive some traffic distributed from Slate Meadow: • A404 Handy Cross Roundabout • A4155 Marlow Road / A404(M)

5.7 Terriers Terriers is a 23 hectare plot of land located next to a conservation area. The topography of the site is relatively level, a low point exists at a pond on the south-eastern boundary of the site. A bridleway exists along the entire north-western boundary of the site. A public right of way crosses the site connecting Amersham Road, through fields to the North of the site, back into and through the Terriers area of High Wycombe. Collectively these public rights of way are known as ‘Lady’s Mile’.

Most access routes to and from the site would use the A404 Amersham Road, however alternative routes are available to the North via Kingshill Road towards Four Ashes or to the West via Green Road. Green Road is a residential street with existing traffic-calming measures installed to reduce speeds and discourage through traffic.

HWTP01 47

Transport Framework

3

/ 4

Figure 5-K Terriers Location and Likely Vehicle Access Points

The Terriers Reserve Site is located within two wards included in the 2011 census, Terriers and Amersham Hill ward and Hazlemere North ward. This indicates that 44% of employed people drive a car or van to work, by comparison 3% are passengers in a car or van, 6% use rail services, 3% use bus services, 1% cycle and 8% travel to work on foot.

The most recent estimate is that 435 homes could be developed on the Terriers site. The quantum of vehicle trips is indicated by TRICS to be a total of 241 vehicle trips in the AM peak and 255 vehicle trips in the PM peak.

AM (08:00 - 09:00) PM (17:00 - 18:00) Land Use Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Residential 171 70 95 160

Table 5-H Likely Vehicle Trip Generation of Terriers

The distribution of these vehicle trips in the peak hours is based on assignment within the HWHAM traffic model is presented in Figure 5-L. This indicates that key traffic routes will include Kingshill Road, Four Ashes Road, the A404 (Amersham Road to Marlow Hill), Penn Road, Hazlemere Road, Elm Road, Totteridge Lane, Hatters Lane, Hicks Farm Rise, A40 London Road, Green Road, Green Hill, Ridge Way, Hamilton Road, A4128 Hughenden Road, Hughenden Ave, A40 West Wycombe Road and Plomer Hill.

HWTP01 48

Transport Framework

Figure 5-L Terriers AM and PM Traffic Distribution

Near the Terriers Site the following junctions are identified road collision clusters, based on analysis of 5 year data provided by BCC, which will receive some traffic distributed from Terriers: • A40 Abbey Way / A404 Marlow Hill • A40 Oxford Road / Bellfield Road • A40 West Wycombe Road / Desborough Avenue • A404 Crendon Street / Castle Street

5.8 Overall Highway Network Performance

Table 5-I sets out the overall performance of the network for the 2013 Base and both 2026 scenarios. Vehicle- miles, vehicle-hours and average network speed are included. Vehicle-hours are split into two categories, the number of hours that vehicles would travel if there was no congestion in the network, and the additional time due to delays.

vehicle- vehicle- average Peak Scenario vehicle-miles hours hours speed uncongested delayed (mph)

2013 Base 267,062 6,480 4,267 24.9

AM 2026 Without Reserve Sites 326,581 8,117 8,483 19.7 2026 With Reserve Sites 330,398 8,276 8,831 19.3 2013 Base 285,792 6,659 4,486 25.6

PM 2026 Without Reserve Sites 347,717 8,252 9,155 20.0 2026 With Reserve Sites 355,202 8,522 9,823 19.4

Table 5-I Network Performance Statistics for Base and Future Scenarios

HWTP01 49

Transport Framework

The overall network performance data indicates an overall reduction in speed and increase in delay between 2013 and 2026 associated with the forecast traffic growth. The additional impact of the Reserve Sites is relatively modest by comparison, reducing overall network speed by an additional 0.4mph in the AM peak, and 0.6mph in the PM peak.

5.9 Public Transport Trip Generation Public transport trips are derived from the TRICS vehicle trip generation combined with existing local public transport usage from 2011 Census data. The methodology identifies a factor (a proportion of car or van use) derived from the existing local (two nearest wards to each Reserve Site) bus and rail use (main method of travel to work) from 2011 census data applied to the TRICS vehicle trips for each Reserve Site. Table 5-J presents the public transport factors identified using this methodology.

Local Public Transport Use Factor (2011 Census) Abbey Gomm Slate Terriers Barns Valley Meadow Farm Factor to apply to vehicle trip 0.094781 0.081153 0.092593 0.128267 rate to derive rail trip rate Factor to apply to vehicle trip 0.089888 0.072179 0.023774 0.069844 rate to derive bus trip rate

Table 5-J Factors Applied to Derive Local Bus and Rail Trip Rates

Table 5-K provides the rail trip generation of each reserve site based on the vehicle trip generation in Table 5-B and the factors applied to vehicle trip rates to derive local rail trip rates. The equivalent figures for bus trip generation are presented in Table 5-L.

AM PM (08:00- 09:00) (17:00- 18:00) Reserve Site Type Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Residential 17 7 10 16 Abbey Barn South Employment 2 10 8 1 Abbey Barn North Residential 3 1 2 3

Residential 18 7 10 17 Gomm Valley / Ashwells Employment 0 5 5 0 Slate Meadow Residential 6 3 3 6 Terriers Farm Residential 22 9 12 20

Table 5-K Estimate of Rail Trip Generation of Reserve Sites

AM PM (08:00- 09:00) (17:00- 18:00) Reserve Site Type Depart (O) Arrive (D) Depart (O) Arrive (D) Residential 16 7 9 15 Abbey Barn South Employment 2 9 8 1 Abbey Barn North Residential 3 1 1 2

Residential 16 7 9 15 Gomm Valley / Ashwells Employment 0 5 5 0 Slate Meadow Residential 2 1 1 1 Terriers Farm Residential 12 5 7 11

Table 5-L Estimate of Bus Trip Generation of Reserve Sites

HWTP01 50

Transport Framework

6. Consultation and Engagement

6.1 Introduction A series of public workshops were held during January to March 2015 on the Reserve Sites following the Cabinet's decision to release the sites for development.

These workshops were run by consultants AR Urbanism, supported by transport consultant Phil Jones Associates. Councillors and Officers were present at the workshops. The workshops were all-day events, allowing for in-depth discussion in order to build on previously identified issues and how they might be addressed.

The dates and venues for the public workshops were:

• Gomm Valley and Ashwells - Saturday 31 January - Highcrest Academy, Hatters Lane • Terriers Farm - Saturday 7 February - Holy Trinity Church in Hazlemere • Abbey Barn South and Abbey Barn North - Saturday 28 February - John Hampden School, High Wycombe • High Wycombe - Public Infrastructure Workshop - Saturday 7 March – Bucks New University, High Wycombe • Slate Meadow - Saturday 14 March - Community Centre, Bourne End

As part of the release of the sites WDC is working with local communities, stakeholders and developers, through site specific Liaison Groups to produce Development Briefs for each site. These groups have been formed and a number of meetings have been held discussing these briefs. Representatives of the Liaison Groups are also appointed to a town-wide infrastructure roundtable to consider the collective impacts on infrastructure across the study area. WDC is publishing all consultation work on the Council’s website35.

Supplementary to this stakeholder consultation, Jacobs also held an Officer workshop with representatives of both WDC and BCC to capture existing knowledge and understanding of the transport issues, transport commitments and potential transport options.

6.2 Public Infrastructure Workshop

Over 50 people attended the public infrastructure workshop on 7th March 2015, with the structure of the day primarily being participants working in groups with brief presentations throughout the day. The objectives of the day were for participants to identify and prioritise current infrastructure issues and deficiencies, and possible solutions.

The first part of the day was focused on views on transport issues. Firstly, groups were asked to set out the current transport issues and the impacts, identifying locations on maps and writing up the issues on flip charts. Each group were then asked to prioritise the top two issues on each flipchart.

The most identified issue was congestion on the A40 between the town centre and Loudwater, including the junctions with Hammersley Lane, Micklefield Road, Cock Lane and the retail park. Other issues identified included north / south route congestion through the town and congestion on routes such as Abbey Barn Lane and Daws Hill Lane. The group also expressed views associated with poor bus links, poor bus / train coordination and excessive school traffic.

The groups at the public infrastructure workshop, when given choices on alternative traffic growth scenarios, reached a broad agreement that the authorities can’t plan for unmitigated traffic growth in High Wycombe

35 Wycombe District Council website – Reserve Site pages http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and- buildings/reserve-sites.aspx HWTP01 51

Transport Framework

through providing more and more road capacity, but rather aim for little or no growth in overall traffic through attractive transport alternatives.

Table 6-A summarises a wide range of possible transport measures generated by the groups at the public infrastructure workshop and their relative popularity. A number of the schemes raised were strategic and of a scale that is outside the scope of this study (e.g. new motorway junctions). These schemes have not been taken forward into the appraisal process.

Category General Description of Measures Total Number of Times Mentioned Buses An improved bus service for the town, with better vehicles, a more frequent, extensive 22 and reliable service and better integration with rail services. Flexible minibus services. Park and Ride, with bus priority and less car parking in the town centre. More bus lanes, achieved through road widening. Oyster style ticketing and bus passes for children. Highway Individual schemes: Improvements to A40 (better signal coordination, roundabouts, tidal 13 Schemes flow); a Wycombe bypass; a northern inner relief road; a new M40 Junction 4A (not 3A); Improved M40 junction signs; changing priority at West Wycombe Rd/Chapel Lane to favour A4010. Generally: Control indiscriminate parking; better on site roads/parking and introduce four- way give way junctions. School Traffic School buses, provide primary schools within walking distance, improved walking routes 9 to schools, create no parking zones around schools, restrict drop off to onsite only, charge for drop off, staggered school start times. Rail and Introduce rail/tram along the valley floor, linking to Bourne End; improved rail links to 5 Light rail Heathrow etc. Other Public Shared taxis, integrated taxis with bus/rail, car clubs/pooling, cable car from Marlow Hill 5 Transport to Railway Station. Cycling Traffic-free and segregated cycle routes, cycle lanes, especially to schools. 5 Demand Congestion charging, town centre/no-car development, more amenities in town centre 3 management Walking Further pedestrianisation 1 Other Improved traffic modelling 1

Table 6-A Transport Measures – Public Infrastructure Workshop

The afternoon session of the public infrastructure workshop discussed community and social infrastructure such as schools, health, open space and also drainage and utility infrastructure. The most common issues identified were school capacity, lack of A&E services, capacity of GP surgeries, loss of green spaces, sewage capacity, surface water flooding and water pressure. A full report of the public infrastructure workshop can be found on WDC website.

6.3 Officer Transport Workshop

A transport workshop with WDC and BCC Officers and Jacobs took place on 8th April 2015 to supplement the possible transport measures generated by the groups at the public infrastructure workshop and capture their collective local knowledge.

Table 6-B summarises a range of transport measures generated by the officers at the transport workshop..

HWTP01 52

Transport Framework

Category General Description of Measures

Highway Integrated improvement package to London Road and junctions to deliver additional capacity, Schemes optimised signals and bus / high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane priority, including full exploitation of smart technology. Potential to consider how road space could be released from right turn slots by introducing a ‘slow and steady’ regime whereby oncoming traffic reacts courteously to right-turners.

Realignment of Kingsmead Road / Abbey Barn Lane junction and new link into Wye Dean.

20mph zones in residential areas (to manage / discourage rat-running) and consideration of the role of particular lower order roads as through appropriate routes to release network capacity. Buses Smart ticketing and branding for buses, including contactless payment and inter-operability between operators to create a coherent single package.

Implement the committed public transport link (including pedestrian and cycle provision) between Daws Hill Lane and Handy Cross Hub or find a feasible alternative route to achieve this link. Cycling Top-quality network of cycle routes with supporting signage / brand promotion etc, linking to Health & Wellbeing agendas.

Improve cycling provision around the town centre, particularly to the rail station. Improve cycling provision / routes across the wider urban area where topography is favourable. School Traffic Programme of school travel management including drop-off facilities for existing sites, planning of new school sites to incorporate adequate drop-off and promotion of sustainable modes. Parking Coordination of parking charges / time restrictions in town centre to discourage commuter parking.

Other Public Improve access to the rail station. Transport Demand A significant and high quality behaviour change campaign (of demonstration town level) to fully realise Management the benefits of other schemes. Walking Improve network of footways / bridleways. Promote the Health & Wellbeing benefits of active travel.

Table 6-B Supplementary Transport Measures – Officer Workshop

6.4 Liaison Group

WDC has formed liaison groups for each Reserve Site to provide a forum for local stakeholders to play a proactive role in helping set key parameters for the way these sites should be developed in a managed way and to help shape development briefs to inform any planning applications that are submitted by developers. The membership of each liaison group and final minutes of the meetings held are available on the Wycombe District Council web page36.

6.5 Town-Wide Infrastructure Roundtable WDC has formed a group to look at the impact and possible solutions to infrastructure issues relating to the release of the Reserve Sites. This will look specifically at the collective impact of the four sites around High Wycombe, but will also include a representative from the Slate Meadow Liaison Group because it will be considering the outputs of a strategic transport model that includes Bourne End.

The membership and minutes of the inaugural meeting of the Infrastructure Roundtable held on Tuesday 24th March are presented on WDC’s website. The key transport points discussed were:

• It was agreed that the group should have a role in making recommendations on how Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding should be used and prioritised to improve infrastructure provision. • Phil Jones, transport consultant from Phil Jones Associates, was invited to present feedback from the 7th March public workshop (summarised above).

36 Wycombe District Council website – reserve site pages http://www.wycombe.gov.uk/council-services/planning-and- buildings/reserve-sites.aspx HWTP01 53

Transport Framework

A Roundtable meeting was held on 7th July 2015 when an initial presentation was undertaken by Jacobs to describe the emerging interventions. The views communicated during this session were fed back into the scheme prioritisation process and also informed further thinking associated with each particular Reserve Site. A further Roundtable meeting was then held on 10th December to present the final outputs from the study work.

HWTP01 54

Transport Framework

7. Transport Framework Development

7.1 Introduction

This section summarises the transport problems and objectives identified in the previous chapters. The engagement process described in section 6 has highlighted a number of key transport concerns and local priorities. This section details the generation of a long-list of transport options, outlines the appraisal methodology, including initial sifting of options for potential inclusion in the Transport Framework. This section also identifies site access and highway measures that form a package of works to provide access to each site.

The output of the process is an appraisal of all of the options (included at Appendix G). Reported in this section is a framework of site specific interventions considered necessary to develop the Reserve Sites which may also provide benefits in terms of addressing defined town-wide problems and objectives.

Option Reserve Site Engagement Scheme Engagement Generation Prioritisation Sifting

Necessary Site-based Study work Problems / and Related Review Objectives Transport Framework

Site Prioritised Policy / Strategy Packages Schemes

Figure 7-A Outline of Transport Framework Package Development

7.2 Problems and Objectives Table 7-A summarises the current and future transport problems identified in the evidence presented in previous chapters.

Category Description of Problem

Local Congestion The High Wycombe road network is subject to peak time congestion, familiar to many medium to large size urban areas. Parts of the network suffer congestion due to capacity constraints and overall there are network resilience and associated journey time reliability issues. The local road network is also affected by wider longer distance travel patterns in the form of ‘through trips’ on strategic corridors. Road Safety Locations with clusters of collisions and routes with a high incidence of collisions per km have been identified. Furthermore, high traffic speeds and a highway dominated environment exacerbate actual or perceptions of safety issues which can discourage travel for non- motorised users. Constrained Barriers to development and transport related constraints; including lost productive time and Economic Growth reduced accessibility are likely to increase over time as traffic growth exacerbates current transport problems. Such issues may fail to support and sustain economic prosperity and productivity with associated further increases in longer distance ‘out-commuting’. Lack of Integrated General concerns about deficiencies in the existing public transport network related in Public Transport particular to service quality, journey time reliability, coverage and frequency. Interchange is Network also cited as a barrier to increased public transport usage and a number of services require continued subsidy due to financial viability issues. Lack of Quality The topography of High Wycombe presents some challenges for non-motorised user travel; Provision for Non- however these modes are not well catered for in many areas. In particular there is a lack of a Motorised Users coherent cycle network linking key destinations and interchanges and in some areas a poor urban realm discourages travel by non-motorised users. This results in poorer health and wellbeing for some sections of the community.

Table 7-A High Wycombe Area Transport Problems affecting Reserve Site Development

HWTP01 55

Transport Framework

The alignment of the Transport Framework objectives to the local policy framework is presented at Appendix I. The Transport Framework objectives align with the five themes of the Wycombe Partnership Sustainable Community Strategy. Table 7-B summarises five important transport objectives.

Category Description of Objective

Thriving Economy To provide high quality transport improvements required to support and facilitate sustainable housing and employment growth in High Wycombe as identified in the Local Development Framework. Sustainable Environment To manage congestion and support economic activity by transforming the way people travel within High Wycombe. Safe Communities To improve connectivity within, to and from key existing and future centres of activity. Health & Wellbeing To maintain a high quality of life and natural environment, promoting more sustainable travel solutions, improved safety and security for all 37 road users and reduced carbon emissions. Cohesive & Strong To promote both social inclusion and community cohesion through Communities supporting the provision of integrated public transport networks and facilitating improved access to services.

Table 7-B Transport Framework Objectives

7.3 Option Generation

The purpose of the option generation process is to develop a range of alternative measures or interventions that have the potential to provide some resolution to the problems listed in Table 7-A and achieve the objectives identified in Table 7-B. An initial set of transport improvement options were developed through a high level review, informed by the sources and approaches summarised in Table 7-C. The option generation process was constrained to ‘non-strategic’ schemes that could be considered deliverable within the short to medium term and within limited scheme budgets.

Source Description of Source / Approach

Relevant Policy and Included in the literature review within section 2 of this report. Strategy Documents Recent Studies Recommendations and evidence from studies prepared as part of the evidence base that will inform the new Wycombe District Local Plan Baseline and Forecasting Included in the baseline and forecast conditions review within sections Process 3 and 4 of this report. Public Infrastructure Summarised in section 6 of this report and reported in detail by AR Workshop Urbanism. Officer Transport Liaison with WDC and BCC officers to ensure that all possible Workshop solutions were captured, including historic proposals that had not progressed.

Table 7-C Option Generation Sources and Approaches

The options that have emerged include a range of highway infrastructure, public transport and non-motorised user schemes aimed at resolving identified issues. A number of walking and cycling schemes and other measures have been identified and included within the appraisal process with smaller measures packaged into larger schemes where appropriate.

The following are considered to comprise options for further development and assessment, some of which form part of the Transport Framework to mitigate the impact of developing the Reserve Sites. The schemes are currently at a very early concept stage commensurate with strategy rather than implementation, and successive stages of scheme development would be required to define the scope of each improvement. Options are grouped by type and each assigned a unique code for reference.

37 Active Bucks Website http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/healthy-living/active-bucks/ HWTP01 56

Transport Framework

Mindful that some modest accessibility measures will be important for the development of each site, alongside the options identified, a set of interventions have been considered to provide for basic accessibility and local site-specific mitigation requirements. The site packages are options that are not necessarily identified to resolve the wider problems and objectives across the study area in terms of this appraisal, but will need to be investigated and potentially developed as part of the delivery of each Reserve Site.

7.4 Option Development and Appraisal

In line with DfT Transport Analysis Guidance on Option Development in Transport Appraisal38, the process of option development should involve the consideration of a range of potential options that may address identified problems and defined objectives. This is to ensure that the need for investment can be clearly justified and evidenced.

The assessment of potential options has been carried out using a bespoke appraisal framework tool. The appraisal framework has been developed to assess options based on their ability to contribute to:

• High Wycombe Area Transport Problems (described in Table 7-A); • Transport Framework Objectives (described in Table 7-B); and • Supporting Analysis (Scheme Deliverability, Feasibility and Affordability).

The appraisal process seeks to provide an efficient, robust and presentable means of identifying legitimate options to be considered further. It has been developed with consideration of the DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) 39, and supports the ‘scale of impact’ and ‘fit with other objectives’ criteria of the tool.

The framework is spreadsheet based and each option includes a specific reference and concept scheme description. An outline cost and an indicative timeframe have also been included. These categories are indicative and aim to assist the prioritisation of the options for improvement. Estimates are based on experience of the timescales and costs associated with implementing similar schemes but should not be used for any purpose other than as a comparative tool for this initial sifting exercise.

Each option has been scored on a five point scale against these elements, using the scoring system outlined in Table 7-D which have then been combined to produce an overall score for each option. The scoring process is based on existing evidence where available and judgements based on experience to allow a qualitative approach to be adopted. The simple numerical basis aims to provide consistency in the approach to appraising each option.

2 Large beneficial impact 1 Beneficial impact 0 Neutral / marginal impact -1 Adverse impact -2 Large adverse impact

Table 7-D Qualitative Assessment Scoring System

Each option has also been assessed against a series of supporting analysis to ensure it is appropriate for further consideration as part of this study. The broad criteria on which this sifting process is based include deliverability, feasibility and affordability. Descriptions of these criteria are set out Table 7-E, with outcomes classified as ‘likely’, ‘likely (with challenges)’, or ‘unlikely’.

38 DfT Transport Analysis Guidance: An Overview of Transport Appraisal, January 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/427073/webtag-tag-overview.pdf 39 DfT Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) Guidance https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4475/east-guidance.pdf HWTP01 57

Transport Framework

Supporting Analysis Description

Deliverability Consideration of issues around deliverability e.g. in terms of political, planning, timescale or third party issues. Feasibility Consideration of practicalities which may present issues in delivery (e.g. physical constraint, land availability and design standards). Affordability Assessing what extent of additional funding would be required to deliver the scheme and whether this is likely to be available through existing funding sources.

Table 7-E Supporting Analysis

The initial sifting process seeks to identify the more appropriate options. The sifting criteria looks to identify options that: • have an overall moderate impact or greater against identified problems (based on total qualitative assessment score converted to an EAST 5 point rating, as set out in Table 7-F); • have an overall moderate impact or greater against identified objectives (based on total qualitative assessment score converted to an EAST 5 point rating, as set out in Table 7-F); • are likely to be deliverable (including ‘likely with challenges’); • are likely to be feasible (including ‘likely with challenges’); and • are likely to be affordable (including ‘likely with challenges’).

Problems (Scale of Impact) Objectives (Fit with Other Objectives)

Appraisal Score Rating Appraisal Score Rating

Very small Very small overall ≤0 ≤0 overall impact impact 1 1

2 Minor Impact 2 Minor Impact

3 3

4 4 Moderate 5 5 Moderate Impact Impact 6 6

7 Significant 7 Significant Impact 8 Impact 8

9 Fully 9 addresses Fully aligns with 10 identified 10 identified objectives problems

Table 7-F EAST Conversion

7.5 Prioritised Transport Schemes

A prioritised list of schemes is an output of the appraisal process and identifies proposals that can be considered for a framework of measures that address the demand created by the development of the Reserve Sites. The long list of prioritised options is presented in Appendix G. The better performing options can be taken forward for further consideration and development as part of Reserve Site development or other processes. The costs and timeframes are presented as broad ranges for comparative purposes and to assist phasing, final costs would depend on a range of detailed design and programme factors. The options are allocated 1 of 3 illustrative time periods, Phase 1 (2016-2019), Phase 2 (2019-2022), and Phase 3 (2022-2026). The options are

HWTP01 58

Transport Framework

coded approximately by mode, with highway measures given the prefix H, public transport measures given the suffix P, walking and cycling measures given the suffix W, and all other measures given the suffix O.

Through the appraisal process a number of options that were not considered to address the identified problems or objectives, or were considered to not be feasible, deliverable or affordable in planning or engineering terms, were sifted and discounted at this stage. The discounted options and reason for removal are outlined in Appendix H which indicates the reason for discounting. These schemes may be considered appropriate in other development and local planning contexts. A further sifting exercise has then been undertaken to identify prioritised schemes that may be related to the impact of the development of the Reserve Sites. The outcomes of this process in terms of the summary list of schemes for inclusion in the Transport Framework are presented below in Table 7-G. The list is not presented in priority order.

Ref Option Relevance to Reserve Sites

Reconfigure and change priority of the Kingsmead Rd / Junction will experience increase in traffic H-2 Abbey Barn Rd junction. volume from Abbey Barns and Gomm Valley. Provide an appropriate standard of route to Upgrade and widen the bridge south of Kingsmead Road H-3 accommodate increasing traffic demands in on Abbey Barn Lane. particular from Abbey Barns and Gomm Valley. Provide an appropriate standard of route H-9 Widen and improve Abbey Barn Lane. adjacent to Abbey Barn South and North. Improve traffic signal control arrangement at Rayners Ave A40 London Road is an important and H-16 junction. Remove bus lane between Station Road and congested corridor that will provide access to the Rayners Avenue and replace with eastbound traffic lane. M40 via Junction 3 for Reserve Sites. Ensure the key primary corridor that will Implement a comprehensive A40 congestion relief package H-17 accommodates additional traffic demands of highway widening including land take. primarily from Abbey Barns and Gomm Valley. Improve operation of the A4094 route (in conjunction with To ensure the A4094 is able to accommodate H-20 wider improvements to strategic road network). additional traffic demands from Slate Meadow. Introduction of a right turn at the Marlow Hill / Daws Hill Improve traffic conditions on the A404 Marlow H-27 Lane from the side road for buses only or for general traffic. Hill corridor for the Abbey Barns. Remove, relocate and rationalise on-street parking in key Ensure routes such as A4094 remain fit for O-1 locations. purpose with increased traffic volumes. Comprehensive investment and roll out of school travel All sites will need to minimise school-related O-13 planning and associated physical and soft measures. traffic volumes. Investment to further improve, extend the bus network and All sites will require frequent, attractive P-2 support the frequency of public transport services to serve connections via public transport to support new development locations. sustainable travel choices Extend and implement additional sections of bus lanes To improve the reliability of public transport P-3 along the A40 between Micklefield Road and Easton journey times between the Gomm Valley site Street. and the town centre. P-7 Implement further RTPI and improve key bus stops. Encourage sustainable travel mode share. Investment in better public transport vehicles with on-bus Encourage sustainable travel mode share from P-12 electronic information and reduced emissions. all Reserve Sites. Avoid detrimental impacts resulting from Roll out speed reduction and control measures outside O-2 increased traffic volumes, including at Marsh schools. Infant and Nursery School. Significant and targeted behavioural change campaigns in Maximise uptake of sustainable travel modes O-9 particular associated with new development locations. from all Reserve Sites. Town wide introduction of monitoring and evaluation Monitor the results of travel plan implementation O-10 programme including mode share targets. at each site. Provision of additional cycle racks at key interchanges and Ensure additional cycling demand can be W-1 trip generators (including key bus stops). accommodated from all Reserve Sites.

Table 7-G Prioritised List of Schemes for Reserve Sites Transport Framework

HWTP01 59

Transport Framework

The resulting prioritised list of schemes provides a multi-modal set of interventions that form part of the Transport Framework for the delivery of the Reserve Sites and mitigation of cumulative impact. The stakeholder engagement process described in section 6 highlighted, consistent with adopted national and local policy, that a clear objective should be to limit the overall level of traffic growth in the High Wycombe area. For any transport system to accommodate growth effectively, a combination of highway improvements and traffic demand management or behavioural change measures would be needed, as reflected in the table above.

The following sections set out the site specific package for each Reserve Site with an accompanying plan that also shows the access junctions assumed in the modelling and trip distribution diagrams. These are generally smaller scale measures that would not necessarily have a significant impact on the wider High Wycombe transport system but are considered important for the delivery of the individual sites. These measures are also generally additional to those listed above in Table 7-G, although some measures have been illustrated where they are in close proximity to the location of a particular Reserve Site. It will be important that these schemes are considered as part of the mitigation package for the individual sites. For all the following sites an appropriate level of contribution to public transport, travel planning and travel plan monitoring is assumed.

7.6 Abbey Barn North Site Package

Potential vehicle access to Abbey Barn North is not yet well defined, with a number of access points to be assessed and considered by the developer of the site. It will be crucially important to ensure safe access to and from the site with, sufficient visibility provided at proposed access points.

Access onto Kingsmead Road is likely to require significant removal of hedgerow to achieve suitable visibility towards Abbey Barn Lane and Bassetsbury Lane. Access onto Abbey Barn Lane will also require significant removal of hedgerow. There are significant topographical challenges, requiring a significant engineering solution with additional complexities to this access point associated with the narrow bridge over the disused railway line. As such, direct access from the site onto a new roundabout access junction at Kingsmead Road is the preferred concept.

However, there are understood to be land ownership constraints to achieving this. Should these constraints not be overcome, a significant engineering solution would be necessary to provide a vehicle access directly onto Abbey Barn Lane. Further key local transport schemes, to connect Abbey Barn North to the surrounding transport network could include: • A widened footbridge connecting Kingsmead Road with Bassetsbury Lane to 3 metres width (or provide an additional cycle bridge of at least 2 metres width) to provide shared use for cyclists / pedestrians. This scheme would connect the Abbey Barn North site to good non-motorised user routes towards High Wycombe town centre. • Footway / cycleway provision via the preferred access point onto an upgraded junction of Abbey Barn Road / Kingsmead Road.

The local transport package for Abbey Barn North is illustrated in Figure 7-A, below, alongside a package of measures for Abbey Barn South.

7.7 Abbey Barn South Site Package Vehicle access to Abbey Barn South is to be provided via Abbey Barn Lane and through the RAF Daws Hill site. Although not part of the Abbey Barn South site, the adjacent ski slope site is also likely to be considered for development to be accessed directly via Abbey Barn Lane and so should be kept in mind as part of the developer’s access strategy. Topographical challenges could result in a travel mode share for the development dominated by the private car unless significant local investment to achieve a sustainable travel mode shift is agreed.

The development traffic impact at the Abbey Barn Lane / Heath End Road junction is to be assessed and the junction designed to operate effectively with forecast future traffic demands. This junction design will be required to slow down vehicles entering Daws Hill Lane and to avoid encouraging traffic from using Winchbottom Lane. A four arm roundabout design has been considered previously; however, this design may encourage traffic to use

HWTP01 60

Transport Framework

Winchbottom Lane and would therefore not be entirely suitable. The preferred concept is a three arm roundabout, with Winchbottom Lane retained as a separate unsignalised T junction.

Further local transport schemes, considered necessary to connect Abbey Barn South to the surrounding transport network and local facilities include:

• A shared use pedestrian / cycle path from within Abbey Barn South, joining the path between RAF Daws Hill and Keep Hill Road. This scheme may require further upgrades to the path provided by the RAF Daws Hill development, including lighting or luminance. The purpose of this scheme is to provide an appropriate pedestrian / cyclist link to High Wycombe town centre and should therefore include appropriate signage at Keep Hill Road. • A shared use pedestrian / cycle path linking with the path described above, including provision of a safe crossing of Abbey Barn Lane and connecting to Amersham & Wycombe College on the outskirts of Flackwell Heath. The purpose of this scheme is to provide an appropriate pedestrian / cyclist link to connect the site to facilities in the Flackwell Heath area and also provide wider strategic connections between Flackwell Heath and facilities at Handy Cross Hub. • Connect the bridleways through Keephill Wood and the Abbey Barn Lane shared pedestrian path / cycle lane to Winchbottom Lane. This would complement access to the unclassified road running north-south, west of Winchbottom lane, which was cut off when the M40 was built. In addition, upgrade footpath LMA/22 to bridleway allowing cycling access to this lane. • An off-road pedestrian and cycle route through Dean Garden Woods to link Abbey Barn South and North and then into the wider network • A 15-minute frequency bus service takes a route through Abbey Barn South. A bus service via Flackwell Heath could be diverted by the operator. Suitable bus priority is to be included within the site and at nearby junctions to minimise possible journey time delays. The bus service could provide onward travel to High Wycombe town centre via Handy Cross Hub. • Reduced speed limits on Abbey Barn Lane and Heath End Road from national speed limit (60mph) to 30mph or 40mph, as agreed to be most appropriate. This scheme would ensure that an appropriate speed limit was in place reflecting the increasingly residential and urban nature of the area. This would also prevent any unnecessary restrictions to either providing vehicle access to Abbey Barn South or providing a redesign of the Abbey Barn Lane/ Heath End Road junction. • A signalised or upgraded bridge on Abbey Barn Lane, depending upon progress and deliverability of more substantial improvements to the narrow bridge and nearby junctions. This scheme would seek to resolve issues related to the inter-visibility of the give-way control to ensure that a safe method of control was in place. • Abbey Barn Lane is narrow in places, with a bending alignment and crests restricting visibility. There are no footway facilities on Abbey Barn Lane. Modest widening or realignment of ‘pinch-points’ would ensure that an appropriate carriageway width and standard of route was provided. • Providing a vehicular connection through to RAF Daws Hill and access to Abbey Barn South via Daws Hill Lane.

The local transport package for Abbey Barn South and Abbey Barn North is illustrated in Figure 7-B.

HWTP01 61

Transport Framework

Figure 7-B Abbey Barn Sites Package

7.8 Gomm Valley & Ashwells Site Package Potential vehicle access to the Gomm Valley & Ashwells site is evolving through Masterplanning work currently being undertaken by the developer team and the planning and highway authorities. The current Masterplan provides separate development areas (generally aligned to existing field boundaries) with internal road connections served by a central spine route through the site. The dispersed nature of the development parcels within this expansive site combined with topographical challenges may result in a travel mode share for the development dominated by the private car unless significant local investment to achieve sustainable travel mode shift is delivered. The level of land use proposed for each parcel may need to be considered further alongside detailed junction performance and scheme information that may emerge from further more detailed Transport Assessment studies.

The current working assumptions for the spine route alignment is the provision of a 6 metre wide north/south road (designed in accordance with Manual for Streets), with access points via Cock Lane (North), Pimms Grove (West) and Gomm Road (South). The general preference is to make this ‘link road’ route suitable primarily for local residents and not encourage the use of the route for through traffic, whilst still allowing the potential for public transport use and heavy vehicle / emergency service access. At this stage it is anticipated that the access strategy will seek to:

• Minimise the impact of the development on the three junctions on the A40 London Road by distributing development traffic across the various access points. • Encourage traffic to use the A40 London Road and discourage the use of Cock Lane with its substandard width and environmental constraints, as well as land ownership issues; and

HWTP01 62

Transport Framework

• Maximise pedestrian, cycle and public transport accessibility to Gomm Valley and provide a suitable route to a new primary school proposed for the lower part of the site.

Any vehicle access strategy to Gomm Valley & Ashwells via Gomm Road will need to include the reconfiguration of the Gomm Road / Peregrine Business Park junction, primarily to change priority. Any vehicle access to Gomm Valley & Ashwells via Hammersley Lane will need to provide suitable visibility and stopping sight distances, potentially requiring signalisation and incorporating an appropriate method of control at the section of narrow carriageway beneath the railway bridge. Any vehicle access to Gomm Valley should be configured in such a way as to negate the need for traffic to utilise the narrow section of Cock Lane. Furthermore it would not be appropriate to locate any access points from the Reserve Site onto the narrow section of Cock Lane, unless the proposal also made provision for accompanying improvement works to Cock Lane. Should subsequent evolution of the Masterplan indicate a potential impact on this section of road, route upgrades should be considered further.

In its present condition Cock Lane is subject to operational issues, particularly at peak travel times and therefore without upgrade is not a suitable route for accommodating material increases in traffic growth. A material increase in traffic volume is likely to occur if either Gomm Valley or Ashwells are developed in isolation without significant infrastructure improvements. The issues would be further intensified if both the northern and southern ends of the site are developed.

The potential for widening Cock Lane was considered as an alternative to the provision of a new spine road, with regard to the following factors:

• The impact on character; • The loss of hedgerows; • Ecological impact; • The remaining pinch point on the single lane railway bridge; and • Difficulties of making improvements to the Cock Lane junction,

A view was taken that in the context of the wider priorities of the Masterplan, that the provision of a spine road was considered to represent the preferred solution. An updated Masterplan including the spine road was provided to Jacobs as input to this study. Further local transport schemes to connect Gomm Valley & Ashwells to the surrounding transport network could include:

• A shared use cycle / pedestrian path within Gomm Valley, using the most favourable topography of the Gomm Valley floor for the alignment. This would require issues relating to perceptions of security and personal safety to be addressed. Scope of Cycling Level of Service 40 score requirements to establish appropriate levels of provision could be determined when scoping the Transport Assessment for the site. • A shared use cycle/ pedestrian path linking with the path within Gomm Valley, along the alignment of the existing public right of way connecting Cock Lane to The Horse and Jockey pub on Church Road via Carter Walk. • A shared use cycle/ pedestrian path linking with the path within Gomm Valley, along the alignment of the existing public right of way connecting Micklefield Road to Hammersley Lane with safe crossings of Herbert Road and Cock Lane. • A shared use cycle / pedestrian path along Hammersley Lane along the alignment of the existing public right of way. • A shared use cycle/ pedestrian path within Gomm Valley, along the alignment of the existing public right of way connecting Gomm Road with Hammersley Lane.

40 TfL London Cycling Design Standards January 2015 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/cycling HWTP01 63

Transport Framework

• Provision of a route through King’s Wood, using existing private tracks and public bridleways to connect Cock Lane with the A404 Amersham Road (at the Beech Tree Pub) providing an attractive shared use pedestrian / cyclist / equestrian facility. • Improving footways along Cock Lane, Hammersley Lane, Gomm Road and Orchard Road. This scheme would ensure that attractive footway facilities were available in the immediate vicinity of the application site. • Improve and control the pedestrian crossing at Micklefield Road to provide an improved route along the northern side of the A40 London Road via Micklefield Road / Cock Lane. This scheme would ensure that attractive pedestrian facilities are available on a significant desire line for development pedestrian trips. • Capacity improvements are expected to be necessary at the Gomm Road junction as this is envisaged as the primary access point to the site. This would need to be implemented alongside a wider A40 package which would aim to resolve existing issues along this corridor. • The existing public transport route (service no. 27) is indicated on the figure below. This service is an infrequent heavily subsidised service. There are challenges with serving this site with a public transport service that would be viable in the longer term. Options that could be worthy of investigating further include re-routing of the no 27 and extension of the no 31 into the northern part of the site. Other options may also be available. The local transport package for Gomm Valley & Ashwells is illustrated in Figure 7-C.

Figure 7-C Gomm Valley & Ashwells Site Package

HWTP01 64

Transport Framework

7.9 Slate Meadow Site Package Access proposals to Slate Meadow are yet to be finalised, with at least five potential vehicle access points to be assessed and considered by the developer of the site. Separate development areas are envisaged on the Bourne End and Wooburn sides of the site, with no internal road connections between each plot, avoiding the identified conglomeration issue. The Village Green will need to be considered in the developer’s access and land use strategy.

Any vehicle access to Slate Meadow via Stratford Drive will need to protect safe and effective operation of the existing Stratford Drive/ St Pauls Church of England Combined School access and Stratford Drive / Orchard Drive junctions. Any vehicle access to Slate Meadow via Eastern Drive or Frank Lunnon Close will need to assess the development traffic impact on all existing residential access roads and junctions and will need to be designed to operate effectively and safely with forecast future traffic demands. It is expected that the level of new housing served by these roads would be a relatively low proportion of the overall development site. Further waiting restrictions or physical measures may be required to prevent on-street parking in the vicinity of each access. It will be necessary to demonstrate that these access options are undeliverable, unfeasible or unaffordable in order for a vehicle access directly via A4094 Brookbank between the Cores End Roundabout and Stratford Drive to be considered.

Further local transport schemes that are important to consider to connect Slate Meadow to the surrounding transport network include:

• Shared use cycle/ pedestrian paths within Slate Meadow to connect to the proposed upgrade to the bridleway of the disused railway track immediately adjacent to the application site. The proposed route, being delivered by the County and District Councils, connects Cores End Road to near The Green in Wooburn. It will be important that the connections with the site and wider destinations provide a strong personal feeling of safety along this route. • Improved footways on any access roads. This scheme would ensure that attractive footway facilities were available in the immediate vicinity of the application site and promote sustainable onward travel. • New investment in local school travel. This scheme would address any local school travel needs (e.g. to resolve school parking, to fund a mini-bus, to improve cycling facilities, for specific road safety initiatives) and can be used to improve local school travel plans. • A component of the overall school travel improvements could include provision of a park and walk facility on the site. This would help to mitigate existing issues associated with on street parking and provide alternative means for the management of school drop off movements. • The form of crossing just to the east of the Stratford Drive crossing should be reviewed to assess whether formalising this as a signal controlled crossing would offer a better facility. • Measures along the A4094 to ensure the route is resilient, providing an appropriate balance between through movement and local access journeys. This could include consideration of the impacts of parking, provision for right turning movements to local land use, and forms of pedestrian crossing. • Review the location of bus stops to ensure these are appropriately located and accessible for Slate Meadow.

The local transport package for Slate Meadow is illustrated in Figure 7-D.

HWTP01 65

Transport Framework

Figure 7-D Slate Meadow Site Package

7.10 Terriers Farm Site Package It is considered that the optimal primary access point for the development is via Kingshill Road, between Green Road and the A404. The preferred form of junction is expected to be a 3-arm priority or signalised junction, as required. There is potential for a second access point within the same extent of the road, perhaps providing access for public transport and/or emergency service vehicles only. There are further options that will need to be considered in terms of access, including locations further along Kingshill Road to the west of the site, and other potential locations. Any access point on Kingshill Road to the north of Green Road would involve greater issues associated with tree loss and inappropriate vehicle routing to lower order roads. The location of the access point, in the context of avoiding the potential for further impact on the traffic calmed Green Road, is an important consideration. Any vehicle access to Terriers Farm via Kingshill Road will need to be designed using appropriate standards and protect the safe and effective operation of the existing Kingshill Road / Tower Street junction. Opportunities for further access points including direct connections with the A404 should be considered as part of the further development of the Masterplan for the site.

The list of prioritised transport schemes includes a measure to implement an improvement to the A404 mini- roundabouts with Kingshill Road and Totteridge Lane. This junction is likely to be significantly affected by the development proposal and therefore would require mitigation. It is likely that retaining mini-roundabouts will be preferable due to the physical limitations of the highway and the desire to maintain a form of junction appropriate for the edge of Conservation Area setting, although part or fully signalised options could be further explored. A further scheme objective would be to achieve improved bus priority as part of the scheme, as possible.

HWTP01 66

Transport Framework

On site there has been consideration of the provision of space for a future Park & Ride service. The outcome of this study has indicated that additional Park & Ride is not likely to be a viable option in High Wycombe including at the Terriers Site, at this time. However, such space could be retained to provide a site hub area for an extended bus service No. 32 accessing and turning within the site. If options for a direct access point from the site onto the A404 are considered further, opportunities for diverting public transport services into the site should be considered.

Further local transport schemes, considered necessary to connect Terriers Farm to the surrounding transport network include: • Improvements to the public right of way between the site and the A404 Amersham Road, necessary in order to comply with DSA Plan Policy DM2. • Widening the carriageway of Kingshill Road to the east of the site access. • Providing a high specification bridleway surface (such as Phoenix Trail old railway line) suitable for shared use with pedestrians and cyclists, with the retention of existing hedgerows. This includes the link connecting the site to the Lady’s Mile and to the A404 Amersham Road, required to achieve recommended 400 metres walking distance from each unit to nearest bus services. • Rationalising the position of and improving key bus stops on A404 Amersham Road. • Considering the potential to provide a new formal pedestrian crossing of the A404 Amersham Road in the vicinity of new or relocated bus stops. • Providing operational improvements around the A404 Amersham Road / Kingshill Road / Totteridge Lane junction as part of an overall improvement scheme for the junction. • Upgrading the Lady’s Mile bridleway and public right of way connecting Green Street (near Terriers Farm) to Benjamin’s Footpath near High Wycombe town centre, including possible safe and partly off road infrastructure improvements to provide connections between Hazlemere and the town centre. This upgrade would respect the character of the existing route. • Investing in local school travel. This scheme would address any local school travel needs (e.g. to resolve school parking issues, to promote walking to school, to fund a mini-bus, to improve cycling facilities, for specific road safety initiatives) and can be used to improve local school travel plans. • Accounting for the nearest A404 zebra crossing in the method of control for the Kingshill Road / A404 Amersham Road junction and using bus detection technology. • Providing new footways on Kingshill Road and crossing points to provide for key desire lines • Implementing traffic calming measures on North Road and Brimmers Hill through Widmer End to limit the potential for additional traffic rat running through this area.

The local transport package for Terriers Farm is illustrated in Figure 7-E.

HWTP01 67

Transport Framework

Figure 7-E Terriers Farm Site Package

HWTP01 68

Transport Framework

8. Summary and Next Steps

8.1 Introduction

This section summarises the development of the Transport Framework and sets out potential next steps for the further development of schemes, including policy and strategy development, and consideration of funding sources.

8.2 Transport Framework

Jacobs has been asked by BCC and WDC to demonstrate transport impacts, and identify a package of measures to enable growth associated with the Reserve Sites to be accommodated. The package is referred to as a ‘Transport Framework’ which comprises local measures which would provide opportunities for travel by all modes of transport and a set of prioritised schemes considered relevant for the sustainable development of the Reserve Sites and to address cumulative transport impacts.

To provide an appropriate evidence base for the Transport Framework, existing policies and strategies have been reviewed and baseline and forecast transport conditions have been established. Outputs from various engagement exercises including Reserve Site Liaison Groups, Infrastructure Roundtable Groups, and officer workshops have informed the development and outputs of this study. The conditions in the vicinity of each Reserve Site have been reviewed to establish site specific measures that should be considered for implementation as part of the development of each site.

A long list of transport schemes has been produced and this has been prioritised against key policies and local objectives / issues. A further sifting exercise has then provided a list of prioritised schemes for inclusion as part of the Transport Framework.

8.3 Next Steps

8.3.1 Scheme Development

Schemes will only achieve identified objectives and deliver benefits if they have been scoped robustly and planned realistically from the outset, with associated risks fully considered. The process of evidence and business case development provides decision makers, stakeholders and the public with a management tool for transparent decision making and a framework for the delivery, management and performance monitoring of proposed schemes.

This report considers schemes at very early concept stage, with the appraisal of options undertaken at an initial high level only, commensurate with the stage of scheme development. The next stage in the process would be to progress the necessary studies to work up selected schemes in more detail, including consideration of various configurations of intervention, concept design, modelling and initial environmental assessment work where appropriate. The lead party in progressing scheme development might be the Councils or the Reserve Site developer teams.

Most of the schemes prioritised in this package are not ‘major’ (>£5m), that must be justified in detail through rigours akin to former Major Scheme Business Cases. Many of the interventions that are suggested in the site packages would require modest feasibility work; however investment in more significant schemes should be justified on the basis of factors including consideration of options, level of stakeholder support, environmental impact and value for money.

The key initial actions to progress the development of preferred schemes will depend upon the scale and ownership of the scheme but could include: • scheme modelling and individual scheme assessment; • scheme feasibility and concept/preliminary Design; • development of detailed cost estimates; and HWTP01 69

Transport Framework

• progression of a proportionate level of Business Case development and consideration of funding opportunities.

8.3.2 Policy and Strategy Development

This study process has informed the production of Development Briefs for each Reserve Site which WDC intend to consult on and adopt as part of the process of delivering land use development in the High Wycombe area. This study is based on information from emerging Masterplans and these would be finalised to show a layout of the proposed development and access arrangements and provision. The Development Briefs are produced to guide the work required as part of a planning application for each Reserve Site. BCC as highway authority would review the transport impacts of the sites. WDC as planning authority would determine the applications.

WDC are currently progressing work to adopt New Local Plan for the District and this study, along with further transport evidence, would be used to inform this process. Alongside this, BCC will utilise this study to inform potential future Transport Strategy adoption for High Wycombe, taking into account the impacts of wider potential new land use development.

8.3.3 Funding Sources

The funding approach for the Transport Framework is expected to be development-led due to the association of schemes with the Reserve Sites. The main funding mechanisms for private sector funding would be through S106 and CIL. The financing of larger infrastructure schemes would likely involve the Local Transport Body, BTVLEP as a main sponsor. It is important, however, that the role of various parties be explored in order to realise other possible contributions from both private and public sector funding sources. All scheme funding strategies for schemes identified within this study will require further development and agreement.

Outlined below is a summary of the principle sources of funding that could contribute to the delivery of a number of the interventions in the Transport Framework.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) CIL is a planning charge, introduced by the Planning Act 2008 that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. It came into force in April 2010 through the CIL Regulations 2010, and is designed to be fairer, faster and more transparent than the previous system of agreeing planning obligations between local councils and developers under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Land owners and developers are required to pay the levy to the local authority. Charges are set by the authority based on the size and type of the new development. Funding received via CIL could be used to support infrastructure projects, as set out on the local authority’s Regulation 123 list. The pooling of CIL receipts from different developments also enables improvements to be made of a strategic nature that will benefit the wider area. The process limits pooling of funds to 5 developments. This funding is subject to CIL Regulation 122 legal tests.

WDC adopted a CIL charging schedule in October 2012 and this came into force a month later. The schedule splits the District into two zones, A and B, with different charging rates. The High Wycombe urban area is subject to the lower rates whereas Bourne End and the area of Slate Meadow is subject to the higher charging rate. The rates are listed below in Table 8-A.

HWTP01 70

Transport Framework

Type of Development Zone A Zone B

Residential (C3; C4 including £125/sqm £150/sqm sheltered accommodation)

Convenience based supermarkets and superstores and retail £200/sqm £200/sqm warehousing (net retail selling space of over 280 sqm)

All other retail A1 – A56 and sui £125/sqm £125/sqm generis uses akin to retail

All other development including B, £0/sqm £0/sqm C1, C2 and D uses.

Table 8-A WDC CIL Schedule

Section 106 / 278 Section 106 agreements (under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) form a mechanism for securing site specific infrastructure which is required as a result of, or to mitigate the impacts of, a specific development. They are entered into as legal agreements between local planning authorities, landowners, developers and potentially other affected third parties. They can impose financial and non-financial obligations on a person or persons with an interest in the land and become binding on that parcel of land. Planning obligations are used to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning. Developer contributions through Section 106 agreements would therefore be explored where appropriate, but the overall level of funding that could be secured through this route is at present not known.

Section 278 (of the Highways Act 1980) is an agreement between the Council and developer which describes proposed modifications to the existing off site highway network to facilitate or service a proposed development including schemes such as junction improvements or road safety interventions.

The process of working toward acceptable development will include the production of a detailed Transport Assessment (TA) for significant land use proposals. The expected process is for the scope of the document to be discussed and agreed with highway and planning authorities and may include detailed requirements around data collection, analysis and traffic modelling. For instance the process will identify: • the suitability of existing available data for the TA process and requirements for additional data collection during typical or neutral survey windows; • locations where additional traffic or travel volumes resulting from the development are considered to have the potential to result in a significant adverse impact (whether absolute or relative) on the transport system; and • locations where additional traffic or travel volumes resulting from the development are considered to have the potential to introduce new or exacerbate existing road safety concerns.

The developer funding package will ultimately be an outcome of this assessment process which in the cases of all Reserve Site proposals is yet to be completed.

Local Transport Body Local Transport Bodies (LTB) were introduced by Government to provide greater local involvement in the prioritisation and overseeing of the delivery of major local transport schemes.

The DfT has devolved responsibility for transport major scheme funding to Local Transport Bodies (LTB’s); the Buckinghamshire LTB has been formed as a voluntary partnership between BCC, District Councils, BTVLEP, and other organisations.

HWTP01 71

Transport Framework

In September 2012, the DfT set out its firm proposals to devolve funding for local major transport schemes to LTB’s from 2015. The Government’s response to the Heseltine review further confirmed the commitment to delegate funding decisions and negotiate a Growth Deal with every LTB to deliver local growth and infrastructure priorities.

Whilst the first wave of Growth Deals have now been announced, with the first £6 billion of local projects agreed, LEPs/LTBs will be permitted to exercise flexibility to substitute other projects if they have been rigorously assessed and offer comparable or better value for money. The stronger the track record of delivery, the greater the flexibility the LEP will have. As part of the short-term funding commitments between 2016 and 2019, BTVLEP has confirmed funding is available for the delivery of projects that support growth and economic regeneration in High Wycombe area, including transport schemes that resolve existing issues and unlock development.

Growth Deal discussions for future years are also stated to begin immediately over the unallocated minimum of £5 billion of the £10 billion available for 2016 to 2017 to 2020 to 2021. Additional funding opportunities may further arise in future Spending Review periods. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) 41 has also been incorporated into BTVLEP’s devolved responsibility. This source provides an opportunity to deliver some schemes more aligned to sustainable modes and behavioural change.

Opportunities to justify and make use of Local Transport Body funding sources would be reviewed as part of any significant scheme development process. Approval and use of Government funding sources is typically based on funds being able to leverage local contribution to scheme delivery as part of a public private sector funding mix, hence achieving economic growth and other objectives through land use development.

41 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-sustainable-transport-fund-funding-decisions-2015-to-2016

HWTP01 72

Transport Framework

Appendix A. Glossary of Terms

Term Description

AQMA Air Quality Management Area BCC Buckinghamshire County Council BTVLEP Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership Capacity The ability of a highway link or junction to carry or accommodate traffic flow CIL Community Infrastructure Levy DfT Department for Transport DSADPD Delivery and Site Allocations Development Plan Document GFA Gross Floor Area HE Highways England HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HWHAM High Wycombe Highway Assignment Model HWTCM High Wycombe Town Centre Masterplan IDP Wycombe Infrastructure Delivery Plan LGV Light Goods Vehicle NRTF National Road Traffic Forecasts (published by DfT) NTEM National Trip End Model – provides a set of predictions of growth in car ownership and car traffic, with associated planning data projections ONS Office for National Statistics ORR Office of Rail Regulation RTPI Real Time Passenger Information SQTS Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy SRN Strategic road network – trunk roads owned by the Secretary of State for Transport and operated on his behalf by the HA TA Transport Assessment TEMPRO Trip End Model Presentation Program – is a modelling tool designed to allow users to look at the growth in trip ends. TRICS Trip Rate Information Computer System – An interactive computer program (and website) designed to calculate the likely rate or arrivals at and departures from a development. UTMC Urban Traffic Management Control WebTAG The Department for Transport guidance document on the conduct of transport studies WDC Wycombe District Council WDLP Wycombe District Local Plan

HWTP01

Transport Framework

Appendix B. Historic Traffic Growth Trends

HWTP01

120% High Wycombe Annual Average Daily Flow Trend

110%

100%

90%

80%

70% Opening of Cressex Link Road 60% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average 16407: A404 between Abbey Way Gyratory and Easton St (N-S) 27079: A404 from M40 to Abbey Way Gyratory 38325: Easton St from A40 London Rd to A404 Crendon St 46439: A40 between Abbey Way Gyratory and Oxford Road Roundabout 48462: A40 between Chapel Lane and Bradenham Road 56382: A40 between Chapel Lane and Oxford Road Roundabout 74519: A40 between Abbey Way Gyratory and Easton St (E-W) 78113: A4128 between A40 and Coates Lane 78114: A404 between B474 and Inkerman Drive

Transport Framework

Appendix C. Route Journey Time Analysis

HWTP01

Route 2401 - A40 Knaves Beech Rdbt to Easton Street AM & PM Route Profile 800

700

600 Delay in the PM peak on the approach to A40 / Micklefield Road

500

A40 / Gordon Road 400 seconds

300 PM Peak delay to Station Road A40 / Micklefield Road 200

A40 / Hammersley Lane 100

A40 / Station Rd Mini Rbt 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 START metres END Route 2105 - Abbey Way Gyratory to Pedestal Rdbt - AM & PM Route Profile 700

600 Delay on the approach to A40 / Chapel Lane

500

Significant delay from Desborough Avenue A40 / Pedestal 400 / Pastures / A40 back to Oxford Roundabout Road/A4128 Roundabout seconds 300 A40 / Chapel Lane

200

A40 / Desborough Avenue / The Pastures 100

A40 / Bellfield Rd 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 START metres END Route 2501 - A40 Pedestal Rdbt to Abbey Way Gyratory - AM & PM Route Profile Delay from Abbey Way Gyratory 700 back to Oxford Road / A4128 Roundabout

600

Delay on the approach to A40 / Abbey Way Desborough Avenue / Pastures 500 Gyratory

400

A40 / Desborough

seconds Avenue / Pastures 300 Delay on the approach to Plomer Hill Road

200

A40 / Plomer Hill 100

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 START metres END Route 2106 - Abbey Way Gyratory to Hughenden - AM & PM Route Profile 400

350 Significant delay in the PM peak from A4128 / Hughenden Ave Roundabout back to Parker Knoll Way 300 White Hill/Valley Road/Hughenden Manor Access Road Junction 250

200 Delay on the approach to Parker seconds Knoll Way / A4128 Junction A4128 / Hughenden Ave Roundabout 150

100 A4128 / Parker Knoll Way Junction

50

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 START metres END Route 2601 - Hughenden to Abbey Way Gyratory - AM & PM Route Profile 700

600

500 Significant delay in the AM peak on A4128 from Hughenden Avenue / Hamilton Road 400

Abbey Way seconds Gyratory 300

Oxford Road / 200 A4128 / Abbey Way Roundabout

100 A4128 / Hughenden Avenue

0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 START metres END Route 2104 - A40 Easton Street to Knaves Beech Rdbt - AM & PM Route Profile

1000 Delay at A40 / Rayners Avenue 900 Significant delay in AM peak from Hammersley Lane back to the approach to Abbey Barn Lane 800

700

600 Delay on the approach to Hatter's M40 J3 Knaves Ln / A40 in the AM peak Beech Roundabout 500

seconds A40 / Rayners Avenue 400 A40 / Hammersley Lane 300

200

Hatter's 100 Lane/A40 Mini Roundabout 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 START metres END Route 2301 - Hazlemere to Handy Cross - AM & PM Route Profile 1400 The journey times is generally slower in the AM peak throughout the route

1200 Delay on approach to Daws Hill Lane

1000

Delay on the approach to Abbey Way Gyratory

800

Handy Cross seconds Roundabout 600

A404 / Daws Hill Lane

400 Abbey Way/A404 Mini RoundaboutsRoundabout

200

A404 / Totteridge Ln Mini Roundabout 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 START metres END Route 2103 - Handy Cross to Hazlemere - AM & PM Route Profile 1400 Significant delay in AM peak from A404 / Penn Road Double Mini back to the A404 approach to Kingshill Road 1200

1000 Significant delay in AM/PM peak through Abbey Way Gyratory along A404 / Penn Rd A404 toward Totteridge Rd Double Mini 800

A404 / Kingshill Rd / seconds Totteridge Ln 600 Delay on the approach to Marlow A404 / Totteridge Hill Gyratory Rd Junction 400

Abbey Way Gyratory 200

Marlow Hill Gyratory 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 START metres END Route 2102 - Handy Cross to Pedestal Rdbt - AM & PM Route Profile 700

Delay on the approach to Chapel Lane / A40 Junction 600

500

400 Delay in the PM peak on the approach to Cressex A40 / Chapel

seconds /A4010 Rbt Lane Junction 300

A4010 / Lane End Rd / Mini Roundabout 200

100 A4010/Holmers Farm Way Rbt A4010 Cressex Road/ John Hall Way Junction 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 START metres END Route 2201 - Pedestal Rdbt to Handy Cross - AM & PM Route Profile 900 Delay on approach to Handy Cross back to Crest Rd 800 Significant delay in the AM peak from Cressex Rd back to Bookerhill Rd 700

600 M40 Junction 4 500

seconds 400 Delay on approach A4010 / to Mill End Rd Mini Cressex Rd Roundabout 300

200

Mill End Rd / Lane 100 End Rd Double Mini A40 / Chapel Lane 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 START metres END Transport Framework

Appendix D. Route Journey Time Profiles

HWTP01

1000 Route 2201 & 2102 - Journey Time Profile - Pedestal Rdbt to Handy Cross - SB & NB

900

Peak journey time up to 14m 30s, 80% longer than off peak 800

700 Modest but prolonged journey time increase in PM peak 600 Off Peak ‘typical’ journey time is around 8 mins Southbound and 7 mins Northbound 500 seconds

400

300

200 Duration: Duration: SB 1h20m, SB 1h20m NB 2h30m 100

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 1600 Route 2103 & 2301 - Journey Time Profile - Handy Cross to Hazlemere - NB and SB

1400 Peak journey time up to 22m 30s, 100% longer than off peak

1200

Late afternoon prolonged school-travel related peak SB then NB followed by short traditional PM peak congestion (NB) 1000

Off Peak ‘typical’ journey time is around 11m Southbound and Northbound 800 seconds

600

400 Duration: Duration: SB 1h15m NB 45m NB 1h 200

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 1100 Route 2104 & 2401 - Journey Time Profile - A40 Easton Street to Knaves Beech - EB and WB 1000 Peak journey time up to 16 m 30s, 110% longer than off peak 900

800 Gradual rise and fall in journey time in PM peak 700 Off Peak ‘typical’ journey time is around 9m Eastbound and 7 mins Westbound 600

seconds 500

400

Duration: Duration: EB 300 EB 1h and WB Peak 15m 1h 15m

200

100

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 900 Route 2105 & 2501 - Journey Time Profile - Abbey Way Gyratory to Pedestal Rdbt - WB and EB

800

700 Peak journey time up to 11m 30s, 40% longer Peak journey time up to 10m 30s, 35% longer than off peak than off peak

600 Off Peak ‘typical’ journey time is around 7m Westbound and 8m Eastbound

500 seconds 400

300 Duration: Duration: EB 45m EB 1h30m 200

100

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 800

Route 2106 & 2601 - Journey Time Profile - Abbey Way Gyratory to Hughenden - NB and SB

700 Peak journey time up to 11m 10s, 120% longer than off peak

600

500

Modest increases in journey time in PM peak, with a school travel related peak SB. 400

seconds Off Peak ‘typical’ journey time is around 5m Northbound and Southbound

300

200 Duration: SB 1h45m

100

0 06:00 06:30 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 Transport Framework

Appendix E. M40 Motorway Analysis

HWTP01

Ave No. of Records Ave Spd mph Ave JT <50mph <40mph <30mph <20mph Days hours % <50 % <40 % <30 % <20 Jan 744 112.3 69.8 187.1 6 1 0 0 31 744 0.81% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% Feb 672 112.3 69.8 187.7 6 5 1 0 28 672 0.89% 0.74% 0.15% 0.00% Mar 744 115.1 71.5 182.2 3 0 0 0 31 744 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Apr 720 114.8 71.3 182.3 0 0 0 0 30 720 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% May 744 114.3 71.0 183.0 1 0 0 0 31 744 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Jun 720 113.9 70.8 183.6 0 0 0 0 30 720 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Jul 744 113.5 70.5 184.9 5 3 1 0 31 744 0.67% 0.40% 0.13% 0.00% Aug 744 113.5 70.5 184.1 1 1 0 0 31 744 0.13% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% Sep 720 113.0 70.2 187.1 3 3 2 2 30 720 0.42% 0.42% 0.28% 0.28% Oct 744 112.0 69.6 187.6 8 2 1 0 31 744 1.08% 0.27% 0.13% 0.00% Nov 720 111.2 69.1 190.9 12 5 1 1 30 720 1.67% 0.69% 0.14% 0.14% Dec 744 112.4 69.8 186.7 3 0 0 0 31 744 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Average Travel Time (sec) AM - J4-3 Southbound 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 226 231 236 241 246 251 Weekdays

Average Travel Time (sec) PM - J4-3 Southbound 1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 226 231 236 241 246 251 Weekdays Ave No. of Records Ave Spd mph Ave JT <50mph <40mph <30mph <20mph Days hours % <50 % <40 % <30 % <20 Jan 744 110.8 68.8 194.4 6 4 1 1 31 744 0.81% 0.54% 0.13% 0.13% Feb 672 110.8 68.8 193.7 7 3 1 0 28 672 1.04% 0.45% 0.15% 0.00% Mar 744 113.0 70.2 188.8 1 0 0 0 31 744 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Apr 720 112.1 69.6 194.6 12 9 0 1 30 720 1.67% 1.25% 0.00% 0.14% May 744 112.4 69.8 190.1 5 1 0 0 31 744 0.67% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% Jun 720 112.1 69.6 190.6 4 3 0 0 30 720 0.56% 0.42% 0.00% 0.00% Jul 744 111.6 69.3 193.0 8 6 4 1 31 744 1.08% 0.81% 0.54% 0.13% Aug 744 111.4 69.2 192.3 4 2 1 0 31 744 0.54% 0.27% 0.13% 0.00% Sep 720 112.5 69.9 189.7 3 1 0 0 30 720 0.42% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% Oct 744 110.5 68.6 194.1 6 4 1 0 31 744 0.81% 0.54% 0.13% 0.00% Nov 720 109.7 68.1 197.7 19 7 1 0 30 720 2.64% 0.97% 0.14% 0.00% Dec 744 110.9 68.9 194.8 6 5 4 2 31 744 0.81% 0.67% 0.54% 0.27%

Average Travel Time (sec) AM - J3-4 Northbound 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 226 231 236 241 246 251 Weekdays

Average Travel Time (sec) PM - J3-4 Northbound 1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166 171 176 181 186 191 196 201 206 211 216 221 226 231 236 241 246 251 Weekdays Transport Framework

Appendix F. TRICS Methodology

HWTP01

The Reserve Sites are located in areas that are defined by TRICS as being neighbourhood centres (Slate Meadow), suburban areas (Gomm Valley), or edge of town locations (Abbey Barn and Terriers Farm).

For privately owned housing vehicle trip rates it is most important to take account of local car ownership levels (TRICS Research Report 04/01). Checks of 2001 and 2011 census data by ward confirm that car ownership in High Wycombe and across the Windsor and Maidenhead area changed very little between the 2001 and 2011 census and shows a very slight increase in car ownership. It is reasonable to expect this trend to continue.

Car ownership per household 2001 2011 No cars or vans in household (%) 14.3 13.3 1 car or van in household (%) 39.6 40.2 2 cars or vans in household (%) 34.9 34.8 3 cars or vans in household (%) 8.2 8.3 4 or more cars or vans in household (%) 2.8 3.3

The average car ownership per household in High Wycombe in 2011 was 1.523, compared to 1.351 across South East England or 1.165 across the whole of England. This relatively high level of local car ownership identifies the requirement to exclude surveys at sites with relatively low level of local car ownership within 5 miles.

Trip rate selection from the TRICS 7.1.3 database for privately owned housing sites, should therefore only consider sites in regions in England only (excluding Greater London, Ireland, Wales and Scotland), with car ownership within 5 miles of above 1 car per household and with surveys on weekdays only covering the AM and PM peaks. A selection of 34 results is returned by the TRICS 7.1.3 database using the criteria above. For comparison they indicate average trip rates that are less robust than those provided in Table 5B and indicate 85th percentile trip rates that are more robust in total than those provided in Table 5B. 85th percentile trip rates will be reasonable to use to provide a sensitivity test. Both average and 85th percentile revised trip rates for privately owned housing are provided in the tables at the end of this note. It should be understood that applicants will be capable of justifying use of different trip rates in Transport Assessments based on site specific information, such as providing a proportion of affordable housing, proposing measures to ensure parking/car ownership restraint or by demonstrating high levels of sustainable travel accessibility.

For Employment (B1) vehicle trip rates it is very important to take account of the location in relation to the town centre (TRICS Research Report 04/01). Trip rates at edge of town employment sites have been increasing nationally, whilst in town centres and at the edge of town centres restriction on parking has led to decreasing trip rates nationally.

Trip rate selection from the TRICS 7.1.3 database for office (B1) sites, should therefore only consider sites in England (excluding Greater London, Ireland, Scotland and Wales) in neighbourhood centres, suburban areas, or edge of town locations (exclude town centre and edge of town centre) and with surveys on weekdays covering the AM and PM peaks. A selection of 24 results is returned by the TRICS 7.1.3 database using the criteria above. Office vehicle trip rates are significantly more robust than other employment land uses and should therefore be considered separately. It should be understood that applicants will be capable of justifying use of different trip rates in Transport Assessments based on site specific information, such as limiting office parking and by demonstrating high levels of sustainable travel accessibility and by indicating high GDP per head (relevant if business park is proposed). A comparison with business park trip rates identified that average trip rates were almost identical, but slightly less robust than office trip rates.

For Employment (B8) vehicle trip rates it is very important to take account of the proximity to accessible strategic road network junctions (TRICS Research Report 04/01). It is only likely that commercial warehousing would be developed at Abbey Barn in future and only if Junction 3a were to be built in future. As Junction 3a is a long term measure it is considered beyond the scope of this study to include Employment (B8) in Employment trip rates at this stage. It is assumed that no commercial warehousing or distribution centres will be proposed on any of the reserve sites at this stage.

For local shops (A1) it is presumed that individual shops with a maximum GFA of 1000sqm would be proposed. For local shops (A1) vehicle trip rates it is very important to closely match the type of retail use proposed and to consider the extended opening hours and delivery requirements likely (TRICS Research Report 04/01). Trip rate selection from the TRICS 7.1.3 database for local shops (A1) sites, should therefore only consider sites in England (excluding Greater London, Ireland, Scotland and Wales), with a maximum GFA of 1000sqm, located in neighbourhood centres, suburban areas, or edge of town locations (exclude town centre and edge of town centre) and with surveys on weekdays covering the AM and PM peaks. A selection of 11 results is returned by the TRICS 7.1.3 database using the criteria above.

For leisure (D2) it is very important to closely match the type of leisure use proposed and to consider the facilities and likely use in detail (TRICS Research Report 04/01). For a generic leisure trip rate leisure centre is used as it has a wide selection of surveys on weekdays covering the AM and PM peaks. Trip rate selection from the TRICS 7.1.3 database for leisure centre (D2) sites, should therefore only consider sites in England (excluding Greater London, Ireland, Scotland and Wales), located in neighbourhood centres, suburban areas, or edge of town locations (exclude town centre and edge of town centre), with car ownership within 5 miles of above 1 car per household and with surveys on weekdays covering the AM and PM peaks. A selection of 11 results is returned by the TRICS 7.1.3 database using the criteria above.

Average vehicle trip rates are provided below.

Land use class Factor AM PM (08:00- 09:00) (17:00- 18:00) Arrive Depart Arrive Depart Privately owned housing Per dwelling 0.161 0.394 0.367 0.218 Employment (B1) Per 100sqm 1.432 0.259 0.177 1.215 Local shops (A1) Per 100sqm 4.524 4.457 4.540 5.039 Leisure (D2) Per 100sqm 0.634 0.522 1.995 1.500

85th percentile vehicle trip rates are provided below for the purpose of providing sensitivity tests as part of this study.

Land use class Factor AM PM (08:00- 09:00) (17:00- 18:00) Arrive Depart Arrive Depart Privately owned housing Per dwelling 0.321 0.405 0.556 0.222 Employment (B1) Per 100sqm 3.027 0.238 0.425 2.587 Local shops (A1)* Per 100sqm 8.154 8.000 7.083 7.917 Leisure (D2)* Per 100sqm 1.340 0.983 5.882 1.176 *These land uses returned fewer than 20 results. Using 85th percentile highlighted trip rates in data sets of under 20 surveys is not recommended by TRICS and may be misleading. Transport Framework

Appendix G. Scheme Prioritisation Table

HWTP01

High Wycombe Transport Framework Prioritisation of Options

Outline Cost Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Deliverability Feasibility Affordability Timeframe Initial Sifting Criteria Estimate against identified problems against identified objectives (e.g. political, planning, timescale or third (e.g. physical constraint, land availability (e.g. extent of additional funding required and Each option must meet the following sifting criteria for inclusion in the prioritised list: party issues) and design standards) available funding sources) 2 Large beneficial impact 2 Large beneficial impact 1: Overall moderate impact against identified problems (Appraisal score >2.5, see East Conversion) <£500k 2016 - 19 1 Beneficial impact 1 Beneficial impact Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable 2: Overall moderate fit with route objectives (Appraisal score >3, see East Conversion) £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 0 Neutral / marginal impact 0 Neutral / marginal impact 3: Likely to be deliverable Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 -1 Adverse impact -1 Adverse impact 4: Likely be feasible in theory .>£5m -2 Large adverse impact -2 Large adverse impact Unlikely to be deliverable Unlikely to be feasible Unlikely to be affordable 5: Likely be affordable

Problems Objectives Initial Sifting Criteria For inclusion For Reserve Ref Option Description Outline Cost Timeframe Deliverability Feasibility Affordability in prioritised Sites list 1 2 3 4 5 - - 1 2 3 4 5 - - 1 2 3 4 5 Total Total Highway Measures A new highway connection to divert traffic away from Abbey Barn H-1 Create a link between Kingsmead Rd and Genoa Way £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 1 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Road and the Marsh Infant and Nursery School.       A reconfiguration of the junction to alter the priorities resulting in Kingsmead Road becoming the minor arm of the junction. Reconfigure and change priority of the Kingsmead Rd / Abbey H-2 Associated with possible signalisation. The scheme has an £1m - £5m 2016 - 19 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Barn Rd junction       adopted Road Improvement Line. Culvert structures potentially increase costs. Upgrade and widen the bridge south of Kingsmead Road on Upgrade the bridge to fully two way operation with re-alignment to H-3 £1m - £5m 2019 - 22 1 2 1 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 4 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Abbey Barn Lane improve visibility.       Signalise the existing one way bridge to improve safety and control H-4 Implement signal control to the bridge on Abbey Barn Lane <£500k 2016 - 19 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable traffic movements.       Upgrade Winchbottom Lane - Southern Link Road between Implement a full upgrade to Winchbottom Lane to full two way H-5 £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 Unlikely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Heath End Road and Handy Cross operation.       Implement a full upgrade to Winchbottom Lane to full two way Upgrade Winchbottom Lane - Southern Link Road between H-6 operation, connecting with the A4155 between Little Marlow and .>£5m 2022 - 26 11000 2 21110 5 Unlikely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Unlikely to be affordable Heath End Road and A404(M)       the Westhorpe Roundabout. Deliver a series of passing places to resolve potential safety issues Additional passing places along Winchbottom Lane to improve H-7 along the route. The scheme has an adopted Road Improvement £1m - £5m 2019 - 22 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) the safety of the route       Line. Implement gyratory system at junction of A40 / Abbey Barn Road H-8 The scheme has an adopted Road Improvement Line. £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) / Ford Street      

Widen the full length of Abbey Barn Lane to an appropriate width H-9 Widen and improve Abbey Barn Lane £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable for a strategic route, resolving narrower sections and pinch points.      

Resolve capacity issues associated with narrow sections of single lane width to provide a full two lane route along the full length of H-10 Widen Cock Lane to formalise this route as a two lane road £1m - £5m 2019 - 22 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 Unlikely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) the link. Reflects the provision of a through route within Gomm       Valley site. Close Cock Lane in order to avoid inappropriate and unsafe use of H-11 Close Cock Lane to traffic between Ashwells and Pimms Grove this narrow route which is unsuitable for higher volumes of traffic. <£500k 2016 - 19 -11-1-10 -2 -11-12-1 0 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable       Reflects the provision of a through route within Gomm Valley site.

Upgrade Cock Lane to provide additional passing places to help Additional passing places along Cock Lane to improve the safety H-12 mitigate safety issues along the route. Considering the committed £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable of the route       provision of through route within Gomm Valley site.

The Cock Lane railway bridge is currently single lane operation only and controlled by traffic signals and is unsuitable for higher H-13 Upgrade Cock Lane Railway Bridge to full two way operation. £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) volumes of traffic. The bridge would be fully upgraded. Reflects       the provision of a through route within Gomm Valley site.

The existing stretches of bus lane on the A40 would provide for H-14 Allow High Occupancy Vehicles to utilise bus lanes <£500k 2016 - 19 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable HOV's as well as existing permitted vehicles.       Reallocate current bus lanes to general roadspace to improve the H-15 Remove bus lanes along A40 and improve road capacity <£500k 2016 - 19 101-10 1 0100-1 0 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable overall vehicular capacity of the whole route.       Rayners Ave junction causes significant congestion on London Improve traffic signal control arrangement at Rayners Ave Road. This section is not used by High Wycombe Rainbow Routes. junction including optimising staging plan and introducing two lane There is limited congestion on this section of road in a westbound H-16 exit for EB traffic. Remove bus lane between Station Road and £500k - £1m 2015 - 19 2 1 2 0 0 5 2 2 1 0 0 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable direction. Remove westbound bus lane and implement two full       Rayners Avenue and replace with additional eastbound traffic traffic lanes eastbound to resolve issues including the Rayners Ave lane to create two consistent lanes EB to Station Road junction. junction. Implement A40 congestion package of highway widening Package includes the area from Micklefield Road to Rayners H-17 .>£5m 2019 - 22 22220 8 22112 8 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) including land take Avenue.       Package includes the area from Micklefield Road to Rayners Implement A40 congestion relief package including signal timing H-18 Avenue. Measures include a review and optimisation of signal £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) changes, optimisation and widening within highway boundary.       strategy and limited highway widening. A further A40 capacity enhancement package between Gordon Implement a congestion management scheme with traffic signal Road and Hatters Lane to further roll out UTMC control along this H-19 £500k - £1m 2022 - 26 1 1 1 2 0 5 1 1 1 1 2 6 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) control at the Hatters Lane and Gordon Road junctions corridor and provide bus priority. These schemes have adopted       Road Improvement Lines.

Road widening and junction improvement to facilitate improved Improve operation of the A4094 route (in conjunction with wider journey time along the A4094 to resolve local pinch points and H-20 improvements to strategic road network). Improvements to the £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) improve the corridor environment and performance for local       pedestrian and cycling environment to be included. movements.

Improve (widen) the Cookham Bridge to full two lane operation to Improve the capacity of Cookham Bridge through widening to H-21 ease a local congestion concern, resulting in increaseing vehicular £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Unlikely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) resolve local congestion issues.       capacity along the A4094 between Bourne End and Maidenhead.

Implement a roundabout to provide a balance of priorities between Implement a roundabout at Coates Lane / Hughenden Avenue the side roads of Coates Lane and Green Hill and serve to provide H-22 <£500k 2019 - 22 1 2 1 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable junction a gateway to High Wycombe from the north along the A4128,       displacing existing queues to the edge of the urban area.

Improve the road between Cryers Hill and the A404 through Four Ashes through localised widening and improvements of junctions Improve and widen Kingshill Road to resolve pinch points and H-23 along the route, including the Four Ashes Road / Cryers Hill Road £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) potential safety issues.       to a roundabout. This would support longer distance travel along this route. Implement signal control to manage traffic movements and work Reconfigure and convert A404 junctions at Kingshill Road and to as part of a UTMC system between Hamilton Road and Tottteridge H-24 signal control and consider measures at Hazlemere as part of an £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 -1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable Lane. The Kingshill Road junction scheme has an adopted Road       A404 congestion relief package. Improvement Line. Formalise the two lane section of road between the two mini Modest widening of the road to provide two lanes in each direction roundabouts and further widen two lane approaches to each H-25 <£500k 2016 - 19 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable between mini roundabouts at Amersham Road / Kingshill Road junction within highway boundary. The scheme has an adopted       Road Improvement Line. High Wycombe Transport Framework Prioritisation of Options

Outline Cost Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Deliverability Feasibility Affordability Timeframe Initial Sifting Criteria Estimate against identified problems against identified objectives (e.g. political, planning, timescale or third (e.g. physical constraint, land availability (e.g. extent of additional funding required and Each option must meet the following sifting criteria for inclusion in the prioritised list: party issues) and design standards) available funding sources) 2 Large beneficial impact 2 Large beneficial impact 1: Overall moderate impact against identified problems (Appraisal score >2.5, see East Conversion) <£500k 2016 - 19 1 Beneficial impact 1 Beneficial impact Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable 2: Overall moderate fit with route objectives (Appraisal score >3, see East Conversion) £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 0 Neutral / marginal impact 0 Neutral / marginal impact 3: Likely to be deliverable Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 -1 Adverse impact -1 Adverse impact 4: Likely be feasible in theory .>£5m -2 Large adverse impact -2 Large adverse impact Unlikely to be deliverable Unlikely to be feasible Unlikely to be affordable 5: Likely be affordable

Problems Objectives Initial Sifting Criteria For inclusion For Reserve Ref Option Description Outline Cost Timeframe Deliverability Feasibility Affordability in prioritised Sites list 1 2 3 4 5 - - 1 2 3 4 5 - - 1 2 3 4 5 Total Total Convert the junctions of A4128 with Coates Lane, Hughenden Implement a UTMC system along Hughenden Road to control H-26 Avenue and Hamilton Road to signal control to control and £1m - £5m 2019 - 22 -1 1 1 1 0 2 -1-1 1 1 1 1 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) and manage traffic movements       manage traffic movements in the area. Open the right turn from Daws Hill Lane down Marlow Hill to Introduction of a right turn at the Marlow Hill/Daws Hill Lane from relieve congestion issues originating from the gyratory at the top of H-27 £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 2 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable the side road for buses only or for general traffic Marlow Hill and to improve travel conditions associated with local       schools. Implement tidal flow systems on A40 London Road and A404 Convert the bus lane on A40 London Road to operate as a tidal H-28 £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 1 -1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 -1 0 1 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Unlikely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Marlow Hill flow lane with a similar arrangement on the A404 Marlow Hill       Implement a signage strategy to ensure traffic is directed to the Regional signage review including diversion routes and signage of H-29 most appropriate motorway junction access point from other areas <£500k 2016 - 19 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable traffic to appropriate motorway junctions       within the County. A road Improvement Line covers an area on the south-west corner of the junction. The improvement could provide for improved H-30 Utilise Road Improvement Line to widen the Pastures junction £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable capacity for the south to west or east to west movements, resolving       congestion in the PM peak. Implement a scheme to improve this roundabout associated with Improve New Road / Cressex Road junction and A4010 through improvements to the area between Turnpike Road and the H-31 <£500k 2016 - 19 2 2 1 1 0 6 2 1 0 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) to Turnpike Road. junction. This would include a review of local access, public       transport operation and form of pedestrian crossings. The scheme has an adopted Road Improvement Line and would Implement a new access road to Kingsmead Park via the Gomm H-32 provide a direct access into Kingsmead Park car park, resolving <£500k 2016 - 19 -2 0 -1-1 0 -4 -1-2-1 0 -1 -5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable Road junction.       access issues which affect Kings Road and Fennels Road.

Change priorities at A40 / A4010 to make the A4010 the priority Alter the priority of the Chapel Lane junction to prioritise the A4010 H-33 <£500k 2016 - 19 -21 0 0 0 -1 1 1 0 1 0 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable arm instead of the A40. over the A40.       Provision of a local access road to provide more direct journeys to Implement additional local access to Cressex Business Park via H-34 the Business Park for local traffic, helping to resolve congestion <£500k 2019 - 22 1 1 2 0 0 4 2 1 1 1 0 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Stirling Road.       issues affecting the A4010. Implement bridge works over the Network Rail line to provide two H-35 Widen the bridge at Plomer Hill to facilitate two southbound lanes full lanes southbound to the junction to ease capacity and £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges)       congestion issues at this junction.

A scheme to improve the performance of this junction and as Improvements to the Pedestal roundabout involving capacity H-36 appropriate rebalance the priorities to allow greater throughput £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) improvements and/or signalisation       from the A4010, accepting the limitations of downstream capacity.

Significant capacity upgrades to the A4094 corridor including link Implement major capacity upgrades to the route to accommodate H-37 £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 0 0 1 0 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) widening and junction upgrades local trips and growth in through traffic along the corridor.      

Walking and Cycling Resolve existing cycle parking capacity issues at the Rail Station and roll out more comprehensive provision of cycling at other Provision of additional cycle racks at key interchanges and trip W-1 locations including Handy Cross Hub, Bucks New University and <£500k 2016 - 19 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) generators       town centre areas and key retail, leisure and employment destinations. Associated with the wider cycling proposals, phased Introduce branded networks of walking and cycling routes as part W-2 implementation of a branded network of core routes to increase <£500k 2016 - 19 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable of a wayfinding strategy       publicity, visibility and usage. Implement a hire scheme for electric bikes from a hub at the Rail W-3 Provision of electric bike hire between key trip generators £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Station.       Implement a hire scheme with standard bikes from a hub at the Implement a cycle hire scheme with hire located at key public W-4 Rail Station and linking with other key trip generators and £500k - £1m 2022 - 26 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) transport hubs       interchanges. A substantial promotional campaign involving exhibitions, leaflet Significant marketing and promotional campaigns associated with W-5 drops, marketing through use of various media, and working with <£500k 2016 - 19 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable the roll out of new walking and cycling infrastructure       schools and workplaces. Public Transport Investment to further improve, extend the bus network and Improvements to frequency linked with new development areas on P-2 support the frequency of public transport services to serve new £1m - £5m 2016 - 19 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) the Rainbow Routes.       development locations. Widening of carriageway within highway boundary and without Extend and implement additional sections of bus lanes along the P-3 removal / restriction of existing traffic lanes to provide a more fully <£500k 2016 - 19 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) A40 between Micklefield Road and Easton Street       continuous bus lane along the A40 westbound.

Convert the existing peak period operation to 24-hour operations, P-4 Implement 24-hour bus lane operation on the A40. <£500k 2016 - 19 0 0-11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable restricting use for general traffic during the off peak periods.      

Existing services run between High Wycombe and Bourne End Implement new or extend existing bus services to link High including the 35 and 36 but extending these to Maidenhead / P-5 £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 1 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Wycombe and Maidenhead/Taplow via Bourne End Taplow would provide better connectivity with key future rail hubs       rather than requiring interchange at Bourne End.

Resolve existing bus station capacity issues by implementing a Implemement measures to increase bus station capacity combination of dynamic bay allocation technology and provision of P-6 £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 0 1 2 0 4 1 1 1 1 2 6 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) including dynamic bay allocation and additional stops off site. addition stops as part of changes associated with the Town Centre       Masterplan. Wider roll out of RTPI to improve quality of bus stop provision and P-7 Implement further RTPI and improve key bus stops. £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) information, starting with key well used bus stops.       Previous study work has indicated that further Park and Ride could Implement further Park & Ride measures - including a northern be feasible in High Wycombe, primarily on the northern side of P-8 £1m - £5m 2019 - 22 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Unlikely to be affordable Park & Ride located in the vicinity of Terriers. town, linking on a north-south axis from the town centre and the       southern Park and Ride.

Introduce improved parking facilities, relying on existing bus Intended to capture most benefits of Park & Ride without bus P-9 services on A404 Amersham Hill corridor to provide a limited service viability and delays associated with bus services accessing £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable       northern Park & Ride facility. a dedicated Park & Ride site. High Wycombe Transport Framework Prioritisation of Options

Outline Cost Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Deliverability Feasibility Affordability Timeframe Initial Sifting Criteria Estimate against identified problems against identified objectives (e.g. political, planning, timescale or third (e.g. physical constraint, land availability (e.g. extent of additional funding required and Each option must meet the following sifting criteria for inclusion in the prioritised list: party issues) and design standards) available funding sources) 2 Large beneficial impact 2 Large beneficial impact 1: Overall moderate impact against identified problems (Appraisal score >2.5, see East Conversion) <£500k 2016 - 19 1 Beneficial impact 1 Beneficial impact Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable 2: Overall moderate fit with route objectives (Appraisal score >3, see East Conversion) £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 0 Neutral / marginal impact 0 Neutral / marginal impact 3: Likely to be deliverable Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 -1 Adverse impact -1 Adverse impact 4: Likely be feasible in theory .>£5m -2 Large adverse impact -2 Large adverse impact Unlikely to be deliverable Unlikely to be feasible Unlikely to be affordable 5: Likely be affordable

Problems Objectives Initial Sifting Criteria For inclusion For Reserve Ref Option Description Outline Cost Timeframe Deliverability Feasibility Affordability in prioritised Sites list 1 2 3 4 5 - - 1 2 3 4 5 - - 1 2 3 4 5 Total Total

Review and classify the appropriateness of individual public Full review of bus stop locations to ensure these will continue to be P-10 <£500k 2016 - 19 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 2 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable transport stop locations and remove or introduce these. fit for purpose, introduce or relocate bus stops where appropriate.      

Significant programme of marketing and promotion including Improve marketing of public transport facilities to encourage P-11 exhibitions, use of media and liaison with schools and workplaces <£500k 2016 - 19 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable further use       to promote public transport facilities. Investment in better public transport vehicles with on-bus Roll out improved public transport vehicle stock with better P-12 £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) electronic information and reduced emissions. environmental performance and on board technology.       SMART ticketing to encourage interchange and more coherent Implement of current interchange and ticketing technology to avoid P-13 £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 1 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 2 6 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) use of services managed by different operators. issues with the transferability of tickets.      

Marketing, promotion, incentives and improved quality of provision Encourage use of outer stations for 'Park and Rail' to High P-14 at key outer stations including Princes Risborough - 280 spaces, <£500k 2016 - 19 1 0 1 2 0 4 0 1 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) Wycombe.       Saunderton - 35 spaces, Seer Green - 117 spaces.

Implement quality new routes/services to serve particular P-15 Implement new bus services to serve new development locations. £1m - £5m 2019 - 22 1 0 2 2 0 5 1 1 1 1 2 6 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Unlikely to be affordable development sites at high frequency.       Invest in demand responsive / mini bus type services to provide Support public transport journeys for locations that are not on core P-16 £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 2 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Unlikely to be affordable public transport for rural areas public transport routes.      

Some signal junctions do not currently utilise technology to Roll out technology to prioritise public transport vehicles at key prioritise public transport vehicles. Implement new technology to P-17 £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 4 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) signalised junctions. achieve better priority and public transport journey time reliability,       in particular on the A404 and A40 corridors.

Provide a new left turn for public transport at the bottom of Marlow Deliver public transport priority at the bottom of Marlow Hill P-18 Hill to support revised routing for the Park and Ride service and <£500k 2016 - 19 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) (dedicated left turn)       access to the hospital. Other Measures A number of locations have been identified where on street parking Remove, relocate and rationalise on-street parking in key results in a particular issue/constraint along key traffic corridors. O-1 <£500k 2016 - 19 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) locations Relocate this parking where possible or rationalise to resolve       associated congestion issues. Implement speed enforcement or calming measures outside O-2 Roll out speed reduction and control measures outside schools schools where not already implemented to help manage and avoid <£500k 2016 - 19 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable       inappropriate vehicle speeds and associated safety issues.

Implement 20mph zones in residential areas away from primary Wide residential 20mph zones to reduce speed of traffic and routes in particular at locations known to experience speeding O-3 improve safety. Include calming measures to facilitate 'quietways', issues. Areas that have the potential to be notably and adversely £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 2 0 0 1 4 2 0 1 2 0 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges)       discouraging through traffic. affected by development traffic. Implement measures to control and limit access to these roads for local residents only. Implement lower speed environments or enforcement on strategic Introduce 20mph limits or design speeds on strategic A road A road corridors including the A4010, A40, A404 in part to O-4 £500k - £1m 2022 - 26 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 4 Unlikely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) corridors. discourage through trips and manage future growth in vehicular       demands. As specific scheme to reduce the existing 60mph limit to a lower Implement a lower speed limit on the length of Heath End Road 40mph limit to discourage use of this route as a strategic corridor, O-5 <£500k 2016 - 19 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 2 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable between the Daws Hill area and Flackwell Heath improve safety, and offer a better environment for other modes of       travel. Close routes to through traffic that may be adversely affected by A number of routes have the potential to experience increases in O-6 <£500k 2016 - 19 -12 0 0 1 2 -10 1 2 0 2 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable development traffic including Orchard Road and Tower Street. traffic volumes as a result of new developments      

Resolve actual or perceived rat running issues along the A4094 as Introduce calming or speed reduction measures along the A4094 O-7 a diversion away from the A404(M) - M40 route by implementing <£500k 2016 - 19 1 1-10 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable to discourage through traffic       measures to reduce speed and vehicular capacity.

Implement revised parking pricing strategy to discourage the Co-ordinated parking charges to discourage commuter or long O-8 arrival of commuter parking at peak congested periods but support <£500k 2016 - 19 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 3 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable stay parking in the town centre       the arrival of shopping purpose trips Behavioural change campaigns focused on new developments Significant and targeted behavioural change campaigns in O-9 including car share schemes and publicity of new infrastructure £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) particular associated with new development locations.       and travel options. Implement a programme of counts and travel surveys to ensure Town wide introduction of monitoring and evaluation programme O-10 future Transport Strategies can be developed in an informed way <£500k 2016 - 19 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) including mode share targets       and the effectiveness of measures can be properly monitored. The town centre masterplan is implementing an improved urban environment within this area to a Manual for Streets and slow and Roll out the established HWTCM design concept to a wider study O-11 steady concept, with associated support for sustainable travel £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 -1 1 1 2 2 5 2 0 1 2 2 7 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) area incorporating the Rail station.       modes. The boundary for the scheme could be widened and rolled out to this wider area in due course. Further roll out of electric vehicle charging points at car parks and O-12 Wider roll out of electric vehicle charging points <£500k 2022 - 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable other key locations.       Comprehensive investment and roll out of school travel planning Free school travel passes for public transport users and major O-13 £500k - £1m 2016 - 19 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 2 1 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) and associated physical and soft measures investment in sustainable travel campaign.       Deliver local flexible centrally located 'work hubs' for those where Implement locations where individuals can work locally and avoid O-14 £1m - £5m 2022 - 26 1 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 0 6 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible (with Challenges) Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) home working is not feasible. needing to commute long distances unnecessarily.       Investment in and liaison with key workplaces with larger trip Comprehensive investment and roll out of workplace travel O-15 generation to deliver mode shift away from single occupancy £500k - £1m 2019 - 22 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 4 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable (with Challenges) planning       private car travel. Review of policies associated with parking and sustainable travel Review of development control policies to ensure these align with O-16 as part of site planning application processes to maximise the Nominal 2016 - 19 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable (with Challenges) Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable strategic objectives.       potential uptake in non-car modes. Ensure land use policies offer mixed use development to Influence trip making 'at source' though stronger mixed use O-17 minimise trip rates for vehicular traffic including adoption of development or strong roll out of home working technology to Nominal 2016 - 19 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 Likely to be deliverable Likely to be feasible Likely to be affordable       Supplementary Planning Guidance. minimise vehicular trip generation. Transport Framework

Appendix H. Discounted Schemes

HWTP01

Reasons for Discounting

Moderate beneficial

impact

Ref Option Problems Objectives Notes Option H-3 is considered preferable; however this could be an appropriate Implement signal control to the H-4 Χ Χ short term measure until a more bridge on Abbey Barn Lane. comprehensive scheme could be delivered. Upgrade Winchbottom Lane - Previous studies indicate little benefit of Southern Link Road between implementing this scheme which also H-5 Χ Χ Heath End Road and Handy introduces traffic issues. It is also Cross. unlikely to be deliverable due to AONB. There is no evidence of the current Upgrade Winchbottom Lane - value for money of this approach and it H-6 Southern Link Road between   is also unlikely to be deliverable due to Heath End Road and A404(M). AONB. Potential minor road safety benefits are Additional passing places along not sufficient to justify inclusion of this H-7 Winchbottom Lane to improve   option within this transport package. the safety of the route. Likely to offer poor value for money. It is less preferable to options that allow Implement gyratory system at development traffic to by-pass Abbey H-8 junction of A40 / Abbey Barn Χ Χ Barn Road and would result in impact on Road / Ford Street. Ford Street. Early feedback from stakeholders has indicated this is locally an unpopular Widen Cock Lane to formalise H-10   proposal. Alternative spine road through this route as a two lane road. the Gomm Valley site will reduce pressure on Cock Lane. Close Cock Lane to traffic Closing an existing road would have H-11 between Ashwells and Pimms Χ Χ adverse economic, accessibility and Grove. wider network impacts. Additional passing places along It would not resolve issues associated H-12 Cock Lane to improve the Χ Χ with delay, compared to a full two lane safety of the route. scheme. May result in additional delay to public transport vehicles and is unlikely to Allow High Occupancy Vehicles markedly improve the performance of H-14 Χ Χ to utilise bus lanes. the route. Enforcement concern to be addressed. Could be considered further alongside other measures. Removal of bus lanes would have an Remove bus lanes along A40 H-15 Χ Χ adverse impact on public transport and improve road capacity. services and sustainable mode share. Implement A40 congestion Option H-17 is considered preferable, relief package including signal subject to deliverability. A more modest H-18 timing changes, optimisation   package such as this could be brought and widening within highway forward as an interim or phased boundary. measure. Improve the capacity of Cookham Bridge through widening to resolve local Multiple significant challenges H-21 congestion issues. Alternative   associated with feasibility and option to provide pedestrian/ deliverability of the scheme. cycle bridge beside Cookham Bridge. Reconfigure and convert A404 Modelling of the traffic delay and junctions at Kingshill Road and congestion resulting from this scheme Totteridge Lane to signal H-24 Χ Χ indicates that it would result in a control and consider measures negative impact. Option H-25 is at Hazlemere as part of an considered preferable. A404 congestion relief package. Implement an urban traffic management and control (UTMC) system along Initial modelling of the traffic delay and Hughenden Road to control congestion resulting from this scheme and manage traffic movements. H-26 Χ Χ indicates that it would result in a This can be in a form similar to negative impact. Option H-22 is the SCOOT system considered preferable. implemented at J4 of the M40 and can release additional traffic capacity. Use of tidal flow systems would have an adverse road safety impact and is Implement tidal flow systems unlikely to feasible. Both A404 and A40 H-28 on A40 London Road and A404 Χ Χ routes do not exhibit simplistic tidal Marlow Hill. traffic behaviour. Associated gantries and signage would be environmentally intrusive. Regional signage review Is not a priority scheme within this including diversion routes and package but may be justification to H-29 Χ Χ signage of traffic to appropriate progress in future as part of a wider motorway junctions. County-wide scheme. May be justification to consider further Utilise Road Improvement Line H-30 Χ Χ but unlikely to be effective in resolving to widen the Pastures junction. overall congestion issues. This option would introduce further significant delay to general traffic and Implement a new access road public transport at the Gomm Road H-32 to Kingsmead Park via the Χ Χ junction. The case for such a scheme Gomm Road junction. would need to be put in the context of a package of wider strategic connections. Would result in significant delay on the Change priorities at A40 / A40 westbound. The existing Pinch H-33 A4010 to make the A4010 the Χ Χ Point scheme has been effective at priority arm instead of the A40. managing congestion. Widen the bridge at Plomer Hill Not likely to resolve any strategic issues H-35 to facilitate two southbound Χ Χ but there may be justification to progress lanes. in future as part of a wider scheme. Significant capacity upgrades to It is considered that this scheme would the A4094 corridor including be detrimental to the local area by H-37 X X link widening and junction further encouraging strategic rat running upgrades traffic Implement 24-hour bus lane Little overall benefit as congestion is P-4 Χ Χ operation on the A40. more modest outside of peak times. Implement further Park & Ride Unlikely to be a strong demand for measures - including a northern P-8   additional Park and Ride. Option P-9 is Park & Ride located in the considered preferable. vicinity of Terriers. Implement new bus services to P-15 serve Reserve Site   The ongoing affordability of these development locations. options is the only constraint. Several Invest in demand responsive / existing bus services have viability mini bus type services to issues and are not operated on a P-16   provide public transport for rural commercial basis. areas. Unlikely to be effective due to extent of queuing on southbound approach and Deliver public transport priority conflicts created with other movements. P-18 at the bottom of Marlow Hill Χ Χ May be justification to implement bus/ (dedicated left turn). coach/ HOV lane in future as part of a wider scheme. A transport improvement line should be considered. Reducing speeds on strategic road Introduce 20mph limits or corridors outside of the town centre is O-4 design speeds on strategic A Χ  unlikely to be deliverable due to network road corridors. operation and stakeholder concerns. Close routes that may be Closing an existing road is not normally adversely affected by desirable however calming or visual O-6 development traffic including Χ Χ measures could be introduced to Orchard Road and Tower discourage increased traffic volumes. Street. The preferred solution for this corridor is Introduce calming or speed to implement limited local improvements reduction measures along the but work with Highways England to O-7 Χ Χ A4094 to discourage through secure major improvements to the traffic. A404(M) / M40 to discourage rat running. Wider roll out of electric vehicle May be justification to progress in future O-12 Χ Χ charging points. as part of a wider scheme.

Transport Framework

Appendix I. Policy Framework

HWTP01

High Wycombe Transport Package - Scheme Objectives

1. To provide high quality 4. To maintain a high quality of 5. To promote both social transport improvements life and natural environment, inclusion and community 2. To manage congestion and 3. To improve connectivity and Intervention- required to support and promoting more sustainable cohesion through supporting support economic activity by accessibility within, to and from Specific facilitate sustainable housing travel solutions, improved the provision of integrated transforming the way people key existing and future centres Objectives and employment growth in High safety and security for all road public transport networks and travel within the town of activity Wycombe as identified in the users and reduced carbon facilitating improved access to Local Development Framework emissions services

Cohesive & Thriving Sustainable Safe Health & SCS Themes Strong Economy Environment Communities Wellbeing Communities

• Maintain or improve the reliability of journey times on • Enable disadvantaged people key routes • Reduce the need to travel to access employment sites & opportunities • Improve connectivity and • Increase the proportion of access between key centres people travelling by low • Reduce the risk of death or • Improve health by • Enable disadvantaged people emission modes of transport injury on the county’s roads encouraging walking and to access key services and LTP3 • Deliver transport cycling facilities Objectives improvements to support and • Protect, improve and maintain • Reduce crime, fear of crime facilitate sustainable housing the local environment and anti-social behaviour on • Reduce the negative impact • Encourage and support the and employment growth the transport network of poor air quality delivery and planning of local • Reduce carbon emissions transport services by local High level or strategic outcomes • Ensure local transport and waste associated with the groups, communities and networks are resilient and Transport Authority individuals adaptable to shocks and impacts

• To preserve and use existing natural, historical and cultural assets as catalysts for further • To transform people's regeneration across the town perceptions of the town, • To re-establish High creating a diversity and • To ensure local communities Wycombe as a 'People Place' • To give the town a clear richness of uses that satisfies and neighbourhoods have where people on foot, cycle • To strengthen the role of High spatial structure for future community needs and access to a good range of local and using public transport WDC Core Wycombe as a sub-regional growth and change that enhances the built and natural facilities, benefit from 'tranquil' enjoy a street network Strategy centre and act as a focus to positively exploits existing axes environment. streets away from main routes, designed with their needs in Principles provide facilities to meet the of activity, improves the and see the specific issues in mind, reducing the impact of needs of the District relationship and connections • Ensure new development our communities of greatest roads and traffic, whilst between town and country achieves positive 'place- need addressed ensuring satisfactory operation (including opportunities created making' and has a clearly of the highway network by the River Wye and identifiable character Hughenden Stream), and safeguards the setting of the town

• To give High Wycombe an improved sense of place and • Connecting key areas of make it a focus for the Delivery and • In order to support the local activity together and protecting community and for civic activity • Re-establish High Wycombe as a people place, where people Site economy, High Wycombe town and enhancing where possible on foot and cyclists take precedence, whilst maintaining Allocations centre will act as a focus for historic townscape, • To create a high quality public accessibility to the town centre DPD quality land use development. environment, and landscape space network within the town setting centre and make a strong contribution to the image of the town

LTP3 LAS - • Accommodate new housing • Increase levels of active travel • Public transport provision will and employment growth High be greatly enhanced to deliver Wycombe & • Address poor air quality in the town centre attractive and reliable services Chepping • Tackle congestion Wye Valley • Support delivery of the town centre vision & Masterplan

• Reduce carbon emissions by BTVLEP • Supporting employment and • To nudge human behaviour developing existing high quality • Increase in active travel, reduce vehicle kilometres and to help Strategic housing enabling transport towards a balanced operation cycle networks and walking to improve health outcomes. Economic infrastructure of the transportation system Specific or intermediate objectives routes Plan

• The Southern Quadrant is a • Deliver incremental focus for development and • Relocate school drop-off trips • Behavioural change programmed, such as school and Southern improvements without traffic generated by these off-carriageway to the Handy worksplace travel planning, will focus upon encouraging use of Quadrant disproporortionate negative developments will need to be Cross Hub site the Handy Cross Hub Transport environmental impacts Strategy addressed • To better manage traffic congestion, school-related trips, and development pressures