South Bucks District Council Core Strategy

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

June 2010

Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for District Council’s information and use in relation to the South Bucks Core Strategy. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5064105 DOCUMENT REF: SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc

F Submitted Report LB LB HN HN 18/06/10

E Updated Report LB LB HN HN 14/06/10

D Final Report LB LB CPG CPG Feb 2010

C Draft Report LB - - - Feb 2010

B Draft Report LB - - - Feb 2010

A Draft Report LB LB CPG CPG Jan 2010

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Contents Section Page Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 6 Location 6 Report Structure 6 2. Baseline Conditions 7 Study Area 7 Highway Network 7 Transport Area Action Plans 12 Sustainable Modes of Travel 13 3. Policy Context and Review of Studies 17 National Level 17 Regional Level 19 Local Level 21 District Level – South Bucks District 24 DaSTS Study 26 4. Future Base Evaluation 27 5. South Bucks District Council Transport Evaluation 31 The Development Options 31 Impact on Highway Network 33 Mitigation Measures 36 Revised Impact Scenario with Mitigation Measures 40 Traffic Increases 43 Impact on Sustainable Modes of Travel 45 6. Conclusions and Recommendations 47

List of Tables Table 2.1 – Transport Area Action Plans Summary 12 Table 2.2 – Rail Services in South Bucks District 14 Table 2.3 – Bus Services in South Bucks District 15 Table 4.1 – Links that are Nearing or Over Capacity in the Future Base Scenarios (presented as a percentage of capacity) 27 Table 5.1 – Option 1 Housing Figures by Settlement 32 Table 5.2 – Option 2 Housing Figures by Settlement 32 Table 5.3 – Links Predicted to be Nearing or Over Capacity in 2026, Over and Above the Future Base Scenario 34 Table 5.4 – South Bucks Options – Potential Mitigation Measures 38 Table 5.5 – Links Predicted to be Nearing or Over Capacity in 2026, Over and Above the Future Base Scenario, with Mitigation Measures in Place 41 Table 5.6 – Flow Comparison Summary at Motorway Junctions – AM Peak Hour 44 Table 5.7 – Flow Comparison Summary at Motorway Junctions – PM Peak Hour 44 Table 5.8 –Multi Modal Total Two Way Person Trips for All Development Options 45

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 2

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

List of Figures No table of figures entries found.

Appendices Appendix A 49 A.1 Road Network and Areas of Congestion 50 A.2 Sustainable Modes of Travel 51 Appendix B 52 Appendix C 53 Appendix D 54

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 3

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Executive Summary

South Bucks District Council has commissioned Atkins Transport Planning & Management to prepare an Evaluation of Transport Impacts (ETI) that will inform their emerging Core Strategy. The main objective of the ETI is to define and evaluate the transport impacts resulting from the potential development in the District and identify and exclude any options that would have an unacceptable impact on the road network, even with mitigation measures in place. In undertaking the ETI, Atkins has consulted with the Highways Agency (HA) and County Council (BCC) as well as working closely with South Bucks District Council (SBDC). The scope of the ETI, including the methodology and assumptions has been agreed with the Highways Agency at the project outset. The main body of this report covers an analysis of the baseline conditions, policy context and a review of studies as well as a summary of the evaluation in relation to Future Baseline conditions and the potential development in South Bucks District. Appendices to this report include figures supporting the evaluation. This report should be read in conjunction with the evaluation’s Report of Evidence, which describes the methodology and assumptions applied in the ETI as well as data and other evidence that supports it. A key element in the evaluation of development impact on transport infrastructure has been the analysis of road link capacities - a bespoke spreadsheet model has been created for this purpose. The ETI also includes multi-modal trip generation analyses and evaluation of impacts on sustainable modes of transport. The analysis of Baseline and Future Baseline conditions indicates that there is and will be significant pressure on existing transport infrastructure. Results of this analysis show that a number of links within the Study Area would be over capacity in the period of assessment even without considering the developments being evaluated. However it must be noted that a robust approach, following guidelines from the HA, has been applied where traffic growth factors have assumed a significant increase in background traffic growth due to population and economic growth. Two main development options, Option 1 and 2, have been assessed for South Bucks District which include different volumes of housing, based around broadly the same locations within the District. In addition, three sub-options for Option 2 have been assessed which include the opportunity sites being delivered as well as other key development areas. Conclusions from the evaluation generally highlight the importance of new development making use and optimising existing infrastructure. National, Regional and Local policies recommend that future development makes use of existing transport infrastructure as much as possible in order to avoid the reliance on the private car and encourage sustainable modes of transport. Conclusions from the evaluation indicate that the potential developments associated with the South Bucks Core Strategy will have an impact on the transport networks within the Study Area which will add to existing problems. However they are not shown to have a significant impact on the predicted capacity of the motorway links, including the slip roads, except at Junction 1 of the M40 where a large proportion of the additional traffic is a result of general background traffic growth. Infrastructure upgrades may be required at this location towards the end of the plan period and potential funding sources would need to be investigated. Due to the impact on the road network from development in South Bucks, mitigation measures to promote sustainable travel would be recommended. A revised highway impact scenario has been undertaken with a predicted mode shift away from the private car, which has been assessed to demonstrate the impact with mitigation measures in place. It is expected that mitigation measures would be required for all development options, especially with the background traffic growth taken account of as is the case in this analysis. These measures should focus on promoting travel by alternative means to the private car, through Travel Plans, with the focus towards making travel by sustainable transport modes more attractive than currently the case in the area.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 4

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

The revised traffic impact assessment showed a small reduction in trips on all links including the Strategic Highway Network, therefore reducing the impact on capacities to a minimum extent. It is apparent that measures to improve highway capacity on the road network in South Bucks may be required in some locations, although this would require further work at the detailed planning application stage. Overall the conclusions from this analysis show that whilst Option 1 would be most preferable from a transport perspective, options 1-2b could be delivered without an unacceptable impact on the road network with appropriate mitigation in place. Option 2c would require further work to evaluate the impact of the development with the proposed mitigation measures included in the analysis.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 5

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

1. Introduction

1.1 South Bucks District Council has commissioned Atkins Transport Planning & Management to prepare an Evaluation of Transport Impacts (ETI) that will inform their emerging Core Strategy. 1.2 The Core Strategy Development Plan Document will set out the vision, objectives and strategy for development in the District in accordance with the South East Plan. It will plan for the period up to 2026 and set out policies and proposals to guide future development in the area, and provide a framework which planning applications can be assessed against. 1.3 This evaluation gives a greater understanding of the local transport movements and the effects of wider traffic movement on the Strategic Highway network in, and around the District. In summary the objectives of the project are as follows: • Define and evaluate the transport impacts due to the potential development in the District; • Evaluate the likely transport impacts of the proposals in the emerging core strategy; and • Identify and exclude any areas in which mitigation measures are undeliverable. 1.4 In undertaking the ETI, we have consulted the Highways Agency (HA) and Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) as well as worked closely with both Chiltern District Council (CDC) and South Bucks District Council (SBDC). The scope of the ETI, as well as its methodology and assumptions has been agreed with the HA, who have collaborated in ensuring that a robust evaluation was undertaken. Location

1.5 South Bucks District is located in south Buckinghamshire, just south of Chiltern District. and Maidenhead are located to the south and south west respectively, the Borough of Hillingdon to the east, Wycombe District to the west and to the north-west. 1.6 The Study Area covers the whole area of both Chiltern and South Bucks Districts and strategic highway junctions serving the district areas as the study began as a joint one between the two councils. Chiltern District is predominantly rural and is situated on the dip slope of the . Due to its quality landscape and heritage value, much of the area is constrained by statutory measures that afford high levels of environmental protection. South Bucks is also a predominantly rural area containing over 20 towns and villages. Report Structure

1.7 This remainder of the document is structured as follows: • Section 2 provides an assessment of the Baseline Conditions of the South Bucks area; • Section 3 reviews the Policy Context and Local Studies in terms of transport in the vicinity of the Study Area; • Section 4 presents the Future Baseline Evaluation; • Section 5 presents the South Bucks District Council Transport Evaluation; • Section 6 presents our Summary and Conclusions.

1.8 This document includes appendices that support the main body of the report. The evaluation is also supported by a Report of Evidence, which is a separate document that should be read in conjunction with this report. The purpose of the Report of Evidence is to provide justification and clarification for the main parameters that were used as part of this evaluation.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 6

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

2. Baseline Conditions Study Area

2.1 South Bucks District is the most southerly district located within the County of Buckinghamshire. The district neighbours Chiltern District, , Uxbridge, Slough, Maidenhead and Wycombe. Major settlements within the district include: • ; • ; • Burnham; • The Ivers ( Village and Iver Heath); • ; • ; and • Denham Green. 2.2 South Bucks is a small, predominantly rural district, with about 87 percent of the land designated as Green Belt. The District contains over 20 towns and villages, the largest of which are Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and Burnham. South Bucks is, broadly speaking, an area of development constraint and the adopted Local Plan aims to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development and focus necessary development in existing built up areas. Other areas of constraint include Special Area of Conservation and a small part of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty north of Beaconsfield. Overall, the levels of growth in South Bucks are low compared to the surrounding areas, including Slough, Wycombe and Aylesbury. 2.3 The District has higher than average levels of car ownership and use. Commuting levels both in and out of the District are high but balanced. West-east transport links are good, with the M40 and M4 motorways crossing the District as well as two railway lines. However, north-south links are less pronounced, and the M25 and A355 provide the main links. Traffic congestion is a problem in parts of Beaconsfield and Burnham and there are problems with HGV vehicles in Iver and Richings Park. 2.4 The Study Area for this work includes the Chiltern and South Bucks Districts. A location map showing Chiltern and South Bucks in the context of their surrounding areas is included in Appendix A. Highway Network

2.5 The area covered within this evaluation covers a number of motorways and strategic highway junctions and links. Within the Study Area there are three motorways, the M40, the M4 and the M25 including junctions 4B to 8/9 of the M4, junctions 15 to 18 of the M25 and junctions 1 to 3 of the M40. A plan showing the road network in the Study Area is included in Appendix A. 2.6 The A355 runs through both districts in the Study Area connecting Slough in the south to in the north, via Beaconsfield and Farnham Common. There are also roads in the Study Area that are currently identified as suffering from congestion. Beaconsfield and Burnham are areas already considered to be suffering from congestion as well as Iver and Richings Park which has a problem with the high number of heavy goods vehicles. In recognition of these problems congestion management corridors have been identified on: • A416 from Amersham By pass to A41;

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 7

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

• A413 from Aylesbury to Denham; • A355 from Amersham to Beaconsfield; and • A4 from Maidenhead to Slough. 2.7 Within the Study Area the roads below can be considered as primary routes: • A40; • A413; and • A355. 2.8 Along the route of all three of these routes are sections of dual carriageway although for the most part these roads are single carriageway. 2.9 Within the Study Area the major routes which connect urban areas are as follows: • M40/A40 which links Gerrards Cross and Beaconsfield; • A413 which connects Gerrards Cross, Chalfont St Peter, Amersham and Great Missenden; • A416 which links Amersham and ; • A404 which links Chorleywood and Amersham; • A355 which connects Amersham, Beaconsfield and Slough • A412 which links Slough and Uxbridge; and • B485 which links Chesham and Great Missenden. Key Road Junctions 2.10 The key road junctions in the Study Area are: • Junction 15/4b of the M25 and M4 to the west of West Drayton. This junction provides connections into central London, to the west of and to the Home Counties; • Junction 5 of the M4 to the east of Slough at Colnbrook; • Junction 6 of the M4 for central Slough and Windsor; • Junction 7 of the M4 to the west of Slough, which provides connections to Slough Trading Estate and Burnham; • Junction 16/1a of the M25 and M4 to the east of Gerrards Cross which provides connections to Oxfordshire and the Midlands also central London; • Junction 2 of the M40 to the east of Beaconsfield; • Junction 3 of the M40 to the south of Beaconsfield; • The A413 has key interchange points with Junction 1 of the M40 at Uxbridge, through Chalfont St Peter, to the south of Amersham (Amersham by-pass), through Great Missenden; • The A416 links Amersham and Chesham and has key junctions to the north of Amersham with the A404 and in southern Chesham with the B485; • The A404 which links Chorleywood and Amersham and has major interchanges with the M25 at Junction 18, at Little Chalfont with the B4442 and with the A413 at Amersham; • The A355 which links Slough with Beaconsfield and Amersham and has key interchanges with Junction 6 of the M4 to the south of Slough, with the B416 in Farnham, with Junction 2 of

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 8

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

the M40 to the east of Beaconsfield and to the south of Amersham (Amersham by-pass) with the A413; and • The A412 which links Slough with Uxbridge has key interchange points with the A4 in Slough, the A4007 in Iver and the A40/M40 to the west of Uxbridge. Speed Limit Review 2.11 The current speed limit on all roads in Buckinghamshire, except motorways, trunk roads and some private roads) are currently under review by BCC and where appropriate changes will be made. This is to help tackle the increasing concern in the Buckinghamshire area in relation to speeding and the level of accidents. This covers a total of 2000 miles of road network. The purpose of this review is: • To reduce the number of people killed or injured on the roads; • To reduce the speed of traffic through villages and other communities to improve quality of life; • To make speed limits more consistent countrywide; and • To ensure that speed limits take into account everyone who uses the roads. 2.12 To conduct the review the county has been broken down into 14 speed limit review areas. Those that concern this ETI are as follows: Area 4 – Beaconsfield and Great Missenden 2.13 The Area 4 speed limit review recommendations were implemented in January 2004. The following major routes were considered in the review: • A404 Amersham to ; • A416 Amersham to Chesham; • A4128 Great Missenden to High Wycombe; • A355 Amersham to Beaconsfield; and • B485 Great Missenden to Chesham. Area 5 – Wycombe 2.14 The speed limit review covers the same geographical areas as the Tranquil Project, a joint traffic management project set up with Wycombe District Council. This project will provide some village entry treatments to raise awareness of the local speed limits. A pilot project of vehicle activated signs also took place to help decide how such signs can best be used countywide in future years. The following major routes were considered in this review: • A4010 Terrick to High Wycombe; • A4129 Longwick; and • B4009 Little Kimble to . Area 6 – Iver and Gerrards Cross 2.15 Speed limits on Wood Lane, Iver were installed earlier than the rest of area 6 as part of a local safety scheme to reduce casualties. Major routes considered within the Study Area are as follows: • A40 Beaconsfield to Denham; • A355 Beaconsfield to Slough boundary;

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 9

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

• A412 north from A40 through Denham Green to county boundary; • A412 from A40 south/south west through Iver to Slough boundary; • A413 Tatling End; • A4007 Iver Heath to county boundary; and • B416 Gerrards Cross to Slough. Area 9 – Burnham and 2.16 Changes to speed limits on Marlow Hill, High Wycombe took place in advance of the rest of area 9. This was to tie in with the completion of a new road layout at , which introduced a 40mph speed limit. The Marlow Hill speed limit changes were unusual for two reasons: • 30 mph limit was raised to 40 mph; and • A different speed limit was put in on each side of the dual carriageway – 40 mph on the uphill side and 30 mph on the downhill side. 2.17 Major routes within this area include: • A4 Bath Road between Slough and Maidenhead; • A40 between High Wycombe and Beaconsfield; • A4094 Boundary Road; • A4155 Marlow Road (between Marlow bypass and Bourne End); • B3026 Burnham to ; and • B4440 Green Lane/ Holtspur Lane. Area 10 – Chesham and Amersham 2.18 The following major routes are considered within this area of study: • A404 Amersham/Little Chalfont east to the county boundary near Chorleywood; • A413 Amersham to Tatling End (junction with A40); and • A416 Chesham towards Berkhamsted. Current Levels of Congestion 2.19 There have been a number of studies commissioned by Buckinghamshire County Council during the First Local Transport Plan period that have looked at transport issues, including the congestion concerns in South Bucks; these include the: • A412 Strategy; • A355 Route Strategy; • Beaconsfield Transportation Study (2003); and • A4 Strategy. A412 Strategy 2.20 The A412 has been subject to a detailed report by Jacobs Consultants who have investigated the problems associated with the route and identified potential solutions to address these issues. Their report contained a number of recommendations for improvements, where the funding for the proposed scheme is considered and allocated with the priorities contained within the Local Transport Plan. These include the following:

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 10

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

• Upgrade the traffic signals on the A412 at George Green, and at the A40/A412 North Orbital Road junction; • Review of the traffic signals on the A412 and funding is now available to replace a number of the old signs in 2008. This project will allow for the removal of lighting units from those signs that are currently illuminated but no longer require illumination under current Regulations; • The “Gateway” suggestions listed in the report for Iver Heath and Denham have been installed and the new signs on the A412 are also in place; • In relation to the expansion of , the following works, highlighted in the Strategy Report, will be undertaken on the A412 as part of the section 278 agreement: - The signalisation of the Five Points Roundabout when 53,000 square metres of floor space has been built; and - A new footway/cycleway from Five Points Roundabout to Pinewood. • In terms of safety, Jacobs highlighted the poor casualty record at the A412 junctions with Billet Lane, Black Park Road and Moorfield Road. Buckinghamshire County Council Local Safety team has developed an improvement scheme to address the problems associated with Billet Lane and Black Park Road. As the accidents are mainly caused by U-turns and right turns, the junctions will be altered by closing the central reservations; a single through lane of traffic at the Five Points roundabout is to be implemented and appropriate traffic signals to improve the traffic flow. The scheme at Moorfield Road, Denham, has been completed and this junction is now controlled by traffic signals; The A412 passes through Iver Heath. Iver and Iver Heath experience peak time congestion, particularly in relation to the Five Points roundabout. There is also concern about the volume of HGVs. As a result BCC are developing a freight and signing strategy to ensure vehicles use the most appropriate routes; this will also address the issue of servicing on the High Street. A355 Route Strategy 2.21 The A355 provides a connection between the M4 and M40 and it passes through Farnham Common and . This Strategy was commissioned with the aim of minimising the impact of ‘through traffic’ on these settlements. Some of the recommendations have already been implemented. 2.22 The Highways Agency has made some signing changes to the A404 to reinforce the A404 as the most appropriate connection between the M40 and M4 and will discuss further measures with BCC if necessary. Beaconsfield Transportation Study 2.23 The Beaconsfield Transportation Study was commissioned by BCC in 2001, with the final report published in 2003. It contains numerous recommendations for transport provision within the area. Many of these have been examined further and some, for example four pedestrian crossings, weight restrictions, waiting restrictions, speed limit changes, Safer Routes to School project, have been and/or will be introduced in the near future. The recommendations continue to influence future work within the Beaconsfield Local Community Area and will be implemented as appropriate and when funding is available. 2.24 Beaconsfield experiences congestion in the peak periods. Locations identified as congestion ‘hotspots’ include the A40 / A355 junction, Amersham Road / Maxwell Road junction and the town centre. As a result, the A355 between Amersham and the M40 Junction 2 has been identified as one of six interurban priority congestion management corridors that will be targeted for action during the Second Local Transport Plan period.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 11

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

2.25 There are other issues, for example, resulting from congestion around schools on the B474 and HGVs unloading in Beaconsfield Old Town. 2.26 The Beaconsfield Transportation Study was subject to a ‘refresh’ in 2009, with several potential transport schemes identified and prioritised, subject to funding being available. A4 Route Strategy 2.27 The A4 carries a lot of traffic between Slough and Maidenhead. This study has made recommendations, some of which have been implemented already. 2.28 The A4 between Maidenhead and Slough has been designated an interurban priority congestion management corridor that will be targeted for action during the Second Local Transport Plan period. Other Locations 2.29 In Gerrards Cross the County have reviewed the parking waiting restrictions to control parking across the town. In most areas, and in particular in the Gerrards Cross area, they have also worked with schools to help them develop effective School Travel Plans, with the aim of reducing some of these trips. Transport Area Action Plans

2.30 Following on from Buckinghamshire County Council’s Second Local Transport Plan (LTP2) Transport Area Action Plans have been developed for various different areas in Buckinghamshire to enable residents of the county to understand the work being carried out by the Transportation services. The five priorities for the Action plans are as follows: • Enhancing accessibility; • Tackling congestion; • Improving the environment; • Improving road safety; and • Maintaining and managing the transport asset. 2.31 In total 7 Action Plans were created covering South Bucks and Chiltern districts. A summary of key actions for the areas studied are included in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 – Transport Area Action Plans Summary

Area Summary Action Plan The Ivers • Accessibility a concern for all in the area and the integration of Public Transport in the area is seen as key to improving accessibility; • HGV traffic, rat running and the school run are the major traffic issues in the area; • A412 an area of concern. This area will continue to be assessed via the route strategy; • The environment of the area is severely affected by the M25. The areas that directly neighbour the M25 have been listed as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA); • Walking and cycling routes to areas of employment are seen as very poor. Gerrards Cross • The area is well linked to large places of employment such as

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 12

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Area Summary Action Plan Slough and Uxbridge; • An AQMA has been implemented in the areas directly surrounding the M40 and M25; and • The safety of footways, particularly street lighting, is a priority concern for residents. The Chalfonts • Accessibility to services for the elderly and disabled is a concern due to the ageing population of the area; • Village congestion in the area is caused by HGV rat running; • Noise and air quality a concern which is caused by the close proximity of Heathrow Airport; • School safety is a large concern for the area; and • Concern in regards to walking and cycling paths in the area. Beeches • Accessibility via public transport is a big issue and considerations are being made to improve this; • School and HGV traffic the major concern; • AQMA in place due to noise and air quality issues created by Heathrow; and • Congestion a concern in the Burnham Beeches area. Beaconsfield • Accessibility to areas of employment a concern particularly in terms of public transport, walking and cycling; • Area restriction in place for lorries over 7.5 tonnes; • Many accidents on the M40. Chesham and • Require work with London Underground to ensure that the Amersham to Chesham is maintained; • Accessibility the biggest concern in the area; • Air and noise quality requires monitoring to ensure that an AQMA is not put in place.

Sustainable Modes of Travel

2.32 Current conditions of travel by sustainable modes of transport are considered below. A map showing the public transport routes serving Chiltern and South Bucks as well as their cycle and pedestrian networks is presented in Appendix A. Accessibility in South Bucks 2.33 It is recognised that planning has a vital role to play in minimising the impact of transportation and promoting alternatives to the car and new developments should be located in areas with better public transport links. However the rail lines run only in an east to west direction, and bus services are much less frequent in the smaller settlements. 2.34 Much of the district is linked with a network of rural lanes and congestion on the strategic routes force large volumes of traffic, including HGVs, onto local routes. Issues have been identified in terms of traffic at the following locations: • Beaconsfield, which experiences peak time congestion particularly at residential hotspots, for example to the east of the Old Town;

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 13

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

• Burnham, which experiences peak time congestion has a bottleneck on route to Maidenhead for commuters; • Gerrards Cross, which is located close to the strategic road network; • Iver and Iver Heath, much local concern about the use of the A412 and HGV traffic on inappropriate routes including Iver Village High Street; • Denham Green and New Denham, located close to the strategic rail network; • Farnham Common and Farnham Royal, the main route through the settlement is the A355 which is used by traffic to connect to the M4 and M40; • Richings Park, the settlement is located close to Heathrow and as a result much of the employment in the area is connected with the airport and the area is used by some traffic as a shortcut to Heathrow. It also suffers from HGV traffic from nearby industrial estates; • Stoke Poges, which is located close to Slough and the strategic road network; • In terms of community facilities such as education, health, shops and employment accessibility is a particular concern in remote rural areas such as Dropmore and even in towns such as Iver Heath. South Bucks Rail Services 2.35 The South Bucks District is served by both and First Great Western. First Great Western operates services to Iver and Taplow which provides connections with Slough, Maidenhead and Reading. Chiltern Railways provides services to Gerrards Cross, Beaconsfield and Denham which provides connections to Aylesbury and High Wycombe. Table 2.2 presents information in regards to the rail services found in the South Bucks District. Table 2.2 – Rail Services in South Bucks District

Station Services to Days of Operation Weekday Frequency Gerrards Cross Aylesbury – London Daily 4 trains per hour Marylebone Denham Aylesbury to London Daily 2 trains per hour Marylebone Beaconsfield Aylesbury – London Daily 4 trains per hour Marylebone Iver Reading – London Daily 2 trains per hour Paddington Taplow Reading - London Daily 2 trains per hour Paddington

South Bucks Bus Services 2.36 Many of the routes which serve the district start and finish their journeys outside of the Study Area but provide important links to rural areas within the Study Area. Table 2.3 presents information relating to bus services in the South Bucks District.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 14

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Table 2.3 – Bus Services in South Bucks District

Service Route Days of Operation Weekday Frequency 58 Uxbridge – Slough Monday to Saturday 2 buses per hour 335 Slough – Chalfont & Monday to Saturday 1 bus every 2 hours Latimer 353 Slough – Monday to Saturday 1 bus per hour Berkhamsted 40 – Langley Monday to Saturday 1 bus every 2 hours

74 High Wycombe – Monday to Saturday 3 buses every hour Slough 53 Binfield – Wexham Monday to Saturday 1 bus per hour Park Hospital 68 Slough - Maidenhead Tuesday and Friday 3 buses on a Tuesday and Friday only 305 High Wycombe – Monday to Saturday 1 bus every 2 hours Beaconsfield – Uxbridge A40 High Wycombe – Monday to Friday 1 bus per hour Heathrow Airport 375 Amersham – Monday to Saturday 1 bus every 3 hours Beaconsfield

580 – Monday to Friday 2 buses every Beaconsfield morning 331 Uxbridge – Ruislip Monday to Friday 2 buses every day 724 Heathrow – Harlow Monday to Friday 1 bus per hour

R21 Uxbridge – Harefield Monday to Friday 2 buses a day

2.37 Overall, South Bucks District is reasonably well served by buses although services to the most rural areas of the district are infrequent. Services provide links between the major conurbations in the districts at high frequencies making the towns accessible by bus, although this is not so much the case in the evenings and on Sundays. Cycling and Walking South Bucks District: Cycle Paths and Cycle Parking 2.38 Within South Bucks District there are a limited number of cycle paths. There are no off-road cycle paths in the district but on road cycle paths can be found between: • Taplow and Dedworth; • Slough and Iver Heath; and • Chalfont St Peter and West Drayton (). 2.39 Public cycle parking can be found at the following locations in the South Bucks District: • Gerrards Cross Rail Station – 30 undercover cycle storage lockers;

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 15

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

• Beaconsfield Station – 26 cycle storage spaces • Iver Rail Station – 10 spaces in cycle stands; • Taplow Rail station – 10 spaces in undercover cycle stands; and • Denham Rail Station – 5 spaces in cycle stands. 2.40 Public rights of way and footpaths are an important means of alternative transport in South Bucks District. Although the rights of way are intended for leisure purposes they also provide an important network for people accessing services and employment. 2.41 South Bucks has a number of cycle and pedestrian routes which provide accessibility to and within the major residential areas. The district also contains a number of locations with secure cycle parking, particularly at rail stations which provides a good interchange opportunity. 2.42 However, the main areas where it has been recognised that cycling and pedestrian networks could be improved are: • The Ivers, where walking and cycling routes to employment areas should be improved; • Gerrards Cross, where there are concerns over pedestrian safety in the area; • The Chalfonts; and • Beaconsfield.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 16

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

3. Policy Context and Review of Studies

3.1 This section of the report sets out national, regional and local policy guidance relevant to Chiltern and South Bucks and reviews relevant studies that help form a picture of the transport situation in the area of study. The review was conducted through desktop research and includes the documents provided to the project team by both CDC and SBDC. The documents reviewed are namely: At National Level • Planning Policy Statement: Housing (PPS3); and • Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13). At Regional Level • The South East Plan. At Local Level • Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 2 (2006-2011); • Transport Matters in Buckinghamshire: Transport Area Action Plan; • Improvement Line Review of Buckinghamshire; • Speed Limit Review of Buckinghamshire; and • School Travel Plans At District Level – South Bucks District

• South Bucks Local Development Framework – Core Strategy Preferred Options (2006) and Emerging Approach (2009);

• South Bucks District Council Accessibility and Infrastructure Study;

• South Bucks District Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (initial findings);

• South Bucks District Council Assessment of Possible Future Development Options (BCC Highways Development Control Input) - unpublished; and

• A412 Uxbridge Road Junction with Black Park Road and Billet Lane Public Consultation Leaflet.

National Level Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) 3.2 “Planning Policy Statements (PPS) set out the Government’s national policies on aspects of planning in England. PPS3 sets out the national planning policy framework for delivering the Government’s housing objectives.” 3.3 In Paragraph 16, PPS3 states: “Matters to consider when assessing design quality include the extent to which the proposed development:“ • “Is easily accessible and well-connected to public transport and community facilities and services, and is well laid out so that all the space is used efficiently, is safe, accessible and user-friendly.”

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 17

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

3.4 In Paragraph 37, PPS3 states that “Regional Planning Bodies should, working with stakeholders, set out the criteria to be used for selecting suitable broad locations for new housing, taking into account:”…“Particular circumstances across the regional or sub-regional housing market that may influence the distribution of housing development. For example”: • “Where need and demand are high, it will be necessary to identify and explore a range of options for distributing housing including consideration of the role of growth areas, growth points, new free-standing settlements, major urban extensions and the managed growth of settlements in urban and rural areas and/or where necessary, review of any policy constraints.” • “Where need and demand are low, it may be necessary to renew or replace the existing housing stock in particular locations in both urban and rural areas.” • “The availability and capacity of, and accessibility to, existing major strategic infrastructure, including public and other transport services, and/or feasibility of delivering the required level of new infrastructure to support the proposed distribution of development.” 3.5 In Paragraph 38, PPS3 states that “Local Planning Authorities should, working with stakeholders, set out the criteria to be used for identifying broad locations and specific sites taking into account:” • “The contribution to be made to cutting carbon emissions from focusing new development in locations with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car and where it can readily and viably draw its energy supply from decentralised energy supply systems based on renewable and low-carbon forms of energy supply, or where there is clear potential for this to be realised.” • “Accessibility of proposed development to existing local community facilities, infrastructure and services, including public transport. The location of housing should facilitate the creation of communities of sufficient size and mix to justify the development of, and sustain, community facilities, infrastructure and services.” 3.6 In Paragraph 46, PPS3 states that “Local Planning Authorities should develop housing density policies having regard to:” • “The current and future level and capacity of infrastructure, services and facilities such as public and private amenity space, in particular green and open space.” • “The current and future levels of accessibility, particularly public transport accessibility.“ Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) 3.7 The objectives of PPG13 are set out as follows: • Promote more sustainable transport choices for both people and for moving freight; • Promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and • Reduce the need to travel, especially by car. 3.8 Paragraph 19 of this document states that: "A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. This is important for all, but especially for those who do not have regular use of a car, and to promote social inclusion. In preparing their development plans, local authorities should give particular emphasis to accessibility in identifying the preferred areas and sites where such land uses should be located, to ensure they will offer realistic, safe and easy access by a range of transport modes, and not exclusively by car….”

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 18

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

3.9 PPG13 goes on to say in paragraph 21, Local authorities should seek to maximise the use of the most accessible sites, such as those in town centres and others which are, or will be close to major transport interchanges….” 3.10 Chapter 3 of PPG13 emphasises the need for the availability and use of public transport, walking and cycling. Paragraph 75 states, “Walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under 2 kilometres….” Cycling can also substitute car journeys of up to 5km in length. Department for Transport Guidance on Transport Assessments 3.11 The Department for Transport (DfT) have produced guidance for preparing Transport Assessments. Chapter 5 - The link with the development plan making process - of the DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment is relevant to the ETI as it states that “National planning policy as set out in PPS1, PPS11 and PPS12 emphasises the requirement for development plans to be founded on 'a robust and credible evidence base'. Chapter 5 of the guidance continues indicating that: • “Development plans will only be credible, authoritative and deliverable if transport considerations are fully factored into their development from the outset.”; • “Within this context it is clearly important that the transport impacts of alternative spatial development patterns are properly assessed at an early stage and throughout the plan- making process as an integral part of the sustainability appraisal of emerging plans. Appropriate policy responses must be developed to reduce the need to travel and promote sustainable transport choices.”; • “The assessment methodologies and assumptions applied in assessing the transport implications of a major development at the planning application stage can also be employed in testing development plan options, although the level of detail underpinning the analysis may be lower, particularly at a regional level.”; and • “It will be beneficial for the planning body/authority to ensure full engagement of all stakeholders throughout the development plan process.” Regional Level South East Plan 3.12 Finalised in May 2009, the South East Plan, or Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) provides a framework for the region from 2006 to 2026. The aim of the Plan is to “help achieve more sustainable development, protect the environment and combat climate change”. It provides the spatial context for regional and sub-regional economic, housing and environmental strategies, including Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport Plans. 3.13 Thus the plan includes spatial policies for the following: • “the scale and distribution of new housing; • priorities for new infrastructure and economic development; • the strategy for protecting countryside, biodiversity and the built and historic environment; and • tackling climate change and safeguarding natural resources, for example water and minerals.”

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 19

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

3.14 The South East Plan seeks the delivery of 654,000 net additional dwellings between 2006 and 2026 in the region, of which 1,880 are in South Bucks and 2,900 are in Chiltern District. The M40 is identified as a Regional Spoke, linking High Wycombe to London (Policy T8). 3.15 The Plan recognises the key challenges for the area to support the “unprecedented levels of population growth”. There is the potential for significant economic growth, with pressures on the social and physical infrastructure, and challenges to stabilise the region’s ecological footprint. It also recognises the need to “focus on sustainable strategic solutions for addressing the need and demand for more housing while taking an innovative approach towards preventing, minimising and mitigating the impacts of housing and economic growth”. 3.16 Policy T1: Manage and Invest states that “Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and Local Transport Plans should ensure that their management policies and proposals: • “i. Are consistent with, and supported by, appropriate mobility management measures”; • “ii. Achieve a re-balancing of the transport system in favour of sustainable modes as a means of access to services and facilities”; • “iii. Foster and promote an improved and integrated network of public transport services in and between both urban and rural areas”; • “iv. Encourage development that is located and designed to reduce average journey lengths”; • “v. Improve the maintenance of the existing transport system”; • “vi. Include measures that reduce the overall number of road casualties”; and • “vii. Include measures to minimise negative environmental impacts of transport and, where possible, to enhance the environment and communities through such interventions.” 3.17 Policy T1 continues stating that: “Investment in upgrading the transport system should be prioritised to support delivery of the spatial strategy by: • “a. Supporting the function of the region’s international gateways and inter-regional movement corridors”; • “b. Developing the network of regional hubs and spokes”; • “c. Facilitating urban renewal and urban renaissance as a means of achieving a more sustainable pattern of development”; and • “d. Improving overall levels of accessibility.” 3.18 Policy T8: Regional Spokes states that “Relevant regional strategies, local development documents and Local Transport Plans will include policies and proposals that support and develop the role of regional spokes by: • “i. Providing a level of service that supports the role of regional hubs as a focus of economic activity ”; • “ii. Delivering improvements in journey time reliability that support the rebalancing of the transport system in favour of non-car modes’”; • “iii. Developing a complementary and integrated network of rail and express bus/coach services along spokes and inter-regional corridors”; • “iv. Addressing identified bottlenecks”; and • “v. Improving access to international gateways”. 3.19 Policy T14 Transport Investment and Management Priorities states that “priority should be given to stronger demand management measures, including those that make the best use of the

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 20

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

existing infrastructure asset, promote sustainable travel and reduce demand by behavioural change”. National and Regional Policy Overview 3.20 The bullet points presented below present a conclusion of the key policies from the national and regional level: • Emphasis on the need for sustainable development which reduces the reliance on the need to travel by private car; • Local Authorities should maximise the use of the most sustainable sites; and • The Chiltern and South Bucks Districts do have clusters of business and high tech employment with reasonable transport links. However in line with policy, the transport links must be appropriately managed and improved with future developments. Local Level Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 2 (2006-2011) 3.21 The Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 2 sets out the county vision for the next 20 years for transport, identifying the wider policy framework for work. It explores the problems and opportunities that face Buckinghamshire and sets out the transport strategy and policy for the next five years. The document concerns five main aims. They are as follows: • Improving accessibility; • Tackling congestion; • Improving the environment; • Improving safety; and • Managing and maintaining the transport assets of Buckinghamshire. Key Targets 3.22 Section 3 of the document presents twenty eight targets to help BCC achieve its 5 key aims. Those which concern this evaluation are listed below: 3.23 Enhancing Accessibility – LTP1: 85 percent of non-car owning households within 30 minutes of a local or regional town centre by a public transport service operating at least 5 times a day by 2011. 3.24 Tackling Congestion – LPSA Target: Presently approximately 3,880,000 journeys are made by bus in Buckinghamshire every year. The Local Transport Plan has set a target of 5,146,000 journeys to be reached by 2011. This will be achieved through the improved marketing of bus services, improved bus network and timetable. 3.25 Tackling Congestion – LTP3: Annualised index of cycle trips. This indicator has been set to ensure that the level of cycling for commuter and leisure trips increases in Buckinghamshire over the five year plan period. 3.26 Tackling Congestion – LCI 6: Targets LCI6 is linked to sustainable access to railway stations. All new residential developments and areas of employment should be located so that rail stations and links are easily accessible. 3.27 Tackling Congestion – LCI 7: The reduction of single occupancy car trips due to personalised travel planning. This will be a particular focus for new developments where Travel Plans will be an essential part of the planning process and their effects monitored accordingly.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 21

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

3.28 Improving the Environment – LEI1: Improved air quality in key Buckinghamshire locations. These targets should not be affected by new developments which should aim to not affect air quality. Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2026) 3.29 Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 3 is currently under development and will cover a very similar time scale as the LDF core strategy. It will be an evidence led document that explores the problems and opportunities that face Buckinghamshire at a local, county and regional level and will set out the transport strategy and policy for the next fifteen years. The document will have five main goals: • Reduce carbon emissions; • Support economic growth; • Promote Equality of opportunity; • Contribute to better safety, security and health; and • Improve quality of life and a healthy environment. Buckinghamshire County Council – Improvement Line Report 3.30 The Final Improvement Line Report 2006/2007 has been carried out to consider all improvement lines and determine whether they are still required for future highway improvements. Improvement lines are sections of land designated for future transport improvement purposes, to ensure that development does not take place on these reserved pieces of land. In this report each individual line is assessed and if it is agreed that the line is no longer required it can be rescinded. Below are listed all the Improvements Lines in the Chiltern and South Bucks area and the decision as to whether they should be retained or rescinded: • Amersham Hill (Revoked): Not part of the station redevelopment. Nothing can be done for the junction improvement – improve access no longer needed on this route; • Nashleigh Hill (Revoked): This is not an identified strategic priority in the Second Local Transport Plan; • A413 Chalfont St Peter (Revoked): This is not an identified strategic priority in the Second Local Transport Plan; • B416/Templewood Lane, Stoke Common (Revoked): This is not an identified strategic priority in the Second Local Transport Plan; • Denham Road, Iver Heath (Revoked): This is not an identified strategic priority in the Second Local Transport Plan; • Southlands Road, Iver Heath (Retain): Potential widening and junction improvements may be required in the future; • Hollow Hill Lane, Shredding Green, Iver (Retain): Retain for possible safety improvements; • Mansion Lane, Shredding Green, Iver (Retain): Potential improvements linked to the CrossRail project; • Bath Road, Burnham (Retain): Possible links to development schemes; and • Wilton Park Diversion, Beaconsfield (Retain): Retain subject to the MoD site development in the South Bucks Local Development Framework;

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 22

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

School Travel Plans 3.31 The government has set Local Authorities a stretching target for every school in the country to have an approved and active Travel Plan in place by the end of March 2010. To help meet this target Buckinghamshire CC has set the following progress levels in terms of Travel Plan development with a target of having 80 percent of schools with a level 3 Travel Plan by 2010: 3.32 Level One: A school that is in the early stages of travel planning. They have begun to take ownership of their travel issues and are keen to implement measures to address and resolve them. Contact has been made with the Travel Planning Team and a recognised school travel initiative is in place. 3.33 Level Two: A school that is developing a school travel plan. An STP co-ordinator has been identified and a representative working group has been set up. Research has been undertaken and aims and objectives established. Evidence of this must be provided. 3.34 Level Three: A school that has an active school travel plan. The STP includes all of the key elements detailed in the BCC guidelines and Travel Choice website (“What is a school travel plan?”). In brief, these elements are: • Identified the STP Co-ordinator and Working Group; • Detailed research - including usual and preferred mode of travel; • Signed Terms of Reference; • SMART targets; • Action Plan; • Plans for monitoring; • Be adopted by the school's governing body and included within the School Development Plan, or equivalent; • Commit to providing an annual progress report of the STP to the Travel Planning team; and • Commit to returning the BCC Travel Planning Annual Hands-Up survey. Local Level Policy Overview 3.35 The bullet points presented below present a conclusion of the key policies from the local level: • The five targets set out within the Buckinghamshire Local Transport Plan 2 aim to improve congestion, tackle congestion, improve the environment, improve safety and manage the transport assets of Buckinghamshire; • Transport Area Actions plans have been developed for each area in Buckinghamshire to help reach the targets set out in the Local Transport Plan; • There are currently ten sites within the Study Area which are reserved for the development of transport schemes; and 3.36 At present a speed limit review of the whole of Buckinghamshire is taking place to help increase safety on the roads of the county (refer to Section 2).

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 23

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

District Level – South Bucks District South Bucks District Council Annual Monitoring Report 2008- 2009

3.37 The South Bucks Annual Monitoring Report for 2008-09 found that car ownership in the District is high with 53% of households owning two or more cars, compared to 38% in the South East and 29% nationally. Only 11.1% of households have no car or van, compared to 26.8% nationally1. Frequent rail services are provided by the Birmingham / Marylebone line, serving Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and the Denham area and the Bristol / Paddington mainline serving Burnham, Taplow, Iver and Richings Park. There are frequent bus services serving the larger settlements, and those smaller settlements located on the principal route network. Other settlements (including Dorney and Stoke Green) have poor public transport accessibility. Of a total resident workforce of 30,100 around 19,400 are out- commuters. This compares with 19,100 in-commuters. About 65% of out-commuters use a car to travel to work2. 3.38 It found that the saved Local Plan policies contribute towards the reduction of transport movements throughout the District and consequent minimisation of carbon emissions locally by seeking that new development is built in accessible locations. These existing policies relating to the reduction of traffic are in line with the objective of the South East Plan of reducing the impact of the transport system on the environment. The emerging view in the Core Strategy is that planning should rebalance transport use in favour of non car modes through for example, reducing transport movements through locating development in sustainable locations, and through supporting opportunities for the provision of improved local public transport. The County Council is working to increase the number of School Travel Plans (STP), which comprises a total of 18 to date in South Bucks, an increase of three from last year, and so 50% of South Bucks schools now have School Travel Plans. South Bucks Local Development Framework - Core Strategy 3.39 The South Bucks Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Document was published by the District Council in September 2006. In March 2009, the Council published a revised version called the Core Strategy Emerging Approach. This set out an emerging spatial strategy along with the emerging approach on a number of topics and sites. Several of these emerging approaches are particularly relevant as follows: • Emerging Spatial Strategy – brownfield land within settlements will be the principal source of housing land supply, particularly Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and Burnham, as these have more redevelopment opportunities and because they have better accessibility to services, facilities and jobs. • Accessibility and Transport – more development should take place in Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and Burnham (for the reasons given above) and development in other locations will be more limited. No major new transportation infrastructure is expected to be required, although new development will be required to make improvements to the transport network where appropriate. The Council will support improvements to the local transportation network to address existing traffic problems, including congestion in Beaconsfield, Burnham, Farnham Common and Farnham Royal, Iver, Richings Park, Stoke Poges and on the A4. The Council will encourage ‘mobility management’ measures such as parking changes, travel plans and

1 Census, 2001 2 Census 2001

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 24

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

new walking and cycling facilities, taking into account the limited public transport provision in parts of the District. 3.40 South Bucks Council is now preparing to publish its Proposed Submission Core Strategy in March 2010, with submission due later in 2010. South Bucks District Council Accessibility and Infrastructure Study 3.41 The South Bucks District Council Accessibility and Infrastructure Study was published in Autumn 2006 to help address concerns about the rural nature of South Bucks and ‘the concern that some people can not easily reach facilities and services and that they are socially excluded. 3.42 The report recognises that South Bucks is an area of development constraint, and the adopted local plan aims to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development and focus necessary development in existing built up areas. The key issues are identified as: • Current settlements face pressure from development, and there is a concern that increasing densities and infill developments leads to a loss of settlement character; • The decisions of the location of new development should take account of the extent to which infrastructure and services exist in the different settlements to be able to support that development; and • The existence of infrastructure itself may not always indicate that a settlement is the most suitable as regards the infrastructure provision, since that infrastructure also needs to be accessible, including to those who do not have use of a car. 3.43 In conclusion the report finds that Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross have emerged as the settlements with the greatest range and best accessibility to infrastructure in South Bucks District, particularly in relation to public transport and walking. However the outer suburbs of these towns are seen as far worse off in terms of accessibility than the centre of the towns. Additionally concern has been raised about the amount of development that has occurred in recent years, particularly infill and intensification. There is evidence within the report that some of the main junctions in Beaconsfield are suffering from congestion, especially at peak times. Gerrards Cross also has a good range of facilities but lacks a doctors surgery and a secondary schoo . 3.44 In the rural areas of South Bucks the continuing loss of services and the gradual deterioration of public transport are clearly of concern, and will undoubtedly worsen social exclusion for people without access to the private car. However planning can help to reduce this by ensuring that new development is located in the more accessible areas wherever possible. There is though, some concern over the impact of increasing the amount of new development within the existing settlement, due to the increase in congestion and loss of character. South Bucks District Council Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Report 3.45 SBDC has prepared a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The purpose of the SHLAA is to identify and assess sites with potential for housing. The SHLAA (November 2009) demonstrates that South Bucks can comfortably meet its housing requirement of 1,880 dwellings in the period 2006-26, with no requirement to release Green Belt land. It identified potential for another 611 dwellings in the District, with the possibility of at least another 400 dwellings on the Opportunity Sites at Wilton Park and Mill Lane. Along with sites completed since 2006 and those under construction or with planning permission, the estimated total housing supply in the plan period is 2,732 units.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 25

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

DaSTS Study

3.46 Jacobs have undertaken a study in partnership with Transport for Buckinghamshire as part of the Delivering a Sustainable Transport Study (DaSTS) process for the and Aylesbury Vale area of Buckinghamshire. This study focuses on development in Milton Keynes and Aylesbury and to a lesser extent High Wycombe. 3.47 The background to this is that to address the increased need for houses and employment to 2026, in the growth areas, greater emphasis will need to be placed on reducing the need to travel particularly by private car, for peak hour journeys and for discretionary trips such as shopping and recreation, and on encouraging modal shift towards more sustainable forms of transport. It is stated that achieving this shift will require extensive behavioural change programmes to influence the way people work, do business and access services in the future. 3.48 The background research for this study includes reference to the Buckinghamshire Regional Transport Model. This provides detailed estimates of forecast flows on the road network in 2026, compared to the current flows from 2006. Relative levels of congestion are also shown. This predicts that traffic flows would increase on the following roads in the study area, and congestion would be classed as at a high level during the AM peak period: • M25 • M40 • M4 • A40 • A413 • A355 • A416 (through Chesham) • A404 (Amersham to ) 3.49 Clearly these are the main links through the study area serving South Bucks and the results from this are similar to those from the link analysis presented later in this report. 3.50 Road casualty rates were found to be higher on many of the interurban routes. Due to the predicted increase in traffic flows, this could increase the risk of road traffic accidents. 3.51 Overall their work reinforces the conclusions made in this report, that significant measures will be required to mitigate the impact from traffic growth in the growth areas to help those living and working in Buckinghamshire.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 26

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

4. Future Base Evaluation

4.1 In order to understand the impact of the development scenarios in Chapter 5, the impact that future background traffic growth would have on the operation of links has been determined beforehand as part of the ‘Future Base’. This is required in order to assess a ‘worst case’ of future background growth and development in South Bucks. 4.2 The Study Area consists of the districts of Chiltern and South Bucks, as well as some key surrounding roads / junctions which are part of the strategic road network and are under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency. The Study Area showing the roads that will be analysed is shown in Appendix A. 4.3 The background traffic growth has involved applying a standard traffic growth factor across the districts. The growth factors applied from 2009 to 2026 are as follows: Chiltern District • AM Peak Hour: 1.167 • PM Peak Hour: 1.151 South Bucks District • AM Peak Hour: 1.188 • PM Peak Hour: 1.166 4.4 Growth factors were calculated for Chiltern and South Bucks separately and applied to the respective links in each district. The South Bucks, higher, growth factor was used for the motorway links also. The detail on how these were derived is provided in the associated Report of Evidence. Growth expected in the surrounding areas, including Slough, Wycombe and Aylesbury, has not been separately taken account of. However, it is considered that an element of this growth would be incorporated within the background growth applied to the Chiltern and South Bucks Districts. 4.5 To predict the effect of future traffic growth on the operation of the links, the predicted traffic flows in vehicles per hour have been compared to the individual link capacities. Table 4.1 shows those links that are nearing capacity (operating over 85 percent of their theoretical capacity). Links with flows that are exceeding capacity have been highlighted in bold. Where there are no entries in the table, the links are operating below 85 percent of their theoretical capacity and therefore considered to be working efficiently. Similarly roads that are not presented in this table, including the M40, are predicted to operate below 85 percent capacity. The traffic flows and percentage capacities are shown in Appendix C. Table 4.1 – Links that are Nearing or Over Capacity in the Future Base Scenarios (presented as a percentage of capacity)

Percentage of Capacity (%) Link 2009 2026 AM PM AM PM Motorway Links (Highways Agency) M4 J5 to 4b eastbound - - 88 93 M4 J4b to 5 westbound 90 - 107 99 M4 J6 to 5 eastbound - - 96 90

M4 J5 to 6 westbound 87 87 103 101

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 27

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Percentage of Capacity (%) Link 2009 2026 AM PM AM PM M4 J7 to 6 eastbound - - 97 89 M4 J6 to 7 westbound - - - 89 M4 J8/9 to 7 eastbound 85 - 101 89 M4 J7 to 8/9 westbound - 90 93 105 M4 J8/9 to A404(M) - 90 - 105 M4 eastbound off-slip to M25 - - 93 90 anticlockwise M4 eastbound off-slip to M25 - - - 87 clockwise M25 anticlockwise off-slip to M4 - - 90 - eastbound M25 anticlockwise off-slip to M4 ---- westbound M25 J15 to 16 clockwise - - - 82 M25 J16 to 15 anticlockwise - - 94 - Links in South Bucks District

Wood Lane southbound 92 - 109 88 Wood Lane northbound - - 91 100 A412 Church Road south- - 87 86 102 westbound at Iver Heath A412 Church Road north- - 99 92 116 eastbound at Iver Heath B470 Iver High Street eastbound - - 92 -

B470 Iver High Street westbound - - - 98 B470 Langley Park Road - - - 85 northbound Sutton Lane northbound - - - 85 Sutton Lane southbound - - 88 - A4020 Road southbound at - - 99 - Uxbridge A4020 Oxford Road northbound - 92 - 108 at Uxbridge A412 Denham Avenue southbound - - 94 -

A355 Amersham Road southbound - - 88 - at Beaconsfield

A355 Amersham Road - 95 - 111

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 28

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Percentage of Capacity (%) Link 2009 2026 AM PM AM PM northbound at Beaconsfield A40 Wycombe End eastbound - - 87 - Links in Chiltern District

A413 southbound at Chalfont St 94 - 109 Giles A413 northbound at Chalfont St - 88 - 101 Giles A413 northbound at Chalfont St - - - 94 Giles A413 London Road north- - 95 - 111 westbound at Amersham A413 London Road south- - - 93 - eastbound at Amersham A416 at Amersham south- 93 - 109 - eastbound A413 Amersham bypass - 98 - 112 westbound A355 Gore Hill southbound near 85 - 99 - Amersham A355 Gore Hill northbound near - - - 86 Amersham A404 White Lion Road westbound - 86 - 99 at Amersham A404 White Lion Road eastbound - - 89 - at Amersham A416 Berkhamsted Road - 88 - 102 northbound at Chesham A413 southbound at Great - - 86 - Missenden

4.6 Table 4.1 shows that no links are predicted to be over capacity in 2009 during either peak hour although links on the M4, A412 (Iver), A4020 (Uxbridge), A355 (Beaconsfield), A413, A404, A416 and Wood Lane are predicted to be nearing capacity. This could indicate that junctions on these roads would be at capacity now since generally conditions at junctions are likely to be worse than on links. 4.7 The situation in 2026 is more pronounced, with many links near or over capacity. Various locations on the M4 are predicted to be over capacity, whilst the M25 is expected to operate just within capacity. Many links in the Iver area, including Wood Lane, the A412 and A4020, as well as the A355 in Beaconsfield, the A416 in Amersham and Chesham, and the A413 are predicted to be over capacity in 2026. Other links at or nearing capacity include the B470 in Iver, Sutton Lane near Langley, the A40 in Beaconsfield, the A355 Gore Hill (Amersham) and the A404 White Lion Road (Amersham). It can be concluded from this, that the 2026 road network is expected to be

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 29

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

generally at capacity and many junctions may be expected to experience operational problems, before development traffic is added. However, whether this situation is actually realised, depends on the behaviour of people and whether they will continue to choose to drive with increasing congestion. In congested networks, it is possible that the predicted traffic growth may not materialise as the additional delay presents a deterrent to car drivers. This effect cannot be picked up in this static trip model. However, work on the VDM models for Wycombe and Oxfordshire demonstrates that trip growth may well be close to that predicted in a static model as these studies have shown that mode shift, reassignment and suppression are minor despite a big increase in congestion.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 30

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

5. South Bucks District Council Transport Evaluation

5.1 This Chapter summarises the evaluation undertaken for South Bucks District Council. It analyses the sites and areas which have been assumed for development under the Development Options. These are options being considered by the Council’s Core Strategy. 5.2 It presents a summary of the analysis of the potential impacts of development on the transport networks. It also considers the necessary mitigation measures for this scale of development. The Development Options

5.3 For the purpose of this ETI, SBDC has provided information on the potential sites and areas that could be developed in the future as a result of the District’s Core Strategy (received on 30th September 2009). A plan of the development areas is presented in Appendix B. The information received is explored in more detail in the associated Report of Evidence. SBDC requested that five scenarios be assessed, namely: • Option 1 – Delivering the South East Plan housing numbers; • Option 2 – Core Strategy Development Levels; • Sub-Option 2a – Option 2 plus Opportunity Sites developed; • Sub-Option 2b – Option 2 plus Opportunity Sites developed and contingency land released; and • Sub-Option 2c – Option 2 plus Opportunity Sites developed and Project Pinewood developed. 5.4 The development options include the estimated residential development in the assessment period. All options take account of the committed non residential development in the area. No new employment sites are allocated in the Core Strategy, although some expansion of existing sites would be acceptable. It is expected that these would not be significant and exclusive to built- up urban areas, so have not been taken account of. Each option is considered in detail below. Option 1 5.5 This option includes houses that have been built or are under construction, or have been granted permission up to 31st March 2009. It then includes the ‘most likely’ category of SHLAA sites only, which includes those that may have previously had an application refused but that are in principle suitable for housing development. 5.6 The following table provides more detail on the location of the sites and when they would be expected to be built.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 31

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Table 5.1 – Option 1 Housing Figures by Settlement

Settlement 2006-2009 2009-2026 Total Beaconsfield 176 140 316 Gerrards Cross 125 102 227 Burnham 33 52 85 Denham Green 109 290 399 Iver Heath 32 8 40 Stoke Poges 15 69 84 Iver Village 23 48 71 Farnham Common 90 35 125 New Denham & Willowbank 0 152 152 Farnham Royal 52 0 52 Denham (South of village) 4 0 4 Richings Park 17 22 39 Rural Settlements 10 165 175 Other Locations 143 0 143 TOTAL 829 1083 1912

Option 2 5.7 This option includes houses that have been built or are under construction, or have been granted permission up to 31st March 2009. It then includes all of the sites which their SHLAA study indicates are deliverable or developable. 5.8 The following table provides more detail on the location of the sites and when they would be expected to be built. Table 5.2 – Option 2 Housing Figures by Settlement

Settlement 2006-2009 2009-2026 Total Beaconsfield 176 257 433 Gerrards Cross 125 159 284 Burnham 33 89 122 Denham Green 109 299 408 Iver Heath 32 33 65 Stoke Poges 15 106 121 Iver Village 23 70 93 Farnham Common 90 116 206 New Denham & Willowbank 0 152 152 Farnham Royal 52 0 52 Denham (South of village) 4 0 4 Richings Park 17 41 58 Rural Settlements 10 219 229 Other Locations 143 0 143 TOTAL 829 1541 2370

Sub-Option 2a 5.9 This sub-option includes the development anticipated in Option 2 together with the three opportunity sites being delivered as follows: • Wilton Park, Beaconsfield – approximately 300 dwellings (net gain). In terms of employment space, this is uncertain. However, if the whole site is released by MOD, then approximately 3.14 ha of the site could be used for a B1 Business Park. Assuming a plot density of 0.25

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 32

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

and an employment density of 18.3 square metres then this equates to about 429 employees. • Mill Lane, Taplow – approximately 100 dwellings. It is assumed that the new economic use on site would not occupy a greater area than existing, and therefore 200 jobs would be expected. In addition, a hotel/restaurant would be on site. A standard 100 bedroom hotel has been assumed, with 1 employee per 2 bedrooms, thus 50 employees for this.. • Court Lane, Iver – No residential use. Approximately 3,700 square metres employment use has been assumed, alongside 4 hectares of airport parking. There is currently 3,700 square metres of B2 / B8 use. Assuming an employment density 50 square metres for the existing use and 18.3 square metres for the new employment use, this would infer 74 jobs currently to be replaced by 200 jobs and hence a net gain of 126 jobs. Sub-Option 2b 5.10 This sub-option includes the development anticipated in Option 2, together with the opportunity sites, as well as an area of contingency land east of Beaconsfield released for development during the plan period. This would result in 500 additional dwellings. Sub-Option 2c 5.11 This sub-option includes the development anticipated in Option 2, together with the opportunity sites, and assumes that Project Pinewood would proceed. If permitted, Project Pinewood would be based next to the existing site of Pinewood Studios and the proposals include a purpose-built living and working community for film, television and creative industries. 5.12 The application includes up to 1,400 residential units, 8,000 square metres of employment floor space, a Screen Craft Academy and up to 2,000 square metres of local shops. It would be expected to provide 630 FTE jobs. The Project Pinewood planning application was refused planning permission in October 2009, but an appeal is anticipated. All Options 5.13 All the future development options take account of significant committed, non residential, developments in the area. These are: • Pinewood Studios; • Uxbridge Business Park; • Motorway Service Area at Beaconsfield, M40 Junction 2; • Tesco at Gerrards Cross; • Waitrose at Gerrards Cross; and • Bishop Centre, Taplow. Impact on Highway Network Link Capacity 5.14 This section refers to the capacity of road links, which have been calculated from relevant notes from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). Future proposals have been taken into account in the 2026 scenario, which includes the widening of the M25 from 3 lanes to 4 lanes in both directions between Junction 16 and 18. The link capacities have been compared to the predicted traffic flows, and those that are nearing or exceeding the link capacities have been highlighted.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 33

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

5.15 To evaluate the overall impact of each development option on the highway network, the predicted operation of the road links has been compared with the Future Base scenarios for 2026. Therefore although many links may be nearing or over capacity, it is only those that show a notable difference to the Future Base corresponding year that will be commented on since this then excludes impacts solely related to future background growth excluding development. 5.16 The links that are predicted to be over capacity, over and above the future base scenario, are shown in the following table. This shows those links that are nearing capacity (operating over 85 percent of their theoretical capacity). Links with flows that are exceeding capacity have been highlighted in bold. Where there are no entries in the table, the links are either operating below 85 percent of their theoretical capacity and therefore considered to be working efficiently or they show minimal difference to the Future Base. Table 5.3 – Links Predicted to be Nearing or Over Capacity in 2026, Over and Above the Future Base Scenario

Development Option Link Results as Percentage of Capacity (%) Link AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 2 2a 2b 2c 1 2 2a 2b 2c M4 J 5 to 6 westbound ------103 103 103 104 M4 J5 to 4B eastbound ------95 95 95 B470 Langley Park Road -- - - 91 - - - - - south-westbound

B470 Langley Park Road -- - - - 89 90 92 95 100 north-eastbound B470 Iver High Street 96 97 100 100 102 - - - - - eastbound

B470 Iver High Street -- - - - 102 103 106 106 107 westbound Wood Lane (Iver) 112 112 113 113 122 96 97 97 97 104 southbound Wood Lane (Iver) 100 100 100 100 108 103 104 104 104 114 northbound A412 Church Road north- 99 99 100 100 128 142 143 144 144 172 eastbound at Iver Heath A412 Church Road south- 117 117 118 119 147 109 110 111 111 138 westbound at Iver Heath A4007 Slough Road - 85 85 85 93 - - - - - eastbound at Iver A4007 Slough Road ------89 westbound at Iver A4020 Oxford Road 109 109 110 111 110 - - - - - southbound at Uxbridge A4020 Oxford Road - - - - 117 117 118 119 118 northbound at Uxbridge A412 Denham Avenue 99 99 100 100 101 -----

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 34

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

southbound

A412 Denham Avenue ------85 85 86 northbound B416 Packhorse Road - - - 85 88 - 85 86 87 91 southbound at Gerrards Cross B416 Packhorse Road ------85 northbound at Gerrards Cross A4 Bath Road eastbound ------85 85 88 near Burnham

A355 Farnham Road - - - 86 ------southbound at Farnham Royal A355 Amersham Road 93 93 94 95 97 - - - - - southbound at Beaconsfield

A355 Amersham Road - - - - - 113 113 115 115 115 northbound at Beaconsfield

B474 Station Road - - 88 101 88 - - - - - southbound at Beaconsfield A40 eastbound at 90 91 93 94 93 - - - - - Beaconsfield

A413 southbound at 111 112 112 112 112 - - - - - Chalfont St Giles A413 northbound at - - - - - 103 104 104 104 104 Chalfont St Giles A413 Amersham by pass - - - - - 114 114 114 114 114 westbound A355 Gore Hill 103 103 104 104 106 - - - - - southbound at Amersham A355 Gore Hill northbound - - - - - 90 90 91 91 92 at Amersham A416 Amersham Road ------85 85 85 north-westbound at Amersham

A416 Amersham Road 111 111 111 111 112 - - - - 86 south-eastbound at Amersham

A416 Berkhamsted Road - - - - - 104 104 105 105 106 northbound at Chesham

5.17 The results in the table above show that all development options except Option 2c would present a broadly similar impact on the highway network. This includes most impact being focused in Iver

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 35

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

and Beaconsfield as well as the A412 in Denham, A4020 Oxford Road at Uxbridge, A355 at Amersham and the A413 at Chalfont St Giles. The motorway links that would be near to or over capacity in the Future Base scenario (on the M25 and M4) are not predicted to have a significant increase as a result of development. Some links on the M40 including the slip roads at Junction 1 and 2 are predicted to have larger increases in traffic, but these would remain within capacity and have therefore not been highlighted in the table. 5.18 Whilst this table shows quite a few links over capacity, it is clear that the Future Base scenario for 2026 also predicts some links will be over capacity. It is difficult to quantify what proportion of the impact is from background growth and what proportion is a result of planning policy, as this varies by location and scenario. However, it can be said that in most locations only a quarter of the increase is due to planning policy; the rest being attributable to background growth. However, the requirement is clearly for a transport network that can accommodate the total development by 2026. 5.19 Option 1 has the least impact on the highway network, with Option 2 showing a slight worsening of this impact. 5.20 Option 2a is predicted to have slightly more impact than Option 1 and 2 with the inclusion of the Opportunity Areas. The impact from these is fairly consistent across all areas. 5.21 Option 2b presents a similar situation to 2a, with a small increase in the flows as a percentage of capacity on links in Beaconsfield as a result of the release of the contingency land here. This includes an increase on the M40 Junction 2 eastbound on slip. The increase in this traffic has knock on effects in Gerrards Cross and Farnham, although these are very minor and the links remain well within capacity. Thus the greatest impact from Option 2b can be considered to be in Beaconsfield and the junction with the M40. 5.22 Option 2c with Project Pinewood included, has the greatest impact of all options tested and is thus considered least favourable from a highway perspective. All links would see an increase over and above the other options, bringing many links closer to or further beyond their capacities. The effect is greatest in the Iver area where some key links would be brought further beyond their capacity. For example the A412 Church Road south-westbound link is predicted to operate at 147% capacity in the AM Peak Hour (compared with 86 percent in the Future Base scenario). The north-eastbound link is predicted to operate at 172 percent capacity in the PM Peak Hour (compared with 116% in the Future Base Scenario). These are significant increases on a road that is already congested and at / over capacity in the peak hours. However, the motorway links at M40 Junction 1 are predicted to remain within their capacity. 5.23 The substantial impact of Option 2c is a result of the Project Pinewood key development site including housing and employment use. It must be noted that these have been tested using our trip generation assumptions (as applied to all sites) rather than those included within the respective Transport Assessments. This is likely to make it a very worse case assessment as the individual Transport Assessments would include sustainable transport initiatives to reduce the vehicle trips and also trip reduction as a result of internal trips. Mitigation measures must therefore be factored in to assess the more realistic impact from development in the district, as these would form a key element in the individual planning applications. The revised impact scenario, with mitigation measures, is considered later in this Chapter. Mitigation Measures

5.24 From the results it is clear that regardless of which scenario is selected, mitigation measures will be required to facilitate development. Many of the measures proposed will be specific to each development site negotiated with the developer at the time of any planning applications. Other measures will be implemented by the Council as wider LTP initiatives. However, it is necessary to set out here what measures would likely be required in order for this level of development to be sustainable. It is recommended that these are focused on promoting sustainable transport and

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 36

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

encouraging a mode shift away from the private car. Highway infrastructure improvements would also need to be considered where relevant. Encouraging Travel by Sustainable Modes 5.25 These measures should focus on demand management measures to reduce car travel as well as initiatives to promote the use of more sustainable forms of transport. It is when these approaches work together that the measures will be most effective in limiting car-based trips. 5.26 The following measures are the most highly recommended to encourage trips by walking, cycling, car sharing and use of public transport. It is advised that these would be considered in all cases, and the suitability for implementation would be based on the site location characteristics. The proposed method of implementation of these measures is discussed later in this Chapter. • Public Transport Proposals – These would need to be tailored to the individual development sites. Consideration would be made to providing new and improved bus stops and information, re-routing bus services, shuttle bus services to rail stations / town centres as well as wider service improvements such as Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) and bus priority. • Public Transport Incentives – Consideration could be given to providing financial incentives to travel by rail or bus, incorporated within the Travel Plan. • Improved Walking and Cycling Facilities – This would primarily include infrastructure improvements where required with new sites and in town centres, such as pelican / toucan crossings, improved footways and footpaths (including lighting), cycle paths and traffic calming measures. These improvements should focus on providing suitable links to public transport, thus encouraging longer trips. Cycle parking should be adequate in town centre locations as well as at workplaces, in addition to showering and changing facilities. • Encouraging Car Sharing – This would include promoting the use of already set up car sharing schemes as well as car sharing amongst households and friendship or activity groups. At the larger development sites, both residential and workplace car share schemes could be set up. • Setting up Car Clubs – These would support reduced car ownership amongst households and therefore reduced trips would be likely. These may be more appropriate in town centre locations where lower parking levels are provided with the development. • Effective Residential Travel Plans in Place – Information disseminated to local residents to outline the objectives and purpose of the Travel Plan. It would be a ‘live’ document that is reviewed and updated regularly, with an appointed Travel Plan co-ordinator. The Plan would highlight the measures for encouraging travel by public transport, walking and cycling and for reducing car trips. It would be supported by specific targets to achieve the desired mode shares or other travel objectives. The Council is making Travel Plans an essential part of the planning process, with their effectiveness monitored accordingly in line with wider objectives. • School Travel Plans – these would have a central role in reducing car trips from the residential development. There are various measures they can be developed to encourage pupils away the private car. These would be likely to include a combination of implementing appropriate infrastructure for walking and cycling as well as publicity and campaigns to engage the pupils. 5.27 The demand management measures would aim to reduce the demand for making trips by car; they should also be focused on reducing the total number of trips, ie the demand to travel. The measures that will need to be considered are: • Parking Strategy – Parking restraints in terms of the availability and the cost of parking have a major impact on the number of trips; these controls could be used at workplaces and in

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 37

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

town centres. These measures could incorporate guaranteed parking for those that car share. The town centre development sites may also have reduced parking provision. Overall, it will be necessary for the Council to continually monitor parking supply to ensure it is in line with policy objectives. • Reducing the Need to Travel – these measures would focus on encouraging home working and encouraging home delivery for shopping and promoting this in association with local businesses. These ideas would ideally be promoted via the Residential Travel Plan as well as Workplace Travel Plans. Highway Improvements 5.28 It can also be appreciated that various road links and associated key junctions may need improvements / mitigation measures. The links on which mitigation measures would be recommended under each scenario are presented in Table 5.4, with a comment on the relevant junctions where appropriate. However, it is uncertain at this stage exactly what link improvements would be required in each location. Junction improvement, carriageway widening and general upgrading of roads would have the most significant improvement on increasing capacity, but may only be possible in isolated locations. Providing relief roads would be a more major solution to reduce congestion in Beaconsfield and Iver, for possible consideration in the longer term. Other measures to increase the link capacities away from the junctions may include carriageway realignment, increasing visibility, banning turns, providing right turn ghost islands or altering on- street parking and loading arrangements. The relevant measures would need to be considered at the site specific level as part of the Transport Assessment for each related planning application. Table 5.4 – South Bucks Options – Potential Mitigation Measures

Link Scenarios Potential Mitigation Measure for Highway Infrastructure A412 Church Road at Iver Heath All, but Link upgrades. Draft Route Strategy for especially A412 already developed – needs to be option 2c evaluated. Road widening / upgrade of Five Points Roundabout Assessment of mini-roundabouts on A412 A412 Denham Avenue All Link upgrades. Draft Route Strategy for A412 already developed – needs to be evaluated. Assessment of signalised junctions on A412, including intersection with A40 A355 Amersham Road at All Link upgrades Beaconsfield Aware that this route is termed an ‘Interurban Priority Congestion Management Corridor’ within BCC LTP2 Assessment of mini-roundabout junction of A40/A355. There are already safety concerns at this 5 arm roundabout and additional traffic is not desirable. If Wilton Park redevelopment proceeds, there will be an opportunity for a new access into the site from the Pyebush roundabout and the effective closure of the existing access from the A40/A355 mini roundabout. This access road could perhaps be extended to the A355 at a later stage to form a relief

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 38

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Link Scenarios Potential Mitigation Measure for Highway Infrastructure road, if funding can be found and other options are not proving to be effective. A40 at Beaconsfield 2b Link upgrades. Redevelopment of Wilton Park could add to traffic flows on A40 (at the Pyebush roundabout) unless mitigation measures are included. Assessment of the A40/B4440 Woburn Green Lane, A40/B474 and A40/A355 roundabouts A413 at Chalfont St Giles 2, 2a, 2b, Link upgrades 2c Assessment of A413/B4442 double min- roundabout junction at Chalfont St Giles and the A413/Joiners Lane//High Street junction at Chalfont St Peter A413 at Amersham 2, 2a, 2b, Link upgrades 2c Assessment of A413/A404 Chequers Hill roundabout A355 Gore Hill at Amersham All Link upgrades Assessment of A413/A404/A355 Gore Hill roundabout A413 Amersham by pass All Link upgrades Assessment of A404/A413 and A404/A355 roundabout junctions A416 Amersham Road at All Link upgrades Amersham Assessment of A416/A404 mini- roundabout at The Boot and Slipper PH A416 Berkhamsted Road at All Link upgrades Chesham Assessment of A416 roundabout junctions in Chesham Delivery 5.29 It is expected that many of the measures mentioned above would be delivered through Section 106 agreements as part of the planning applications for the individual development sites. The Travel Plans would be the catalyst for achieving most of the objectives. 5.30 There would also be improvements that would come about as part of the wider LTP objectives, in particular improvements to the bus network. For example one of the LTP targets is to increase bus patronage through improved marketing of services and an improved network and timetable. They also propose to introduce Quality Bus Partnerships. These initiatives would help mitigate against the adverse effects of development. Some of these road improvements may be able to be implemented by the County Council as Highways Authority, perhaps in partnership with others, if and when funding becomes available. Another option would be to fund improvements through a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) if this is introduced by the District Council. 5.31 In terms of School Travel Plans, these would be implemented and further developed in line with government and Local Authority objectives. The DfT target is for all schools to have an ‘approved’

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 39

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Travel Plans by 2010. BCC have a strategy in place to help achieve this and it includes giving advice and guidance to schools where necessary. 5.32 In addition, wider Travel Planning is promoted and is considered an ‘essential’ part of the planning process. Improvements at workplaces in this respect will help to alleviate any adverse effects from the increased residential development. Revised Impact Scenario with Mitigation Measures Link Capacity 5.33 As a result of the mitigation measures proposed above, in particular demand management measures, it is anticipated that there would be a shift away from the private car towards more sustainable modes of transport. It is therefore expected that the percentage capacities for links presented in Table 5.3 are likely to be reduced as a result of these measures. This evaluation has therefore included a test for this proposed scenario whereby the vehicle trips associated with the development are reduced. The expected mode shift away from the private car (resulting from reduced overall trips and increased use of sustainable modes) is difficult to quantify at this stage as the measures are not confirmed and in place; they would be specific to the individual sites, which vary in their location characteristics. Furthermore, there is limited research as the Department for Transport (DfT) state that the benefits of residential Travel Plans are not fully understood yet. However, in order to make an assessment of the effect these measures would have on the highway network, some assumptions have been made as to the likely mode shift. These have been based on discussions with the HA as well as reference to DfT guidance and their research into personalised travel planning which confirms that: - "Personalised travel planning reduces car driver trips amongst targeted populations by 7- 15% in urban areas and 2-6% in rural areas". 5.34 In line with this, two broad mode shift figures have been applied to the South Bucks development options as follows: • 10 percent reduction in town centres / urban areas; and • 5 percent reduction in edge of town and out of town areas. 5.35 The quantum of development at each settlement has been categorised as either ‘town centre’ or an ‘edge of town’ location. As a town centre location is defined here as within 15 minutes walk time of a main rail station, the settlements with rail stations have been categorised as ‘town centre’; this includes Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross, Burnham and Denham Green. All other residential areas have been categorised as ‘edge of town’ and hence subject to a 5 percent mode shift from mitigation measures. 5.36 The non-residential developments were considered on a case-by-case basis based on their proximity to a main line rail station. The committed development at Pinewood Studios and the potential development of Project Pinewood are considered to be unique due to their large scale and mix of uses. Significant internal trips would be expected as well as substantial measures to encourage travel by sustainable transport and other demand management measures. It has been beyond the scope of this assessment to take account of these predictions, including the revised highway design; therefore an assumption for mode shift has been made for these purposes. It has been predicted that a 15 percent mode shift would occur, which is consistent with the maximum figure quoted in the DfT research above. 5.37 To evaluate the impact of each scenario on the highway network with the revised vehicle trips, the predicted operation of the road links have again been compared with the Future Base scenarios.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 40

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Therefore, although many links may be nearing or over capacity, it is only those that show a notable difference to the Future Base corresponding year that will be commented on since this then excludes impacts solely related to future background growth excluding development. This is to ensure that the development effect is clearly identified, rather than focusing on the effect from background traffic growth. Table 5.5 presents the links that would be nearing or over capacity in 2026, over and above the Future Base scenario. The traffic flows and percentage capacities are presented in Appendix D for this revised scenario. Table 5.5 – Links Predicted to be Nearing or Over Capacity in 2026, Over and Above the Future Base Scenario, with Mitigation Measures in Place

Development Option Link Results as Percentage of Capacity (%) Link AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 2 2a 2b 2c 1 2 2a 2b 2c M4 J 5 to 6 westbound ------102 103 103 103 M4 J5 to 4B eastbound ------95 B470 Langley Park Road -- - - 89 - - - - - south-westbound B470 Langley Park Road - - - - - 89 90 92 95 98 north-eastbound

B470 Iver High Street 96 96 100 100 101 - - - - - eastbound B470 Iver High Street -- - - - 102 102 105 105 107 westbound Wood Lane (Iver) 111 112 112 112 120 95 95 96 96 102 southbound Wood Lane (Iver) 99 99 99 99 105 103 103 104 104 112 northbound A412 Church Road north- 98 98 99 100 122 139 139 140 140 164 eastbound at Iver Heath A412 Church Road south- 113 113 114 114 138 108 109 110 110 133 westbound at Iver Heath A4007 Slough Road - - - 85 91 - - - - - eastbound at Iver A4007 Slough Road ------88 westbound at Iver

A4020 Oxford Road 108 108 109 110 109 - - - - - southbound at Uxbridge A4020 Oxford Road - - - - - 116 116 117 118 117 northbound at Uxbridge A412 Denham Avenue 98 99 99 99 100 ----- southbound A412 Denham Avenue ------85 northbound B416 Packhorse Road - - - - 85 - - - 85 88

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 41

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

southbound at Gerrards Cross A4 Bath Road westbound ------85 85 88 near Burnham

A355 Farnham Road - - - 86 ------southbound at Farnham Royal A355 Amersham Road 92 92 93 94 96 - - - - - southbound at Beaconsfield A355 Amersham Road - - - - - 113 113 114 115 115 northbound at Beaconsfield B474 Station Road - - 85 97 86 - - - - - southbound at Beaconsfield

A40 eastbound at 90 90 92 93 92 - - - - - Beaconsfield

A413 southbound at 111 111 111 111 112 - - - - - Chalfont St Giles A413 northbound at - - - - - 103 103 103 103 103 Chalfont St Giles A413 Amersham by pass - - - - - 112 114 114 114 114 westbound A355 Gore Hill 103 103 103 104 105 - - - - - southbound at Amersham A355 Gore Hill northbound - - - - - 89 89 90 90 91 at Amersham

A416 Amersham Road ------85 85 86 north-westbound at Amersham

A416 Amersham Road 110 110 111 111 111 - - - - 85 south-eastbound at Amersham A416 Berkhamsted Road - - - - - 104 104 105 105 105 northbound at Chesham

5.38 The results presented in the table above show that overall the impact on the highway network would be slightly reduced with the mitigation measures in place. Nearly all links would see a minimum reduction in their link operation as a percentage of capacity. The overall impact of the options would remain broadly the same. The conclusions in terms of the comparative impact of the options remains the same as described above, thus the impact is lowest for Option 1, followed by Option 2, and then Option 2a and 2b, with Option 2c generating the most significant impact on the highway network. 5.39 Whilst this table shows a lot of links would experience capacity problems, this impact incorporates the background traffic growth to 2026. The Future Base scenario was reviewed in Chapter 4 of this report and also showed many of the same links to be operating close to or over capacity. Whilst all development options show an increase over and above the Future Base on these links,

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 42

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

the increase is in many cases around 5 percentage points. Links that see an increase much greater than this are focused in the Iver area and also includes the A4020 in Uxbridge. This is the case in all options and then even more so in Option 2c. The effect in Iver in all options is mainly a result of the Pinewood Studios committed development, which includes an estimated additional 1500 new jobs to 2026. 5.40 Bearing these points in mind, overall the conclusion from this analysis would be that options 1-2b could be delivered without an unacceptable impact on the road network with appropriate mitigation in place. As well as the mitigation measures to promote sustainable travel, this would also include the need for highway improvements in some areas as summarised in Table 5.4. However, the intention would be to reduce reliance on increasing highway capacity and focus on travel management measures wherever possible. Individual assessments would need to be carried out to confirm mitigation requirements at a more local level. 5.41 As the analysis here shows that Option 2c would present more serious capacity constraints in the Iver area, it cannot be concluded whether the impact on the road network would be at an acceptable level with mitigation measures. This would require more detailed testing that incorporates the detailed trip generation predictions and takes account of the highway improvements and other mitigation measures proposed in the Transport Assessment for Project Pinewood. Traffic Increases

5.42 The results presented above include only those links that are nearing or over capacity and focus on the comparative impact between the Future Base and future development options. 5.43 In terms of the operation of junctions on the Strategic Highway Network, the motorway slip roads at the key junctions have been examined again with the revised impact scenario. The traffic flows, being the total on all slip roads, at each of the key junctions are presented in Tables 5.6 and 5.7 for all scenarios, providing a comparison to the Base and Future Base. 5.44 It is clear that there is a large difference in the traffic flows between the 2026 Future Base scenario and the 2026 development options. A large contributor to this is the fact that the committed development traffic has been added to the development scenario only. This approach was taken as a proportion of the housing allocation being promoted in the Core Strategy includes already committed developments; as these are part of the Core Strategy, they have been considered within the development scenario tested. However, it is clear that the non-residential committed developments are contributing significantly to the traffic flows, and this is distorting the results in terms of increasing the development impact. The committed development traffic related to the following committed developments has therefore been calculated and is highlighted in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. • Pinewood Studios; • Uxbridge Business Park; • Motorway Service Area at Burtley Wood (M40 Junction 2); • Tesco at Gerrards Cross; • Waitrose at Gerrards Cross; and • Bishop Centre at Taplow.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 43

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Table 5.6 – Flow Comparison Summary at Motorway Junctions – AM Peak Hour

Junction 2009 2026 2026 + Option Option Option Option Option Base Future Commi 1 2 2a 2b 2c Base tted* M40 J1 5392 6407 6718 6794 6818 6886 6960 7122 M40 J2 4724 5613 6290 6314 6335 6408 6496 6522 M25 J15/ 10694 12706 12757 12772 12799 12801 12807 12837 M4 J4B M25 J16/ 9783 11625 11728 11754 11764 11790 11826 11844 M40 J1a M4 J5 4361 5182 5251 5259 5265 5271 5271 5351 M4 J7 3220 3816 3844 3857 3863 3899 3899 3899 *Non-residential committed developments

Table 5.7 – Flow Comparison Summary at Motorway Junctions – PM Peak Hour

Junction 2009 2026 2026 + Option Option Option Option Option Base Future Commi 1 2 2a 2b 2c Base tted* M40 J1 5470 6381 6702 6777 6801 6885 6940 7096 M40 J2 3171 5449 6172 6195 6216 6311 6374 6397 M25 J15/ 10414 12147 12214 12231 12238 12260 12264 12294 M4 J4B M25 J16/ 9221 10756 10868 10895 10903 10942 10964 10980 M40 J1a M4 J5 4264 4973 5046 5054 5060 5067 5067 5146 M4 J7 3123 3644 3705 3720 3726 3759 3759 3759 *Non-residential committed developments

5.45 The traffic flows included in Tables 5.6 and 5.7 show that the committed development traffic is accounting for much of the increase in the future development options. These tables highlight the additional impact resulting from the development showing that at M40 Junction 1, this is approximately 170 vehicles per hour in Option 2a (South Bucks preferred option) and 400 in Option 2c (with Project Pinewood). At M40 Junction 2, the additional development traffic is approximately 120 vehicles per hour in Option 2a and 230 in Option 2c. It is clear from this breakdown that the development options do not add significant traffic volumes to the most critical junctions on the SRN. 5.46 However, the future predicted traffic flows at some of these junctions are substantial and are likely to result in capacity problems where there are already identified capacity concerns. Whilst the link capacity analysis results presented earlier in this section (Table 5.5) did not highlight M40 Junction 1 as nearing capacity in the future development options, local knowledge and discussions with the Highways Agency (HA) have confirmed that this does already experience congestion resulting from the operation of the junctions. This was not picked up by the link capacity analysis as that focuses on the capacity of the slip road in terms of the number of lanes without taking account of the effect from the junctions, which clearly have a significant effect on

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 44

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

the capacity of a road network. The operation of M40 Junction 1 could therefore be expected to worsen particularly beyond 2016. 5.47 However, in considering this, it is apparent that the Future 2026 traffic flows include an element of double counting of trips as the background traffic growth factors used have not excluded the Core Strategy development which is then included within the development trips. This has been highlighted by the HA in their review of the work. As a result, it can be considered that the future traffic flows presented are a very worst case scenario that may not be realised. 5.48 Notwithstanding this, as M40 Junction 1 is currently viewed to be experiencing some level of congestion, this is expected to worsen in future years due to its location at a major intersection of the M40, A40, A412 and A4020, with traffic from key development areas passing through the junction. It is viewed that operation at this junction could be improved towards the end of the plan period (2021-26) with some widening of the slip roads, which would importantly limit the chance of blocking back onto the Strategic Road Network. 5.49 The impact at M40 Junction 1 is not attributable to South Bucks alone or a single development, as most of the trips arise from background growth with development in London Borough of Hillingdon and Slough contributing, as well as already committed developments. The strategy for addressing future concerns at this junction would need to be defined later in the plan period through joint working between the Highways Agency, Bucks County Council, South Bucks DC and other agencies. Potential sources of funding for the works will also need to be identified. Impact on Sustainable Modes of Travel

5.50 A multi-modal trip generation analysis has been undertaken to estimate the number of future trips made per mode of transport for each of the options assessed. This is based on the revised traffic impact scenario which assumes there would be mitigation measures to encourage greater use of sustainable modes of transport. These measures include those highlighted earlier in this Chapter, implemented through developer contributions as well as the County’s LTP initiatives. The trip numbers presented in this section are expected levels to be achieved between 2009 and 2026 based on these assumptions. 5.51 Results from the analysis show that most of the journeys resulting from the future developments will be undertaken by private car. This is a reflection of the high car ownership and travel patterns in the area. Whilst the trips generated by sustainable modes of transport look to be significant, it is unlikely they would have a notable impact as they would be distributed across all development areas and feed into various public transport services as well as walking / cycle routes. 5.52 The main development areas included in all options, namely Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and Denham Green are generally comparatively well served by public transport. As all potential development areas are situated in the vicinity of existing residential areas, it can be concluded that the existing cycle and pedestrian infrastructure would accommodate the level of trip generation, or the networks could be improved to do so, although this would need to be reviewed at a local level. 5.53 The multi modal trip generation for all development options is shown in Table 5.8 below Table 5.8 –Multi Modal Total Two Way Person Trips for All Development Options

Mode AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 2 2a 2b 2c 1 2 2a 2b 2c Public Transport 593 651 768 870 1045 686 744 886 957 1127 Cycle 124 136 160 181 218 143 155 184 199 235 Pedestrians 346 380 448 508 610 400 434 517 558 658

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 45

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Mode AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 1 2 2a 2b 2c 1 2 2a 2b 2c Subtotal Sustainable 1063 1167 1376 1560 1872 1228 1333 1587 1715 220 Modes Car 2741 3010 3548 4022 4828 3168 3439 4092 4424 5209

Total 3804 4178 4923 5582 6701 4396 4772 5679 6139 7229

5.54 The results in Table 5.8 show that the overall volume of trips increases with each option as expected due to the greater quantum of development. The proportion of trips by each mode is consistent with each option; this demonstrates that most trips by sustainable transport modes in the AM and PM Peak Hours would be by public transport. This includes travel by train and bus and is consistent with the dominant commuting pattern in South Bucks. Pedestrian trips are the next largest, and then each option includes a relatively low volume of cycling trips. 5.55 These predictions are based on measures to promote travel by sustainable modes being in place and would therefore infer improvements to the existing infrastructure. It is considered that the main, more urban, development areas included within all options would be well placed to support the number of predicted trips. However, to ensure they can be realised, infrastructure improvements would be required in Beaconsfield, Burnham and Iver in particular. Improvements would also need to focus on the more rural areas, where existing infrastructure is less well developed. This should focus in particular on measures to increase the proportion of cyclists in the Peak Hours. Overall, continuous investment in public transport, cycle and pedestrian infrastructure would help to encourage travel by sustainable modes and ensure these levels can be achieved. In Option 2a, 2b and 2c with the development of the Opportunity Areas, there is more need for investment in Beaconsfield than Options 1 and 2. In Option 2c, substantial investment would be required in the Iver area to mitigate the effects of the Project Pinewood development.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 46

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 This Transport Evaluation has included trip generation predictions for five development options in South Bucks District, Buckinghamshire. These development options are being examined through the Core Strategy process and the results of this Transport Evaluation will inform the decision on which option will be progressed in the Proposed Submission Core Strategy. It has incorporated these in a spreadsheet model of trip distribution and assignment to assess the impacts in relation to the link capacities on the strategic and local highway network in and around the South Bucks District. The Study Area has incorporated the neighbouring Chiltern District. 6.2 Conclusions from the evaluation highlight the importance of making use and optimising existing areas of development. National, Regional and Local policies recommend that future development makes use of existing transport infrastructure as much as possible in order to avoid the reliance on the private car and encourage sustainable modes of transport. Improved accessibility is one of the County’s key objectives in its LTP. Ensuring residents have access to goods and services is a key concern in locating development and avoiding the traffic impacts associated with this. 6.3 It is therefore clear that proposed areas for development should be located in areas with good public transport access to discourage trips by private car and reduce potential traffic impacts. All the development scenarios proposed for the South Bucks District include a focus for development in the urban areas, namely Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross, Burnham and Denham Green which already have good rail and bus services. However Option 2c would focus more of this development close to Iver Heath, which is a smaller settlement, with more limited facilities and public transport access. Development that is concentrated in the urban settlements is therefore preferred from the wider transport perspective than development in Green Belt locations. However, all options do include some development in the more rural settlements. 6.4 In terms of the link capacity analysis, some generic key findings of our study are as follows: • Expected background levels of traffic growth in the Study Area will exacerbate existing highway capacity problems and create new problems in some other areas notwithstanding the potential development; and • The potential developments associated with the South Bucks Core Strategy will also have an impact on the transport networks within the Study Area which will add to existing problems. 6.5 The assessment of the development impact on the highway network has shown that all options except Option 2c would have a similar impact on the highway network, although of these Option 1 would have the least impact, followed by Option 2, then 2a and 2b. They would all show the most ‘critical’ links to be brought closer to or further beyond capacity over and above the Future Base scenario. It is apparent from the evaluation that most impact would be focused in Iver and Beaconsfield as well as the A412 in Denham, A4020 Oxford Road at Uxbridge, A355 at Amersham and the A413 at Chalfont St Giles. 6.6 In terms of the impact on the Strategic Road Network, no links that were nearing or over capacity in the Future Base Scenario were predicted to be significantly worsened in the development options. However, when looking at the traffic flows on the slip roads, there are considerable increases predicted to 2026. Whilst much of this increase is attributable to background traffic growth from various areas other than South Bucks alone, the issue remains that it is likely that some motorway junctions could experience operational problems in the plan period. From discussions with the HA, M40 Junction 1 has been highlighted as a concern, as it already experiences some level of congestion due to the operation of the junctions. M40 Junction 2 was upgraded in 2009 to be widened and signalised for the Motorway Service Area, and is therefore not considered to present a capacity constraint.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 47

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

6.7 Due to the significant impact on the road network from development in South Bucks, mitigation measures to promote sustainable travel would be needed. In light of this, a revised highway impact scenario has been undertaken with a predicted mode shift away from the private car, which has been assessed to demonstrate the impact with mitigation measures in place. It is expected that mitigation measures would be required for all development options, especially with the background traffic growth taken account of as is the case in this analysis. As discussed in this report these measures should focus on promoting travel by alternative means to the private car, through Travel Plans, with the focus on making travel by sustainable transport modes more attractive than currently the case in the area. 6.8 The revised traffic impact assessment (with mitigation measures taken account of) showed a small reduction in trips on all links including the Strategic Highway Network, therefore reducing the impact on capacities to a minimum extent. It is apparent that measures to improve highway capacity may be required in some locations, although this would require further work at the detailed planning application stage. In particular, M40 Junction 1 may need some infrastructure improvements later in the plan period, although funding for this would need to be identified. 6.9 Overall the conclusions from this analysis show that whilst Option 1 would be most preferable from a transport perspective, options 1-2b could be delivered without an unacceptable impact on the road network with appropriate mitigation in place. Option 2c would require further work to evaluate the impact of the development with the proposed mitigation measures included in the analysis. In the case of options 1-2b individual assessments would be required to confirm the mitigation requirements at the local level. 6.10 From an analysis of trips generated on sustainable transport modes, the options present a similar impact as that on the highway network, with Option 1 generating the least trips, followed by Option 2, 2a, 2b and 2c. In all options the most significant proportion of trips would be by public transport. Whilst much of the development proposed is concentrated in urban areas with main line rail stations, and generally considered to have a good level of pedestrian infrastructure, further improvements would be required to support all development options in particular in the more rural areas and also encouraging cycling as a viable alternative mode of transport. The investment required would be most substantial in Option 2c with the development of Project Pinewood just outside Iver Heath.

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 48

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Appendix A

Baseline Conditions

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 49

Evaluation of Transport Impacts

A.1 Road Network and Areas of Congestion

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 50

A41

A416

A413

B4505

CHESHAM

A4128 8

B485 A416

3 A413 AMERSHAM

A404 A404 A404

12 11

10

A404 J18 B4442 A404

A413

J17 CHALFONT ST. GILES 6 A412 A355

B474

CHALFONT A413 ST. PETER

A40 M40

BEACONSFIELD A412 J3 A40 M25 14 15 A40 J2 A413 M40

4 GERRARDS CROSS

A40

9

J1 J16/1a

A4020

B416 A355 A412

A4007

BURNHAM M25

IVER A412 A4

SLOUGH 5

A4 J7 A404(M)

A308(M) 7 M4 J6 A4

J8/9 J15/4B

J5 M4

ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Motorways

Local Road Network Figure 2 Roads Identified as suffering from congestion (before development) Road Network Evaluation of Transport Impacts

A.2 Sustainable Modes of Travel

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 51

A41

A416

A413

B4505

CHESHAM

A4128 8

B485 A416

3 A413 AMERSHAM

A404 A404 A404

12 11

10

A404 J18 B4442 A404

A413

J17 CHALFONT ST. GILES 6 A412 A355

B474

CHALFONT A413 ST. PETER

A40 M40

BEACONSFIELD A412 J3 A40 M25

15 A40 J2 A413 M40

4 GERRARDS CROSS

A40

9

J1 J16/1a

A4020

B416 A355 A412

A4007

BURNHAM M25

IVER A412 A4

SLOUGH 5

A4 J7 A404(M)

A308(M) 7 M4 J6 A4

J8/9 J15/4B

J5 M4

ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Train Station Motorways

Rail Lines Local Road Network

Core Bus Route Figure 3

Sustainable Modes of Transport Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Appendix B

Location of Development Areas

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 52

±

ndon

Lo Principal corridors of Principal movement Principal Settlements Settlements Principal Secondary Settlements Opportunity Sites South of Iver Area Opportunity

Court Lane Iver ! ( Key A4020

A412 M25 M4 A40 M25

A413 Chiltern A412

Wilton Park Beaconsfield Gerrards Cross Gerrards A40 M40 Slough

A355 A355

M4 A4

e b Beaconsfield com y W

igh H Burnham Mill Lane Taplow Maidenhead Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Appendix C

Future Base Traffic Flows

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 53

794 965

508 344 692 599

1053 1763

474 766 311 8 598 273 233

775 1316 1

359 461 849 1210

1563 3 732 457 557 993 595 861 574 850 922 522 942 1233 528 705 1012 12 589 11 733 791 10 678 783 1756 962 638 992 1033 961 320 687 J18 N/A

883 1124 5038 5181

567 324 669 789 J17 644 318 638

6 523

292 791 755 1219

4979 5186 468 675 963 1087

945 589 J3 1132 851 751 1346 807 14 5506 2054 15 1698 969 4714 J2 879 440 822 670 678 581 485 661

4

1399 485 5561 670 889 567 1378 1056 4478 627 571 779 1690 9 1854 2427 741 663 859 1941 4450 1447 582 1590 J1 2269 J16/1a 1078 1277 3777 1575

577 738 637 1288 1248 1846

903 793 742 467

588 841 6610 7336

1132 673 1262 404 882 670 854 709 669 642

370 470 5

537 620 1011 885 5707 J7 434 316 5923

834 480 1371 456 335 3050 1283 1112 7 420 306 5481 4944 J6 1085 1278 1371 2540 2039 860 816 1677 715 1082 1074 J8/9 5159 1308 5649 824 J15/4B 1699 1481 1113 1193 6063 J5 1408 1265 6270 1745 1159 1255

Traffic Flows --- Base Scenario : AM Peak Hour, 2009 870 732

318 390 900 730

1345 1038

300 482 425 8 637 249 232

916 764 1

435 370 917 931

694 3 1578 509 403 952 661 1118 670 845 947 643 975 588 618 861 1104 12 1184 11 760 772 10 1171 1236 1053 611 400 721 801 1738 230 1025 J18 N/A

988 839 5622 5047

794 284 1100 672 J17 478 445 400

6 394

817 311 1139 784

5322 4853 536 518 1400 871

748 744 J3 776 507 912 1676 1075 14 4864 1666 15 1104 1153 5506 J2 756 408 1096 777 667 568 453 378

4

779 491 4645 497 1202 422 1098 1157 6002 573 668 564 1578 9 1443 1936 848 619 794 2130 3839 838 752 1701 J1 1817 J16/1a 1560 1371 4566 1263

775 582 1429 760 1116 2012

412 1014 891 884

695 588 6566 6482

1186 438 1216 633 651 881 683 779 976 956

436 287 5

676 547 690 647 5325 J7 362 486 5306

1182 604 964 403 282 3069 1251 1417 7 536 350 6263 5303 J6 1303 1007 1192 3237 1753 1169 635 1363 797 1348 1458 J8/9 5587 1448 5412 747 J15/4B 1987 1316 847 1222 6063 J5 1391 1249 5909 1409 1421 1293

Traffic Flows --- Base Scenario : PM Peak Hour, 2009 927 1126

593 402 807 699

1229 2057

553 894 363 8 698 319 271

904 1536 1

419 538 991 1412

1824 3 854 533 650 1159 695 1005 670 992 1076 609 1100 1439 617 823 1181 12 688 11 855 940 10 791 913 2049 1123 758 1158 1206 1121 380 802 J18 N/A

1030 1311 5986 6157

673 378 780 921 J17 752 377 758

6 621

340 923 881 1422

5917 6163 556 802 1144 1292

1123 700 J3 1345 1012 893 1600 959 14 6542 2441 15 2017 1151 5602 J2 1044 522 977 796 805 690 576 785

4

1663 576 6608 796 1057 673 1637 1255 5321 745 679 926 2009 9 2204 2884 880 788 1020 2307 5288 1720 692 1889 J1 2697 J16/1a 1281 1517 4488 1871

685 877 756 1531 1483 2194

1073 943 882 555

698 999 7855 8717

1345 800 1500 480 1048 796 1015 842 794 763

440 558 5

638 736 1202 1052 6781 J7 516 375 7039

991 571 1630 542 398 3624 1524 1321 7 499 364 6514 5875 J6 1289 1518 1629 3018 2423 1021 969 1993 849 1286 1276 J8/9 6131 1555 6712 979 J15/4B 2019 1760 1322 1418 7205 J5 1673 1504 7451 2073 1377 1491

Traffic Flows --- Base Scenario : AM Peak Hour, 2026 1002 843

366 449 1037 841

1569 1212

346 563 490 8 744 290 271

1069 892 1

508 432 1070 1087

798 3 1817 594 470 1095 761 1287 772 986 1105 751 1138 687 721 1005 1289 12 1381 11 887 901 10 1367 1442 1212 713 467 830 935 2001 269 1180 J18 N/A

1138 966 6558 5887

926 331 1284 784 J17 558 519 467

6 460

940 358 1311 902

6208 5661 625 604 1633 1016

873 884 J3 905 603 1063 1992 1253 14 5674 1943 15 1312 1346 6422 J2 882 485 1278 906 778 674 538 449

4

909 583 5418 590 1402 502 1305 1375 7001 681 779 658 1875 9 1714 2301 989 722 926 2531 4478 978 877 1984 J1 2120 J16/1a 1820 1599 5326 1473

904 679 1667 886 1302 2347

480 1182 1039 1031

810 686 7659 7561

1384 511 1418 738 759 1028 812 925 1139 1116

509 335 5

789 638 805 755 6212 J7 422 567 6189

1379 705 1124 470 335 3580 1459 1652 7 625 416 7306 6185 J6 1520 1174 1391 3776 2044 1363 754 1590 947 1572 1700 J8/9 6518 1689 6313 871 J15/4B 2318 1535 988 1425 7072 J5 1623 1456 6893 1644 1658 1508

Traffic Flows --- Base Scenario : PM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

A41 57% 68%

A416

A413 46% 31% 68% 59%

B4505

25% 42%

36% 56% 24% A4128 8 44% 27% 23% B485 43% 74% 1 A416

40% 51% 65% 93%

37% 3 A413 17% 45% 55% 76% 49% 66% 47% 59% 64% 36% A404 A404 57% A404 69% 36% 54% 61% 12 33% 11 56% 56% 10 37% 60% 42% 52% 18% 69% 80% A404 54% 23% 48% J18 B4442 N/A A404

67% 85% 72% 74% A413

16% 29% 49% 58% J17 58% 9% 18%

6 15% A412 A355

B474 22% 60% 58% 94%

A413

A40 M40 71% 74% 40% 58% 65% 74%

A412 68% 42% J3 73% 20% 48% M25 A40 32% 22% 14 59% 46% 15 40% 27% A40 51% J2 44% A413 49% 18% 39% 39% M40 35% 54% 40%

4

33% 48% 60% 66% 21% 39% 79% 60% 48% 43% A40 45% 62% 27% 9 44% 39% 21% 18% 24% 31% 64% 40% 16% 44% J1 63% J16/1a 30% 35% 54% 44%

39% 50% 41% 83% 35% 51% A4020

B416 A355 66% 34% 78% 73% A412

45% 65% A4007 71% 79%

27% M25 52% 30% 31% 77% 43% A412 92% 76% A4 43% 56%

26% 33% 5

58% 67% 28% 63% A4 82% J7 43% 31% 85% A404(M) 23% 13% 38% 49% 25% 56% 36% 31% 7 A308(M) A4 45% 23% M4 79% 71% J6 20% 71% 76% 71% 57% 24% 74% 47% 65% 60% 30% J8/9 74% 36% 81% 59% J15/4B 47% 41% 31% 33% 87% J5 78% 35% 90% M4 48% 32% 35% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- 2009 Base Scenario: AM Peak Hour pp

A41 62% 52%

A416

A413 29% 35% 88% 72%

B4505

32% 25%

23% 35% 32% A4128 8 47% 24% 23% B485 51% 43% 1 A416

48% 41% 71% 72%

17% 3 A413 38% 50% 40% 73% 55% 86% 55% 59% 66% 44% A404 A404 59% A404 33% 42% 66% 66% 12 67% 11 58% 55% 10 64% 95% 25% 33% 11% 50% 62% A404 98% 16% 71% J18 B4442 N/A A404

75% 64% 81% 72% A413

22% 26% 81% 49% J17 43% 12% 11%

6 11% A412 A355

B474 62% 24% 88% 60%

A413

A40 M40 76% 70% 46% 45% 95% 59%

A412 53% 53% J3 50% 12% 59% M25 A40 40% 30% 14 52% 37% 15 26% 32% A40 59% J2 38% A413 45% 24% 45% 39% M40 34% 50% 23%

4

19% 48% 50% 49% 29% 29% 63% 66% 65% 39% A40 53% 45% 25% 9 34% 31% 24% 17% 22% 34% 55% 23% 21% 47% J1 50% J16/1a 43% 38% 65% 35%

53% 40% 92% 49% 31% 56% A4020

B416 A355 30% 65% 99% 87% A412

53% 45% A4007 71% 70%

28% M25 34% 29% 49% 57% 57% A412 74% 84% A4 63% 84%

31% 20% 5

73% 59% 19% 46% A4 76% J7 36% 48% 76% A404(M) 33% 17% 27% 43% 21% 57% 35% 39% 7 A308(M) A4 58% 27% M4 90% 76% J6 24% 56% 66% 90% 49% 32% 57% 38% 72% 75% 40% J8/9 80% 40% 78% 53% J15/4B 55% 37% 24% 34% 87% J5 77% 35% 85% M4 39% 39% 36% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- 2009 Base Scenario: PM Peak Hour pp

AAAA44441111 66% 80%

AAAA444411116666

AAAA444411113333 55554444%%%% 33336666%%%% 77779999%%%% 66669999%%%%

BBBB4444555500005555

29% 49%

44442222%%%% 66666666%%%% 22227777%%%% AAAA4444111122228888 8 51%% 33331111%%%% 22227777%%%% B485 55551111 8%8%%% 886666%%%% 1 AAAA444411116666

47% 60%% 77776666 1%1%%% 1100009999%%%%

44443333%%%% 3 A413 22220000%%%% 55552222% 66%%% 664444%%%% 89% 57% 777777%%% 555555%%% 69% 75% 444111%%% AAA444000444 A404 666666%%% AAA444000444 888111%%% 42% 666333%%% 71% 111222 39% 111111 66% 666777%%% 111000 444333%%% 777000%%% 444999%%% 61% 21% 81% 999333%%% AAA444000444 63% 222777%%% 555666%%% J18 BBB444444444222 NNN///AAA AAA444000444

78% 99% 64% 666666%%% A413

19% 34% 555777%%% 68% J17 68% 10% 21%

666 111777%%% AAA444111222 A355

BBB444777444 26% 70% 68% 109%

A413

A400

M400 64% 66% 444888%%% 666999%%% 78% 88%

AAA444111222 888000%%% 444999%%% J3 87% 222444%%% 555888%%% MMM222555 AAA444000 38% 222777%%% 14 15 70% 555444%%% 444888%%% 32%3322%% A40AA4400 6600%% J2 52% AA441133 5588%% 22% 4466%% 4477%% MM4400 4411%% 6644%% 47%

44

4400%% 5566%% 7711%% 78% 25%% 46% 9944%% 7722%% 5577%% 5511%% A40 5544%% 7733%% 3322%% 99 5533%% 46% 24% 22%% 2288%% 37%% 7766%% 488%% 1199%% 5522%% J1 75% J16/1a 36% 4422%% 64% 5522%%

47% 60% 4499%% 9999%% 4411%% 6611%% A4020

BB441166 A355 7799%% 41% 92% 86% AA441122

5544%% 7777%% A4007 8844%% 94%

3322%% MM2255 62% 3366%% 3377%% 92% 5511%% A412 109% 911%% AA44 51% 6677%%

31% 39% 55

6699%% 79% 33% 75% A4 97% J7 51% 37% 101% A404(M) 28% 16% 45% 58% 30% 67% 42% 37% 7 A308(M) A4 54% 28% M4 93% 84% J6 24% 84% 90% 84% 67% 28% 88% 55% 77% 71% 35% J8/9 88% 43% 96% 70% J15/4B 56% 49% 37% 39% 103% J5 93% 42% 107% M4 58% 38% 41% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- 2026 Base Scenario: AM Peak Hour pp

A41 71% 60%

A416

A413 33% 41% 102% 82%

B4505

37% 29%

26% 41% 37% A4128 8 55% 28% 27% B485 60% 50% 1 A416

56% 48% 82% 84%

19% 3 A413 43% 58% 46% 84% 63% 99% 64% 69% 77% 51% A404 A404 68% A404 39% 49% 77% 77% 12 78% 11 68% 64% 10 75% 111% 29% 39% 13% 58% 72% A404 112% 19% 82% J18 B4442 N/A A404

86% 73% 70% 63% A413

26% 30% 94% 58% J17 50% 14% 13%

6 13% A412 A355

B474 71% 27% 101% 69%

A413

A40 M40 67% 61% 54% 52% 111% 69%

A412 62% 62% J3 58% 14% 69% M25 A40 47% 35% 14 61% 43% 15 31% 37% A40 69% J2 44% A413 54% 28% 52% 45% M40 41% 60% 27%

4

22% 57% 58% 58% 33% 34% 75% 78% 75% 46% A40 62% 52% 30% 9 41% 37% 27% 20% 26% 40% 64% 27% 24% 55% J1 59% J16/1a 51% 44% 76% 41%

61% 46% 108% 57% 36% 65% A4020

B416 A355 35% 76% 116% 102% A412

62% 53% A4007 82% 81%

33% M25 39% 34% 57% 67% 66% A412 88% 100% A4 73% 98%

36% 24% 5

85% 69% 22% 54% A4 89% J7 41% 56% 89% A404(M) 38% 20% 31% 51% 25% 66% 41% 46% 7 A308(M) A4 67% 32% M4 105% 89% J6 28% 65% 77% 105% 57% 38% 68% 44% 85% 87% 47% J8/9 93% 47% 90% 62% J15/4B 64% 43% 27% 40% 101% J5 90% 40% 99% M4 46% 46% 42% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- 2026 Base Scenario: PM Peak Hour Evaluation of Transport Impacts

Appendix D

Estimated Traffic Flows South Bucks District Council

5064105/SBDC Transport Evaluation_revF.doc 54

928 1126

593 402 817 724

1233 2068

553 894 363 8 698 320 275

912 1554 1

422 540 1001 1435

1841 3 862 533 650 1159 697 1006 670 1005 1106 625 1107 1457 630 825 1203 12 696 11 857 940 10 795 921 2074 1128 758 1161 1218 1129 380 803 J18 N/A

1045 1354 6018 6231

682 379 789 936 J17 753 378 768

6 621

346 927 894 1446

5940 6228 597 854 1159 1355

1124 735 J3 1401 1041 960 1649 959 14 6630 2616 15 2135 1266 5629 J2 1274 618 1158 834 878 767 706 876

4

1694 624 6791 838 1071 790 1726 1298 5392 822 749 982 2070 9 2293 3036 888 837 1028 2381 5528 1955 702 1925 J1 2703 J16/1a 1355 1559 4578 1889

727 929 820 1674 1507 2200

1138 998 1150 619

725 1039 7891 8749

1472 814 1544 487 1090 872 1034 916 887 812

475 598 5

682 764 1205 1069 6836 J7 540 496 7080

994 589 1635 544 399 3624 1525 1322 7 503 364 6535 5912 J6 1290 1530 1635 3018 2423 1028 977 1993 859 1295 1282 J8/9 6162 1555 6762 986 J15/4B 2019 1760 1353 1418 7236 J5 1681 1533 7502 2098 1387 1491

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 1 : AM Peak Hour, 2026 1005 843

366 449 1061 856

1581 1219

346 563 490 8 744 294 273

1089 906 1

510 436 1096 1105

809 3 1837 594 470 1097 761 1288 773 1018 1127 772 1157 697 740 1006 1297 12 1403 11 890 901 10 1376 1457 1233 720 467 831 945 2023 271 1182 J18 N/A

1178 990 6636 5938

943 333 1304 799 J17 560 519 485

6 461

945 363 1342 925

6269 5695 668 655 1664 1047

873 935 J3 992 646 1173 2107 1254 14 5710 2101 15 1389 1493 6503 J2 1044 674 1557 977 828 800 736 559

4

924 658 5495 670 1430 606 1363 1460 7175 832 855 746 1980 9 1796 2403 998 735 933 2687 4582 1068 920 2030 J1 2125 J16/1a 2037 1642 5558 1503

962 722 1800 957 1327 2354

541 1417 1105 1091

854 716 7702 7607

1431 519 1530 751 809 1151 882 955 1262 1158

577 397 5

830 667 812 784 6265 J7 525 597 6221

1385 739 1131 473 335 3580 1459 1653 7 628 417 7349 6257 J6 1520 1190 1399 3776 2045 1368 768 1591 959 1587 1708 J8/9 6575 1689 6361 896 J15/4B 2318 1535 1004 1425 7140 J5 1647 1465 6941 1657 1689 1508

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 1 : PM Peak Hour, 2026 928 1126

593 402 818 724

1234 2068

553 894 363 8 698 320 275

913 1555 1

422 540 1003 1435

1841 3 863 533 650 1160 697 1006 670 1007 1107 626 1108 1458 631 825 1203 12 697 11 857 940 10 795 921 2074 1128 758 1161 1218 1130 380 803 J18 N/A

1048 1355 6023 6233

683 379 790 936 J17 754 379 768

6 621

349 929 895 1447

5945 6230 614 876 1163 1357

1124 741 J3 1406 1043 971 1663 960 14 6632 2617 15 2156 1268 5633 J2 1285 629 1165 837 881 771 721 882

4

1694 630 6805 845 1072 798 1729 1303 5400 827 754 984 2072 9 2297 3042 889 838 1030 2388 5540 1964 704 1930 J1 2704 J16/1a 1363 1561 4592 1890

744 950 822 1678 1508 2201

1145 1004 1155 623

735 1057 7892 8752

1474 818 1547 489 1098 886 1038 919 894 822

481 609 5

685 768 1205 1073 6841 J7 546 499 7082

994 591 1636 546 399 3624 1525 1323 7 506 365 6540 5917 J6 1290 1530 1636 3018 2423 1030 979 1994 860 1296 1283 J8/9 6170 1555 6768 989 J15/4B 2020 1760 1354 1418 7240 J5 1684 1534 7506 2099 1388 1491

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2 : AM Peak Hour, 2026 1006 843

366 449 1062 857

1581 1220

346 563 490 8 744 294 273

1090 906 1

510 436 1096 1107

809 3 1838 594 470 1097 761 1288 774 1019 1129 772 1157 698 740 1006 1299 12 1404 11 890 901 10 1376 1457 1235 720 467 831 945 2024 271 1182 J18 N/A

1179 992 6639 5942

943 333 1304 800 J17 560 519 485

6 461

947 366 1342 926

6272 5699 686 674 1665 1052

874 939 J3 1001 651 1180 2127 1254 14 5713 2103 15 1405 1495 6505 J2 1051 686 1567 980 831 805 748 563

4

924 665 5505 676 1430 611 1367 1463 7188 839 858 751 1984 9 1798 2409 1001 736 934 2694 4592 1076 920 2033 J1 2126 J16/1a 2046 1646 5578 1503

982 740 1804 959 1328 2355

546 1422 1110 1098

870 727 7705 7609

1433 521 1532 755 819 1159 885 959 1275 1166

588 403 5

837 669 812 786 6271 J7 529 603 6225

1385 743 1134 476 335 3580 1460 1654 7 629 418 7352 6263 J6 1521 1191 1399 3776 2045 1370 769 1592 961 1588 1709 J8/9 6580 1689 6365 898 J15/4B 2319 1535 1005 1425 7146 J5 1648 1467 6949 1660 1690 1508

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2 : PM Peak Hour, 2026 928 1126

593 402 820 729

1234 2070

553 894 363 8 698 321 276

914 1559 1

423 541 1005 1439

1845 3 864 533 650 1160 697 1007 670 1010 1113 628 1111 1462 633 826 1207 12 698 11 857 940 10 796 922 2082 1129 758 1161 1218 1132 380 803 J18 N/A

1054 1367 6030 6248

683 379 790 936 J17 754 379 768

6 622

361 939 895 1447

5953 6245 745 984 1174 1374

1124 768 J3 1427 1060 1003 1771 960 14 6641 2621 15 2238 1270 5636 J2 1324 639 1193 841 886 781 736 895

4

1694 635 6858 854 1072 801 1738 1310 5436 828 754 984 2072 9 2297 3052 894 841 1036 2394 5587 1998 704 1939 J1 2711 J16/1a 1380 1569 4620 1890

772 991 829 1689 1508 2206

1148 1009 1159 627

753 1085 7900 8766

1474 818 1547 492 1138 914 1043 923 946 833

485 611 5

706 769 1209 1083 6856 J7 548 499 7091

996 611 1639 547 399 3624 1525 1323 7 506 365 6545 5941 J6 1291 1537 1639 3018 2424 1034 979 1994 861 1298 1284 J8/9 6180 1555 6781 989 J15/4B 2020 1760 1357 1418 7260 J5 1686 1537 7528 2106 1388 1491

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2a : AM Peak Hour, 2026 1006 843

366 449 1068 859

1583 1220

346 563 490 8 744 295 274

1094 908 1

511 437 1102 1109

811 3 1843 594 470 1098 761 1289 774 1027 1132 777 1164 700 742 1007 1302 12 1409 11 891 901 10 1377 1458 1238 721 467 831 945 2029 271 1182 J18 N/A

1195 999 6658 5950

944 333 1304 800 J17 560 520 485

6 462

959 379 1343 926

6291 5708 803 824 1685 1064

874 978 J3 1036 675 1216 2222 1254 14 5717 2106 15 1510 1500 6515 J2 1099 705 1606 987 837 820 760 583

4

924 674 5565 685 1431 613 1377 1475 7240 843 859 752 1986 9 1799 2418 1007 736 945 2706 4639 1104 923 2047 J1 2136 J16/1a 2079 1655 5624 1504

1024 794 1816 974 1328 2363

550 1430 1118 1105

899 761 7718 7622

1433 524 1534 756 834 1208 890 964 1305 1200

591 405 5

856 677 814 804 6293 J7 529 604 6231

1388 753 1137 477 336 3580 1461 1654 7 631 418 7364 6282 J6 1521 1194 1402 3776 2046 1376 770 1592 961 1594 1711 J8/9 6600 1689 6384 900 J15/4B 2320 1535 1006 1425 7158 J5 1654 1468 6959 1662 1693 1508

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2a : PM Peak Hour, 2026 928 1126

593 402 822 731

1234 2070

553 894 363 8 698 321 276

915 1560 1

423 542 1006 1442

1847 3 865 533 650 1160 697 1007 670 1012 1117 630 1114 1464 637 826 1212 12 699 11 858 940 10 797 922 2084 1129 758 1161 1218 1133 380 803 J18 N/A

1058 1375 6036 6257

683 379 790 936 J17 754 380 768

6 622

381 955 895 1447

5959 6255 853 1150 1188 1387

1124 803 J3 1460 1092 1039 1823 960 14 6644 2624 15 2363 1272 5638 J2 1366 648 1234 844 889 800 746 913

4

1694 639 6912 859 1072 801 1744 1316 5489 828 754 984 2072 9 2297 3058 904 841 1042 2400 5631 2025 704 1951 J1 2721 J16/1a 1403 1581 4660 1890

824 1043 844 1706 1508 2216

1155 1016 1165 633

786 1119 7910 8776

1474 818 1547 492 1138 914 1043 923 946 833

485 611 5

729 769 1209 1083 6862 J7 548 499 7097

996 611 1645 547 399 3624 1525 1323 7 506 365 6549 5945 J6 1291 1537 1642 3018 2424 1038 979 1994 861 1298 1287 J8/9 6180 1555 6781 989 J15/4B 2020 1760 1357 1418 7260 J5 1686 1537 7528 2106 1388 1491

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2b : AM Peak Hour, 2026 1006 843

366 449 1069 861

1583 1220

346 563 490 8 744 295 274

1095 909 1

512 437 1103 1110

812 3 1843 594 470 1098 761 1289 774 1028 1134 778 1166 701 744 1007 1304 12 1409 11 891 901 10 1377 1458 1239 722 467 831 945 2029 271 1182 J18 N/A

1197 1003 6661 5955

943 333 1304 800 J17 560 520 485

6 462

974 398 1342 926

6294 5714 915 942 1691 1077

874 995 J3 1066 708 1236 2326 1254 14 5719 2108 15 1565 1501 6515 J2 1119 710 1646 988 837 836 768 591

4

924 678 5592 686 1430 612 1380 1478 7291 842 858 751 1984 9 1798 2421 1013 736 948 2708 4660 1117 923 2052 J1 2141 J16/1a 2104 1667 5664 1503

1073 819 1831 981 1328 2372

556 1435 1120 1108

931 778 7727 7626

1433 524 1532 755 834 1206 889 964 1305 1199

591 404 5

879 677 814 804 6297 J7 529 604 6235

1388 753 1142 477 335 3580 1461 1654 7 630 418 7366 6284 J6 1521 1193 1404 3776 2046 1378 770 1592 961 1593 1715 J8/9 6600 1689 6383 900 J15/4B 2320 1535 1006 1425 7158 J5 1654 1468 6959 1662 1693 1508

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2b : PM Peak Hour, 2026 928 1126

593 402 827 739

1237 2074

553 894 363 8 698 322 277

919 1566 1

424 542 1009 1447

1853 3 868 533 650 1160 699 1007 671 1017 1124 630 1119 1471 638 826 1222 12 704 11 857 940 10 797 922 2091 1129 758 1162 1218 1137 381 804 J18 N/A

1068 1391 6048 6277

683 379 790 936 J17 754 381 768

6 623

362 940 897 1450

5973 6275 746 1011 1183 1418

1124 769 J3 1439 1075 1038 1816 960 14 6678 2623 15 2301 1270 5665 J2 1371 674 1258 857 902 791 773 895

4

1698 637 6940 855 1074 832 1755 1326 5537 863 754 984 2075 9 2301 3083 901 863 1036 2431 5686 2102 723 1951 J1 2712 J16/1a 1484 1585 4729 1890

811 1002 836 1689 1508 2211

1244 1252 1412 685

781 1095 7906 8767

1566 818 1668 492 1154 961 1117 982 990 847

485 611 5

761 827 1209 1083 6873 J7 662 599 7108

996 611 1643 547 399 3624 1525 1323 7 506 365 6557 5953 J6 1291 1538 1639 3018 2424 1034 979 1994 861 1299 1286 J8/9 6207 1555 6794 1016 J15/4B 2020 1760 1372 1418 7273 J5 1703 1561 7552 2121 1402 1491

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2c : AM Peak Hour, 2026 1006 843

366 449 1075 866

1586 1223

346 563 490 8 744 296 275

1100 913 1

512 437 1107 1113

815 3 1848 594 470 1098 762 1289 775 1035 1139 779 1174 705 744 1007 1310 12 1416 11 891 901 10 1376 1458 1244 721 467 832 945 2035 272 1184 J18 N/A

1212 1013 6678 5968

943 333 1304 800 J17 560 521 485

6 464

958 379 1345 928

6312 5727 800 820 1694 1102

874 976 J3 1035 675 1241 2266 1254 14 5746 2106 15 1551 1500 6548 J2 1141 735 1650 1000 850 819 793 581

4

927 674 5637 684 1434 647 1390 1488 7317 872 858 751 1988 9 1801 2451 1007 755 945 2734 4726 1196 943 2056 J1 2136 J16/1a 2177 1667 5717 1503

1033 802 1815 973 1328 2363

610 1676 1355 1193

908 770 7719 7622

1552 524 1626 755 848 1249 948 1036 1350 1215

591 404 5

912 722 814 804 6305 J7 628 716 6243

1388 753 1137 477 335 3580 1461 1654 7 630 418 7376 6294 J6 1521 1195 1402 3776 2046 1376 770 1592 961 1595 1711 J8/9 6623 1689 6395 924 J15/4B 2320 1535 1020 1425 7171 J5 1669 1495 6986 1679 1707 1508

Traffic Flows --- South Bucks Option 2c : PM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

AAAA44441111 66% 80%

AAAA444411116666

AAAA444411113333 55554444%%%% 33336666%%%% 88880000%%%% 77771111%%%%

BBBB4444555500005555

29% 49%

44442222%%%% 66666666%%%% 22227777%%%% AAAA4444111122228888 8 51%% 33331111%%%% 22227777%%%% B485 55551111 8%8%%% 887777%%%% 1 AAAA444411116666

47% 60%% 77777777 1%1%%% 1111110000%%%%

44444444%%%% 3 A413 22221111%%%% 55552222% 66%%% 664444%%%% 89% 58% 777777%%% 555555%%% 70% 77% 444333%%% AAA444000444 A404 666666%%% AAA444000444 888222%%% 43% 666333%%% 72% 111222 39% 111111 66% 666777%%% 111000 444333%%% 777111%%% 444999%%% 61% 21% 81% 999444%%% AAA444000444 63% 222777%%% 555666%%% J18 BBB444444444222 NNN///AAA AAA444000444

79% 103% 65% 666777%%% A413

19% 34% 555888%%% 69% J17 68% 11% 21%

666 111777%%% AAA444111222 A355

BBB444777444 26% 70% 69% 111%

A413

A400

M400 64% 666777%%% 555111%%% 777444%%% 79% 92%

AAA444111222 888000%%% 555222%%% J3 90% 222555%%% 666222%%% MMM222555 AAA444000 39% 222777%%% 14 15 71% 555888%%% 555111%%% 35%3355%% A40AA4400 6611%% J2 64% AA441133 6699%% 26% 4488%% 5511%% MM4400 4466%% 7788%% 53%

44

4400%% 6611%% 7733%% 82% 26%% 54% 9999%% 7744%% 5588%% 5566%% A40 5599%% 7788%% 3333%% 99 5555%% 48% 25% 23%% 2299%% 38%% 7799%% 544%% 2200%% 5533%% J1 75% J16/1a 38% 4433%% 66% 5522%%

49% 63% 5533%% 110088%% 4422%% 6611%% A4020

BB441166 A355 8844%% 46% 98% 113% AA441122

5566%% 8800%% A4007 8855%% 94%

3355%% MM2255 63% 3377%% 3388%% 96% 5566%% A412 111% 999%% AA44 57% 7711%%

34% 42% 55

7733%% 82% 33% 76% A4 98% J7 53% 49% 101% A404(M) 28% 16% 45% 59% 30% 67% 42% 37% 7 A308(M) A4 54% 28% M4 94% 85% J6 24% 85% 91% 84% 67% 29% 88% 55% 78% 72% 36% J8/9 88% 43% 97% 70% J15/4B 56% 49% 38% 39% 104% J5 93% 43% 108% M4 58% 39% 41% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 1: AM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

A41 72% 60%

A416

A413 33% 41% 104% 84%

B4505

38% 29%

26% 41% 37% A4128 8 55% 29% 27% B485 61% 51% 1 A416

57% 48% 84% 85%

19% 3 A413 44% 58% 46% 84% 63% 99% 64% 71% 79% 52% A404 A404 69% A404 39% 50% 77% 78% 12 79% 11 68% 64% 10 75% 112% 29% 39% 13% 58% 73% A404 114% 19% 82% J18 B4442 N/A A404

89% 75% 71% 64% A413

26% 30% 96% 59% J17 51% 14% 13%

6 13% A412 A355

B474 72% 28% 103% 71%

A413

A40 M40 67% 61% 58% 56% 113% 71%

A412 62% 66% J3 64% 15% 76% M25 A40 50% 35% 14 61% 47% 15 33% 41% A40 70% J2 52% A413 75% 35% 56% 48% M40 48% 82% 34%

4

22% 65% 59% 66% 34% 41% 78% 83% 77% 57% A40 68% 59% 31% 9 43% 38% 28% 20% 26% 43% 66% 30% 26% 56% J1 59% J16/1a 57% 46% 80% 42%

65% 49% 116% 62% 37% 65% A4020

B416 A355 40% 80% 139% 108% A412

66% 55% A4007 83% 82%

34% M25 40% 36% 58% 71% 74% A412 95% 103% A4 81% 102%

41% 28% 5

89% 72% 23% 56% A4 90% J7 51% 59% 89% A404(M) 38% 21% 31% 51% 25% 66% 41% 46% 7 A308(M) A4 68% 32% M4 105% 90% J6 28% 66% 78% 105% 57% 38% 69% 44% 87% 88% 47% J8/9 94% 47% 91% 64% J15/4B 64% 43% 28% 40% 102% J5 91% 41% 99% M4 46% 47% 42% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 1: PM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

AAAA44441111 66% 80%

AAAA444411116666

AAAA444411113333 55554444%%%% 33336666%%%% 88880000%%%% 77771111%%%%

BBBB4444555500005555

29% 49%

44442222%%%% 66666666%%%% 22227777%%%% AAAA4444111122228888 8 51%% 33331111%%%% 22227777%%%% B485 55551111 8%8%%% 887777%%%% 1 AAAA444411116666

47% 60%% 77777777 1%1%%% 1111110000%%%%

44444444%%%% 3 A413 22221111%%%% 55552222% 66%%% 664444%%%% 89% 58% 777777%%% 555555%%% 70% 77% 444333%%% AAA444000444 A404 666777%%% AAA444000444 888222%%% 43% 666333%%% 72% 111222 39% 111111 66% 666777%%% 111000 444333%%% 777111%%% 444999%%% 62% 21% 81% 999444%%% AAA444000444 63% 222777%%% 555666%%% J18 BBB444444444222 NNN///AAA AAA444000444

79% 103% 65% 666777%%% A413

19% 34% 555888%%% 69% J17 68% 11% 21%

666 111777%%% AAA444111222 A355

BBB444777444 26% 70% 69% 111%

A413

A400

M400 64% 666777%%% 555333%%% 777555%%% 79% 92%

AAA444111222 888000%%% 555222%%% J3 91% 222555%%% 666333%%% MMM222555 AAA444000 40% 222777%%% 14 15 71% 555888%%% 555111%%% 35%3355%% A40AA4400 6611%% J2 64% AA441133 7700%% 26% 4488%% 5511%% MM4400 4466%% 8800%% 53%

44

4400%% 6622%% 7733%% 83% 26%% 54% 9999%% 7744%% 5588%% 5566%% A40 6600%% 7788%% 3333%% 99 5555%% 48% 25% 23%% 2299%% 38%% 7799%% 555%% 2200%% 5544%% J1 75% J16/1a 38% 4433%% 66% 5533%%

51% 65% 5533%% 110088%% 4422%% 6611%% A4020

BB441166 A355 8844%% 46% 98% 113% AA441122

5577%% 8811%% A4007 8855%% 94%

3355%% MM2255 63% 3377%% 3388%% 96% 5577%% A412 112% 999%% AA44 58% 7722%%

34% 43% 55

7744%% 83% 33% 77% A4 98% J7 54% 49% 101% A404(M) 28% 16% 45% 59% 30% 67% 42% 37% 7 A308(M) A4 55% 28% M4 94% 85% J6 24% 85% 91% 84% 67% 29% 88% 55% 78% 72% 36% J8/9 88% 43% 97% 71% J15/4B 56% 49% 38% 39% 104% J5 94% 43% 108% M4 58% 39% 41% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2: AM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

A41 72% 60%

A416

A413 33% 41% 104% 84%

B4505

38% 29%

26% 41% 37% A4128 8 55% 29% 27% B485 61% 51% 1 A416

57% 48% 84% 85%

19% 3 A413 44% 58% 46% 84% 63% 99% 64% 71% 79% 53% A404 A404 70% A404 39% 50% 77% 78% 12 79% 11 68% 64% 10 75% 112% 29% 39% 13% 58% 73% A404 114% 19% 82% J18 B4442 N/A A404

89% 75% 71% 64% A413

26% 30% 96% 59% J17 51% 14% 13%

6 13% A412 A355

B474 72% 28% 103% 71%

A413

A40 M40 67% 61% 59% 58% 113% 72%

A412 62% 66% J3 65% 16% 76% M25 A40 51% 35% 14 61% 47% 15 33% 42% A40 70% J2 53% A413 76% 35% 57% 48% M40 48% 83% 34%

4

22% 65% 59% 66% 34% 42% 78% 84% 77% 57% A40 68% 60% 32% 9 43% 38% 28% 20% 26% 43% 66% 30% 26% 56% J1 59% J16/1a 57% 46% 80% 42%

67% 50% 116% 62% 37% 65% A4020

B416 A355 40% 81% 139% 109% A412

67% 56% A4007 83% 82%

34% M25 40% 37% 58% 72% 75% A412 95% 103% A4 82% 102%

42% 28% 5

90% 72% 23% 56% A4 90% J7 52% 59% 89% A404(M) 38% 21% 31% 51% 25% 66% 41% 46% 7 A308(M) A4 68% 32% M4 105% 90% J6 28% 66% 78% 105% 57% 38% 69% 44% 87% 88% 47% J8/9 94% 47% 91% 64% J15/4B 64% 43% 28% 40% 102% J5 92% 41% 100% M4 46% 47% 42% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2: PM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

AAAA44441111 66% 80%

AAAA444411116666

AAAA444411113333 55554444%%%% 33336666%%%% 88880000%%%% 77771111%%%%

BBBB4444555500005555

29% 49%

44442222%%%% 66666666%%%% 22227777%%%% AAAA4444111122228888 8 51%% 33331111%%%% 22227777%%%% B485 55551111 8%8%%% 888888%%%% 1 AAAA444411116666

47% 60%% 77777777 1%1%%% 1111111111%%%%

44444444%%%% 3 A413 22221111%%%% 55552222% 66%%% 664444%%%% 89% 58% 777777%%% 555555%%% 70% 78% 444333%%% AAA444000444 A404 666777%%% AAA444000444 888222%%% 43% 666444%%% 73% 111222 40% 111111 66% 666777%%% 111000 444333%%% 777111%%% 555000%%% 62% 21% 81% 999444%%% AAA444000444 64% 222777%%% 555666%%% J18 BBB444444444222 NNN///AAA AAA444000444

80% 104% 65% 666777%%% A413

19% 34% 555888%%% 69% J17 68% 11% 21%

666 111777%%% AAA444111222 A355

BBB444777444 27% 71% 69% 111%

A413

A400

M400 64% 666777%%% 666444%%% 888555%%% 80% 93%

AAA444111222 888000%%% 555444%%% J3 92% 222555%%% 666555%%% MMM222555 AAA444000 42% 222777%%% 14 15 71% 555888%%% 555333%%% 35%3355%% A40AA4400 6611%% J2 66% AA441133 7711%% 27% 4499%% 5511%% MM4400 4477%% 8822%% 54%

44

4400%% 6622%% 7744%% 84% 26%% 54% 9999%% 7755%% 5588%% 5566%% A40 6600%% 7788%% 3333%% 99 5555%% 48% 25% 23%% 2299%% 38%% 8800%% 555%% 2200%% 5544%% J1 75% J16/1a 38% 4444%% 66% 5533%%

53% 67% 5533%% 110099%% 4422%% 6611%% A4020

BB441166 A355 8844%% 46% 99% 114% AA441122

5588%% 8833%% A4007 8855%% 94%

3355%% MM2255 63% 3377%% 3388%% 100% 5599%% A412 112% 999%% AA44 61% 7733%%

34% 43% 55

7766%% 83% 34% 77% A4 98% J7 54% 49% 102% A404(M) 28% 17% 46% 59% 30% 67% 42% 37% 7 A308(M) A4 55% 28% M4 94% 85% J6 24% 85% 91% 84% 67% 29% 88% 55% 78% 72% 36% J8/9 89% 43% 97% 71% J15/4B 56% 49% 38% 39% 104% J5 94% 43% 108% M4 58% 39% 41% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2a: AM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

A41 72% 60%

A416

A413 33% 41% 105% 84%

B4505

38% 29%

26% 41% 37% A4128 8 55% 29% 27% B485 61% 51% 1 A416

57% 49% 85% 85%

19% 3 A413 44% 58% 46% 84% 63% 99% 64% 72% 79% 53% A404 A404 70% A404 39% 51% 77% 78% 12 80% 11 69% 64% 10 75% 112% 30% 39% 13% 58% 73% A404 114% 19% 82% J18 B4442 N/A A404

91% 76% 72% 64% A413

26% 30% 96% 59% J17 51% 14% 13%

6 13% A412 A355

B474 73% 29% 103% 71%

A413

A40 M40 68% 61% 69% 71% 115% 72%

A412 62% 69% J3 67% 16% 78% M25 A40 53% 35% 14 61% 47% 15 36% 42% A40 70% J2 55% A413 78% 36% 57% 48% M40 49% 84% 35%

4

22% 66% 60% 67% 34% 42% 79% 84% 78% 57% A40 68% 60% 32% 9 43% 38% 28% 20% 26% 43% 66% 31% 26% 57% J1 59% J16/1a 58% 46% 81% 42%

70% 54% 117% 63% 37% 66% A4020

B416 A355 40% 81% 140% 110% A412

69% 59% A4007 83% 82%

34% M25 40% 37% 58% 73% 78% A412 96% 104% A4 84% 105%

42% 29% 5

92% 73% 23% 57% A4 90% J7 52% 59% 89% A404(M) 39% 21% 32% 51% 25% 66% 41% 46% 7 A308(M) A4 68% 32% M4 106% 90% J6 28% 66% 78% 105% 57% 38% 70% 44% 87% 89% 48% J8/9 95% 47% 91% 64% J15/4B 64% 43% 28% 40% 103% J5 92% 41% 100% M4 46% 47% 42% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2a: PM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

AAAA44441111 66% 80%

AAAA444411116666

AAAA444411113333 55554444%%%% 33336666%%%% 88881111%%%% 77772222%%%%

BBBB4444555500005555

29% 49%

44442222%%%% 66666666%%%% 22227777%%%% AAAA4444111122228888 8 51%% 33331111%%%% 22227777%%%% B485 55551111 8%8%%% 888888%%%% 1 AAAA444411116666

47% 60%% 77777777 1%1%%% 1111111111%%%%

44444444%%%% 3 A413 22221111%%%% 55552222% 66%%% 664444%%%% 89% 58% 777777%%% 555555%%% 71% 78% 444333%%% AAA444000444 A404 666777%%% AAA444000444 888222%%% 43% 666444%%% 73% 111222 40% 111111 66% 666777%%% 111000 444333%%% 777111%%% 555000%%% 62% 21% 81% 999444%%% AAA444000444 64% 222777%%% 555666%%% J18 BBB444444444222 NNN///AAA AAA444000444

80% 104% 65% 666777%%% A413

19% 34% 555888%%% 69% J17 68% 11% 21%

666 111777%%% AAA444111222 A355

BBB444777444 29% 72% 69% 111%

A413

A400

M400 64% 666777%%% 777333%%% 999999%%% 81% 94%

AAA444111222 888000%%% 555777%%% J3 94% 222666%%% 666777%%% MMM222555 AAA444000 43% 222777%%% 14 15 71% 555888%%% 555666%%% 35%3355%% A40AA4400 6611%% J2 68% AA441133 7722%% 27% 4499%% 5511%% MM4400 4488%% 8833%% 55%

44

4400%% 6633%% 7744%% 84% 26%% 54% 110000%% 7755%% 5599%% 5566%% A40 6600%% 7788%% 3333%% 99 5555%% 49% 25% 23%% 2299%% 38%% 8811%% 566%% 2200%% 5544%% J1 76% J16/1a 39% 4444%% 67% 5533%%

56% 71% 5544%% 111100%% 4422%% 6622%% A4020

BB441166 A355 8855%% 47% 100% 114% AA441122

6600%% 8866%% A4007 8855%% 94%

3355%% MM2255 63% 3377%% 3388%% 100% 5599%% A412 112% 999%% AA44 61% 7733%%

34% 43% 55

7799%% 83% 34% 77% A4 98% J7 54% 49% 102% A404(M) 28% 17% 46% 59% 30% 67% 42% 37% 7 A308(M) A4 55% 28% M4 94% 85% J6 24% 85% 91% 84% 67% 29% 88% 55% 78% 72% 36% J8/9 89% 43% 97% 71% J15/4B 56% 49% 38% 39% 104% J5 94% 43% 108% M4 58% 39% 41% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2b: AM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

A41 72% 60%

A416

A413 33% 41% 105% 84%

B4505

38% 29%

26% 41% 37% A4128 8 55% 29% 27% B485 61% 51% 1 A416

57% 49% 85% 85%

19% 3 A413 44% 58% 46% 84% 63% 99% 64% 72% 79% 53% A404 A404 70% A404 39% 51% 77% 78% 12 80% 11 69% 64% 10 75% 112% 30% 39% 13% 58% 73% A404 114% 19% 82% J18 B4442 N/A A404

91% 76% 72% 64% A413

26% 30% 96% 59% J17 51% 14% 13%

6 13% A412 A355

B474 74% 30% 103% 71%

A413

A40 M40 68% 61% 79% 81% 115% 73%

A412 62% 70% J3 69% 17% 80% M25 A40 55% 35% 14 61% 47% 15 37% 42% A40 70% J2 56% A413 79% 37% 57% 48% M40 50% 85% 36%

4

22% 66% 60% 67% 34% 42% 79% 84% 78% 57% A40 68% 60% 32% 9 43% 38% 28% 20% 26% 43% 67% 31% 26% 57% J1 59% J16/1a 58% 46% 81% 42%

73% 56% 118% 63% 37% 66% A4020

B416 A355 41% 81% 141% 110% A412

72% 60% A4007 83% 82%

34% M25 40% 37% 58% 73% 78% A412 96% 104% A4 84% 105%

42% 29% 5

95% 73% 23% 57% A4 90% J7 52% 59% 89% A404(M) 39% 21% 32% 51% 25% 66% 41% 46% 7 A308(M) A4 68% 32% M4 106% 90% J6 28% 66% 78% 105% 57% 38% 70% 44% 87% 89% 48% J8/9 95% 47% 91% 64% J15/4B 64% 43% 28% 40% 103% J5 92% 41% 100% M4 46% 47% 42% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2b: PM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

AAAA44441111 66% 80%

AAAA444411116666

AAAA444411113333 55554444%%%% 33336666%%%% 88881111%%%% 77772222%%%%

BBBB4444555500005555

29% 49%

44442222%%%% 66666666%%%% 22227777%%%% AAAA4444111122228888 8 51%% 33332222%%%% 22227777%%%% B485 55552222 8%8%%% 888888%%%% 1 AAAA444411116666

47% 60%% 77778888 1%1%%% 1111111111%%%%

44444444%%%% 3 A413 22221111%%%% 55552222% 66%%% 664444%%%% 89% 58% 777777%%% 555666%%% 71% 78% 444333%%% AAA444000444 A404 666777%%% AAA444000444 888333%%% 43% 666444%%% 73% 111222 40% 111111 66% 666777%%% 111000 444333%%% 777111%%% 555000%%% 62% 21% 81% 999444%%% AAA444000444 64% 222777%%% 555666%%% J18 BBB444444444222 NNN///AAA AAA444000444

81% 105% 65% 666777%%% A413

19% 34% 555888%%% 69% J17 68% 11% 21%

666 111777%%% AAA444111222 A355

BBB444777444 27% 71% 69% 112%

A413

A400

M400 64% 666777%%% 666444%%% 888777%%% 80% 96%

AAA444111222 888000%%% 555444%%% J3 93% 222666%%% 666777%%% MMM222555 AAA444000 43% 222777%%% 14 15 72% 555888%%% 555555%%% 35%3355%% A40AA4400 6611%% J2 69% AA441133 7755%% 28% 4499%% 5522%% MM4400 4488%% 8866%% 54%

44

4400%% 6622%% 7755%% 84% 26%% 57% 110000%% 7766%% 6600%% 5599%% A40 6600%% 7788%% 3333%% 99 5555%% 49% 25% 24%% 2299%% 39%% 8811%% 588%% 2200%% 5544%% J1 75% J16/1a 41% 4444%% 68% 5533%%

55% 68% 5544%% 110099%% 4422%% 6611%% A4020

BB441166 A355 9911%% 50% 123% 138% AA441122

6600%% 8844%% A4007 8855%% 94%

3377%% MM2255 63% 4400%% 3388%% 101% 6622%% A412 120% 10066%% AA44 64% 7744%%

34% 43% 55

8822%% 89% 34% 77% A4 99% J7 65% 59% 102% A404(M) 28% 17% 46% 59% 30% 67% 42% 37% 7 A308(M) A4 55% 28% M4 94% 85% J6 24% 85% 91% 84% 67% 29% 88% 55% 78% 72% 36% J8/9 89% 43% 97% 73% J15/4B 56% 49% 38% 39% 104% J5 95% 43% 108% M4 59% 39% 41% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2c: AM Peak Hour, 2026 pp

A41 72% 60%

A416

A413 33% 41% 105% 85%

B4505

38% 29%

26% 41% 37% A4128 8 55% 29% 27% B485 62% 51% 1 A416

57% 49% 85% 86%

19% 3 A413 44% 58% 46% 84% 63% 99% 64% 72% 79% 53% A404 A404 71% A404 40% 51% 77% 79% 12 80% 11 69% 64% 10 75% 112% 30% 39% 13% 58% 73% A404 114% 19% 83% J18 B4442 N/A A404

92% 77% 72% 64% A413

26% 30% 96% 59% J17 51% 14% 13%

6 13% A412 A355

B474 73% 29% 103% 71%

A413

A40 M40 68% 62% 69% 71% 115% 75%

A412 62% 69% J3 67% 16% 80% M25 A40 54% 35% 14 62% 47% 15 37% 42% A40 70% J2 57% A413 82% 37% 58% 49% M40 49% 88% 35%

4

22% 66% 61% 67% 34% 44% 79% 85% 79% 59% A40 68% 60% 32% 9 43% 39% 28% 21% 26% 43% 68% 33% 26% 57% J1 59% J16/1a 60% 46% 82% 42%

70% 55% 117% 63% 37% 66% A4020

B416 A355 45% 88% 164% 133% A412

70% 59% A4007 83% 82%

37% M25 40% 39% 58% 74% 81% A412 102% 112% A4 87% 107%

42% 29% 5

98% 78% 23% 57% A4 90% J7 62% 70% 89% A404(M) 39% 21% 32% 51% 25% 66% 41% 46% 7 A308(M) A4 68% 32% M4 106% 90% J6 28% 66% 78% 105% 57% 38% 70% 44% 87% 89% 48% J8/9 95% 47% 92% 66% J15/4B 64% 43% 28% 40% 103% J5 93% 42% 100% M4 47% 47% 42% ooo ooo ooo A4 ooo

9

Percentage of Capacity ---- South Bucks Option 2c: PM Peak Hour, 2026