Newhaven Transport Study Report

Newhaven Transport Study

July 2011 Lewes District Council

Newhaven290816 ITD Transport ITW 001 G P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_re port 260711 doc Study July 2011

July 2011

Lewes District Council

32 High Street, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2LX

Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane, Southampton SO50 9NW, United Kingdom T +44(0) 23 8062 8800 F +44(0) 23 8062 8801, W www.mottmac.com

Newhaven Transport Study

Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A April 2011 N Gordon Draft

B May 2011 N Gordon Draft – intro amended, sec 4.6 completed

C June 2011 N Gordon I Johnston I Johnston Draft – Comments received 26/5/11 included

D June 2011 N Gordon, L Dancer I Johnston I Johnston All sections completed

E July 2011 N Gordon I Johnston I Johnston Scenario 1 mitigation added

F July 2011 N Gordon I Johnston I Johnston Scenarios 4 and 5 added

G July 2011 N Gordon I Johnston I Johnston Scenario 1 run with TEMPRO62 growth

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which used for any other purpose. is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane, Southampton SO50 9NW, United Kingdom T +44(0) 23 8062 8800 F +44(0) 23 8062 8801, W www.mottmac.com

Newhaven Transport Study

Content

Chapter Title Page

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction ______1 1.2 Model Background ______1

2. 2010 Model Update 4 2.1 Observed traffic growth from 2009______4 2.2 Network Updates ______5 2.3 Development Updates ______6 2.4 LGV and HGV growth ______9 2.5 Overall Matrix Growth ______10

3. 2030 Forecast Networks 11 3.1 Introduction ______11 3.2 Do Minimum Assumptions ______11 3.3 Do Something Assumptions______11 3.4 Do Something Mitigation ______11

4. 2030 Forecast Matrices 12 4.1 Introduction ______12 4.2 Do Minimum Assumptions ______12 4.3 Do Something Assumptions______15 4.4 External Growth ______17 4.4.1 TEMPRO6.2______17 4.5 Fuel and Income Factors ______18 4.6 LGV and HGV growth ______19 4.7 Overall Matrix Growth ______19 4.8 Non Highway Interventions ______20

5. Results 22 5.1 Introduction ______22 5.2 Do Something Results without mitigation ______23 5.2.1 Scenario 1 ______24 5.2.2 Scenario 2 ______25 5.2.3 Scenario 3 ______26 5.3 Do Something Results – with mitigation ______26 5.3.1 Scenario 1 with mitigation ______27 5.3.2 Scenario 4 ______28 5.3.3 Scenario 5 ______28

6. Non Highway Intervention Results 45

7. TEMPRO62 Growth 51

8. Conclusions 56

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

Appendices 58 Appendix A. 2009 Model Validation Report ______59 Appendix B. Do Something Trip Distributions ______128

Tables Table 2.1: 2010 Employment Completions ______6 Table 2.2: 2010 housing completions ______7 Table 2.3: Trip Rates______8 Table 2.4: 2009-2010 LGV and HGV growth ______9 Table 2.5: Overall Matrix Growth, 2009-2010 ______10 Table 4.1: Committed Employment Developments______12 Table 4.2: Committed Housing Developments ______13 Table 4.3: Housing Numbers Comparison ______15 Table 4.4: Do Something scenario summary ______16 Table 4.5: TEMPRO5.4 growth factors ______17 Table 4.6: TEMPRO6.2 growth factors ______18 Table 4.6: Fuel and Income Factors ______18 Table 4.7: 2010-2030 LGV and HGV growth ______19 Table 4.8: Overall Matrix Growth ______19 Table 4.9: 2030 Matrix Totals – DM and Scenarios 1,2 and 3 ______20 Table 4.10: 2030 Matrix Totals – DM and Scenarios 1, 4 and 5______20 Table 4.10: Smarter Choice Impacts ______21 Table 5.1: Base and Do Minimum Network Summary Statistics______22 Table 5.2: Do Something Network Summary Statistics – Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 ______23 Table 5.3: Do Something Network with mitigation Summary Statistics – Scenarios 1, 4 and 5 ______27 Table 6.1: Do Something Network Summary Statistics – non-highway interventions ______45 Table 7.1: Do Something Network Summary Statistics – Scenario 1 with differing TEMPRO growth ______51

Figures Figure 1.1: 2007 Newhaven Transport Model – Modelled Area ______2 Figure 1.2: 2009 Newhaven Model Network ______3 Figure 2.1: ESCC Traffic Data – 2009 & 2010 ______5 Figure 5.1: 2010 Base AM Peak Junction Impacts ______29 Figure 5.2: 2010 Base PM Peak Junction Impacts ______30 Figure 5.3: 2030 Do Minimum AM Peak Junction Impacts ______31 Figure 5.4: 2030 Do Minimum PM Peak Junction Impacts ______32 Figure 5.5: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts ______33 Figure 5.6: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts ______34 Figure 5.7: 2030 Scenario 2 AM Peak Junction Impacts ______35 Figure 5.8: 2030 Scenario 2 PM Peak Junction Impacts ______36 Figure 5.9: 2030 Scenario 3 AM Peak Junction Impacts ______37 Figure 5.10: 2030 Scenario 3 PM Peak Junction Impacts ______38 290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.11: 2030 Scenario 1 Mitigated AM Peak Junction Impacts ______39 Figure 5.12: 2030 Scenario 1 Mitigated PM Peak Junction Impacts ______40 Figure 5.13: 2030 Scenario 4 AM Peak Junction Impacts ______41 Figure 5.14: 2030 Scenario 4 PM Peak Junction Impacts ______42 Figure 5.15: 2030 Scenario 5 AM Peak Junction Impacts ______43 Figure 5.16: 2030 Scenario 5 PM Peak Junction Impacts ______44 Figure 6.1: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts – Site Basis Non-Highway intervention______47 Figure 6.2: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts – Site Basis Non-Highway intervention______48 Figure 6.3: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts – Matrix Basis Non-Highway intervention ______49 Figure 6.4: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts – Matrix Basis Non-Highway intervention ______50 Figure 7.1: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts – TEMPRO6.2 growth______53 Figure 7.2: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts – TEMPRO6.2 growth______54 Figure B.1: AM Peak Eastside Dwellings Outbound ______128 Figure B.2: AM Peak Eastside Dwellings Inbound ______129 Figure B.3: AM Peak Eastside Retail Outbound______130 Figure B.4: AM Peak Eastside Retail Inbound ______131 Figure B.5: AM Peak Eastside Office Outbound ______132 Figure B.6: AM Peak Eastside Office Inbound ______133 Figure B.7: AM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Outbound______134 Figure B.8: AM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Inbound ______135 Figure B.9: PM Peak Eastside Dwellings Outbound ______136 Figure B.10: PM Peak Eastside Dwellings Inbound ______137 Figure B.11: PM Peak Eastside Retail Outbound______138 Figure B.12: PM Peak Eastside Retail Inbound ______139 Figure B.13: PM Peak Eastside Office Outbound ______140 Figure B.14: PM Peak Eastside Office Inbound ______141 Figure B.15: PM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Outbound______142 Figure B.16: PM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Inbound ______143

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Lewes District Council is currently preparing a Local Development Framework, focussing primarily on progressing the Core Strategy towards adoption. The Council is working on the Core Strategy in partnership with the South Downs National Park Authority, who are now the sole planning authority for the area of Lewes District that falls within the National Park.

The Core Strategy will identify the amount of housing and employment land to be planned for up to 2030, together with any strategic allocations/broad locations for growth. The Council's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Employment and Economic Land Assessment have informed the identification of some scenarios for growth across the District.

The aims of the study are:

• To review the existing transport situation and the transport challenges and consequences arising from options for development in the study area over the life of the emerging Core Strategy

• To identify and evaluate in sufficient depth the potential contributions of a range of transport approaches and measures, from demand management to new highway infrastructure, to support the potential development in the area over the Core Strategy period up to 2030

• To provide forecast traffic flows to assist in the design of possible new development related highway infrastructure

An AM peak hour and PM peak hour highway SATURN model exists of Newhaven and the surrounding area and has been used for the study.

1.2 Model Background

In November 2007 East Sussex County Council (ESCC) appointed JMP Consultants Limited (JMP) to develop the Newhaven Transport Model 2007. The aim of the work was to develop a robust and relevant traffic model to assist the Council in the analysis of future traffic and transportation issues. The key requirement of the Newhaven Model was that it should be capable both of reflecting the existing traffic pattern within the study area with sufficient accuracy and of being sensitive to route choice in the Newhaven local road network.

As the 2007 Newhaven traffic model LMVR states, the objectives of the earlier modelling process were achieved by using a SATURN based network with junction simulation coding for the immediate study area and a link based buffer network for the wider network. Separate models were built for the AM peak, Inter- peak, and PM peak periods. Each model represented average hourly traffic conditions across the relevant 3 hour peak, as agreed with ESCC, rather than a specific peak hour. Figure 1.1 illustrates the extent of the 2007 model developed by JMP. Its geographical extent is largely restricted to Newhaven itself.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 1

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 1.1: 2007 Newhaven Transport Model – Modelled Area

Source: JMP LMVR March 2008

To enable the model to assist ESCC in assessing strategic options, the model area was extended in 2009 by Mott MacDonald to include Lewes, the A26 and A275 routes in the north, and the main routes to areas to the west of Newhaven, including the A259 to Brighton and the A27 west. Consequently, the 2009 Newhaven traffic model network offers two main north-south route choice options (i.e. C7 and A26) for the traffic travelling between the north and west of the study area and Newhaven town centre and vice versa. The area west of Newhaven (such as Woodingdean, Rottingdean, Bevendean and part of west Brighton) has been coded as a skeletal SATURN buffer network. Figure 1.2 shows the original and extended modelled network.

The internal zone system within Newhaven, consisting of 62 zones was retained. Four new zones were added to represent Peacehaven, Woodingdean, Kingston village and Lewes. Six cordon zones were used to represent traffic entering and leaving the study area by the main routes.

Whilst the 2007 Newhaven traffic model represented average hourly peak period traffic conditions (based on a 3 hour average), calibration of the 2009 Newhaven traffic model was to specific AM and PM peak hours to better reflect typical peak hour congestion effects and journey times. The development, calibration and subsequent validation of the 2009 model was undertaken in accordance with guidance provided by the DMRB Volume 12 “Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes”.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 2

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 1.2: 2009 Newhaven Model Network

Source: MM NTM 2009 LMVR

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 3

Newhaven Transport Study

2. 2010 Model Update

2.1 Observed traffic growth from 2009

Available traffic data from ESCC and TRADS was analysed to ascertain whether there had been any significant traffic growth between the two years. Data from three sites in Newhaven that are surveyed annually was available from ESCC. These sites were:

A259 South Coast Road, Peacehaven A259 Seaford Road, Newhaven C7 Newhaven Road, Swanborough

Figure 2.1 shows the comparison of the annual average weekday 2009 and 2010 traffic flows. The graph shows very little change between 2009 and 2010 traffic flows at the three locations. In the am peak hour of 0800-0900 and considering the three sites in total there is no growth from 2009 to 2010. In the pm peak hour of 1700-1800 traffic growth is 1% from 2009 to 2010.

The A259 Peacehaven site shows growth of 2% in the am peak hour, 3% in the pm peak hour and 1% growth over a 12hour period from 0700-1900. The A259 Newhaven site shows a reduction in traffic of 2% in the am peak, a 1% reduction in the pm peak and a 2% reduction over 12 hours. The Swanborough site shows a 1% reduction in the am peak, a 1% increase in the pm peak and a 3% reduction over a 12 hour period.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 4

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 2.1: ESCC Traffic Data – 2009 & 2010

2250 A259 Peacehaven 2009 2000 A259 Peacehaven 2010 A259 New haven 2009 1750 A259 New haven 2010 C7 Sw anborough 2009 1500 C7 Sw anborough 2010 1250

1000

750 Flow (in vehicles) Flow vehicles) (in

500

250

0 0 00 0 0 :00 :00 :00 6: 8: 00:00 02:00 04:00 0 0 10: 12 14 16 18:00 20:00 22:00 Time (hour beginning)

2.2 Network Updates

There have been no significant network changes since 2009 in the model area. However there are two new puffin crossings in Newhaven just west of the Drove roundabout on the A259 and on North Way just west of the access to Denton Island. Additionally a puffin crossing has replaced the pelican crossing on Avis Road. These three puffin crossings have been included in the 2010 network.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 5

Newhaven Transport Study

2.3 Development Updates

Due to the minimal change in traffic flows between 2009 and 2010, no background traffic growth has been applied to the 2009 matrices to update them to 2010. Instead a list of known housing and employment completions during 2009 has been supplied by Lewes District Council and trips from these new developments added to the 2009 matrices to create 2010 base year matrices. Table 2.2 and 2.2 below detail the completions included.

Table 2.1: 2010 Employment Completions

Use Class Completions (gross Site address Old New sqm ) Newhaven B8 -6,640 Units 1 & 2, The Drove, BN9 OAG (Lidl) A1 2,289 B8 3,636 B2 -270 Unit 7 Oak Estate New Road Industrial Area, BN9 9BF B2 209 A1 61 Total -715 Peacehaven B8 -41 189A-B South Coast Road, BN10 8NS Tattoo 41 Parlour A1 -108 243 South Coast Road, BN10 8LD. A3 108 A1 -33 Office rear of unit 3, 229 -231 South Coast Road, BN10 8LB Nutrition 33 club A1 -89 Unit 2, 229-231 South Coast Road, BN10 8LB D1 89 Total 0 Source: Lewes District Council

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 6

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 2.2: 2010 housing completions Completions (net) Site address since Jan 2009 Newhaven 32 Brighton Road, BN9 9NB 1 61 Beresford Road, BN9 0LY 1 45 Brighton Road, BN9 9NA 1 11 Brighton Road, BN9 9NA 1 Land rear of 24, Third Avenue, 1 12-14 Bridge Street, BN9 9PJ 1 7 South Road, BN9 9QL 1 42 Brighton Road, BN9 9NB 1 27 Elphick Road, BN9 9SZ 1 Peacehaven Westview Close, BN10 8GA 7 Downlands. Roundhay Ave, BN10 8TQ 40 Land east and west of Sports Park, BN10 8GL 41 10 View Road, BN10 8DE 1 215 Arundel Road West, 1 37 Steyning Avenue, BN10 8HN 1 57 South Coast Road, BN10 8QP 3 46 Dorothy Avenue, BN10 8HT 1 Jade Cottage, 20 Steyning Avenue, BN10 8LT 1 33 Arundel Road, BN10 8RY 1 The church of Immaculate Conception, Edith 1 Avenue, Land rear of 243 South Coast Road, , BN10 8LD 1 28 Keymer Avenue, BN10 8HA 1 23 Malines Avenue, BN10 7PR 1 248 South Coast Road, BN10 7NP 1 Source: Lewes District Council

TRICS version 2011(a) v6.7.1 has been used to generate appropriate trip rates, concentrating on sites in the south-east. For business parks and affordable housing sites in the southwest have also been included as there was only a single site surveyed in the south east. For non-food retail surveys from East Anglia, Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire and Cumbria were all used as well to get a suitable sample size. The resultant trip rates are shown in Table 2.3 below.

All single unit housing sites are assumed to be private housing. The planning application for 40 units at Downlands in Peacehaven is for sheltered housing flats so the affordable flats trip rate has been used. The 41 units near Peacehaven Sports Park has been assumed to be 75% private housing and 25% affordable housing.

290816/IT D/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 7

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 2.3: Trip Rates

Development Development Type Category Unit AM Peak (0800- 0900) PM Peak (1700- 1800) Class Vehicle Trip Rates Vehicle Trip Rates In Out In Out A1 Retail Food superstore Per 100m2 4.411 3.248 6.685 6.905 Retail Non-food Per 100m2 0.235 0.105 0.847 0.877 A3 Hotel / food / drink Pub / restaurant Per 100m2 0.000 0.000 8.000 4.889 B1 Employment Business park (up to 10,000sqm) Per 100m2 2.087 0.288 0.288 1.750 B2 Employment Industrial estate (up to 16,966 sqm) Per 100m2 0.993 0.363 0.191 0.842 B8 Employment Commercial warehousing Per 100m2 0.117 0.069 0.058 0.117 C1 Hotel / food / drink Hotels Per bed 0.241 0.230 0.226 0.195 C2 Residential Private housing Per dwelling 0.173 0.504 0.375 0.222 Residential Affordable housing Per dwelling 0.122 0.245 0.469 0.286 Residential Private flats Per dwelling 0.061 0.221 0.187 0.088 Residential Affordable flats Per dwelling 0.073 0.154 0.163 0.105 D1 Education University/College Per 100m2 2.463 0.823 0.831 1.071 D2 Leisure Leisure Parks Per 100m2 0.566 0.475 2.581 1.434 Leisure Sports and Leisure Centres Per 100m2 0.599 0.369 1.691 1.106 Source: TRICS version 2011(a) v6.7.1

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 8

Newhaven Transport Study

The new developments in Peacehaven will generate trips not only to Newhaven but also to other destinations west of Peacehaven. However only trips from Peacehaven to Newhaven, and vice versa, are included in the model.

To calculate the appropriate proportion of trips from Peacehaven to Newhaven analysis of two permanent ATC counters on the A259 east and west of Peacehaven has been undertaken. The analysis shows that in the am peak hour (0800-0900) 35.9% of trips outbound from Peacehaven travel to Newhaven and the remaining 64.1% travel west. In the pm peak hour (1700-1800) 20.7% of trips travel from Newhaven to Peacehaven with 79.3% travelling from the west. Therefore trips generated by Peacehaven developments have been multiplied by 35.9% in the am peak and 20.7% in the pm peak to match the distribution shown by the ATCs.

2.4 LGV and HGV growth

The 2009 Newhaven traffic model has two user classes. The first represents cars and the second LGVs and HGVS combined. Forecast growth patterns for LGVs and HGVs are very different so the 2010 model uses three user classes namely, cars, LGVs and HGVs separately. The LGVS and HGVS have been split using the classified counts undertaken in 2009 which showed a 75:25 ratio of LGVs to HGVS. A pcu factor of 2 has been assumed for HGVs.

NTM2009 South East All Areas growth has been used for LGVs and HGVS from 2009 to 2010. For HGVs growth is provided by rigid and articulated vehicles separately. 2009 data from DfT of heavy goods vehicle traffic by axle and road category has been used to calculate the split of HGVs between rigid and articulated. Motorways were excluded from the calculation as there are no motorways in the study area. The resulting split was 63% rigid HGVs and 37% articulated. Table 2.4 below details the growth factors used for LGV and HGVs from 2009 to 2010.

Table 2.4: 2009-2010 LGV and HGV growth

Vehicle Type 2009 – 2010 traffic growth LGVs 1.023 Rigid HGVs 1.011 Articulated HGVs 1.002 All HGVs 1.008

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 9

Newhaven Transport Study

2.5 Overall Matrix Growth

The above sections detail how various sections of the matrices have been growthed up from 2009 to 2010. Table 2.5 below shows the final matrix totals by user class for 2009 and 2010. Overall there has been a 0.7% increase in total pcu trips.

Table 2.5: Overall Matrix Growth, 2009-2010

User Class 2009 trips (pcu) 2010 trips (pcu) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Cars 9,170 8,943 9,184 8,985 LGV 1,303 1,087 1,332 1,112 HGV 868 725 875 730 Total 11,341 10,755 11,392 10,827

A maximum of 42 pcus have been added to any one user class in either time period. Therefore there is no significant change from the previous 2009 validation assignments. The 2009 Validation Report is attached as Appendix A to this report.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 10

Newhaven Transport Study

3. 2030 Forecast Networks

3.1 Introduction

A number of different scenarios have been modelled for 2030. The first is the Do-Minimum scenario which includes only those network changes and developments that are certain to be complete in 2030.

The remaining scenarios test different possible combinations of network changes and developments that could be in place in 2030, to provide indications of their impacts on the local highway network.

3.2 Do Minimum Assumptions

There are no committed network improvements within the detailed study area so the 2030 Do Minimum networks remain the same as the 2010 base.

3.3 Do Something Assumptions

The Do Something network includes two new zones, added to replicate two development sites in Newhaven. The first is at Meeching Quarry, and the second is at Eastside, where several developments are planned. These are summarised in section 4.3.

No other network changes have been made.

3.4 Do Something Mitigation

Three of the 2030 scenarios, namely Scenarios 1, 4 and 5, have been run with mitigation included at two junctions on South Way, the southern part of the one-way system. Mitigation has been applied to the junctions of South Way/ South Road and South Way/Norman Road/Meeching Rise.

Preliminary assessments suggest that traffic signals could be accommodated within the existing highway boundary. There is currently a pedestrian crossing just east of the South Way/South Road junction. This could be moved slightly westbound and incorporated within the new signal junction together with signalised pedestrian facilities across South Road. An alternative approach would be to leave the pedestrian crossing where it is and install a queue loop on South Road which would call the pedestrian stage at the crossing when the queue on South Road became too long. This would provide a gap in the traffic on the one-way system allowing traffic to exit from South Road.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 11

Newhaven Transport Study

4. 2030 Forecast Matrices

4.1 Introduction

A number of different scenarios have been modelled for 2030. The first is the Do-Minimum scenario which includes only those network changes and developments that are certain to be complete in 2030.

The remaining scenarios test different possible combinations of network changes and developments that could be in place in 2030, to provide indications of their impacts on the local highway network.

4.2 Do Minimum Assumptions

Lewes District Council has provided a list of committed housing and employment developments that will be developed beyond 2010. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 below list those developments.

Table 4.1: Committed Employment Developments

Use Class Completions (gross Site address Old New sqm ) Newhaven Land to the east of Beach Road, BN9 0BX n/a Mixed (B1, B2, B8) 7733 A1 -56 54- 58 High Street, BN9 9PA D1 56 Units 1 & 2, The Drove, BN9 OAG B1 715 Elite Foods, Unit 15 E, Plan Estate, New Road, BN9 0EX n/a B8 411 The Willow Estate Avis Way BN9 0DD n/a B2 355 29 and 29A High Street, BN9 9PD B1a -170 52A High Street, BN9 9PA n/a B1a, C3 155 45 High Street BN9 9PA B1a -149 Nightclub -412 A1 -791

Broadway Nightclub, 36-38 High Street, BN9 9PD B1a 1006 D1 524 A3 96 Sainsbury Supermarket, The Drove, BN9 0DJ n/a A1 8886 Land at rear of White Hart, High Street, BN9 9PD n/a A1 56

Peacehaven

Units A1, D1 & D2 Ranalagh Industrial Estate, Avis Way, B1/B8 -1161 BN10 0EH B1/B2/ B8 1161 Suite 2 7C, Edith Avenue, BN10 9JL A2 -75 Suite 3 7C, Edith Avenue, BN10 9JL A2 -73 Suite 1 7C, Edith Avenue, BN10 9JL B1a -76 290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 12

Newhaven Transport Study

Meridian Surgery, Meridian Centre, Meridian Way, BN10 n/a A1 112 8NF Land at Hoyle Road, BN10 8LW n/a B1 2025 131 South Coast Road, BN10 8PA n/a B1 230 B8 -418 Unit E2, Meridian Industrial Estate, Hoyle Road, BN10 8LW B2 418 196 South Coast Road, BN10 8JL B1a -27 A1 -23 196A South Coast Road, BN10 8JL A1/ B1a 23 B1c -343 B2 -517 B8 -173 Lower Hoddern Farm, Hoddern Farm Lane, BN10 8AP B1C 283 B2 462 B8 283 87D, South Coast Road,BN10 8QT A2 -35.7 Waste To Energy Transfer Station Source: Lewes District Council

Table 4.2: Committed Housing Developments Site address Dwellings

Newhaven Newhaven Marina, Fort Road, BN9 9BY 331 Former Workhouse, Church Hill, BN9 9HH 10 Land adjoining Former Workhouse, Church Hill, BN9 9HH 8 Land at rear of Whitehart, High Street, BN9 9PD 8 Broadway Nightclub, 36-38 High Street, BN9 9PD 14 1 Norman Road 1 1-9 Meeching Place, Church Hill 2 Former Sailmakers Loft to rear of 38 Meeching Road 2 29 Brighton Road BN9 9NA 1 31 Brighton Road, BN9 9NA 1 22 Norman Road, BN9 9LJ 1 2C Meeching Road BN9 9QX 2 28 Church Hill, BN9 9LY 1 52A High Street, BN9 9PA 1 45 High Street, BN1 9PA 3 9 Meeching Road, 2 2 The Rose Walk, BN9 9NH 2 28 Brighton Road, BN9 9NB 1 29 and 29A High Street, Newhaven, East Sussex, BN9 9PD 2 54-58 High Street, BN9 9PA 5 Land adjoining 53 Harbour View Road, BN9 9TT 1 290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 13

Newhaven Transport Study

Land between 27 and 29 Fullwood Avenue, BN9 9SW 1 69 Brighton Road, BN9 9NG 1 52A High Street, BN9 9PA 3 70 Fort Road, BN9 9EJ 2 Ellis Gordon Court, Elm Court, BN9 9TB -1 46 High Street BN9 9PA 3 Peacehaven Land east and west of Sports Park, BN10 8GL 40 Land to the east of Sports Park, BN10 8FB 188 200-204 South Coast Road & 17 Dorothy Ave, BN10 8JL 14 The View, Links Avenue, -1 239A South Coast Road BN10 8LD 1 130 Arundel Road, BN10 8EY 1 196 South Coast Road, BN10 8JL 1 20 Rosemary Close, BN10 8BY 1 1 Keymer Avenue, BN10 8NG 1 Plot 2, Adjacent 66, Telscombe Road, 1 Plot 1, Adjacent 66, Telscombe Road, 1 Plot 3, Adjacent 66, Telscombe Road, 1 36 Slindon Avenue, BN10 8ET 1 Land adjacent 2, The Cedars, 1 30 Keymer Avenue, BN10 8HA 1 123-123A The Promenade, BN10 7JA 1 46 Dorothy Avenue, BN10 8HT 1 Suite 1 7C, Edith Avenue, BN10 9JL 2 243 South Coast Road,BN10 8LD 2 Land to rear of 53 Cissbury Avenue, 5 325 South Coast Road, BN10 7HP 2 Suite 3 7C, Edith Avenue, BN10 8JL 1 Suite 2 7C, Edith Avenue, BN10 8JL 1 46 Ashington Gardens, BN10 8UE 1 12 Arundel Road, BN10 8SD 1 32 Phyllis Avenue, BN10 7PW 1 14 Ashington Gardens, Peacehaven, East Sussex, BN10 8UA 1 Autumn Cottage, 67 The Lookout, BN10 8AA -1 113 Arundel Road, Peacehaven, East Sussex, BN10 8HH 1 87D, South Coast Road, BN10 8QT 1 29 Vernon Avenue, BN10 8QT 1 18 Keymer Avenue, BN10 8NG 1 Land between 99 & 100 The Promenade, BN10 8LH 1 197 South Coast Road, BN10 8JL 1 Source: Lewes District Council

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 14

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 4.3 below gives a comparison of the housing commitments from Lewes District Council and the TEMPRO54 and TEMPRO62 equivalents.

Table 4.3: Housing Numbers Comparison

Area Lewes District Council TEMPRO54 housing TEMPRO62 housing Housing Commitments numbers numbers Newhaven 405 716 470 Peacehaven 279 1441 942

The housing numbers supplied by Lewes District Council have been used to generate the additional car trips to and from zones within the centre of Newhaven for the 2030 Do Minimum scenario, together with the trip rates shown in Table 2.3. As with the 2010 matrix, housing sites of 5 units or less are assumed to be private housing. Larger amounts of housing are assumed to be 75% private housing and 25% affordable housing. Within Newhaven the additional housing generates 182 outbound trips in the am peak, and 162 inbound trips in the pm peak. The additional Peacehaven housing generates 123 total outbound trips in the am peak and 109 inbound trips in the pm peak. Of these, 44 outbound trips in the am peak and 39 inbound trips in the pm peak travel to/from Newhaven.

A Transport Assessment (TA) produced for Sainsburys did not include expected additional traffic for our modelled hours of 0800-0900 and 1700-1800, but concentrated on Fridays 1600-1700 and a Saturday peak hour. We have therefore calculated additional traffic using the agreed TRICS trip rates but capping the PM Peak amount generated to the figures provided in the TA.

As with the 2010 matrix building trips generated by new developments in Peacehaven have been factored down to ensure the trips generated are the proportion that would be travelling to/from Newhaven.

4.3 Do Something Assumptions

Five Do Something scenarios have been modelled for 2030. Table 4.4 summarises the developments that have been included.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 15

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 4.4: Do Something scenario summary Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Location Development 1 2 3 4 5 Newhaven Private housing 525 dwellings 3 3 3 3 Meeching Quarry Affordable housing 175 dwellings 3 3 3 3 A1 Food superstore 6000 m2 3 3 3 3 B1 Business park 3000 m2 3 3 3 3 Eastside (up to 10,000sqm) Private housing 225 dwellings 3 3 3 3 Affordable housing 75 dwellings 3 3 3 3

Peacehaven Private housing 493 dwellings 3 3 Valley Road Affordable housing 164 dwellings 3 3 Lower Private housing 450 dwellings 3 Hoddon Affordable housing 150 dwellings 3 Farm

Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 assess additional development in Newhaven only, on top of the Do Minimum committed levels of development for Newhaven and Peacehaven. Scenario 1 has the largest amount of development, including development at both Meeching Quarry and Eastside sites. Scenario 2 contains development at Eastside only, and Scenario 3 contains development at Meeching Quarry only.

Scenarios 4 and 5 assess additional development for both Newhaven and Peacehaven, with Scenario 4 including housing at both Lower Hoddon Farm and Valley Road in Peacehaven. Scenario 5 includes the Valley Road proposed housing only together with both development locations with Newhaven.

The trips to and from the food superstore within the Eastside development have been distributed amongst internal Newhaven zones. The distribution uses the proportions of trips from the surveys undertaken for the Lidl Transport Assessment to allocate trips between west and east Newhaven and the 2010 split of trips between zones on either side of Newhaven. The Newhaven employment and housing trips use the existing trip distributions from zones within the centre of Newhaven. Appendix B shows the am and pm peak inbound and outbound trip distributions employed.

As with the 2010 matrix building trips generated by the new housing developments in Peacehaven have been factored down to ensure the trips generated are the proportion that would be travelling to/from Newhaven.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 16

Newhaven Transport Study

4.4 External Growth

The TEMPRO5.4 dataset has been used to calculate traffic growth for the zones outside of Newhaven town centre, namely the zones covering Woodingdean, Kingston and Lewes and the cordon zones representing traffic travelling into and out of the study area along the main road corridors.

Table 4.5 details which TEMPRO planning areas have been used for each of the zones outside of Newhaven and Peacehaven and the growth factors used from 2010 to 2030.

Table 4.5: TEMPRO5.4 growth factors

Zone Zone Name TEMPRO Planning Area AM Peak Growth PM Peak Growth Factor No Factor Origin Destination Origin Destination 2 A27 (M23) west cordon entry East Sussex 1.236 1.249 1.249 1.240 3 A27 east cordon entry East Sussex 1.236 1.249 1.249 1.240 4 A259 east cordon entry East Sussex 1.236 1.249 1.249 1.240 63 A26 north of Lewes cordon East Sussex 1.236 1.249 1.249 1.240 entry 64 A275 north of Lewes cordon East Sussex 1.236 1.249 1.249 1.240 entry 66 A259 west (Brighton central) Brighton and Hove 1.302 1.265 1.266 1.285 cordon entry 67 Brighton via A23 cordon entry Brighton and Hove 1.302 1.265 1.266 1.285 68 Woodingdean Rottingdean/Saltdean 1.266 1.245 1.241 1.251 (main) 69 Kingston Rural (Lewes) 1.148 1.222 1.212 1.163 70 Lewes Lewes 1.194 1.245 1.243 1.209 Source: TEMPRO5.4 dataset

4.4.1 TEMPRO6.2

During the course of the study, TEMPRO6.2 planning data became definitive. Table 4.6 below shows the TEMPRO6.2 growth factors. TEMPRO6.2 growth is significantly lower than TEMPRO5.4 for all parts of East Sussex.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 17

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 4.6: TEMPRO6.2 growth factors

Zone Zone Name TEMPRO Planning Area AM Peak Growth PM Peak Growth Factor No Factor Origin Destination Origin Destination 2 A27 (M23) west cordon entry East Sussex 1.142 1.146 1.152 1.148 3 A27 east cordon entry East Sussex 1.142 1.146 1.152 1.148 4 A259 east cordon entry East Sussex 1.142 1.146 1.152 1.148 63 A26 north of Lewes cordon East Sussex 1.142 1.146 1.152 1.148 entry 64 A275 north of Lewes cordon East Sussex 1.142 1.146 1.152 1.148 entry 66 A259 west (Brighton central) Brighton and Hove 1.187 1.146 1.148 1.168 cordon entry 67 Brighton via A23 cordon entry Brighton and Hove 1.187 1.146 1.148 1.168 68 Woodingdean Rottingdean/Saltdean 1.162 1.139 1.139 1.151 (main) 69 Kingston Rural (Lewes) 1.081 1.129 1.133 1.103 70 Lewes Lewes 1.113 1.140 1.147 1.132 Source: TEMPRO6.2 dataset

4.5 Fuel and Income Factors

In line with WebTAG unit 3.15.2 guidance for highway only models, fuel and income factors have been applied on top of the additional development and TEMPRO increases in car trips.

Table 4.7: Fuel and Income Factors

Factor Type 2010-2030 Factor Income adjustment factor 1.0625 Fuel cost adjustment factor 1.0399 Combined factor 1.1042 Source: WebTAG unit 3.15.2

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 18

Newhaven Transport Study

4.6 LGV and HGV growth

For both Do Minimum and all Do Something options tested, LGV and HGV growth remains the same. NTM2009 South East All Areas growth has been used for LGVs and HGVS. For HGVs growth is provided by rigid and articulated vehicles separately. 2009 data from DfT of heavy goods vehicle traffic by axle and road category has been used to calculate the split of HGVs between rigid and articulated. Motorways were excluded from the calculation as there are no motorways in the study area. The resulting split was 63% rigid HGVs and 37% articulated. Table 4.8 below details the growth factors used for LGV and HGVs from 2010 to 2030.

Table 4.8: 2010-2030 LGV and HGV growth

Vehicle Type 2010 – 2030 traffic growth LGVs 1.558 Rigid HGVs 1.144 Articulated HGVs 1.246 All HGVs 1.182

4.7 Overall Matrix Growth

The above sections detail how various sections of the matrices have been growthed up from 2010 to 2030. Table 4.9 below shows the final matrix totals by user class for 2010 and 2030 Do Minimum. Overall there has been a 33% increase in car trips and an 34% increase in total pcu trips.

Table 4.9: Overall Matrix Growth

User Class 2010 trips (pcu) 2030 Do Minimum trips (pcu) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Cars 9,184 8,985 11,884 11,831 LGV 1,332 1,112 2,076 1,732 HGV 875 730 1,034 863 Total 11,392 10,827 14,994 14,427

Table 4.10 and Table 4.11 show the matrix totals for the 2030 Do Minimum and five Do Something scenarios.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 19

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 4.10: 2030 Matrix Totals – DM and Scenarios 1,2 and 3

User Class 2030 Do Minimum 2030 Scenario 1 trips 2030 Scenario 2 trips 2030 Scenario 3 trips trips (pcu) (pcu) (pcu) (pcu) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak Cars 11,884 11,831 13,133 13,502 12,669 13,010 12,348 12,323 LGV 2,076 1,732 2,076 1,732 2,076 1,732 2,076 1,732 HGV 1,034 863 1,034 863 1,034 863 1,034 863 Total 14,994 14,427 16,242 16,097 15,779 15,605 15,458 14,918

Table 4.11: 2030 Matrix Totals – DM and Scenarios 1, 4 and 5

User Class 2030 Do Minimum 2030 Scenario 1 trips 2030 Scenario 4 trips 2030 Scenario 5 trips trips (pcu) (pcu) (pcu) (pcu) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak AM Peak Cars 11,884 11,831 13,133 13,502 13,431 13,685 13,289 13,597 LGV 2,076 1,732 2,076 1,732 2,076 1,732 2,076 1,732 HGV 1,034 863 1,034 863 1,034 863 1,034 863 Total 14,994 14,427 16,242 16,097 16,541 16,280 16,399 16,193

4.8 Non Highway Interventions

Reductions in generated trips are proposed to model the effects of non-highway interventions or Smarter Choices. Factors have been derived to be applied to individual development sites and an overall matrix reduction factor has also been derived.

A paper written in 2008 by Möser and Bamberg1 (2008) reviewed the effects of smarter choice measures, using reports of 141 studies in 12 developed countries. 93 of the studies were in the UK. The results can be summarised as follows.

______

1 Möser, G and S Bamberg (2008). The effectiveness of soft transport policy measures: a critical assessment and meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol 28, pp10-26.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 20

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 4.12: Smarter Choice Impacts

Smarter Choice Measure Reduction in Car Trips Workplace Travel Plan 18% School Travel Pan 10% Targeted Marketing 8%

To model the impacts of smarter choices on future employment sites, it is therefore proposed to reduce generated trips by 18% for those sites within the area encompassed by Sainsburys, Drove Road, Avis Way industrial estates and Denton Island.

For future housing sites it is proposed to reduce the education proportion of generated trips by 10%. TEMPRO5.4 data for Newhaven in 2030 shows that education trips make up 9% of am peak and 3% of pm car peak trips.

An overall matrix reduction factor is proposed to take account of trip reductions due to workplace travel planning, school travel plans and targeted marketing combined. It is likely that a significant proportion of the reduction in car trips as a result of direct marketing will be due to workplace or school travel plans, so it is proposed to use only half the observed reduction for targeted marketing (4%) on top of the workplace and school travel plan reductions.

Using WebTAG proportions of trips by commuting, employers business and other, together with the TEMPRO5.4 data to provide the proportion of education trips gives reductions in the additional car trips generated by future development of 12.2% in the am peak and 10.1% in the pm peak. This equates to an overall matrix reduction of 2.2% in the am peak hour and 2.0% in the pm peak hour.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 21

Newhaven Transport Study

5. Results

5.1 Introduction

SATURN assignments were undertaken for the AM peak for 2010, 2030 Do Minimum and the three 2030 Do Something networks. For these assessments, variable demand modelling was not undertaken and redistribution and mode choice have not been considered. The modelling undertaken highlights where the congestion is likely to occur across the network for the two years and associated network and development assumptions assessed. Specific levels of congestion at individual junctions may vary in reality from that presented, however the modelling work undertaken does indicate the pressure points across the network

Table 5.1 below provides network statistics the 2010 and 2030 Do Minimum assessments undertaken. Network speeds, travel times and fuel consumption are compared together with a summary of levels of congestion at junctions across the modelled area. Table 5.2 provides the same statistics for each of the Do Something scenarios.

Table 5.1: Base and Do Minimum Network Summary Statistics Data type 2010 2030 Do Minimum AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Total travel time (pcu-hrs/hr) 1535.3 1331.5 3084.1 2600.1 Travel distance (pcu-kms/hr) 81122.6 70492.6 101038.7 86291.2 Average speed (kph) 52.8 52.9 32.8 33.2 Total Fuel consumption (litres/hr) 6091.1 5389.2 9270.1 8081.6 No and % of junctions with max V/C < 24 22 17 19 85% No and % of junctions with max V/C > 0 2 7 2 85% but < 100% No and % of junctions with max V/C > 0 0 0 3 100%

The detailed results of the assessments are presented in the figures included in this chapter. The coloured dots indicate the highest volume over capacity (V/C) ratio for all turning movements at the junction. All green dots indicate V/C ratios below 85%. At these junctions no capacity problems are expected in the forecast year. Yellow dots represent V/C ratios between 85% and 100% and red dots indicate V/C’s above 100%. Delays and congestion may occur for any junctions where V/C ratios at or above 100% are forecast.

Figure 5.1 shows the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for the 2010 AM Peak period. Figure 5.2 shows the same information for the 2010 PM Peak. In the AM Peak no junctions have a volume/capacity ratio (v/c) of over 85%. In the PM Peak two locations have v/c’s of over 85%, the right turn from A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road at 95% and Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge at 93%. The A27/A26 Beddingham junction has v/c ratios of less than 85% for both the 2010 AM and PM peak periods.

Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 show the same information fro the 2030 Do Minimum AM and PM peak’s respectively. In the 2030 Do Minimum AM Peak, the v/c ratio for the A259 Brighton Road approach to the 290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 22

Newhaven Transport Study

city centre one-way system reaches 93% due to the pedestrian crossing being modelled as occurring every two minutes. The right turn from Bridge Street onto the city centre one-way system has a v/c ratio of 96%, the South Road approach has a v/c ratio of 88% and the Norman Road approach at 95%. The left turn from A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road has a v/c ratio of 89% and the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge has a v/c ratio of 85%. Finally the right turn from the A259 slip onto A26 New Road has a v/c ratio of 89%.

In the 2030 Do Minimum PM Peak, the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge v/c rises to 100%. The one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic have a v/c ratio of 102% and the traffic from Denton Island accessing the one-way system have a v/c of 104%. The South Road approach to the one-way system is at 95% and the C7 Lewes Road merge onto the one-way system has a v/c ratio of 86%.

The A27/A26 Beddingham junction has v/c ratios of less than 85% for both the 2030 Do Minumum AM and PM peak periods.

5.2 Do Something Results without mitigation

Table 5.2 below provides network statistics the 2030 Do Something assessments undertaken on the networks without mitigation. Network speeds, travel times and fuel consumption are compared together with a summary of levels of congestion at junctions across the modelled area.

Table 5.2: Do Something Network Summary Statistics – Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 Data type 2030 Scenario 1 2030 Scenario 2 2030 Scenario 3 AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Total travel time (pcu-hrs/hr) 3680.9 3244.8 3247.1 2979.8 3391.6 2944.5 Travel distance (pcu-kms/hr) 104272.4 90243.8 101900.5 88545.0 102777.0 89313.3 Average speed (kph) 28.3 27.8 31.4 29.7 30.3 30.3 Total Fuel consumption 10310.2 9193.3 9593.8 8773.0 9800.7 8697.5 (litres/hr) No and % of junctions with 17 16 18 17 18 17 max V/C < 85% No and % of junctions with 2 5 4 3 4 4 max V/C > 85% but < 100% No and % of junctions with 6 4 3 4 3 3 max V/C > 100%

The summary statistic show that Scenario 1 has the highest travel time and distance and fuel consumption and the lowest average speeds. This is because it includes both the Eastside and Meeching Quaary developments.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 23

Newhaven Transport Study

5.2.1 Scenario 1

Figure 5.5 shows the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for 2030 AM Peak Scenario 1 with both the Eastside and Meeching Quarry developments included. Figure 5.6 shows the same information for the PM peak.

In the AM peak, six locations now have a v/c of over 100%. The increase in traffic travelling to and from the Eastside site, as well as the additional traffic from Meeching Quarry, causes higher levels on congestion on the one way section of the A259, west of the swing bridge. As a result the South Road approach to the one-way system has a v/c of 131%, Norman Road has a v/c of 121% and Meeching Rise of 109%. The Bridge St approach to the northern section of the one-way system has a v/c of 118%. The one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic v/c ratio is 101% as is the exit from the eastside development at the Drove roundabout. Finally the Drove Road merge onto the A259 east of the swing bridge has a v/c of 100%

Two junctions have v/c’s between 85% and 100% as they did in the Do-Minimum. The left turn from the A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road has a v/c ratio of 94%, whilst the v/c ratio for the A259 eastbound entry to the one-way system remains similar to the Do-Minimum at 92%. A larger increase would be expected here but analysis suggests that some traffic from A259 west of Peacehaven originally routing through Newhaven on the A259 in the Do Minimum, re-routes via the A27 and A26 to the east side of Newhaven. The re-routing is to avoid the increased congestion at the junction of A259 Brighton Road with Newfield Road, the first option for eastbound traffic to turn off the A259 to travel through to Meeching Quarry.

In the PM Peak, the v/c ratio for the Drove roundabout increases to 165% from less than 85% in the Do Minimum. The arm providing egress from the Eastside development is at 165% and the Drove Road approach is at 103%. If all the traffic from Eastside could pass through the Drove roundabout v/c ratios at other critical junctions would increase.

The v/c ratio for the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge v/c rises to 107% from 100% and the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic v/c ratio rises to 112% from 102%. The v/c ratio for traffic from Denton Island accessing the one-way system increases to 108% from 104% in the Do Minimum.

The v/c ratio for the South Road approach to the one-way system reduces slightly to 91% and the C7 Lewes Road approach rises from a v/c ratio of 86% in the Do Minimum to 96% in Scenario 1. Three additional junctions have a v/c ratio of greater than 85% in Scenario 1, namely the left turn from the A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road at 88%, the Norman Road approach to the one-way system at 87% and the slip road merge from the A26 New Road onto the A259 just west of the Drove roundabout at 87%.

The A27/A26 Beddingham junction has v/c ratios of less than 85% for both the AM and PM peak periods.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 24

Newhaven Transport Study

5.2.2 Scenario 2

Figure 5.7 shows the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for 2030 AM Peak Scenario 2. Figure 5.8 shows the same information for the PM peak. Scenario 2 includes the Eastside development only on top of the Do Minimum.

In the AM peak, three junctions retain a v/c ratio greater than 100%. The South Road approach to the one- way system has a v/c of 102%, and Norman Road has a v/c of 103%, with Meeching Rise at 98%. The Bridge St approach to the northern section of the one-way system has a v/c of 126%.

The left turn from A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road has a v/c ratio of 86% and the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge has a v/c ratio of 96%. The A259 Brighton Road entry to the one-way system v/c ratio rises to 97% and the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic v/c ratio is 90%.

The v/c ratio at the Drove roundabout for traffic exiting the Eastside development is 79%. This is a reduction from Scenario 1 due to there being less traffic on the A259 as a result of the Meeching Quarry development not being modelled in Scenario 2.

In the PM peak, v/c ratios generally decrease when compared to Scenario 1 due to only the Eastside development being modelled. The exception is the v/c ratio for traffic leaving Denton Island at the junction with A259 North Way where the v/c ratio increases from 108% in the Scenario 1 to 114% in Scenario 2. This is due to the A259 eastbound through traffic which re-routed in Scenario 1 returning to the A259 in Scenario 2.

In the PM Peak, the v/c ratio for the Drove roundabout increases to 144% from less than 85% in the Do Minimum. The arm providing egress from the Eastside development is at 144% and the Drove Road approach is at 103%. If all the traffic from Eastside could pass through the Drove roundabout v/c ratios at other critical junctions would increase.

The v/c ratio for the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge is 106% and the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic v/c ratio is 110%. The v/c ratio for the South Road approach to the one-way system is 92% and the C7 Lewes Road approach is also 92% in Scenario 2. The v/c ratio for the left turn from the A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road at 87%. The v/c ratios for the Norman Road approach to the one-way system and the slip road merge from the A26 New Road onto the A259 just west of the Drove roundabout reduce back to less than 85%.

The A27/A26 Beddingham junction has v/c ratios of less than 85% for both the AM and PM peak periods.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 25

Newhaven Transport Study

5.2.3 Scenario 3

Figure 5.9 shows the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for 2030 AM Peak Scenario 3. Figure 5.10 shows the same information for the PM peak. Scenario 3 includes the Meeching Quarry development only on top of the Do Minimum.

The AM Peak has the same three junctions with v/c ratios over 100% as Scenario 2. The South Road approach to the one-way system has a v/c of 127%, and Norman Road has a v/c of 119%, with Meeching Rise at 98%. The Bridge St approach to the northern section of the one-way system has a v/c of 101%.

In addition to these junctions, the left turn from A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road has a v/c ratio of 96% and the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge has a v/c ratio of 90%. The right turn from the A259 off-slip onto A26 New Road has a v/c ratio of 95% and the A259 Brighton Road entry to the one-way system v/c ratio is 90%.

The PM Peak for Scenario 3 has three locations with a v/c of over 100%, namely the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic at 109%, the Drove Road merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge at 106% and the Drove Road approach to the Drove roundabout at 100%

In the PM peak, traffic from the west re-routes to avoid the A259/Newfield Road junction, the first access off the A259 from the west for traffic travelling to Meeching Quarry, and therefore there is some improvement to delays, particularly on the one-way section west of the swing bridge. The approach from the north of the A259 / Bridge Street junction has a v/c of 92% compared with 104% in the Do Minimum.

The South Road approach to the one-way system v/c ratio is 96%, the C7 Lewes Road approach v/c ratio is 88% and the Norman Road approach is at 89%.

The A27/A26 Beddingham junction has v/c ratios of less than 85% for both the AM and PM peak periods.

5.3 Do Something Results – with mitigation

Table 5.3 below provides network statistics the 2030 Do Something assessments undertaken on the networks without mitigation, namely Scenario 1, 4 and 5. Network speeds, travel times and fuel consumption are compared together with a summary of levels of congestion at junctions across the modelled area.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 26

Newhaven Transport Study

Table 5.3: Do Something Network with mitigation Summary Statistics – Scenarios 1, 4 and 5 Data type 2030 Scenario 1 with 2030 Scenario 4 2030 Scenario 5 mitigation AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Total travel time (pcu-hrs/hr) 3508.2 3243.6 3665.5 3351.2 3607.0 3306.8 Travel distance (pcu-kms/hr) 104637.2 90413.8 105936.5 91139.2 105330.1 90744.2 Average speed (kph) 29.8 27.9 28.9 27.2 29.2 27.4 Total Fuel consumption 10053.8 9187.0 10316.0 9378.4 10235.0 9310.0 (litres/hr) No and % of junctions with 17 18 16 17 17 17 max V/C < 85% No and % of junctions with 7 3 7 4 6 4 max V/C > 85% but < 100% No and % of junctions with 1 4 2 4 2 4 max V/C > 100%

Scenario 4 with the maximum amount of development has the lowest average speeds and highest total travel time and distance.

5.3.1 Scenario 1 with mitigation

Scenario 1 has been re-run with mitigation applied to the junctions of South Way/ South Road and South Way/Norman Road/Meeching Rise. Highway assignments have been run assuming signal junction control at both the South Way/ South Road and South Way/Norman Road/Meeching Rise. Figures 5.11 and 5.12 show the resulting volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for the 2030 AM and PM Peaks respectively.

In the AM Peak, the volume/capacity ratios at South Way/South Road and South Way/Norman Road/Meeching Rise reduce from 131% and 121% without mitigation to 91% and 97% respectively. The v/c ratio for Bridge St approach to the northern section of the one-way system increases from 118% without mitigation to 129% as more vehicles travel round the one-way system. Volume/capacity ratios at the Drove roundabout, the Drove Road merge onto the A259 east of the swing bridge and the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic all reduce slightly also from just over 100% without mitigation to just under 100%.

In the PM Peak the volume/capacity ratios at South Way/South Road and South Way/Norman Road/Meeching Rise reduce from 91% and 87% without mitigation to 82% and 86% respectively. The slip road merge from the A26 New Road onto the A259 just west of the Drove roundabout volume/capacity ratio reduces from 87% without mitigation to 82%. The volume/capacity ratios at other junctions remain almost identical to Scenario 1.

The A27/A26 Beddingham junction has v/c ratios of less than 85% for both the AM and PM peak periods.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 27

Newhaven Transport Study

5.3.2 Scenario 4

Figures 5.13 and 5.14 show the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for the 2030 AM and PM Peaks respectively for Scenario 4 which includes all development within Newhaven and Peacehaven.

In the AM Peak, the additional traffic from Peacehaven can not travel past the junction of A259 Brighton Road with Newfield Road, the first option for eastbound traffic to turn off the A259 to travel through to Meeching Quarry and other housing south of the one-way system. Consequently, volume/capacity ratios at the junctions around the one-way system remain almost identical to Scenario 1 with mitigation. Some local re-routing on the east side of Newhaven results in Drove roundabout volume/capacity ratio increasing from 90% to 103% and the volume /capacity ratio at the A26 New Road/A259 eastbound slip junction increases from 78% to 87%.

All other junctions, including the A27/A26 Beddingham junction have very similar volume/capacity ratios to Scenario 1 with mitigation.

In the PM Peak, the additional traffic to/from Peacehaven generally increases volume/capacity ratios slightly at the junctions compared to Scenario 1 with mitigation. The volume/capacity ratio for the North Way/Bridge Street junction increases from 162% to 170% and the volume/capacity ratio at the junction of the A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road increases from 89% to 93%. The volume/capacity ratio for the slip road merge from the A26 New Road onto the A259 just west of the Drove roundabout increases from 83% in Scenario 1 with mitigation to 90% in Scenario 4.

All other junctions, including the A27/A26 Beddingham junction have similar volume/capacity ratios to Scenario 1 with mitigation.

5.3.3 Scenario 5

Figures 5.15 and 5.16 show the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for the 2030 AM and PM Peaks respectively for Scenario 4 which includes all development within Newhaven and only the Valley Road development in Peacehaven.

The volume/capacity ratios for Scenario 5 are similar to those of Scenario 4. In the AM Peak only one junction changes category of ratio, namely the A26 New Road/A259 eastbound slip junction where the volume/capacity ratio reduces from 87% to 81%. IN the PM Peak there are no changes of category with all volume/capacity ratios similar to Scenario 4.

290816/IT D/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 28

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.1: 2010 Base AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 29

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.2: 2010 Base PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 30

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.3: 2030 Do Minimum AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 31

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.4: 2030 Do Minimum PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 32

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.5: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 33

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.6: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 34

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.7: 2030 Scenario 2 AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 35

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.8: 2030 Scenario 2 PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 36

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.9: 2030 Scenario 3 AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 37

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.10: 2030 Scenario 3 PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 38

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.11: 2030 Scenario 1 Mitigated AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 39

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.12: 2030 Scenario 1 Mitigated PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 40

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.13: 2030 Scenario 4 AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 41

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.14: 2030 Scenario 4 PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 42

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.15: 2030 Scenario 5 AM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 43

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 5.16: 2030 Scenario 5 PM Peak Junction Impacts

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 44

Newhaven Transport Study

6. Non Highway Intervention Results

Scenario 1 without mitigation has been run with the two sets of non-highway intervention trip reductions as described in section 4.8. The first set of reductions is applied on a site only basis. Reductions are applied to all housing car trips generated between 2010 and 2030 and to car trips generated between 2010 and 2030 by employment sites within the area encompassed by Sainsburys, Drove Road, Avis Way industrial estates and Denton Island. This results in a reduction of 31 car trips in the am peak and 49 trips in the pm peak.

The second approach applies trip rate reductions to the entire car matrix as a result of workplace travel planning, school travel plans and targeted marketing to all car trips generated between 2010 and 2030. This results in a reduction of 482 trips in the am peak and 456 trips in the pm peak.

Table 6.1 provides network statistics the 2030 Scenario 1 with and without non-highway interventions assessments.

Table 6.1: Do Something Network Summary Statistics – non-highway interventions Data type 2030 Scenario 1 2030 Scenario 1 – site 2030 Scenario 1 – matrix basis reductions based reductions AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Total travel time (pcu-hrs/hr) 3680.9 3244.8 3658.0 3248.9 3330.6 3045.8 Travel distance (pcu-kms/hr) 104272.4 90243.8 104194.3 90252.1 102251.3 89165.0 Average speed (kph) 28.3 27.8 28.5 27.8 30.7 29 Total Fuel consumption 10310.2 9193.3 10270.0 9203.6 9742.0 8853.0 (litres/hr) No and % of junctions with 17 16 17 17 18 17 max V/C < 85% No and % of junctions with 2 5 3 4 4 4 max V/C > 85% but < 100% No and % of junctions with 6 4 5 4 3 4 max V/C > 100%

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the volume over capacity ratios at the key junctions for the AM and PM peak with trip rate reductions applied on a site only basis. As the reduction in trip numbers is so small there is almost no difference in volume/capacity ratios at the key junctions. The only change in the AM Peak is at the Drove Road merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge where the v/c ratio drops from 100% to 99%. In the PM Peak, the v/c ratio for the exit from Eastside drops from 165% to 160%, and the slip road merge from the A26 New Road onto the A259 just west of the Drove roundabout drops from 87% to 83%.

Figures 6.3 and 6.4 show the volume over capacity ratios at the key junctions for the AM and PM peak with trip rate reductions applied across the matrix. This has a greater impact on the volume/capacity ratios.

In the AM peak, three of the six locations still have a v/c of over 100%. The South Road approach to the one-way system has a v/c of 127%, Norman Road has a v/c of 119% and Meeching Rise of 108%. The Bridge St approach to the northern section of the one-way system has a v/c of 121%.

The one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic v/c ratio reduces to 87%. The Drove Road merge onto the A259 east of the swing bridge v/c reduces from 100% to 96% and the Eastside exit onto Drove roundabout reduces from 101% to 70%.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 45

Newhaven Transport Study

The left turn from the A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road v/c ratio reduces to 90%, whilst the v/c ratio for the A259 eastbound entry to the one-way system is 94%.

In the PM Peak, the v/c ratio for the Drove roundabout reduces from 165% to 148%. The arm providing egress from the Eastside development is at 148% and the Drove Road approach is at 102%. The v/c ratio for the Drove Road slip merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge v/c remains at 107% and the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic v/c ratio reduces slightly to 111% from 112%. The v/c ratio for traffic from Denton Island accessing the one-way system reduces from 108% to 105%.

The v/c ratio for the South Road approach to the one-way system remains at 91% and the C7 Lewes Road approach reduces slightly to 94%. The left turn from the A259 eastbound off-slip onto the A26 Drove Road has a v/c ratio of 87%, the Norman Road approach to the one-way system at 87% and the slip road merge from the A26 New Road onto the A259 just west of the Drove roundabout reduces to 80% from 87%.

290816/IT D/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 46

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 6.1: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts – Site Basis Non-Highway intervention

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 47

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 6.2: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts – Site Basis Non-Highway intervention

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 48

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 6.3: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts – Matrix Basis Non-Highway intervention

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 49

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 6.4: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts – Matrix Basis Non-Highway intervention

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 50

Newhaven Transport Study

7. TEMPRO62 Growth

During the course of the study, TEMPRO6.2 planning data became definitive, replacing TEMPRO5.4 used for the assessments described previously. TEMPRO6.2 growth is significantly lower than TEMPRO5.4 for all parts of East Sussex. To determine the impact of the lower growth on traffic levels and impacts within Newhaven, scenario 1 without mitigation has been re-run using TEMPRO6.2 growth for external zones.

Table 7.1 below provides network statistics the Scenario 1 assessments with the differing TEMPRO growth. Network speeds, travel times and fuel consumption are compared together with a summary of levels of congestion at junctions across the modelled area.

Table 7.1: Do Something Network Summary Statistics – Scenario 1 with differing TEMPRO growth Data type 2030 Scenario 1 2030 Scenario 1 (TEMPRO5.4) (TEMPRO6.2) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Total travel time (pcu-hrs/hr) 3680.9 3244.8 2873.9 2704.7 Travel distance (pcu-kms/hr) 104272.4 90243.8 99524.4 87272.9 Average speed (kph) 28.3 27.8 34.6 32.3 Total Fuel consumption 10310.2 9193.3 9017.9 8241.1 (litres/hr) No and % of junctions with 17 16 19 18 max V/C < 85% No and % of junctions with 2 5 3 3 max V/C > 85% but < 100% No and % of junctions with 6 4 3 4 max V/C > 100%

The travel times, distance and fuel consumption all decrease, whilst average speeds increase with the reduced TEMPRO growth. The number of junctions experiencing capacity issues reduces in the AM Peak but remains similar in the PM Peak.

Figure 7.1 shows the volume over capacity ratios at key junctions within Newhaven for 2030 AM Peak Scenario 1 with reduced TEMPRO growth. Figure 7.2 shows the same information for the PM peak.

In the AM peak, only three locations now have a v/c of over 100%. These are the Bridge St approach to the northern section of the one-way system and the South Road and Norman Road junctions on the south side of the one-way system.

V/C ratios at Drove roundabout, the Drove Road merge onto the A259 east of the swing bridge and the one-way system traffic at the merge with the swing bridge westbound traffic reduce to 79%, 96% and 82% from 101%, 100% and 101% respectively. The reduction in external growth reduces traffic levels on the east side of Newhaven allowing traffic to find consistent travel patterns via either the main A259 or the parallel Drove Road. Higher levels of traffic in the other scenarios has resulted in lots of small amounts of re-routing between options on the east side of Newhaven.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 51 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

In the PM Peak, the v/c ratios for all junctions remain very similar even with the reduced TEMPRO growth. The levels of congestion in the PM Peak are higher than the AM and the reduction in external growth is not large enough to have a significant impact at junction level.

290816/IT D/ITW/001/G July 2011 52 P:\Southampton\ ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 7.1: 2030 Scenario 1 AM Peak Junction Impacts – TEMPRO6.2 growth

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 53

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure 7.2: 2030 Scenario 1 PM Peak Junction Impacts – TEMPRO6.2 growth

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 54

Newhaven Transport Study

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 55 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

8. Conclusions

The Newhaven traffic model validated at a 2009 level has been updated to 2010 to include the developments completed in 2010. This has then been used as the model base year to produce traffic forecasts for a 2030 AM peak hour and PM peak hour.

The 2030 Do Minimum scenario includes only committed developments within the study area, with three further development scenarios assessed. Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 include additional development in Newhaven only, whilst Scenarios 4 and 5 include additional development in both Newhaven and Peacehaven.

Scenario 1 includes housing, retail and office development at Eastside together with housing at Meeching Quarry. Scenario 2 includes the Eastside development only and Scenario 3 the Meeching Quarry development only.

Scenario 4 includes both Newhaven developments at Eastside and Meeching Quarry, plus housing development at Lower Hoddon Farm and Valley Road. Scenario 5 is the same as Scenario 4 but excludes the Lower Hoddon Farm development.

The main points on the highway network under pressure in the 2030 Do Minimum scenario are the approaches to the one-way system around the town centre and the Drove Road merge with the A259 just east of the swing bridge, the junction of the A259 eastbound off-slip with A26 Drove Road, and the junction of A26 New Road with A259 off-slip.

Scenario 1 includes the largest amount of development in Newhaven and results in the largest number of junctions with volume/capacity ratios over 100%. In the AM Peak the additional development results in two extra locations with volume/capacity ratios over 85%, namely the Drove roundabout and the traffic on the one-way system merging with traffic travelling westbound over the swing bridge. In the PM Peak the additional development results in four extra locations with volume/capacity ratios over 85%, namely, the Drove roundabout, the A259 eastbound off-slip junction with A26 Drove Road, Norman Road approach to the one-way system and the merge from the A26 New Road with A259 just west of the Drove roundabout. The same locations suffer capacity pressures in each scenario to differing degrees.

Traffic from the west of Newhaven trying to reach the houses at Meeching Quarry results in traffic blocking back along the A259 Brighton Road from the junction with Newfield Road. This is the first junction traffic from the west can use to leave the A259 to reach Meeching Quarry. As a result of these delays, some traffic previously using the A259 to travel eastbound through Newhaven re-routes via the A27 and A26.

The draft report on the “Physical Development Vision for Newhaven Stage 2” produced by BBP Regeneration in April 2010 considered the potential for a new western link between the Meeching Quarry development site and the A259 for local access and public transport only. Assessments showed that the proposed link would reduce the traffic delays on the ring road and improve overall connectivity to and from the western part of Newhaven. However, the costs of providing the links would be significant and be dependent on the potential funding from private developers in the area.

Traffic also has difficulty in exiting the Eastside development onto the A259 in the PM Peak. The current layout for the Drove roundabout does not provide enough capacity for traffic exiting Eastside with significant overcapacity on the Eastside arm occurring. The v/c ratios currently reported for other junctions within the study area would therefore increase if all traffic could exit from Eastside. 290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 56 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

Preliminary assessments show that signalisation of the South Way/ South Road and South Way/Norman Road/Meeching Rise junctions would enable traffic from Meeching Quarry to access the one-way system.

Scenarios 4 and 5 include the mitigated junctions together with development in Peacehaven. The additional traffic from Peacehaven in the AM Peak cannot pass through the junction of A259 Brighton Road with Newfield Road. Consequently volume/capacity ratios on the west side of Newhaven remain similar in Scenarios 1, 4 and 5 in the AM Peak. Otherwise volume/capacity ratios at other locations in both peaks increase slightly in Scenario 4 as compared to Scenario 1 with mitigation. Volume/capacity ratios reduce slightly in Scenario 5 compared to Scenario 4.

Non-highway interventions have been modelled on a site only basis and as an overall matrix reduction for Scenario 1. The overall matrix reduction provides a greater reduction in trip numbers but neither approach has significant impact on the number of junctions overcapacity and the v/c ratios.

During the course of the project, TEMPRO planning data has changed with TEMPRO6.2 data becoming definitive. TEMPRO6.2 growth is lower than TEMPRO5.4 data so a sensitivity test using Scenario 1 without mitigation has been run using the new TEMPRO growth to assess the effects. For both peak periods, network travel times, distances and fuel consumption decrease with the lower TEMPRO6.2 growth whilst average network speeds increase. The reduction in growth is not large enough to have an impact at junction level in the PM Peak. However in the AM Peak, traffic on the east side of Newhaven is able to find a consistent pattern of routes via either the A259 or parallel Drove Road. The remaining junctions with capacity issues are the South Way and Norman Road junctions on the south side of the one-way system, for which mitigation is proposed, and the Bridge Street junction on the north side of the one-way system.

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 57 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

Appendices

Appendix A. 2009 Model Validation Report ______59 Appendix B. Do Something Trip Distributions ______128

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 58 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Transport Study

Appendix A. 2009 Model Validation Report

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 59 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc

Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue BBP Regeneration Corinthian House 279 Tottenham Court Road London United Kingdom W1T 7RJ

Newhaven Traffic Model Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) First Issue

May 2009

Mott MacDonald St Anne House 20-26 Wellesley Road Croydon Surrey CR9 2UL UK Tel : 44 (0)20 8774 2000 Fax : 44 (0)20 8681 5706

255852/03/01c/May 2009 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Newhaven Traffic Model Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) First Issue

Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

01c 08/05/09 K Shukla M Hall R Bland First Issue

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald being obtained. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

List of Contents Page

Summary S-1

Chapters and Appendices

1 Introduction 1

2 Network Study Area and Zoning System 4 2.1 The NTM 2009 Model Area 4 2.2 The NTM 2009 Model Zone Structure 5

3 Highway Network Coding 7 3.1 Network data 7 3.1.1 Roads (Links) 7 3.1.2 Traffic Signals 8 3.1.3 Roundabouts 8 3.1.4 Priority Junctions 8 3.1.5 Centroid Connectors 8 3.1.6 Bus Routes and Bus Priority 8 3.1.7 Miscellaneous – Swing Bridge 9

4 Traffic Data 10 4.1 General 10 4.2 Traffic Count Data 10 4.3 Journey Time Measurements 11 4.4 Queue length and delay measurements 12

5 Construction of the Prior Trip Matrices 13 5.1 Model Time Periods 13 5.2 Matrix Build Methodology 13 5.3 Editing the Original Newhaven Model Zone Structure 14 5.4 Infilling of External Trips 15 5.5 Final Prior Matrices 16

6 Model Calibration and Matrix estimation 17 6.1 Assignment Procedure 17 6.2 Matrix Estimation: AM and PM Peaks 18 6.2.1 Procedure 18 6.3 Convergence and Final Matrix Totals: AM and PM Peaks 19 6.3.1 Model Convergence 19 i 255852/03/01c/May 2009/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

6.3.2 Final Matrix Totals 21

7 Final Model Calibration and Validation 22 7.1 Traffic flow calibration and validation criteria 22 7.2 Counts Calibration and Validation (AM and PM) 23 7.3 Validation of Journey Times 24

8 Conclusions 27

Appendices 28

Appendix A: Newhaven Traffic Model SATURN 2007 – 08 (by JMP Consultants) A-1 A.1 The Network Structure A-1

Appendix B: NTM 2009 – Node 1488 (signal times) : A275 Brighton Road/A275 Nevill Road/A277 Western Road/Winterbourne Hollow B-2

Appendix C: Traffic Count Locations (2007 (ESCC/JMP) and 2008 – 2009 (MM)) C-3

Appendix D: Journey Time Routes 2009 (AM only) D-1

Appendix E: Count Calibration Data E-1

Appendix F: Count Validation Data F-7

Appendix G: Journey Time Validation Plots AM G-16

Appendix H: Journey Time Validation PM H-1

Appendix I: Abbreviation I-1

Figures Figure 1.1: Extent of JMP’s Newhaven SATURN model 2007-08 (Source: JMP’s SATURN Model LMVR March 2008) 2 Figure 2.1: Newhaven SATURN Model Network (2009) (Illustrative) 5 Figure 2.2: NTM SATURN 2007 – Internal Zone Structure (Source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008) 6 Figure 3.1: Newhaven SATURN Model 2009 (illustrative) (Source: tn_M_03_a) 7 Figure 4.1 NTM 2009 Journey Time Routes (Source: 255852/GIS) 11 Figure 5.1: Medway Traffic Model Prior Matrix Building Process 14 Figure 5.2: NTM 2009 Wider Area Zone Structure (Source: 255852/GIS) 15 Figure 6.2: NTM 2009 ME2 Process 19 Figure 7.1: AM NTM 2009 Journey Times (Modelled) (Source: 255852/GIS) 25 Figure A.1: Newhaven 2007 SATURN model (Source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008) A-1 Figure B.1: NTM 2009 – Node 1488 (signal times) B-2 Figure C.1: JMP Count Locations (source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008) C-4

ii 255852/03/01c/May 2009/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure C.2: Model Calibration & Validation Count Locations (Mott MacDonald 2008 09) (Source: 255852/GIS) C-6 Figure D.1: Journey Time Routes (source: 255852/GIS) D-2 Figure F.1: AM Peak Validation Counts F-8 Figure F.1: AM Calibration Counts – regression line F-12 Figure F.2: AM Validation Counts – regression line F-13 Figure F.3: PM Calibration Counts – regression line F-14 Figure F.4: PM Validation Counts – regression line F-15 Figure G.1: AM Route “Clockwise 1” G-17 Figure G.2: AM Route 2 “Anticlockwise 1” G-18 Figure G.3: AM Route “Clockwise 2” G-19 Figure G.4: AM Route “Anticlockwise 2” G-20 Figure H.1: PM Route “Clockwise 1” H-1 Figure H.2: PM Route 2 “Anticlockwise 1” H-2 Figure H.3: PM Route “Clockwise 2” H-3 Figure H.4: PM Route “Anticlockwise 2” H-4

Tables Table 2.1 Additional Zones: NTM 2009 6 Table 4.1: AM Peak period Journey Time Survey Results (Source: tn_M_02_b) 12 Table 5.1: Average Peak Hour to Peak Hour Conversion (Source: tn_02_b) 13 Table 5.2: AM Peak NTM 2009 - Infilling of new/external zones (Source: tn_M05a) 16 Table 5.3: PM Peak NTM 2009 - Infilling of new/external zones (Source: tn_M05a) 16 Table 5.4: NTM 2009 Final Prior Matrices for AM and PM Peak Hour Models (Source: tn_02_b) 16 Table 6.1: Generalised Cost Assignment Parameters (Source: tn_02_b) 17 Table 6.2: AM Peak Model Convergence Statistics (Source: tn_02_b) 20 Table 6.3: PM Peak Model Convergence Statistics (Source: tn_02_b) 21 Table 6.4: Final Matrix Totals (AM & PM) (Source: tn_02_b) 21 Table 7.1: Calibration and Validation Criteria 23 Table 7.2: DMRB Individual Flow Acceptability Guidelines 23 Table 7.3: Traffic Flow Summary – Calibration Counts Only (AM & PM) 23 Table 7.4: Traffic Flow Validation Summary – Validation Counts Only (AM & PM) 24 Table 7.5: Journey Time Validation Summary 24 Table 7.6 Journey Time Validation – AM Peak (NTM 2009) 26 Table 7.7: Journey Time Validation – PM Peak (NTM 2009) 26 Table C.1: Model Calibration & Validation Counts (2007/08) (source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008) C-3 Table C.2: Model Calibration & Validation Counts (Mott MacDonald 2008-09) C-5 Table D.1: Journey Time Routes Timing Points (Route 1 – Clockwise) D-3 Table D.2: Journey Time Routes Timing Points (Route 2 – Anticlockwise) D-4 Table E.1: AM Peak Calibration Counts E-1 Table E.2: PM Peak Calibration Counts E-4 Table F.1: AM Peak Validation Counts F-8 Table F.2: PM Peak Validation Counts F-10

iii 255852/03/01c/May 2009/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

1 Introduction

This document reports on the development, calibration and validation of the extended Newhaven SATURN1 based Traffic Model. The Newhaven Traffic Models: AM and PM Peak Hours (NTM 2009)2 are produced to assist with the detailed assessment of strategic development options for Newhaven.

In November 2007 East Sussex County Council (ESCC) appointed JMP Consultants Limited (JMP) to develop the Newhaven Transport Model 2007 (NTM 2007)3. The aim of the work was to develop a robust and relevant traffic model to assist the Council in the analysis of future traffic and transportation issues. The key requirement of the Newhaven Model was that it should be capable both of reflecting the existing traffic pattern within the study area with sufficient accuracy and of being sensitive to route choice in the Newhaven local road network.

As the NTM 2007 model LMVR states, the objectives of the earlier modelling process were achieved by using a SATURN based network with junction simulation coding for the immediate study area and a link based buffer network for the wider network. Separate models were built for the AM peak, Inter-peak, and PM peak periods. Each model represented average hourly traffic conditions across the relevant 3 hour peak, as agreed with ESCC, rather than a specific peak hour. Figure 1.1 illustrates the extent of the NTM 2007 model developed by JMP. Its geographical extent is largely restricted to Newhaven itself, with Peacehaven (or more distantly Brighton) to the west, Seaford to the east nor Lewes to the north being included.

Although the NTM 2007 was developed to assist ESCC in assessing strategic options, it was agreed with ESCC, NTC, HA, SEEDA, and BBP that the model fails to offer sufficient route choice, as the model is intended be used for testing strategic transport options and associated policies. Specific limitations relate to route diversions between the C7 Lewes Road and the A26 when the Swing Bridge is closed or congestion occurs on these or other routes in the area including on the A27 to the north.

Following discussions with ESCC, HA, and BBP Regeneration, it was agreed that a more robust model which also offered sufficient route choice options was required. This report describes the development, calibration and validation of this extended model: NTM 2009 (also illustrated in Figure 2.1).

1 SATURN – Simulation and Assignment of Traffic in Urban Road Network. 2 NTM 2009 – This represents the extended area wide SATURN models for the expanded Newhaven and environs area, for the AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions, developed by Mott MacDonald utilising NTM 2007 data where valid.

3 NTM 2007 – This represents the 2007 area wide SATURN model for the Newhaven area only developed for the AM, Inter and PM peak periods representing hourly average peak hour traffic conditions, by JMP Consulting and is calibrated and validated against aerial images and 2007-08 observed information. For further information, refer to ‘Newhaven Traffic Model – Local Model Validation Report’ by JMP dated March 2008. 1 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure 1.1: Extent of JMP’s Newhaven SATURN model 2007-08 (Source: JMP’s SATURN Model LMVR March 2008)

Data from the NTM 2007 network was used as far as possible to develop the NTM 2009. The model update involved extending the NTM 2007 model network to cover Lewes, the A26 and A275 routes in the north, and the main routes to areas to the west of Newhaven, including the A259 to Brighton and the A27 west. Consequently, the NTM 2009 network offers two main north-south route choice options (i.e. C7 and A26) for the traffic travelling between the north and west of the study area and Newhaven town centre and vice versa. Whilst the model has been extended to cover areas west of Newhaven (such as Woodingdean, Rottingdean, Bevendean and part of west Brighton), a significant proportion of this is coded as a skeletal SATURN buffer network and this has been neither fully calibrated nor validated. It does, however, offer an opportunity to further develop the model in the future if necessary.

The NTM 2009 development used the NTM 2007 validated model matrices as a start point for a calibration process using matrix estimation from counts. SkyHigh Surveyors, on behalf of Mott MacDonald, undertook a small number of additional traffic counts at strategic junctions on the A27 to the south of Lewes, and in Newhaven Town Centre in Autumn 2008 and Spring 2009. This additional data was used to inform the matrix estimation and expansion, together with the existing (i.e. 2007/08 ESCC) traffic counts that were used by JMP to develop the NTM 2007. In addition to traffic counts, Mott MacDonald undertook limited journey time surveys on circular route connecting A27 and Newhaven Town Centre (via C7 and A26) and this information is used for model validation purposes.

2 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Whilst the NTM 2007 represented average hourly peak period traffic conditions (based on a 3 hour average), calibration of the NTM 2009 was to specific AM and PM peak hours to better reflect typical peak hour congestion effects and journey times.

To enable the updated model to assess strategic improvement measures and address policy issues, and also to reflect the peak period traffic conditions, Mott MacDonald was thus formally commissioned in early 2009 to upgrade and extend the NTM 2007 to a 2009 Base Model (i.e. the NTM 2009) as an extension of the masterplanning project.

The development, calibration and subsequent validation of the NTM 2009 have been undertaken in accordance with guidance provided by the DMRB Volume 12 “Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes”, and will enable subsequent project appraisals to be undertaken in accordance with Department for Transport (DfT) WebTAG guidance if required.

3 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

2 Network Study Area and Zoning System

2.1 The NTM 2009 Model Area The NTM 2007 encompassed the main urban area of Newhaven extending to the edge of Peacehaven in the west, Seaford in the east and only as far north as Piddinghoe. The area was coded as simulation network in the centre of the model with a buffer network on the outer parts of the model. Appendix A – Figure A.1 1illustrates the NTM 2007 network.

The simulated network of the NTM 2009 covers Lewes Town Centre area and connections between Newhaven and Lewes (and areas to the north, east and west of Lewes via A26 and A27 routes) by way of the C7 through Kingston and the A26 through Beddingham. In the west, the model covers town centres such as Woodingdean, Rottingdean, Bevendean and part of west Brighton but only at a very reduced level of detail, these areas forming part of the NTM 2009 buffer network. Figure 2.1 shows the extent of the road network in the updated 2009 SATURN Base model.

The internal zone structure for Newhaven itself has been kept intact from the NTM 2007. JMP adopted a ‘cordon’ approach in defining the 2007 model and zone structure, with external trips allocated to a small number of specific cordon entry zones. This cordon approach confined modelling to a relatively restricted area around Newhaven, maintaining a very detailed representation of zoning and network structure within the urban area, and retaining only ‘cordon crossing’ links as connections to the remainder of the country. It is therefore unsuitable for the assessment of more strategic impacts. For the 2009 model, the NTM 2007 ‘cordon zones ’ (e.g. Zones 1, 2 and 3) have been disaggregated to new zones located across the wider study area and the trips apportioned between these new zones, by examining information from the original 2007 Road Side Interview (RSI) and other data. As a consequence, the town centres such as Woddingdean, Rottingdean and Peacehaven are coded as zones, though part of the buffer network, to provide an opportunity to develop these areas as part of simulated network of the model as and when required, and to better reflect strategic routeing options.

The main study (i.e. simulation) area for the NTM 2009 was therefore defined to be an area bounded by the line of A27 (including Lewes Town Centre), Court Farm Road and A259 to the southwest and A27 to the northeast, as shown in Figure 2.1.

In developing the NTM 2009, no changes were made to the NTM 2007 network in the southeast part of the model, with the A259 Seaford Road (i.e. Zone 4 etc.) maintained as a ‘cordon’ zone, and route choice options in the south direction are very limited.

It should be recognised that the internal road network of the NTM 2007 for Newhaven remains unchanged in NTM 2009. The extent and detail of the modelled area has been derived to allow robust assessments of the development proposals in and around Newhaven town centre. As the LMVR for the NTM 2007 model indicated, the road network representing the urban areas of Newhaven town centre was coded in simulation detail to ensure it was able to represent realistically the interactions in the existing traffic network, but only covered the immediate area.

4 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

KEY: NTM 2009 Model Network

NTM 2009 Simulated Network

Figure 2.1: Newhaven SATURN Model Network (2009) (Illustrative)

2.2 The NTM 2009 Model Zone Structure The NTM 2007 contained a total of 62 model zones (numbered 1 to 62) representing Newhaven Town Centre, surrounding areas and four ‘cordon crossing’4 links. The zone density increases on the approach to Newhaven Town Centre.

The NTM 2009 development process changed only those zones representing ‘cordon crossing’ links. As discussed previously, the NTM 2009 network has an extended network and therefore a number of new zones have been added in the model increasing to 69 zones in total.

A significant proportion of the additional model zones represent geographical areas, bounded by parish, district or county boundaries outside the urban area, or by features such as roads, rivers or railways within the town centre. New external zones have also been created, compressed to (largely notional) cordon zones, each zone representing the traffic expected to use individual cordon links to access the Newhaven area. A total of 69 zones (i.e. 1 to 70, excluding 65) are thus represented in the NTM 2009.

The additional zones are described in Table 2.1.

4 Cordon Crossing Links - Cordon crossing links represent roads (major/minor) used by traffic (through or local) entering the study cordon or simulated network.

5 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Zone Number Type Description 1 Geographic Zone Peacehaven 2 Cordon Zone A27 (M23) west 3 Cordon Zone A27 east 63 Cordon Zone A26 north of Lewes 64 Cordon Zone A275 north of Lewes 66 Cordon Zone A259 west (Brighton central) 67 Cordon Zone Brighton via A23 68 Geographic Zone Woodingdean 69 Geographic Zone Kingston village 70 Geographic Zone Lewes

Table 2.1 Additional Zones: NTM 2009

It was agreed that there was no need to refine the internal zonal structure in the NTM 2007. However, finer zones representing the location(s) of planned future year developments, to allow better for future demand responsive tests may be included for the Forecast Reference Case.

Figures 2.2 shows the NTM zone structure for Newhaven town centre, which remains unchanged between NTM 2007 and NTM 2009.

Figure 2.2: NTM SATURN 2007 – Internal Zone Structure (Source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008)

6 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

3 Highway Network Coding

3.1 Network data Geometric data defining the road network exists in the form of SATURN data coding. This is predominantly in “simulation” format for the built up area, including Newhaven Town Centre and surrounding areas, with “buffer” format used only for a small minority of external or cordon links.

Whilst, the NTM 2007’s modelled area network coding remains largely unchanged in the NTM 2009, the simulation data for the extended network has been coded from the examination of Google Earth (version 4.2.0198.2451) aerial photographs of modelled traffic routes within the urban area and available Ordnance Survey data. Figure 3.1 shows the extent of the NTM 2009, NTM 2007 (circled in Orange) and the extended Simulation area of NTM 2009 (circled in Blue).

Key: NTM 2009 Modelled Network Area NTM 2008 Modelled Network Area NTM 2009 Modelled Network Area - EXTENDED SIMULATION AREA

Source: 255852/modelling/word/tn_M_03

Figure 3.1: Newhaven SATURN Model 2009 (illustrative) (Source: tn_M_03_a)

3.1.1 Roads (Links) In the simulation and buffer area of the NTM 2009, all roads have been assigned speed-flow curves based on the default speed-flow curves for the appropriate class of road, as developed for both the NAOMI and M25 North of Thames models for the Highways Agency. Within the simulation area, journey times are governed principally by delays at junctions. As such,

7 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue simulation links have been assigned average cruise speeds based on typical conditions, though speed-flow curves have been applied to some of the arterial and lesser routes on the urban fringes, and to the major roads such as A 27, A26 and A 259. The roads in Lewes have been represented in less detail, with only major junctions coded, commensurate with the provision of just a single zone for the town, as this was outside the principal study area.

3.1.2 Traffic Signals Traffic signal times are coded in the NTM 2007 and inherited in the NTM 2009 without any alterations. The extended model has only one significant signalised junction, A275 Brighton Road/A275 Nevill Road/A 277 Western Road/Winterbourne Hollow in Lewes, for which the modelled signal times are presented in Appendix B.

It is assumed that all signal data in the NTM 2007 have been processed in sufficient detail to ensure that signal plans and timing sheets correctly relate to signal coding within SATURN. This provided an initial base for setting up the model which was later calibrated to ensure that model as a whole represented site conditions.

3.1.3 Roundabouts In the extended network of the NTM 2009, the roundabout saturation flows were coded as specified in SATURN manual section 6.4.7 based on TRRL reference SR942. The global gap parameter (GAPR) was specified in the original SATURN Model as 2.5 seconds which remains unchanged.

3.1.4 Priority Junctions SATURN also uses a gap acceptance approach to predict the operation of priority junctions, unlike the standard UK junction assessment tool PICADY which uses an empirically derived linear relationship between the capacity and the opposing flow. Saturation flows and critical gaps for priority junctions in the extended network were therefore set in line with guidance developed by Cambridgeshire County Council (David Boddy, 1985), based on the approach and values set in the Highway Capacity Manual. In the NTM 2007, the global GAP parameter and GAPM were specified as 2.5 seconds and 2.0 seconds respectively and remain unchanged in the NTM 2009.

3.1.5 Centroid Connectors Centroid connectors provide the link between the model zones and the coded highway network. The centroid connectors were coded to represent representative speeds and distances between the centre of the zone and the point at where the traffic from the zones enter or leave the physical network. Some zones have several zone connectors, representing the fact that vehicles may enter or leave the physical network at different locations, depending on the origin or destination of the trip.

3.1.6 Bus Routes and Bus Priority Very limited changes, predominantly due to the extension of model coverage, have been undertaken to the bus routes coded in the NTM 2007.

8 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

No additional bus priority measures or bus routes than there are in the NTM 2007 have been coded into the NTM 2009.

3.1.7 Miscellaneous – Swing Bridge The NTM 2009 (AM and PM) models both assume that the Swing Bridge, which periodically closes to allow ships to pass through, is open to all traffic throughout the modelled periods. SATURN is essentially a static model, and it cannot realistically model the delay at the Swing Bridge when it is closed off to traffic during certain times of the day, often on an irregular basis. In addition, the delays encountered due to the closure of Swing Bridge are for a limited period of time and thus have a relatively limited impact on the network and traffic routeings. As a consequence, and because the dynamic aspects of the Swing Bridge closure are not represented in SATURN as they do not occur on a regular and consistent basis, these impacts have been omitted from the modelling process.

However, the base model structure may be used to explicitly consider transport interventions such as the Swing Bridge should this be required at the detailed appraisal stage. This will require agreement of what constitutes a regular/recurring intervention.

9 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

4 Traffic Data

4.1 General Traffic data used for development of the NTM 2007 were gathered by ESCC in 2007. Full details of all the data gathered are available in the JMP Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) dated March 2008.

In addition to the 2007 surveys, Mott MacDonald undertook some additional traffic counts on locations within the town centre and on the A27 to inform the development of the NTM 2009. Some of these locations were originally surveyed in 2007 but they were resurveyed to determine whether any changes in routeing had occurred between 2007 and 2009. Limited journey time surveys were also undertaken in 2009, but for only the AM peak period and for a single circular route, connecting Lewes and Newhaven town centres (via C7 and A26). Journey times were collected in each direction. In summary, two forms of traffic data were used for the extension, calibration and validation of the NTM 2009:

 Traffic Count Data (turning counts (AM & PM peak hours) and link counts (7 days))

 Journey Time Data (AM peak period (0700 – 1000) only)

4.2 Traffic Count Data Traffic count data were gathered for several different purposes:

1. Manual Classified Counts (MCCs) to calibrate modelled link flows 2. Automated Traffic Counts (ATCs) to validate the modelled traffic flows

All the additional traffic count data collected between November 2008 and February 2009 were scrutinised to identify for any anomalies due to human errors, equipment malfunction, road works and unrepresentative traffic flows.

Only very limited checks were able to be undertaken on the 2007 processed counts, which were used to calibrate and validate the NTM 2007. As part of the review of 2007 counts and the NTM 2007 network file (i.e. DAT), based on the raw survey data provided by JMP, Mott MacDonald attempted to reproduce the calibration and validation count sets used for calibration and validation of the NTM 2007. However, due to lack of transparency in the process, Mott MacDonald was unable to fully reproduce the identical count sets as used in calibration/validation of the NTM 2007. Instead new calibration and validation count sets were prepared based on the summary of the 2007 raw surveyed data provided by JMP. This was based on the 2007 raw survey data summary provided to Mott MacDonald with flow values in PCUs.

A total of 31 sites surveyed information has beens used for calibration and validation of the NTM 2009. Of these, 19 sites were used for model calibration and 12 sites for validation. Due to the limited amount of available link count data, junction counts were converted into link counts and these used for the validation purposes. It was assumed that the 2007 survey information was sufficiently robust to be used to calibrate and validate the NTM 2009. As

10 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue discussed above, a few junctions were re-surveyed in 2008-09 and for those junctions; the old counts have been replaced by the new calibration and validation count data sets.

Appendix C (Figure C.2) shows the locations of the traffic count sites undertaken by Mott MacDonald in Autumn 2008 and Spring 2009.

4.3 Journey Time Measurements Journey time measurements were required to assist in the validation of the NTM 2009. The journey time surveys were undertaken on the two significant routes (i.e. C7 and A26) carrying northbound traffic (and that wanting to access the strategic A27 routes to east and west) in and out of Newhaven Town Centre, and the connecting section of the A27.

Figure 4.1 provides a plan showing the journey time routes surveyed and a table listing the timing points for each route is presented in Appendix D1 and D2.

Figure 4.1 NTM 2009 Journey Time Routes (Source: 255852/GIS)

It should be noted that due to various constraints, the journey time surveys were only undertaken for the AM peak period (0700 hrs – 1000 hrs). A total of 5 and 6 runs were carried out between 0700 hrs and 1000 hrs in the clockwise and anticlockwise direction respectively. The site observations (e.g. video, etc.) indicated that delays at the A27 junctions were relatively small both in the AM and PM peaks on all arms.

Tables 4.1 shows the summary of averaged journey time surveyed for each route.

11 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Route ID Route Description Direction No. of Runs Average (between 0700 – 1000) Journey Time Surveyed Clockwise From – Drove Road onto Clockwise 5 00:32:42 South Way (Roundabout) To – A26 miniroundabout onto Drove Road Anticlockwise From – Drove Rd onto slip Anticlockwise 6 00:27:38 leading to A26 New Rd To – North Way onto Drove Road

Table 4.1: AM Peak period Journey Time Survey Results (Source: tn_M_02_b)

It should be noted, for the validation purpose, the two routes described in the table above are divided into four directional sections as shown in Figure 4.1. PM peak hour journey times surveys were not undertaken as short term observations and videos from the count surveys indicated that delays at junctions were similar to the AM peak hour period, and the AM journey times would be appropriate for PM calibration.

4.4 Queue length and delay measurements Areas of congestion resulting in significant queues were noted with the help of survey videos, analysis of which allowed comparisons to be made against the model’s congestion predictions during the model validation process. Delays at key junctions were identifiable from the journey time survey data.

One issue addressed was that the 2007 Queue Length Surveys were undertaken while the Swing Bridge was closed. On this basis, it is decided that the 2007 surveyed information could not be used for comparison, since both the NTM 2009 and also the NTM 2007 models seek to replicate traffic conditions based on the assumption that the Swing Bridge is open to all traffic, throughout the modelled periods.

As explained in Section 3.1.7. the Swing Bridge does not open at set frequencies within the traffic peak hours and it is therefore not feasible to calibrate the model. However, the bridge typically opens for up to 90 minutes, and this may be included in sensitivity tests if required as a subsequent phase of work.

12 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

5 Construction of the Prior Trip Matrices

5.1 Model Time Periods The prior matrices for the NTM 2009 were originally sourced from the final synthesised/validated matrices of the NTM 2007. The NTM 2007 matrices provided were for average hours of a 3 hour ‘peak’ periods. In order to represent peak traffic conditions realistically and in agreement with the Council, AM and PM peak hours were modelled in the NTM 2009.

The selected modelled time periods for the NTM 2009 were:  AM peak hour (0800 hrs – 0900 hrs)  PM peak hour (1700 hrs – 1800 hrs)

Before use in the NTM 2009 matrix estimation process as the prior matrices, the NTM 2007 validated AM (0700 – 1000) and PM (1600 – 1900) matrices were therefore converted to represent demand in the the modelled peak hours. Average Peak Period Hour to Peak Hour factors were therefore derived by dividing the AM 2007 surveyed bi-directional traffic by average 3 hour AM bidirectional traffic flows, and applied to the NTM 2007 matrices.

Period Average Peak Hour Average Peak Peak Hour Matrix Total (PCU) Hour to Peak Matrix Total (PCU) (NTM 2007) Hour Factor (NTM 2009)

AM (0700 – 1000) AM (0800 – 0900) PM (1600 – 1900) PM (1700 – 1800) AM 5403.73 5890.06 1.09 PM 5578.52 6080.59

Table 5.1: Average Peak Hour to Peak Hour Conversion (Source: tn_02_b)

5.2 Matrix Build Methodology The prior matrix construction process for the NTM 2009 is outlined in Figure 5.1. The process involved the conversion of the NTM 2007 matrices to peak hour matrices as above, zonal disaggregation and manual infilling of external/through trips for the new zones. These processes are discussed in the following sections.

It should be noted that the matrix building for each peak period/hour was carried out separately, but the processes followed in each case were largely identical. The NTM 2007 matrices incorporated two separate user classes, namely Car and OGV, assigned as a 2-level stacked matrix for each period. The PCU values for Car and LGV are considered as 1.0 and for OGV it is 2.0.

13 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Newhaven Transport Model Prior Matrix Building Process NTM SATURN 2007 (AM & PM) Average Hourly Models

NTM SATURN 2007 (AM & PM) Average NTM SATURN 2007 (AM & PM) Average Hourly Models CAR MATRIX Hourly Models OGV MATRIX (62 (62 Zones) Zones)

NTM SATURN 2007 OGV Matrix * Peak NTM SATURN Car Matrix * Peak Hour Hour Factor derived from 2007-08 Traffic Factor derived from 2007-08 Traffic Counts Counts

NTM SATURN 2007 Peak Hour CAR Matrix NTM SATURN 2007 Peak Hour OGV Matrix

NTM SATURN 2007 Peak Hour CAR Matrix NTM SATURN 2007 Peak Hour OGV Matrix modified to add new zones and to segregate modified to add new zones and to segregate Zones trips to and from Zones 1, 2 and 3 Zones trips to and from Zones 1, 2 and 3

Modified CAR & OGV matrices STACKED

NTM SATURN 2009 Prior Matrices for the AM and PM Peak Hour (CAR and OGV) (69 Source: 255852/Saturn/ tn_M_03 Zones)

Figure 5.1: Medway Traffic Model Prior Matrix Building Process

5.3 Editing the Original Newhaven Model Zone Structure

As discussed previously, to enhance the network coverage of the NTM 2009, the zoning structure of the NTM 2007 was reviewed and amended as necessary.

Three zones representing approaches to the model, namely A259 South Coast Road (Zone 1), C7 (Zone 2) and A26 (Zone 3) were repositioned as part of the model extension.

In addition, a total of 7 zones were added into the model representing surrounding areas and beyond. The zones amended/added in the model development process were listed in Table 2.1 with the area they are intended to represent.

The wider area zone structure showing the additional zones is shown in Figure 5.2. It should be noted that the A23 north and A27 west were included within Zone 2 and Central Brighton as Zone 67. The A259 west was allocated to Zone 66.

14 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure 5.2: NTM 2009 Wider Area Zone Structure (Source: 255852/GIS)

Trips to and from the repositioned zones (i.e. zones 1 to 3) were disaggregated to the wider area on the basis of available knowledge about the traffic patterns in the Newhaven area. All other zones were left unchanged apart from their inclusion in trip disaggregation process.

Without undertaking extensive review of the zone structure of the NTM 2007, it was assumed that sufficient consideration was given whilst defining zone structure to aspects such as land use for different trip growth rates to be developed and applied. We have also assumed that the NTM 2007 zone structure is sufficiently robust and detailed for Newhaven and its immediate surrounding areas to enable use of the model for testing any strategic, local improvement works and major development proposals.

Although the NTM 2007 model made use of 2007-8 flows (as it was calibrated/validated using 2007 survey data), no uplifting of the matrices to a 2009 base were carried out. This was based on the assumption that the traffic flows would have been reduced, and not increased, over the last 1 year due to various external factors such as economic downturn and increase in fuel prices.

5.4 Infilling of External Trips As described above, the validated NTM 2007 model matrices were used for preparing prior base matrices for the ME2 estimation process for the NTM 2009 model.

Further to disaggregating trips to and from zones 1, 2 and 3, infilling of trips between the newly added zones was carried out manually. Cells in the AM prior matrices were estimated from the recent traffic counts, particularly those at the three major roundabouts on the A27 together with limited knowledge of the traffic behaviour in and around Newhaven. The equivalent PM peak external to external prior matrix trips were calculated by extracting and

15 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue transposing the AM peak values, factored by 0.9. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show “external” movements to-from the new zones in the final AM and PM peak hour base prior matrix respectively.

Total 1 2 3 4 63 64 66 67 68 69 70 1 0.0 7.4 4.0 44.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.7 2 6.2 0.5 667.7 41.0 473.5 235.8 9.2 12.3 3.1 0.0 281.1 3 1.3 572.0 0.0 95.7 40.7 58.9 72.1 264.7 71.9 9.3 30.4 4 61.0 21.2 3.1 0.0 0.6 200.7 91.5 122.0 30.5 3.3 14.8 63 0.3 345.1 47.8 0.7 0.0 55.0 0.9 201.3 184.8 11.2 0.0 64 0.7 177.7 0.0 0.7 132.0 0.0 0.7 79.4 40.7 9.0 132.0 66 0.0 14.5 34.4 86.5 206.7 48.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 49.9 67 0.0 19.3 62.0 115.4 101.0 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 26.5 68 0.0 3.7 79.0 22.2 46.1 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 12.6 69 0.5 44.7 5.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 4.2 3.7 2.5 0.0 45.8 70 2.6 285.3 24.2 38.9 0.1 70.0 8.0 10.7 2.7 0.0 0.0

Table 5.2: AM Peak NTM 2009 – Infilling of new/external zones (Source: tn_M_05_a)

As expected in the AM peak key movements occur between Zone 2 (i.e. A27 (M23) west) and Zone 3 (i.e. A27 east) and the transpose in the PM peak.

Total 1 2 3 4 63 64 66 67 68 69 70 1 0.0 1.1 1.1 17.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2 4.1 1.1 532.2 77.3 230.6 141.5 44.8 52.9 11.3 32.9 261.3 3 0.2 536.1 0.0 6.5 60.0 0.0 26.4 41.7 69.0 11.2 63.6 4 10.2 28.1 22.4 0.0 3.1 3.3 81.6 91.8 20.4 9.6 16.2 63 0.0 211.9 47.1 1.2 0.0 104.4 64.7 30.7 13.9 0.0 0.1 64 0.1 351.1 29.1 0.5 17.4 0.0 74.1 30.0 17.4 0.0 22.1 66 0.0 16.2 68.6 135.6 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 11.8 67 0.0 19.8 250.8 152.2 136.0 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 15.2 68 0.0 4.7 66.4 33.9 124.8 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.7 69 0.9 0.1 1.0 18.7 3.2 1.2 4.6 5.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 70 4.4 325.1 33.7 85.7 0.1 104.5 108.2 85.9 27.3 42.8 0.0

Table 5.3: PM Peak NTM 2009 – Infilling of new/external zones (Source: tn_M_05_a)

5.5 Final Prior Matrices Table 5.5 illustrates the total number of trips for each user class in the final prior matrices used for the ME2 estimation process.

Period CAR OGV Total (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) AM (MM Ref.: NHAMBASE21_1HR.UFM) 9666.70 2427.87 12094.57

PM (MM Ref.: NHPMBASE01_1HR.UFM) 8626.19 2026.94 10653.13

Table 5.4: NTM 2009 Final Prior Matrices for AM and PM Peak Hour Models (Source: tn_02_b)

16 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

6 Model Calibration and Matrix estimation

6.1 Assignment Procedure Assignment is based on Wardrop’s Principle of traffic equilibrium. SATURN’s capability to model junction delays in the simulation network means that the model is sometimes described as a ‘congested assignment’ model.

Equilibrium assignment is based on loading traffic on to the network such that the travel ‘costs’ on each used route between each origin and destination are equal to the minimum ‘cost’ of travel and all unused routes have equal or greater cost.

Travel ‘costs’ refer to the sum of the monetary values assigned to travel time, travel distance and any other ‘costs’, such as tolls. The choice of the relative importance of the cost of time or distance can affect the assignment of flows within the model. Values of time for each user class follow WebTAG guidance and were taken from the HA’s M25 NoTAM model and are shown in Table 6.1 below.

Calculated Cost of Calculated Cost of Time (Pence Per Distance (Pence User Class Minute) per Kilometre)

1 – Cars 1.0 0.45 2 – OGV 1.0 0.85

Table 6.1: Generalised Cost Assignment Parameters (Source: tn_02_b)

Since development of NTM 2009 only involves extension of an existing calibrated and validated NTM 2007, model calibration was concentrated on only the extended area. It was assumed that the simulated and buffer areas in NTM 2007 were adequately calibrated and validated. Reported model calibration is, however, also reported for these areas.

A comprehensive check of the extended areas in NTM 2009 network data was undertaken by printing out the junction information within the simulation model and checking this against online Google Earth aerial photographs and on-site observations. Link lengths were updated where appropriate with values obtained from a Geographical Information System (GIS) representation of the coded SATURN network. Appropriate link capacity indices were attached to individual links so that a speed-flow response could be represented.

At some locations it was necessary to adjust junction parameters such as gap acceptance and saturation flow values so that the model behaviour was in line with that observed. Junction capacity parameters were altered where the capacity calculated by the model was less than the observed count.

Matrix estimation to counts was also undertaken, principally to improve the prior estimate of the unobserved movements. The processes involved are described below.

17 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

6.2 Matrix Estimation: AM and PM Peaks The NTM 2009 assignment procedure incorporated a SATURN matrix estimation (ME2) process which is widely adopted in highway assignment modelling. The aim of the process was to assist the calibration of matrix and network assumptions according to observed traffic counts information. In all, the ME2 process compared the modelled flow and observed traffic counts for links and turn, designated target flows where observed counts were available, and factored the matrix accordingly. This is an iterative process and will produce a better fit between modelled flows and observed count than which can be achieved solely with the assignment of a prior matrix.

The ME2 process designed for NTM 2009 carried out matrix estimation for each user class separately, with an external iterative loop over the whole process to produce a consistent and converged solution. Figure 8.1 illustrates the process in summary form.

6.2.1 Procedure The ME2 process carried out for the NTM 2009 consisted of several stages. The process starts with the assignment of prior matrices to produce traffic flow and routing information. The SATURN programme SatPIJA is then used to provide analysis of the routes used (in the form of PIJAs – the proportions (P) of trips from each origin I to each destination J) through each of a series of links (A) for which count data is available. The output files were then adopted for the SATME2 calculation, along with prior matrix, to produce a modified matrix which incorporated observed count information. Both SatPIJA and SatME2 calculations were repeated for each user class, and the output matrices were stacked to produce a post ME2 (first estimate) matrix of external loop 1.

This post-ME2 matrix was adopted for the re-assignment using the SATURN programme SatALL and produced new flow and routing information for the next external loop of ME2 calculation. This process was repeated 6 times to produce a converged post-ME2 matrix and assignment results.

Two sets of observed counts, namely the calibration counts and the validation counts, for the ME2 process were adopted. For ME2 external loop 1 to loop 5, all counts (calibration and validation) were included to ensure traffic volume on links and turning movement information were incorporated as fully as possible. For final loop 6, the validation counts were omitted, in order that they can be used in the analysis of model performance. A minor additional constraint was required to limit the growth of trips to and from Zone 68 (Kingston village) and ensure that matrix changes were confined to more appropriate areas.

The Matrix Estimation process is outlined in Figure 6.2.

18 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Count selection using Count Register.xls (2008-9 counts) & NTM 2007 counts Prior Assignment / Previous Loop UFS/UFC The selected counts are output and copied to prn files for SATPIJA input. (by mode and by loop)

Counts input, prior network ufs/ufc, and preME2 matrices (by UC) are inputted for SatPIJA. If loop>1, post ME2 matrices (by UC) from previous loop are used instead. SATPIJA outputs UC specified ufps

SatME2 processes for each UC

Post ME2 matrices for each UC are output and stacked.

Assignment with post ME2 matrices

No, then loop +1 If loop = 6

Yes

Stop Source: 255852/Saturn/ tn_M_03

Figure 6.2: NTM 2009 ME2 Process

6.3 Convergence and Final Matrix Totals: AM and PM Peaks

6.3.1 Model Convergence The conventional stopping criteria for the assignment/simulation loops in SATURN, as endorsed by DMRB, is for the Percentage of links with flow changing by less than 5% (sometimes referred to as ‘P’) to be greater than 95% on two consecutive iterations. More

19 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue recent experience suggests that the criteria be tightened to a change of less than 1% on 95% of network links. This criterion ensures that the model is stable, but a truer measure of convergence is the duality gap, delta (d), which is the percentage difference between the minimum cost routes and the chosen routes summed across the whole network. DMRB suggests that delta should be less than 1%, but smaller values, typically less than 0.1% are to be preferred.

Other measures of stability are the Average Absolute Difference (AAD) in link flows between successive assignments, which should be less than 1 vehicle/hour, and the Relative Average Absolute Difference (RAAD), which should be less than 1%.

The target adopted for the NTM 2009 convergence was based on a Gap value of 0.005 being achieved on each of four successive iterations. This leads to a level of convergence significantly better than that specified in DMRB, and one that provides a reasonable and stable basis for any economic assessments to proceed.

Tables 6.2 and 6.3, provide a summary of the convergence statistics for the first four and last four final iterations for the two (AM and PM) models. In each case, a stable Gap value of less than 0.01 has been achieved, suggesting a high degree of stability and convergence.

Loop Ass. Sim. %Flows %Delays %V.I. %Gap Ass-Hrs AAD RAAD 1 2.01/15 0.026/21 44.4 21.05 3983.7 2 0.483/15 0.017/21 42.4 85.9 2.743 0.581 2777.6 36.7 15.24 3 0.203/15 0.000/ 7 63.3 97.4 0.178 0.138 2717.1 6.36 2.8 4 0.0295/15 0.000/ 7 79 98.6 0.036 0.058 2714.1 2.5 1.1 ...... 15 0.0084/ 3 0.000/ 7 98.8 99.9 0.00012 0.01 2713.1 0.14 0.06 16 0.0070/ 3 0.000/ 7 99.1 100 0.00009 0.009 2713.3 0.08 0.04 17 0.0102/ 3 0.000/ 7 98.7 99.8 0.0001 0.0066 2713 0.22 0.1 18 0.0088/ 3 0.000/ 7 99.2 99.9 0.00009 0.0099 2713 0.14 0.06

Table 6.2: AM Peak Model Convergence Statistics (Source: tn_02_b)

20 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Loop Ass. Sim. %Flows %Delays %V.I. %Gap Ass-Hrs AAD RAAD 1 0.403/15 0.057/ 9 45.3 15.333 3247.9 2 0.106/15 0.070/14 49 89.9 1.19 0.108 2613.2 25.3 11.6 3 0.0320/15 0.021/ 7 74 98.5 0.028 0.033 2616.2 2.04 0.95 4 0.0152/15 0.027/ 7 85.4 99.2 0.0082 0.017 2617.2 0.92 0.43 ...... 38 0.0064/ 3 0.000/ 7 99.1 99.7 0.00001 0.0047 2617.6 0.09 0.04 39 0.0074/ 3 0.000/ 7 99.3 99.7 0.00002 0.0094 2618 0.05 0.02 40 0.0060/ 3 0.000/ 7 99.1 99.7 0.00002 0.0045 2617.6 0.07 0.03 41 0.0070/ 3 0.000/ 7 99.3 99.7 0.00002 0.0091 2618 0.04 0.02

Table 6.3: PM Peak Model Convergence Statistics (Source: tn_02_b)

KEY Loop Assignment/Simulation Loop Number Ass. Delta Function (%) / Number of Iterations Sim. Final Aver Abs Change In Out Cfp (PCU/Hr) / Number of Iterations %Flows Link Flows Differing By < 5% %Delays Turn Delays Differing By < 5% %V.I. Variational Inequality - Should Be > 0 %Gap Wardrop Equilibrium Gap Function Post Simulation Ass-Hrs Total PCU-Hr/Hr from the Buffer + Simulation Networks AAD Average Absolute Difference in Link Flows PCU /Hr RAAD % Relative Average Absolute Difference in Link Flows

6.3.2 Final Matrix Totals Table 6.4 illustrates the final matrix totals for the AM and PM peak hour matrices.

Period CAR OGV Total (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) AM 9170.37 2171.09 11341.46 PM 8942.76 1811.88 10754.63

Table 6.4: Final Matrix Totals (AM & PM) (Source: tn_02_b)

21 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

7 Final Model Calibration and Validation Model calibration is the process of adjusting and confirming values of various parameters in the base model by making use of observed data. Model validation is an assessment of the validity of a calibrated model by comparing results of the model output against independent data not used in the calibration process.

This section evaluates the calibration and the validation of the NTM 2009 model, distinguishing between calibration data and validation data where appropriate. The assessment of model calibration centres on comparison of model output with observed flow data used in the matrix estimation process. Model validation extends to the comparison of independent count data as well as an assessment of the closeness of model and observed journey times.

Section 10.1 sets out the criteria used for assessing model calibration and validation, followed by assessments of modelled flows against count data.

7.1 Traffic flow calibration and validation criteria The calibration and validation of modelled against observed flows is based on the two alternative analytic methods stipulated in Volume 12 of the DMRB:  The GEH statistic  Modelled over observed flows (% difference criteria)

The GEH statistic is a commonly used measure of the goodness of fit between modelled and observed flows. It is a form of the Chi-squared statistic that incorporates both relative and absolute errors between the two sets of data and is based on the following equation:

GEH = √((M-C)²)/((M+C) / 2) where: GEH is the GEH statistic M is the modelled flow, and C is the observed flow

A modelled against observed flow with a GEH value of less than 7 is deemed acceptable by the DMRB. This is the equivalent of a 95% confidence level. The validation acceptability guidance is then that the following conditions are met in greater than 85% of cases.

The second method divides model flows by observed flows and the resulting percentage is assessed against the criteria in the table below. Once again, the validation acceptability guidance is then that the following conditions are met in greater than 85% of cases.

22 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Observed flows (vehicles per hour) Criteria 700 to 2700 Individual flows within 15% < 700 Individual flows within 100 vph > 2700 Individual flows within 400 vph

Table 7.1: Calibration and Validation Criteria

7.2 Counts Calibration and Validation (AM and PM) Calibration and validation of traffic flows has been undertaken for both the modelled periods i.e. AM and PM. Modelled peak hour traffic flows have been compared with observed flows across the network.

Appendix E provides comprehensive tabulated output from the traffic model showing calibration statistics for each dataset. Appendix F shows the corresponding validation statistics.

Modelled values have been compared against observations. The validation acceptability guidance is, as before, that the following conditions are met in greater than 85% of cases.

Flow Range Criteria > 85% of Cases < 700 vph Within 100 vph 700 – 2,700 vph Within 15% > 2,700 vph Within 400 vph All Flows GEH Statistics < 7

Table 7.2: DMRB Individual Flow Acceptability Guidelines

As explained, Appendices E and F include comparisons of the modelled flows against the above criteria for each set of counts and for each time period. The results are summarised in Tables 7.3 and 7.4, first for all the calibration counts within the traffic model and secondly for the set of independent validation counts.

AM Peak PM Peak Criteria No of Counts % OK No of Counts % OK Flow Validation 117 97.39% 123 94.12% GEH Validation 117 90.43% 123 94.11%

Table 7.3: Traffic Flow Summary – Calibration Counts Only (AM & PM)

Table 7.3 shows that the AM and PM NTM 2009 models demonstrate a very good correlation between the observed and modelled flow data. For both AM and PM models, the percentage of counts meeting both GEH and Flow criteria exceeds 90%. Model calibration can be judged to be more than satisfactory.

23 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

AM Peak PM Peak Criteria No of Counts % OK No of Counts % OK Flow Validation 61 88.14% 58 82.76% GEH Validation 61 91.52% 58 81.03%

Table 7.4: Traffic Flow Validation Summary – Validation Counts Only (AM & PM)

Equivalent summary for the independent validation sites is presented in Table 7.4. In the AM peak, the model exceeds the DMRB target for both GEH and flow validation, with respectively 88 and 92 percent of counts falling inside the criteria. Although the numbers indicate that the PM peak model does not quite meet DMRB criteria, a good level of validation has still been achieved, with targets only narrowly missed. However, the flow validation of almost 83 percent and GEH of 81 percent demonstrate a good match between the modelled and observed traffic flow data.

Appendix F (Figure F.1 – F.4) presents the validation statistics for the AM and PM peak in graphical format.

7.3 Validation of Journey Times The journey time validation criteria stipulated in volume 12 of the DMRB states that modelled journey times should be within 1 minute or 15% of observed journey times. Ideally this should be attained for 85% of all surveyed routes. This is a challenging target given the variance in observed delays common in congested urban areas.

Validation of the journey times has been undertaken based on the average travel times for each of the peak period model. Appendices G and H contain journey time plots for each route by direction. The plots provide a comparison between the observed and modelled journey times along the routes and indicate the 95% confidence limits of the observed journey times.

The summary indicates whether 75% of total routes meet the DMRB acceptability guidelines of being within 15%, or 1 minute if higher. Table 7.5 below summarises the results of the journey time validation, with details of performance by route direction and for each time period shown in Tables 7.6 and 7.7.

The tables below and plots comprising Appendix G indicate that the model has been generally very successful in replicating observed journey times across all modelled time periods, with respectively 75% of routes modelled within DMRB criteria for the AM Peak.

Model Period No. of Routes No. within 15% or 1 Minute % Within 15% or 1 Minute AM Peak 4 3 75%

Table 7.5: Journey Time Validation Summary

Table 7.6 shows that out of the four directional routes, three satisfy DMRB criteria of validation, with the fourth route only marginally over the threshold of 15 percent. Although only limited data was available, it can be concluded that the modelled journey times demonstrate a good correlation with the observed information. As discussed early in the

24 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue document, no observed journey time information was available to validate against the modelled information. The modelled journey times for each route for the PM peak model are presented in Appendix H and the journey time plots indicate that through total modelled journey times are understandably different to the modelled AM journey times, the pattern is similar.

Figure 7.1 illustrates the modelled journey times for each of the main sections for the AM & PM peaks, for the section between Newhaven and the Ashcombe Lane roundabout, and the section between the A27 Ashcombe Lane roundabout and Newhaven via the A26.

14:00 / 11:51

14:18 / 18:23

12:09 / 15:08

18:03 / 14:45

Key:

Modelled Journey Time AM / PM in minutes

Figure 7.1: AM NTM 2009 Journey Times (Modelled) (Source: 255852/GIS)

The journey time patterns replicate the typical traffic flows pattern occurring in each of the peak hour periods.

25 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Table 7.6 Journey Time Validation – AM Peak (NTM 2009)

% routes meeting DMRB criteria 75% Journey Time (minutes) Route ID Description Direction Observed Modelled Difference % Difference

Clockwise 1 From – Drove Road onto South Way (Roundabout) Clockwise 00:18:38 00:18:03 00:00:35 3.23 % To – Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 Anticlockwise 1 From – Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 Anticlockwise 00:14:59 00:14:18 00:00:41 4:78 % To – North Way onto Drove Road Clockwise 2 From – Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 Clockwise 00:14:04 00:12:09 00:01:55 15:78 % To – A26 miniroundabout onto Drove road Anticlockwise 2 From – Drove Rd onto slip leading to A26 New Rd Anticlockwise 00:12:39 00:14:00 00:01:21 10:74 % To – A27 with Ashcombe Lane Roundabout

Table 7.7: Journey Time Validation – PM Peak (NTM 2009)

Journey Time Route ID Description Direction Modelled (Mins)

Clockwise 1 From – Drove Road onto South Way (Roundabout) Clockwise 00:14:45 To – Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 Anticlockwise 1 From – Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 Anticlockwise 00:18:23 To – North Way onto Drove Road Clockwise 2 From – Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 Clockwise 00:15:08 To – A26 miniroundabout onto Drove road Anticlockwise 2 From – Drove Rd onto slip leading to A26 New Rd Anticlockwise 00:11:51 To – A27 with Ashcombe Lane Roundabout

26 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

8 Conclusions The Newhaven Traffic Model (NTM 2009) has been developed to a 2009 neutral month base year for AM (0800 – 0900) and PM (1700 – 1800) peak hours using the SATURN assignment software. The NTM 2009 is based on a previous model principally covering only the Newhaven Town Centre (i.e. NTM 2007) developed by JMP. The NTM 2009 model represents the traffic network for the complete urban area of Newhaven and the A27 at a simulation level of detail, so that individual junctions and their interactions with other junctions are modelled realistically. Two user-class demand matrices have been developed for each time period (i.e. AM and PM peak hours) using matrix estimation from a prior matrix base derived from the NTM 2007 validated model, to represent Car and OGV (includes LGV) trips respectively.

A significant proportion of the counts were gathered in 2007 with further supplementary data surveyed in Autumn 2008 and Spring 2009.

The assignment has been shown to have a very good convergence and to conform with DMRB calibration and validation criteria for link counts and junction turning counts across the network.

Detailed journey time validation has been undertaken for the AM peak hour for the two routes between the A27 and Newhaven Town Centre. A good degree of correlation has been demonstrated between observed and modelled times.

The overall model validation is sound and provides confidence to the NTM 2009 models as a base for forecasting and the assessment of strategic development options within the Newhaven area.

27 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendices

28 255852/03/01c/ P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix A: Newhaven Traffic Model SATURN 2007 – 08 (by JMP Consultants)

A.1 The Network Structure

Figure A.1: Newhaven 2007 SATURN model (Source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008)

A-1 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix B: NTM 2009 – Node 1488 (signal times) : A275 Brighton Road/A275 Nevill Road/A277 Western Road/Winterbourne Hollow

Figure B.1: NTM 2009 – Node 1488 (signal times)

B-2 255852/03/01c/S- of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix C: Traffic Count Locations (2007 (ESCC/JMP) and 2008 – 2009 (MM))

Table C.1: Model Calibration & Validation Counts (2007/08) (source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008)

Purpose Period Survey Site ID Location Survey Date Count Type (Calibration surveyed or Validation) M4906 A 259 Brighton Road / Upper Valley Road Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4907 A259 Brighton Road / The Rose Walk Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M4908 A 259 Brighton Road / Newfield Road Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4911 North Way / North Lane Thursday 11/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4913 North Way / South Way / Swing Bridge Thursday 11/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4914 South Way / South Road - Newhaven Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4915 South Way / Meeching Road Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M4916 South Way / Norman Road / Meeching Rise Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4917 Western Road / Second Avenue Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4918 Northdown Road / First Avenue / Second Avenue Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M4919 Gibbon Road / Northdown Road / Southdown Road Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4920 Gibbon Road / Western Road Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M4921 Gibbon Road / Fort Road / South Road / Riverside Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M4922 Fort Road / Court Farm Road Tuesday 16/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4923 Drove Road / Porn Access Thursday 11/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M4924 A 26 New Road / Drove Road / Railway Road Thursday 11/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4927 Avis Road / Mount Road Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M4928 Avis Road / Denton Road Tuesday 09/10/2007 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM

C-3 255852/03/01c/S- of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure C.1: JMP Count Locations (source: NTM 2007 LMVR dated March 2008)

C-4 255852/03/01c/S- of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Table C.2: Model Calibration & Validation Counts (Mott MacDonald 2008-09)

Purpose Period Survey Site ID Location Survey Date Count Type (Calibration or Surveyed Validation) M 1 Lewes Road / Valley Road Wednesday 03/12/2008 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M 2 a A26 / The Hollow (NORTH) Wednesday 03/12/2008 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M 2 b A26 / The Hollow (SOUTH) Wednesday 03/12/2008 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM M 3 South Way / A259 Brighton Road / Lewes Road Wednesday 03/12/2008 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M 4 A259 Drove Road / The Drove Wednesday 03/12/2008 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM M 5 New Road / A249 Slip Road Wednesday 03/12/2008 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM 1 A275 / A27 Brighton Road Thursday 12/02/2009 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM 2 Kingston Road / Southover High Street Thursday 12/02/2009 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM 3 A26 / A27 Cuilfail Tunnel Thursday 12/02/2009 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Validation AM & PM 4 A26 / A27 Beddingham Junction Thursday 12/02/2009 Manual Traffic Counts (Turn counts) Calibration AM & PM ATC Site 1 Lewes Road , Newhaven (north of Piddinghoe) 30/11/08 (start date) Automatic Traffic Counts (link counts) Validation 7 days ATC Site 2 A 26 Newhaven (north of The Hollow) 30/11/08 (start date) Automatic Traffic Counts (link counts) Validation 7 days ATC Site 3 a/b Newhaven Town Centre (one-way loop) 30/11/08 (start date) Automatic Traffic Counts (link counts) Validation 7 days

C-5 255852/03/01c/S- of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure C.2: Model Calibration & Validation Count Locations (Mott MacDonald 2008-09) (Source: 255852/GIS)

C-6 255852/03/01c/S- of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix D: Journey Time Routes 2009 (AM only)

D-1 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure D.1: Journey Time Routes (source: 255852/GIS)

D-2 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Table D.1: Journey Time Routes Timing Points (Route 1 – Clockwise)

Direction Timing Point Route No Timing Point Description Reference Route 1 Clockwise 1 Drove Road onto South Way (Roundabout) 2 South Way Junction with South Road 3 Southway Junction with Norman Road 4 Southway Junction with Brighton Road 5 Lewes Road Junction with Lewis Road 6 Lewes Road Junction with Valley Road 7 Lewes Road Junction with Piddinghoe turn off 8 Lewes Road junction with Southese turn off 9 Lewes Road Junction with Mill Lane 10 Lewes Road Junction with White Way 11 Lewes Road Junction with Ilford turn off 12 Lewes Road Junction with Wellgreen Lane 13 Ashcombe Lane Roundabout with A27 14 A27 Roundabout with A26 15 A27 Roundabout with A26 (southbound) 16 A26 Junction with Southease train station junction 17 A26 Junction with junction south of Southease 18 A26 Junction with The Hollow 19 A26 Junction with Avis Road 20 A26 Junction with Avis Way 21 A26 miniroundabout onto Drove road

D-3 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/ KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Table D.2: Journey Time Routes Timing Points (Route 2 – Anticlockwise)

Direction Timing Point Route No Timing Point Description Reference Route 2 Anticlockwise 21A Drove Rd onto slip leading to A26 New Rd 20 A26 Junction with Avis Way 19 A26 Junction with Avis Road 18 A26 Junction with The Hollow 17 A26 Junction with junction south of Southease 16 A26 Junction with Southease train station junction 15 A26 Roundabout with A27 (northbound) 14 A27 Roundabout with A26 13 A27 with Ashcombe Lane Roundabout 12 Wellgreen Lane with Lewes Road Junction 11 Lewes Road Junction with Ilford turn off 10 Lewes Road Junction with White Way 9 Lewes Road Junction with Mill Lane 8 Lewes Road junction with Southese turn off 7 Lewes Road Junction with Piddinghoe turn off 6 Lewes Road Junction with Valley Road 5A Lewes Road Junction with North Way 3A North Way Junction with Car park access 2A North Way Junction with Bridge Street 1 North Way onto Drove Road

D-4 255852/03/01c/S- of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/ KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix E: Count Calibration Data

Key Criteria GEH > 15 GEH >7

E-1 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

AM Peak Period

Table E.1: AM Peak Calibration Counts

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 1 1023 1040 1032 5 7 39.84 0.81 Yes 2 1023 1040 1041 647 667 3.1 0.78 Yes 3 1032 1040 1023 9 10 8.24 0.24 Yes 4 1032 1040 1041 36 13 -63.16 4.58 Yes 5 1041 1040 1023 583 604 3.67 0.88 Yes 6 1041 1040 1032 12 7 -42.43 1.66 Yes 7 1075 1041 1048 4 4 1.42 0.03 Yes 8 1048 1041 1040 3 11 271.85 3.07 Yes 9 1048 1041 1075 19 19 -0.02 0 Yes 10 1065 1066 1077 64 58 -9.38 0.77 Yes 11 1065 1066 1086 17 25 44.57 1.66 Yes 12 1077 1066 1065 42 36 -14.3 0.96 Yes 13 1077 1066 1086 10 0 -100 4.47 Yes 14 1086 1066 1065 17 17 0.02 0 Yes 15 1086 1066 1077 7 8 14.29 0.37 Yes 16 1093 1114 1115 74 74 0.02 0 Yes 17 1115 1114 1093 53 53 0.06 0 Yes 18 1115 1114 1122 49 0 -100 9.9 Yes 19 1122 1114 1115 14 4 -74.15 3.5 Yes 20 1126 1160 1137 13 0 -100 5.1 Yes 21 1126 1160 1164 5 22 346.12 4.68 Yes 22 1126 1160 1171 31 0 -100 7.87 Yes 23 1137 1160 1126 25 0 -100 7.07 Yes 24 1137 1160 1164 6 0 -100 3.46 Yes 25 1137 1160 1171 64 87 36.57 2.69 Yes 26 1164 1160 1126 8 8 0.18 0.01 Yes 27 1164 1160 1137 7 8 21.04 0.53 Yes 28 1164 1160 1171 21 0 -100 6.48 Yes 29 1171 1160 1126 8 2 -75 2.68 Yes 30 1171 1160 1137 17 18 5.15 0.21 Yes 31 1171 1160 1164 9 0 -100 4.24 Yes 32 1163 1168 1161 27 29 8.74 0.44 Yes 33 1190 1168 1161 153 278 81.9 8.53 Yes 34 1155 1172 1175 48 48 0.32 0.02 Yes 35 1175 1172 1193 34 44 28.49 1.55 Yes 36 1198 1194 1214 198 200 0.89 0.12 Yes 37 1214 1194 1188 226 96 -57.42 10.22 Yes 38 1215 1223 1225 272 235 -13.54 2.31 Yes 39 1226 1223 1225 1222 1146 -6.22 2.21 Yes 40 1223 1225 1216 60 60 0.77 0.06 Yes E-1 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 41 1215 1226 1250 1235 1281 3.72 1.29 Yes 42 1211 1232 1229 79 81 2.58 0.23 Yes 43 1211 1232 1256 9 2 -77.9 2.99 Yes 44 1229 1232 1211 52 54 3.82 0.27 Yes 45 1256 1232 1211 12 1 -92.37 4.36 Yes 46 1469 1290 1295 64 64 0.28 0.02 Yes 47 1295 1290 1469 53 53 0.91 0.07 Yes 48 1295 1290 1298 30 32 6.19 0.33 Yes 49 1298 1290 1469 330 256 -22.37 4.31 Yes 50 1298 1290 1295 84 88 5.36 0.48 Yes 51 1293 1302 1320 26 15 -42.31 2.43 Yes 52 1298 1302 1293 142 160 12.66 1.46 Yes 53 1320 1302 1293 53 109 104.72 6.18 Yes 54 1320 1302 1298 286 169 -40.76 7.73 Yes 55 1314 1340 1344 14 14 0.21 0.01 Yes 56 1344 1340 1314 27 75 179.25 6.76 Yes 57 1344 1340 1367 140 129 -7.94 0.96 Yes 58 1367 1340 1344 85 69 -18.47 1.79 Yes 59 1367 1378 1383 30 15 -51.49 3.27 Yes 60 1380 1378 1383 56 58 3.6 0.27 Yes 61 1383 1378 1367 48 86 78.42 4.6 Yes 62 1383 1378 1380 120 96 -19.61 2.26 Yes 63 1486 1480 1470 115 34 -70.03 9.32 Yes 64 1487 1480 1470 104 25 -76.18 9.87 Yes 65 1470 1480 1486 216 181 -16.17 2.48 Yes 66 1470 1480 1487 279 255 -8.5 1.45 Yes 67 1475 1473 1129 921 921 0 0 Yes 68 1475 1473 1506 405 418 3.29 0.66 Yes 69 1129 1473 1475 1120 1120 0.01 0 Yes 70 1129 1473 1506 168 168 0.05 0.01 Yes 71 1506 1473 1475 825 841 1.92 0.55 Yes 72 1506 1473 1129 176 108 -38.67 5.71 Yes 73 1062 1098 1110 178 143 -19.49 2.74 Yes 74 1062 1098 1083 4 16 291.94 3.72 Yes 75 1110 1098 1062 598 599 0.19 0.05 Yes 76 1110 1098 1083 73 73 0.06 0 Yes 77 1083 1098 1062 38 38 0.76 0.05 Yes 78 1083 1098 1110 110 110 0.01 0 Yes 79 1083 1098 1083 2 0 -100 2 Yes 80 1472 1246 1258 9 73 709.68 9.98 Yes 81 1472 1246 1272 452 514 13.62 2.8 Yes 82 1258 1246 1472 9 35 288.75 5.54 Yes 83 1258 1246 1272 9 9 -1.96 0.06 Yes

E-2 255852/03/01c/S- of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 84 1272 1246 1472 925 914 -1.21 0.37 Yes 85 1272 1246 1258 12 12 0 0 Yes 86 1168 1161 1158 767 752 -1.95 0.54 Yes 87 1168 1161 1146 91 91 -0.04 0 Yes 88 1168 1161 1156 589 602 2.28 0.55 Yes 89 1156 1161 1158 1041 1074 3.13 1 Yes 90 1359 1347 1359 71 28 -61.08 6.18 Yes 91 1359 1347 1350 53 53 -0.01 0 Yes 92 1359 1347 1333 183 209 14.09 1.84 Yes 93 1359 1347 1328 785 784 -0.1 0.03 Yes 94 1350 1347 1359 46 46 0.01 0 Yes 95 1350 1347 1333 28 28 0.1 0.01 Yes 96 1350 1347 1328 16 22 35.5 1.31 Yes 97 1333 1347 1359 78 80 2.56 0.22 Yes 98 1333 1347 1350 18 0 -98.77 5.89 Yes 99 1333 1347 1328 20 0 -99.95 6.32 Yes 100 1328 1347 1359 724 749 3.52 0.94 Yes 101 1328 1347 1350 56 64 14.37 1.04 Yes 102 1328 1347 1333 18 8 -53.64 2.66 Yes 103 1477 1478 1035 34 0 -100 8.25 Yes 104 1477 1478 1504 11 0 -98.82 4.61 Yes 105 1477 1478 1483 574 575 0.25 0.06 Yes 106 1035 1478 1477 72 2 -97.44 11.55 Yes 107 1035 1478 1504 22 24 10.22 0.47 Yes 108 1035 1478 1483 2107 2122 0.72 0.33 Yes 109 1504 1478 1477 7 0 -100 3.74 Yes 110 1504 1478 1035 11 7 -35.08 1.28 Yes 111 1504 1478 1483 289 293 1.37 0.23 Yes 112 1483 1478 1477 687 687 -0.05 0.01 Yes 113 1483 1478 1035 1865 1905 2.15 0.92 Yes 114 1483 1478 1504 173 135 -21.8 3.04 Yes 115 1483 1478 1483 10 0 -100 4.47 Yes

E-3 255852/03/01c/S- of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

PM Peak Period

Table E.2: PM Peak Calibration Counts

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 1 1023 1040 1032 22 22 -0.02 0 Yes 2 1023 1040 1041 661 695 5.12 1.3 Yes 3 1032 1040 1023 15 13 -13.21 0.53 Yes 4 1032 1040 1041 23 24 3.65 0.17 Yes 5 1041 1040 1023 868 763 -12.1 3.68 Yes 6 1041 1040 1032 42 28 -33.08 2.35 Yes 7 1040 1041 1048 13 6 -50.34 2.1 Yes 8 1048 1041 1040 1 0 -92.15 0 Yes 9 1048 1041 1075 10 17 71.49 1.94 Yes 10 1065 1066 1077 36 34 -5.51 0.34 Yes 11 1065 1066 1086 6 7 23.14 0.54 Yes 12 1077 1066 1065 67 57 -14.96 1.27 Yes 13 1077 1066 1086 12 0 -100 4.9 Yes 14 1086 1066 1065 9 16 72.36 1.86 Yes 15 1086 1066 1077 7 2 -71.36 2.35 Yes 16 1093 1114 1115 88 69 -21.34 2.12 Yes 17 1115 1114 1093 43 47 9.49 0.61 Yes 18 1115 1114 1122 26 0 -100 7.21 Yes 19 1122 1114 1115 9 8 -11.18 0.35 Yes 20 1126 1160 1137 22 0 -100 6.63 Yes 21 1126 1160 1164 6 7 20.85 0.49 Yes 22 1126 1160 1171 13 0 -100 5.1 Yes 23 1137 1160 1126 7 0 -100 3.74 Yes 24 1137 1160 1164 4 0 -98.78 2.78 Yes 25 1137 1160 1171 32 32 0.2 0.01 Yes 26 1164 1160 1126 5 9 82.28 1.55 Yes 27 1164 1160 1137 9 9 5.25 0.16 Yes 28 1164 1160 1171 11 9 -18.11 0.63 Yes 29 1171 1160 1126 9 2 -77.83 2.99 Yes 30 1171 1160 1137 31 55 78.66 3.71 Yes 31 1171 1160 1164 9 0 -100 4.24 Yes 32 1163 1168 1161 25 25 0.53 0.03 Yes 33 1190 1168 1161 97 198 104.61 8.35 Yes 34 1155 1172 1175 20 20 -0.25 0.01 Yes 35 1175 1172 1193 32 70 117.89 5.29 Yes 36 1198 1194 1214 352 414 17.51 3.15 Yes 37 1214 1194 1188 219 191 -12.77 1.95 Yes 38 1215 1223 1225 437 449 2.83 0.59 Yes 39 1226 1223 1225 1127 1054 -6.51 2.22 Yes E-4 255852/03/01c/S- of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 40 1223 1225 1216 72 81 12.74 1.05 Yes 41 1215 1226 1250 1340 1245 -7.09 2.64 Yes 42 1211 1232 1229 66 68 3.16 0.26 Yes 43 1211 1232 1256 6 0 -98.83 3.4 Yes 44 1229 1232 1211 90 92 2.04 0.19 Yes 45 1256 1232 1211 6 0 -98 3.36 Yes 46 1469 1290 1295 33 33 0.19 0.01 Yes 47 1295 1290 1469 80 63 -21.71 2.06 Yes 48 1295 1290 1298 88 107 21.88 1.95 Yes 49 1298 1290 1469 168 362 115.34 11.91 Yes 50 1298 1290 1295 26 49 88.5 3.76 Yes 51 1293 1302 1320 21 18 -14.45 0.69 Yes 52 1298 1302 1293 50 76 51.17 3.23 Yes 53 1320 1302 1293 28 41 45.66 2.18 Yes 54 1320 1302 1298 149 134 -9.89 1.24 Yes 55 1314 1340 1344 32 31 -2.74 0.16 Yes 56 1344 1340 1314 11 15 37.12 1.13 Yes 57 1344 1340 1367 80 81 1.72 0.15 Yes 58 1367 1340 1344 148 137 -7.69 0.95 Yes 59 1367 1378 1383 26 25 -2.27 0.12 Yes 60 1380 1378 1383 106 101 -4.95 0.52 Yes 61 1383 1378 1367 27 13 -51.51 3.11 Yes 62 1383 1378 1380 57 55 -3.27 0.25 Yes 63 1484 1475 1473 346 343 -0.92 0.17 Yes 64 1484 1475 1035 525 639 21.75 4.73 Yes 65 1473 1475 1484 195 269 38.02 4.87 Yes 66 1473 1475 1035 893 955 6.98 2.05 Yes 67 1035 1475 1484 506 493 -2.64 0.6 Yes 68 1035 1475 1473 1057 1248 18.07 5.63 Yes 69 1477 1478 1035 39 0 -100 8.83 Yes 70 1477 1478 1504 11 0 -100 4.69 Yes 71 1477 1478 1483 770 701 -8.93 2.54 Yes 72 1035 1478 1477 21 0 -100 6.48 Yes 73 1035 1478 1504 20 18 -11.12 0.51 Yes 74 1035 1478 1483 1436 1577 9.8 3.63 Yes 75 1504 1478 1477 8 0 -100 4 Yes 76 1504 1478 1035 4 4 10.66 0.21 Yes 77 1504 1478 1483 115 115 0.09 0.01 Yes 78 1483 1478 1477 531 531 0 0 Yes 79 1483 1478 1035 1713 1736 1.35 0.56 Yes 80 1483 1478 1504 456 433 -4.99 1.08 Yes 81 1483 1478 1483 4 0 -100 2.83 Yes 82 1487 1480 1470 250 227 -9.1 1.47 Yes

E-5 255852/03/01c/S- of 5 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 83 1470 1480 1487 97 79 -18.82 1.95 Yes 1029 84 1475 1473 1129 > 946 -8.1 2.65 Yes 85 1475 1473 1506 523 > 516 -1.26 0.29 Yes 86 1129 1473 1475 808 808 0 0 Yes 87 1129 1473 1506 151 94 -37.47 5.11 Yes 88 1506 1473 1475 296 416 40.7 6.38 Yes 89 1506 1473 1129 111 76 -31.7 3.64 Yes 90 1062 1098 1110 748 649 -13.18 3.73 Yes 91 1062 1098 1083 17 42 147.56 4.62 Yes 92 1110 1098 1062 168 221 31.77 3.83 Yes 93 1110 1098 1083 21 21 -0.12 0.01 Yes 94 1083 1098 1062 11 12 11.88 0.38 Yes 95 1083 1098 1110 462 334 -27.72 6.42 Yes 96 1083 1098 1083 8 0 -100 4 Yes 97 1472 1246 1258 14 5 -65.53 2.99 Yes 98 1472 1246 1272 679 606 -10.75 2.88 Yes 99 1258 1246 1472 4 8 93.62 1.55 Yes 100 1258 1246 1272 14 12 -14.64 0.57 Yes 101 1272 1246 1472 407 485 19.05 3.67 Yes 102 1272 1246 1258 6 6 0.18 0 Yes 103 1168 1161 1158 448 439 -2.04 0.44 Yes 104 1168 1161 1146 91 67 -26.84 2.75 Yes 105 1168 1161 1156 1062 829 -21.91 7.57 Yes 106 1156 1161 1158 787 799 1.51 0.42 Yes 107 1359 1347 1359 46 7 -85.43 7.66 Yes 108 1359 1347 1350 54 54 -0.19 0.01 Yes 109 1359 1347 1333 101 121 19.55 1.87 Yes 110 1359 1347 1328 365 322 -11.69 2.3 Yes 111 1350 1347 1359 62 62 -0.01 0 Yes 112 1350 1347 1333 17 15 -11.07 0.47 Yes 113 1350 1347 1328 91 90 -0.78 0.07 Yes 114 1333 1347 1359 136 136 -0.21 0.02 Yes 115 1333 1347 1350 6 4 -27.54 0.73 Yes 116 1333 1347 1328 47 0 -99.94 9.69 Yes 117 1328 1347 1359 982 996 1.47 0.46 Yes 118 1328 1347 1350 35 45 29 1.6 Yes 119 1328 1347 1333 2 3 36.54 0.48 Yes

E-6 255852/03/01c/S- of 6 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix F: Count Validation Data

Key GEH > 15 GEH >7

F-7 255852/03/01c/S- of 7 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Table F.1: AM Peak Validation Counts

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 1 1066 1077 u/m/d 61 68/66/64 8.19 0.63 Yes 2 1101 1077 0 20 28 41.16 1.68 Yes 3 1137 1077 0 41 33 -19.79 1.33 Yes 4 1096 1093 0 28 37 30.48 1.5 Yes 5 1114 1093 0 631 656 3.9 0.97 Yes 6 1116 1126 0 91 87 -4.61 0.44 Yes 7 1118 1126 0 46 62 33.87 2.12 Yes 8 1141 1126 0 22 13 -40.28 2.11 Yes 9 1160 1126 0 47 10 -78.69 6.93 Yes 10 1179 1186 0 33 26 -22.33 1.36 Yes 11 1101 1229 0 67 55 -17.52 1.5 Yes 12 1232 1229 0 146 114 -21.87 2.8 Yes 13 1233 1229 0 132 131 -0.97 0.11 Yes 14 1234 1229 0 13 5 -62.13 2.7 Yes 15 1268 1265 0 20 44 118.62 4.2 Yes 16 1269 1265 0 519 374 -27.99 6.88 Yes 17 1077 1137 m/d 81 53/73 -35.13 3.48 Yes 18 1077 1066 0 22 36 63.61 2.6 Yes 19 1077 1101 0 19 39 103.03 3.65 Yes 20 1093 1096 0 11 35 216.98 4.98 Yes 21 1093 1088 0 599 621 3.64 0.88 Yes 22 1126 1118 0 31 80 156.91 6.54 Yes 23 1126 1141 0 33 22 -34.85 2.2 Yes 24 1126 1160 0 52 22 -57.1 4.87 Yes 25 1126 1116 0 90 48 -46.56 5.04 Yes 26 1186 1178 0 1267 1138 -10.2 3.73 Yes 27 1186 1202 0 10 7 -29.05 0.99 Yes 28 1186 1179 0 21 98 366.19 9.97 Yes 29 1229 1232 0 195 133 -31.76 4.84 Yes 30 1229 1233 0 99 118 18.84 1.79 Yes 31 1229 1234 0 14 0 -99.98 5.29 Yes 32 1229 1101 0 50 54 8.49 0.59 Yes 33 1265 1269 0 12 39 228.21 5.4 Yes 34 1265 1250 0 461 340 -26.24 6.04 Yes 35 1265 1268 0 66 38 -42.42 3.88 Yes 36 1484 1475 0 953 1016 6.63 2.01 Yes 37 1473 1475 0 1980 1961 -0.96 0.43 Yes 38 1035 1475 0 1858 1912 2.92 1.25 Yes 39 1246 1272 0 460 522 13.56 2.81 Yes 40 1277 1272 0 63 84 33.18 2.44 Yes 41 1255 1272 0 932 844 -9.46 2.96 Yes F-8 255852/03/01c/S- of 8 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 42 1283 1293 0 341 209 -38.62 7.94 Yes 43 1315 1293 0 131 235 79.52 7.7 Yes 44 1302 1293 0 450 268 -40.34 9.58 Yes 45 1471 1536 0 722 694 -3.85 1.05 Yes 46 1536 1471 0 161 182 13 1.6 Yes 47 1472 1538 0 895 949 6.01 1.77 Yes 48 1538 1472 0 436 586 34.5 6.65 Yes 49 1222 1198 0 1192 1321 10.79 3.63 Yes 50 1172 1193 0 1463 1386 -5.25 2.03 Yes 51 1475 1473 0 1393 1339 -3.85 1.45 Yes 52 1475 1035 0 2159 2148 -0.5 0.23 Yes 53 1475 1484 0 1239 1402 13.14 4.48 Yes 54 1272 1277 0 16 16 -1.39 0.06 Yes 55 1272 1255 0 495 509 2.75 0.61 Yes 56 1272 1246 0 944 926 -1.93 0.6 Yes 57 1293 1315 0 45 19 -57.69 4.59 Yes 58 1293 1302 0 308 190 -38.22 7.46 Yes 59 1293 1283 0 569 504 -11.49 2.82 Yes

F-9 255852/03/01c/S- of 9 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Table F.2: PM Peak Validation Counts

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 1 1066 1077 u/m/d 26 38/36/34 38.55 1.8 Yes 2 1101 1077 0 15 61 306.4 7.46 Yes 3 1137 1077 0 57 27 -52.9 4.66 Yes 4 1088 1093 0 694 797 14.9 3.79 Yes 5 1096 1093 0 21 54 155.41 5.34 Yes 6 1114 1093 0 1084 877 -19.07 6.6 Yes 7 1116 1126 0 91 70 -22.59 2.29 Yes 8 1118 1126 0 35 31 -10.55 0.64 Yes 9 1141 1126 0 7 3 -55.32 1.72 Yes 10 1160 1126 0 19 11 -41.53 2.03 Yes 11 1179 1186 0 112 106 -5.1 0.55 Yes 12 1101 1229 0 60 40 -32.54 2.75 Yes 13 1232 1229 0 270 259 -4.11 0.68 Yes 14 1233 1229 0 147 206 40.17 4.44 Yes 15 1234 1229 0 7 4 -40.76 1.21 Yes 16 1268 1265 0 24 51 113.07 4.43 Yes 17 1269 1265 0 587 685 16.78 3.9 Yes 18 1077 1066 0 36 57 58.27 3.08 Yes 19 1077 1101 0 21 35 65.7 2.61 Yes 20 1077 1137 m/d 41 32/37 -21.81 1.48 Yes 21 1093 1088 0 923 856 -7.29 2.25 Yes 22 1093 1096 0 27 22 -18.9 1.03 Yes 23 1093 1114 0 678 851 25.47 6.25 Yes 24 1126 1116 0 45 33 -26.99 1.95 Yes 25 1126 1118 0 38 68 79.04 4.13 Yes 26 1126 1141 0 21 8 -62.65 3.46 Yes 27 1126 1160 0 48 7 -84.89 7.75 Yes 28 1186 1178 0 1480 1111 -24.92 10.25 Yes 29 1186 1179 0 46 192 316.96 13.37 Yes 30 1186 1202 0 40 3 -93.54 8.11 Yes 31 1229 1101 0 113 103 -8.78 0.95 Yes 32 1229 1232 0 187 168 -10.15 1.42 Yes 33 1229 1233 0 180 238 32.39 4.03 Yes 34 1229 1234 0 4 0 -95.23 2.63 Yes 35 1265 1250 0 540 641 18.71 4.16 Yes 36 1265 1268 0 62 81 31.01 2.27 Yes 37 1265 1269 0 9 14 59.57 1.57 Yes 38 1246 1272 0 690 618 -10.44 2.82 Yes 39 1277 1272 0 68 11 -84.16 9.12 Yes 40 1255 1272 0 410 482 17.51 3.4 Yes 41 1283 1293 0 512 309 -39.66 10.02 Yes

F-10 255852/03/01c/S- of 10 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

GEH % No Anode Bnode Cnode Count Modelled GEH Validation Difference Criteria 42 1315 1293 0 67 100 49.01 3.6 Yes 43 1302 1293 0 198 116 -41.23 6.51 Yes 44 1475 1473 0 1403 1591 > 13.38 4.85 Yes 45 1475 1035 0 1418 1595 12.45 4.55 Yes 46 1475 1484 0 701 762 8.67 2.25 Yes 47 1272 1277 0 9 66 633.66 9.31 Yes 48 1272 1255 0 743 554 -25.45 7.42 Yes 49 1272 1246 0 416 491 17.92 3.5 Yes 50 1293 1315 0 64 15 -77.31 7.9 Yes 51 1293 1302 0 462 294 -36.26 8.61 Yes 52 1293 1283 0 251 216 -13.88 2.28 Yes 53 1471 1536 0 202 224 10.89 1.51 Yes 54 1536 1471 0 677 690 1.88 0.49 Yes 55 1472 1538 0 370 492 33.05 5.89 Yes 56 1538 1472 0 644 611 -5.15 1.32 Yes 57 1222 1198 0 1345 1422 5.71 2.07 Yes 58 1172 1193 0 1414 1555 9.95 3.65 Yes

F-11 255852/03/01c/S- of 11 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure F.1: AM Calibration Counts – regression line

F-12 255852/03/01c/S- of 12 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure F.2: AM Validation Counts – regression line

F-13 255852/03/01c/S- of 13 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure F.3: PM Calibration Counts – regression line

F-14 255852/03/01c/S- of 14 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure F.4: PM Validation Counts – regression line

F-15 255852/03/01c/S- of 15 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix G: Journey Time Validation Plots AM

G- 255852/03/01c/S- of 16 16 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

AM Peak Period

Figure G.1: AM Route “Clockwise 1”

Newhaven to A 26 (clockwise) - AM JT Route (Clockwise 1)

1600

1400

1200

Run 1 Run 2 1000 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 800 Average Observed Time Lower 95% Percentile Time (Seconds) 600 Upper 95% Percentile Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative

400

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213 JT Route Timing Points

G-17 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure G.2: AM Route 2 “Anticlockwise 1”

A 26 to Newhaven (Anticlockwise) - AM JT Route (Anticlockwise 1)

1200

1000

Run 1 800 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 600 Run 6 Average Observed Time

Time (Seconds) Lower 95% Percentile 400 Upper 95% Percentile Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 JT Route Timing Points

G-18 255852/03/01c/S- of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure G.3: AM Route “Clockwise 2”

A26 to Newhaven (via A26) (clockwise) - AM JT Route (Clockwise 2)

1000

900

800

700 Run 1 Run 2 600 Run 3 Run 4 500 Run 5 Average Observed Time Lower 95% Percentile Time (Seconds) 400 Upper 95% Percentile Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative 300

200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JT Route Timing Points

G-19 255852/03/01c/S- of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure G.4: AM Route “Anticlockwise 2”

Newhaven to A 26 (via a26) (Anticlockwise) - AM JT Route (Anticlockwise 2)

900

800

700

Run 1 600 Run 2 Run 3 500 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 400 Average Observed Time

Time (Seconds) Lower 95% Percentile

300 Upper 95% Percentile Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative

200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JT Route Timing Points

G-20 255852/03/01c/S- of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc/KS Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix H: Journey Time Validation PM

H-1 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure H.1: PM Route “Clockwise 1”

Newhaven to A 26 (clockwise) - PM JT Route (Clockwise 1)

1200

1000

AM OBS (avg of all runs) 800

AM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative

600 PM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative Time (Seconds)

400

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 JT Route Timing Points

Figure H.2: PM Route 2 “Anticlockwise 1”

A 26 to Newhaven (Anticlockwise) - PM JT Route (Anticlockwise 1)

1200

1000

800

AM OBS (avg of all runs) 600 AM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative PM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative Time (Seconds)

400

200

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 JT Route Timing Points

H-2 255852/03/01c/S- of 2 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure H.3: PM Route “Clockwise 2”

A26 to Newhaven (via A26) (clockwise) - PM JT Route (Clockwise 2)

1000

900

800

700

600

AM OBS (avg of all runs) 500 AM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative PM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative

Time (Seconds) 400

300

200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JT Route Timing Points

H-3 255852/03/01c/S- of 3 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Figure H.4: PM Route “Anticlockwise 2”

Newhaven to A 26 (via a26) (Anticlockwise) - PM JT Route (Anticlockwise 2)

900

800

700

600

500 AM OBS (avg of all runs) AM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative 400 PM Modelled time (Post ME 2) Cumulative Time (Seconds)

300

200

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JT Route Timing Points

H-4 255852/03/01c/S- of 4 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc Newhaven Traffic Model Mott MacDonald Base Model Re-validation Report (AM and PM Peak Hours) BBP Regeneration First Issue

Appendix I: Abbreviation

 Buffer network Part(s) of the SATURN model network not calibrated/validated but carrying traffic which may or may not enter the model. The area covered by the buffer network can easily be converted into the ‘simulation’ area by calibration process.

 Simulation network Key part(s), often called also as the study area, calibrated and validated to reflect as far as correct traffic conditions

I-1 255852/03/01c/S- of 1 P:\Croydon\VOY\ITL\255852 Newhaven Development Strategy phase 2\M 02 - Modelling - Saturn\04 - Word and Excel files\Tn_M_01_Rev 1c_Newhaven SATURN Model for AM and PM peak_Model Validation Report.doc Newhaven Transport Study

Appendix B. Do Something Trip Distributions

Figure B.1: AM Peak Eastside Dwellings Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 128

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.2: AM Peak Eastside Dwellings Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 129

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.3: AM Peak Eastside Retail Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 130

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.4: AM Peak Eastside Retail Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 131

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.5: AM Peak Eastside Office Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 132

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.6: AM Peak Eastside Office Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 133

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.7: AM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 134

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.8: AM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 135

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.9: PM Peak Eastside Dwellings Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 136

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.10: PM Peak Eastside Dwellings Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 137

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.11: PM Peak Eastside Retail Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 138

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.12: PM Peak Eastside Retail Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 139

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.13: PM Peak Eastside Office Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 140

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.14: PM Peak Eastside Office Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 141

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.15: PM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Outbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 142

Newhaven Transport Study

Figure B.16: PM Peak Meeching Quarry Dwellings Inbound

290816/ITD/ITW/001/G July 2011 P:\Southampton\ITW\Projects\290816\WP\Newhaven_transport_study_report_260711.doc 143