Luton Town Centre Transport Scheme September 2011

Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR)

Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Submitted by Pell Frischmann

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

REVISION RECORD Report Ref: P:\Data\Q30055 - Luton TCTS 2011\4 Int Data\4.5 Reports\4.5.6 DfT Submission reports\Draft\Final Documents to DfT\Luton TCTS LMVR FINAL.docx Rev Description Date Originator Checked Approved - Draft for Client Sept 2011 LA SW GT A Final Sept 2011 LA/AM SW GT

This report is to be regarded as confidential to our Client and it is intended for their use only and may not be assigned. Consequently and in accordance with current practice, any liability to any third party in respect of the whole or any part of its contents is hereby expressly excluded. Before the report or any part of it is reproduced or referred to in any document, circular or statement and before its contents or the contents of any part of it are disclosed orally to any third party, our written approval as to the form and context of such a publication or disclosure must be obtained

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Luton Borough Council Pell Frischmann Town Hall 9-10 Frederick Road Luton Birmingham LU1 2BQ. B15 1JD

Pell Frischmann

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.3 TRAFFIC MODEL BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.4 OUTLINE METHODOLOGY ...... 4 1.5 CONTENTS OF REPORT ...... 7 1.6 REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION...... 8

2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT ...... 9 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 2.2 MODELLING SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION ...... 9 2.3 STUDY AREA ...... 10 2.4 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION ...... 10 2.5 NETWORK REFINING...... 23 2.6 MATRIX DEVELOPMENT ...... 25 2.7 MATRIX ESTIMATION...... 30

3. MODEL CALIBRATION ...... 32 3.1 OVERVIEW ...... 32 3.2 TRAFFIC FLOW MONITORING PROCESS ...... 32 3.3 ASSIGNMENT PARAMETERS ...... 34 3.4 MATRIX ESTIMATION CALIBRATION ...... 34 3.5 REPORTING ON MATRICES ...... 37 3.6 CONVERGENCE ...... 44

4. MODEL VALIDATION ...... 46 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 46 4.2 NETWORK VALIDATION ...... 46 4.3 ASSIGNMENT VALIDATION ...... 47 4.4 JOURNEY TIME COMPARISON ...... 50

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 52 5.1 SUMMARY ...... 52 5.2 CONCLUSION ...... 52

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Calibration Data Appendix B: Journey Time Validation Appendix C: Routeing Validation (not mentioned in text) Appendix D: Prior, and Post Matrices by vehicle Type Appendix E: Journey Time Route Validation Graphs

Pell Frischmann

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Pell Frischmann (PF) has been commissioned by Luton Borough Council (LBC) to update an existing SATURN Highway Model for Central Bedfordshire & Luton (CBL) as part of the business case submission of Luton Town Centre Transportation Scheme (LTCTS).

1.1.2 The CB&L traffic model was developed in 2010/2011 as a strategic model to represent 2009 traffic levels using roadside interview and traffic survey data collected across the Central Bedfordshire and Luton region.

1.1.3 In order to undertake this latest work it was necessary to update the existing SATURN Model such that it is „fit for purpose‟ for this specific LTCTS appraisal. The model was therefore cordoned, refined, and then calibrated and validated as a 2009 Base Model.

1.1.4 This report describes the methods and process undertaken in preparing the present year 2009 model.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Luton is large town and unitary authority situated within the county of Bedfordshire, with a population of over 180,000, as recorded in the 2001 census. London is located 30 miles south of the Town and the M1 motorway passes the town to the south west. London Luton Airport is situated to the south east of the town.

1.2.2 The study area is shown in Figure 1.1 and includes the roads that feed into Luton and link into Luton Town Centre and the inner ring road. These include:

A6 north to Bedford;

A505 northeast to Hitchin and Cambridge;

A1081 south to Harpenden, St Albans and the M1; and

A5065/505 west to Dunstable and the M1.

1.2.3 The Luton Town Centre Transport Scheme (TCTS) received provisional approval from DfT in December 2003 and consisted of three elements;

Construction of a link road which completes the missing link of the Town Centre inner ring road;

Construction of a new bus interchange next to Luton station; and

Changes to traffic circulation on the north side of the town centre. Pell Frischmann Page 1

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 Extent of Study Area Figure 1.1: Study Area

1.2.4 The bus interchange is now being delivered as part of the Luton Dunstable Busway contract. The remaining two elements will be delivered as part of the Luton TCTS for which the aim will be to:

Improve access to town centre developments;

Improve accessibility by public transport to the town centre;

Improve accessibility to the Bus & Rail Station for multi-modal and sustainable transportation;

Improvement to walking and cycling infrastructure; and

Provide bus priority at key signalled junctions.

Pell Frischmann Page 2

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

1.2.5 The new road and associated measures will reduce congestion and improve safety and will allow further regeneration to take place within Luton. The scheme aims to assist regeneration of the Town centre, safeguard jobs and enable development.

1.3 Traffic Model Background

1.3.1 A SATURN model for Central Bedfordshire and Luton (CBL) was previously developed by the consultants Halcrow in 2010/11 using data collected in 2009 and covers the AM peak (0800-0900) and PM peak (1700-1800) periods.

1.3.2 The model is split into five user class matrices as follows:

Car commute (HBW);

Car other;

Car business (EB);

LGV;

OGV.

1.3.3 The model matrices were developed through a combination of:

RSI-derived trips, (including new RSI surveys on cordons around Luton - please see below RSI Cordons);

Synthetically derived gravity matrices (Luton internal zone was synthetically modelled); and

East of England Regional Highway Assignment Model (EERHAM) – LGV and OGV matrices are EERHAM sourced for the Luton Area.

1.3.4 Further details on the model development is summarised in the Central Bedfordshire & Luton – Local Model Validation Report published in June 2011.

1.3.5 This model provided the main input into the representation of the highway network and travel demand of the updated model, as well as forming the basis of the re- validation. The model was cordoned and the network updated to better represent the actual road layout. The model was then calibrated and validated as a 2009 Base Model.

Pell Frischmann Page 3

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

1.4 Outline Methodology

1.4.1 This report describes the processes undertaken in preparing the Luton SATURN Model. Preparation of the model can be split into 3 stages; development, calibration, and validation. The methods used are outlined in the following section and details of the process are given in the subsequent chapters.

Model Development

1.4.2 Model development details the processes used in entering data on the travel patterns, operations and performance of the transport system into the model framework. In this instance the framework is provided by the SATURN modelling suite. SATURN provides not only the structure for the model but also a computational basis to represent the interaction between travel demand and the operation of the highway network.

1.4.3 Travel demand is the movement of people from their origin to destination, and is often referred to as a trip matrix. A trip matrix is a mathematical structure that is used to represent many origins and destinations in a single entity. Travel demand is gauged by the data collected as part of the study, and includes:

Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC);

Manual Classified Counts (MCC); and

Roadside Interviews (RSI).

1.4.4 The travel demand matrices were developed by Halcrow and details of the process used are given in „Central Bedfordshire & Luton - Local Model Validation Report June 2011 by Halcrow‟.

1.4.5 Whilst the full SATURN model is calibrated and validated, further network and zoning changes are required in order to fully represent travel patterns in Luton which will form the basis of the forecasting and economic appraisal work to support the Best & Final Bid for the LTCTS. The model will require re-calibration and validation once the changes have been carried out.

1.4.6 There are some concerns that some of the journey routes do not meet DMRB criteria in the CBL SATURN model, and these will be improved during the model refinement, re-calibration and validation process.

1.4.7 There are concerns that the model‟s representation of link and junction counts were not sufficiently robust within Luton. These have been investigated and updated during the model refinement process.

1.4.8 The Luton matrices are fully synthetic, this forms a significant number of trips within Luton Town Centre and the wider Luton area. The synthesised trip levels are as follows:

Pell Frischmann Page 4

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

AM Peak 27%

PM Peak 23%

1.4.9 The SATURN model was cordoned as shown in Figure 1.2. The scope includes Luton, Dunstable, and smaller urban centres to the east. The cordoning process has also allowed the model to retain longer distance trip costs and routeing from the parent model. Whilst it is believed the scheme will have a more localised impact of traffic routeing within Luton, the spatial coverage identified is sufficient enough to identify any potential impact in the wider network.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 Cordon location Figure 1.2: CBLTM Cordon around Luton

1.4.10 A series of logic checks have been undertaken on the model to verify its robustness for use in the appraisal of the Luton TCTS. Additional network and zoning refinements are required before the model re-calibration and validation can be completed. These are set out as follows:

Pell Frischmann Page 5

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Check calibration and validation levels for AM and PM peak against DMRB criteria;;

Check of the car journey purpose proportions are based on the RSI data and not generic values in WebTAG;

A review of the generalised cost by user class is appropriate based on the network speeds. Check against WebTAG 3.5.6 was used.

The road network coverage is sufficiently detailed within the study area;

Links are modelled correctly (including the use of appropriate speed-flow curves, link lengths are the same in each direction, unless on one way links). Banned movements by vehicle types are modelled correctly (for example, one way streets, HGV restrictions);

The Statement of Common Ground (between Central Bedfordshire Council, Luton Borough Council and the HA) has already identified that some network refinements are needed for the Luton Town Centre. Junctions within the study area should be correctly simulated and that lane markings/ usage is correct;

Check that turn saturation flows are based on the junction layout rather than generic values;

Luton Town Centre is currently represented by a single zone in the CBL Model. This will require splitting into a number of new zones. The trip distribution will be required from the RSI data and applied to the prior matrix to ensure that the distribution to the new zones are sensible;

Matrix estimation will be required to adjust travel demand within Luton Town Centre to align with observed traffic counts. Checks will be undertaken to ensure overall travel demand across the cordoned model remains realistic and aligns with the wider operation of the road network; and

Network changes are correctly included in the Future Year Do Minimum and Something models.

1.4.11 Once this work was completed, the cordoned model was re-calibrated and validated.

Pell Frischmann Page 6

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Model Calibration

1.4.12 At the calibration stage the trip matrices and highway network are combined via an assignment process within the SATURN suite. Assignment is where a movement from an origin to a destination is assigned to a route through the network based on a travel costs. The calibration process includes the matrix estimation to adjust travel demand to reflect the range of traffic counts collected across the study area.

1.4.13 The matrix estimation utilises traffic counts, which are point measures of travel demand for trips routeing between its origin and destination. Data from the model development is used for comparative purpose to confirm that the model is accurately representing the input data.

Model Validation

1.4.14 Validation is where independent data collected for the modelling process is used to validate the models operation. The validation process is based on criteria defined in the Design Manual Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 12 which measure the correlation between observed and modelled datasets, higher levels of correlation tend to indicate a more robust model.

1.4.15 The available count data across the study area has been used in the model development and calibration stages. A significant proportion of the count data has been used in updating the observed matrices. The scale and distribution of other movements in the study is largely determined by the calibration data, which is extensive enough to ensure a robust estimate of other movements not captured on the validation cordon.

1.4.16 Journey time surveys from 2009 provide travel times along 20 corridors.

1.5 Contents of Report

1.5.1 This document provides a report of the methods and processes used in the development of the local area traffic model. It aims to demonstrate that the model has been calibrated to a satisfactory standard and validates to observed traffic operations. The report follows the approach previously outlined and is split into three chapters, as follows:

Chapter 2 - Model Development;

Chapter 3 - Model Calibration;

Chapter 4 - Model Validation;

1.5.2 The report is concluded with Chapter 5, this summarises the modelling process and provides a conclusion on the robustness of the model for its intended use.

Pell Frischmann Page 7

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

1.6 Reference Documentation

1.6.1 The following documents have been referenced in the development of the Luton TCTS SATURN Model:

Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) – Department for Transport;

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 12 - Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes - Department for Transport;

Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 13 – Economic Assessment of Road Schemes - Department for Transport;

Guidance Note for Traffic Consultants Employed on Highways Agency Schemes, Interim Advice Note 106/08 - Highways Agency; and

SATURN 10.8.22, User Manual - Atkins, June 2009.

1.6.2 These documents have been referenced during the process. However, for clarity the guidance given in these documents has been referenced only when it aids in understanding the process. The guidance has been used too frequently for it to be referenced at each instance of use, since this would clutter the report, hindering the discussion and descriptions given. Where the reader requires further clarity on the use of these references in the study please contact the author.

Pell Frischmann Page 8

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

2. MODEL DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section describes the methods used in the development of the highway network and travel demand matrices for the Luton SATURN Model. This includes a description of the software used, development of the model network and travel demand trip matrices.

2.2 Modelling Software Description

2.2.1 SATURN is capable of representing the delay at urban junctions and also the relationship between speed and flow on both urban and rural networks. This provides a suitable capacity restraint mechanism that allows travel times to be related to the congestion on the network.

2.2.2 The Institute for Transport Studies (University of Leeds) developed SATURN, which has been distributed by Atkins Transport Planning since 1981. It is an established software suite, approved by the Department for Transport (DfT) for the assessment of transport schemes. It has a wide range of functionality, which is briefly summarised as follows:

Combined route assignment and junction delay simulation suite that allows capacity of the network to feedback into the routeing choices of travellers;

Simulation of junctions with the facility for queues from adjacent junctions to block-back, effectively reducing the capacity of the junctions impacted by blocking back;

Speed-flow relationships that can be defined for specific road characteristics to reflect alignment, speed limits, side-road access, level of parking and level of adjacent development;

Network editing facilities linked to an extensive database of parameters such as traffic flows, speeds and delay;

Matrix manipulation package that can be used to develop matrices form observed roadside interview data;

Matrix estimation facility that allows the use of observed traffic counts to enhance the robustness of the travel demand matrices; and

Variable demand modelling capabilities including a linkage to the Department for Transport‟s approved software DIADEM.

2.2.3 The resulting Luton SATURN Model provides the framework for the assignment process integral in the operations of the model.

Pell Frischmann Page 9

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

2.3 Study Area

2.3.1 Travel demand can in theory arise from the whole of Great Britain, but it is not practical to build a model covering such a large geographical area, so a number of simplifications assumptions are made as follows:

Trips from outside the study area can effectively be allocated onto key routes into/through the study area;

Trips from beyond the study area are progressively allocated to zones that increase in size, the further removed that the trip is from the study area; and

Trips passing through or to and from the study area diminish in scale the further they are from the study area.

2.3.2 These assumptions provide a method to develop a highway network that is detailed and relevant to the issues to be assessed within the study area, but ensure that the wider world is not ignored, just simplified.

2.3.3 The scope of the cordoned SATURN model includes Luton, Dunstable, and smaller urban centres to the east. The cordoning process has also allowed the model to retain longer distance trip costs and routeing from the parent model.

2.3.4 The geographical scope encompassed the Luton urban area and the feeder roads into Luton. The study area is shown in Figure 1.1. The urban area is represented in junction simulation coding to ensure that congestion is suitably represented.

2.4 Summary of Data Collection

2.4.1 The data collection for the study area relates to data collected for the development of the PARAMICS model (which was used in the January 2011 submission) and data collected in 2009 for the development of the 2009 SATURN model by Halcrow.

Paramics Model Data Collection

2.4.2 The data collected for the development of the PARAMICS model included a range of traffic related surveys as follows:

Traffic Surveys, Manual Classified Counts (MCC), Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC) and Number Plate Recognition (NPR) data;

Journey Time surveys; and

Network Inventory.

2.4.3 The traffic data collected is further detailed in the Traffic Data Report submitted to DfT in December 2010.

Pell Frischmann Page 10

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Traffic Counts

2.4.4 The Traffic Counts were collected in 2009 covering the 12 hour period between 07:00 and 19:00. These counts were done for both directions in order to capture the inbound and outbound vehicles movements for journeys entering and leaving Luton Town Centre and are as follows:

ATC‟s were undertaken at 37 sites in total i.e. 21 Inner Cordon Sites, 5 Shadow „Patch‟ Sites and 11 Town Centre Approaches Cordon;

MCC data was taken at the Inner Cordon and Shadow patch sites. Figures 2.1 to 2.3 detail the locations where the traffic data was collected. The MCC surveys were classified for, and separated into seven categories which included, Pedestrians, Cyclists, Cars, LGV, MGVs, HGVS. Public Transport and Taxis; and

NPR surveys were undertaken as 21 sites within Luton in Jun 2006. The number plates were matched together for entries and exit points, Figure 2.4 and 2.5 detail the locations where the data was collected.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 Figure 2.1: Inner Cordon Sites Map(ATC & MCC) [source: LBC]

Pell Frischmann Page 11

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 Figure 2.2: Shadow ‘Patch’ Sites Map (ATC & MCC) [source: LBC]

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 Figure 2.3: Town Centre Approaches Sites Map (ATC) [source: LBC]

Pell Frischmann Page 12

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Figure 2.4: NPR Survey Sites – Car Park Locations

Pell Frischmann Page 13

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Figure 2.5: NPR Survey Sites – Cordon Locations

Journey Time Surveys

2.4.5 Journey Time (JT) surveys were undertaken on twelve routes in Luton in 2008, and are shown in Figure 2.6. The surveys were completed using in-car GPS technology in order to allow a choice of timing points using moving-observer method. Each Journey Time survey was conducted for a run of 6 times in the AM, IP & PM peak periods.

Pell Frischmann Page 14

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Figure 2.6: Journey Times Survey for Luton: Route & Locations

Data Collection for CBL SATURN model

2.4.6 The data collected in 2009 for the development of the SATURN model included a range of traffic related surveys as follows:

Roadside Interview Surveys;

Traffic Surveys, Manual Classified Counts (MCC), Automatic Traffic Counts (ATC); and

Journey Time surveys.

Pell Frischmann Page 15

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Roadside Interview Surveys

2.4.7 Roadside Interview (RSI) surveys were undertaken at thirteen points on a cordon around Luton in October 2009 over a 12 hour period from 07:00 – 19:00. MCC were undertaken for both directions at these locations at the same time and the locations are shown in Figure 2.7.

Traffic Counts

2.4.8 Traffic Counts were collected in 2009 covering the 12 hour period between 07:00 and 19:00. These counts were done for both directions in order to capture the inbound and outbound vehicles. These included ATC, MCC and Turning Count Surveys and a summary of the counts is listed in table 2.1. Their locations are shown in Figure 2.7.

Date of Type of Description Survey Survey RSI Outer Cordons Dunstable Cordon (shown in Red on the diagram) Leagrave High Street, at M1 flyover Oct 2009 ATC+MCC A505 Dunstable Road between the M1 junction 11 and Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Lewsey Road A5065 Hatters Way between Chaul End Road and Dallow Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Road Luton Cordon (shown in Light Grey on the diagram) B579 Luton Rd On approach to roundabout of Luton Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Rd/Toddington Rd Sundon Park Road, approaching Camford Way Oct 2009 ATC+MCC A6 Barton Road, as you enter within 40 mph limit Oct 2009 ATC+MCC A505 Hitchin Road, west of Butterfield Green Road Nov 2008 ATC+MCC Luton Road between Rochford Drive, Mangrove Road and Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Chalk Hill Eaton Green Road, On approach to roundabout of Eaton Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Green Rd and Colwell Rise B653 Lower Harpenden Road between Airport Way and Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Copt Hall Road A1081 Airport Way, Approaching Kidney Wood roundabout Oct 2009 ATC+MCC London Road between Airport Way and Cutenhoe Road Oct 2009 ATC+MCC B4540 Farley Road, Between Farley Hill Farm Road and Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Layhill Drive A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jnt 11 Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Screenlines Luton Rail line (shown in Yellow on the diagram) Sundon Road east of Luton Road and at Railway Bridge Nov 2010 ATC+MCC Grange Avenue between Toddington Road and Sundon Turning Dec 2009 Park Road count Linden Road east of Beechwood Road Nov 2010 ATC+MCC

Pell Frischmann Page 16

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Date of Type of Description Survey Survey A5228 Waller Avenue between Selbourne Road and the Nov 2010 ATC+MCC A5228 Leagrave Road Turning B579 Leagrave Rd between Althorp Rd and Selbourne Rd Dec 2009 count Waldeck Road west of Highbury Road at Railway Bridge Nov 2010 ATC+MCC A6 New Bedford Road north of A505 Telford Road Nov 2010 ATC+MCC A6 Guildford Road, south of Station Road Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Church Street between Guilford Rd and Midland Rd Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Crawley Green Road west of Crescent Road at Railway Nov 2010 ATC+MCC Bridge Kimpton Road between Windmill Rd and Airport Way, over Sep 2009 ATC only railway A1081 Airport Way between A505 junction and Kimpton Rd Nov 2010 MCC Dunstable (shown in Dark Grey on the diagram) Leagrave High St between Poynters Road and Tomlinson Sep 2009 ATC+MCC Avenue ATC+MCC A505 Dunstable Rd between Wordsworth Rd and Shelley Sep 2009 +turning Rd Count Luton E-W North (shown in Green on the diagram) M1 between Junction 12 and 11 Oct 2009 ATC only Mayne Avenue south of Bramble Road Nov 2010 ATC+MCC Grange Avenue Between Linacres and The Avenue Mar 2009 ATC+MCC B579 Marsh Road immediately north of Limbury Road Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Neville Road north of Blackswan Lane Nov 2010 ATC+MCC A5228 Birdfoot Lane Between Grosvenor Road and Parys Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Road A6 Barton Road Between Enderby Road and Birdsfoot Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Lane Cromer Way at Borough Boundary Nov 2010 ATC+MCC Luton E-W South (shown in Blue on the diagram) Turning A505 Luton Road west of Poynters Road Nov 2008 count M1 between Junction 10 and 11 Mar 2009 ATC only Whipperley Way, north of Farley Hill Nov 2010 MCC B4540 Farley Hill Between Wilsden Avenue and Stockwood Sep 2009 ATC only Crescent London Road Between Whitehill Road and Ashton Road Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Tennyson Road, North of West Hill Road Mar 2009 MCC Park Street, south of Osborne Road Feb 2009 ATC only Turning A505 Gipsy Lane north of Luton Parkway Nov 2009 count Luton Inner Cordon (shown in Orange on the

diagram)

Pell Frischmann Page 17

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Date of Type of Description Survey Survey Biscot Road north of Saxon Avenue Nov 2010 ATC+MCC A6 New Bedford Road Between Alexandra Avenue and Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Lansdowne Road Old Bedford Road Between Wardown Crescent and Feb 2009 ATC+MCC Knightsfield High Town Road Between York Street and Cobden Street Feb 2009 ATC only A505 Hitchin Road Between York Street and Concorde Feb 2009 ATC only Street Crawley Green Road, west of Harthill Drive Mar 2009 MCC A505 Windmill Road Between Kimpton Road and Manor Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Road Park Street Between Manor Road and Strathmore Avenue Feb 2009 ATC+MCC Meyrick Avenue, east of Bollingbroke Road Feb 2009 MCC Ashburton Road east of Brantwood Road Sep 2009 ATC only Turning Dallow Road, south of A5065 Hatters Way July 2009 count A505 Hatters Way east of Chaul End Lane July 2009 ATC+MCC A505 Dunstable Road east of Beverley Road Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Selbourne Road, North of Grantham Road Nov 2010 ATC+MCC Turning B579 Leagrave Road south of Woodland Avenue Dec 2009 count Other Counts (shown in dark blue on diagram) A5228 Stockingstone Road E of Elmwood Cresent Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Station Road Between Mill Street and footway build-out Oct 2009 ATC+MCC A6 Guildford Street (east) Oct 2009 MCC A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jct 11 Feb 2009 ATC only B4540 Luton Road east of A5 July 2009 ATC only Quantock Rise May 2008 ATC only Crawley Green Rd Mar 2009 ATC+MCC Dallow Road Between Vestry Close and pedestrian Sep 2009 ATC only crossing by park B653 Lower End Road north of Cooters End Lane Nov 2010 ATC+MCC Cumberland Street Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Wigmore Lane, south of Sowerby Avenue Feb 2009 ATC+MCC Park Street Beneath Park Viaduct Oct 2009 ATC+MCC Crawley Green Road (nr Wigmore Church) Sep 2008 ATC only A6 St Marys Road Between Vicarage Street and Church Sep 2009 ATC only Street Vicarage Street Oct 2009 ATC+MCC A505 Dunstable Road S of Hazelbury Cres Oct 2008 ATC only A6 New Bedford Road Between Brook Street and Sep 2009 ATC only Hucklesby Way

Pell Frischmann Page 18

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Date of Type of Description Survey Survey Old Bedford Road Oct 2008 ATC only Trinty Road Jan 2008 ATC only Frank Lester Way Luton Aug 2009 ATC only ATC and M1 Junction 10-10a Oct 2009 Turning count ATC and A6 New Bedford Road (NB), Luton (Austin Side of Xing) Feb 2008 Turning count Hitchin Road Between Putteridgebury and Butterfield Park Sep 2009 ATC+MCC A505 Vauxhall Way (N) Aug 2009 ATC only Sundon Park Road North of Camford Way Sep 2009 ATC+MCC ATC and A505 Vauxhall Way (S) Aug 2009 Turning count A5228 Montrose Avenue Feb 2009 ATC+MCC A1081 London Road Aug 2009 ATC only Icknield Way Feb 2009 ATC+MCC Airport Way (SR) Dec 2008 ATC only B4540 Newlands Road (outside Rugby Club) Feb 2008 ATC only B579 Toddington Road Between Coverdale and entrance to Sep 2009 ATC+MCC Vauxhall building Turning Counts (shown in purple on diagram) Marsh Road, Roman Road and Icknield Road Dec 2009 MCC Leagrave Road and Woodland Avenue Sep 2009 MCC Toddington Road, Station Road and Grange Road Dec 2007 MCC Marsh Road, Sundon Park Road and Bramingham Road Dec 2009 MCC Luton Road and Sundon Road Sep 2009 MCC Hitchin Road, Stockingstone Road and Ramridge Road Sep 2009 MCC Vauxhall Way, Hitchin Road, and Stopsley Way Dec 2007 MCC Capability Green and Airport Way Oct 2009 MCC Gipsy Lane, Airport Way and Lower Harpenden Road Oct 2009 MCC Gipsy Lane and Parkway Oct 2009 MCC M1 Junction 10 Sep 2009 MCC M1 Junction 10a Sep 2009 MCC M1 Junction 11 Sep 2009 MCC Luton Road / Dunstable Road / Poynters Road / Sk Road Sep 2009 MCC Vauxhall Way/Eaton Green Road May 2007 MCC 1 - Hatters Way / Chaul End Lane / Dallow Road July 2009 MCC 2 - Hatters Way / Chaul End Road July 2009 MCC

Pell Frischmann Page 19

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Date of Type of Description Survey Survey 3 - Hatters Way / Skimpot Road July 2009 MCC 5 - Church Road / Newlands Road July 2009 MCC 6 - Farley Hill / Newlands Road July 2009 MCC 7 - Dunstable Road / Luton Road July 2009 MCC 8 - Markyate Road / Woodside July 2009 MCC 9 - Markyate Road / Church Road July 2009 MCC Table 2.1: Summary of Traffic Surveys

Pell Frischmann Page 20

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 (Colours refer to the type of counts conducted, and are indicated in Table 2.1) Figure 2.7: RSI & Traffic Count Locations

Journey Time Surveys

2.4.9 Journey Time (JT) surveys were undertaken on 15 routes in Luton in September, October and November 2009, and are shown in Figure 2.8. The routes are detailed in Table 2.2.

Pell Frischmann Page 21

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Figure 2.8: 2009 Journey Times Survey Routes

Route & Description Direction 12 Eastbound B4540 Chapel Street / Regent Street to A5 / Dunstable Road 12 Westbound A5 / Dunstable Road to B4540 Chapel Street / Regent Street A5065 Hatters Way/ A505 Dunstable Road to B579 Toddington Road 13 Northbound / Luton Borough Boundary B579 Toddington Road / Luton Borough Boundary to A5065 Hatters 13 Southbound Way/ A505 Dunstable Road Marsh Road / Blundell Road / Waller Avenue / Leagrave Road to 14 Northbound A5065 Hatters Way / Chaul End Lane/Dallow Road A5065 Hatters Way / Chaul End Lane/Dallow Road to Marsh Road / 14 Southbound Blundell Road / Waller Avenue / Leagrave Road A505 Luton Road / Dunstable Road / Skimpot Road / Poynters Road 15 Eastbound to A5065 Hatters Way/ A505 Dunstable Road A5065 Hatter Way/ A505 Dunstable Road to A505 Luton Road / 15 Westbound Dunstable Road / Skimpot Road / Poynters Road A505 Luton Road / Dunstable Road / Skimpot Road / Poynters Road 16 Eastbound to B579 Leagrave Road /Dunstable Road B579 Leagrave Road /Dunstable Road to A505 Luton Road / 16 Westbound Dunstable Road / Skimpot Road / Poynters Road A505 Dunstable Road / Lewsey Road to Icknield Way / Barton Road / 17 Northbound Enterprise Way 17 Southbound Icknield Way / Barton Road / Enterprise Way to A505 Dunstable Road Pell Frischmann Page 22

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Route & Description Direction / Lewsey Road A6 Barton Road / Great Bramingham Lane to Telford Way / New 18 Northbound Bedford Road / Hucklesby Way Telford Way / New Bedford Road / Hucklesby Way to A6 Barton Road 18 Southbound / Great Bramingham Lane 19 Northbound M10 J10a / London Road to A505 Hitchin Road / Lilly Bottom off-slip 19 Southbound A505 Hitchin Road / Lilly Bottom off-slip to M10 J10a / London Road A505 Stopsley Way / Hitchin Road / Vauxhall Way to Guildford Street 20 Northbound / St Mary's Road / Church Street Guildford Street / St Mary's Road / Church Street to A505 Stopsley 20 Southbound Way / Hitchin Road / Vauxhall Way M10 J10a / London Road to Castle Street / Chapel Viaduct / Park 21 Northbound Viaduct Castle Street / Chapel Viaduct / Park Viaduct to M10 J10a / London 21 Southbound Road 22 Eastbound M1 Jnt 10 / M1 Jnt 10a spur Road at RBT to M10 J10a / London Road 22 Westbound M10 J10a / London Road to M1 Jnt 10 / M1 Jnt 10a 23 Northbound M1 Jnt 13 / Southbound to M1 Jnt 9 / Southbound 23 Southbound M1 Jnt 9 / Northbound to M1 Jnt 13 / Northbound Leagrave Road / Woodland Avenue to A5228 Stockingstone Road / 24 Eastbound Hitchin Road A5228 Stockingstone Road / Hitchin Road to Leagrave Road / 24 Westbound Woodland Avenue 25 Anti-Clockwise A6 Telford Way/Crawley Road to A6 Telford Way/Crawley Road 25 Clockwise A6 Telford Way/Crawley Road to A6 Telford Way/Crawley Road A505 Windmill Road / Park Viaduct to Vauxhall Way / Airport Way / 26 Northbound Kimpton Road Vauxhall Way / Airport Way / Kimpton Road to A505 Windmill Road / 26 Southbound Park Viaduct Table 2.2: 2009 Journey Time Routes Description

2.5 Network Refining

2.5.1 The Luton SATURN model has been cordoned from Central Bedfordshire and Luton Model as explained earlier. There is currently only one zone covering Luton Town Centre. This does not reflect a robust presentation of town centre movement. A process has been undertaken to split the Town Centre zone into 6 separate zones accounting for the different land uses and restrictive access into the town centre. Figure 2.9 depicts the refined zones to be included. The zone connectors have been set to reflect the main access to and from the zones.

Pell Frischmann Page 23

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No. 100004915 Existing Zone Boundary New Zone Boundary Figure 2.9: Luton Town Centre Zone Refinement

2.5.2 The parent model was separated into a simulated network and a buffer network. As the parent model has been cordoned to provide a better fit, the Luton network is simulated.

2.5.3 AutoCAD OS data files and aerial photography have been utilised to review the road network. All junctions were checked to confirm that they had been modelled correctly, this included correct lane usage, correct junction control, number of lanes on the approach to junctions and that banned movements were correctly represented in the model.

2.5.4 The required model changes to links and junctions have been identified as part of the checking progress so that the model accurately represents the current road network. The changes include:

Correct placement of bus lanes and bus only turns at junctions;

Numbers of lanes at junction approaches;

Double checking link capacity/saturation; and

Repositioning of zone connectors.

Pell Frischmann Page 24

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

2.5.5 Table 2.2 details the changes made to the network to better represent the current road network.

Type Description Change made Crawley Green Road/Hart Changed the number of lanes on Junctions Lane /Durham Road approach to junction Changed sb link to allow all Links Vicarage Street traffic until Lea Rd Changed links to accurately Links Flowers Way model one way systems and bus lanes Town Centre Split into 6 zones Zones Luton Ward Zones Split into smaller zones Connectors changed to more Connectors Luton Zones accurately represent where traffic will join/leave the network Table 2.3: Details of Network Changes

2.6 Matrix Development

2.6.1 The matrix developed in 2009 was undertaken for the AM, Inter and PM peak periods. The trip matrices were split into three vehicle classes; Cars, LGVs and OGVs. The Cars matrices was then further split by trip purpose for Commute, Other and Business. These matrices were input into the assignment process as a stacked matrix and assigned simultaneously. The impact of differing user classes on the assignment process is weighted by representing the trips as passenger car units (PCU‟s). The factors used to convert trips to PCU‟s are as follows:

Cars 1 vehicle = 1 PCU;

LGVs 1 vehicle = 1 PCU; and

OGVs 1 vehicle = 2 PCU‟s.

2.6.2 The travel demand in the AM and PM peaks for each user class is reported in the calibration as the prior matrix.

2.6.3 The nature of the RSI sampling method and locations mean that it is highly likely that all movements between OD pairs are not observed. WebTAG (3.10.3) recommends that some form of synthetic infilling should be undertaken to overcome the problem of partial sampling with the model matrices created using a mixture of observed and synthesised data.

2.6.4 The CBL SATURN model was developed using 2009 RSI data incorporating the 13 sites shown in Figure 2.2. The RSIs provide a robust cordon for movements into and out of Luton but very little for internal movements within Luton, which is where the synthetic modelling needs to be thoroughly checked. ATC, MCC and Turning count data was also utilised to build the 2009 CBL model.

Pell Frischmann Page 25

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

2.6.5 Synthetic trip matrices have been developed to provide travel demand for trips undertaken on the road network which are either unobserved or partially observed at the road interview sites. The fully-synthesised trips within Luton according to the 2009 Base model accounts to 26% and 23% in the AM and PM peak respectively.

2.6.6 For the purpose of the Matrix assessment the Luton Model has been divided into three areas. These are:

Internal - This covers the area within the Town Centre;

External1- This covers the area outside the Town centre but inside the Luton urban area ; and

External2: - This covers the area outside the Luton urban area.

2.6.7 Accordingly, the synthesised and RSI based (observed data) is illustrated in Table 2.4.

Internal External1 External2 Internal Synthetic Synthetic 2009 RSI

External1 Synthetic Synthetic 2009 RSI

External2 2009 RSI 2009 RSI 2009 RSI Table 2.4: Observed and Synthetic Parts of the Matrix

2.6.8 The synthetic trip matrices were developed by Halcrow using standard gravity modelling procedures. Based on Halcrow report separate car trip matrices have been produced by purpose and by direction. Normally, synthetic goods vehicle matrices would be produced in a similar fashion, but given the small numbers of LGV and OGV movements observed in the RSIs (particularly the latter), and the very sparse matrices resulting, it was considered that little confidence could be attached to any synthetic GV matrices.

2.6.9 To rectify the above, we have examined the prior and post matrices provided by Halcrow in the LMVR to see if there is any significant difference for the LGV and HGV matrices. Subsequently, we have examined the Land Use of the zones and compared it to the recorded vehicle trips in the matrices to check that the relevant vehicles are assigned to the correct zones and that the volumes are correct as generated by these sites. This process identified infilling requirements in the matrices. Accordingly, the key land use sites such as Vauxhall plants are seeded with more robust figures based on land use and some on-site observations.

Pell Frischmann Page 26

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

2.6.10 The synthetic matrices provide both the short distance unobserved movements, and the observed inter sector movements within Luton. The intention is that they will be used in their entirety (i.e. not as an infill for the unobserved movements), and continually improved upon throughout the model calibration by reviewing the inputs following analysis of the model assignments (both before and after matrix estimation).

2.6.11 As the synthetic data cannot be used with confidence and does account for a large proportion of movements, the approach adopted to improve their reliability is summarised below in Figure 2.10.

Old RSI and 2006 ANPR Old RSI data, Census data 2009 RSI Cordon Data & Land Use Change Data

Internal Internal Internal External2 External1 External1 Internal External1 External2 External2

NO

Sense check: Compare with Halcrow Synthetic Matrix and check cells with big differences

YES

Merge Matrices

Prior Matrices

Figure 2.10: Matrix Re-building Process

2.6.12 The approach is identified as follows:

Use 2009 RSI to rezone these OD into 6 smaller zones in Town Centre. This will ensure that the Internal to External2 traffic movement is robust presentation traffic in and out of Town Centre;

Pell Frischmann Page 27

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Use data used to build 2009 Paramics model matrices: these are old RSI and 2006 NPR (conducted in 19 locations) as shown in Figure 2.5. This will help in development of Town Centre Internal movements as well as movement between Town centre and External1; and

In addition, use of old RSI, 2001 Census data coupled with land use changes since 2001 to help development of External1- External 1 movements. This part will be compared with its equivalent developed by Halcrow using a gravity model as detailed in Halcrow Report. A sense check on the level of development in each zone and the likely tripend generation/attraction will be required. Thus zones with lots of development should generate/attract lots of trips and those with little development should be expected generate/attract few trips.

2.6.13 The old RSI and 2006 NPR data was utilised in the construction of the Paramics model matrices. This data focused on movements within, into and out of the Town Centre. The availability of such data enabled a review of the fully synthesised Town Centre data (within, into and out). Based on some incompliance, the original records and 2006 NPR is used to replace the fully synthesised movements. NPR data was used for car park surveys to establish detailed representation of Town Centre trip attraction zones. Thus, this enabled a more robust representation of these trips to be modelled.

2.6.14 However, the data used for the construction of the Paramics model did not split the trips by purpose. Census data only covers commuting trips, and as such this data could only be used to evaluate and refine the car commute purpose trip matrices. To evaluate and refine the „Other‟ and „Business car‟ trip matrices, information from the council was sought and obtained relating to the „Other‟ trip purposes, such as school travel surveys. Some information was available for car business trips from records such as Council‟s own as well. Land use in the Town centre was also examined for each Town Centre zone to establish the car trip user classes. As a result the remaining two trip purposes for car user class was established by extracting „car commute‟ trips from the total car user class trip matrices.

2.6.15 The final total matrices were compared to the trip purpose splits quoted in Table 8 of WebTAG 3.5.6. Table below shows the trip purpose split of the matrices compared to the WebTAG split.

AM PM Purpose Model WebTAG Model WebTAG Commute 63.0% 40.6% 58.2% 32.3% Other 30.6% 52.7% 37.1% 62.2% Business 6.4% 6.8% 7.4% 5.5%

Pell Frischmann Page 28

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Table 2.5: Comparison of Trip Purpose Split

2.6.16 The model matrices relate to the peak hour periods of 08:00 to 09:00 and 17:00 to 18:00. The WebTAG split relates to longer time periods; 07:00 to 10:00 in the morning and 16:00 to 19:00 in the evening. As the WebTAG split covers a longer time period it catches more trips by other purposes as its will catch more trips travelling outside the peak hours which are the main commuting periods. We concluded that the user class splits are acceptable comparison to WebTAG.

2.6.17 The Town Centre movements including within, into and out of Town Centre movements (Internal trips as quoted in the following Table) replaced the fully synthesised trips.

2.6.18 Accordingly, the matrix development from the old RSI data will be formed as detailed in Table 2. the following:

Internal External1

Old RSI supported by 2006 Old RSI and supported by Internal NPR data 2006 NPR data

Old RSI data supported by Old RSI supported by 2006 External Census data and land use 1 NPR data data

Table 2.6: Contribution of Data to Matrix Elements for Internal and External1

2.6.19 Effectively, once these movements are established, these will replace the fully synthetic movements in the model. The resultant matrix will then be as detailed in Table 2.7.

Internal External1 External2 Old RSI supported by Old RSI and supported by Internal 2009 RSI 2006 NPR data 2006 NPR data Old RSI data supported by Old RSI supported by External Census data and land use 2009 RSI 1 2006 NPR data data

External2 2009 RSI 2009 RSI 2009 RSI Table 2.7: Contribution of Data to Final Matrix Elements

2.6.20 This is applicable to one user class (car) as the old RSI is based on one trip purposes. However, the 2009 RSI splits will be used for the trip purposes splits accordingly to establish the three types currently in the model, namely:

Car Commute;

Pell Frischmann Page 29

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Car Other; and

Car Business.

2.6.21 The User Classes (UC) for LGV and HGV has undergone a sense check to confirm that trips are allocated to zones with relevant land use. Some infilling was identified at this point. The SATME2 program within SATURN allows for a comparison of the supplied matrices with count data, ATC, MCC and turning counts. The ME2 process has been undertaken for each of the vehicle classes; Cars, LGVs and HGVs separately. The ATC and MCC data have been utilised from latest counts, rather than aged 2001 data. This will enable the vehicle trips to be more accurately represented in the model matrices consistent with the observed traffic counts.

2.6.22 In this process, some cells/movements have been frozen. These are frozen on the basis of the confidence in data. These included External 2-External 2 trips.

2.6.23 This approach will only be applicable to AM and PM peak periods as previous models did not have Inter-peak model, nor the availability of inter-peak RSI data. Effectively, the Inter-peak model will remain fully synthesised. To mitigate the impact of this, the economic benefits of the scheme will be accumulated for AM and PM peak only in comparison to full day (AM, Inter-peak and PM peak) benefits to check the Benefit Cost Ratio of with and without the benefits of the inter-peak period.

2.7 Matrix Estimation

2.7.1 The matrix estimation process was an integral part of the development of the updated base year Luton SATURN Model matrices. It was undertaken within SATURN, using the SATME2 element of the suite. Trips were adjusted to produce estimated matrices that represent the most likely travel patterns consistent with the observed traffic counts.

2.7.2 This procedure is similar to the well established „Furness‟ procedure for balancing trip matrices to revised zonal trip-ends, except that the Furness method constrains the flows into and out of a zone while matrix estimation controls modelled flows to traffic counts on selected links. In fact, zonal constraints are a special case of link constraint and as such may be input directly to SATME2. The matrix of trips input to matrix estimation is known as the „prior‟ matrix, while the matrix of trips output from matrix estimation is known as the „post‟ matrix.

2.7.3 The equation used in the matrix estimation procedure may be written as:

Pija Tij = tij aXa

Where Tij is the output post matrix of od „ij-pairs‟;

Pell Frischmann Page 30

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

tij is the input prior matrix of od „ij-pairs‟; a is the product over all counted links a; Xa is the balancing factor associated with counted link a; and Pija is the fraction of trips from i to j using link a.

2.7.4 There are no specific convergence criteria for matrix estimation, but the aim of the procedure is to improve the goodness of fit between modelled flows and counts. The methods used to monitor the matrix estimation are discussed further in the model calibration chapter.

2.7.5 The matrix estimation forms part of the calibration process and is designed to modify the prior origin – destination volumes by reference to the observed traffic counts. Trips are adjusted in the matrix to produce the estimated matrix, which is most likely to be consistent with the traffic counts. When applying matrix estimation technique care will be taken to ensure that the quality and consistency of the input count data is high. Checks have been undertaken to ensure that this is the case especially where counts on adjacent links are being used.

2.7.6 Additional constraints will be required which include:

Freeze external to internal and internal to external movements (with internal being those within the RSI cordon, and external outside the RSI cordon); and

Control the O/D trip ends at a zonal level using the LEG (Less than, Equal to and greater than) option. This need to be done with a little thought, firstly run matrix estimation without any LEG constraints, review this run and determine the level of constraint need and direction. The LEG constraint allows you to control the level of trip making at origin and destination trip end totals, thus it can be used to preserve „prior‟ trips in the post matrices when running matrix estimation.

2.7.7 A comparison of the matrix totals before and after estimation indicates the impact of traffic counts on the matrix estimation. The post matrix should reflect more closely the pattern of observed traffic on the network and as such provide a better representation of travel patterns in the area.

Pell Frischmann Page 31

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

3. MODEL CALIBRATION

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 The calibration of the updated Luton SATURN Model has been undertaken using the approach outlined in DMRB Volume 12A, where the network is adjusted to ensure that the model gives plausible and expected traffic flows, routeing and speeds. The calibration process also utilised matrix estimation to update travel patterns to observed traffic counts.

3.1.2 The calibration procedure involved a number of activities, as follows:

Checks to ensure that link speeds on the network were realistic;

Checks to ensure that delay calculations at junctions were operating realistically;

Adjustment and checking of the network to ensure plausible and realistic routeing of traffic; and

Use of matrix estimation to update the travel demand matrices to match observed traffic flows from link and turning counts.

3.1.3 The final element of a successful calibration entails matching the observed traffic counts (used in the matrix estimation) and modelled flows.

3.2 Traffic Flow Monitoring Process

3.2.1 The processes used to monitor modelled traffic flows is based on the statistical procedures outlined in WebTAG Unit 3.1 and criteria in DMRB Volume 12A Chapter 4, which was initially designed to be used in the validation of modelled and observed traffic flows. This recommends the use of the GEH and R-squared statistic for the validation of a traffic model, which is equally applicable in model calibration for the comparison of counts and modelled flows.

GEH Statistic

3.2.2 The GEH statistic is based on a comparison of observed and modelled flows and is used as an indicator of „goodness of fit‟. The form of the GEH statistic is as follows:

where M = modelled flow; and C = observed flow (or count).

Pell Frischmann Page 32

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

3.2.3 A GEH value can be calculated for individual links or groups of links. Multiple links can be combined either as screenlines or across networks.

R-Squared

3.2.4 The R-Squared statistic is a measure of correlation coefficient between two data sets and is obtained by undertaking a statistical regression of the two data sets. Goodness of fit is measured as a value between 0 and 1 with zero indicating no correlation and 1 indicating a perfect fit, values of 0.95 or greater are considered to be a good fit.

3.2.5 Regression can also be used to estimate the extent of over or under-modelling via analysis of the gradient of the fitted straight line, a value of 1 equates to no over or under-modelling and values between 0.9 and 1.1 are considered acceptable.

Acceptability Guidelines

3.2.6 The assignment acceptability guidelines set out for this type of task in the UK‟s DMRB Volume 12 Section 2 Part 1 Chapter 4 are shown in Table 3.1. These acceptability guidelines are described as validation guidelines in the DMRB, but are equally suitable for calibration. It should be noted that the flow criteria are less stringent at low traffic flows, compared to the GEH statistic, but are more stringent at high traffic flows.

Criteria & Measure Acceptability Assigned Model Hourly Flows compared with Observed Guideline Flows Flow Criteria Modelled flow within Observed Flow <700 vph >85% of links ±100 vph Modelled flow within 1 Observed Flow 700 to 2,700 vph >85% of links ±15% Modelled flow within Observed Flow >2,700 vph >85% of links ±400 vph Total screenline flows (normally > 5 links) to be within All (or nearly all 2 ±5% screenlines) GEH Criteria 3 GEH statistic for individual links <5 >85% of links All (or nearly all 4 GEH statistic for screenline totals <4 screenlines)

Note: 1. Screenlines containing high flow routes such as motorways should be presented both including and excluding such routes. 2. All comparisons should be based on directional hourly flows. 3. vph = vehicles per hour. Table 3.1: Assignment Acceptability Guidelines

Pell Frischmann Page 33

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

3.3 Assignment Parameters

3.3.1 Assignment of trips to the highway network was undertaken using Waldrop‟s „Multiple User Class Equilibrium‟ assignment, which seeks to minimise the travel costs for all vehicles in a network. User Equilibrium assignment are based on the following proposition:

‘Traffic arranges itself on congested networks such that the routes chosen by individual drivers are those with the minimum cost; routes with costs in excess of the minima are not used’.

3.3.2 User Equilibrium, as implemented in SATURN, is based on the „Frank-Wolfe Algorithm‟, which employs an iterative process. This process is based on successive „All or Nothing‟ iterations to generate a set of combined flows on links that minimise an „objective function‟. The travel costs are recalculated on each iteration, and then compared to the previous iteration values. The process being terminated when successive iteration costs do not change significantly.

3.3.3 The cost of travel is expressed in terms of generalised cost minutes, which can be related back to values of time and out-of-pocket costs. The generalised cost values used in the model were based on values calculated from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6. The resulting values of generalised cost expressed in „Pence Per Minute‟ (PPM) and „Pence Per Kilometre‟ (PPK) are provided in Table 3.2.

Vehicle Type Am Peak Pm Peak PPM PPK PPM PPK Cars 17.05 5.82 15.67 6.00 LGVs 17.07 5.64 17.07 5.67 HGVs 14.73 18.01 14.73 18.31 Table 3.2: Generalised Costs

3.4 Matrix Estimation Calibration

3.4.1 The matrix estimation process employed within the calibration procedure is designed to adjust the travel pattern to observed traffic counts. This process adjusts trip-ends using available observed traffic counts to give the best-fit matrix. This process is dependent on several factors including the quality of the prior matrix, traffic routeing, order of the data and consistency of the observed traffic counts. Thus, it is essential that the process be monitored closely as follows:

Comparison of observed and modelled counts;

Comparison of trip matrix totals for iterations of matrix estimation;

Travel patterns at a sector level are reasonable; and

Pell Frischmann Page 34

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Trip length distributions are reasonable.

3.4.2 The matrix estimation procedure for the AM and PM peak models is detailed below.

Comparison of Observed and Modelled Counts

3.4.3 The matrix estimation for the AM and PM peak is based on traffic flows from the 156 counts for car, LGV and HGV vehicle categories. In addition to a comparison of the turn counts traffic link counts have been used to confirm the calibration is robust. The performance of the calibration traffic counts is summarised in Table 3.3 with full comparisons given in Appendix A.

Am Peak Pm Peak (0800-0900) (1700-1800) Criteria CAR LGV HGV CAR LGV HGV No of Counts 156 156 156 156 156 156 88% 91% 87% 86% 87% 94% GEH % GEH <5 Criteria Passed Criteria? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 89% 99% 97% 86% 100% 99% Flow % Passing Flow Criteria Criteria Passed Criteria? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Gradient 0.9935 0.9961 0.9831 0.9763 Regression R-Squared Criteria Passed Criteria? Yes Yes Table 3.3: Calibration of Traffic Counts

3.5.4 The calibration summary shows that in the AM and PM peaks the threshold levels for acceptability are exceeded for all criteria.

3.5.5 The level of correlation has also been plotted in Figures 3.1 to 3.4 for each time period. These figures also show the correlation regression line used to calculate the gradient and R-squared values provided in Table 3.3.

Pell Frischmann Page 35

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Observed Vs Modelled 7000

y = 0.9935x - 9.8874 6000 R² = 0.9831

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Figure 3.1: AM Peak Link Count Regression

PM Peak Observed Vs Modelled 7000 y = 0.9961x - 20.364 R² = 0.9763 6000

5000

4000 Flows

3000

Modelled 2000

1000

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Observed Flows

Figure 3.2: PM Peak Link Count Regression

Pell Frischmann Page 36

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Comparison of Trip Matrix Totals

3.4.4 A comparison of trip matrix totals between the prior and iterations of the matrix estimation is shown in Table 3.4. This table shows that the difference between the 2nd and 3rd iteration is very small. This confirms that the model is converged to a stable level of trips.

Difference Time Iteration Car LGV HGV Total between Period Iterations Prior 59815 5833 6320 71968 0.5% Post 1 59878 5976 6460 72314 -0.1% AM Peak Post 2 59791 5989 6442 72222 0.1% Post 3 59817 6000 6470 72287 Prior 60656 5310 3980 69946 Post 1 61237 5433 4018 70688 1.1% PM Peak Post 2 61237 5432 4018 70687 0.0% Post 3 61237 5432 4018 70687 0.0% Table 3.4: Matrix Totals Prior and Post Matrix Iterations

3.5 Reporting on Matrices

Sector Travel Patterns

3.5.1 The travel patterns at a sector level are shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. These tables show the sectoral changes between the prior and post trip matrices resulting from the traffic counts used in matrix estimation. The post matrix should more closely reflect the pattern of observed traffic on the network and as such provides a better representation of travel patterns in the study area. Thus, where a big change in trips are identified between the prior and post matrices following matrix estimation, this is a reflection of the poor fit of the prior matrix to the observed traffic conditions. As it can be seen in tables that the difference between prior and post sector matrices is small. The prior and post matrices by user three user classes i.e. Car, LGV and HGV are provided in Appendix D.

Trip Length Distribution

3.5.2 A comparison of the prior and post matrix trip length distributions have been undertaken for both modelled periods. The results of this comparison are given in Figures 3.3 and 3.4

Pell Frischmann Page 37

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

AM Peak Trip Length Distribution

30000 AM Peak Post AM Peak Prior

25000

20000

15000 Trips

10000

5000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Distance kilometers

Figure 3.3: AM Peak Prior and Post Trip Length Distribution

PM Peak Trip Length Distribution

30000 PM Peak Post PM Peak Prior

25000

20000

15000 Trips

10000

5000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 43 44 Distance kilometers

Figure 3.4: PM Peak Prior and Post Trip Length Distribution

Pell Frischmann Page 38

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORT SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

3.5.3 The trip length distributions in both time periods show a small set of shifts between the prior and post matrix estimation. This is due to the adjustment of the matrix trip numbers and distribution to ensure the travel pattern best matches the observed traffic counts. The scale of these shifts has been estimated using the correlation statistic R-squared as shown in the figures and summarised below:

AM Peak: R-squared = 0.998; and

PM Peak: R-squared = 0.997

3.5.4 Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show that the trip length distribution has remained relatively unchanged as a consequence of the matrix estimation process.

Pell Frischmann Page 39

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 126 467 288 336 86 319 143 205 505 South-West Luton 471 1636 1280 768 315 507 119 423 748 East Luton 540 1375 1855 183 262 408 566 1115 577 North Luton 203 1035 570 1715 1066 480 94 103 374 North-West Luton 80 628 634 948 733 496 18 798 1386 External North 297 516 555 730 653 2161 1572 3783 1178 External East 142 252 580 51 156 803 3803 323 269 External South 545 683 349 36 326 3551 201 5287 1165 External West 859 1390 421 426 1625 1017 331 1962 6987 Table 3.5: AM Peak Prior Matrices (Sectors to Sector)

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 128 495 293 323 102 307 135 195 473 South-West Luton 449 1613 1308 774 297 552 118 401 735 East Luton 591 1438 1892 157 261 418 588 1284 506 North Luton 184 1043 640 1807 1086 473 92 84 340 North-West Luton 52 615 644 984 750 432 15 879 1368 External North 253 496 560 782 661 2156 1571 3785 1179 External East 139 256 600 49 144 800 3803 379 226 External South 575 702 352 36 366 3592 200 5290 1210 External West 675 1314 389 444 1721 1000 322 1938 7007 Table 3.6: AM Peak Post Matrices (Sectors to Sector)

Pell Frischmann Page 40

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre -2 -28 -5 13 -16 12 8 10 32 South-West Luton 22 23 -28 -6 18 -45 1 22 13 East Luton -51 -63 -37 26 1 -10 -22 -169 71 North Luton 19 -8 -70 -92 -20 7 2 19 34 North-West Luton 28 13 -10 -36 -17 64 3 -81 18 External North 44 20 -5 -52 -8 5 1 -2 -1 External East 3 -4 -20 2 12 3 0 -56 43 External South -30 -19 -3 0 -40 -41 1 -3 -45 External West -2 -28 -5 13 -16 12 8 10 32 Table 3.7: AM Peak Sectoral Difference of Prior and Post Matrices

Pell Frischmann Page 41

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 123 387 573 150 157 638 147 440 402 South-West Luton 475 1469 1282 764 620 646 225 532 1438 East Luton 742 1029 1480 233 304 541 403 608 655 North Luton 288 568 426 1124 839 511 81 97 406 North-West Luton 130 574 318 1399 837 406 150 141 1427 External North 131 201 457 1071 394 1929 924 3857 895 External East 45 92 385 91 97 1519 3884 232 278 External South 202 490 805 228 363 4561 277 4888 2432 External West 179 796 541 614 1503 1175 261 1280 6686 Table 3.8: PM Peak Prior Matrices (Sectors to Sector)

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 125 405 584 131 176 510 155 423 393 South-West Luton 529 1632 1342 755 700 540 215 499 1391 East Luton 752 1282 1703 229 289 572 477 632 682 North Luton 278 575 446 1315 908 521 80 78 346 North-West Luton 100 478 376 1507 883 372 199 142 1374 External North 126 201 465 1103 362 1909 921 3842 852 External East 52 110 378 101 90 1515 3884 224 254 External South 193 511 789 223 432 4509 309 4888 2416 External West 161 822 479 607 1506 1159 237 1312 6645 Table 3.9: PM Peak Post Matrices (Sectors to Sector)

Pell Frischmann Page 42

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre -2 -18 -11 19 -19 128 -8 17 9 South-West Luton -54 -163 -60 9 -80 106 10 33 47 East Luton -10 -253 -223 4 15 -31 -74 -24 -27 North Luton 10 -7 -20 -191 -69 -10 1 19 60 North-West Luton 30 96 -58 -108 -46 34 -49 -1 53 External North 5 0 -8 -32 32 20 3 15 43 External East -7 -18 7 -10 7 4 0 8 24 External South 9 -21 16 5 -69 52 -32 0 16 External West 18 -26 62 7 -3 16 24 -32 41 Table 3.10: PM Peak Sectoral Difference of Prior and Post Matrices

Pell Frischmann Page 43

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

3.6 Convergence

3.6.1 Convergence is required to demonstrate the model provides stable, consistent and robust traffic flows. It also ensures the model differentiates between real changes and those associated with differing degrees of convergence. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 12 Section 1 Chapter 4 outlines the convergence criteria for a local area traffic model to be:

„the percentage of links on which flows change by less than 5% between successive iterations should be greater than 90%‟ (sometimes known as P); and „the difference between the costs along the chosen routes and those along the minimum cost routes, summed across the whole network, and expressed as a percentage of the minimum costs should be less than 1% ‟ (sometimes known as δ).

3.6.2 The convergence of the Luton SATURN Model is given in Table 3.7.

Convergence Criteria AM Peak PM Peak Proximity Iteration %Flow Iteration %Flow % of links with flow change 47 97.1 47 98.3 (p) > 90% 48 97.7 48 98.2 49 97.7 49 98.2 50 97.9 50 98.4 Acceptability to Criteria PASS PASS Delta (δ) AM Peak PM Peak Δ value <1% 0.091 0.071 Acceptability to Criteria PASS PASS Note: Assignment is based on a ‘p’ value of 2%, so the %Flows is with 2% rather than 5%. Table 3.11: Summary of Convergence

3.6.3 The assignment statistics in Table 3.7 clearly shows an acceptable level of convergence has been achieved in all time periods. It is common practice to set the models internal convergence criteria to a higher level than required by DMRB. In the Luton Model the stopping criteria was set to 97% of links with a flow change of 2%, with the model set to undertake 4 iterations following the attainment of this criteria.

3.6.4 Additionally SATURN reports the flow proximity for various differences in flow between the previous and final iterations of the assignment. These are reported for the two time periods in Table 3.8, and shows that the convergence at the 5% flow changes level are in excess of 99% of links in each model.

Pell Frischmann Page 44

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

3.6.5 The analysis of convergence shows that the Luton Saturn model converges well for a model of this scale to a stable level for all time periods

Proximity (% of flows within range) AM Peak PM Peak 0.5 95.73 95.78 1.0 97.92 98.36 2.0 99.91 99.97 5.0 100 99.98 10.0 100 99.98 Table 3.12: Comparison of Flow Change

Pell Frischmann Page 45

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

4. MODEL VALIDATION

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Model validation is undertaken to demonstrate that the model reproduces the existing travel patterns within the study area in a robust manner. As such, analysis of the model assignments is required to summarise the accuracy of the base model and establish that it is suitable basis from which to prepare forecasts.

4.1.2 Validation of the model encompasses the following aspects:

Network validation, in terms of range checking and routeing;

Assignment validation; and

Journey time validation.

4.1.3 The network validation is undertaken to establish that the structure is suitable and characteristics of the network are accurately represented in the model.

4.1.4 The assignment validation is undertaken to establish that traffic volumes are accurately represented and overall travel volume are consistent with expectations, for example corridors into Luton shows expected levels of tidal flow.

4.1.5 The journey time validation is undertaken to ensure that travel time costs are reasonable representation of traffic speeds and congestion.

4.1.6 The validation focuses on AM and PM peak models when traffic congestion occurs on several key junctions within Luton.

4.1.7 In a meeting with the DfT in July 2011 it was stated that “Cordons would be better than screenlines for validation” of the model.

4.2 Network Validation

4.2.1 The network validation involved the checking of the parameters used to represent links and junctions within the model. These checks were undertaken to identify inconsistencies and values outside normal ranges of expectations. When suspicious data was identified it was checked against relevant source data. The parameters checked include.

Link lengths;

Link speeds and assumed speed flow curves;

Junction types, checking that each junction is represented appropriately to reflect its operation as either a signal, roundabout or priority;

Junction layouts including lane allocations; Pell Frischmann Page 46

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Junction saturation capacities;

Zone connectors; and

Signals times and stages.

4.2.2 This thorough review ensures that the network integrity is robust and the model accurately represents the operational aspect of the individual components.

4.3 Assignment Validation

4.3.1 The assignment validation has been based on a cordon of traffic counts on the Town Centre approaches. The cordon covers all traffic travelling into and out of Luton Town Centre which will use the Luton Inner Ring Road, the primary driver for the development of this model.

4.3.2 The validation for the AM peak is given in Table 4.1 and shows the model performs above the 85% threshold level on both the GEH and Flow Criteria.

Pell Frischmann Page 47

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

Traffic Flow G Flow Description Dir. Obs. Mod. GEH Criteria Luton Inner Cordon SE 409 421 0.60 YES Biscot Road north of Saxon Road NW 226 230 0.24 YES A6 New Bedford Road Between SE 1063 854 6.75 NO Alexandra Avenue and Lansdowne Road NW 882 928 1.53 YES Old Bedford Road Between Wardown SW 663 585 3.12 YES Crescent and Knightsfield NE 506 475 1.40 YES

High Town Road Between York Street SW 351 347 0.21 YES and Cobden Street NE 181 210 2.07 YES

A505 Hitchin Road Between York SW 409 433 1.18 YES Street and Concorde Street NE 659 665 0.23 YES

Crawley Green Road, west of Harthill SW 564 606 1.74 YES Drive NE 784 673 4.11 YES

Park Street Between Manor Road and NW 317 477 8.02 NO Strathmore Avenue SE 191 226 2.42 YES

Meyrick Avenue, east of Bollingbrooke NE 238 254 1.02 YES Road SW 105 105 0.00 YES

Ashburton Road east of Brantwood NE 392 374 0.90 YES Road SW 189 189 0.01 YES

Dallow Road, south of A5065 Hatters SE 852 751 3.57 YES Way NW 692 483 8.62 NO

A5065 Hatters Way east of Chaul End SE 1155 1096 1.75 YES Lane NW 1019 970 1.57 YES

A505 Dunstable Road east of Beverley SE 795 783 0.42 YES Road NW 472 380 4.44 YES

B579 Leagrave Road south of SE 342 354 0.64 YES Woodland Avenue NW 203 204 0.07 YES % GEH <5 88% % Within Flow Criteria 88% Note: Data highlighted in Bold where outside the validation criteria. Table 4.1: AM Peak Validation

4.3.3 The regression of the observed and modelled flows for the AM peak gives the following gradient and R-Squared values:

AM Peak Regression Gradient = 0.8603; and R-Squared = 0.942

Pell Frischmann Page 48

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

4.3.4 The regression statistics show that the observed and modelled traffic flows on the validation cordon have a correlation level above the desired thresholds.

4.3.5 The validation for the PM peak is given in Table 4.2 and shows the model performs above the 85% threshold level on both the GEH and Flow Criteria.

Traffic Flow G Flow Description Dir. Obs. Mod. GEH Criteria Luton Inner Cordon SE 311 311 0.01 YES Biscot Road north of Saxon Road NW 365 359 0.33 YES A6 New Bedford Road Between SE 693 718 0.94 YES Alexandra Avenue and Lansdowne Road NW 980 999 0.61 YES Old Bedford Road Between Wardown SW 383 369 0.73 YES Crescent and Knightsfield NE 482 391 4.36 YES

High Town Road Between York Street SW 132 133 0.11 YES and Cobden Street NE 314 290 1.36 YES

A505 Hitchin Road Between York SW 743 683 2.26 YES Street and Concorde Street NE 469 577 4.74 YES

Crawley Green Road, west of Harthill SW 484 490 0.25 YES Drive NE 852 809 1.48 YES

Park Street Between Manor Road and NW 412 468 2.68 YES Strathmore Avenue SE 180 120 4.90 YES

Meyrick Avenue, east of Bollingbrooke NE 170 142 2.21 YES Road SW 190 188 0.13 YES

Ashburton Road east of Brantwood NE 338 315 1.27 YES Road SW 483 427 2.60 YES

Dallow Road, south of A5065 Hatters SE 642 552 3.68 YES Way NW 860 807 1.83 YES

A5065 Hatters Way east of Chaul End SE 752 705 1.75 YES Lane NW 1249 1217 0.90 YES

A505 Dunstable Road east of Beverley SE 580 518 2.64 YES Road NW 615 419 8.61 NO

B579 Leagrave Road south of SE 250 290 2.44 YES Woodland Avenue NW 347 324 1.26 YES % GEH <5 96% % Within Flow Criteria 92% Note: Data highlighted in Bold where outside the validation criteria. Table 4.2: PM Peak Validation

Pell Frischmann Page 49

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

4.3.6 The regression of the observed and modelled flows for the PM peak gives the following gradient and R-Squared values:

AM Peak Regression Gradient = 0.9598; and R-Squared = 0.9578.

4.3.7 The regression statistics show that the observed and modelled traffic flows on the validation cordon have a correlation level above the desired thresholds.

4.4 Journey Time Comparison

4.4.1 A journey time comparison has been carried out using survey data collected in 2009 on 15 routes in both directions across Luton. The journey time routes are shown in Figure 2.8 and described in Table 2.2 in section 2.

4.4.2 This comparison has been undertaken to demonstrate that the model estimates travel times in-line with previous observations. The observed and modelled times are shown for the AM and PM peaks in Appendix B, with the data summarised in Table 4.3. These figures show that the 2009 modelled times are similar to those observed and for each route the profiles are similar. The similarity between the modelled and observed profiles shows that delays correlate to those previously observed. Appendix E provides journey time graphs on selected routes in the vicinity of Luton Town Centre to demonstrate the model validation.

4.4.3 This comparison indicates that the model is representing travel times that are realistic and in-line with expectations. They show that Luton is congested with failing travel conditions (as measured by journey times).

Pell Frischmann Page 50

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

AM Peak PM Peak Total Observed Journey Time 15372 16090 Total Model Journey Time 16154 16390 Total Journey Time Difference 782 299 Total Journey Time Difference Percent 5% 2% No of Routes Pass DMRB Criteria 28 27 No of Routes Fail DMRB Criteria 1 2 Overall Journey Routes Meet DMRB 97% 93% Criteria Table 4.3: Journey Time Summary

Pell Frischmann Page 51

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 The Luton SATURN Model has been developed to assist Luton Borough Council in the assessment of the proposal to provide the completion of the Inner Ring Road. The Luton model have been updated, calibrated and validated to represent traffic patterns and conditions in 2009 for the AM peak (0800-0900) and PM peak (1700-1800) hours.

5.1.2 The model updating is based on an extensive data set of traffic counts undertaken across the Luton urban area. This data has provided a robust estimate of travel patterns and demands across the study area. The AM and PM peak model travel patterns have been adjusted by matrix estimation, which acts to ensure that the calibration is to a high standard, giving assignments that contain robust estimates of travel demand and costs.

5.1.3 The AM and PM peak calibration used matrix estimation, which was monitored closely via comparison of traffic counts, sector trip distributions and trip length distribution. The extensive traffic count comparison showed that in all time periods the match between observed and modelled flows were above guidance criteria thresholds. The sector trip distribution and trip length distribution analysis showed a high degree of correlation between the post and prior matrices indicating that the prior matrix building was robust and produced assignments which need minimal adjustment from the matrix estimation process.

5.1.4 The validation of the AM and PM peak models was based on a cordon of traffic counts on the Town Centre approaches. The cordon covers all traffic travelling into and out of Luton Town Centre which will use the Luton Inner Ring Road. A journey time comparison was undertaken against the 2008/9 data collected. This demonstrated that the model provides a realistic estimate of travel costs that are on most routes marginally higher than those observed.

5.2 Conclusion

5.2.1 In conclusion this report demonstrated that the Luton SATURN model has been developed from a range of data that has been used in the model development, calibration and validation. Comparisons have been undertaken to confirm the robustness of the modelled flows in relation to observed data. The comparisons show that the model performs well within accepted criteria defined in the relevant guidance Thereby showing that the model is robust and can be utilised to test the Luton Town Centre Transportation Scheme.

Pell Frischmann Page 52

LUTON TOWN CENTRE TRANSPORTATION SCHEME Luton Model – Local Model Validation Report (Update & Addendum to CBL LMVR) Q30055/VAA/LMVR

5.2.2 In order to test the Luton Town Centre Transportation Scheme it is necessary to establish the extent of travel suppression in the “without-scheme” case and the extra traffic induced in the “with-scheme” case. The web TAG (TAG Unit 2.9.1) guidance provides that “the effects of variable demand on scheme benefits and the level of induced traffic MUST be estimated quantitatively”.

5.2.3 In order to establish a case for omitting fully specified variable demand modelling for schemes above £5 million, WebTAG guidance recommends that preliminary quantitative estimates of the potential effects of variable demand on both traffic levels and benefit are made. An elastic assignment procedure can give an initial estimate of the effects. Hence the results of the elastic assignment tests will be provided in a technical note.

Pell Frischmann Page 53

APPENDIX A

CALIBRATION DATA

Pell Frischmann

AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria Dunstable RSI Cordon 99073 13713 Leagrave High Street, at M1 flyover SW 814 817 0.1 YES YES 13713 99073 Leagrave High Street, at M1 flyover NE 891 906 0.5 YES YES 83183 13715 A505 Dunstable Road between the M1 junction 11 and Lewsey Road SW 1056 902 4.9 YES YES 13715 83184 A505 Dunstable Road between the M1 junction 11 and Lewsey Road NE 1068 1274 6.0 NO NO 94576 98121 B579 Luton Rd On approach to roundabout of Luton Rd/Toddington Rd SE 414 488 3.5 YES YES 98121 94576 B579 Luton Rd On approach to roundabout of Luton Rd/Toddington Rd NW 432 479 2.2 YES YES 13616 14506 Sundon Park Road, approaching Camford Way SE 567 567 0.0 YES YES 14506 13616 Sundon Park Road, approaching Camford Way NW 397 395 0.1 YES YES 14237 96663 A6 Barton Road, as you enter within 40 mph limit SE 988 1037 1.5 YES YES 96663 14237 A6 Barton Road, as you enter within 40 mph limit NW 787 795 0.3 YES YES 15501 94152 A505 Hitchin Road, west of Butterfield Green Road SW 1279 1319 1.1 YES YES 94152 15501 A505 Hitchin Road, west of Butterfield Green Road NE 990 993 0.1 YES YES 98171 14308 Luton Road between Rochford Drive, Mangrove Road and Chalk Hill SW 301 313 0.7 YES YES 14308 98171 Luton Road between Rochford Drive, Mangrove Road and Chalk Hill NE 193 199 0.4 YES YES 98151 14211 Eaton Green Road, On approach to roundabout of Eaton Green Rd & Colwell Rise NW 180 184 0.3 YES YES 14211 98151 Eaton Green Road, On approach to roundabout of Eaton Green Rd & Colwell Rise SE 191 190 0.1 YES YES 97542 98198 B653 Lower Harpenden Road between Airport Way and Copt Hall Road NW 662 663 0.0 YES YES 98198 97542 B653 Lower Harpenden Road between Airport Way and Copt Hall Road SE 564 578 0.6 YES YES 13322 97785 A1081 Airport Way, Approaching Kidney Wood roundabout NE 1880 1871 0.2 YES YES 97787 13322 A1081 Airport Way, Approaching Kidney Wood roundabout SW 1571 1476 2.4 YES YES 13322 13331 London Road between Airport Way and Cutenhoe Road NW 556 576 0.8 YES YES 13331 13322 London Road between Airport Way and Cutenhoe Road SE 466 634 7.2 NO NO 97541 14229 B4540 Farley Road, Between Farley Hill Farm Road and Layhill Drive NE 718 681 1.4 YES YES 14229 97541 B4540 Farley Road, Between Farley Hill Farm Road and Layhill Drive SW 485 582 4.2 YES YES 13681 94166 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jnt 11 SW 1187 1174 0.4 YES YES 94166 13681 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jnt 11 NE 1132 1127 0.1 YES YES Pell Frischmann

AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria Luton RailLine Screenline 98333 98479 Greenfield Road at Railway Bridge,Westoning NE 337 337 0.0 YES YES 98479 98333 Greenfield Road at Railway Bridge,Westoning SW 318 337 1.0 YES YES 80406 97508 Westoning Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington SE 399 396 0.2 YES YES 97508 80406 Westoning Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington NW 208 210 0.1 YES YES 14248 14247 Station Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington NE 191 193 0.2 YES YES 14247 14248 Station Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington SW 351 367 0.8 YES YES 94580 13616 Sundon Road east of Luton Road and at Railway Bridge NE 539 537 0.1 YES YES 13616 94580 Sundon Road east of Luton Road and at Railway Bridge SW 611 574 1.5 YES YES 13662 13561 Grange Avenue between Toddington Road and Sundon Park Road NE 751 703 1.8 YES YES 13561 13662 Grange Avenue between Toddington Road and Sundon Park Road SW 446 654 8.9 NO NO 98159 14527 Linden Road east of Beechwood Road NE 246 371 7.1 NO NO 14527 98159 Linden Road east of Beechwood Road SW 263 341 4.5 YES YES 13517 13673 Roman Road, West of March Road SW 354 349 0.3 YES YES 98156 13362 A5228 Waller Avenue between Selbourne Road and the A5228 Leagrave Road NE 484 406 3.7 YES YES 13362 98156 A5228 Waller Avenue between Selbourne Road and the A5228 Leagrave Road SW 746 686 2.2 YES YES 97549 13431 B579 Leagrave Rd between Althorp Rd and Selbourne Rd SE 342 354 0.6 YES YES 13431 97549 B579 Leagrave Rd between Althorp Rd and Selbourne Rd NW 203 204 0.1 YES YES 98166 98163 Waldeck Road west of Highbury Road at Railway Bridge NE 132 135 0.3 YES YES 98163 98166 Waldeck Road west of Highbury Road at Railway Bridge SW 277 310 2.0 YES YES 13421 21297 A6 New Bedford Road north of A505 Telford Road NE 633 963 11.7 NO NO 21297 13421 A6 New Bedford Road north of A505 Telford Road SW 965 719 8.5 NO NO 15028 13422 A6 Guildford Road, south of Station Road NE 616 638 0.9 YES YES 13422 15028 A6 Guildford Road, south of Station Road SW 242 508 13.7 NO NO 13261 98194 Church Street between Guilford Rd and Midland Rd NE 741 699 1.6 YES YES 98194 13261 Church Street between Guilford Rd and Midland Rd SW 1331 729 18.8 NO NO 50008 98254 Crawley Green Road west of Crescent Road at Railway Bridge NE 408 492 4.0 YES YES Pell Frischmann

AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 98254 50008 Crawley Green Road west of Crescent Road at Railway Bridge SW 587 647 2.4 YES YES 14315 14221 Kimpton Road between Kindmill Rd and Airport Way, over railway SE 746 743 0.1 YES YES 14221 14315 Kimpton Road between Kindmill Rd and Airport Way, over railway NW 1056 1084 0.9 YES YES 94193 15226 A1081 Airport Way between A505 junction and Kimpton Rd NE 1177 1165 0.4 YES YES 15227 94193 A1081 Airport Way between A505 junction and Kimpton Rd SW 1700 1619 2.0 YES YES Dunstable N-S Screenline 13711 99075 Leagrave High St between Poynters Road and Tomlinson Avenue NE 510 554 1.9 YES YES 99075 13711 Leagrave High St between Poynters Road and Tomlinson Avenue SW 567 566 0.0 YES YES 13968 13715 A505 Dunstable Rd between Wordsworth Rd and Shelley Rd NE 1048 1024 0.7 YES YES 13715 13968 A505 Dunstable Rd between Wordsworth Rd and Shelley Rd SW 842 821 0.7 YES YES Luton E-W (North) Screenline 83187 21013 M1 between Junction 11 and 12 NW 4556 4581 0.4 YES YES 21016 83188 M1 between Junction 12 and 11 SE 4798 5123 4.6 YES YES 99073 99031 Mayne Avenue south of Bramble Road NW 145 63 8.0 NO YES 99031 99073 Mayne Avenue south of Bramble Road SE 346 76 18.6 NO NO 98292 13662 Grange Avenue Between Linacres and The Avenue NE 710 693 0.6 YES YES 13662 98292 Grange Avenue Between Linacres and The Avenue SW 744 582 6.3 NO NO 14527 13561 B579 Marsh Road immediately north of Limbury Road NW 424 509 3.9 YES YES 13561 14527 B579 Marsh Road immediately north of Limbury Road SE 541 510 1.4 YES YES 13514 13532 Neville Road north of Blackswan Lane NW 411 424 0.6 YES YES 13532 13514 Neville Road north of Blackswan Lane SW 781 808 0.9 YES YES 13462 98293 A5228 Birdfoot Lane Between Grosvenor Road and Parys Road NE 340 329 0.6 YES YES 98293 13462 A5228 Birdfoot Lane Between Grosvenor Road and Parys Road SW 624 641 0.7 YES YES 13473 13474 A6 Barton Road Between Enderby Road and Birdsfoot Lane NW 980 888 3.0 YES YES 13474 13473 A6 Barton Road Between Enderby Road and Birdsfoot Lane SE 917 908 0.3 YES YES 99024 13461 Cromer Way at Borough Boundary NW 192 189 0.2 YES YES 13461 99024 Cromer Way at Borough Boundary SE 347 272 4.3 YES YES Pell Frischmann

AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 13911 13822 A5120 Houghton Road east of A5 NE 590 597 0.3 YES YES 13822 13911 A5120 Houghton Road east of A5 SW 651 621 1.2 YES YES 97803 97808 Boscombe Road south of Eyncourt Rd NW 225 223 0.1 YES YES 97808 97803 Boscombe Road south of Eyncourt Rd SE 498 426 3.4 YES YES 98291 13968 A505 Luton Road west of Poynters Road NE 1221 1160 1.8 YES YES 13968 98291 A505 Luton Road west of Poynters Road SW 847 851 0.1 YES YES 21011 83181 M1 between Junction 10 and 11 NW 4767 4748 0.3 YES YES 21014 60008 M1 between Junction 11 and 10 SE 5815 5621 2.6 YES YES 14229 14230 Whipperley Way, north of Farley Hill NE 287 297 0.6 YES YES 14230 14229 Whipperley Way, north of Farley Hill SE 277 255 1.3 YES YES 13334 99005 B4540 Farley Hill Between Wilsden Avenue and Stockwood Crescent NE 284 263 1.3 YES YES 99005 13334 B4540 Farley Hill Between Wilsden Avenue and Stockwood Crescent SW 407 471 3.1 YES YES 13332 13269 London Road Between Whitehill Road and Ashton Road NE 736 721 0.6 YES YES 13269 13332 London Road Between Whitehill Road and Ashton Road SW 636 640 0.2 YES YES 99009 99008 Tennyson Road, North of West Hill Road NE 91 3 12.8 NO YES 99008 99009 Tennyson Road, North of West Hill Road SW 52 27 4.0 YES YES 98295 14223 Park Street, south of Osborne Road NE 246 246 0.0 YES YES 14223 98295 Park Street, south of Osborne Road SW 176 268 6.2 NO YES 94192 98200 A505 Gipsy Lane north of Luton Parkway NW 475 470 0.2 YES YES 98200 94192 A505 Gipsy Lane north of Luton Parkway SE 811 380 17.7 NO NO Other Counts 13235 13212 A5228 Stockingstone Road E of Elmwood Cresent NW 702 723 0.8 YES YES 13212 13235 A5228 Stockingstone Road E of Elmwood Cresent SE 782 572 8.1 NO NO 13422 99084 Station Road Between Mill Street and footway build-out SE 215 175 2.9 YES YES 99084 13422 Station Road Between Mill Street and footway build-out NW 325 186 8.7 NO NO 13261 98229 A6 Guildford Street (east) NW 343 330 0.7 YES YES 98229 13261 A6 Guildford Street (east) SE 510 497 0.6 YES YES Pell Frischmann

AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 98195 13681 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jct 11 NW 1380 1203 4.9 YES YES 13681 98195 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jct 11 SE 1229 978 7.5 NO NO 98178 80805 B4540 Luton Road east of A5 NW 297 303 0.3 YES YES 80805 98178 B4540 Luton Road east of A5 SE 571 528 1.8 YES YES 13630 13625 Quantock Rise NW 305 300 0.3 YES YES 13625 13630 Quantock Rise SE 237 208 1.9 YES YES 13216 14214 Crawley Green Rd NE 527 524 0.1 YES YES 14214 13216 Crawley Green Rd SW 611 601 0.4 YES YES 98297 98259 Dallow Road Between Vestry Close and pedestrian crossing by park SE 171 160 0.8 YES YES 98259 98297 Dallow Road Between Vestry Close and pedestrian crossing by park NW 249 110 10.4 NO NO 13273 14225 Cumberland Street NE 386 353 1.7 YES YES 14212 98298 Wigmore Lane, south of Sowerby Avenue NW 519 489 1.3 YES YES 98298 14212 Wigmore Lane, south of Sowerby Avenue SE 1010 1010 0.0 YES YES 14212 14308 Crawley Green Road (nr Wigmore Church) NE 207 196 0.8 YES YES 14308 14212 Crawley Green Road (nr Wigmore Church) SW 307 303 0.2 YES YES 14523 14226 A6 St Marys Road Between Vicarage Street and Church Street NW 864 867 0.1 YES YES 14226 14325 A6 St Marys Road Between Vicarage Street and Church Street SE 661 610 2.0 YES YES 14225 14523 Vicarage Street NE 15 6 2.7 YES YES 14523 98255 Vicarage Street SW 261 3 22.5 NO NO 13313 98165 A505 Dunstable Road S of Hazelbury Cres NW 333 307 1.4 YES YES 98165 13313 A505 Dunstable Road S of Hazelbury Cres SE 420 444 1.2 YES YES 13421 21297 A6 New Bedford Road Between Brook Street and Hucklesby Way NW 978 963 0.5 YES YES 21297 13421 A6 New Bedford Road Between Brook Street and Hucklesby Way SE 652 719 2.6 YES YES 99087 21298 Old Bedford Road NW 142 143 0.1 YES YES 21298 99087 Old Bedford Road SE 469 454 0.7 YES YES 21292 21291 Trinty Road NW 468 504 1.6 YES YES 21291 21292 Trinty Road SE 464 471 0.3 YES YES Pell Frischmann

AM Peak (08:00 - 09:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 40353 14216 Frank Lester Way Luton NW 200 187 1.0 YES YES 14216 40353 Frank Lester Way Luton SE 765 698 2.5 YES YES 15403 13322 M1 Junction 10-10a NE 1830 1790 0.9 YES YES 13322 15404 M1 Junction 10-10a SW 1774 1751 0.5 YES YES 13463 13467 A6 New Bedford Road (NB), Luton (Austin Side of Xing) SE 987 996 0.3 YES YES 13467 13463 A6 New Bedford Road (NB), Luton (Austin Side of Xing) NW 873 868 0.2 YES YES 98281 98274 Hitchin Road Between Putteridgebury and Butterfield Park SW 1453 1445 0.2 YES YES 98274 98281 Hitchin Road Between Putteridgebury and Butterfield Park NE 974 1046 2.3 YES YES 96682 13216 A505 Vauxhall Way (N) NW 441 569 5.7 NO NO 13216 96682 A505 Vauxhall Way (N) SE 964 925 1.3 YES YES 13575 13561 Sundon Park Road North of Camford Way SE 636 637 0.0 YES YES 13561 13575 Sundon Park Road North of Camford Way NW 315 305 0.6 YES YES 97546 13119 A505 Vauxhall Way (S) NE 950 895 1.8 YES YES 13119 97546 A505 Vauxhall Way (S) SW 1293 1202 2.6 YES YES 97559 13211 A5228 Montrose Avenue NE 466 370 4.7 YES YES 13211 97559 A5228 Montrose Avenue SW 532 449 3.7 YES YES 98119 13322 A1081 London Road NW 516 663 6.1 NO NO 13322 98119 A1081 London Road SE 447 366 4.0 YES YES 97560 13614 Icknield Way NE 809 785 0.9 YES YES 13614 97560 Icknield Way SW 845 836 0.3 YES YES 97547 14217 Airport Way (SR) NE 758 742 0.6 YES YES 14217 97547 Airport Way (SR) SW 695 716 0.8 YES YES 98117 97541 B4540 Newlands Road (outside Rugby Club) NE 236 220 1.1 YES YES 97541 98117 B4540 Newlands Road (outside Rugby Club) SW 472 432 1.9 YES YES 98121 99071 B579 Toddington Road Between Coverdale and entrance to Vauxhall building SE 537 501 1.6 YES YES 99071 98121 B579 Toddington Road Between Coverdale and entrance to Vauxhall building NW 479 488 0.4 YES YES

Pell Frischmann

PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria Dunstable RSI Cordon 99073 13713 Leagrave High Street, at M1 flyover SW 974 937 1.2 YES YES 13713 99073 Leagrave High Street, at M1 flyover NE 711 679 1.2 YES YES 83183 13715 A505 Dunstable Road between the M1 junction 11 and Lewsey Road SW 1422 1409 0.4 YES YES 13715 83184 A505 Dunstable Road between the M1 junction 11 and Lewsey Road NE 924 900 0.8 YES YES 94576 98121 B579 Luton Rd On approach to roundabout of Luton Rd/Toddington Rd SE 378 406 1.4 YES YES 98121 94576 B579 Luton Rd On approach to roundabout of Luton Rd/Toddington Rd NW 475 493 0.8 YES YES 13616 14506 Sundon Park Road, approaching Camford Way SE 553 555 0.1 YES YES 14506 13616 Sundon Park Road, approaching Camford Way NW 441 442 0.1 YES YES 14237 96663 A6 Barton Road, as you enter within 40 mph limit SE 1081 1091 0.3 YES YES 96663 14237 A6 Barton Road, as you enter within 40 mph limit NW 955 958 0.1 YES YES 15501 94152 A505 Hitchin Road, west of Butterfield Green Road SW 1039 1051 0.4 YES YES 94152 15501 A505 Hitchin Road, west of Butterfield Green Road NE 1202 1200 0.1 YES YES 98171 14308 Luton Road between Rochford Drive, Mangrove Road and Chalk Hill SW 223 209 1.0 YES YES 14308 98171 Luton Road between Rochford Drive, Mangrove Road and Chalk Hill NE 284 262 1.3 YES YES 98151 14211 Eaton Green Road, On approach to roundabout of Eaton Green Rd & Colwell Rise NW 162 161 0.1 YES YES 14211 98151 Eaton Green Road, On approach to roundabout of Eaton Green Rd & Colwell Rise SE 188 233 3.1 YES YES 97542 98198 B653 Lower Harpenden Road between Airport Way and Copt Hall Road NW 592 602 0.4 YES YES 98198 97542 B653 Lower Harpenden Road between Airport Way and Copt Hall Road SE 575 579 0.1 YES YES 13322 97785 A1081 Airport Way, Approaching Kidney Wood roundabout NE 1498 1501 0.1 YES YES 97787 13322 A1081 Airport Way, Approaching Kidney Wood roundabout SW 1539 1575 0.9 YES YES 13322 13331 London Road between Airport Way and Cutenhoe Road NW 691 699 0.3 YES YES 13331 13322 London Road between Airport Way and Cutenhoe Road SE 525 557 1.4 YES YES 97541 14229 B4540 Farley Road, Between Farley Hill Farm Road and Layhill Drive NE 515 615 4.2 YES YES 14229 97541 B4540 Farley Road, Between Farley Hill Farm Road and Layhill Drive SW 607 631 1.0 YES YES 13681 94166 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jnt 11 SW 1217 1282 1.8 YES YES 94166 13681 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jnt 11 NE 1235 1236 0.0 YES YES Pell Frischmann

PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria Luton RailLine Screenline 98333 98479 Greenfield Road at Railway Bridge,Westoning NE 294 293 0.0 YES YES 98479 98333 Greenfield Road at Railway Bridge,Westoning SW 278 290 0.7 YES YES 80406 97508 Westoning Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington SE 172 177 0.4 YES YES 97508 80406 Westoning Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington NW 108 125 1.5 YES YES 14248 14247 Station Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington NE 249 255 0.4 YES YES 14247 14248 Station Road at Railway Bridge, Harlington SW 214 220 0.4 YES YES 94580 13616 Sundon Road east of Luton Road and at Railway Bridge NE 597 600 0.1 YES YES 13616 94580 Sundon Road east of Luton Road and at Railway Bridge SW 504 506 0.1 YES YES 13662 13561 Grange Avenue between Toddington Road and Sundon Park Road NE 851 716 4.8 YES NO 13561 13662 Grange Avenue between Toddington Road and Sundon Park Road SW 600 570 1.2 YES YES 98159 14527 Linden Road east of Beechwood Road NE 361 673 13.7 NO NO 14527 98159 Linden Road east of Beechwood Road SW 138 445 18.0 NO NO 13517 13673 Roman Road, West of March Road SW 203 232 2.0 YES YES 98156 13362 A5228 Waller Avenue between Selbourne Road and the A5228 Leagrave Road NE 581 569 0.5 YES YES 13362 98156 A5228 Waller Avenue between Selbourne Road and the A5228 Leagrave Road SW 536 522 0.6 YES YES 97549 13431 B579 Leagrave Rd between Althorp Rd and Selbourne Rd SE 250 290 2.4 YES YES 13431 97549 B579 Leagrave Rd between Althorp Rd and Selbourne Rd NW 347 324 1.3 YES YES 98166 98163 Waldeck Road west of Highbury Road at Railway Bridge NE 228 211 1.2 YES YES 98163 98166 Waldeck Road west of Highbury Road at Railway Bridge SW 192 58 12.0 NO NO 13421 21297 A6 New Bedford Road north of A505 Telford Road NE 895 991 3.1 YES YES 21297 13421 A6 New Bedford Road north of A505 Telford Road SW 594 870 10.2 NO NO 15028 13422 A6 Guildford Road, south of Station Road NE 292 297 0.3 YES YES 13422 15028 A6 Guildford Road, south of Station Road SW 622 522 4.2 YES NO 13261 98194 Church Street between Guilford Rd and Midland Rd NE 1009 1042 1.0 YES YES 98194 13261 Church Street between Guilford Rd and Midland Rd SW 1169 673 16.3 NO NO 50008 98254 Crawley Green Road west of Crescent Road at Railway Bridge NE 874 821 1.8 YES YES Pell Frischmann

PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 98254 50008 Crawley Green Road west of Crescent Road at Railway Bridge SW 473 471 0.1 YES YES 14315 14221 Kimpton Road between Kindmill Rd and Airport Way, over railway SE 969 921 1.6 YES YES 14221 14315 Kimpton Road between Kindmill Rd and Airport Way, over railway NW 927 882 1.5 YES YES 94193 15226 A1081 Airport Way between A505 junction and Kimpton Rd NE 1595 1569 0.7 YES YES 15227 94193 A1081 Airport Way between A505 junction and Kimpton Rd SW 1335 1344 0.2 YES YES Dunstable N-S Screenline 13711 99075 Leagrave High St between Poynters Road and Tomlinson Avenue NE 664 631 1.3 YES YES 99075 13711 Leagrave High St between Poynters Road and Tomlinson Avenue SW 584 557 1.1 YES YES 13968 13715 A505 Dunstable Rd between Wordsworth Rd and Shelley Rd NE 969 939 1.0 YES YES 13715 13968 A505 Dunstable Rd between Wordsworth Rd and Shelley Rd SW 1291 1346 1.5 YES YES Luton E-W (North) Screenline 83187 21013 M1 between Junction 11 and 12 NW 5659 5761 1.3 YES YES 21016 83188 M1 between Junction 12 and 11 SE 4677 4849 2.5 YES YES 99073 99031 Mayne Avenue south of Bramble Road NW 259 258 0.0 YES YES 99031 99073 Mayne Avenue south of Bramble Road SE 230 79 12.1 NO NO 98292 13662 Grange Avenue Between Linacres and The Avenue NE 737 652 3.2 YES YES 13662 98292 Grange Avenue Between Linacres and The Avenue SW 795 505 11.4 NO NO 14527 13561 B579 Marsh Road immediately north of Limbury Road NW 420 606 8.2 NO NO 13561 14527 B579 Marsh Road immediately north of Limbury Road SE 478 505 1.2 YES YES 13514 13532 Neville Road north of Blackswan Lane NW 507 496 0.5 YES YES 13532 13514 Neville Road north of Blackswan Lane SW 438 453 0.7 YES YES 13462 98293 A5228 Birdfoot Lane Between Grosvenor Road and Parys Road NE 590 546 1.8 YES YES 98293 13462 A5228 Birdfoot Lane Between Grosvenor Road and Parys Road SW 297 274 1.3 YES YES 13473 13474 A6 Barton Road Between Enderby Road and Birdsfoot Lane NW 912 858 1.8 YES YES 13474 13473 A6 Barton Road Between Enderby Road and Birdsfoot Lane SE 933 843 3.0 YES YES 99024 13461 Cromer Way at Borough Boundary NW 183 135 3.8 YES YES 13461 99024 Cromer Way at Borough Boundary SE 243 193 3.4 YES YES Pell Frischmann

PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 13911 13822 A5120 Houghton Road east of A5 NE 496 501 0.2 YES YES 13822 13911 A5120 Houghton Road east of A5 SW 566 585 0.8 YES YES 97803 97808 Boscombe Road south of Eyncourt Rd NW 194 217 1.6 YES YES 97808 97803 Boscombe Road south of Eyncourt Rd SE 461 457 0.2 YES YES 98291 13968 A505 Luton Road west of Poynters Road NE 883 897 0.5 YES YES 13968 98291 A505 Luton Road west of Poynters Road SW 1392 1363 0.8 YES YES 21011 83181 M1 between Junction 10 and 11 NW 6327 6329 0.0 YES YES 21014 60008 M1 between Junction 11 and 10 SE 4981 4947 0.5 YES YES 14229 14230 Whipperley Way, north of Farley Hill NE 292 285 0.4 YES YES 14230 14229 Whipperley Way, north of Farley Hill SE 210 215 0.3 YES YES 13334 99005 B4540 Farley Hill Between Wilsden Avenue and Stockwood Crescent NE 503 300 10.1 NO NO 99005 13334 B4540 Farley Hill Between Wilsden Avenue and Stockwood Crescent SW 316 513 9.7 NO NO 13332 13269 London Road Between Whitehill Road and Ashton Road NE 695 703 0.3 YES YES 13269 13332 London Road Between Whitehill Road and Ashton Road SW 576 480 4.2 YES YES 99009 99008 Tennyson Road, North of West Hill Road NE 69 3 11.0 NO YES 99008 99009 Tennyson Road, North of West Hill Road SW 34 15 3.8 YES YES 98295 14223 Park Street, south of Osborne Road NE 250 244 0.4 YES YES 14223 98295 Park Street, south of Osborne Road SW 283 139 9.9 NO NO 94192 98200 A505 Gipsy Lane north of Luton Parkway NW 652 375 12.2 NO NO 98200 94192 A505 Gipsy Lane north of Luton Parkway SE 727 379 14.8 NO NO Other Counts 13235 13212 A5228 Stockingstone Road E of Elmwood Cresent NW 786 801 0.5 YES YES 13212 13235 A5228 Stockingstone Road E of Elmwood Cresent SE 953 573 13.7 NO NO 13422 99084 Station Road Between Mill Street and footway build-out SE 228 173 3.9 YES YES 99084 13422 Station Road Between Mill Street and footway build-out NW 224 182 2.9 YES YES 13261 98229 A6 Guildford Street (east) NW 382 365 0.9 YES YES 98229 13261 A6 Guildford Street (east) SE 423 512 4.1 YES YES Pell Frischmann

PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 98195 13681 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jct 11 NW 1714 1284 11.1 NO NO 13681 98195 A505 Dunstable Road east of M1 Jct 11 SE 1681 769 26.1 NO NO 98178 80805 B4540 Luton Road east of A5 NW 359 371 0.6 YES YES 80805 98178 B4540 Luton Road east of A5 SE 306 307 0.1 YES YES 13630 13625 Quantock Rise NW 291 290 0.1 YES YES 13625 13630 Quantock Rise SE 312 93 15.4 NO NO 13216 14214 Crawley Green Rd NE 579 585 0.2 YES YES 14214 13216 Crawley Green Rd SW 554 536 0.8 YES YES 98297 98259 Dallow Road Between Vestry Close and pedestrian crossing by park SE 147 152 0.4 YES YES 98259 98297 Dallow Road Between Vestry Close and pedestrian crossing by park NW 160 110 4.3 YES YES 13273 14225 Cumberland Street NE 240 249 0.6 YES YES 14212 98298 Wigmore Lane, south of Sowerby Avenue NW 616 608 0.3 YES YES 98298 14212 Wigmore Lane, south of Sowerby Avenue SE 487 480 0.3 YES YES 14212 14308 Crawley Green Road (nr Wigmore Church) NE 276 234 2.6 YES YES 14308 14212 Crawley Green Road (nr Wigmore Church) SW 203 158 3.3 YES YES 14523 14226 A6 St Marys Road Between Vicarage Street and Church Street NW 718 985 9.1 NO NO 14226 14325 A6 St Marys Road Between Vicarage Street and Church Street SE 817 801 0.6 YES YES 14225 14523 Vicarage Street NE 72 7 10.4 NO YES 14523 98255 Vicarage Street SW 319 3 24.9 NO NO 13313 98165 A505 Dunstable Road S of Hazelbury Cres NW 526 457 3.1 YES YES 98165 13313 A505 Dunstable Road S of Hazelbury Cres SE 448 439 0.4 YES YES 13421 21297 A6 New Bedford Road Between Brook Street and Hucklesby Way NW 623 991 12.9 NO NO 21297 13421 A6 New Bedford Road Between Brook Street and Hucklesby Way SE 915 870 1.5 YES YES 99087 21298 Old Bedford Road NW 354 339 0.8 YES YES 21298 99087 Old Bedford Road SE 246 247 0.1 YES YES 21292 21291 Trinty Road NW 478 540 2.8 YES YES 21291 21292 Trinty Road SE 475 480 0.2 YES YES Pell Frischmann

PM Peak (17:00 - 18:00) Anode Bnode Road Name Dir GEH Meets Link Observed Modelled GEH <5 Flow Criteria 40353 14216 Frank Lester Way Luton NW 843 592 9.4 NO NO 14216 40353 Frank Lester Way Luton SE 176 159 1.3 YES YES 15403 13322 M1 Junction 10-10a NE 2067 2025 0.9 YES YES 13322 15404 M1 Junction 10-10a SW 1931 1943 0.3 YES YES 13463 13467 A6 New Bedford Road (NB), Luton (Austin Side of Xing) SE 807 815 0.3 YES YES 13467 13463 A6 New Bedford Road (NB), Luton (Austin Side of Xing) NW 893 893 0.0 YES YES 98281 98274 Hitchin Road Between Putteridgebury and Butterfield Park SW 1011 1000 0.3 YES YES 98274 98281 Hitchin Road Between Putteridgebury and Butterfield Park NE 1368 1360 0.2 YES YES 96682 13216 A505 Vauxhall Way (N) NW 1183 1197 0.4 YES YES 13216 96682 A505 Vauxhall Way (N) SE 608 827 8.2 NO NO 13575 13561 Sundon Park Road North of Camford Way SE 452 413 1.9 YES YES 13561 13575 Sundon Park Road North of Camford Way NW 490 460 1.4 YES YES 97546 13119 A505 Vauxhall Way (S) NE 1449 1479 0.8 YES YES 13119 97546 A505 Vauxhall Way (S) SW 1258 1095 4.8 YES YES 97559 13211 A5228 Montrose Avenue NE 344 293 2.9 YES YES 13211 97559 A5228 Montrose Avenue SW 414 322 4.8 YES YES 98119 13322 A1081 London Road NW 638 678 1.5 YES YES 13322 98119 A1081 London Road SE 710 690 0.8 YES YES 97560 13614 Icknield Way NE 882 740 5.0 YES NO 13614 97560 Icknield Way SW 793 782 0.4 YES YES 97547 14217 Airport Way (SR) NE 828 754 2.6 YES YES 14217 97547 Airport Way (SR) SW 635 637 0.1 YES YES 98117 97541 B4540 Newlands Road (outside Rugby Club) NE 375 356 1.0 YES YES 97541 98117 B4540 Newlands Road (outside Rugby Club) SW 268 284 0.9 YES YES 98121 99071 B579 Toddington Road Between Coverdale and entrance to Vauxhall building SE 399 415 0.8 YES YES 99071 98121 B579 Toddington Road Between Coverdale and entrance to Vauxhall building NW 506 499 0.3 YES YES

Pell Frischmann

APPENDIX B

JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION

Pell Frischmann

AM Peak Route & Average Achieves Direction Modelled Observed Observed Modelled DMRB 12 Eastbound 601 639 38 6.3% YES 12 Westbound 585 637 52 8.9% YES 13 Northbound 756 826 70 9.3% YES 13 Southbound 1015 926 -90 -8.8% YES 14 Northbound 296 339 43 14.6% YES 14 Southbound 212 230 18 8.5% YES 15 Eastbound 994 1092 99 10.0% YES 15 Westbound 1116 1275 159 14.2% YES 16 Eastbound 599 566 -33 -5.6% YES 16 Westbound 680 662 -19 -2.7% YES 17 Northbound 741 793 52 7.1% YES 17 Southbound 799 854 54 6.8% YES 18 Northbound 567 532 -35 -6.1% YES 18 Southbound 558 486 -73 -13.0% YES 19 Northbound 453 507 54 11.9% YES 19 Southbound 701 751 50 7.2% YES 20 Northbound 209 220 11 5.0% YES 20 Southbound 205 233 28 13.5% YES 21 Northbound 237 258 21 8.8% YES 21 Southbound 421 396 -24 -5.7% YES 22 Eastbound 37 45 8 21.6% NO 22 Westbound 43 40 -3 -6.9% YES 23 Northbound 1006 1074 67 6.7% YES 23 Southbound 927 1039 112 12.1% YES 24 Westbound 453 484 31 6.8% YES 25 Anti-Clockwise 464 479 15 3.3% YES 25 Clockwise 131 137 6 4.9% YES 26 Northbound 168 193 25 14.6% YES 26 Southbound 601 639 38 6.3% YES

Pell Frischmann

PM Peak Route & Average Achieves Direction Modelled Observed Observed Modelled DMRB 12 Eastbound 664 609 -55 -8.2% YES 12 Westbound 579 559 -20 -3.4% YES 13 Northbound 1050 989 -61 -5.8% YES 13 Southbound 1016 890 -126 -12.4% YES 14 Northbound 228 257 29 12.9% YES 14 Southbound 214 242 28 13.1% YES 15 Eastbound 1021 1024 3 0.3% YES 15 Westbound 1191 1369 177 14.9% YES 16 Eastbound 831 974 144 17.3% NO 16 Westbound 581 494 -87 -15.0% YES 17 Northbound 773 885 112 14.5% YES 17 Southbound 774 886 112 14.4% YES 18 Northbound 447 498 50 11.2% YES 18 Southbound 521 484 -37 -7.1% YES 19 Northbound 465 511 46 9.8% YES 19 Southbound 523 515 -8 -1.5% YES 20 Northbound 212 221 9 4.4% YES 20 Southbound 273 277 5 1.7% YES 21 Northbound 289 268 -21 -7.2% YES 21 Southbound 372 344 -28 -7.7% YES 22 Eastbound 59 45 -14 -24.0% NO 22 Westbound 45 40 -5 -11.6% YES 23 Northbound 957 1038 81 8.5% YES 23 Southbound 1120 1234 114 10.2% YES 24 Westbound 514 445 -69 -13.4% YES 25 Anti-Clockwise 461 457 -4 -0.8% YES 25 Clockwise 591 503 -88 -14.8% YES 26 Northbound 147 138 -10 -6.7% YES 26 Southbound 172 194 22 12.6% YES

Pell Frischmann

APPENDIX C

ROUTEING VALIDATION

Pell Frischmann

Routeing validation has been undertaken to demonstrate that traffic using the Luton network are choosing reasonable routes in relation to congestion levels and available roads. Issues consider when analysing model routeing include:

Routes should be relatively direct;

Routes should not involve small diversions to loop on and off then main corridor to avoid low levels of localised congestion;

Routes should be reasonable and rat-runs / short cuts should reflect typical driver knowledge of the road network;

Where multiple routes are available the relative proportions between each route between should be reasonable;

Routeing in the model was examined at several stages in its development both at the calibration and validation stages. The following plots are from the validated AM peak network and are provided as a sample of the range of routeing analysis undertaken. The Illustrative routes are as follows:

A1081 Airport Way to A6 St.Mary‟s Road near Luton Rail Station;

A505 Windmill Road to A5065 Hatters Way;

Stopsley Way to Farley Hill Road;

A505 Dunstable Road to A505 Vauxhall Way;

Farley Hill to A5228 Leagrave Road

The above routes used between the two identified locations are shown in Figures C.1 to C.5 These are direct extracts from the SATURN model and show the percentage of traffic using each available route between the two identified locations.

Pell Frischmann

Figure C.1 – AM Peak Route - Luton Airport to Luton Station

Pell Frischmann

Figure C.2 – AM Peak Route - A505 Windmill Road to A5065 Hatters Way

Pell Frischmann

Figure C.3 – AM Peak Route - Stopsley Way to Farley Hill Road

Pell Frischmann

Figure C.4 – AM Peak Route - A505 Dunstable Road to A505 Vauxhall Way

Pell Frischmann

Figure C.5 – AM Peak Route Farley Hill to A5228 Leagrave Road

Pell Frischmann

APPENDIX D

PRIOR, AND POST MATRICES BY USER CLASSES

Pell Frischmann

Table D1: AM Peak Prior Matrix Estimation (car) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 126 449 263 314 82 310 132 145 426 South-West Luton 447 1465 1126 694 289 358 89 299 654 East Luton 507 1208 1759 166 237 285 487 1025 423 North Luton 187 963 485 1664 1049 376 85 94 299 North-West Luton 78 571 595 894 637 456 14 713 1200 External North 292 453 471 625 570 2037 1437 2016 976 External East 132 229 495 43 147 718 3070 255 239 External South 504 640 308 32 233 2153 150 4132 837 External West 831 1224 363 346 1415 813 266 1489 5748

Table D2: AM Peak Post Matrix Estimation (car) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 128 472 262 295 97 298 124 133 368 South-West Luton 422 1428 1132 684 278 379 89 259 637 East Luton 557 1259 1767 142 237 304 490 1174 376 North Luton 168 961 557 1746 1064 368 87 75 269 North-West Luton 50 534 601 913 653 397 11 781 1175 External North 249 435 486 680 581 2033 1437 2022 978 External East 129 235 520 41 139 715 3070 276 205 External South 531 660 310 31 269 2145 149 4132 868 External West 641 1133 338 360 1515 801 269 1462 5774

Table D3: AM Peak Matrix Estimation (car) – Difference Percent

Pell Frischmann

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre -1 -22 1 20 -15 12 8 12 58 South-West Luton 25 37 -6 10 11 -21 0 40 17 East Luton -49 -52 -8 24 -1 -19 -4 -148 47 North Luton 20 1 -72 -82 -15 8 -2 19 30 North-West Luton 28 37 -6 -19 -16 58 3 -67 25 External North 43 19 -15 -55 -11 4 0 -7 -1 External East 3 -6 -24 2 8 2 0 -22 33 External South -27 -19 -1 2 -36 8 1 0 -30 External West 190 91 26 -14 -100 13 -3 27 -25

Pell Frischmann

Table D4: AM Peak Prior Matrix Estimation (LGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 12 13 16 4 4 11 32 7 South-West Luton 21 96 88 50 10 113 13 86 58 East Luton 27 94 75 12 13 81 30 77 70 North Luton 15 48 56 48 11 56 8 6 61 North-West Luton 2 28 14 13 48 21 2 47 142 External North 2 53 61 91 65 88 94 274 168 External East 9 14 46 8 5 32 448 38 18 External South 35 30 31 3 61 269 37 563 138 External West 6 129 34 57 144 151 31 211 652

Table D5: AM Peak Post Matrix Estimation (LGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 16 17 23 5 4 10 30 9 South-West Luton 23 111 101 61 11 133 11 109 66 East Luton 29 96 99 11 10 67 32 91 44 North Luton 15 51 50 58 15 57 4 5 60 North-West Luton 2 34 10 18 50 18 2 47 151 External North 2 52 55 87 63 87 94 280 169 External East 9 13 45 7 3 32 448 55 14 External South 37 27 34 3 67 292 38 566 142 External West 6 139 27 61 142 148 30 213 647

Pell Frischmann

Table D6: AM Peak Matrix Estimation (LGV) – Difference Percent Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 -4 -4 -7 -1 0 1 2 -2 South-West Luton -2 -15 -13 -11 -1 -20 2 -23 -8 East Luton -1 -2 -24 1 3 14 -1 -15 27 North Luton -1 -3 6 -10 -4 0 4 1 1 North-West Luton 0 -6 3 -5 -2 3 0 0 -8 External North 0 2 6 4 2 1 1 -6 -2 External East 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 -17 3 External South -3 2 -4 -1 -6 -23 0 -3 -4 External West 0 -11 7 -4 2 3 0 -2 4

Pell Frischmann

Table D7: AM Peak Prior Matrix Estimation (HGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 6 11 5 0 6 1 28 72 South-West Luton 3 76 66 24 16 36 17 38 36 East Luton 5 74 21 5 13 42 49 13 84 North Luton 1 24 29 3 6 48 1 4 13 North-West Luton 1 29 26 41 48 19 2 38 44 External North 3 10 23 15 17 36 41 1493 34 External East 1 9 39 0 3 53 284 30 13 External South 6 13 10 1 31 1129 14 592 190 External West 22 37 25 23 65 53 34 261 587

Table D8: AM Peak Post Matrix Estimation (HGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 7 13 5 0 5 1 32 96 South-West Luton 3 75 76 29 9 41 19 34 32 East Luton 6 83 26 4 13 46 66 19 87 North Luton 1 30 34 3 7 48 1 5 11 North-West Luton 1 48 33 53 47 16 1 52 42 External North 2 10 20 15 16 36 41 1483 32 External East 1 7 36 0 2 53 284 48 7 External South 6 14 8 1 29 1154 13 592 200 External West 27 41 25 23 64 52 23 262 586

Table D9: AM Peak Matrix Estimation (HGV) – Difference Percent

Pell Frischmann

Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 -2 -2 0 0 1 0 -4 -24 South-West Luton -1 1 -9 -5 7 -4 -1 4 4 East Luton -1 -9 -5 1 0 -4 -17 -6 -3 North Luton 0 -6 -5 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 2 North-West Luton 0 -18 -7 -12 1 3 0 -14 1 External North 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 10 2 External East 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 -18 6 External South -1 -1 2 0 2 -25 1 0 -10 External West -5 -3 0 0 2 1 11 -2 0

Pell Frischmann

Table D10: PM Peak Prior Matrix Estimation (car) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 123 377 561 149 154 585 145 402 340 South-West Luton 464 1403 1209 727 570 618 204 477 1342 East Luton 724 955 1444 223 267 517 393 537 609 North Luton 283 523 394 1109 802 415 79 83 319 North-West Luton 117 529 291 1375 798 382 124 139 1321 External North 98 173 409 884 365 1860 877 2504 773 External East 43 74 361 86 74 1410 3293 201 241 External South 176 409 680 187 355 2956 221 4060 1967 External West 123 684 473 505 1400 1035 232 1024 5847

Table D11: PM Peak Post Matrix Estimation (car) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 125 395 568 129 173 453 153 385 327 South-West Luton 516 1557 1246 723 641 511 192 442 1286 East Luton 719 1162 1656 220 252 551 467 561 632 North Luton 271 520 411 1294 854 432 78 69 269 North-West Luton 87 421 344 1475 828 349 167 140 1265 External North 93 173 412 903 338 1841 874 2491 737 External East 49 92 353 95 69 1407 3293 195 220 External South 170 424 665 186 420 2922 258 4060 1957 External West 111 707 408 501 1393 1023 211 1049 5820

Pell Frischmann

Table D12: PM Peak Matrix Estimation (car) – Difference Percent Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre -3 -17 -7 19 -18 132 -8 17 13 South-West Luton -53 -154 -37 4 -72 107 13 36 56 East Luton 5 -207 -212 3 15 -34 -75 -24 -23 North Luton 12 3 -18 -185 -53 -17 1 14 50 North-West Luton 30 108 -53 -100 -30 33 -43 -1 56 External North 5 0 -3 -19 27 19 3 13 36 External East -6 -18 8 -10 5 3 0 6 21 External South 6 -15 15 1 -66 34 -37 -1 11 External West 11 -24 66 4 7 12 21 -25 27

Pell Frischmann

Table D13: PM Peak Prior Matrix Estimation (LGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 7 10 2 2 50 2 28 34 South-West Luton 10 45 55 34 37 19 16 46 80 East Luton 16 61 32 9 26 17 6 52 27 North Luton 5 35 29 15 35 82 1 12 74 North-West Luton 7 25 17 21 31 18 23 0 77 External North 30 6 29 144 22 52 33 368 98 External East 1 11 10 2 19 69 362 22 27 External South 19 61 110 40 0 480 27 552 311 External West 42 89 33 82 82 114 21 162 554

Table D14: PM Peak Post Matrix Estimation (LGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 8 13 1 3 55 2 28 30 South-West Luton 11 51 77 28 42 20 20 50 89 East Luton 30 97 42 9 23 14 6 54 31 North Luton 7 40 31 20 50 77 1 7 64 North-West Luton 5 26 21 25 45 19 28 0 80 External North 30 6 32 157 20 52 33 372 92 External East 2 12 10 2 16 68 362 20 25 External South 17 64 110 36 0 475 25 552 302 External West 37 90 32 80 90 111 20 162 539

Pell Frischmann

Table D15: PM Peak Matrix Estimation (LGV) – Difference Percent Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 -1 -3 0 -1 -5 0 -1 4 South-West Luton 0 -6 -22 6 -5 -1 -4 -4 -9 East Luton -13 -35 -10 1 3 3 0 -2 -4 North Luton -1 -6 -2 -5 -16 5 0 5 10 North-West Luton 2 -1 -4 -4 -14 -1 -5 0 -3 External North 0 0 -3 -13 3 0 0 -4 6 External East -1 -1 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 External South 2 -3 -1 4 0 5 2 0 8 External West 5 -1 1 2 -8 2 2 -1 15

Pell Frischmann

Table D16: PM Peak Prior Matrix Estimation (HGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 2 3 0 1 3 0 11 28 South-West Luton 1 22 18 3 13 10 5 9 17 East Luton 2 13 3 1 12 7 4 19 20 North Luton 0 10 3 0 2 14 1 2 13 North-West Luton 6 20 10 3 8 6 3 1 29 External North 4 22 19 42 7 17 14 985 25 External East 1 6 14 3 4 40 229 9 10 External South 7 20 15 1 8 1125 29 276 154 External West 14 24 35 28 21 26 7 94 285

Table D17: PM Peak Post Matrix Estimation (HGV) Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 2 3 0 1 2 0 10 36 South-West Luton 2 24 19 4 17 9 4 7 16 East Luton 4 23 6 1 14 6 4 17 19 North Luton 1 15 4 1 3 12 1 2 13 North-West Luton 8 30 11 7 10 4 4 2 30 External North 3 22 21 43 5 16 14 980 23 External East 1 7 15 3 4 40 229 9 9 External South 6 23 14 0 12 1113 26 276 157 External West 13 25 40 26 23 24 6 101 286

Pell Frischmann

Table D18: PM Peak Matrix Estimation (HGV) – Difference Percent Luton South- North- Car Town West East North West External External External External Centre Luton Luton Luton Luton North East South West Luton Town Centre 0 0 -1 0 0 1 0 1 -8 South-West Luton 0 -2 -1 -1 -3 1 2 2 1 East Luton -2 -10 -2 0 -3 0 0 2 1 North Luton 0 -4 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 North-West Luton -2 -10 -1 -3 -3 2 -1 0 0 External North 0 0 -1 -1 2 0 0 5 2 External East -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 1 External South 1 -3 1 0 -4 12 4 0 -3 External West 1 -1 -5 2 -3 2 1 -6 -1

Pell Frischmann

APPENDIX E

JOURNEY TIME VALIDATION GRAPHS

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.1 – AM Peak Route 12 Eastbound

ROUTE: 12 East Bound 700

600

500

400 Average

300 Lower

Time (Seconds) Time Upper 200 Modelled 100

0 0 3307 4935 5759 6605 Distance (meters)

Figure E.2 – PM Peak Route 12 Eastbound

ROUTE: 12 East Bound 700

600

500

400 Average

300 Lower

Time (Seconds) Time Upper 200 Modelled 100

0 0 3307 4935 5759 6605 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.3 – AM Peak Route 12 Westbound

ROUTE: 12 West Bound

700

600

500

400 Average Lower 300

Time (Seconds) Time Upper 200 Modelled

100

0 0 846 1670 3298 6605 Distance (meters)

Figure E.4 – PM Peak Route 12 Westbound

ROUTE: 12 West Bound

800

700

600

500 Average 400 Lower

Time (Seconds) Time 300 Upper

200 Modelled

100

0 0 846 1670 3298 6605 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.5 – AM Peak Route 13 Northbound

ROUTE: 13 North Bound 900

800

700

600

500 Average

400 Lower Upper Time (Seconds) Time 300 Modelled 200

100

0 67 664 1941 2685 3096 3974 6222 Distance (meters)

Figure E.6 – PM Peak Route 13 Northbound

ROUTE: 13 North Bound 1400

1200

1000

800 Average Lower 600

Upper Time (Seconds) Time 400 Modelled

200

0 67 664 1941 2685 3096 3974 6222 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.7 – AM Peak Route 13 Southbound

ROUTE : 13 South Bound 1200

1000

800 Average 600 Lower

400 Upper Modelled 200

0 2248 3126 3537 4281 5504 6101 6167 Distance (meters)

Figure E.8 – PM Peak Route 13 Southbound

ROUTE: 13 South Bound 1400

1200

1000

800 Average Lower 600 Upper 400 Modelled

200

0 2248 3126 3537 4281 5504 6101 6167 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.9 – AM Peak Route 15 Eastbound

ROUTE: 15 East Bound 1600

1400

1200

1000 Average 800 Lower

600 Upper Time (Seconds) Time 400 Modelled

200

0 2676 3997 4598 5521 6388 7246 8472 9466 11829 11895 Distance (meters)

Figure E.10 – PM Peak Route 15 Eastbound

ROUTE: 15 East Bound 1600

1400

1200

1000 Average 800 Lower

600 Upper Time (Seconds) Time 400 Modelled

200

0 2676 3997 4598 5521 6388 7246 8472 9466 11829 11895 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.11 – AM Peak Route 15 Westbound

ROUTE: 15 West Bound 1200

1000

800 Average 600 Lower Upper

Time (Seconds) Time 400 Modelled 200

0 86 2431 3425 4651 5509 6376 7299 7900 9221 11897 Distance (meters)

Figure E.12 – PM Peak Route 15 Westbound

ROUTE: 15 West Bound 1600

1400

1200

1000 Average 800 Lower

600 Upper Time (Seconds) Time 400 Modelled

200

0 86 2431 3425 4651 5509 6376 7299 7900 9221 11897 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.13 – AM Peak Route 18 Northbound

ROUTE: 18 North Bound 700

600

500

400 Average Lower 300

Time (Seconds) Time Upper 200 Modelled

100

0 0 1455 2217 3078 4281 4783 Distance (meters)

Figure E.14 – PM Peak Route 18 Northbound

ROUTE: 18 North Bound 700

600

500

400 Average Lower 300

Time (Seconds) Time Upper 200 Modelled

100

0 0 1455 2217 3078 4281 4783 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.15 – AM Peak Route 18 Southbound

ROUTE: 18 South Bound 700

600

500

400 Average Lower 300

Upper Time (Seconds) Time 200 Modelled

100

0 0 502 1705 2566 3328 4783 Distance (meters)

Figure E.16 – PM Peak Route 18 Southbound

ROUTE: 18 South Bound 600

500

400 Average 300 Lower Upper

200 Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 100

0 0 502 1705 2566 3328 4783 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.17 – AM Peak Route 20 Northbound

ROUTE: 20 North Bound 250

200

150 Average Lower 100 Upper Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 50

0 0 194 398 1143 1445 1926

Distance (meters)

Figure E.18 – PM Peak Route 20 Northbound

ROUTE: 20 North Bound 350

300

250

200 Average

150 Lower Upper

Time (Seconds) Time 100 Modelled 50

0 0 194 398 1143 1445 1926

Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.19 – AM Peak Route 20 Southbound

ROUTE: 20 South Bound 300

250

200

Average 150 Lower

100 Upper Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 50

0 0 481 783 1528 1732 1926 Distance (meters)

Figure E.20 – PM Peak Route 20 Southbound

ROUTE: 20 South Bound 300

250

200

Average 150 Lower

100 Upper Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 50

0 0 481 783 1528 1732 1926 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.21 – AM Peak Route 25 Anti Clockwise

ROUTE: 25 Anti Clockwise 600

500

400 Average 300 Lower Upper

200 Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 100

0 0 251 735 1003 1722 2227 3129 Distance (meters)

Figure E.22 – PM Peak Route 25 Anti Clockwise

ROUTE: 25 Anti Clockwise 800

700

600

500 Average 400 Lower

300 Upper Time (Seconds) Time 200 Modelled

100

0 0 251 735 1003 1722 2227 3129 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann

Figure E.23 – AM Peak Route 25 Clockwise

ROUTE: 25 Clockwise 600

500

400 Average 300 Lower Upper

200 Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 100

0 132 967 1403 2388 2656 3140 3429 Distance (meters)

Figure E.23 – PM Peak Route 25 Clockwise

ROUTE: 25 Clockwise 900

800

700

600

500 Average

400 Lower Upper

300 Time (Seconds) Time Modelled 200

100

0 132 967 1403 2388 2656 3140 3429 Distance (meters)

Pell Frischmann