A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme

Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions

(Report 12: Transportation and Traffic)

HE/A14/EX/39

June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 2 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Contents 12 Transportation and Traffic ...... 13 Question 1.12.1 ...... 13 Response ...... 13 Question 1.12.4 ...... 17 Response ...... 17 Question 1.12.5 ...... 21 Response ...... 21 Question 1.12.6 ...... 23 Response ...... 23 Question 1.12.7 ...... 28 Response ...... 28 Question 1.12.8 ...... 33 Response ...... 33 Question 1.12.9 ...... 40 Response ...... 40 Question 1.12.10 ...... 42 Response ...... 42 Question 1.12.11 ...... 57 Response ...... 57 Question 1.12.12 ...... 58 Response ...... 58 Question 1.12.13 ...... 59 Response ...... 59 Question 1.12.14 ...... 60 Response ...... 60 Question 1.12.15 ...... 70 Response ...... 70 Question 1.12.17 ...... 72 Response ...... 72 Question 1.12.18 ...... 74 Response ...... 74 Question 1.12.19 ...... 77 Response ...... 74 Question 1.12.20 ...... 97 Response ...... 97

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 3 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.21 ...... 98 Response ...... 98 Question 1.12.22 ...... 100 Response ...... 100 Question 1.12.23 ...... 101 Response ...... 101 Question 1.12.24 ...... 105 Response ...... 105 Question 1.12.25 ...... 109 Response ...... 109 Question 1.12.26 ...... 113 Response ...... 113 Question 1.12.27 ...... 114 Response ...... 114 Question 1.12.28 ...... 115 Response ...... 115 Question 1.12.29 ...... 116 Response ...... 116 Question 1.12.30 ...... 117 Response ...... 117 Question 1.12.31 ...... 118 Response ...... 118 Question 1.12.32 ...... 121 Response ...... 121 Question 1.12.33 ...... 123 Response ...... 123 Question 1.12.34…...... 133 Response ...... 133 Question 1.12.35 ...... 140 Response ...... 140 Question 1.12.36 ...... 145 Response ...... 145 Question 1.12.37 ...... 149 Response ...... 149 Question 1.12.38 ...... 150 Response ...... 150

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 4 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.39 ...... 155 Response ...... 155 Question 1.12.40 ...... 157 Response ...... 157 Question 1.12.41 ...... 158 Response ...... 158 Question 1.12.42 ...... 160 Response ...... 160 Question 1.12.43 ...... 162 Response ...... 162 Question 1.12.44 ...... 164 Response ...... 164 Question 1.12.45 ...... 166 Response ...... 166 Question 1.12.46 ...... 168 Response ...... 168 Question 1.12.47 ...... 170 Response ...... 170 Question 1.12.48 ...... 172 Response ...... 172 Question 1.12.49 ...... 174 Response ...... 174 Question 1.12.50 ...... 176 Response ...... 176 Question 1.12.51 ...... 177 Response ...... 177 Question 1.12.52 ...... 181 Response ...... 181 Question 1.12.53 ...... 182 Response ...... 182 Question 1.12.54 ...... 191 Response ...... 191 Question 1.12.55 ...... 193 Response ...... 193 Question 1.12.56 ...... 195 Response ...... 195

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 5 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.57 ...... 199 Response ...... 199 Question 1.12.58 ...... 201 Response ...... 201 Question 1.12.59 ...... 203 Response ...... 203 Question 1.12.60 ...... 205 Response ...... 205 Question 1.12.61 ...... 208 Response ...... 208 Question 1.12.62 ...... 211 Response ...... 211 Question 1.12.63 ...... 215 Response ...... 215

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 6 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Tables

Table 12-1 ...... 15 Table 12-2 ...... 15 Table 12-3: Comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts around Madingley in 2020 with and without the scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 18 Table 12-4: Comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts around Madingley in 2035 with and without the scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 19 Table 12-5: Forecast flows on through Madingley in 2020 (Total Vehicles, AADT) .. 20 Table 12-6: Forecast flows on through Madingley in 2035 (Total Vehicles, AADT) .. 20 Table 12-7: Comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts through Madingley in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 21 Table 12-8: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum A1(M) Trip Routeing ...... 29 Table 12-9: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something A1(M) Trip Routeing ...... 31 Table 12-10: CHARM3a Sector Definition for this Assessment ...... 34 Table 12-11: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something Views Common Link Trips – User Class 1 Car Other...... 35 Table 12-12: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something Views Common Link Trips – User Class 2 Car Business ...... 36 Table 12-13: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something Views Common Link Trips – User Class 3 LGV’s ...... 37 Table 12-14: CHARM3a 2035 AM Peak Do Something Sectored Views Common Northbound Select Link – User Class 1/Car Other ...... 39 Table 12-15: Forecast 2-way AADT flows through Oakington and Westwick ...... 40 Table 12-16: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Eastbound (PCUs) ...... 44 Table 12-17: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Eastbound (PCUs) ...... 44 Table 12-18: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Westbound (PCUs) ...... 44 Table 12-19: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Westbound (PCUs) ...... 44 Table 12-20: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Major Routes in 2020 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 63 Table 12-21: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Major Routes in 2035 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 63 Table 12-22: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Local Roads in 2020 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 64 Table 12-23: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Local Roads in 2035 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a) ...... 65 Table 12-24: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Major Routes in 2035 ...... 67 Table 12-25: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Local Roads in 2035 ...... 68 Table 12-26: Forecast Flows on the A14 to the West of Brampton ...... 70 Table 12-27: Comparison of actual and predicted patronage, CCC data, 2015 ...... 74

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 7 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-28: 24-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic Flow (AAWF), from CCC TMR 2013 ...... 75 Table 12-29: CSRM 2011 PYV performance at Screenline level ...... 102 Table 12-30: CSRM 2011 PYV performance at individual count sites ...... 103 Table 12-31: CSRM 2011 PYV performance at count sites on the A14 ...... 103 Table 12-32: CSRM performance against Journey Time data (HATRIS) on the A14 ...... 103 Table 12-33: Performance of CHARM1 at Screenline level ...... 106 Table 12-34: Performance of CHARM1 at individual count sites ...... 107 Table 12-35: Performance of CHARM1 at count sites on the A14 ...... 108 Table 12-36: Performance of CHARM1 against Journey Time data (HATRIS) on A14 ...... 108 Table 12-37: CSRM and CHARM1 Link Flows on key SRN Links ...... 110 Table 12-38: Difference between CHARM2, CSRM and CHARM1 ...... 111 Table 12-39: CHARM2 and CHARM3a Link Flows on key SRN Links ...... 112 Table 12-40: CHARM2 Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton ...... 118 Table 12-41: CHARM3a Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton ...... 119 Table 12-42: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton ...... 120 Table 12-43: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Histon and Milton . 121 Table 12-44: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in the Do Minimum Scenario ...... 125 Table 12-45: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2020 in the Do Minimum and Do Something Scenarios ...... 126 Table 12-46: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2035 in the Do Minimum and Do Something Scenarios ...... 127 Table 12-47: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads without the scheme .... 134 Table 12-48: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2020 with and without the scheme ...... 135 Table 12-49: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2035 with and without the scheme ...... 136 Table 12-50: CHARM3a comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts on local road in 2020 with and without the scheme ...... 142 Table 12-51: CHARM3a comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts on local road in 2035 with and without the scheme ...... 143 Table 12-52: Forecast flows on The Avenue, north of Madingley (based on CHARM2) ...... 145 Table 12-53: Forecast flows on The Avenue, north of Madingley (based on CHARM3a) ...... 145 Table 12-54: Forecast flows on The Avenue, north of Madingley in 2035 (based on CHARM3a) ...... 146 Table 12-55: Routeing of traffic on The Avenue in 2035 Origins/destinations to the north of Madingley (based on CHARM3a) ...... 147 Table 12-56: Routeing of traffic on The Avenue in 2035 Origins/destinations to the south of Madingley (based on CHARM3a) ...... 147 Table 12-57: List of Junctions where RFC/DoS is lower in 2035 than in 2020 (CHARM2) ...... 152

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 8 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-58: List of Junctions where RFC/DoS is lower in 2035 than in 2020 (CHARM3a) ...... 154 Table 12-59: Table 7.19: Swavesey Junction south roundabout capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario) ...... 157 Table 12-64: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Description of Signal Phases (Existing) ...... 184 Table 12-65: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Description of Signal Phases (Proposed)...... 188 Table 12-66: Brampton Road/Edison Bell Way Junction: Crossing & Wait Times (Secs) ...... 190 Table 12-67: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way, Description of Junction Phases (Existing) ...... 197

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 9 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figures

Figure 12-1: Local roads around Madingley ...... 18 Figure 12-2 ...... 27 Figure 12-3: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum AM Peak A1(M) & Godmanchester SATRAP ...... 30 Figure 12-4: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak A1(M) & Godmanchester SATRAP ...... 32 Figure 12-5: Traffic Regulation Measures affecting Views Common Link and Brampton Road ...... 33 Figure 12-6: CHARM3a 2035 AM Peak Do Something Views Common Select Link Northbound ...... 38 Figure 12-7: CHARM3a 2035 AM Peak Do Something Views Common Select Link Southbound ...... 38 Figure 12-8: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year Trip AM Peak Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 45 Figure 12-9: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 46 Figure 12-10: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 47 Figure 12-11: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 48 Figure 12-12: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum AM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 49 Figure 12-13: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 50 Figure 12-14: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 51 Figure 12-15: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 52 Figure 12-16: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something AM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 53 Figure 12-17: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 54 Figure 12-18: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 55 Figure 12-19: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 56 . Figure 12-20: below has been adapted from Figure 7.1 from the Environmental Statement to include these flow forecasts for the A14...... 71 Figure 12-21: Guided Busway Passenger Journeys 12-Month Rolling Total ...... 75 Figure 12-22 ...... 97 Figure 12-23 ...... 99 Figure 12-24: Location of Views Common Link, Mill Common Link and Pathfinder Link ...... 141 Figure 12-27: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Location Plan ...... 182 Figure 12-28: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Existing) ...... 183

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 10 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-29: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Diagram (Existing) ...... 185 Figure 12-30: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Proposed Layout ...... 186 Figure 12-31: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Proposed) ...... 187 Figure 12-32: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Diagram (Proposed) ...... 188 Figure 12-33: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Location Plan ...... 196 Figure 12-34: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Existing) ...... 197 Figure 12-35: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Plan (Existing) ...... 198 Figure 12-36: A14 / A1096 Junction (A14 Junction 26) ...... 206 Figure 12-37: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips Junction ...... 207 Figure 12-38: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-Junction, Location Plan ...... 213 Figure 12-39: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-Junction, Layout Plan ...... 214 Figure 12-40: Extract from Document 7.2 Appendix E (replicated on pages pages 10 and 21) ...... 215 Figure 12-41: Extract from Document 7.2 Appendix E (replicated on pages pages 11 and 22) ...... 216 Figure 12-42 ...... 216

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 11 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-14: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 51 Figure 12-15: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 52 Figure 12-16: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something AM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 53 Figure 12-17: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 54 Figure 12-18: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 55 Figure 12-19: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) ...... 56 . Figure 12-20: below has been adapted from Figure 7.1 from the Environmental Statement to include these flow forecasts for the A14...... 71 Figure 12-21: Guided Busway Passenger Journeys 12-Month Rolling Total ...... 75 Figure 12-22 ...... 97 Figure 12-23 ...... 99 Figure 12-24: Location of Views Common Link, Mill Common Link and Pathfinder Link ...... 141 Figure 12-27: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Location Plan ...... 182 Figure 12-28: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Existing) ...... 183 Figure 12-29: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Diagram (Existing) ...... 185 Figure 12-30: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Proposed Layout ...... 186 Figure 12-31: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Proposed) ...... 187 Figure 12-32: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Diagram (Proposed) ...... 188 Figure 12-33: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Location Plan ...... 196 Figure 12-34: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Existing) ...... 197 Figure 12-35: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Plan (Existing) ...... 198 Figure 12-36: A14 / A1096 Junction (A14 Junction 26) ...... 206 Figure 12-37: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips Junction ...... 207 Figure 12-38: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-Junction, Location Plan ...... 213 Figure 12-39: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-Junction, Layout Plan ...... 214 Figure 12-40: Extract from Document 7.2 Appendix E (replicated on pages pages 10 and 21) ...... 215 Figure 12-41: Extract from Document 7.2 Appendix E (replicated on pages pages 11 and 22) ...... 216 Figure 12-42 ...... 216

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 12 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

12 Transportation and Traffic

Question 1.12.1 How does the Traffic Modelling Update Report reflect the 2015 Road Traffic Forecast Scenarios 1 to 5 that predict traffic growth from 2010 to 2040 to lie between 29 to 60% on the Strategic Road Network, 12 to 51% on other principal roads and 10 to 54% on minor roads? Response

Introduction

1. The Department for Transport (DfT) produces Road Traffic Forecasts (RTF) for England and its regions. The main use of these forecasts is to inform the DfT's strategy, with individual scheme decisions being based on more localised evidence and transport models. The forecasts are produced using a range of evidence and data on travel behaviour and the factors that influence it. This is brought together using the DfT’s National Transport Model (NTM).

Background to the modelling

2. The Traffic Modelling Update report provides a comparison of the data presented in the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order (DCO) application against that of an updated modelling tool produced following the DCO application submission. The transport evidence base underpinning the DCO is reliant on the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Roads Model version 2 (CHARM2). The Traffic Modelling Update report provides information based on version 3a of this model, CHARM3a. 3. CHARM3a is calibrated and validated to a Base Year of 2014, using traffic count and journey time data that are consistent with that of CHARM2. Further information on the model validation can be found in the Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) (Highways England, May 2015). The forecasting process uses data from a number of different sources including the Cambridge Sub-Regional Model (CSRM), the DfT’s National Trip End Model (NTEM) and the RTF. The ‘Core’ scenario of traffic forecasts that have been presented have been aligned with DfT guidance as set out in WebTAG1 unit M4 §3.

1 WebTAG is the DfT’s Web-Base Transport Appraisal Guidance (WebTAG). This sets out guidance for modelling and appraisal covering a range of topics including model validation and forecasting.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 13 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Elements of Forecast Growth

4. In accordance with §3.2.1 of the guidance, growth in car traffic has been constrained to NTEM version 6.2 within the Study Area (controlled across the four districts of Cambridge City (CCiC), East Cambridgeshire (ECDC), Huntingdonshire (HDC) and South Cambridgeshire (SCDC)). Growth has been distributed based on information from current Local Plan documents (ECDC) and following consultation with planning officers at the local authorities of CCiC, HDC and SCDC in consultation with Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC). Developments have been classified by level of certainty as set out in §3.2.4 of the guidance – an Uncertainty Log has been produced that sets out these assumptions. Growth in car trips passing through the Study Area (i.e. External- to-External movements) has again been controlled to NTEM version 6.2, with “suitable spatial areas” defined based on the origin and destinations of these trips. RTF data have been used to provide traffic forecasts for External-to- External HGV movements; growth in internal-based HGV movements has been derived from CSRM. RTF is therefore only used to provide growth assumptions for these external to external movements, which form a small proportion of the overall demand matrix. CHARM3a has made use of the 2013 RTF release (RTF13) to provide these assumptions; the release of 2015 RTF (RTF15) data on 12 March 2015 by the DfT was following completion of the CHARM3a model updates. 5. Unlike previous releases of RTF data, RTF15 utilises a scenario-based approach. This is to better reflect uncertainty around the drivers and trends associated with traffic growth. Scenario 1 uses the same assumptions as in RTF13; this is therefore the most directly comparable with RTF15. Scenario 4 represents a lower growth estimate, assuming low growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and high oil costs; Scenario 5 represent a higher growth estimate, assuming high growth in GDP and low oil costs. Full details on the RTF15 scenarios are provided in ‘Road Traffic Forecasts 2015’ (DfT, March 2015).

Analysis of 2015 Road Traffic Forecasts

6. Analysis of RTF15 has been undertaken, referencing the change in vehicle miles on the network. A 2014 base has been interpolated from the 2010 and 2015 data to provide consistency with the CHARM3a Base Year. This interpolation results in the following growth factors to 2040 provided for England as a whole and for the East of England region.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 14 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-1

England East of England Scenario SRN Principal Minor SRN Principal Minor 1 23.2% 22.5% 24.2% 40.0% 36.5% 37.6% 2 28.4% 26.1% 27.7% 30.9% 28.9% 30.2% 3 30.3% 10.9% 8.7% 32.1% 13.3% 11.5% 4 22.0% 22.2% 23.9% 24.8% 24.4% 25.9% 5 51.5% 44.5% 47.2% 54.2% 47.8% 49.3%

7. This shows growth of between 22% and 52% on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) in England (25% to 54% in the East of England); 11% to 45% on other Principal roads (13% to 48% in the East of England); and 9% to 47% on minor roads (12% to 49% in the east). This is slightly lower than the percentages referenced in the question, excluding the four years growth from 2010 to 2014. Growth in the East of England is stronger than some other regions of England, with growth being higher than across England as a whole.

Comparison of modelled growth against 215 Road Traffic Forecasts

8. The Base Year of CHARM3a is 2014. The model has been run in forecast years for 2020 (Opening Year), 2031, 2035 (Design Year) and 2041. To compare with the RTF data, both the 2014 Base Year and 2041 Forecast Year have been analysed, as these provide growth on a broadly comparable basis to that of RTF15 analysis as noted above. Data have been extracted from the model and the vehicle kilometres calculated; these have subsequently been converted to vehicle miles to align with the units given in the RTF15 forecasts. Vehicle miles have then been allocated to road types based on properties allocated in the network coding. The table below provides the growth from 2014 to 2041 from the CHARM3a ‘core’ scenario; out of necessity these data have been presented by modelled time period.

Table 12-2

Time CHARM3a Period SRN Principal Minor AM 26.8% 37.9% 39.9% IP 36.5% 38.1% 38.1% PM 29.6% 37.9% 42.4%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 15 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

9. The greatest growth is generally shown in the average Interpeak hour (this is the average hour between 10:00 and 16:00), due to the reduced congestion compared with the two peak hours. CHARM3a demonstrates growth of between 26.8% and 36.5% on the SRN; 38% for other Principal roads; and 38% to 42% for Minor roads. 10. The growth figures from the ‘core’ forecasts thus fall within the ranges of the five RTF15 scenarios. They are closely aligned with data for Scenario 1, which has used the same methodology as RTF13, used in the CHARM3a forecasts. Growth in the peak hours tends to be lower than the average Interpeak hour; the daily growth is more likely to be similar to that of the Interpeak. 11. The more extreme growth scenarios (Scenario 4 – Low Growth, Scenario 5 – High Growth) show much different growth compared to the ‘core’ forecasts, which are closely aligned with scenario 1. As part of the model forecasting, both Low and High Growth sensitivity tests have been undertaken in-line with the guidance set out in WebTAG unit M4 §3.2. These tests are designed to assess the impacts of the scheme should the ‘core’ growth forecasts not materialise. Whilst not being the same assumptions as RTF15 scenarios 4 and 5, they are designed to provide an upper and lower range for the assessment. Both economic appraisal and operational design workstreams have considered the outcomes of these tests.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 16 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.4 *Are traffic flows expected to increase in future years through Madingley? If so, by how much, and what element would be envisaged to be through traffic between the A428/A1303 and the new Dry Drayton to Girton Local Access Road? If not, why not? Response

Summary

12. Traffic flows are expected to increase in future years through Madingley. Without the scheme, there is forecast to be an increase in the volume of traffic using all routes out of the village between 2020 and 2035. The increases on Church Lane and Cambridge Road to the south are larger than on The Avenue and Dry Drayton Road to the north, indicating an increasing propensity for local traffic to join the A428 / A1303 rather than the A14 due to increasing congestion on the A14. Across the five roads out of the village that have been selected (see detailed response below) there is forecast to be an increase of 4,800 vehicles per day, or 37%. Traffic flows are forecast to increase only slightly more as a result of the proposed A14 scheme being in place, although there are some greater variations on Dry Drayton Road and The Avenue as a result of changing connectivity afforded by the scheme. 13. With the scheme, approximately 1,100 vehicles per day in 2020 and 1,500 vehicles per day in 2035 would be travelling between the A428 / A1303 and the new Local Access Road, equating to around 15% of total traffic using this route. With the scheme, around 68% of total traffic through Madingley in 2020 is forecast to be local traffic; this reduces to 61% in 2035.

Detailed Response

14. In order to fully assess the impact of the A14 scheme on Madingley, traffic flows have been extracted from the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Roads Model version 3a (CHARM3a). CHARM3a is discussed further in the Traffic Modelling Update Report, which will be submitted to the Examining Authority at Deadline 2. Traffic flows have been extraced for the following five roads around the village:  The Avenue, north of Madingley;  Dry Drayton Road, north-west of Madingley;  High Street, through Madingley;  Church Lane, south of Madingley; and  Cambridge Road, south-east of Madingley. 15. The location of these roads is shown in Figure 12-1.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 17 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-1: Local roads around Madingley

Source: Google

16. The forecast Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows on these roads in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme are summarised in Table 12-3 and Table 12-4 below. These forecasts are based on CHARM3a.

Table 12-3: Comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts around Madingley in 2020 with and without the scheme (based on CHARM3a)

Without With % Road Section Scheme Scheme Change The Avenue, north of Madingley 3,800 4,300 +13% Dry Drayton Road, north-west of Madingley 1,200 700 -42% High Street, through Madingley2 2,600 2,400 -8% Church Lane, south of Madingley 2,100 1,700 -19% Cambridge Road, south-east of Madingley 3,200 3,100 -3% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100

2 It should be noted that the flows on the High Street will not include trips with an origin or destination in the village (i.e. local traffic). This is due to the way traffic is loaded on to the network in the traffic model, in which it is assumed that local traffic enters/leaves the modelled network at either end of the High Street.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 18 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-4: Comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts around Madingley in 2035 with and without the scheme (based on CHARM3a)

Without With % Road Section Scheme Scheme Change The Avenue, north of Madingley 4,200 6,400 +52% Dry Drayton Road, north-west of Madingley 2,300 700 -70% High Street, through Madingley1 3,700 4,000 +8% Church Lane, south of Madingley 3,200 3,200 0% Cambridge Road, south-east of Madingley 4,300 4,100 -5% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100 17. There is forecast to be limited change in traffic using the High Street through Madingley as a result of the scheme. As Table 12-3 shows, daily flows are forecast to fall by 200 vehicles per day in 2020 (-8%) as a result of the scheme; Table 12-4 shows that they are forecast to rise by 300 vehicles per day as a result of the scheme in 2035 (+8%). 18. Comparing the traffic forecasts in the ‘without’ scheme scenario in 2020 (Table 12-3) and 2035 (Table 12-4), there is an increase in the volume of traffic forecast to use all routes out of the village. The increases on Church Lane and Cambridge Road to the south are larger than on The Avenue and Dry Drayton Road to the north, indicating an increasing propensity for local traffic to join the A428 / A1303 rather than the A14 due to increasing congestion on the A14. 19. In 2020, the A14 scheme is forecast to result in a large increase in traffic on The Avenue, but a decrease on Dry Drayton Road and Church Lane, as shown in Table 12-3. This is a result of the improved connectivity at the junction of The Avenue with the Local Access Road, which would allow all movements, while the existing junction where The Avenue meets the A14 is limited to left in-left out movements only. Currently, traffic that wishes to travel into Cambridge via Huntingdon Road has to travel via Dry Drayton and join the A14 at Junction 30. With the scheme, this movement would be possible via The Avenue and the Local Access Road, avoiding the A14 entirely, resulting in the transfer of traffic from Dry Drayton Road to The Avenue. Traffic flows on the High Street through Madingley would be slightly reduced, suggesting that the majority of this change is due to the rerouteing of local traffic from the village from the A428 on to the Local Access Road. 20. In the 2035 ‘with’ scheme scenario, the model forecasts are similar, with a large increase in flow forecast on The Avenue and a large decrease on the Dry Drayton Road, as shown in Table 12-4. As in 2020, this is mainly the result of local traffic transferring to The Avenue to make use of the improved connectivity offered by the Local Access Road, rather than joining the A14 at the Dry Drayton junction. Flows on Church Lane and the High Street are forecast to increase as a result of the scheme, which is due to some additional traffic routeing through the village to join the A14.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 19 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

21. Additional analysis has been undertaken to determine the composition of the traffic travelling through Madingley in 2035 with and without the scheme; this is reported below. Table 12-5 and Table 12-6 summarise the proportion of local traffic using this route (i.e. journeys with a trip end in the village) in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme.

Table 12-5: Forecast flows on through Madingley in 2020 (Total Vehicles, AADT)

Without With Type of Traffic % Change Scheme Scheme Local Traffic 4,900 5,000 +2% Through Traffic 2,500 2,300 -8% Total Flow 7,400 7,300 -1% Proportion of Local Traffic 66% 68%

Table 12-6: Forecast flows on through Madingley in 2035 (Total Vehicles, AADT)

Without With Type of Traffic % Change Scheme Scheme Local Traffic 6,300 6,300 0% Through Traffic 3,700 4,000 +8% Total Flow 10,000 10,300 +3% Proportion of Local Traffic 63% 61%

22. This indicates that in 2020, approximately 66% of traffic on the High Street is forecast to be local traffic. This proportion is forecast to increase slightly to 68% with the scheme. By 2035, the proportion of local traffic has fallen to 63% without the scheme and 61% with the scheme. 23. Further interrogation of the CHARM3a model has been undertaken to determine the origin and destination of the through traffic. This indicates that with the scheme, approximately 1,100 vehicles per day in 2020 and 1,500 vehicles per day in 2035 would be travelling between the A428 / A1303 and the new Local Access Road. This equates to around 15% of total traffic using this route.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 20 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.5 Are any traffic restrictions or calming measures proposed through Madingley? If not, why not? If so, what is proposed and how would it be implemented? Response 24. Following a recommendation in the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS), published in 2001, Government funding of £2M was allocated for traffic calming within 21 villages along the A14 corridor. Madingley was one of the villages to benefit from this, and a number of traffic calming measures were introduced in the village in 2003/2004 to discourage rat-running traffic and reduce traffic speeds. These measures included a 30 mph speed limit through the village; “entrance gates” to the village; single lane width restrictions; and electronic speed warning signs. 25. Highways England’s traffic forecasts (based on CHARM3a) indicate that there would be limited change in the flows through the village of Madingley as a result of the scheme. The forecast flows on the High Street in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme are presented in Table 12-7 below.

Table 12-7: Comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts through Madingley in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme (based on CHARM3a)

% Change Without Year With Scheme with/without Scheme scheme 2020 2,600 2,400 -8% 2035 3,700 4,000 +8% % Change between +42% +66% 2020 and 2035 Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100

26. This analysis indicates that traffic volumes through the village are forecast to grow between 2020 and 2035 with or without the scheme. However, there is forecast to be limited change in traffic using the High Street as a result of the scheme, with daily flows forecast to fall by 200 vehicles per day in 2020 (-8%) and rise by 300 vehicles per day in 2035 (+8%). 27. Details of the specific changes to traffic flows in Madingley as a result of the scheme are set out in response to Written Question 1.12.4.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 21 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

28. Given the limited impact of the A14 scheme in Madingley, no further traffic restrictions or traffic calming measures are proposed as part of the scheme. 29. It is understood that local residents are in favour of a full closure of The Avenue to prevent its use by rat-running traffic. A relevant representation was submitted requesting the closure by Madingley Parish Council on 10 March 20153. This proposal is not part of the A14 scheme and is a matter for the local highway authority, Cambridgeshire County Council, to consider. Highways England’s traffic forecasts suggest that even if this route were closed to through traffic, it would not have a significant impact on the volume of through traffic, as this traffic is likely to revert to using Dry Drayton Road, joining the new Local Access Road at the reconfigured Dry Drayton junction.

3 Relevant Representation 485. Madingley Parish Council. http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/eastern/a14-cambridge-to-huntingdon- improvement-scheme/?ipcsection=relreps&relrep=485

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 22 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.6 How would the routes to be taken by construction traffic be regulated, in particular in relation to Madingley, Dry Drayton, Coton, Brampton and Boxworth? If no regulations for construction traffic are proposed, why not? Response 30. The Code of Construction Practice (CoCP), appendix 20.2 of the Environmental Statement (ES) Appendices (document reference 6.3), has been created to inform and guide the appointed contractor. Compliance with the CoCP is secured by paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the draft development consent order. 31. The need for A14-related construction traffic to use the local road network throughout the main construction period has been evaluated, with the aim to minimise construction related disturbance in the local area. Local routes were assessed for access considerations such as reduced headroom bridges, weight restrictions, narrow widths and overall general suitability for construction traffic. The routes were then planned for the main A14 construction traffic. 32. The main A14 construction period is scheduled to last three to four years followed by works in Huntingdon (summer 2016 – end of 2019 with works in Huntingdon Town scheduled from start of 2020 – mid 2021). During this time, due to the scale of the scheme and amount of construction related movements planned, there would be an impact on the local and wider community see appendix 3.2 of the ES for details. 33. Due to the number of movements required to facilitate construction, temporary haul routes are proposed which would predominantly run parallel to the designed scheme (within the overall scheme footprint) as well as provide access to the main site areas. This would reduce the pressure on the nearby road network as opposed to solely using the existing road network. 34. It was determined that the ‘A road’ network along with proposed haul routes would sufficiently cater for the majority of construction traffic needs, thereby limiting the use of local roads to certain construction related activities which need to take place, such as construction of local road over bridges. Therefore no local residential route would be identified as the main construction route for any prolonged construction related activity during the scheme. Further information on this topic is included in section 15.7 of appendix 20.2 of the ES.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 23 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

35. The main contractors would be required to prepare a traffic management plan (see section 15.1.5 of appendix 20.2 of the ES) which would include permitted access routes for construction traffic. The main contractors would consult with local roads authorities (including Cambridgeshire County Council, police) regarding access routes that may be used by the main contractors to access the construction sites, including consultation regarding any particular timing restrictions on the use of roads. Referring to the attached drawing below, these routes have been discussed in principle with Cambridgeshire County Council. It identifies permissible routes (in blue) and non-permissible routes (in red) in relation to existing road infrastructure; these are in addition to and not to be confused with aforementioned temporary haul routes, which would be created alongside the scheme and used only for the duration of the works. 36. With reference to the specific areas mentioned, local construction traffic movements would likely be as follows; 37. Madingley – A compound and soil storage site are proposed to be located to the north of Madingley to facilitate works around Girton Junction (with access via the A14 and The Avenue). Regular construction movements to and from the sites would be required, although construction movements further south, i.e. towards Madingley are not required. 38. Dry Drayton – Dry Drayton Junction would be required for regular movements across the A14 during construction. Temporary haul routes would be created off Dry Drayton Road and Oakington Road thereby mitigating the need for construction traffic to travel via Dry Drayton village. 39. Coton – Coton is located away from the main construction works therefore would not experience any substantial local disruption due to construction traffic as no construction activities are planned to use local routes through or around Coton. 40. Brampton – There would be extensive work to the west of Brampton, with a number of sites located to the west of the A1. Construction movements would predominantly be restricted to temporary haul routes as well as the A1 and A14. Construction movements are not planned to move through and around Brampton town via the local road network. 41. Boxworth – A borrow pit site is proposed to be located to the north-west of Boxworth which would have regular movements to and from the A14. Construction traffic would not need to go any further south than the access of the borrow pit meaning no main movements through Boxworth village are necessary.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 24 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

42. As described in section 15.1.3 of appendix 20.2 of the ES, a traffic management working group (TMWG) would be formed for the scheme at the construction phase. The TMWG would be chaired by the employer’s representative and would include representatives from the employer, main contractors, local roads authorities and the emergency services. The main contractors would consult with the TMWG regarding traffic management and other traffic related measures (including non-motorised user issues) to be implemented in accordance with the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). The members of the TMWG would agree a resolution procedure to be followed if there are any disputes regarding the traffic management and other traffic related measures to be implemented.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 25 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 26 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-2

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 27 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.7 *What proportion of journeys from Godmanchester and Hemingford Grey to the A1 northbound are anticipated to use a route through Huntingdon and how has this been calculated? Response 43. The proportion of trips from Godmanchester and Hemingford Gray to the A1 northbound has been calculated by the use of a select link matrix on the A1 north of the A14 spur. This produces the pattern of origins and destinations of all of the trips which use this link in the SATURN highway assignment model. The trips within this matrix which originate in Godmanchester or Hemingford Gray were extracted and reloaded onto the assignment paths using a procedure called SATURN Reassignment of Paths (SATRAP). This shows the routes used for the required trips but excludes the display of other trips. 44. The process has been employed to extract the number and proportion of trips from both Godmanchester and Hemingford Gray that are assigned as travelling to the A1(M) northbound via Huntingdon and the de-trunked A14.

Table 12-8 and

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 28 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

45. Table 12-9 summarise the total number of trips from each of Godmanchester and Hemingford Gray that route along the A1 northbound and the proportion of these which route via Huntingdon. Table 12-8 provides the results from the CHARM3a Do Minimum 2035 models (without the A14 scheme).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 29 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-8: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum A1(M) Trip Routeing

Total Trips Trips via Huntingdon using the existing Originating A14 viaduct Route Userclass Time Period Time Period Godmanchester AM IP PM AM % IP % PM % to A1(M) UC1 – Car Northbound Other 59 20 33 59 100% 20 100% 33 100% UC2 - Car Business 4 2 4 4 100% 2 100% 4 100% UC3 - LGV 10 5 4 10 100% 5 100% 4 100% UC4 – HGV 12 15 4 12 100% 15 100% 4 100% Total 85 42 45 85 100% 42 100% 45 100% Hemingford Gray to A1(M) UC1 – Car Northbound Other 16 11 17 16 100% 11 100% 17 100% UC2 - Car Business 2 1 1 2 100% 1 100% 1 100% UC3 - LGV 3 2 2 3 100% 2 100% 2 100% UC4 – HGV 4 7 2 4 100% 7 100% 2 100% Total 25 21 22 25 100% 21 100% 22 100%

46. The results in Table 12-8 demonstrate that, under a Do Minimum ‘without scheme’ scenario, all of the trips from both villages that travel northwards on the A1 use the A14 viaduct route in all three modelled periods. There are no trips that are assigned via the centre of Huntingdon or on any other route. Figure 1 displays this routeing for the Godmanchester trips in the AM peak. The situation is similar in the interpeak and the PM peak.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 30 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-3: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum AM Peak A1(M) & Godmanchester SATRAP

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 31 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

47. Table 12-9 provides the results from the CHARM3a Do Something 2035 models (with the A14 scheme).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 32 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-9: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something A1(M) Trip Routeing

Total Trips Trips via Huntingdon via detrunked Originating A14 Route Userclass Time Period Time Period A P Godmanchester AM IP PM M % IP % M % to A1(M) 100 2 100 Northbound UC1 – Car Other 59 20 33 59 % 0 % 10 30% UC2 - Car 100 Business 4 2 4 3 75% 2 % 2 50% 100 100 100 UC3 - LGV 10 5 4 10 % 5 % 4 % UC4 – HGV 12 15 4 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 Total 85 42 45 72 85% 7 60% 16 36% Hemingford Gray to A1(M) 100 1 100 100 Northbound UC1 – Car Other 17 11 17 17 % 1 % 17 % UC2 - Car 100 100 100 Business 2 1 1 2 % 1 % 1 % 100 100 100 UC3 - LGV 3 2 2 3 % 2 % 2 % UC4 – HGV 6 7 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 Total 28 21 22 22 79% 4 67% 20 91%

48. Figure 12-4 displays the Do Something routeing for the Godmanchester trips in the AM peak. The situation is similar in the interpeak and the PM peak. In the Do Something scenario, most of car and LGV trips originating in Godmanchester and using the A1 northbound are assigned to the route through Huntingdon, including the de-trunked A14, Mill Common Link, Brampton Road and Views Common Link. The percentages vary from 75%-100% in the AM peak, to 100% in the IP to 30%-100% in the PM peak. All of the HGV trips are assigned to the A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass as through trips for HGVs are banned from the route through Huntingdon.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 33 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-4: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak A1(M) & Godmanchester SATRAP

49. In the Do Something scenario, 100% of car and LGV trips originating in Hemingford Gray and using the A1 northbound are assigned to the route through Huntingdon, including the de-trunked A14, Mill Common Link, Brampton Road and Views Common Link. All of the HGV trips are assigned to the A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass as through trips for HGVs are banned from the route through Huntingdon.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 34 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.8 Are any measures proposed to restrict traffic using the proposed Views Common Link, Brampton Road and its connection with the de-trunked A14 to the south of Huntingdon as a local through route? If so, what? If not, why not? Response 50. HGV restrictions are proposed at the locations illustrated in the Traffic Regulations Measures Plans (document reference 2.1, drawing A14-ARP-ZZ-00- DR-Z-00860) (reproduced in Figure 12-5 below) to prohibit HGVs travelling through Huntingdon and Brampton. HGVs are subject to similar restrictions at the present time, though this does not apply to the A14. There would be no restrictions for light vehicles (cars and LGVs).

Figure 12-5: Traffic Regulation Measures affecting Views Common Link and Brampton Road

Source: Draft DCO Drawing A14-ARP-ZZ-00-DR-Z-00860, Traffic Regulation Measures, Regulation 5(2)(o), Clearways & Weight Limits Sheet 29 of 36, Revision P00.3

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 35 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

51. Traffic which uses Views Common Link and Brampton Road may be divided into four types, as follows: 1. Trips which have both trip ends within Huntingdon or Brampton; 2. Trips which have an origin in Huntingdon or Brampton but a destination elsewhere; 3. Trips which have an origin elsewhere but a destination in Huntingdon or Brampton; and 4. Trips which have both origin and destination outside of Huntingdon or Brampton. These trips can be further split as follows: a. Short distance origin and short distance destination; b. Short distance origin and long distance destination; c. Long distance origin and short distance destination; and d. Long distance origin and long distance destination.

52. For this assessment, a short distance origin has been defined as one between Huntingdon and the Huntingdon Southern Bypass on the south side and one between Huntingdon and the junction of the A14 spur and the A1 north of Huntingdon. These trips would not gain the full benefit from the use of the proposed A14 scheme. In comparison, most trips with both a long distance origin and a long distance destination would gain the full benefit of the proposed A14 scheme. 53. A series of select links on Views Common Link have been extracted from the CHARM3a 2035 Do Something assignments to demonstrate that whilst there are local through trips using the connection, there are only a few trips with both a long distance origin and a long distance destination using the connection. Hence, it was considered that additional traffic restrictions to light vehicles are not required. 54. The trip pattern has been sectored for this analysis to aid interpretation. The sectors are described in Table 12-10.

Table 12-10: CHARM3a Sector Definition for this Assessment

Sector Number Location 1 Huntingdon 2 Cambridge 3 Study area north of A14a 4 Study area south of A14 b 5 North 6 North East

7 South East

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 36 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

8 South West 9 North West 10 South 11 NW Huntingdon, Godmanchester & Hemingford Gray

55. Tables 2 to 4 provide a breakdown of the trips by vehicle class travelling along the Views Common Link, as determined from the select link analyses. HGVs have not been included as they are banned from using Views Common Link as a through route.

Table 12-11: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something Views Common Link Trips – User Class 1 Car Other

Northbound (to Spittals) Southbound (to Brampton Road) Trip Pattern Sector Time Period Time Period AM IP PM AM IP PM 20 8 8 10 12 27 Both trip ends in Huntingdon Sector 1 to 1 6% 2% 1% 1% 4% 7% Huntingdon Origin Sector 1 to all other 124 127 371 0 0 0 Other Destination sectors 40% 42% 63% 0% 0% 0% Other Origin All other sectors to 15 6 14 543 133 233 Huntingdon Destination sector 1 5% 2% 2% 73% 51% 57% Other Origin (short) 40 35 49 56 35 52 Sector 11 to 11 Other Destination (short) 13% 11% 8% 8% 14% 13% Sector 11 to all Other Origin (short) 94 72 103 7 9 7 other Sectors (excl. Other Destination (long) 1) 30% 24% 18% 1% 3% 2% All other Sectors Other Origin (long) 9 34 9 111 53 91 (excl. 1) to Sector Other Destination (short) 11 3% 11% 2% 15% 21% 22% Other Origin (long) All trips (excluding 3 19 22 14 15 1 Other Destination (long) sector 1 & 11) 1% 6% 4% 2% 6% 0% Total 305 300 576 741 256 410 *Sector 1 represents Huntingdon *Sector 11 represents short-distance zones NW of Huntingdon plus Godmanchester & Hemingford Gray

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 37 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-12: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something Views Common Link Trips – User Class 2 Car Business

Northbound (to Spittals) Southbound (to Brampton Road) Trip Pattern Sector Time Period Time Period AM IP PM AM IP PM 3 5 4 2 5 5 Both trip ends in Huntingdon Sector 1 to 1 7% 11% 6% 3% 9% 9% Huntingdon Origin Sector 1 to all other 20 26 47 0 0 0 Other Destination sectors 56% 52% 71% 0% 0% 0% Other Origin All other sectors to 2 1 1 39 30 38 Huntingdon Destination sector 1 6% 3% 1% 69% 56% 75% Other Origin (short) 4 5 3 4 5 4 Sector 11 to 11 Other Destination (short) 11% 11% 4% 7% 9% 7% Sector 11 to all Other Origin (short) 6 7 8 1 1 1 other Sectors (excl. Other Destination (long) 1) 17% 14% 12% 1% 2% 1% All other Sectors Other Origin (long) 0 2 1 7 8 4 (excl. 1) to Sector Other Destination (short) 11 1% 4% 1% 12% 15% 7% Other Origin (long) All trips (excluding 0 3 3 4 4 0 Other Destination (long) sector 1 & 11) 1% 6% 4% 7% 8% 0% Total 36 50 66 56 54 51 *Sector 1 represents Huntingdon *Sector 11 represents short-distance zones NW of Huntingdon plus Godmanchester & Hemingford Gray

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 38 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-13: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something Views Common Link Trips – User Class 3 LGV’s

Northbound (to Spittals) Southbound (to Brampton Road) Trip Pattern Sector Time Period Time Period AM IP PM AM IP PM 4 4 1 2 3 3 Both trip ends in Huntingdon Sector 1 to 1 7% 5% 2% 2% 4% 8% Huntingdon Origin Sector 1 to all other 21 31 43 0 0 0 Other Destination sectors 36% 42% 60% 0% 0% 0% Other Origin All other sectors to 3 1 2 72 35 19 Huntingdon Destination sector 1 5% 2% 2% 67% 47% 45% Other Origin (short) 6 8 5 10 8 6 Sector 11 to 11 Other Destination (short) 10% 11% 8% 9% 11% 14% Sector 11 to all Other Origin (short) 16 17 15 2 9 1 other Sectors (excl. Other Destination (long) 1) 26% 23% 21% 2% 12% 3% All other Sectors Other Origin (long) 8 8 1 20 13 12 (excl. 1) to Sector Other Destination (short) 11 14% 11% 2% 18% 18% 28% Other Origin (long) All trips (excluding 1 4 2 1 4 1 Other Destination (long) sector 1 & 11) 1% 6% 3% 1% 5% 1% Total 59 74 70 107 72 41 *Sector 1 represents Huntingdon *Sector 11 represents short-distance zones NW of Huntingdon plus Godmanchester & Hemingford Gray

56. The data in the tables show that there are some local and short distance through trips using the Views Common Link as this represents the best route for trips, including trips starting and ending in Godmanchester and Hemingford Gray. However, the proportion of longer distance through movements is very low. Figures 12-6 and 12-7 show the trip distribution on Views Common Link in the north and southbound direction in the AM peak.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 39 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-6: CHARM3a 2035 AM Peak Do Something Views Common Select Link Northbound

Figure 12-7: CHARM3a 2035 AM Peak Do Something Views Common Select Link Southbound

57. There are a few longer distance trip ends between Sector 3 and Sector 5 as demonstrated by the sectored select link matrix for the AM peak northbound shown in Table 5. An investigation shows that the southern end of all of these trips is around St Ives.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 40 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-14: CHARM3a 2035 AM Peak Do Something Sectored Views Common Northbound Select Link – User Class 1/Car Other

Sectors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Huntingdon 1 27 0 2 0 57 0 0 0 25 0 39 Cambridge 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Study area north of A14a 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 8 Study area south of A14 b 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 North 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North East 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South East 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South West 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North West 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW Huntingdon, Godmanchester & 11 6 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 5 0 40 Hemingford Gray a Excludes Hemingford Gray b Excludes Godmanchester

Summary

58. HGV bans would be put in place on Views Common Link and Brampton Road stopping all HGV traffic routeing through Huntingdon except for access. For the light vehicles (cars and LGVs) there would be no traffic restrictions. The modelled traffic flows presented show a large proportion of local through trips using the Views Common Link. These trips include those from the villages of Godmanchester and Hemingford Gray and demonstrate the link road remains the best route for trips starting on the Huntingdon side of the Huntingdon Southern Bypass. Virtually all long distance to long distance through trips use the Huntingdon Southern Bypass as it is a more attractive route (lower generalised cost) and do not use Views Common Link. Hence, there is no requirement to provide additional traffic restrictions on Views Common Link and Brampton Road.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 41 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.9 *Would the scheme have any effect on future traffic flows through Oakington and Westwick? If so, why and by how much? If not, why not?

Response 59. The forecast flows on Water Lane through Oakington and Station Road through Westwick in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme are summarised in Table 12-15. Forecasts of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) are presented based on CHARM2 and CHARM3a for comparative purposes. These have been derived from the model forecasts used in the application documentation and in the Traffic Modelling Update Report which will be submitted at Deadline 2, though these documents do not include forecasts for all links within the model.

Table 12-15: Forecast 2-way AADT flows through Oakington and Westwick

CHARM2 CHARM3a Road Section 2014 2020 2035 2014 2020 2035 Water Lane (through Oakington) Without Scheme 5,400 7,000 11,000 5,200 6,500 9,900 With Scheme n/a 6,500 10,500 n/a 5,600 9,400 % change due to the - -7% -5% - -14% -5% Scheme Station Road (through Westwick) Without Scheme 4,300 5,600 9,600 4,200 5,200 8,500 With Scheme n/a 4,800 8,400 n/a 4,200 7,300 % change due to the - -14% -12% - -19% -14% Scheme

60. Table 12-15 shows that the A14 scheme is forecast to reduce traffic flows through Oakington and Westwick in both 2020 and 2035. There are two main reasons for this; the closure of the Dry Drayton junction on the A14 and the provision of additional capacity on the Cambridge Northern Bypass. 61. Without the scheme, both long-distance traffic on the M11, A14 and A428 and local traffic from villages along the A14 and A428 corridors is forecast to use the route through Oakington and Westwick to reach towns and villages to the north of Cambridge (e.g. Cottenham, Haddenham, Wilburton and Stretham) in order to avoid congestion on the Cambridge Northern Bypass.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 42 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

62. With the scheme in place, there would no longer be direct access from the A14 due to the closure of the slip roads at Dry Drayton (A14 Junction 30). This discourages long-distance traffic from using the route through Oakington and Westwick as a rat-run, although it would remain accessible to local traffic via the new Local Access Road and the local roads through the village of Dry Drayton. The scheme would also provide additional capacity on the Cambridge Northern Bypass, which is forecast to reduce congestion and improve journey times. As a result both CHARM2 and CHARM3a predict that the volume of traffic using the route through Oakington would be reduced as traffic transfers back on to the A14 and A10. 63. These effects are most noticeable in 2020, when the benefits of the scheme in terms of improved journey times and reduced congestion on the Cambridge Northern Bypass are expected to be greatest. By 2035, the Cambridge Northern Bypass is forecast to be approaching capacity during the morning and evening peak hours due to the forecast level of background traffic growth over this 15 year period. Consequently, the benefits of the scheme in terms of improved journey times and reduced congestion would start to erode, leading to some traffic transferring back on to the route through Oakington during the morning and evening peak hours, although it should be noted that traffic levels are forecast to remain lower than if the scheme were not to go ahead.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 43 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.10 *From the traffic modelling work undertaken, in diagrammatic form and in terms of traffic flows, what are the levels of journeys, now and in future years, between the A14 eastbound at Ellington and Junction 15 of the A1(M) southbound to the A14 eastbound at Milton and Junction 12 of the M11 southbound and similarly in the west and northbound direction? In other words, this is the general routing of A14 scheme traffic in terms of the wider A14, A1(M) and M11. Response 64. The A14 is the only route taken by traffic assigned between the A14 at Ellington and the A14 at Milton and Junction 12 of the M11. It is also the only route used in the assignment for traffic travelling between north of Junction 14 of the A1(M) and the A14 at Milton and Junction 12 of the M11. The pattern is the same in both directions, across time periods, and in the 2014 Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something. Table 12-16 - Table 12-19 summarise the total traffic flows (passenger car units (PCUs)) between the various trip ends and the total that route via the A14. The information is based on CHARM3a which is reported in the Traffic Modelling Update Report. 65. Table 12-16 shows the eastbound flows between the A14 at Ellington in the west and the A14 at Milton in the east and the M11 at Barton in the south. Figures are shown for the three modelled periods in each of the Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something. In all cases, all of these long-distance trips remain on the Strategic Road Network. On the Figures, the thickness of the green lines shows diagrammatically levels of traffic flows. 66. Table 12-17 shows the corresponding figures for southbound flows between the A1 at Sawtry in the north and the A14 at Milton in the east and the M11 at Barton in the south. In all case, all of these long-distance trips remain on the Strategic Road Network. 67. Table 12-18 shows the westbound trips between the A14 at Milton in the east and the M11 at Barton in the south to the A14 at Ellington to the west. In all case, all of these long-distance trips remain on the Strategic Road Network. 68. Table 12-19 shows the westbound trips between the A14 at Milton in the east and the M11 at Barton in the south to the A1 at Sawtry in the north. In all case, all of these long-distance trips remain on the Strategic Road Network. 69. A series of select links at the four locations have been extracted and assigned back to the network using SATRAP (SATURN Reassignment of Paths) as a further diagrammatic demonstration that the A14 is the only route option used in the assignment of trips travelling through the specified links. Figures 12-8 to 12- 11 show the traffic routeing in the AM and PM 2014 Base year, followed by the 2035 Do Minimum scenario in Figures 12-12 to 12-15. The 2035 Do Something routeing is provided in Figures 12-16 to 12-19. In these figures, the bandwidth indicates the traffic volume on each link that is making these movements. The actual volumes can be seen in Table 12-16 - Table 12-19.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 44 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

70. Though all of the trips passing through these particular points remain on the A14, there are some other routes used for trips with this pattern of origins and destinations. For example, Figures 12-12 to 12-15 show trips routeing on the A1 to the south of the proposed Brampton intersection in the 2035 Do Minimum scenario. This is because some trips between the A1 north and the M25 would use the A14 and M11. However, others would use the A1 and M25. The SATRAP reassignments show the routeing patterns between the origins and destinations at a zonal level, rather than between the four points specified in the Examining Authority’s (ExA) written question. Hence, the plots show a small number of trips which do not assign through the specified points where the select link analyses were undertaken. However, all of these are long distance alternative routes and not rat runs.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 45 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Development Consent Order Application scheme Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-16: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Eastbound (PCUs)

Base Year CHARM3a DM 2035 CHARM3a DS 2035

Route AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM % % % % % % % % % Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 J20 (Ellington) – 338 338 100% 554 554 100% 649 649 100% 438 438 100% 662 662 100% 685 685 100% 503 503 100% 701 701 100% 811 811 100% A14 J33 (Milton) A14 J20 (Ellington )– 429 429 100% 434 434 100% 488 488 100% 519 519 100% 520 520 100% 548 548 100% 552 552 100% 531 531 100% 601 601 100% M11 J12 (Barton)

Table 12-17: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Eastbound (PCUs)

Base Year CHARM3a DM 2035 CHARM3a DS 2035

Route AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM % % % % % % % % % Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) – 180 180 100% 271 271 100% 263 263 100% 219 219 100% 315 315 100% 221 221 100% 234 234 100% 336 336 100% 256 256 100% A14 J33 (Milton) A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) – 516 516 100% 519 519 100% 468 468 100% 419 419 100% 651 651 100% 558 558 100% 418 418 100% 651 651 100% 589 589 100% M11 J12 (Barton)

Table 12-18: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Westbound (PCUs)

Base Year CHARM3a DM 2035 CHARM3a DS 2035

Route AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM % % % % % % % % % Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 J33 (Milton) – 589 589 100% 521 521 100% 312 312 100% 650 650 100% 664 664 100% 379 379 100% 670 670 100% 703 703 100% 413 413 100% A14 J20 (Ellington) M11 J12 (Barton) – 530 530 100% 423 423 100% 617 617 100% 625 625 100% 526 526 100% 654 654 100% 645 645 100% 530 530 100% 650 650 100% A14 J20 (Ellington)

Table 12-19: CHARM3a Base Year, 2035 Do Minimum and 2035 Do Something Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton) – Westbound (PCUs)

Base Year CHARM3a DM 2035 CHARM3a DS 2035

Route AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM % % % % % % % % % Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 Total A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 A14 J33 (Milton) – 320 320 100% 272 272 100% 243 243 100% 357 357 100% 336 336 100% 287 287 100% 372 372 100% 345 345 100% 303 303 100% A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) M11 J12 (Barton) – 460 460 100% 603 603 100% 738 738 100% 549 549 100% 752 752 100% 601 601 100% 565 565 100% 752 752 100% 578 578 100% A1(M) J15 (Sawtry)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 46 of 219 June 2015

Figure 12-8: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year Trip AM Peak Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-9: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 48 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-10: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 49 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-11: CHARM3a 2014 Base Year PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 50 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-12: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum AM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 51 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-13: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 52 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-14: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 53 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-15: CHARM3a 2035 Do Minimum PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 54 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-16: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something AM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 55 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-17: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something AM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 56 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-18: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak Trip Routeing between A14 J20 (Ellington) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 57 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-19: CHARM3a 2035 Do Something PM Peak Trip Routeing between A1(M) J15 (Sawtry) and A14 J33 (Milton) / M11 J12 (Barton)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 58 of 219 June 2015

Question 1.12.11 What road movement routes would be required from a borrow pit north of Boxworth to construction areas? Has the traffic impact of the use of such routes been considered? If so, what was the outcome, if not, why not? (Document 6.1.0 Para 3.8.1)

Response 71. The borrow pit located north-west of Boxworth, known as ‘borrow pit 5’ would be used to facilitate earthwork construction activities from Swavesey Junction to Bar Hill Junction (on the southern side of the A14). 72. A temporary haul road would be created to permit movements to and from borrow pit 5. This haul road would run parallel to the widened A14 alignment (on the southern side to Bar Hill Junction), as well as alongside Boxworth Road for access to borrow pit 5. Haul routes are illustrated in the Environmental Statement Figures (document reference 6.2, figure 3.1). 73. This would ensure the majority of earthwork movements from borrow pit 5 to the construction areas on the south side of the A14 would take place offline, minimising disruption to the existing road network. In order to make movements from borrow pit 5 to the west of the Cambridge Services and to Bar Hill Junction, two local road-crossing points (Boxworth Road and Robin’s Lane) would be provided and managed with the appropriate temporary traffic management in place, most likely to be signal controlled road crossings (a detailed traffic management strategy will be developed during the detailed design stage). 74. In conclusion, traffic impacts with regards to construction movements (including movements to and from borrow pit 5) have been assessed. The required daily construction movements in the area would be significant, however, appropriate measures, such as construction of temporary offline haul routes, would minimise the impact these movements have on the local area by means of minimising the use of the local road network. Details of construction movements to and from borrow pit 5 can be found in the Environmental Statement (Appendix 3.2, Annex C).

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.12 How would the use of Brampton Road bridge by lightweight traffic only be regulated? (Document 6.1.03 Para 3.2.14)

Response 76. The retained Brampton Road Bridge has an existing 7.5-tonne weight restriction for vehicles, which would be continued. See Traffic Regulation Measures Plans, (document reference 2.10, sheet 29, A14-ARP-ZZ-00-DR-Z- 00860).

77. The police and local trading standards officers can enforce Weight Restriction Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to ensure that Brampton Road Bridge is used by lightweight traffic only.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 60 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.13 Would any arrangements for diversion alternatives to the proposed A14 route, in emergencies and for maintenance, differ from those already in place for the existing A14? If so, how, or if not, why not? (Document 6.1.07)

Response 78. All diversion routes proposed for the new A14 would use existing nominated diversion routes, so there would be no nomination of additional existing routes. No changes are necessary because all the existing diversion routes can still be used as diversion routes for new A14. 79. The new A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass would itself be used as part of the strategic diversion route (eg in the case of incident on the A1 in the Buckden Area) in place of the existing nomination of the A1198 (north of the proposed Ermine Street junction on the new A14), and the existing A14 around Godmanchester and Huntingdon. This would reduce the impact on the roads used in these particular existing diversion routes. 80. The Local Access Road (Cambridge to Swavesey junction) and the detrunked A14 to Huntingdon are not proposed as strategic diversion routes as there would be a 7.5-tonne weight restriction in Huntingdon. 81. Dedicated maintenance and emergency accesses are proposed at Buckden Road, Conington Road on the new Huntingdon Southern Bypass and at the reconfigured Girton Interchange. These new accesses would facilitate swift emergency and maintenance access to sections of the proposed A14 route, also allowing such vehicles to return on the opposite carriageway if required.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 61 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.14 *Have the traffic flows in Fig 7.1 been subject to any sensitivity analysis? If so, what was the outcome? If not, why not? (Document 6.1.07 Para 7.4.1) Response

Summary

82. The traffic flows presented in Figure 7.1 have been subject to a number of sensitivity tests and analyses. These tests are grouped into two separate sets:  WebTAG unit M4 sensitivity analysis around the ‘core’ forecasts, incorporating: o a Low Growth Test; and o a High Growth Test.  Northstowe-based sensitivity tests, reflecting the nature of development at the proposed new town being dependent upon the proposed A14 scheme. 83. The WebTAG sensitivity tests result in changes of ±7% on the Strategic Road Network in 2035 in the Low and High growth tests; local routes show greater variation, reflecting the propensity for traffic to switch between local roads and strategic routes depending on the prevailing conditions. . 84. For the Northstowe-based tests, analysis shows that there is relatively little variation in flows between the tested scenarios on most roads, with the main differences focussed around the Bar Hill and Swavesey junctions on the A14 and the local roads in the vicinity of the Northstowe development. This is as expected, as trips disperse the farther from the site they travel. 85. The High and Low growth forecasts have been used to provide a range around the ‘core’ forecasts for the economic appraisal, providing a lower and upper-case. . 86. The Northstowe-based tests have been used to inform operational assessment and design. Whilst the lower test (growth as per the ‘Do Minimum’) has been used to inform the ‘core’ economic appraisal, the operational assessments have considered the Phase 2 dependent development as part of their ‘core’ scenario. Higher dependent development forecasts at Northstowe have been used to inform structures design.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 62 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Detailed Response

87. The traffic forecasts presented in chapter 7 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) are based on the CHARM2 core scenario, which is based on central growth forecasts. Low growth and high growth scenarios have been tested using the method set out in WebTAG4 M4 §4.2. This requires taking a proportion of the base year demand and either subtracting (low growth) or adding (high growth) this from the forecast ‘core’ scenario demand. 88. The proportion of base year demand to be added is based on a parameter p which varies by mode. WebTAG M4 §4.2.3 suggests a value of p = 2.5% for highway models. 89. The proportion of base year demand to be added or subtracted is calculated as follows:  For 1 year after the base year, proportion p of base year demand added to the core scenario;  Between 1 and 36 years after the base year, the proportion of base year demand should rise from p to 6*p in proportion with the square root of the years. (So, for example, 16 years after the base year the proportion is 4*p); and  For 36 or more years after the base year, proportion 6*p of base year demand added to the core scenario. 90. For CHARM2, the proportion of the base year demand used for the 2020 and 2035 assessments are 6.12% and 11.46% respectively. 91. Since the Transport Assessment was published, a number of changes and refinements have been made to the traffic model culminating in the development of version 3a of the model (CHARM3a). The low growth and high growth sensitivity tests have been repeated using CHARM3a. These tests use the same proportion of base year demand as CHARM2. 92. Table 12-20 and Table 12-21 below summarise the resultant low growth, core and high growth daily traffic forecasts on the major roads with and without the scheme in 2020 and 2035 respectively. These data are presented as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows. This shows that in 2020 the low growth forecasts are typically between 4% and 6% lower than the core forecasts, while the high growth forecasts are between 4% and 6% higher. A greater level of variation is apparent in 2035, with the low growth forecasts being on average 7% lower than the core forecasts while the high growth forecasts are 7% higher.

4 WebTAG is the Department for Transport’s Web-based Transport Appraisal Guidance. This is a suite of documents that provides advice on transport modelling and appraisal within the UK.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 63 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

93. Table 12-22 and Table 12-23 present comparable data for a selection of local roads. There is significantly larger variation in flows on local roads between the three scenarios, reflecting the propensity for traffic to switch between local roads and the strategic road network depending on the prevailing conditions. 94. It should be noted that, in Table 12-20 to Table 12-23 the ‘With Scheme’ presented is based on the ‘Do Something+’ (DS+) set of model runs. The DS+ includes additional development at Northstowe associated with the ‘Phase 2’ development, over-and-above that assumed in the ‘Without Scheme’.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 64 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-20: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Major Routes in 2020 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a)

Without Scheme With Scheme Road Section Low Core High Low Core High

A14 West of A1 42,700 45,300 47,800 44,400 47,300 50,000 A14 Spur east of A1(M) 43,900 46,000 48,000 20,500 21,000 21,600 A14 Through Huntingdon 76,600 80,400 83,900 11,400 11,900 12,500 A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass - - - 61,400 65,300 68,900 A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill 82,400 86,200 89,700 82,800 87,800 92,700 A14 Bar Hill to Girton 96,100 100,300 103,800 98,300 103,500 108,500 A14 Histon to Milton 73,300 76,200 78,400 78,000 81,700 85,300 A14 East of Milton 66,900 70,000 73,100 67,900 70,800 73,600 A1 North of Alconbury 69,800 73,900 77,800 70,500 74,500 78,600 A1 North of Brampton Hut 34,100 36,200 38,300 57,000 60,500 64,100 A1 South of Brampton Hut 37,300 39,300 41,100 68,500 72,600 76,500 A1 Near Buckden 44,300 47,000 49,000 44,800 47,700 49,900 M11 South of Girton 69,700 72,700 75,700 70,000 73,200 76,400 A428 Near Bourne Airfield 38,600 40,900 43,000 37,600 39,300 41,000 A1198 West of Hilton 10,900 11,500 12,200 11,800 12,400 13,000 A141 North of Huntingdon 28,500 29,400 30,000 27,200 28,300 29,000

Table 12-21: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Major Routes in 2035 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a)

Without Scheme With Scheme Road Section Low Core High Low Core High

A14 West of A1 47,600 51,600 54,700 50,400 55,700 59,600 A14 Spur east of A1(M) 49,900 53,300 56,700 23,400 24,600 25,800 A14 Through Huntingdon 84,800 90,300 93,800 13,700 14,600 15,500 A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass - - - 73,200 80,300 87,400 A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill 89,800 94,600 96,400 95,700 104,600 112,000 A14 Bar Hill to Girton 105,300 111,300 116,500 118,000 127,500 136,900 A14 Histon to Milton 82,100 85,800 89,300 92,000 97,400 105,800 A14 East of Milton 74,300 79,300 83,200 76,000 81,300 86,100 A1 North of Alconbury 74,700 81,800 88,800 76,100 83,600 90,800 A1 North of Brampton Hut 39,300 43,500 48,500 67,300 74,200 80,400 A1 South of Brampton Hut 42,000 45,700 48,400 79,800 86,900 93,000 A1 Near Buckden 48,100 52,000 55,300 49,200 53,300 56,300 M11 South of Girton 77,700 83,000 85,700 80,200 85,500 89,000 A428 Near Bourne Airfield 48,000 51,900 56,800 45,600 48,000 50,700 A1198 West of Hilton 12,400 14,200 16,700 13,800 15,100 16,600 A141 North of Huntingdon 28,600 29,500 30,200 27,600 28,900 29,700

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 65 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-22: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Local Roads in 2020 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a)

Without Scheme With Scheme Road Section Low Core High Low Core High

Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great 8,100 8,600 9,000 7,900 8,400 8,800 Stukeley) B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts 5,500 6,000 6,600 5,400 6,100 6,800 Ripton) B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 15,900 17,000 18,000 13,300 14,500 15,500 B1044 The Avenue (north of 14,500 15,800 17,200 6,200 6,700 7,400 Godmanchester) B1514 Brampton Road (east of Brampton) 16,200 17,600 18,900 22,000 23,100 24,100 B1514 Buckden Road (east of Brampton) 9,800 10,500 11,100 9,200 9,700 10,100 B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 6,400 6,800 7,100 3,900 4,000 4,300 Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,000 14,600 15,100 13,300 13,900 14,300 B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 10,500 11,100 11,700 10,500 11,100 11,700 A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 22,700 23,100 23,400 22,400 22,800 23,000 High Street (through Over) 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,000 2,200 2,200 High Street (through Swavesey) 500 600 600 500 600 600 B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 12,200 12,700 12,700 12,600 13,000 13,300 B1050 (South of Longstanton) 15,500 16,200 16,800 17,400 17,600 18,000 B1040 Potton Road (between A14 and 7,400 7,700 7,800 7,700 7,900 8,300 Hilton) Elsworth Road (through Conington) 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,200 1,400 1,600 High Street (through Knapwell) 1,400 1,800 2,200 1,200 1,400 1,700 High Street (through Boxworth) 2,500 2,700 2,800 2,300 2,500 2,700 Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 5,600 5,900 6,400 6,000 6,500 7,100 Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 13,600 14,100 14,600 13,800 14,300 14,700 A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 17,600 18,300 18,600 17,700 18,100 18,400 A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 10,500 11,000 11,400 11,500 12,400 13,300 Cambridge Road (through Girton) 5,500 5,900 6,400 4,500 4,900 5,300 B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 19,800 20,900 21,800 21,300 22,200 23,000 B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 21,000 22,100 23,100 21,900 22,700 24,100 A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 22,800 23,100 23,200 22,900 23,200 23,700 A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 30,000 31,200 32,300 30,000 31,400 33,000 A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 25,500 26,500 27,400 25,700 26,700 27,600

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 66 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-23: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Local Roads in 2035 With & Without Scheme (based on CHARM3a)

Without Scheme With Scheme Road Section Low Core High Low Core High

Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great 11,000 11,700 12,100 10,900 11,300 11,500 Stukeley) B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts 5,800 7,400 8,900 6,100 7,200 8,800 Ripton) B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 17,200 18,800 20,400 14,600 16,400 18,700 B1044 The Avenue (north of 16,100 18,500 21,300 6,900 8,700 11,000 Godmanchester) B1514 Brampton Road (east of Brampton) 18,300 20,800 23,400 24,000 25,300 26,500 B1514 Buckden Road (east of Brampton) 10,100 11,200 12,400 9,300 9,600 9,900 B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 6,900 7,500 8,500 3,800 4,300 4,800 Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,100 14,900 16,800 11,400 12,600 13,600 B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 11,400 12,500 13,400 22,000 22,600 22,800 A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 22,800 23,200 23,800 1,900 2,100 2,300 High Street (through Over) 2,100 2,300 2,500 700 900 1,100 High Street (through Swavesey) 800 900 1,000 15,800 16,200 16,800 B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 13,200 13,600 14,600 16,200 16,600 17,000 B1050 (South of Longstanton) 18,400 19,200 20,400 8,600 9,200 9,700 B1040 Potton Road (between A14 and 8,500 8,800 8,800 2,300 2,700 3,200 Hilton) Elsworth Road (through Conington) 2,000 2,500 3,400 2,500 3,200 3,900 High Street (through Knapwell) 2,800 3,800 5,300 2,800 3,300 3,900 High Street (through Boxworth) 2,900 3,400 3,700 9,700 11,100 12,200 Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 7,600 8,700 9,800 11,400 12,600 13,600 Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 16,300 17,400 17,900 16,300 17,000 17,300 A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 20,700 21,000 22,000 19,400 20,000 21,100 A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 12,300 13,500 14,600 15,400 17,400 18,900 Cambridge Road (through Girton) 7,600 8,900 10,000 6,000 6,900 8,000 B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 22,300 23,900 25,000 22,500 24,000 25,300 B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 24,700 26,400 27,400 24,900 26,400 27,600 A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 24,100 24,500 24,300 24,300 24,600 24,500 A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 32,700 35,700 36,700 32,900 35,600 36,700 A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 26,400 27,600 28,100 26,600 27,600 28,200

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 67 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

95. In addition to the low and high growth tests set out above, a series of sensitivity tests has been undertaken to assess uncertainty associated with the proposed Northstowe development. 96. The traffic forecasts presented in chapter 7 of the Transport Assessment are based on the CHARM2 core scenario. The ‘without scheme’ core forecasts are based on the ‘Do-Minimum’ scenario (DM), which includes the first phase of the Northstowe development (approximately 1,500 homes) only as the remainder of the development is dependent on the A14 scheme. The ‘with scheme’ core forecasts are based on the ‘Do-Something Plus’ scenario (DS+), which includes the A14 scheme in combination with the first and second phases of the Northstowe development (approximately 5,000 homes in total). 97. In addition to this, two further variants of the ‘with scheme’ scenario have been run, which consider alternative development scenarios at Northstowe. The first of these variants is termed the ‘Do-Something’ scenario (DS) and includes the A14 scheme and the first phase of Northstowe only. This scenario has primarily been run to inform the scheme economic appraisal. The second of these variants is termed the ‘Do-Something Plus Plus’ scenario (DS++) and includes the A14 scheme in combination with the full-build out of Northstowe (approximately 10,000 homes in total). This scenario has primarily been run to inform the scheme design. It should be noted that all other developments assumed within the model are not dependent upon the scheme; Northstowe requiring a series of sensitivity tests is therefore an exception in this case. 98. Table 12-24 summarises the forecast flows on the major routes in 2035 in these four scenarios based on CHARM3a. Table 12-25 presents equivalent information for a selection of local roads. This analysis shows there is relatively little variation in flows between the three ‘Do-Something’ scenarios on most roads, with the main differences focussed around the Bar Hill and Swavesey junctions and the local roads in the vicinity of the Northstowe development, as might reasonably be expected.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 68 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-24: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Major Routes in 2035

Road Section DM DS DS+ DS++

A14 West of A1 51,600 54,200 55,700 56,000 A14 Spur east of A1(M) 53,300 24,500 24,600 24,400 A14 Through Huntingdon 90,300 14,500 14,600 14,500 A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass - 75,400 80,300 82,100 A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill 94,600 100,100 104,600 110,200 A14 Bar Hill to Girton 111,300 117,200 127,500 132,400 A14 Histon to Milton 85,800 95,700 97,400 100,100 A14 East of Milton 79,300 80,900 81,300 83,100 A1 North of Alconbury 81,800 82,100 83,600 84,300 A1 North of Brampton Hut 43,500 71,200 74,200 75,400 A1 South of Brampton Hut 45,700 83,400 86,900 88,700 A1 Near Buckden 52,000 53,200 53,300 53,300 M11 South of Girton 83,000 84,800 85,500 88,600 A428 Near Bourne Airfield 51,900 48,600 48,000 48,500 A1198 West of Hilton 14,200 14,300 15,100 15,300 A141 North of Huntingdon 29,500 28,800 28,900 29,000

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 69 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-25: Comparison of 2-Way AADT Forecasts on Local Roads in 2035

Road Section DM DS DS+ DS++

Local roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 11,700 11,400 11,300 11,300 B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 7,400 7,100 7,200 7,400 B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 18,800 16,100 16,400 16,800 B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 18,500 7,400 8,700 9,100 B1514 Brampton Road (east of Brampton) 20,800 25,000 25,300 25,200 B1514 Buckden Road (east of Brampton) 11,200 10,000 9,600 9,600 B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 7,500 4,300 4,300 4,300 Local roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,900 14,300 14,100 14,500 B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 12,500 12,500 12,600 12,800 A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 23,200 23,000 22,600 22,800 High Street (through Over) 2,300 2,300 2,100 2,300 High Street (through Swavesey) 900 900 900 1,000 B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 13,600 13,900 16,200 17,200 B1050 (South of Longstanton) 19,200 20,700 16,600 14,500 B1040 Potton Road (between A14 and Hilton) 8,800 9,300 9,200 9,100 Elsworth Road (through Conington) 2,500 2,700 2,700 2,700 High Street (through Knapwell) 3,800 3,100 3,200 3,400 High Street (through Boxworth) 3,400 3,100 3,300 4,000 Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 8,700 9,600 11,100 13,200 Local roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 17,400 17,200 17,000 17,100 A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 21,000 20,300 20,000 19,900 A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 13,500 15,500 17,400 19,500 Cambridge Road (through Girton) 8,900 7,600 6,900 7,900 B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 23,900 24,500 24,000 24,600 B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 26,400 26,800 26,400 26,900 A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 24,500 24,600 24,600 24,500 A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 35,700 36,200 35,600 36,400 A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 27,600 27,700 27,600 28,100

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 70 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

99. In conclusion, two separate sets of sensitivity tests have been undertaken. The first set of sensitivity tests has been undertaken in-line with WebTAG unit M4 guidance on forecasting, providing a range around which the economic appraisal is considered. 100. Further to the tests defined in WebTAG, additional sensitivity assessments have been undertaken around the level of development at Northstowe where development beyond Phase 1 (1,500 Households) is dependent upon the A14 scheme. These tend to show little variation on most roads, although with greater changes in the vicinity of the A14 junctions at Bar Hill and Swavesey and on local roads around Longstanton, as would be expected. 101. The aforementioned sensitivity tests are considered to be appropriate for the scheme assessment, both in terms of meeting recommendations in DfT guidance and for considering local (to the scheme) areas of sensitivity.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 71 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.15 *If, on opening in 2020, the scheme results in an increase of 22,900 vehicles (61,900 – 39,000) in the annual average daily traffic flow between the existing A1/A14 junction at Brampton Hut (Junction 21 Brampton Hut interchange) and Alconbury and an increase of 33,700 vehicles (72,400 – 38,700) between the existing A1/A14 junction at Brampton Hut and the proposed new interchange with the A14 at Brampton, how can the modelling show a flow of 68,400 vehicles on the new A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass? (Document 6.1.07 Para 7.4.3) Response 102. Paragraph 7.4.3 of the Environmental Statement (document reference 6.1 chapter 7) reads; “Without the scheme, traffic on the A1 north of Brampton Hut is forecast to increase by 22% between 2014 and 2020, and by an additional 34% between 2020 and 2035 (Figure 7.1)”. Figure 7.1 shows the traffic forecasts referred to in the question. The forecast Do Minimum flow on the A1 north of Brampton Hut is 39,000 vehicles with the corresponding forecast flow in the Do Something being 61,900. The Do Minimum forecast flow on the A1 between Brampton Hut and the proposed new interchange with the A14 at Brampton is 38,700 vehicles with the corresponding Do Something flow forecast of 72,400. The forecast Do Something flow of 68,400 is shown on the new A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass. 103. The figures provided in Figure 7.1 of the Environmental Statement show the forecast flows on the A1 to the north of Brampton Hut Interchange and on the A1 to the south of Brampton Hut Interchange. They do not include the flows on the proposed A14 between the new A1/Huntingdon Southern Bypass interchange and the new interchange with the A14 at Ellington, which would run parallel to the A1 to the west of Brampton. 104. The A14 flows have been extracted from the CHARM2 models and are shown in Table 12-26 below.

Table 12-26: Forecast Flows on the A14 to the West of Brampton

Without With

scheme scheme 2014 n/a n/a 2020 n/a 32,761 2035 n/a 46,850

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 72 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

105. The forecast flows on the A14 shown in Table 12-26 account for the trips which are ‘missing’ from the Environmental Statement figure between the flows on the Huntingdon Southern Bypass and those between the existing A1/A14 junction at Brampton Hut and the proposed new interchange with the A14 at Brampton. The total increase in traffic directly to the north of the proposed intersection between the A1 and the A14 at Brampton is approximately 66,500, being the sum of the flow on the A14 (32,800) and the increase on the A1 (33,700). The difference between this number and the 68,400 forecast for the A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass is a result of some reassignment from the A1 south of this intersection to the A14 Huntingdon Southern Bypass.

. Figure 12-20: below has been adapted from Figure 7.1 from the Environmental Statement to include these flow forecasts for the A14

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 73 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.17 If the A14 Junction 31 to 32 eastbound and westbound improvements, Histon pinch point scheme are anticipated to be completed early in 2015, are they included in the DCO within Work No 33? If so why? If not, how would Work No 33 achieve compatibility with the completed improvements and what is the detailed scope of the application between the Girton and Milton A14 junctions? Response 106. Construction of the A14 Junction 31 to 32 Eastbound and Westbound Improvements is now due to be completed later this year. This scheme will improve the current section of two lane all purpose dual carriageway between Girton Interchange and Histon Junction to three lane all purpose dual carriageway in each direction. 107. The improvements form part of Highways England's Pinch Point Programme ("PPP"), a nationwide initiative to deliver smaller scale improvements to the strategic road network that will help to stimulate growth in the local economy and relieve congestion and/or improve safety. Such works are carried out under Highways England's powers pursuant to the Highways Act 1980. Because of this, the PPP works are not included within the 'authorised development' set out in Schedule 1 to the Development Consent Order ("DCO"). 108. The design between Girton Interchange and Histon Junction included as part of the DCO application was fixed by reference to the PPP. Some works are required to this section of the Cambridge Northern Bypass to tie in the proposals contained in the DCO application to the PPP works. These required works are set out as part of Work No 28, Work No. 29 and Work No. 33 in Schedule 1 to the DCO and include:  continuing the three lane mainline carriageway from Histon Junction to Milton Junction (Work No. 33). The main introduction to Work No 33 refers to the “improvement of the A14 Girton to Milton dual carriageway (‘the improved A14’), from the termination of the A14 Westbound Link (Work No.29) at a point on the improved A14, 130 metres west of the Girton Road bridge over the A14, generally eastward to a point 200 metres west of Milton Junction, total length of 4.1 kilometres”. This includes the continuation of the three lane mainline carriageway from Histon Junction to Milton Junction which links the improved A14 (part of the scheme) to the PPP works, and so achieves compatibility with the completed improvements (the PPP works);  amendments to the Histon Junction slip roads to tie into a three lane mainline (Work No. 33 (b)). The final part of Work No 33 (b) includes “the improvement of the A14 slip roads at Histon Junction…”. The slip road improvements serve, in part, to link the improved A14 (part of the scheme) to the PPP works, and so achieves compatibility with the completed improvements (the PPP works);

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 74 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

 amendments to the Girton Interchange A14 eastbound merge layout (Work No. 28). The main introduction to Work No 28 includes “the construction of the new single carriageway A14 Eastbound Link at Girton Interchange, from a point on the new A14 […] to a point on the A14, 40 metres west of the Girton Grange Accommodation Bridge over the A14”. This stretch of new highway serves, in part, to link the improved A14 (part of the scheme) to the PPP works, and so achieves compatibility with the completed improvements (the PPP works); and  amendments to the Girton Interchange M11 southbound diverge layout (Work No. 29 (h)). Work No. 29 (h), includes “alterations to the exit slip road from the A14 Westbound Link (Work No. 29) to the M11 Motorway southbound carriageway…”. This stretch of new highway serves, in part, to link the improved A14 (part of the scheme) to the PPP works, and so achieves compatibility with the completed improvements (the PPP works). 109. Other improvements between Girton Interchange and Histon Junction including signing and road marking works, safety barrier works, replacing gantries/signing, noise barrier works, landscaping and ecological mitigation works are described in Work Nos 28, 29 and 33.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 75 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.18 Some IPs have asked what effect the guided busway between Cambridge and Huntingdon would have on reducing demand for travel by car between these locations. What are the current and forecast patronage forecasts for the busway and what effect has this had on current and future forecasts of demand for travel between Huntingdon and Cambridge? Response 110. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway (CGB) opened in August 2011, connecting Huntingdon and St Ives with Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital and the Trumpington Park & Ride site. Intermediate Park & Ride sites are located at Longstanton and St Ives. The guided sections of the route cover a combined distance of around 25 kilometres. 111. As an overall trend, passenger journeys have increased each year since the introduction of the CGB, either exceeding or meeting initial passenger forecasts. In the first year, patronage was around 2.5 million passengers, compared to a pre-scheme implementation forecast of 1.75 million (43% above forecast) (Presentation to CIHT, Dr. Alan Brett, Atkins. 2013). The Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) Traffic Monitoring Report 2013 (TMR 2013) demonstrates the continuous increase in passenger journeys using the CGB from August 2012 to February 2014. This is reproduced as Figure 12-21 below. During 2013, patronage levels for the CGB reached 3.24 million passenger journeys (CCC TMR 2013). Data from CCC shows actual patronage figures compared to forecasts assumed in the CGB business case for 2011 to 2014, demonstrating exceedance of patronage targets in the early years. For 2015, there is a slight upward trend in passenger numbers and the expectation is that the CGB will meet the 3.5 million passenger journeys assumed in the business case for all years following the opening three years.

Table 12-27: Comparison of actual and predicted patronage, CCC data, 2015

Year Forecast patronage Actual patronage Difference 2011 / 2012 1,750,000 2,509,540 +43% 2012 / 2013 2,625,000 3,107,293 +18% 2013 / 2014 3,500,000 3,455,652 -1%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 76 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-21: Guided Busway Passenger Journeys 12-Month Rolling Total

112. The CGB was originally proposed in the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi- Modal Study (CHUMMS) in 2001. The aim of the study was to consider solutions to congestion and safety in the Huntingdon and Cambridge corridor, likely to be exacerbated by developments to the north and west of Cambridge. The CGB was proposed as part of a package of measures to help relieve congestion along the corridor, particularly on the severely congested A14. 113. Research of the impacts of the CGB on the A14 has been undertaken. Analysis of permanent Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) on the A14 between the periods of August 2010 to July 2011 and September 2012 to August 2013 is provided in Section 8 of CCC’s TMR 2013. Analysis of the ATCs showed a reduction of 1.7% in Annual Average Weekday Traffic Flow (AAWF) for this period between Spittals Interchange (Junction 23) and Godmanchester (J24) and a reduction of 2.6% south of the Dry Drayton junction. The latter section of the A14 is logically the most likely to benefit from a modal shift away from car trips to the CGB. Table 12-28 below reproduces data from the CCC TMR 2013.

Table 12-28: 24-hour Annual Average Weekday Traffic Flow (AAWF), from CCC TMR 2013

Aug 2010

Sept 2012- % Section of Route – July Aug 2013 Change 2011 A14 Huntingdon to Cambridge Junctions 23 to 24 – Spittals to A14 75,405 74,093 -1.7% Godmanchester

Busway Open (August 2011) A14 South of Dry Drayton junction 94,778 92,313 -2.6%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 77 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

114. A joint survey interviewing users of the CGB was jointly conducted by CCC and Atkins in 2013 (Presentation to CIHT, Dr. Alan Brett, Atkins. 2013). The study found that 80% of users were from households with a car available; 48% of passengers had a car available (as a driver), whilst 14% had a lift available. Of those surveyed, mode shift from car was up to 37% (account for multiple modes of travel), comprising 24% shift from car as a driver; and 13% changing from car mode as a passenger. More than 70% of previous car users had free parking at their destination. The data suggests that the CGB was effective at instigating an increase in bus mode-share, at the expense of some car trips, upon opening. 115. With regards to the future, CCC has advised that the business case capped passenger forecasts at 3.5 million passengers per annum following the first three years. This figure was met in 2013/2014 and is expected to be met in 2014/2015. 116. Parking charges were introduced at the St. Ives and Longstanton Park & Ride sites on 14th May 2015. At present there is insufficient data to be able to quantify the impacts of the introduction of this charge on patronage. 117. The northern edge of the proposed Northstowe new town is situated adjacent to the Longstanton Park & Ride site. A dedicated busway through the north of the town linking to the CGB is proposed. For Northstowe Phase 1 (initial development of 1,500 dwellings), WSP prepared a Transport Assessment which made use of the CSRM model suite. (Transport Assessment – Northstowe Phase 1 Development. WSP. February 2012). Modelling was undertaken for a forecast year of 2021, coinciding with full build-out of the Northstowe Phase 1 site. The CSRM model predicted 3% mode share at Northstowe Phase 1 for the CGB and Park & Ride at Longstanton. This equated to around half of all Public Transport trips to/from Northstowe and Longstanton, forecasting 241 GCB trips from Longstanton Park & Ride in the AM peak period.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 78 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.19 Please provide in tabular format and by reference to relevant plans, the proposed measures which seek to address the needs of non-motorised users including equestrians, cyclists and pedestrians as part of the proposed scheme. Please identify clearly which measures are aimed at reducing community severance, correcting historic problems; enabling cyclists to use junctions easily and safely and improving accessibility for disabled people. Response

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 79 of 219 June 2015

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with cyclists Drawings A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- 1 and pedestrians) on Grafham Road bridge, DR-Z-01003 and A14-JAC-  A14 over A1 bridge, Brampton, and A1 under ZZ-E1-DR-Z-01005 – Sheets A14 bridge, Brampton. 3 and 5 General Arrangement Provide NMU route from bridleway 28/19 Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- 2   (Brampton 19) and footpath 28/15 (Brampton DR-Z-01003 – Sheet 3 15) into Brampton Hut services. General Arrangement Provide NMU route from Brampton Hut Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- 3    services, north across A14 (signalised DR-Z-01003 – Sheet 3 crossing), linking to Woolley Road. General Arrangement Provide continuous bridleway on west and east Drawings A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- sides of A1/A14, Brampton, which link existing DR-Z-01003 and A14-JAC- bridleway 28/19 (Brampton 19) either side of ZZ-E1-DR-Z-01005 – Sheets A1/A14 to Grafham Road in the south, and the 3 and 5 4 A1/A14 bridge in the north. Existing footpath    28/2 (Brampton 2) joins the eastern arm of the new bridleway, just north of Grafham Road – the section of footpath 28/2 between the new bridleway and the eastern side of existing A1 will be extinguished.

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with cyclists Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- and pedestrians) on east side of B1043 Offord DR-Z-01007 – Sheet 7  6 Road bridge, and extension to Offord Hill Farm entrance in the north east, and south westwards to the tie-in to the existing route. General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- 7  pedestrians and cyclists) on west side of DR-Z-01008 – Sheet 8 realigned Silver Street and across bridge.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 81 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with cyclists Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- and pedestrians) on east side of A1198 Ermine DR-Z-01009 – Sheet 9 8 Street bridge, and extending northwards to the    access to Wood Green Animal Shelter, and southwards to the intersection with bridleway Hemingford Abbots 10. General Arrangement Realignment of bridleway Hemingford Abbots Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- 10 to the south of the new A14 alignment over 9 DR-Z-01010 – Sheet 10  a short distance in the section between its junctions with A1198 Ermine Street and Mere Way. General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- 10  pedestrians and cyclists) on realigned Mere DR-Z-01010 – Sheet 10 Way and across bridge. General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with cyclists Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- and pedestrians) on west side of B1040 Potton DR-Z-01011 – Sheet 11 11 Road bridge to link with junction of bridleway  Hemingford Grey 14 to the south of the bridge and with the realigned bridleway Hemingford Grey 10 to the north of the bridge. General Arrangement Provide equestrian track (shared with cyclists Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- and pedestrians) on west side of Hilton Road DR-Z-01011 – Sheet 11 12 bridge extending from the intersection of the  old with the new alignment of Hilton Road northwards to a point opposite the entrance to Old Clayfields.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 82 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Footpaths 87/6 (Fenstanton 6) and 53/1 Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- (Conington 1) revoked between Conington DR-Z-01012 – Sheet 12 Road and the Link Road running south-west from existing A14 Fenstanton interchange. Replacement footpath provided adjacent to link road carriageway from existing footpath 87/6 south-westwards to junction with new 13    Conington Road alignment, southwards along the east side of Conington Road, shared equestrian track provided over east side of Conington Road A14 bridge; footpath provided southwards and into maintenance access. Footpath provided in field adjacent to north- east side of Conington Road, southwards to junction with existing footpath 53/1. General Arrangement Existing footpath 53/2 (Conington 2) Drawings A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- extinguished between its junction with New DR-Z-01012 and Barns Lane, on the bank of Oxholme Drain, A14-JAC-ZZ-E1-DR-Z-01013 northwards to the junction with the existing Sheets 12 & 13

A14. Footpath 53/2 diverted into field on the north and north-west side of and running  parallel with New Barns Lane, joining the north-west verge at the southern boundary of 14 the earthworks for New Barns Lane/A14 bridge, and continuing on the north-west side to the junction with A14. Shared equestrian track provided on the north-west side of the New Barns Lane/A14 over-bridge.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 83 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Footway provided on the south-west side of Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- the existing A14 from its junction with New DR-Z-01013 Sheet 13 15  Barns Lane, north-westwards to a point opposite the existing at grade crossing point of existing A14. General Arrangement Local Access Road NMU route – this route Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- provides a continuous length of NMU DR-Z-01012, A14-JAC-ZZ- facility (footway/cycleway/equestrian track), E1-DR-Z-01013, A14-ARP- approximately 12 km in length, linking with ZZ-E2-DR-Z-01015 – A14- existing facilities at the north-west and ARP-ZZ-E2-DR-Z-0018; 16.0 south-east ends of the scheme, and with A14-ACM-ZZ-E3-DR-Z-0020     them, creating a Huntingdon to Cambridge and A14-ACM-ZZ-E3-DR-Z- NMU corridor. The facility commences at its 0021 – Sheets 12, 13, 15-18, north-eastern end at the junction of Mill 20 and 21. Road with Huntingdon Road, Fenstanton, and comprises the facilities listed in 16.2 – 16.13:- General Arrangement A signed shared pedestrian and cycle route Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-E1- southwards towards Swavesey along DR-Z-01012 Sheet 12 16.1    Huntingdon Road until it meets the verge of the existing A14 at a cul de sac just south-east of the access to the nursery.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 84 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

diversion, to its junction with the new A14-ARP-ZZ-E2-DR-Z- Swavesey junction northern roundabout. The 01015    16.2 length would incorporate uncontrolled Sheets 12, 13 and 15 crossing points at Cambridge Road junction

with A14, and footpaths 86/3 (Fen Drayton 3), bridleway 225/14 (Swavesey 14) and bridleway 225/15 (Swavesey 15, named Scotland Drove), would link with it. General Arrangement Continuation of the shared Drawings pedestrian/cycle/equestrian track in the A14-ARP-ZZ-E2-DR-Z- northern verge of the LAR to the Bucking Way 01015, A14-ARP-ZZ-E2-DR- Road/Anderson Road roundabout, with Z-01016, and uncontrolled crossing points with refuges A14-JAC-ZZ-E1-DR-Z-01017 across the northern (Bucking Way Road) and Sheets 15 - 17 eastern (Anderson Road) arms of the

roundabout. A footway/cycleway facility     16.3 provided by others, will link this point with Swavesey. Continuation of the shared pedestrian/cycle /equestrian track southwards and south-eastwards on the north-east side of the Local Access Road (LAR) to its junction with the Hattons Road link at Bar Hill junction. In this length, bridleway 151/10 (Longstanton 10) links into the NMU facility.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 85 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

point, through a refuge on the southern arm of the Boxworth Road/Cambridge Services roundabout, and a link on the south-east side of the roundabout would be provided to link the Cambridge Services arm to the bridge for NMU traffic.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 86 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Provision of a toucan crossing across the Drawings A14-ARP-ZZ-E2- Hattons Road link and continuation of the NMU DR-Z-0017 and A14-ARP- facility south-eastwards in the northern verge ZZ-E2-DR-Z-01018 Sheet 17 of the LAR south-eastwards to Dry Drayton and Sheet 18 northern roundabout. Bridleway 151/10 (Longstanton 10) links with this section of the 16.6 LAR NMU route. Afootway/cycleway/equestrian track will be provided at the foot of the embankment of the     east side of the link from the LAR to Hattons Road, terminating at the end of the embankment of the realignment in Hattons Road (and linking to the proposed footway/cycleway to Northstowe, provided by others). New footway/cycleway to be provided on the north-west side of the Hattons Road link to A14 Bar Hill junction, from the LAR to the extent of the widening of Hattons Road (to link to a facility to Longstanton provided by others).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 87 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

uncontrolled crossing points with refuges would be provided on the south eastern (Crafts Way) and south-western (Saxon Way) arms, and

a link to bridleway 16/1 (Bar Hill 1). General Arrangement 16.8 Provision of uncontrolled crossing points, with Drawing A14-ARP-ZZ-E2-     refuges, across each arm of the Dry Drayton DR-Z-01018 northern roundabout. Sheet 18 General Arrangement Provision of footway/cycleway/equestrian track Drawing A14-ARP-ZZ-E2- on the north-western side of the link road DR-Z-01018 16.9 between Dry Drayton north and south Sheet 18     roundabouts (including a narrowed section over Dry Drayton A14 bridge – see paragraph 4.3.1 – last bullet point).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 88 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

(Girton 5). Footpaths 99/7 (Girton 7), 99/8 (Girton 8) and Bridleway 66/12 (Dry Drayton 12) would link with this section of the LAR NMU facility, but the extent between the proposed route of the LAR and the existing A14 would be extinguished (the whole of 99/8 (Girton 8) and the part of 66/12 (Dry Drayton 12) north-east of the LAR – currently 99/8 and 66/12 terminate at the south western boundary of the A14 with no crossing points provided). General Arrangement A crossing point of Huntingdon Road, Girton Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- would be provided by the developers of the DR-Z-01021 Sheet 21 16.11 North West Cambridge development, as a     toucan crossing on the north western arm of the junction, which is provided on the line of the existing footpath 99/5 (Girton 5).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 89 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement A section of shared footway/cycleway would Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- be provided on the north-eastern side of DR-Z-01021 Sheet 21 16.12 Huntingdon Road, Girton, extending from the     proposed toucan crossing on the north- western arm of the North West Cambridge development, in a north-westerly direction to its junction with footpath 99/4 (Girton 4). General Arrangement An uncontrolled crossing point with refuge Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- would be provided on the northern LAR arm of DR-Z-01020 Sheet 20 the junction of the LAR with the crematorium access road, with a linking shared footway/cycleway between the crossing point, south-eastwards on the LAR and then 16.13     eastwards, north-eastwards and south- eastwards to the entrance to the crematorium. Additionally, a footway link would be provided on the eastern side of the LAR, on the south- eastern (LAR) arm of the crematorium/LAR junction between the proposed bus stop and the crematorium/LAR junction. A General Arrangement A shared footway/cycleway/equestrian track Drawing A14-ARP-ZZ-E2- would be provided on the north-west side of DR-Z-01016 Sheet 16 Robin’s Lane, from the south-western end of   17 the new alignment of the road where it diverges from the existing, in a north-easterly direction across the A14 bridge, and around the loop to join the LAR NMU route.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 90 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

A new bridleway (shared as a maintenance Drawings A14-ARP-ZZ-E2- access and farm access) would be created DR-Z-01018 & extending from the south-eastern arm of Dry A14-ACM-ZZ-E3-DR-Z- 19 Drayton north roundabout, extending south- 01021 easterly then south-westerly then south- Sheet 18 & 21     easterly to travel approximately parallel to the A14 on its north-east side until reaching Girton Accommodation Bridge. Washpit Lane and footpath 99/4 (Girton 4) would link with this

route.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 91 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement At Girton junction (west side), bridleway 154/2 Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- (Madingley 2) would be extinguished between DR-Z-01021 its western junction with the embankment of Sheet 21 the A14 east to north-west link, north- eastwards through the underpass (M11) to its junction with the A14 north-west to east link road. A replacement bridleway would be provided from the western point of    20 extinguishing the existing bridleway 154/2 (Madingley 2), at the foot of the A14 east to north-west link embankment, outside the trunk road highway, in a north-westerly then north- easterly direction to link with the LAR NMU route on the south-west side of the LAR, just south-east of the roundabout junction between the LAR and the link to the north-westbound A14. General Arrangement At Girton junction (south side), a new Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- bridleway is provided outside the trunk road DR-Z-01021 boundary, commencing from a junction with Sheet 21 existing bridleway 154/2 (Madingley 2), on the south side of and just west of Madingley 21 Accommodation Bridge, to travel eastwards    parallel to the A428, and then south-eastwards adjacent to the existing A14 to M11 northbound slip road, then south-eastwards adjacent to the west side of the existing M11 to a junction with existing footpath 154/3 (Madingley 3).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 92 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement At Girton junction (north-east side), footpath Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- 99/4 (Girton 4) would be converted to a DR-Z-01021 22 bridleway by Cambridgeshire County Council Sheet 21    between its junction with the east side of Huntingdon Road (A1307) and the north side of Girton Accommodation Bridge. General Arrangement At Girton junction (south side), footpath 99/5 Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- (Girton 5) would be converted to a bridleway DR-Z-01021 23 by Cambridgeshire County Council from a Sheet 21    point just south-west of the under bridge of the M11, in a north-easterly direction to its junction with Huntingdon Road. General Arrangement At Girton junction (north-east side), footpath Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- 99/4 (Girton 4) would be converted to a shared DR-Z-01021 24 cycleway/footway from the north side of Girton Sheet 21     Accommodation Bridge, in an easterly direction, to its junction with the path be converted to a footway/cycleway. General Arrangement At Histon junction, the existing toucan Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- crossings across the west facing slip roads DR-Z-01023 25 to/from A14 will be remodelled/re-designed to Sheet 23  match the new geometric layouts and to maintain similar functionality for NMUs as currently.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 93 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement At Milton junction, the existing junction would Drawing A14-ACM-ZZ-E3- be widened for vehicular traffic on the existing DR-Z-01024 structures. This will reduce space for NMUs, Sheet 24 26 but all NMU traffic is directed to use the  separate Jane Coston NMU bridge (pedestrians and cyclists), located on the NMU desire line, slightly east of the main Milton junction. General Arrangement Huntingdon Town Centre – In Huntingdon, Drawings A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- three new link roads are being constructed DR-Z-01001 as part of the A14 Cambridge to and Huntingdon Improvement Scheme, Views A14-JAC-ZZ-HT-DR-Z-01002 Common Link (existing A14 to Sheet 1 & 2 Hinchingbrooke Park Road), Mill Common Link (Edison Bell Way/Brampton Road junction to link with the existing A14 just west of the existing River Great Ouse     27 bridge) and Pathfinder Link (Mill Common Link to Walden Road/Castle Moat Road/Princes Street junction). All of these link roads cross existing NMU facilities, which carry the levels of flows which would be expected in a built-up area, linking facilities such as hospital, secondary school, railway station, bus station and town centre. Individual facilities provided are indicated in 28 – 44 below:-

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 94 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Views Common Link – shared Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- footpath/cycleway from existing footpath DR-Z-01001 28 131/11 (Huntingdon 11), approximately 200 m Sheet 1 south-east of the existing footpath link to Lake     Way, in a south-westerly direction to join the south-east side of Mill Common Link at the gated access to Mill Common approximately 200 metres south-west of the proposed Mill Common roundabout. General Arrangement Views Common Link – shared Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- footway/cycleway on south-east side of Mill DR-Z-01001   29 Common Link, south-eastwards to the junction Sheet 1 with Hinchingbrooke Park Road. General Arrangement Views Common Link/Hinchingbrooke Park Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- Road junction (north side) – toucan crossing DR-Z-01001 within signalised junction, with significant NMU Sheet 1 30 flows. Single stage crossing for NMUs, and    signal staging/timings optimised as far as possible to minimise NMU waiting times. Link to Brampton Road junction to the east, and to the toucan crossing outside Hinchingbrooke School entrance to the west. General Arrangement Views Common Link/Hinchingbrooke Park Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- 31 Road junction (south side) – new signalised DR-Z-01001     toucan crossings at vehicle arms, and link to Sheet 1 Brampton Road junction.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 95 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Brampton Road/Hinchingbrooke Park Road Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- junction (north side) – new footway/cycleway DR-Z-01001 Sheet 1 32 (to accommodate Regional Cycle Route 12),     with single stage toucan crossings at each of the vehicular junctions, each optimised to limit NMU waiting times as far as possible. General Arrangement 33 Brampton Road/Hinchingbrooke Park Road Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT-     junction (east arm) – toucan crossing. DR-Z-01001 Sheet 1 General Arrangement 34 Brampton Road – ECML railway bridge – Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- existing facility retained. DR-Z-01002 Sheet 2 General Arrangement Edison Bell Way/Brampton Road/Mill Common Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- Link – west arm – new toucan crossing facility DR-Z-01002 Sheet 2 35 within signalised junction to link north side with     Brampton station, with staging and timings optimised to minimise NMU waiting times (NB crossing of central Brampton Road arm to be single stage). General Arrangement Edison Bell Way/Brampton Road/Mill Common Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- 36 Link – NMU accesses to station – existing DR-Z-01002 Sheet 2 stairs on south side of Brampton Road    retained; footway/cycleway retained from south-west corner of junction, south- westbound into station car park.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 96 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Plan Number (see section Cyclist Item Reduce Correct Improved 2.2 General Arrangement Junction No. Proposed NMU Feature Community Historic Disabled Drawings, document Safety and Problems Access reference 2) Severance Convenience General Arrangement Edison Bell Way/Brampton Road/Mill Common Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- Link (east and south arms); toucan crossings DR-Z-01002 37 within signalised junction (south arm as a Sheet 2    single stage, with staging/timings optimised to minimise NMU waiting times as far as possible). General Arrangement Mill Common Link – both sides – between Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- 38 Brampton Road/Edison Bell Way and Station DR-Z-01002   junction – footway/cycleways would be Sheet 2 provided. General Arrangement Mill Common Link/Station Car Park junction – Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- north arm – Toucan crossing within signalised DR-Z-01002 39 junction as a single stage, with signal Sheet 2    staging/timings optimised to minimise NMU waiting times as far as possible (accommodates spur of RCR12). General Arrangement Station Car Park Access Road – north side – Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- 40    footway/cycleway would be provided over full DR-Z-01002 length (accommodates spur of RCR12). Sheet 2 General Arrangement Mill Common Link/Station Car Park junction – Drawing A14-JAC-ZZ-HT- 41 east side – shared footway/cycleway from the DR-Z-01002    toucan crossing on the northern arm, Sheet 2 southwards and south-eastwards to join RCR 12 (spur) on Mill Common.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 97 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

road is realigned, to its junction with Castle Sheet 2 Moat Road.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 98 of 219 June 2015

Question 1.12.20 Should the second ‘(east)’ read ‘(west)’? If not, why not? (Document 7.2 Para 1.3.7 Bullet Point 2). Response 118. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) paragraph 1.3.7, bullet point 2 states: 119. “…conflict occurs when A14 (east) to A14 (west) traffic weaves with M11 (south) to A14 (east) traffic along a stretch of road that is too short to allow safe weaving manoeuvres and consequently generates low travel speeds” 120. The second ‘(east)’ in this text is correct. The text relates to Figure 12-22 below, which illustrates a conflict between traffic travelling from Point A (A14 east) to Point B (A14 west), shown in red, and traffic travelling from Point C (M11 south) to Point D (A14 east), shown in green. 121. Here traffic travelling northbound, which has left the M11 to travel east, must enter a left hand loop before it can join the A14. However, before this traffic can enter the left hand loop it must cross traffic that has left the A14 but wants to continue westbound along the A14

Figure 12-22

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.21 Please clarify the sentence ‘As this merge is located...’. (Document 7.2 Para 1.3.7 Bullet Point 5) The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) paragraph 1.3.7 bullet point 5 states: Response

122. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) paragraph 1.3.7 bullet point 5 states: 123. “…conflict occurs where A14 eastbound traffic merges with A428 eastbound traffic, which will continue to worsen as traffic levels on the A14 continue to grow. The merge creates frequent congestion back along the eastbound A14 to Dry Drayton and beyond, leading to queuing traffic in lane one alongside the free flowing southbound traffic in lanes two and three. As this merge is located on the offside (right-hand side) of the carriageway as opposed to the nearside (left-hand side) it also creates uncertainty for Cambridge traffic, some of which diverges onto the A1307 Huntingdon Road.”

124. The first and second sentences describe the merge between the A14 eastbound and the A428 eastbound, which throttles the A14 eastbound slip road down to a single lane, and gives priority at the merge point to the A428, thus giving rise to peak hour congestion. The third sentence is meant to describe the uncertainty created between drivers, travelling along the A14 eastbound slip road. Some wish to continue on the A14 east towards Newmarket and others wish to exit at this location either into Cambridge on the A1307 Huntingdon Road, or to U-turn (for example to access the Crematorium or Madingley). The outer lane of the A14 eastbound slip road is marked as dedicated for A1307 traffic, but is sometimes used by vehicles ‘jumping’ queues in the A14 eastbound lane. 125. This conflict is highlighted by a red arrow in Figure 1 (overleaf). The uncertainty being created by the fact that the exit to the A1037 is located on the off-side of the A14 eastbound slip road rather than the nearside leading to slow moving traffic in the outside lane (a nearside exit being more intuitive to drivers).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 100 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-23

126. It is acknowledged that this wording used in Document 7.2 Para 1.3.7 Bullet Point 5, in conjunction with the previous sentence, may cause confusion. Alternative wording for the second sentence would be as follows: 127. “This issue is exacerbated by the diverge to the A1037 Huntingdon Road which is located on the offside (right-hand side) of the carriageway as opposed to the nearside (left-hand side), which creates uncertainty for Cambridge traffic, some of which diverges towards Madingley and the crematorium”

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 101 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.22 Should ‘Bar Hill junction bridge’ read ‘...bridges..’ to reflect the two roundabout bridges? If not, where is the Bar Hill junction bridge? (Document 7.2 Para 1.4.10) Response 128. Reference to “Bar Hill Junction Bridge” in the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2), Para 1.4.10 is incorrect and should refer to “bridges” to reflect the two roundabout bridges.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 102 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.23 On what basis did the Cambridge Sub-Regional Model (CSRM), following the 2011 re-validation, fail to meet the WebTAG validation criteria? (Document 7.2 Para 3.5.5) Response

Summary

129. As paragraph 3.5.5 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) notes, the CSRM 2011 PYV model failed to meet the validation criteria and acceptability guidelines set out in WebTAG unit M3.1. As the below tables and descriptions demonstrate, performance on the A14 was reasonable with regards to total vehicle counts. Individual traffic counts across the model area and screenlines demonstrated poorer performance. Journey times on the A14 were poor eastbound in the AM peak, as per the 2006 CSRM Base Year.

Detailed Response

130. The Department for Transport’s WebTAG unit M3.1 provides advice on developing, calibrating and validating a highway assignment model, both for general and specific purposes. The WebTAG validation criteria that are referenced in paragraph 3.5.5 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) refers to a set of model validation criteria provided in unit M3.1, specifically in §3.2 ‘Validation Criteria and Acceptability Guidelines’. 131. As noted in WebTAG unit M3.1 §3.2.3, the primary focus of the validation of a highway assignment model is on three key areas:  the assigned flows and counts totalled for each screenline or cordon, as a check on the quality of the trip matrices;  the assigned flows and counts on individual links and, where relevant, turning movements at junctions as a check on the quality of the assignment; and  the modelled and observed journey times along routes, as a check on the quality of the network and the assignment. 132. The Cambridge Sub-Regional Model (CSRM) was originally developed, calibrated and validated to a Base Year of 2006. A Present Year Validation (PYV) exercise was undertaken in 2013 by operating the CSRM model in forecasting mode, generating a 2011 forecast. This was compared to traffic counts undertaken in 2011. This is the version of the model that was provided at the beginning of the ‘Development Phase’ of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 103 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

133. The CSRM 2011 PYV model was compared to the validation criteria and acceptability guidelines as set out in WebTAG. In addition to the three key areas of focus outlined above, the model was also compared with observed data on the A14, which was deemed to be appropriate given the intended use of the model. 134. In terms of screenlines, the validation of the CSRM PYV model was poor. WebTAG M3.1 states that acceptable model performance is “All or Nearly All”’ screenlines meeting the criterion of total modelled flows across the screenline being within 5% of observations. As Table 12-29 demonstrates, the screenline performance did not meet the WebTAG acceptability guidelines in all time periods, with the Interpeak and the PM peak failing to achieve 50% of screenlines meeting the criteria.

Table 12-29: CSRM 2011 PYV performance at Screenline level

AM Peak Interpeak PM Peak Screenline Direction Lights HGVs Total Lights HGVs Total Lights HGVs Total Cambridge Westbound          South East Eastbound          Cambridge Eastbound          West Westbound          A14 CNB Northbound          South Southbound          A14 CNB Southbound          North Northbound          Huntingdon Southbound          North Northbound          A14 North Southbound          Approach Northbound          A14 South Northbound          Approach Southbound          TOTAL SCREENLINES 57% 0% 50% 14% 14% 7% 36% 0% 43%

135. Link flow validation across the CSRM model area in the 2011 PYV was also quite poor, although tended to be somewhat better on the A14 itself. The WebTAG unit M3.1 acceptability guidelines state that individual link flows should either meet the variable flow criteria or exhibit a GEH5 value of less than 5.0 in 85% of cases or greater. Table 12-30 shows that both ‘Light’ vehicles (Cars, LGVs) and Totals did not meet the acceptability guidelines in all three modelled time periods.

5 The GEH Statistic is a formula used in traffic engineering and traffic modelling to compare two sets of traffic volumes. The term ‘GEH’ is derived from the planner Geoffrey E. Havers who originally derived the test. This form of chi-squared is one of the calibration and validation criteria for modelled flows set out in DfT’s WebTAG unit M3.1.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 104 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-30: CSRM 2011 PYV performance at individual count sites

Time Flow Criteria GEH <5.0 Period Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total AM Peak 67% 97% 67% 58% 86% 59% Inter-Peak 73% 92% 70% 69% 81% 60% PM Peak 60% 97% 60% 55% 85% 57%

136. Modelled flows on the A14, as noted above, performed better. Generally, the model demonstrated a tendency to overstate volumes during the average Interpeak hour and to understate them during the AM and PM peak hours. As Table 12-31 shows, total flows at A14 sites were close to acceptability guideline of 85% against the variable flow criteria, although with worse performance when measured in terms of GEH. HGVs in particular were poorly represented within the CSRM 2011 PYV in both the Interpeak and PM peak hour.

Table 12-31: CSRM 2011 PYV performance at count sites on the A14

Time Direction Flow Criteria GEH <5.0 Period Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Eastbound 80% 100% 87% 73% 100% 80% AM Peak Westbound 71% 100% 76% 53% 100% 59% Eastbound 93% 50% 93% 93% 64% 64% Inter-Peak Westbound 100% 41% 94% 100% 47% 82% Eastbound 73% 73% 93% 67% 53% 87% PM Peak Westbound 76% 71% 82% 35% 82% 71%

137. According to the CSRM 2006 Base Year Local Model Validation Report (LMVR), journey times on the A14 were considered satisfactory, with five out of the six observed cases demonstrating a close-fit between modelled and observed times. However, the poor performing route was the A14 eastbound in the AM peak, the most congested section of the road. There appeared to be little difference in the modelled journey times in the PYV model compared to that of the 2006 Base Year. 138. Updated observed journey time data were not provided for 2011. However, data were extracted from Highways England’s (then the Highways Agency) Traffic Information System (HATRIS) Journey Time Database. The model was subsequently compared against these data. WebTAG unit M3.1 criteria is that modelled journey times should be within 15% of observed times. This analysis verified the 2006 Base Year assessment, showing reasonable performance in five of the six routes (noting that the PM peak eastbound just exceeded the criteria), but indicating that the model significantly over-estimated travel times on the A14 eastbound in the AM peak. These data are reproduced in Table 12-32 below.

Table 12-32: CSRM performance against Journey Time data (HATRIS) on the A14

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 105 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Journey Time (minutes) Difference Time Direction Observed CSRM Period Absolute Percentage (HATRIS) 2011 PYV Eastbound 37.50 27.82 -9.68 -26% AM Peak Westbound 28.08 28.05 -0.03 -0% Eastbound 25.42 27.87 2.45 10% Inter-Peak Westbound 27.08 29.33 2.25 8% Eastbound 25.25 29.62 4.37 17% PM Peak Westbound 29.10 32.70 3.60 12%

139. As paragraph 3.5.5 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) notes, the CSRM 2011 PYV model failed to meet the validation criteria and acceptability guidelines set out in WebTAG unit M3.1. As the above tables demonstrate, performance on the A14 was reasonable with regards to total vehicle counts. Individual traffic counts across the model area and screenlines demonstrated poorer performance. Journey times on the A14 were poor eastbound in the AM peak, as per the 2006 CSRM Base Year.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 106 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.24 On what basis did the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model (version 1) (CHARM(1)) fail to meet the WebTAG validation criteria? (Document 7.2 Para 3.5.6) Response

Summary

140. As paragraph 3.5.6 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) notes, the CHARM1 model failed to meet the validation criteria and acceptability guidelines set out in WebTAG unit M3.1. As the below tables and descriptions show, performance on the A14 was, however, significantly improved compared to the CSRM 2011 Present Year Validation model, demonstrating a much better comparison to observed traffic counts and tending to meet the individual flow criteria. Modelled journey times on the A14 were improved, although the AM peak eastbound underestimated travel times and understated delay within the model.

Detailed Response 141. The Department for Transport’s WebTAG unit M3.1 provides advice on developing, calibrating and validating a highway assignment model, both for general and specific purposes. The WebTAG validation criteria that are referenced in paragraph 3.5.6 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) refers to a set of model validation criteria provided in unit M3.1, specifically in §3.2 ‘Validation Criteria and Acceptability Guidelines’. 142. As noted in WebTAG unit M3.1 §3.2.3, the primary focus of the validation of a highway assignment model is on three key areas:  the assigned flows and counts totalled for each screenline or cordon, as a check on the quality of the trip matrices;  the assigned flows and counts on individual links and, where relevant, turning movements at junctions as a check on the quality of the assignment; and  the modelled and observed journey times along routes, as a check on the quality of the network and the assignment.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 107 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

143. As paragraphs 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) notes, the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model version 1 (CHARM1) was developed from the Cambridge Sub-Regional Model (CSRM) to underpin the traffic forecasts presented at the pre-application consultation exercise Spring 2014. The CHARM1 model was also used to underpin the early ‘Development Phase’ work. 144. CHARM1 was developed as a result of the poor levels of validation demonstrated by the CSRM 2011 Present Year Validation (PYV). The aim of CHARM1 was to provide an improved model to underpin the short-term workstreams of the ‘Development Phase’, to provide a robust basis for traffic forecasts whilst the new model – CHARM2 – was developed. The main focus of the update was therefore on ensuring better performance of the model on the A14. 145. Updates were made to the model to both the supply (network) and demand. A network review was undertaken in areas that were likely to be impacted by the proposed A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme with adjustments made where improvements were identified. Global deficiencies were identified in the CSRM 2011 PYV demand matrices: there was a general overestimation of HGV trips in both the Interpeak and PM peak periods, and an underestimation of ‘light’ vehicle trips in both the AM and PM peak periods. The demand matrices were therefore factored on a sector- basis to try and address these issues. 146. As per the CSRM 2011 PYV model, CHARM1 was compared to the validation criteria and acceptability guidelines as set out in WebTAG unit M3.1 (screenlines, individual counts and journey times), but with additional focus given to comparisons with observed data on the A14.

147. In terms of screenlines, the validation of the CHARM1 model was poor, as per the CSRM 2011 PYV. This was as expected as improvements were targeted towards better representing traffic volumes on the A14. WebTAG M3.1 states that acceptable model performance is “All or Nearly All”’ screenlines meeting the criterion of total modelled flows across the screenline being within 5% of observations. As Table 12-33 below demonstrates, the screenline performance fell some way short of the WebTAG acceptability guidelines in all time periods.

Table 12-33: Performance of CHARM1 at Screenline level

AM Peak Interpeak PM Peak Screenline Direction Lights HGVs Total Lights HGVs Total Lights HGVs Total Cambridge Westbound          South East Eastbound          Cambridge Eastbound          West Westbound          A14 CNB Northbound          South Southbound         

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 108 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

AM Peak Interpeak PM Peak Screenline Direction Lights HGVs Total Lights HGVs Total Lights HGVs Total A14 CNB Southbound          North Northbound          Huntingdon Southbound          North Northbound          A14 North Southbound          Approach Northbound          A14 South Northbound          Approach Southbound          TOTAL SCREENLINES 36% 0% 36% 7% 7% 7% 43% 7% 36%

148. Link flow validation across the CHARM1 model area was also quite poor, although was improved in the Interpeak and PM peak over the CSRM 2011 PYV. The WebTAG unit M3.1 acceptability guidelines state that individual link flows should either meet the variable flow criteria or exhibit a GEH6 value of less than 5.0 in 85% of cases or greater. Table 12-34 shows that both ‘Light’ vehicles (Cars, LGVs) and Totals were short of this in all three modelled time periods.

Table 12-34: Performance of CHARM1 at individual count sites

Time Flow Criteria GEH <5.0 Period Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total AM Peak 62% 97% 62% 58% 86% 56% Inter-Peak 74% 95% 72% 69% 88% 65% PM Peak 61% 97% 61% 55% 89% 58%

149. Modelled flows on the A14, as noted above, performed much better and showed a significant improvement over that of the CSRM 2011 PYV. Whilst HGVs in particular were poorly represented within the CSRM 2011 PYV in both the Interpeak and PM peak hour, the improvements made to the CHARM1 model meant that HGVs exceeded the WebTAG M3.1 criteria and acceptability guidelines in all time periods, both eastbound and westbound. Both ‘Light’ vehicle and Total vehicle performance was also significantly improved, exceeding the WebTAG guidance in the Interpeak across both criteria and also meeting the criteria eastbound in both the AM and PM peak hours. The AM peak westbound, whilst not quite meeting the criteria was significantly improved over the CSRM 2011 PYV. Only the ‘Total’ vehicle performance in the PM peak westbound demonstrated any deterioration from CSRM.

6 The GEH Statistic is a formula used in traffic engineering and traffic modelling to compare two sets of traffic volumes. The term ‘GEH’ is derived from the planner Geoffrey E. Havers who originally derived the test. This form of chi-squared is one of the calibration and validation criteria for modelled flows set out in DfT’s WebTAG unit M3.1.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 109 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-35: Performance of CHARM1 at count sites on the A14

Time Direction Flow Criteria GEH <5.0 Period Lights Heavies Total Lights Heavies Total Eastbound 87% 100% 87% 80% 100% 80% AM Peak Westbound 82% 100% 82% 71% 100% 82% Eastbound 93% 100% 93% 86% 100% 86% Inter-Peak Westbound 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 94% Eastbound 93% 100% 93% 80% 100% 87% PM Peak Westbound 76% 94% 71% 59% 94% 59%

150. To validate modelled travel times on the A14, data were extracted from Highways England’s (then the Highways Agency) Traffic Information System (HATRIS) Journey Time Database. The model was subsequently compared against these data. These are the same observed data against which the CSRM 2011 PYV was compared. 151. WebTAG unit M3.1 criteria is that modelled journey times should be within 15% of observed times. This analysis of CHARM1 demonstrated similar performance to the CSRM 2011 PYV, showing reasonable performance in five of the six routes, but indicating that the model significantly over-estimated travel times on the A14 eastbound in the AM peak. However, all but the AM peak westbound demonstrated improvements in performance from CSRM 2011 PYV, with modelled travel times brought closer to the observed data from HATRIS. The Interpeak in particular was significantly improved.

Table 12-36: Performance of CHARM1 against Journey Time data (HATRIS) on A14

Journey Time (minutes) Difference Time Period Direction Observed CHARM1 Absolute Percentage (HATRIS) Eastbound 37.50 28.62 -8.88 -24% AM Peak Westbound 28.08 28.68 -0.60 2% Eastbound 25.42 26.23 0.81 3% Inter-Peak Westbound 27.08 27.43 0.35 1% Eastbound 25.25 29.22 3.97 16% PM Peak Westbound 29.10 32.13 3.03 10%

152. As paragraph 3.5.6 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) notes, the CHARM1 model failed to meet the validation criteria and acceptability guidelines set out in WebTAG unit M3.1. As the above tables demonstrate performance on the A14 was, however, significantly improved demonstrating a much better comparison to observed traffic counts and tending to meet the individual flow criteria. Modelled journey times on the A14 were improved, although the AM peak eastbound underestimated travel times and understated delay within the model.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 110 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.25 Did the Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model (version 2) (CHARM(2)) model meet the WebTAG validation criteria? What were the primary differences in traffic flows between the outputs from the CSRM following the 2011 re-validation, the CHARM(1) and the CHARM(2)? (Document 7.2 Para 3.5.10) Response

Validation of CHARM2

153. The Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model version 2 (CHARM2) does not meet all of the acceptability guidelines for model calibration and validation set out in WebTAG unit M3.1. However, it does meet the criteria in most cases and tends to be well validated where the impacts of the proposed A14 scheme are likely to be felt. Areas where the model does not meet the criteria are: screenline performance in the Interpeak (where the model is just outside of the acceptability guidelines); individual link flow performance at independent validation sites (although the model demonstrates good performance in the areas relevant to the scheme and considering the number of independent count data that have been used); and PM peak journey times, where the model is too slow on the A14. 154. As WebTAG unit M3.1 §3.4.1 notes, the test of fitness for purpose of a model is whether or not robust conclusions can be drawn from the model outputs. §3.4.2 of the guidance notes that achievement of the validation acceptability guidelines does not guarantee that a model is ‘fit for purpose’ and likewise a failure to meet the specified validation standards does not mean that a model is not ‘fit for purpose’. A model that fails to meet to some degree the validation standards may be usable for certain applications. As noted above, it is the case with CHARM2 that the model tends to perform well where the impacts of the scheme are likely to be felt. 155. A further iteration of the model, CHARM3a, improves on performance in almost all areas. This version of the model meets WebTAG unit M3.1 acceptability guidelines in almost all cases. The impacts of this and further detail on the performance of both CHARM2 and CHARM3a will be outlined further in the ‘Traffic Model Update Report’ to be submitted at deadline 2 of the Examination.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 111 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Primary differences in traffic volumes between model versions

156. Table 7.1 in Section 7.3 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) provides two-way AADT forecasts on major strategic routes. These same sections of route have been assessed across each of the model versions to determine the level of change between the model outputs for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). It is not possible to compare every link in the traffic model due to the significant changes in network structure between CHARM1 and CHARM2. 157. Table 12-37 shows the traffic volumes for the key sections of SRN in both CSRM 2011 PYV and the CHARM1 model. Both of these models represent a Base Year of 2011. Where available, appropriate 2011 observed data are also provided. As the table shows, there is around an eight percent average increase in traffic volumes to CHARM1 in the AM Peak, little change in the Interpeak and an increase of around five percent in the PM Peak.

Table 12-37: CSRM and CHARM1 Link Flows on key SRN Links

Observed CSRM 2011 PYV CHARM 1 % Difference (CHARM1 - CSRM) Strategic Route Direction AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM WB 1,488 1,641 1,838 1,646 1,665 1,931 11% 1% 5% A14 West of A1 EB 1,575 1,452 1,620 1,745 1,473 1,696 11% 1% 5% SB 1,591 1,625 1,748 1,734 1,641 1,789 9% 1% 2% A14 Spur east of A1(M) NB 1,465 1,621 2,037 1,594 1,644 2,121 9% 1% 4% EB 2,372 2,376 2,901 2,326 2,649 2,982 2,585 2,707 3,132 11% 2% 5% A14 Through Huntingdon WB 2,933 2,654 3,137 2,916 2,756 2,925 3,222 2,811 3,115 10% 2% 7% EB 2,914 2,806 3,097 3,195 2,877 3,248 10% 3% 5% A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill WB 2,603 3,056 3,149 2,849 3,171 3,324 9% 4% 6% WB 2,954 3,444 4,039 3,238 3,575 4,292 10% 4% 6% A14 Bar Hill to Girton EB 3,947 2,840 3,363 3,980 3,132 3,612 4,330 3,233 3,826 9% 3% 6% EB 2,990 2,103 2,733 3,200 2,182 2,818 7% 4% 3% A14 Histon to Milton WB 2,210 2,196 2,641 2,467 2,340 2,791 12% 7% 6% EB 2,282 2,167 3,009 2,319 2,211 3,276 2% 2% 9% A14 East of Milton WB 3,383 2,083 2,504 2,737 2,332 2,483 3,077 2,395 2,560 12% 3% 3% NB 2,383 2,505 3,609 2,444 2,591 3,467 2,635 2,612 3,621 8% 1% 4% A1 North of Alconbury SB 3,046 2,158 2,584 2,922 2,449 2,665 3,164 2,469 2,756 8% 1% 3% NB 1,332 1,085 1,703 1,439 1,089 1,786 8% 0% 5% A1 North of Brampton Hut SB 1,495 928 1,366 1,682 1,009 1,500 1,813 1,015 1,575 8% 1% 5% SB 1,760 1,142 1,674 1,885 1,385 1,966 2,036 1,431 2,068 8% 3% 5% A1 South of Brampton Hut NB 1,375 1,245 1,707 1,468 1,276 1,838 7% 2% 8% SB 1,903 1,319 1,986 2,017 1,515 2,142 2,165 1,525 2,265 7% 1% 6% A1 Near Buckden NB 1,778 1,495 2,059 1,923 1,576 2,136 2,086 1,585 2,213 8% 1% 4% NB 2,597 2,348 2,861 2,795 2,412 3,000 8% 3% 5% M11 South of Girton SB 2,710 2,302 2,611 2,934 2,391 2,673 8% 4% 2% EB 1,727 869 1,052 1,798 868 1,095 4% 0% 4% A428 Near Bourne Airfield WB 867 1,001 1,554 932 998 1,752 7% 0% 13% SB 408 265 465 436 260 500 7% -2% 8% A1198 West of Hilton NB 597 327 632 634 316 685 6% -3% 8% EB 1,266 809 1,208 1,366 825 1,017 1,443 829 1,106 6% 1% 9% A141 North of Huntingdon WB 873 792 1,088 910 1,341 1,882 968 1,393 1,979 6% 4% 5%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 112 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

158. Further to the above comparison, the percentage change between CHARM2 and each of CSRM and CHARM1 has been calculated. These differences are presented in the table below. 159. The tables show that traffic volumes tend to be reduced from CSRM and CHARM1 to the CHARM2 model. This, in part, may be due to the fact that both CSRM and CHARM1 are forecasts from a 2006 Base and matrices were not specifically developed for the future year. The greatest reductions are shown in the Interpeak, being around 20%. Differences on the A14 in the peak hours tend to be smaller than the Interpeak and smaller than the other strategic routes, showing that development of both CSRM and CHARM1 was more focussed on the A14. 160. The calibration and validation of CHARM2 shows that it is a demonstrably better performing model (with respect to WebTAG unit M3.1 criteria) than either CHARM1 or CSRM. This is the case both with regards to screenline and link performance in general, but also with respect to the Strategic Road Network.

Table 12-38: Difference between CHARM2, CSRM and CHARM1

% Difference (CHARM2 - CSRM) % Difference (CHARM2 - CHARM1) Strategic Route Direction AM IP PM AM IP PM WB 2% -27% -14% -8% -28% -18% A14 West of A1 EB -1% -18% -2% -11% -19% -7% SB 8% -22% -10% -1% -23% -12% A14 Spur east of A1(M) NB -1% -19% -14% -9% -20% -17% EB -2% -21% -9% -12% -23% -13% A14 Through Huntingdon WB -2% -19% 1% -11% -20% -5% EB -1% -16% -8% -10% -18% -12% A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill WB 7% -20% 6% -2% -23% 0% WB 2% -20% 0% -7% -23% -6% A14 Bar Hill to Girton EB -8% -17% -12% -16% -19% -17% EB -18% -2% 7% -23% -5% 4% A14 Histon to Milton WB 29% -7% 12% 15% -13% 6% EB -11% -16% 6% -12% -17% -2% A14 East of Milton WB 24% -19% -4% 11% -21% -7% NB -5% -20% -6% -12% -20% -10% A1 North of Alconbury SB 3% -19% -8% -5% -20% -11% NB -10% -21% -8% -17% -22% -12% A1 North of Brampton Hut SB -12% -16% -9% -18% -17% -13% SB -19% -28% -22% -25% -30% -25% A1 South of Brampton Hut NB -8% -26% -12% -14% -27% -18% SB -11% -26% -17% -17% -26% -21% A1 Near Buckden NB -8% -20% -16% -15% -21% -19% NB -13% -24% -7% -19% -26% -11% M11 South of Girton SB 1% -24% -20% -7% -27% -22% EB 23% 1% 6% 18% 1% 2% A428 Near Bourne Airfield WB 35% -6% 43% 26% -6% 27% SB 52% -12% -8% 42% -11% -14% A1198 West of Hilton NB -15% 8% 10% -20% 12% 1% EB -1% 5% 20% -7% 4% 11% A141 North of Huntingdon WB 11% -28% -30% 5% -31% -34%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 113 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

161. The same key sections of SRN have been analysed to show the difference between both CHARM2 and the CHARM3a model. This comparison therefore also provides an idea as to the difference between CSRM, CHARM1 and CHARM3a. Both CHARM2 and CHARM3a represent a Base Year of 2014; where available, appropriate 2014 observed data are also provided. Whilst the 2014 model development has significantly more count data available than the 2011 modelling exercise, these are not in the same directly comparable locations. As the table shows, the differences between CHARM2 and CHARM3a are much lower, generally tending to be between ±1% to ±3%. This reflects the fact that the update of the Base Year in CHARM3a consisted primarily of small, targeted adjustments to the network in most cases and demonstrates that the good calibration and validation of the CHARM2 model on the SRN was not substantially altered with the update to CHARM3a.

Table 12-39: CHARM2 and CHARM3a Link Flows on key SRN Links

Observed CHARM2 CHARM3a % Difference (CHARM3a - CHARM2) Strategic Route Direction AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM AM IP PM WB 1,523 1,200 1,577 1,569 1,244 1,607 3% 4% 2% A14 West of A1 EB 1,557 1,195 1,584 1,580 1,239 1,616 1% 4% 2% SB 1,718 1,269 1,577 1,663 1,276 1,586 -3% 1% 1% A14 Spur east of A1(M) NB 1,445 1,316 1,757 1,423 1,319 1,682 -1% 0% -4% EB 2,272 2,076 2,719 2,285 2,084 2,725 2,281 2,087 2,722 0% 0% 0% A14 Through Huntingdon WB 2,839 2,237 2,875 2,852 2,237 2,951 2,856 2,239 2,897 0% 0% -2% EB 2,881 2,367 2,848 2,918 2,363 2,863 1% 0% 1% A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill WB 2,783 2,456 3,330 2,790 2,455 3,264 0% 0% -2% WB 3,010 2,749 3,949 3,010 2,757 4,039 3,005 2,756 3,970 0% 0% -2% A14 Bar Hill to Girton EB 3,631 2,611 3,177 3,647 2,615 3,190 3,638 2,614 3,170 0% 0% -1% EB 2,467 2,065 2,921 2,482 2,115 2,804 1% 2% -4% A14 Histon to Milton WB 2,847 2,047 2,965 2,826 2,086 2,870 -1% 2% -3% EB 1,941 1,872 3,227 2,032 1,830 3,203 2,125 1,883 3,236 5% 3% 1% A14 East of Milton WB 3,414 1,934 2,354 3,402 1,896 2,378 3,430 1,947 2,364 1% 3% -1% NB 2,325 2,083 3,253 2,349 2,098 3,179 1% 1% -2% A1 North of Alconbury SB 3,010 1,984 2,456 3,008 2,001 2,463 0% 1% 0% NB 1,196 852 1,565 1,245 873 1,579 4% 2% 1% A1 North of Brampton Hut SB 1,483 846 1,364 1,507 866 1,376 2% 2% 1% SB 1,529 996 1,542 1,564 1,010 1,611 2% 1% 4% A1 South of Brampton Hut NB 1,261 925 1,505 1,275 934 1,568 1% 1% 4% SB 1,787 1,124 1,780 1,827 1,132 1,798 2% 1% 1% A1 Near Buckden NB 1,778 1,256 1,790 1,846 1,265 1,955 4% 1% 9% NB 2,259 1,786 2,671 2,225 1,758 2,631 -1% -2% -1% M11 South of Girton SB 2,741 1,745 2,089 2,660 1,713 2,093 -3% -2% 0% EB 2,130 876 1,114 2,113 877 1,117 -1% 0% 0% A428 Near Bourne Airfield WB 1,172 939 2,225 1,173 938 2,219 0% 0% 0% SB 619 233 430 620 239 434 0% 3% 1% A1198 West of Hilton NB 509 353 693 501 257 645 -2% -27% -7% EB 1,578 792 1,199 1,349 865 1,225 1,298 902 1,251 -4% 4% 2% A141 North of Huntingdon WB 838 842 1,093 1,014 962 1,312 1,032 976 1,314 2% 2% 0%

162. As noted above, detailed information on the differences between CHARM2 and CHARM3a is provided in the ‘Traffic Modelling Update Report’, to be submitted at Deadline 2 of the Examination.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 114 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.26 What are the quality and consistency issues referred to? (Document 7.2 Para 3.5.11) Response 163. As noted in the ‘Transport demand modelling and model development process’, section 3.5 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2), the highway network of the CHARM2 traffic model was thoroughly reviewed and updated to improve both its quality and consistency across the Study Area. 164. The main focus of the network updates in CHARM2 was in the ‘Area of Detailed Modelling’. This is the area over which the impacts of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme are likely to be strong. Updates were also made to the ‘Rest of the Fully Modelled Area’ and the ‘External Area’ where necessary; these are the areas over which the impacts of the proposed scheme are likely to be weak and negligible respectively. These areas were defined by testing the impacts of the scheme in the predecessor CSRM and CHARM1 models, following a methodology set out in WebTAG unit M3.1 (Department for Transport). 165. Network coding is defined by a number of parameters, including link distances, saturation flows, free-flow speeds, speed-flow curves (defining volume-delay relationships), gap acceptance values and signal timings and staging. WebTAG unit M3.1 §5.2.15 notes that there is a “need to maintain consistency” in network coding and that standard procedures and values should be defined at the outset of the network coding task. §5.3 of the same WebTAG unit details a network checking procedure. This procedure, along with checks of warning and error messages generated by SATURN (the modelling software), was followed prior to undertaking new coding. 166. The results of this checking exercise identified a number of inconsistencies with regards to the application of network parameters across the CSRM and CHARM1 modelled networks, including in the ‘Area of Detailed Modelling’. These inconsistencies covered the application of link speeds, distances, saturation flows, speed-flow curves and gap acceptance values. In developing the networks for CHARM2, a standardised network coding manual was produced prior to any new network coding or updates being undertaken. Staff responsible for the networks were provided with this manual prior to undertaking coding, to ensure that all updates were applied in a consistent manner. All networks were subsequently checked prior to calibration of the model. This ensured a consistent application of parameters in the network, increasing the quality over the predecessor models.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 115 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.27 From where do the significant accident benefits on all other roads derive? (Document 7.2 Para 4.4.5) Response 167. Paragraph 4.4.5 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2) states: 168. “The new Huntingdon Southern Bypass section accounts for over £112.5 million of negative benefit, or disbenefit. While this disbenefit is an inherent aspect of new road construction (where there was none previously) it is offset by the significant accident benefits on all other roads included in the analysis, which is due to traffic reductions on these roads.”

169. Disbenefits are also seen on the A14 between the B660, north of Catworth, and the A1/A14 Interchange at Brampton Hut (-£10 million), and between Junction 14 on the A1(M) and (-£1.2 million). 170. The significant benefits from all other roads derive from:  a projected overall reduction in accidents on the A14 between Junction 14 on the A1(M) and Spittals Interchange resulting in monetised benefits of £14.8million;  a projected overall reduction in accidents on the A14 between the A1/A14 Interchange at Brampton Hut and Spittals Interchange resulting in monetised benefits of £6.3million;  a projected overall reduction in accidents on A14 between Spittals Interchange and Fen Drayton resulting in monetised benefits of £84.1million;  a projected overall reduction in accidents on the A14 between Fen Drayton and Girton Interchange resulting in monetised benefits of £11.7million;  a projected overall reduction in accidents on the A14 between Girton Interchange and Junction 35 on the A14 resulting in monetised benefits of £6.1million; and  a projected overall reduction in accidents on other major and minor roads within the study area (including the A428, A1198, A141, and B1050) resulting in monetised benefits of £125.7million.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 116 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.28 What is the Pathfinder Link? (Document 7.2 Para 5.7.3) Response 171. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 Para 5.7.3) states: 172. “Castle Moat Road / Walden Road, which sees significant numbers of NMUs daily (with the highest numbers being recorded Monday to Friday), would be the junction of the new Pathfinder Link under the scheme proposals. The junction at Castle Moat Road / Mill Common is currently used by NMUs to access Huntingdon Station, Hinchingbrooke School and Hospital as well as Huntingdon town centre. Under the scheme proposals the new Mill Common Link would cross the route from NCR 12 across Mill Common to Huntingdon station.”

173. The Pathfinder Link is the new section of road that will connect the new single carriageway into Huntingdon along the line of the old A14 to the Huntingdon Inner Ring Road at Castle Moat Road. The Pathfinder Link is shown on the General Arrangement Regulation 5 (2) (o) Huntingdon Town Centre drawing (number A14-JAC-ZZ-HT-DR-Z-01002).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 117 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.29 Please clarify the sentence ‘Under the scheme proposals...’. (Document 7.2 Para 5.7.3) Response 174. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 Para 5.7.3) states: 175. “Castle Moat Road / Walden Road, which sees significant numbers of NMUs daily (with the highest numbers being recorded Monday to Friday), would be the junction of the new Pathfinder Link under the scheme proposals. The junction at Castle Moat Road / Mill Common is currently used by NMUs to access Huntingdon Station, Hinchingbrooke School and Hospital as well as Huntingdon town centre. Under the scheme proposals the new Mill Common Link would cross the route from NCR 12 across Mill Common to Huntingdon station.”

176. The Pathfinder Link is the new section of road that will connect the new single carriageway into Huntingdon along the line of the old A14 to the Huntingdon Inner Ring Road at Castle Moat Road. The Pathfinder Link is shown on the General Arrangement Regulation 5 (2) (o) Huntingdon Town Centre drawing (number A14-JAC-ZZ-HT-DR-Z-01002). 177. The proposed new Mill Common Link is shown on the General Arrangement Regulation 5 (2) (o) Huntingdon Town Centre drawing (number A14-JAC-ZZ-HT-DR-Z-01002). The proposed link would cross an area between National Cycle Route 12 at Brampton Road and Huntingdon railway station. The link would be used by non-motorised users accessing a number of destinations including Castle Moat Road, Huntingdon railway station, Hinchingbrooke School, Hinchingbrooke Hospital and Huntingdon town centre.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 118 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.30 How does the forecast level of demand on the widened A1 between Brampton Hut Junction and Alconbury relate to the design capacity of the road? (Document 7.2 Para 7.4.8) Response 178. The existing road layout allows A1(M) to Cambridge traffic to exit/enter the A1(M) at the A14 spur Alconbury to Spittals junction. With the proposed scheme, and the demolition of Huntingdon Viaduct, this movement would be replaced with the Brampton Interchange allowing access to the Huntingdon Southern Bypass via free flowing slips. Appendix C of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) indicates the increase of the traffic flow on the A1 north of Brampton Interchange, demonstrating a total daily flow of 61,900 vehicles in 2020 and 81,500 vehicles per day by design year 2035. 179. To cater for this volume of traffic, the A1 between Alconbury junction and Brampton Interchange would need to be widened to 3 lanes.

180. To compare the forecast level of demand on the A1 between Brampton Hut and Alconbury to the design capacity of the road, AM and PM peak hour flows (two-way) should be considered. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2, appendix C) 2035 forecasts indicate there would be 5,900 vehicles per AM peak hour (two-way flow) and 6,700 vehicles per PM peak hour (two-way flow). The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) uses 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour as the standard lane capacity for an all- purpose road; this is shown in DMRB TD22/06, paragraph 3.3 and Figure 2/3 AP all-purpose road merging diagram. Hence the ultimate capacity of dual 3 lanes would be 9,600 vehicles per hour capacity (two-way).

181. The level of demand during the peak hours therefore requires 3 lanes in each direction between Alconbury and Brampton Hut, to ensure that the proposals are a satisfactory solution for forecasted traffic levels.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 119 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.31 *Why would the 40% and 49% increases in the volume of daily traffic on the A14 between Swavesey and Bar Hill and Bar Hill and Girton with the scheme in 2035 be greater than the 16% and 21% increases without the scheme? (Document 7.2 Para 7.4.19) Response 182. The forecast flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme are reported in Figure 7.7 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2). These forecasts are based on CHARM2 and have since been updated based on CHARM3a. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) forecasts from CHARM2 are reported in Table 12-40 below. The corresponding figures for CHARM3a are reported in Table 12-401.

Table 12-40: CHARM2 Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton

CHARM2 Road % Growth % Growth Section 2014 2020 from Base 2035 from Base Year Year Without Scheme A14 Swavesey to 80,200 86,100 +7% 93,400 +16% Bar Hill A14 Bar Hill 91,500 101,000 +10% 110,700 +21% to Girton With Scheme A14 Swavesey to 80,200 89,600 +12% 112,300 +40% Bar Hill A14 Bar Hill 91,500 106,000 +16% 135,900 +49% to Girton % change due to the Scheme A14 Swavesey to - +4% +20% Bar Hill A14 Bar Hill - +5% +23% to Girton

183. Table 12-40 shows that the forecast flow on the A14 between Swavesey and Bar Hill in the without scheme scenario in 2035 is 16% higher than the flow in 2014. The forecast increase flow on the A14 between Bar Hill and Girton is 21% higher than the flow in 2014.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 120 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-41: CHARM3a Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton

CHARM3a % Road Section % Growth Growth 2014 2020 from Base 2035 from Year Base Year Without Scheme A14 Swavesey 80,300 86,200 +7% 94,600 +18% to Bar Hill A14 Bar Hill to 91,400 100,300 +10% 111,300 +22% Girton With Scheme A14 Swavesey 80,300 87,800 +9% 104,600 +30% to Bar Hill A14 Bar Hill to 91,400 103,500 +13% 127,500 +39% Girton % change due to the Scheme A14 Swavesey - +2% +11% to Bar Hill A14 Bar Hill to - +3% +15% Girton

Table 12-41 and

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 121 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

184. Table 12-42 show that in both 2020 and 2035, the forecast flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton are higher with the scheme than without. There are two main reasons for this. 185. Firstly, the additional capacity added to this section of the A14 by the scheme caters for the forecast growth in long-distance traffic in the period to 2035. It also allows traffic that would use alternative routes to avoid congestion on the A14 without the scheme to return to the A14. It is this latter effect that would be partially responsible for the forecast increase in traffic using this section of the A14.

186. Secondly, the with scheme traffic forecasts include additional traffic associated with the Northstowe development that is not present in the without scheme forecasts because the second phase of the Northstowe development is dependent on the A14 scheme. In 2020, the without scheme forecasts include allowance for the first phase of the Northstowe development only (approximately 1,500 homes) while the with scheme forecasts include allowance for Phase 1 and the early parts of Phase 2 (approximately 2,300 homes). By 2035 the difference is even greater as the without scheme forecasts include allowance for the first phase of the Northstowe development only (approximately 1,500 homes) while the with scheme forecasts include allowance for Phase 1 and Phase 2 (approximately 5,000 homes in total). In order to quantify these two effects, a sensitivity test has been run which includes the scheme but only the first phase of the Northstowe development. The resultant AADT forecasts are summarised in Table 12.42.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 122 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-42: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Girton

CHARM2 CHARM3a Road Section 2014 2020 2035 2014 2020 2035 Without Scheme (including Northstowe Phase 1 only) A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill 80,200 86,100 93,400 80,300 86,200 94,600 A14 Bar Hill to Girton 91,500 101,000 110,700 91,400 100,300 111,300 With Scheme (including Northstowe Phase 1 only) A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill 80,200 87,800 108,300 80,300 86,300 100,100 A14 Bar Hill to Girton 91,500 102,600 126,200 91,400 100,600 117,200 With Scheme (including Northstowe Phase 1 and 2) A14 Swavesey to Bar Hill 80,200 89,600 112,300 80,300 87,800 104,600 A14 Bar Hill to Girton 91,500 106,000 135,900 91,400 103,500 127,500

187. From this it can be seen that there is little change in the forecast flows in 2020, with the majority of the growth in traffic on this section of the A14 attributable to the second phase of the Northstowe development. 188. However, by 2035 the impact of traffic rerouteing on to the A14 from other routes results in approximately 6% growth in daily traffic flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Bar Hill and 5% growth in daily traffic flows on the A14 between Bar Hill and Girton. This reflects the fact that without the scheme the A14 would be more congested in 2035 than in 2020 and consequently, there would be a greater volume of traffic using alternative routes that has the potential to return to the A14 with the scheme.

189. Northstowe Phase 2 is responsible for approximately 4% growth in daily traffic flows on the A14 between Swavesey and Bar Hill and for 9% growth in daily traffic flows on the A14 between Bar Hill and Girton.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 123 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.32 *Why are the with scheme daily traffic volumes on the A14 between Histon and Milton greater with the scheme than without? (Document 7.2 Para 7.4.23) Response 190. The forecast flows on the A14 between Histon (A14 Junction 32) and Milton (A14 Junction 33) in years 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme are reported in Figure 7.8 of the Transport Assessment (document 7.2). These forecasts are based on CHARM2 and have since been updated based on CHARM3a. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) forecasts from both versions of the model are reported in Table 12-43 below.

Table 12-43: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on the A14 between Histon and Milton

CHARM2 CHARM3a Road Section 2014 2020 2035 2014 2020 2035 A14 Histon to Milton Without Scheme 64,000 75,900 86,600 64,300 76,200 85,800 With Scheme n/a 84,000 104,900 n/a 81,700 97,400 % change due to the - +11% +21% - +7% +14% Scheme

191. Table 12-43 shows that in both 2020 and 2035, the forecast flows on the A14 between Histon and Milton are higher with the scheme than without. There are two main reasons for this. 192. Firstly, the additional capacity added to this section of the A14 by the scheme caters for the forecast growth in long-distance traffic in the period to 2035. It also allows local traffic that would otherwise use alternative routes to avoid congestion on the A14 to remain on the A14 for longer. For example, without the scheme, local traffic heading into Cambridge is generally forecast to use one of the first radial routes it reaches, regardless of its final destination in the city. With the scheme, this traffic is able to remain on the A14 and can choose the most appropriate radial route for its destination in Cambridge. As a result, some of the traffic approaching from the east continues along the A14 between Histon and Milton, rather than leaving the A14 at Milton and routeing through local roads in the city.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 124 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

193. The second reason for the increase in flow on the A14 between Histon and Milton with the scheme is that some local traffic travelling within Cambridge is forecast to join the A14 at a different location due to the additional capacity that would be provided by the scheme. For example, without the scheme, traffic from Cambridge Science Park travelling westbound on the A14 or A428 would use the local road network to access the A14 at Histon, avoiding congestion on the section between Milton and Histon. With the scheme, this traffic is forecast to join the A14 at Milton instead, leading to an increase in flows on this section of the Cambridge Northern Bypass and reduced flows on local roads. 194. The forecast flows are within the capacity of the improved road.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 125 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.33 *Whilst the relationship between the A14 and local roads is said to be complex and therefore much harder to predict with certainty on individual routes, what briefly are the reasons thought to be for the indicated % changes in the context of revised trip routes for each of the road sections identified as a result of the scheme? (Document 7.2 Table 7.6) Response 195. The A14 scheme would have a number of potential effects on the local road network, with the impact on individual routes dependent on various factors including proximity to the A14 and other strategic routes, whether there is a major development site nearby and attractiveness of the route as a potential rat-run. 196. Two forecast scenarios have been presented:  The Do Minimum which represents the situation without the A14 scheme; and  The Do Something which represents the situation with the A14 scheme. 197. The scheme would provide additional capacity on the A14 between the new Ellington junction and Milton (Junction 33). Some of this additional capacity would be taken up by long distance traffic that would reroute from other strategic routes and some would be taken up by local traffic returning to the A14 from other local roads. In the former case, the main change is forecast to be a transfer of traffic from the A1198 and A428, which would free up capacity on these routes for traffic that would otherwise rat-run via local roads. In the latter case, it is the towns and villages located on existing rat- runs and immediately along the A14 corridor that are most likely to be affected. 198. All things being constant, these changes would be expected to provide relief to local villages along the A14, A428 and A1198. However, while traffic flows are forecast to fall in some places, the resultant redistribution of local traffic may also lead to increased traffic flows on some local roads. For example, in a village between the A14 and A428, two effects may occur. Firstly, traffic from villages to the north that was previously using the road through the village to access the A428 may return to the A14, leading to a reduction in flows through the village. However, there may be an increase in traffic accessing the A14 from villages to the south, which did not previously pass through the village. Depending on the magnitude of these two effects, the village may experience an increase in traffic, a decrease in traffic or indeed traffic volumes may not change.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 126 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

199. The picture is further complicated by planned new development. While, with the exception of Northstowe Phase 2, the assumptions regarding future development are the same in the traffic forecasts for both Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios, the impacts of the developments may differ between these two scenarios. For example, due to the increased levels of congestion forecast to occur in the Do Minimum scenario, a greater proportion of development trips may be made by public transport and/or trip patterns may change as the development traffic seeks to avoid the most congested parts of the road network. In the Do Something scenario, greater capacity is available on the road network and therefore the number of car trips may increase and/or development traffic may use different routes. Consequently, roads through villages located close to major development sites may carry substantially different levels of development traffic in the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. 200. The traffic forecasts presented in the Transport Assessment (Document Reference 7.2) are based on CHARM2. Since the Transport Assessment was published, a number of changes and refinements have been made to the traffic model culminating in the development of CHARM3a. The following analysis is based on the revised traffic forecasts produced using CHARM3a. These forecasts will be reported in the Traffic Modelling Update Report to be submitted to the Examining Authority at deadline 2 of the examination timetable, 15 June 2015. Some links which were not included in the TA have been added to the tables below to aid understanding. These include:  B1514 Brampton Road (east of Hinchingbrooke)  B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton)  B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14)  A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 201. Table 12-44 presents forecasts flows on local roads in 2014, 2020 and 2035 for the Do Minimum scenario. Table 12-45 and Table 12-46 compare forecast flows in the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios in 2020 and 2035 respectively. In these latter two tables, roads where flows increase by more than 10% as a result of the scheme are highlighted in red, roads where flows decrease by more than 10% are highlighted in green, while roads where flows change by less than 10% are highlighted in blue.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 127 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-44: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in the Do Minimum Scenario

CHARM3a Road Section 2014 2020 2035 Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 10,800 8,600 11,700 B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 5,700 6,000 7,400 B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 16,200 17,000 18,800 B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 15,300 15,800 18,500 B1514 Brampton Road (east of 15,900 17,600 20,800 Hinchingbrooke) B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 17,300 17,800 19,700 B1514 Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 9,700 10,500 11,200 B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 7,500 6,800 7,500 Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,600 14,600 14,900 B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 10,400 11,100 12,500 A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 23,300 23,100 23,200 High Street (through Over) 2,200 2,200 2,300 High Street (through Swavesey) 500 600 900 B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 11,100 12,700 13,600 B1050 Hatton’s Road (south of Longstanton) 13,800 16,200 19,200 B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14) 13,800 16,200 19,200 B1040 Potton Road (north of Potton) 6,700 7,700 8,800 Elsworth Road (through Conington) 800 1,300 2,500 High Street (through Knapwell) 1,000 1,800 3,800 High Street (through Boxworth) 2,300 2,700 3,400 Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 4,900 5,900 8,700 Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 13,700 14,100 17,400 A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 16,100 18,300 21,000 A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 10,800 11,000 13,500 A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 16,200 17,600 22,900 Cambridge Road (through Girton) 5,300 5,900 8,900 B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 18,900 20,900 23,900 B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 16,400 22,100 26,400 A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 21,000 23,100 24,500 A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 31,500 31,200 35,700 A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 25,700 26,500 27,600 Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 128 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-45: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2020 in the Do Minimum and Do Something Scenarios

CHARM3a Do Road Section Do Somethin % Change Minimum g Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 8,600 8,400 -2% B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 6,000 6,100 +2% B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 17,000 14,500 -15% B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 15,800 6,700 -58% B1514 Brampton Road (east of Hinchingbrooke) 17,600 23,100 +31% B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 17,800 14,900 -16% B1514 Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 10,500 9,700 -8% B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 6,800 4,000 -41% Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,600 13,900 -5% B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 11,100 11,100 0% A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 23,100 22,800 -1% High Street (through Over) 2,200 2,200 0% High Street (through Swavesey) 600 600 0% B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 12,700 13,000 +2% B1050 Hatton’s Road (south of Longstanton) 16,200 17,600 +9% B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14) 16,200 21,200 +31% B1040 Potton Road (north of Potton) 7,700 7,900 +3% Elsworth Road (through Conington) 1,300 1,400 +8% High Street (through Knapwell) 1,800 1,400 -22% High Street (through Boxworth) 2,700 2,500 -7% Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 5,900 6,500 +10% Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 14,100 14,300 +1% A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 18,300 18,100 -1% A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 11,000 12,400 +13% A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 17,600 17,600 0% Cambridge Road (through Girton) 5,900 4,900 -17% B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 20,900 22,200 +6% B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 22,100 22,700 +3% A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 23,100 23,200 0% A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 31,200 31,400 +1% A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 26,500 26,700 +1% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 129 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-46: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2035 in the Do Minimum and Do Something Scenarios

CHARM3a Do Road Section Do Somethin % Change Minimum g Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 11,700 11,300 -3% B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 7,400 7,200 -3% B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 18,800 16,400 -13% B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 18,500 8,700 -53% B1514 Brampton Road (east of Hinchingbrooke) 20,800 25,300 +22% B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 19,700 15,600 -21% B1514 Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 11,200 9,600 -14% B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 7,500 4,300 -43% Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,900 14,100 -5% B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 12,500 12,600 +1% A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 23,200 22,600 -3% High Street (through Over) 2,300 2,100 -9% High Street (through Swavesey) 900 900 0% B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 13,600 16,200 +19% B1050 Hatton’s Road (south of Longstanton) 19,200 16,600 -14% B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14) 19,200 37,700 +96% B1040 Potton Road (north of Potton) 8,800 9,200 +5% Elsworth Road (through Conington) 2,500 2,700 +8% High Street (through Knapwell) 3,800 3,200 -16% High Street (through Boxworth) 3,400 3,300 -3% Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 8,700 11,100 +28% Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 17,400 17,000 -2% A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 21,000 20,000 -5% A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 13,500 17,400 +29% A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 22,900 23,400 +2% Cambridge Road (through Girton) 8,900 6,900 -22% B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 23,900 24,000 0% B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 26,400 26,400 0% A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 24,500 24,600 0% A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 35,700 35,600 0% A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 27,600 27,600 0% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 130 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Do Minimum Scenario

202. Table 12-44 compares traffic flows on the local roads in 2014, 2020 and 2035 in the Do Minimum scenario, without the A14 scheme. Across all of the selected local roads in CHARM3a, traffic levels are forecast to grow by 7% between 2014 and 2020 and a further 14% by 2035. However, the forecast growth in traffic varies from road to road, with some routes showing little or no growth between 2014 and 2035, while there is significant growth on others over the same period. This reflects the fact that some routes are already operating close to capacity and therefore cannot accommodate additional traffic, while others have spare capacity and therefore become more attractive alternatives as general traffic levels grow.

Do Something Scenario

Impact on Local Roads around Huntingdon

203. On the local roads around Huntingdon, some large changes in traffic flows are forecast as a result of the scheme. Traffic flows on The Avenue in Godmanchester are forecast to fall by more than 50% in both 2020 and 2035. The reduction in forecast traffic flows on The Avenue is due to the rerouteing of traffic travelling into Huntingdon from the east and trips in the reverse direction. Currently, this traffic must leave the A14 at Junction 24 (Godmanchester) and then use local roads including The Avenue to access Huntingdon. As part of the scheme, the Huntingdon viaduct would be removed and the detrunked A14 would be tied into the existing road network in Huntingdon town centre via the Mill Common Link and Pathfinder Link. This would provide a quicker and more direct connection in to the town centre, with a significant transfer of traffic from The Avenue on to the detrunked A14 as a result. 204. Traffic flows on Thrapston Road to the north of Brampton are also forecast to fall by more than 40% as a result of the scheme. The forecast reduction is due to the transfer of long-distance traffic on to the Huntingdon Southern Bypass. This creates significant spare capacity on the detrunked A14 to the west of Huntingdon, which allows traffic that is using the B1514 to access Huntingdon to reroute via the detrunked A14, making use of the improved local road connections that would replace the Huntingdon Viaduct. 205. Smaller reductions in traffic flow are forecast on Buckden Road to the south of Brampton and on Hartford Road on the east side of Huntingdon as a result of the scheme. The former is due to rerouteing of local traffic from Huntingdon and Godmachester. In the Do Minimum scenario, this traffic is expected to use Buckden Road to access the A1 south. In the Do Something scenario, some local traffic from north and west Huntingdon is forecast to reroute via the detrunked A14, while some traffic from Godmanchester is forecast to reroute via the B1043, with the remainder staying on Buckden Road.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 131 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

206. The reduction in daily traffic flows on Hartford Road is a result of the rerouteing of traffic travelling between St Ives and areas to the west of Huntingdon. In the Do Minimum scenario, this traffic is expected to route via Hartford Road, the town centre ring road and Brampton Road. In the Do Something scenario, this traffic is forecast to switch on to the A141 and detrunked A14, both of which are expected to benefit from improved reliability due to the removal of strategic traffic movements from the A14 through Huntingdon. 207. Traffic flows on Brampton Road on the west side of Huntingdon are forecast to increase as a result of the scheme. This is the section of road between Hinchingbrooke Park Road and Edison Bell Way, and therefore would form part of the link road between the two parts of the detrunked A14. The forecast increase in traffic on this road is due to a combination of factors:  Rerouteing of traffic accessing Huntingdon from the A1 to the north. In the Do Minimum scenario, this traffic is forecast to leave the A14 at the Spittals Interchange (Junction 23) and access Huntingdon via the B1044 Stukeley Road. In the Do Something scenario, some of this traffic would remain on the A14 and instead access Huntingdon via the Views Common Link and B1514 Brampton Road, leading to an increase in traffic on the latter road.  There are some local through trips between the area north of Huntingdon and the area to the south of Huntingdon, including Godmanchester. In the Do Minimum scenario, these trips would use the A14 through Huntingdon. In the Do Something scenario, these trips would use the Views Common Link, Hinchingbrooke Road, Brampton Road and Mill Common Link. Hence, they would not use sections of the B1514 on either side of the section reported. 208. To the north of Huntingdon, traffic flows on the B1043 Ermine Street through the Stukeleys and on B1090 Station Road through Abbotts Ripton are not forecast to change significantly as a result of the scheme, with daily traffic flows forecast to change by a maximum of 2-3%.

Impact on Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge

209. Limited change is forecast on the local roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge. In 2020, flows on most roads are forecast to change by less than 5% or 200 vehicles per day. The only routes that are forecast to experience a significant increase in traffic as a result of the scheme are the B1050 Hatton’s Road south of Longstanton (+9%) and Scotland Road through Dry Drayton (+10%).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 132 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

210. The higher flows on Hatton’s Road and Scotland Road are not the result of reassignment. They are primarily the result of the additional development at Northstowe that would be unlocked by the A14 scheme. In the ‘Do-Minimum’ scenario (i.e. without the scheme) the Northstowe development is capped at 1,500 residential units, while in the ‘Do-Something’ scenario (i.e. with the scheme), the quantum of development is increased to approximately 2,300 units. This additional traffic would access the A14 via the Bar Hill junction (Junction 29), leading to higher flows on the B1050 Hatton’s Road. Some of the additional development traffic is forecast to travel via Dry Drayton to access the A428 and A1303, leading to the forecast increase in flows on Scotland Road. 211. There is forecast to be a reduction in traffic on the High Street through Knapwell (-22%), however, the absolute change is relatively small at less than 400 vehicles per day. This change is due to the rerouteing of traffic travelling from the A14 to the west of Huntingdon to the developments at Cambourne and Bourn Airfield. In the Do Minimum scenario, this traffic is expected to use the A14 through Huntingdon, leaving the A14 at Junction 27 (Fenstanton) and to then use local roads through Connington and Knapwell to access the developments. In the Do Something scenario, this traffic is forecast to use the Huntingdon Southern Bypass and A1198 instead. 212. A similar level of change is forecast in 2035, with traffic flows on many routes forecast to change by less than 5% or 200 vehicles per day as a result of the scheme. Again, the main changes are focussed around the Northstowe development, which is assumed to comprise approximately 5,000 residential units in the Do Something scenario compared with just 1,500 units in the Do Minimum scenario. The development at Northstowe is conditional upon the scheme: development will not be allowed to expand beyond Phase 1 (1,500 units) without the scheme. As a consequence, traffic flows on the B1050 Station Road through Willingham are forecast to increase by 19%. Flows on the B1050 Hatton’s Road to the south of Longstanton are forecast to decrease by 14%. This reduction is a result of changes to the access arrangements for the Northstowe development. In the Do minimum scenario, there would be a single point of access to the Northstowe development, which would be located to the north of Longstanton. All traffic from the development would use this access and then use the B1050 to access the A14 at Bar Hill (Junction 29).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 133 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

213. In 2035 Do Something scenario, it is assumed that a new southern access road would be provided which would connect the Northstowe development to the B1050 to the south of Longstanton. This is required for the scale of the development. This second access is expected to carry the majority of the development traffic that is travelling towards the A14. As a consequence, development traffic flows on the B1050 to the north of this access road are forecast to be reduced with a consequential reduction in total traffic flows. Traffic flows on the B1050 Hatton’s Road to the south of the Northstowe southern access road are forecast to almost double in 2035 as a result of the Phase 2 development, rising from 19,200 vehicles per day in the Do Minimum scenario to 37,700 vehicles per day in the Do Something scenario.

214. The only other material change is on Scotland Road through Dry Drayton, where flows are forecast to increase by almost 30%. As in 2020, this increase is due to the additional traffic generated by the Northstowe development.

Impact on Local Roads around Cambridge 215. Very little change in flows is forecast on the roads around Cambridge, with almost all routes experiencing changes in traffic flow of less than 5% or 200 vehicles per day. Changes of this magnitude are not considered to be indicative of a material change in traffic flows as a result of the scheme. 216. The main changes are on the A1307 Huntingdon Road in north-west Cambridge and on Cambridge Road through Girton. 217. Flows on Huntingdon Road immediately to the south of the Girton Interchange are forecast to rise by 13% in 2020 and by 29% in 2035 as a result of the scheme. This increase is the result of a number of changes to traffic routeings. Firstly, the improvements to the capacity of the A14 between Swavesey and Girton would relieve congestion on the A14 between Bar Hill and Girton thereby allowing slightly more traffic in to Cambridge on the A1307. Secondly, some traffic that is forecast to use the A1198, A428 and A1303 to access Cambridge in the Do Minimum scenario is expected to reroute via the A14 and A1307 in the Do Something scenario to take advantage of the new road. Finally and most significantly, local traffic travelling from villages to the south of the A428 to the village of Girton, which is expected to travel via Dry Drayton Road and Cambridge Road in the Do Minimum scenario, is forecast to reroute via The Avenue, the new Local Access Road and Huntingdon Road in the Do Something scenario. This movement is made possible because all movements will be possible at the junction of The Avenue and the new Local Access Road. At present, the junction only allows left turns to be made.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 134 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

218. Forecast traffic flows on Huntingdon Road to the east of Girton Road are not expected to change significantly as a result of the scheme. The more significant changes are forecast to be restricted to the section between the Local Access Road and Girton Road. This demonstrates that the increases in traffic on Huntingdon Road are primarily a product of a localised rerouteing of traffic around Girton rather than a marked increase in the volume of traffic accessing Cambridge city centre via this route. 219. This localised rerouteing of traffic into Girton from the south via Huntingdon Road rather than from the north via Dry Drayton Road and Cambridge Road also explains the forecast reduction in traffic flows on Cambridge Road in Girton, on which daily traffic flows are projected to fall by 17% in 2020 and by 22% in 2035.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 135 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.34 *What is the difference in the % change in the 2-way AADT forecasts between those in the Transport Assessment and those in the Traffic Modelling Update Report? What briefly are the reasons thought to be for the differences in the context of revised trip routes for each of the road sections identified as a result of the scheme? (Document 7.2 Table 7.6) Response 220. The following analysis compares the traffic forecasts on local roads produced using CHARM2 and CHARM3a. 221. Table 12.47 presents forecasts flows on local roads in 2014, 2020 and 2035 without the scheme. Table 12-48 and Table Table 12-49 compare forecast flows with and without the scheme in 2020 and 2035 respectively. In these latter two tables, roads where flows increase by more than 10% as a result of the scheme are highlighted in red, roads where flows decrease by more than 10% are highlighted in green, while roads where flows change by less than 10% are highlighted in blue.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 136 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-47: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads without the scheme

CHARM2 CHARM3a Road Section 2014 2020 2035 2014 2020 2035 Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 10,900 8,200 11,400 10,800 8,600 11,700 B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 5,300 5,400 6,700 5,700 6,000 7,400 B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 15,500 17,100 19,200 16,200 17,000 18,800 B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 15,400 17,300 21,100 15,300 15,800 18,500 B1514 Brampton Road (east of Hinchingbrooke) 15,400 21,800 25,300 15,900 17,600 20,800 B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 16,700 20,500 23,000 17,300 17,800 19,700 B1514 Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 9,100 10,700 11,000 9,700 10,500 11,200 B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 7,300 8,600 10,200 7,500 6,800 7,500 Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 14,700 15,000 15,000 14,600 14,600 14,900 B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 10,000 10,700 12,500 10,400 11,100 12,500 A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 24,300 24,100 23,400 23,300 23,100 23,200 High Street (through Over) 2,200 2,200 2,300 2,200 2,200 2,300 High Street (through Swavesey) 500 600 900 500 600 900 B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 11,300 12,800 14,300 11,100 12,700 13,600 B1050 Hatton’s Road (south of Longstanton) 13,900 16,100 19,500 13,800 16,200 19,200 B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14) 13,900 16,100 19,500 13,800 16,200 19,200 B1040 Potton Road (north of Potton) 7,400 8,600 10,000 6,700 7,700 8,800 Elsworth Road (through Conington) 900 1,200 3,500 800 1,300 2,500 High Street (through Knapwell) 1,100 1,600 4,700 1,000 1,800 3,800 High Street (through Boxworth) 2,300 2,600 3,300 2,300 2,700 3,400 Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 4,800 6,200 8,300 4,900 5,900 8,700 Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 13,300 14,400 17,100 13,700 14,100 17,400 A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 15,800 16,800 19,800 16,100 18,300 21,000 A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 10,600 10,800 13,500 10,800 11,000 13,500 A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 15,700 17,500 22,300 16,200 17,600 22,900 Cambridge Road (through Girton) 5,100 6,100 9,200 5,300 5,900 8,900 B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 18,900 19,700 21,100 18,900 20,900 23,900 B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 16,200 21,600 24,900 16,400 22,100 26,400 A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 21,000 21,900 22,400 21,000 23,100 24,500 A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 30,200 31,400 32,600 31,500 31,200 35,700 A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 25,700 26,800 27,700 25,700 26,500 27,600 Units: vehicles per day, rounded to nearest 100.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 137 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-48: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2020 with and without the scheme

CHARM2 CHARM3a TableRoad 2: SectionForecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2020w/o with andw/ witho ut% the schemew/o w/ % Scheme Scheme Change Scheme Scheme Change Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 8,200 8,500 +4% 8,600 8,400 -2% B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 5,400 5,800 +7% 6,000 6,100 +2% B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 17,100 14,000 -18% 17,000 14,500 -15% B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 17,300 9,500 -45% 15,800 6,700 -58% B1514 Brampton Road (east of Hinchingbrooke) 21,800 22,500 +3% 17,600 23,100 +31% B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 20,500 12,500 -39% 17,800 14,900 -16% B1514 Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 10,700 8,500 -21% 10,500 9,700 -8% B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 8,600 3,400 -60% 6,800 4,000 -41% Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 15,000 14,200 -5% 14,600 13,900 -5% B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 10,700 10,900 +2% 11,100 11,100 0% A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 24,100 24,000 0% 23,100 22,800 -1% High Street (through Over) 2,200 2,200 0% 2,200 2,200 0% High Street (through Swavesey) 600 700 +17% 600 600 0% B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 12,800 13,200 +3% 12,700 13,000 +2% B1050 Hatton’s Road (south of Longstanton) 16,100 17,500 +9% 16,200 17,600 +9% B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14) 16,100 20,700 +29% 16,200 21,200 +31% B1040 Potton Road (north of Potton) 8,600 9,300 +8% 7,700 7,900 +3% Elsworth Road (through Conington) 1,200 1,400 +17% 1,300 1,400 +8% High Street (through Knapwell) 1,600 1,400 -13% 1,800 1,400 -22% High Street (through Boxworth) 2,600 2,300 -12% 2,700 2,500 -7% Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 6,200 6,900 +11% 5,900 6,500 +10% Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 14,400 14,700 +2% 14,100 14,300 +1% A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 16,800 16,500 -2% 18,300 18,100 -1% A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 10,800 12,000 +11% 11,000 12,400 +13% A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 17,500 17,800 +2% 17,600 17,600 0% Cambridge Road (through Girton) 6,100 5,500 -10% 5,900 4,900 -17% B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 19,700 20,300 +3% 20,900 22,200 +6% B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 21,600 22,300 +3% 22,100 22,700 +3% A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 21,900 21,800 0% 23,100 23,200 0% A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 31,400 30,900 -2% 31,200 31,400 +1% A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 26,800 27,100 +1% 26,500 26,700 +1%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 138 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-49: Forecast 2-way AADT flows on Local Roads in 2035 with and without the scheme

CHARM2 CHARM3a Road Section w/o w/ % w/o w/ % Scheme Scheme Change Scheme Scheme Change Local Roads around Huntingdon B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 11,400 11,800 +4% 11,700 11,300 -3% B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 6,700 7,000 +4% 7,400 7,200 -3% B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 19,200 16,000 -17% 18,800 16,400 -13% B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 21,100 12,100 -43% 18,500 8,700 -53% B1514 Brampton Road (east of Hinchingbrooke) 25,300 24,600 -3% 20,800 25,300 +22% B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 23,000 13,400 -42% 19,700 15,600 -21% B1514 Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 11,000 8,700 -21% 11,200 9,600 -14% B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 10,200 3,900 -62% 7,500 4,300 -43% Local Roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge A1123 Houghton Road (through St Ives) 15,000 14,300 -5% 14,900 14,100 -5% B1040 Somersham Road (north of St Ives) 12,500 12,600 +1% 12,500 12,600 +1% A1123 Station Road (through Earith) 23,400 22,500 -4% 23,200 22,600 -3% High Street (through Over) 2,300 2,200 -4% 2,300 2,100 -9% High Street (through Swavesey) 900 900 0% 900 900 0% B1050 Station Road (through Willingham) 14,300 16,200 +13% 13,600 16,200 +19% B1050 Hatton’s Road (south of Longstanton) 19,500 16,200 -17% 19,200 16,600 -14% B1050 Hatton’s Road (north of A14) 19,500 33,900 +74% 19,200 37,700 +96% B1040 Potton Road (north of Potton) 10,000 10,000 0% 8,800 9,200 +5% Elsworth Road (through Conington) 3,500 3,100 -11% 2,500 2,700 +8% High Street (through Knapwell) 4,700 3,200 -32% 3,800 3,200 -16% High Street (through Boxworth) 3,300 3,100 -6% 3,400 3,300 -3% Scotland Road (through Dry Drayton) 8,300 11,200 +35% 8,700 11,100 +28% Local Roads around Cambridge A603 Barton Road (east of M11) 17,100 16,900 -1% 17,400 17,000 -2% A1303 Madingley Road (east of M11) 19,800 18,200 -8% 21,000 20,000 -5% A1307 Huntingdon Road (south of A14 ) 13,500 16,700 +24% 13,500 17,400 +29% A1307 Huntingdon Road (east of Girton Road) 22,300 23,100 +4% 22,900 23,400 +2% Cambridge Road (through Girton) 9,200 7,800 -15% 8,900 6,900 -22% B1049 Bridge Road (through Impington) 21,100 20,300 -4% 23,900 24,000 0% B1049 Histon Road (south of A14) 24,900 25,400 +2% 26,400 26,400 0% A10 Ely Road (through Milton) 22,400 22,500 0% 24,500 24,600 0% A1309 Milton Road (south of A14) 32,600 34,500 +6% 35,700 35,600 0% A10 Ely Road (past Waterbeach) 27,700 27,700 0% 27,600 27,600 0%

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 139 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

222. In general, the CHARM3a forecasts show the impact of the scheme to be similar or lower than the CHARM2 forecasts. The majority of the changes in routeing can be attributed to the lower external-to-external growth assumptions, which has reduced the volume of long distance traffic passing through the study area. This has created more capacity on the strategic road network for local traffic movements thereby relieving traffic from other local roads.

Impact on local roads around Huntingdon

223. The main difference between the two sets of forecasts is on the local roads in the vicinity of Brampton. Traffic flows on these roads are forecast to be higher with the scheme but lower without the scheme in CHARM3a, leading to some relatively large changes in the impact of the scheme. The most significant change is on the B1514 Brampton Road (between Hinchingbrooke Park Road and Edison Bell Way), where the CHARM2 forecasts suggest there would be a 3% increase in flow as a result of the scheme, while the CHARM3a forecasts predict a 31% increase in traffic flows. 224. The forecast flows with the scheme have increased by 700 vehicles per day in CHARM3a compared to CHARM2. However, the main reason for the higher impact of the scheme is a reduction of 4,500 vehicles per day in the forecast flows using this route without the scheme in CHARM3a compared to CHARM2. This change is an indirect consequence of the reduction in the growth of long-distance (external to external) traffic resulting from the use of NTEM 6.2 and RTF2013 described earlier. This reduction in growth results in a situation where there is some spare capacity on the existing A14 in the Do Minimum (without scheme) scenario. As a consequence, some trips which were assigned to route on the B1514 through Brampton to access Huntingdon in CHARM2 are assigned on the A14 to Spittals and the A141 in CHARM3a. 225. The impact of the scheme on other sections of road around Brampton is lower in CHARM3a, with Thrapston Road, Buckden Road and Huntingdon Road all forecast to experience a smaller reduction in flow as a result of the scheme compared with CHARM2. This is a result of more local traffic using the A14 and B1043 rather than the B1514 to access Huntingdon and areas to the north and east in the without scheme scenario. 226. Other notable changes in the CHARM3a forecasts include a reduction in flows on The Avenue in Godmanchester and on Hartford Road in Huntingdon. In the former case, more of the local traffic heading to areas to the north and west of Huntingdon is forecast to remain on the A14 rather than routeing through Huntingdon town centre via The Avenue. In the latter case, more of the local traffic heading to areas to the west of Huntingdon is forecast to use the A141 and A14 rather than routeing through Huntingdon town centre via Hartford Road.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 140 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

227. To the north of Huntingdon, the impact of the scheme on Ermine Street through the Stukeleys and Station Road through Abbotts Ripton is reduced in CHARM3a, with both routes expected to experience a small reduction in flow as a result of the scheme in 2035. This is due to an increase in the volume of traffic from the A1 to the north that uses the strategic road network to access Huntingdon rather than rat-running via local roads. This change in the without scheme assignment is a result of the reduced forecast of external to external traffic.

Impact on local roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge

228. On the local roads between Huntingdon and Cambridge, the forecast impacts of the scheme are similar, although the scale of impact is generally lower in CHARM3a than CHARM2. On the A1123 through St Ives and Earith, the B1040 north of St Ives and the B1050 through Willingham and Longstanton, there is limited change in the forecast traffic flows and resultant impacts of the scheme between the two versions of the traffic model. 229. The largest difference in the forecast flows is on the B1050 Hatton’s Road north of the A14. Here traffic flows with the scheme are forecast to be approximately 3,800 vehicles per day higher in CHARM3a than in CHARM2. This change is primarily due to an increase in traffic leaving the Northstowe development in the evening peak, which was previously queued within the development site7. 230. The impacts on Scotland Road through Dry Drayton are slightly lower in CHARM3a, which is due to a greater proportion of the traffic travelling between the A10 to the north and the A428 to the west being forecast to remain on the strategic road network rather than rat-running via local roads. In CHARM2, some of this traffic is forecast to use the route through Oakington and Dry Drayton to avoid congestion on the Cambridge Northern Bypass. While some traffic is forecast to use this route in CHARM3a, the volume of traffic is substantially reduced with the majority of the traffic using the A10, A14 and A428 instead.

7 This was caused by a coding error in CHARM2. The development access junction was coded with inadequate capacity so not all traffic could exit the Northstowe development. This issue has been addressed in CHARM3a by recoding the junction with unlimited capacity.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 141 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

231. The impact of the scheme on the B1040 north of Potton is also forecast to be higher in CHARM3a than CHARM2, although total traffic flows on this route are forecast to be lower both with and without the scheme. This reduction in flow results from a greater proportion of traffic from St Ives joining the A14 at Junction 26 rather than rat-running through Potton to join the A1198. The reduction is larger without the scheme than with the scheme because this section of the A14 is more congested and therefore there is greater incentive for traffic to reroute. With the scheme, this section of the existing A14 would be substantially relieved of traffic by the Huntingdon Southern Bypass and therefore the majority of the traffic from St Ives that reroutes in the without scheme scenario would already be assigned to the existing A14 route in the with scheme scenario. 232. Large increases in the percentage impact of the scheme are forecast on the roads through Connington and Knapwell. These changes are primarily due to a large reduction in the forecast traffic flows through these villages without the scheme, which result from traffic from the Cambourne and Bourn Airfield developments rerouteing via the A428 and A1198 rather than using local roads. 233. The scheme is forecast to have a much lower impact on Swavesey in 2020 and on Over in 2035 compared with the earlier CHARM2 forecasts. However, the absolute change in flows between the two versions of the model is small (100-200 vehicles per day) and are not considered to be indicative of a material change in the impact of the scheme in these locations.

Impact on local roads around Cambridge

234. There is limited change in the forecast impacts of the scheme on the local roads around Cambridge. The largest changes are on Huntingdon Road south of the A14 and Cambridge Road through Girton. Traffic flows on Huntingdon Road with the scheme are forecast to increase by around 700 vehicles per day, while flows on Cambridge Road would decrease by a similar amount. This reflects a localised rerouteing of traffic to and from Girton, with more traffic using the A14 and A1307 and less traffic using Dry Drayton Road and Oakington Road to access the village. The impacts on Huntingdon Road to the east of Girton Road remain largely unchanged, with traffic predicted to increase by less than 5% as a result of the scheme. 235. CHARM3a forecasts slightly higher traffic flows on Madingley Road and a number of other routes around Cambridge, both with and without the scheme, however, the impacts of the scheme are small with many routes experiencing little or no change in traffic volumes. The reason for the forecast increase in flows on these roads is again a product of changes to traffic routeings associated with the lower to external-to-external growth assumptions. This is forecast to attract more local traffic on to the strategic road network and the main radial routes in to Cambridge from the A14 and M11 are expected to get busier as a result.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 142 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.35 *Briefly, how would the reduction in traffic flows on key radial routes into Huntingdon occur in the context of revised traffic flows and trip routes as a result of the scheme? How does this identified reduction compare with the limited change identified in Paragraph 7.5.10? (Document 7.2 Para 7.5.9) Response 236. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 in the Transport Assessment (TA) (document reference 7.2) show the forecasts traffic flows derived from CHARM2 on some of the radial routes into Huntingdon and Brampton. The corresponding forecasts from CHARM3a are shown in Table 12-50 and Table 12-51 below. As a result of the removal of the Huntingdon viaduct, the scheme would introduce three more radial options:  Views Common Link allows access to Brampton Road from the detrunked A14 in the north;  Mill Common Link allows access to Brampton Road from the detrunked A14 in the south; and  Pathfinder Link allows access to the Huntingdon Ring Road from the de-trunked A14 in the south. 237. The forecast flows on these links are also shown in Table 12-50 and Table 12-51 below. The locations of these links are shown in Figure 12-24 below.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 143 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Views Common Link

Pathfinder Link

Mill Common Link

Figure 12-24: Location of Views Common Link, Mill Common Link and Pathfinder Link

Source: Drawing A14-ARP-ZZ-00-DR-Z-00860, Traffic Regulation Measures, Regulation 5(2)(o), Clearways & Weight Limits Sheet 29 of 36, Revision P00.3

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 144 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-50: CHARM3a comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts on local road in 2020 with and without the scheme

Road Section: Local Roads around Without With % Huntingdon scheme Scheme Change

B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 8,578 8,328 -3% B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 5,961 5,927 -1% B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 18,866 16,204 -14% B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 15,796 6,333 -60% B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 17,816 15,061 -15% Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 10,550 9,886 -6% B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 10,580 7,074 -33% Views Common Link n/a 10,382 - Mill Common Link n/a 21,336 - Pathfinder Link n/a 10,624 -

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 145 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-51: CHARM3a comparison of 2-way AADT forecasts on local road in 2035 with and without the scheme

Road Section: Local Roads around Without With % Huntingdon scheme Scheme Change

B1043 Ermine Street (through Great Stukeley) 11,777 11,405 -3% B1090 Station Road (through Abbotts Ripton) 7,390 7,069 -4% B1514 Hartford Road (south of A141) 20,875 18,111 -13% B1044 The Avenue (north of Godmanchester) 18,517 7,399 -60% B1514 Huntingdon Road (east of Brampton) 19,687 15,805 -20% Buckden Road (south of Brampton) 11,239 9,958 -11% B1514 Thrapston Road (north of Brampton) 11,119 8,314 -25% Views Common Link n/a 12,624 - Mill Common Link n/a 23,519 - Pathfinder Link n/a 12,456 -

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 146 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

238. The CHARM3a flows presented in Table 12-50 and Table 12-51, show similar changes in traffic flow between the Do Minimum (without scheme) and Do Something (with scheme) as those from CHARM2 presented in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 in the TA. 239. The greatest forecast reduction in traffic flow as a consequence of the scheme is on the B1044, The Avenue north of Godmanchester. In the Do Minimum scenario, nearly all of the long-distance traffic entering Huntingdon from the south would use Junction 24 of the A14 and then use the B1044 through Godmanchester. The Avenue is the part of the B1044 where it leaves Godmanchester in the direction of the Old Town Bridge over the River Great Ouse to join the Huntingdon Ring Road. The alternative in the Do Minimum would be to continue on to Junction 23 of the A14 at Spittals and enter Huntingdon from the north. In the Do Something, trips from the south to the centre of Huntingdon would continue past Junction 24 and use the Pathfinder Link to join the Huntingdon Ring Road. Thus, these trips would avoid travelling through Godmanchester. 240. Significant reductions in traffic flow are forecast on the B1514 through Brampton in the direction of Huntingdon (Thrapston Road and Huntingdon Road). In the Do Minimum scenario, some long-distance traffic entering Huntingdon from the west would use Junction 22 of the A14 and then use the B1514 through Brampton. This is the signed route to Huntingdon from the A14. The alternative in the Do Minimum would be to continue on to Junction 23 of the A14 at Spittals and to enter Huntingdon from the north. In the Do Something, trips from the west to the centre of Huntingdon would continue past Junction 23 and use the Views Common Link which would join Brampton Road closer to Huntingdon. Thus, these trips would avoid travelling on Thrapston Road through Brampton and on Huntingdon Road towards Huntingdon. 241. Smaller reductions in traffic flow are forecast for the B1514 Hartford Road. In the Do Minimum scenario, the majority of trips between St Ives and Huntingdon would use this route. In the ‘Do Something’ scenario, some trips from St Ives to Huntingdon are expected to use the de-trunked A14 and the Pathfinder Link as this would represent an improved route to Huntingdon town centre. 242. The smallest changes in traffic flow are a result of reassignments to take advantage of roads where capacity has been released due to one of the major reassignments described above. This is the case on Buckden Road where the relief of the B1514 through Brampton allows traffic to reassign from this lower standard road to the B1514. 243. The sentence at the end of paragraph 7.5.10 reads “There is expected to be limited change on other radial routes into Huntingdon”. There are a number of other radial routes which are not listed in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 in the TA. Any change in traffic flow on the routes which are not listed is expected to be limited.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 147 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.36 244. *In terms of changes to trip routes, between the with and without the scheme in 2035 scenarios, how would daily traffic flows through The Avenue in Madingley be increased as a result of the scheme? Why are the increased traffic flows said to be well within the capacity of a road of this standard, in the context of its carriageway and junctions along its length? (Document 7.2 Para 7.5.17) Response 245. Paragraph 7.5.17 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) summarises the forecast impact of the A14 scheme on The Avenue to the north of Madingley, which connects the village to the A14. This indicates that daily traffic flows are forecast to rise from 3,800 vehicles to 6,400 vehicles per day in 2035 as a result of the scheme, an increase of 68%. 246. The traffic forecasts presented in the model are based on version 2 of the traffic model (CHARM2). Since the Transport Assessment was published, a number of changes and refinements have been made to the traffic model, culminating the development of version 3a (CHARM3a). Forecast traffic flows on The Avenue in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme have been extracted from CHARM2 and CHARM3a and are reported in Table 12-52 and Table 12-53 respectively.

Table 12-52: Forecast flows on The Avenue, north of Madingley (based on CHARM2)

Without With Scheme Difference Scheme 2020 3,500 4,300 +23% 2035 3,800 6,400 +68% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest 100

Table 12-53: Forecast flows on The Avenue, north of Madingley (based on CHARM3a)

Without With Scheme Difference Scheme 2020 3,800 4,300 +13% 2035 4,200 6,400 +52% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest 100

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 148 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

247. Both models show a similar picture, however the without scheme flows are forecast to be slightly higher in CHARM3a than in CHARM2, leading to a reduction in the forecast percentage increase in traffic using The Avenue as a result of the scheme. 248. Further analysis has been undertaken using CHARM3a to determine the reasons for the forecast increase in daily traffic flows on The Avenue. Table 12-54 summarises the proportion of local traffic (i.e. journeys with a trip end in Madingley) and through traffic (i.e. journeys without a trip end in Madingley) using this route based on CHARM3a.

Table 12-54: Forecast flows on The Avenue, north of Madingley in 2035 (based on CHARM3a)

Without With % Change Scheme Scheme Local Traffic 1,700 3,000 +76% Through Traffic 2,500 3,400 +36% Total Flow 4,200 6,400 +52% Proportion of Local Traffic 40% 47% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest 100 249. This analysis indicates that without the A14 scheme, approximately 40% of traffic using this road is forecast to be local traffic. This proportion is forecast to increase to 47% with the scheme. There is a relatively significant increase in the total volume of local traffic which is the result of some local traffic transferring from Dry Drayton Road to The Avenue as a result of the improved connectivity at the junction with the Local Access Road which is part of the A14 scheme. Through traffic on this link is also forecast to increase as a result of the scheme, although not as much as local traffic. Analysis has been undertaken to determine the origin and destination of the through traffic forecast to use the through traffic forecast to use The Avenue in 2035 with and without the scheme. scheme.

250. Table 12-55 summarises the forecast changes in the origin and destination of through traffic to the north of the village, while Table 12-56 presents the changes in the origin and destination of through traffic to the south of the village as a result of the scheme. 251. To the north, the forecasts suggest that there would be large increases in the volume of traffic using The Avenue from the A14, Oakington and Longstanton to the west and travelling in to Cambridge on the A1307 to the east. These increases arise from the improved connectivity at the junction with the new Local Access Road as discussed above. To the south, the largest increases are local traffic movements to and from the villages of Coton, Comberton, Barton and Madingley. There is also an increase in flows travelling towards the A1303 to Cambridge, which is forecast to be relieved of traffic as some strategic movements transfer from the A428 on to the A14.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 149 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-55: Routeing of traffic on The Avenue in 2035 Origins/destinations to the north of Madingley (based on CHARM3a)

Without With Origin/Destination Change % Change Scheme Scheme A14 West 650 1,150 +500 +77% A14 East 750 100 -650 -87% M11 South 100 0 -100 -100% Cambridge (via A1307 Huntingdon Road) 1,700 2,500 +800 +47% Oakington (via Dry Drayton Road) 300 1,000 +700 +233% Bar Hill 200 450 +250 +125% Longstanton (via B1050) 400 950 +450 +138% Swavesey (via Local Access Road) - 200 +200 - Total 4,200 6,400 +2,200 +52% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest 100

Table 12-56: Routeing of traffic on The Avenue in 2035 Origins/destinations to the south of Madingley (based on CHARM3a)

Without With Origin/Destination Change % Change Scheme Scheme Madingley Village 1,700 3,000 +1,300 +76% A428 West 700 700 0 0% A428 East 0 0 0 0% Cambridge (via A1303) 450 650 +200 +44% Coton (via Cambridge Road) 450 900 +450 +100% Hardwick (via St Neot's Road) 300 150 -150 -50% Comberton/Barton (via Long Road) 600 900 +300 +50% Total 4,200 6,400 +2,200 +52% Units: vehicles per day, rounded to the nearest 100

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 150 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

252. The capacity of The Avenue has been calculated using the Congestion Reference Flow (CRF) calculation sets out in Annex D of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 5 Section 1 Part 3 (TA 46/97). 253. The CRF of a link is an estimate of the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow at which the carriageway is likely to be ‘congested’ in the peak periods on an average day. For the purposes of calculating the CRF, ‘congestion’ is defined as the situation when the hourly traffic demand exceeds the maximum sustainable hourly throughput of the link. At this point the effect on traffic is likely to be one or more of the following: flow breaks down with speeds varying considerably, average speeds drop significantly, the sustainable throughput is reduced and queues are likely to form. This critical flow level can vary significantly from day to day and from site to site and must be considered as an average. The CRF is a measure of the performance of a road link between junctions. The effect of junctions must be considered separately. 254. Using this method, the CRF was calculated to be approximately 13,200 vehicles per day. There are few side roads along this section of road therefore they are not expected to significantly affect the calculated link capacity. 255. The CRF of 13,200 vehicles per day compares to a forecast Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT) flow of 6,900 vehicles per day and a forecast AADT flow of 6,400 vehicles per day in 2035 with the scheme. This confirms that forecast flows on this section of road are expected to be well within the capacity of a road of this standard.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 151 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.37

Where is the Town Bridge? (Document 7.2 Para 7.5.29) Response 256. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 Para 7.5.29) states: “Table 7.9 and Table 7.10 show the difference between forecast flows on the key radial roads in to Huntingdon with and without the scheme. Traffic forecasts show a significant reduction in traffic flows on the de-trunked A14, Brampton Road and the Town Bridge. Traffic flows on the other radial routes remain largely unchanged.”

257. The Town Bridge refers to the Huntingdon Town Bridge which carries the B1044 road, also known as The Avenue, and provides the link between Godmanchester and Huntingdon across the River Great Ouse.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 152 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.38 *In Tables 7.13, 7.14, 7.15, 7.19, 7.22, 7.25, 7.33, 7.35, 7.39, 7.41, 7.42, 7.44, 7.45, 7.46, 7.47, 7.48, 7.52 and 7.70, various ratios of flow to capacity (RFCs) reduce between 2020 and 2035 against a background of overall increases in traffic flows during this period. Why is this the case in each of the tables? (Document 7.2 Table 7.13) Response 258. The operational assessments reported in Section 7 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2, section 7) are based on traffic flows derived from the CHARM2 SATURN Model. For a number of the junctions, the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFCs) or Degree of Saturation (DoS) reduces between 2020 and 2035 despite forecast growth in traffic levels across the study area over this period. 259. There are a number of reasons as to why the RFC or DoS may reduce at a junction between 2020 and 2035, including: 1. Rerouteing of Traffic Although an increase in traffic levels is forecast across the study area in 2020 and 2035, flows at individual junctions or individual arms of junctions may be reduced as a result of the rerouting of traffic. For example, if there is an increase in the volume of long-distance traffic using a particular section of the strategic road network that is operating at or close to capacity, this may result in some local traffic using an alternative route to avoid the congestion. This could lead to traffic flows at the junction where local traffic would normally access that section of the strategic road network falling between 2020 and 2035, even through traffic flows on the strategic road network may increase over the same period.

2. Changing Traffic Patterns Changes in the pattern of demand at a junction can alter the circulating flows that flow past each arm. When one arm reaches saturation it will not be able to deliver any more traffic while other more lightly trafficked approaches can continue to increase their contribution to the circulating carriageway. This has the effect of changing the turning proportions past each arm. This can occasionally result in an improvement in RFC as circulating flows decrease, leading to an increase in the available capacity.

3. Traffic Signal Optimisation At signalised junctions, the optimisation of signal timings can result in more green time and hence more capacity being given to a particular arm or movement despite there being limited change in traffic flows. This is particularly the case when a low flow movement runs with a high flow movement. If demand on the high flow movement increases this would potentially lead to both the high and low flow movement being given extra

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 153 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

green time, with the low flow movement benefiting from greater capacity and hence a lower DoS.

4. Cycle Time Optimisation Some large signal controlled roundabouts such as Histon and Milton operate under Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) control which is responsive to traffic conditions. In congested conditions, MOVA operates in capacity maximising mode, seeking to determine a set of signal timings which will maximise the throughput of the junction in the given conditions. This can lead to changes to the traffic signal timings (as described in point 3 above) and also changes to the overall cycle time of the traffic signals. If a junction operates on a longer cycle time in 2035 than in 2020, there is potential for the DoS of a given arm to decrease even if total flows have increased.

5. Flow Gating In networks where there are a number of closely spaced signalised junctions there is potential for an increase in traffic flows at one junction to increase the DoS to the extent that the junction is operating above capacity. This can lead to the gating of traffic flows to downstream junctions which then benefit from lower flows and hence reduced DoS. 260. Table 12.57 summarises the junctions and scenarios where the RFCs or DoS reduces between 2020 and 2035 based on the CHARM2 operational assessments, and lists the specific reason(s) for the reduction in the RFC/ DoS in each case.

261. Since the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) was published, a number of changes and refinements have been made to the traffic model culminating the development of CHARM3a. The operational assessments have been updated based on the new forecasts produced using CHARM3a with the results reported in the Traffic Modelling Update Report, to be submitted to the Examining Authority (ExA) at Deadline 2 (15 June 2015) of the examination timetable. For a number of junctions, the RFCs and DoS reduce between 2020 and 2035. 262. Table 12.58 lists the junctions affected and the causes of the reduced RFC/ DoS based on the CHARM3a operational assessments.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 154 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-57: List of Junctions where RFC/DoS is lower in 2035 than in 2020 (CHARM2)

TA Table Scenari Time Junction Cause of reduced RFC/DoS Ref o Period  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.13 Ellington (N) DS+ PM B660)  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.14 Ellington (S) DS+ PM B660) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.15 DS+ AM & PM Road/Buckden Road B1043)  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.19 Swavesey (S) DS+ PM various routes)  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.22 Swavesey Anderson DS+ AM various routes) Table 7.25 Bar Hill (S) DS+ AM  Changing traffic patterns  Changing traffic patterns Table 7.33 Histon DS+ PM  Traffic signal optimisation  Cycle time optimisation  Changing traffic patterns Table 7.35 Milton DS+ AM & PM  Traffic signal optimisation  Cycle time optimisation Hinchingbrooke/Vie Table 7.39 ws Common (Traffic DS+ PM  Traffic signal optimisation opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.41 Road/Underpass DS+ AM & PM B1514) (NMU opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.42 Road/Underpass DS+ AM & PM B1514) (Traffic opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.44 Road/Hinchingbrook DS+ PM B1043) e (NMU opt)  Traffic signal optimisation Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.45 Road/Hinchingbrook DS+ AM & PM B1043) e (Traffic opt)  Traffic signal optimisation Brampton  Changing traffic patterns Table 7.46 DM AM Road/Edison Bell  Traffic signal optimisation Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.47 Road/Edison Bell DS+ PM B1043) (NMU opt)  Traffic signal optimisation Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.48 Road/Edison Bell DS+ PM B1043) (Traffic opt)  Traffic signal optimisation Mill  Rerouteing of traffic (via Table 7.52 Common/Pathfinder DS+ AM & PM B1043) (NMU opt)  Traffic signal optimisation A1096 London  Changing traffic patterns Table 7.70 Road/B1040 Potton DS+ AM & PM  Rerouteing of traffic (via Road (DS) B1089 and A141)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 155 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 156 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-58: List of Junctions where RFC/DoS is lower in 2035 than in 2020 (CHARM3a)

TA Table Scenari Cause of reduced RFC/DoS Junction Time Period Ref o Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1043) Table 7.15 Road/Buckd DS+ AM & PM en Road Swavesey  Rerouteing of traffic (via various Table 7.19 DS+ PM (S) routes)  Changing traffic patterns Table 7.33 Histon DS+ AM & PM  Traffic signal optimisation  Cycle time optimisation  Changing traffic patterns Table 7.35 Milton DS+ AM & PM  Traffic signal optimisation  Cycle time optimisation Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1514) Road/Under Table 7.41 DS+ AM & PM pass (NMU opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1514) Road/Under Table 7.42 DS+ AM & PM pass (Traffic opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1043) Road/Hinchi Table 7.44 DS+ PM  Traffic signal optimisation ngbrooke (NMU opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1043) Road/Hinchi Table 7.45 DS+ AM & PM  Traffic signal optimisation ngbrooke (Traffic opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1043) Road/Ediso Table 7.47 DS+ PM  Traffic signal optimisation n Bell (NMU opt) Brampton  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1043) Road/Ediso Table 7.48 DS+ PM  Traffic signal optimisation n Bell (Traffic opt) Mill  Rerouteing of traffic (via B1043) Common/Pa Table 7.52 DS+ AM & PM  Traffic signal optimisation thfinder (NMU opt)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 157 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.39 *If the 2035 AM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the local access road is greater than that forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFC of 79%? (Document 7.2 Table 7.18) Response 264. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. The RFC of 85% is however not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 265. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2, table 7.18) sets out the forecast capacity of Swavesey Junction north roundabout in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. The 2035 AM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the local access road has a RFC value of 79%. 266. If the future traffic entering the roundabout turns out to be greater than forecast then it should be noted that the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic in the order of 5% whilst still performing below recognised bench mark RFC values of 85%. 267. A degree of peak hour delay could also be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. 268. The junction would be the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast resulting in the RFC value of this junction arm exceeding the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve the performance. The first consideration would be to review the turning movements and assess the primary flows. When this is understood then the geometry of the roundabout would be reviewed. 269. The key factors which can improve capacity are: 1. Increased entry width 2. Increased entry flare length.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 158 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

270. In this instance increasing entry width or increasing the flare length would only bring marginal increases in capacity. 271. To increase capacity further, signalisation of some of the roundabout entry legs could be considered. This may require widening of signalised approaches to provide ‘storage’ at the stop lines. 272. The junction has been designed to accommodate the flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England. 273. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 159 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.40 *Are the column headings for this table correct? If not, what should they be? Should this correction be repeated on any other tables? (Document 7.2 Table 7.19) Response 274. One of the column headings in table 7.19 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) is incorrect 275. Table 7.19 should read as follows (note, amendments are highlighted in yellow):

Table 12-59: Table 7.19: Swavesey Junction south roundabout capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC RFC Queue Queue RFC Queue Bridge Link 22% 0 33% 1 27% 0 44% 1 A14 Off-Slip 47% 1 76% 3 57% 1 73% 3 Link to 37% 1 37% 1 50% 1 47% 1 Services Local Access 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 Road A14 West On- Exit Arm Exit Arm Exit Arm Exit Arm Slip

276. This correction does not need to be repeated on any other tables in the Transport Assessment or other tables in the application documentation.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 160 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.41 *If the 2035 peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the A14 off-slip is greater than that forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFC of 73%? (Document 7.2 Table 7.19) Response 277. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. The RFC of 85% is however not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 278. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.19) sets out the forecast capacity of Swavesey Junction south roundabout in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. The 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the A14 Off-Slip has a RFC value of 73%. 279. If the future traffic entering the roundabout from the A14 off-slip turns out to be greater than forecast then it should be noted that the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic in the order of 10% whilst still performing below recognised bench mark RFC values of 85%. 280. A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However slip road queuing back onto the main A14 would not be safe nor desirable. 281. The junction would the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast, resulting in the RFC value of this junction arm exceeding the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve the performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. When this is understood then the geometry of the roundabout would be reviewed to assess what changes might increase capacity to cater for these flows 282. The key factors which may improve capacity are: 1. Increased entry width 2. Increased entry flare length

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 161 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

283. In this instance, increasing entry width or increasing the flare length would only bring marginal increases in capacity. 284. To increase capacity further, signalisation of some of the roundabout entry legs could be considered, however, with consideration of the primary flows in this instance, it would be likely to only provide limited benefit. This may also require widening of signalised approaches to provide ‘storage’ at the stop lines. 285. The junction has been designed to accommodate the flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England. 286. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 162 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.42 *If the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the B1050 (south) is greater than that forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFC of 78%? (Document 7.2 Table 7.23) Response 287. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. The RFC of 85% is however not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 288. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.23) sets out the forecast capacity of Bar Hill junction main roundabout in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. The 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the B1050 (south) has a RFC value of 78%. 289. If future traffic flow entering the roundabout from the B1050 (south) turns out to be greater than forecast then it should be noted that the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic in the order of 5%, whilst still performing below recognised bench mark RFC values of 85%. In addition, a sensitivity check on the layout has been carried out against the 100% development scenario for Northstowe and it has been found that it would still operate below RFC values of 85%. 290. A degree of peak hour delay could also be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However slip road queuing back onto the main A14 would not be safe nor desirable. 291. The junction would be the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast, resulting in the RFC value of this junction arm exceeding the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve the performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. When this is understood then the geometry of the roundabout would be reviewed. 292. The key factors which may improve capacity are: 1. Increased entry width 2. Increased entry flare length

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 163 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

293. In this instance increasing the flare length on the B1050 (south) approach would be likely to result in modest improvements in capacity on this arm of the roundabout. 294. To increase capacity further, signalisation of some of the roundabout entry legs could be considered. This may require widening of signalised approaches to provide ‘storage’ at the stop lines. 295. To enable further increases in capacity to accommodate potential development over and above those provided for in the design year (and to remove a potential lock for growth) a level of latent capacity would be built into the junction. This would take the form of widened bridge structures and associated wider earthworks to enable additional lanes to be constructed on the circulatory carriageway and on the B1050 Hattons Road (north). 296. The junction has been designed to accommodate the flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. Although latent capacity would be built into the junction, providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England. 297. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 164 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.43 *If the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from Saxon Way is greater than that forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFC of 77%? (Document 7.2 Table 7.25) Response 298. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. The RFC of 85% is however not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 299. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.25) sets out the forecast capacity of Bar Hill junction south roundabout in a ‘Do-Something’ (with scheme) scenario. The 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from Saxon Way has a RFC value of 77%. 300. If the future traffic flow entering the roundabout turns out to be greater than forecast, it should be noted that the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic in the order of 10% whilst still performing below recognised bench mark RFC values of 85%. In addition, a sensitivity check on the layout has been carried out against the 100% development scenario for Northstowe which concluded Bar Hill junction south roundabout would still operate below RFC values of 85%. 301. A degree of peak hour delay could also be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However slip road queuing back onto the main A14 would not be safe nor desirable. 302. The junction would be the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast resulting in the RFC value exceeding the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve the performance of this junction arm. The first consideration would be to review the turning movements and assess the primary flows. Once this is understood, the geometry of the roundabout would be reviewed to assess what changes might increase capacity to cater for these flows. 303. The key factors which can improve capacity are: 1. Increased entry width 2. Increased entry flare length

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 165 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

304. In this instance modifications in entry width and flare length on the Saxon Way approach would be likely to result in modest improvements in capacity on this arm of the roundabout. 305. The junction has been designed to accommodate the flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England. 306. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 166 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.44 *If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flows entering the junction are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.26) Response 307. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of up to 85% for signalised junctions has been used as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little queuing, and above which queuing and delay might start to become an issue. This is slightly below the recommended benchmark of 90% given in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 “General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals Part 3 of 4”. However this limit is not fixed. 308. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.26) sets out the forecast capacity of the Bar Hill B1050/ local access road junction (north) in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. 309. Highways England propose to make minor modifications to the proposed layout of this signalised junction (Bar Hill B1050 / local access road (north)) to take account of the latest traffic forecasts, details of which will be submitted to the Examining Authority (ExA) in a Traffic Modelling Update Report by deadline two of the examination timetable (15 June 2015). These modifications are minor and are not considered a material change to the layout design of the junction. 310. In addition a sensitivity check on the layout has been carried out against the 100% development scenario for Northstowe and it has been found that it would still operate below RFC values of 85%. 311. A degree of peak hour delay could also be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However any queuing that ‘lock up’ adjacent junctions would not be safe nor desirable. 312. The junction would be the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast, resulting in the RFC value of this junction exceeding the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. When this is understood then the geometry of the junction would be reviewed. 313. Several factors affect capacity depending on the particular situation including: 1. Number of lanes and lane width at entry

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 167 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

2. Filter lane length 3. Entry radii 4. Staging (number of stages and which entries released in which stage) 5. Traffic signal cycle time.

314. In this instance the proposed modifications mentioned above would include increasing the length of B1050 (north) left filter lane and changing the layout of the ‘jug handle’ approach to the B1050 to two right turn lanes and one left turn lane (instead of two left turn lanes and one right turn lane). These would produce modest increases in capacity. More detailed and comprehensive changes may be required however to successfully mitigate further increases in traffic flow, depending on where the increases occur. 315. To enable further increases in capacity to accommodate potential development over and above those provided for in the design year a level of latent capacity would be built into the junction. This would take the form of widened bridge structures and associated wider earthworks to enable additional lanes to be constructed on the circulatory carriageway of the main roundabout and on the B1050 Hattons Road (north). 316. The junction has been designed to accommodate the flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. Although latent capacity would be built into the junction, providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England. 317. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 168 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.45 *If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flows entering the junction are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.27) Response 318. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of up to 85% for signalised junctions has been used as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little queuing, and above which queuing and delay might start to become an issue. This is slightly below the recommended benchmark of 90% given in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 “General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals Part 3 of 4”. However these limits are not fixed. 319. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.27) sets out the forecast capacity of the Bar Hill B1050/ local access road junction (south) in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. 320. If the future traffic entering the junction turns out to be greater than forecast then it should be noted that the proposed layout would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic in the order of 10% whilst still performing below bench mark RFC values of 85%. In addition, a sensitivity check on the layout has been carried out against the 100% development scenario for Northstowe and it has been found that it would still operate below RFC values of 85%. 321. A degree of peak hour delay could also be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However any queuing that ‘lock up’ adjacent junctions would not be safe or desirable. 322. The junction would be the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast, resulting in the RFC value of this junction exceeding the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. When this is understood then the geometry of the junction would be reviewed. 323. Several factors affect capacity depending on the particular situation including: 1. Number of lanes and lane width at entry 2. Filter lane length 3. Entry radii 4. Staging (number of stages and which entries released in which stage) 5. Traffic signal cycle time.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 169 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

324. In some instances amending the above criteria in isolation may only bring marginal increases in capacity. As such more detailed and comprehensive changes may be involved to successfully mitigate increases in traffic flow, depending on where the increases occur. 325. The junction has been designed to accommodate the flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England.

326. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 170 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.46 *If the 2035 PM peak hour flows from the A14 off-slip and the local access road (east) are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.31) Response 327. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark for roundabouts below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. However, 85% is not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 328. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.31) sets out the forecast capacity of the local access road junction east roundabout (referred to as ‘Girton Roundabout East’, connecting the M11 southbound diverge to A1307 slip road with the local access road) in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. The 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the A14 off-slip road has a RFC of 79%, whilst the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the local access road (east) has a RFC of 72%. 329. If the actual 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from the A14 off- slip and the local access road (east) turns out to be greater than forecast then there would be a number of options available. 330. Firstly the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic in the order of up to 10% whilst still performing below recognised bench mark RFC values of 85%. 331. A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However slip road queuing back onto the main A14 would not be safe nor desirable. 332. If future traffic flows were to increase above those currently forecast, resulting in unacceptable queuing or delay, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve the performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. When this is understood then the geometry of the roundabout would be reviewed to assess what changes might increase capacity to cater for these flows The key factors which may improve capacity are: 1. Increased entry width 2. Increased entry flare length

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 171 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

333. In this case there would be sufficient flexibility within the area adjacent to the roundabout to accommodate increased entry widths and/or increased entry flare lengths to increase the capacity of the roundabout. For instance, by increasing the length of the A14 off slip entry flare to 25m, this arm could accommodate up to 50% increased flows. 334. The junction has been designed to accommodate the design year flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes promoted by the relevant Highway Authority (Highways England or Cambridgeshire County Council as appropriate). Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year, is not considered economically justifiable by Highways England.

335. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 172 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.47 *In the general absence of conflicting manoeuvres at the roundabout, what is the reason for the queues in the model operational assessment? (Document 7.2 Table 7.36) Response

Background

336. The Views Common Roundabout has been modelled using Transport Research Laboratory’s (TRL) Assessment of Roundabout Capacity And Delay (ARCADY) software, which is the industry standard tool for the prediction of capacities, queues and delays at roundabouts operating under priority control. The software is based on the TRL/Kimber capacity relationships (the ARCADY Model8), which takes account of geometric properties and is derived from measurements and observations undertaken at a large number of roundabouts. This empirical relationship links roundabout geometry to driver behaviour and in turn to predicted capacities, queues, and delays. 337. The performance of a particular junction is assessed by inputting the junction geometry (entry width, approach width, flare length, conflict angle, inscribed circle diameter and entry radius) and forecast traffic flows in a given time period. If the temporal distribution of traffic through the modelled time period is unknown or uncertain, it is common practice to use the inbuilt Origin- Destination Tabulation (ODTAB) profile, which is based on a bell shaped curve with the highest traffic flows occurring in the middle of the modelled time period. The results of the ARCADY assessment are presented in the form of the maximum ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) and the maximum queue at the end of the time period for each arm of the junction.

Operational Assessment Results

338. The results of the ARCADY assessments of the Views Common Roundabout reported in Table 7.36 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) show that in 2035 with the scheme, short queues of one to two vehicles are forecast to occur on the detrunked A14 and Views Common Link despite the junction being forecast to operate well within capacity (a maximum RFC of 60%) and there being no opposing traffic movements. The updated results of the ARCADY assessments based on the CHARM3a core traffic forecasts, show similar results, with a maximum queue of three vehicles, despite the junction being forecast to operate with a maximum RFC of 75% and there being no opposing traffic movements. The Traffic Model Update Report will provide the results of these updated assessments.

8 https://trlsoftware.co.uk/library/files/documents/ARCADY_UK%20Empirical%20Methodology.pdf

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 173 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

339. There are two possible reasons for this. Firstly, the empirical relationship that underpins the ARCADY model is based on observations at roundabouts where there are opposing movements. It therefore inherently allows for driver hesitation approaching a junction in case there is an opposing flow. At junctions such as Views Common Roundabout, where there are no opposing flows, this hesitation may not occur or may be significantly diminished. Therefore the ARCADY assessments represent a worst-case assessment of driver behaviour in this situation. 340. Secondly, although vehicles do not have to give-way to other traffic at a junction where there are no opposing flows, there is a need to slow down to negotiate the junction. This effect results in the bunching of traffic and has the potential to create short-term transient queues and is more likely to occur on arms that are operating at higher RFCs.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 174 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.48 *If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flows entering the junction from Hinchingbrooke Road (west), Views Common Link Road and the underpass are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.38) Response 341. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of up to 85% for signalised junctions has been used as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little queuing, and above which queuing and delay might start to become an issue. This is slightly below the recommended benchmark of 90% given in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 “General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals Part 3 of 4”. However these limits are not fixed. 342. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.38) sets out the forecast capacity of Hinchingbrooke Road and Views Common Link junction in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. Table 38 shows the effect of optimised signals for non- motorised users. 343. Table 7.39 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.39) shows the effect of optimising signals for traffic, and Highways England have provided comments on this in response to the Examining Authority’s written question 1.12.49. 344. If the AM and PM peak hour flows entering junction from Hinchingbrooke Road (west), Views Common Link Road and the Underpass is greater than the forecast, then the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic of at least 15% whilst still performing below bench mark RFC values of 85%. 345. A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However any queuing that ‘locked up’ adjacent junctions would not be safe nor desirable. 346. Should the RFC values of these junction arms exceed the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. 347. To increase capacity further, the signalisation of the junction could be reviewed to better optimise the timings for the levels of traffic rather than NMUs, and the lane signage reviewed for better lane control. When this is understood then the geometry of the junction would be reviewed. 348. Several factors affect capacity depending on the particular situation including:

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 175 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

1. Number of lanes and lane width at entry 2. Filter lane length 3. Entry radii 4. Staging (number of stages and which entries released in which stage) 5. Traffic signal cycle time.

349. In some instances amending the above criteria in isolation may only bring marginal increases in capacity. As such more detailed and comprehensive changes may be involved to successfully mitigate increases in traffic flow, depending on where the increases occur and provided at the detailed design stage. 350. Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year, would need to be carefully considered in economic terms. The 15 year forecast horizon is usually considered as the limit of what is reasonably accurately predictable and therefore economically justifiable. 351. The junction has been designed to accommodate the robust flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. 352. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 176 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.49 *If the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the junction from the underpass is greater than that forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFC of 77%? (Document 7.2 Table 7.39) Response 353. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of up to 85% for signalised junctions has been used as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little queuing, and above which queuing and delay might start to become an issue. This is slightly below the recommended benchmark of 90% given in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 “General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals Part 3 of 4”. However these limits are not fixed. 354. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.39) sets out the forecast capacity of Hinchingbrooke Road and Views Common Link junction in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario. Table 39 shows the effect of optimised signals for traffic. The 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the junction from the Underpass has a RFC value of 77% (traffic optimised). 355. Table 7.38 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.38) shows the effect of optimising signals for non- motorised users (NMUs), and Highways England have provided comments on this in response to the Examining Authority’s written question 1.12.48. 356. If the actual future traffic entering junction from the Underpass is greater than the forecast, the layout as proposed would provide a level of tolerance (reserve capacity) to accommodate increases in traffic of at least 8%, whilst still performing below bench mark RFC values of 85% mentioned above. 357. A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. However any queuing that ‘lock up’ adjacent junctions would not be safe nor desirable. 358. Review of the operation of the junction would be the responsibility of CCC in consultation with HDC. At this particular junction, because of the high NMU flows, operation is a balance between traffic and NMU needs and the criteria set for any review would need to take this into account. 359. Should the RFC value of this junction arm exceed the bench mark of 85%, options for increasing capacity could be considered to improve performance. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 177 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

360. To increase capacity further, the signalisation of the junction could be reviewed to better optimise the timings for the actual levels of traffic, and the lane signage reviewed for better lane control. When this is understood then the geometry of the junction would be reviewed.

361. Several factors affect capacity depending on the particular situation including: 1. Number of lanes and lane width at entry 2. Filter lane length 3. Entry radii 4. Staging (number of stages and which entries released in which stage) 5. Traffic signal cycle time.

362. In some instances amending the above criteria in isolation may only bring marginal increases in capacity. As such more detailed and comprehensive changes may be involved to successfully mitigate increases in traffic flow, depending on where the increases occur. 363. Providing additional capacity from the outset for flows over and above those predicted for the design year, would need to be carefully considered in economic terms. The 15 year forecast horizon is usually considered as the limit of what is reasonably accurately predictable and therefore economically justifiable. 364. The junction has been designed to accommodate the robust flow predictions together with some spare capacity. Flows beyond those predicted and beyond this spare capacity and the capacity of the other specified measures that could be taken would have to be dealt with via separate future schemes. 365. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 178 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.50 *From observations made on 11 May 2015, the PM queue on Hinchingbrooke Road approaching the junction was far greater than any in the 2020 ‘Do-Minimum Scenario’. How can such observations be related to the model operational assessment? (Document 7.2 Table 7.43) Response

366. On any road, there is variation in traffic flows. There is a regular variation between hours and days and there are random variations. Consequently, the length of queues at junctions will vary from one day to the next and may vary significantly over a single hour. It would be helpful to receive details of the time at which the queue was observed and the nature of the queue (e.g. was it stationary or slow moving traffic) to allow Highways England to analyse prevailing traffic conditions at the time and relate the observation to the model operational assessment. 367. The Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model (CHARM) models three periods as recommended by WebTAG M3.1 §2.5.2. Specifically, the Base Year model represents an average Monday-Thursday weekday in February 2014, aligning with the traffic count data collected for the study. The peak hours being modelled are actual hours whilst the six inter-peak hours (10:00- 16:00) are averaged, as recommended in WebTAG M3.1 §2.5.3, into a single representative average hour. 368. The operational assessments are based on traffic flows which have been predicted using the CHARM, which models the interaction (i.e. queuing) between one junction and another. The detailed analysis of the operational performance on individual junctions uses LINSIG software, which is specifically designed for the assessment of traffic signal junctions in urban networks LINSIG reports the mean maximum queue (MMQ) on each link, which represents the estimated average number of vehicles that have added onto the back of the queue up to the time when the queue finally clears. In this context, a queue is defined as the number of stationary vehicles at the stopline; it does not include slow moving traffic on the approaches to the junction, as these vehicles are not considered to be part of the queue. 369. The operational assessments demonstrate that the Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Park Road junction has been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the levels of traffic that are forecast to use it on a typical day in 2020 and 2035 with the scheme.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 179 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.51 *Why does this table, and Table 7.44, identify two Hinchingbrooke Road junction arms and not Brampton Road (west)? (Document 7.2 Table 7.43) Response 370. The arms of the Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Park Road junction are incorrectly labelled in Table 7.43 and Table 7.44 in the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2). The second junction arm is correctly labelled as ‘Brampton Road (east)’. The first and third arms should be labelled as ‘Hinchingbrooke Park Road' and ‘Brampton Road (west)’ respectively. The results of the operational assessment are unaffected by this labelling issue. 371. Following a review of the tables in the transport assessment, Table 7.45 was also found to be incorrectly labelled. References to ‘Hinchingbrooke Road' in this table should be replaced with references to 'Hinchingbrooke Park Road'. For clarity, both the published and corrected versions of Table 7.43, Table 7.44 and Table 7.45 are presented on the following pages, with the changes highlighted in red text. These tables summarise the results of the operational assessments based on traffic forecasts from CHARM2. The results of the operational assessments based on traffic forecasts from CHARM3a will be reported in the Traffic Modelling Update Report which, will be submitted to the Examining Authority (ExA) at deadline 2 of the examination timetable (Monday 15th June).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 180 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

TA 7.2 Table 7.43 (as incorrectly published in the Transport Assessment):

TA Table 7.43: Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Minimum’ scenario)

2020 ‘Do-Minimum’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Minimum’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Hinchingbrooke 44% 0 77% 5 42% 0 90% 14 Road Brampton Road 39% 0 40% 0 40% 0 40% 0 (east) Hinchingbrooke 41% 0 52% 1 40% 0 52% 1 Road

TA 7.2 Table 7.43 (as corrected):

TA Table 7.43: Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Park Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do- Minimum’ scenario)

2020 ‘Do-Minimum’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Minimum’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Hinchingbrooke 44% 0 77% 5 42% 0 90% 14 Park Road Brampton Road 39% 0 40% 0 40% 0 40% 0 (east) Brampton 41% 0 52% 1 40% 0 52% 1 Road (west)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 181 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

TA Table 7.44 (as incorrectly published in the Transport Assessment):

TA Table 7.44: Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do- Something’ scenario, non-motorised user-optimised)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Hinchingbrooke 42% 7 34% 10 44% 8 28% 4 Road Brampton Road 66% 4 63% 6 69% 6 68% 6 (east) Hinchingbrooke 42% 7 34% 10 44% 8 28% 4 Road Cycle Time 90 (secs)

TA Table 7.44 (as corrected):

TA Table 7.44: Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Park Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do- Something’ scenario, non-motorised user-optimised)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Hinchingbrooke 42% 7 34% 10 44% 8 28% 4 Park Road Brampton Road 66% 4 63% 6 69% 6 68% 6 (east) Brampton 42% 7 34% 10 44% 8 28% 4 Road (west) Cycle Time 90 (secs)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 182 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

TA (document reference 7.2) Table 7.45 (as incorrectly published in the Transport Assessment):

Table 7.45: Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario, traffic-optimised)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Hinchingbrooke 56% 12 55% 13 53% 12 53% 13 Road Brampton Road 66% 14 57% 13 68% 15 58% 8 (east) Brampton Road 19% 8 22% 9 24% 10 19% 8 (west) Cycle Time 120 (secs)

TA (document reference 7.2) Table 7.45 (as corrected):

Table 7.45: Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Park Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do- Something’ scenario, traffic-optimised)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Hinchingbrooke 56% 12 55% 13 53% 12 53% 13 Park Road Brampton Road 66% 14 57% 13 68% 15 58% 8 (east) Brampton Road 19% 8 22% 9 24% 10 19% 8 (west) Cycle Time 120 (secs)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 183 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.52 *From observations made on 13 May 2015, the AM queue on Brampton Road (west) approaching the junction was far greater than any in the 2020 ‘Do-Something Scenario’, notwithstanding the forecast queues on Brampton Road (west) at its junction with Edison Bell Way. How can such observations be related to the model operational assessment? (Document 7.2 Table 7.45) Response

372. On any road, there is variation in traffic flows. There is a regular variation between hours and days and there are random variations. Consequently, the length of queues at junctions will vary from one day to the next and may vary significantly over a single hour. It would be helpful to receive details of the time at which the queue was observed and the nature of the queue (e.g. was it stationary or slow moving traffic) to allow Highways England to analyse prevailing traffic conditions at the time and relate the observation to the model operational assessment. 373. The Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 Road Model (CHARM) models three periods as recommended by WebTAG M3.1 §2.5.2. Specifically, the Base Year model represents an average Monday-Thursday weekday in February 2014, aligning with the traffic count data collected for the study. The peak hours being modelled are actual hours whilst the six inter-peak hours (10:00- 16:00) are averaged, as recommended in WebTAG M3.1 §2.5.3, into a single representative average hour. 374. The operational assessments are based on traffic flows which have been predicted using the CHARM, which models the interaction (i.e. queuing) between one junction and another. The detailed analysis of the operational performance on individual junctions uses LINSIG software, which is specifically designed for the assessment of traffic signal junctions in urban networks.LINSIG reports the mean maximum queue (MMQ) on each link, which represents the estimated average number of vehicles that have added onto the back of the queue up to the time when the queue finally clears. In this context, a queue is defined as the number of stationary vehicles at the stopline; it does not include slow moving traffic on the approaches to the junction, as these vehicles are not considered to be part of the queue. 375. The operational assessments demonstrate that the Brampton Road / Hinchingbrooke Park Road junction has been designed with sufficient capacity to accommodate the levels of traffic that are forecast to use it on a typical day in 2020 and 2035 with the scheme. Those levels will necessarily be different after the scheme compared to existing levels.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 184 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.53 *How do the current traffic signal arrangements at the Brampton Road/Edison Bell Way junction compare to the non-motorised user (NMU) and traffic optimised ‘Do-Something’ scenarios for NMUs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.48) Response 376. Tables 7.47 and 7.48 in the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) report the results of the operational assessments carried out to assess the performance of the proposed Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way junction in 2020 and 2035 with the scheme. Table 7.47 reports the results of the assessments for the ‘non-motorised user (NMU) optimised’ scenario while table 7.48 reports the results of the assessments for the ‘traffic optimised’ scenario. 377. The location of the Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way junction is shown in Figure 12-25 below.

Figure 12-25: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Location Plan

Source: Google

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 185 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Existing Situation

378. The existing Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way junction is a four arm signalised junction. These are indicated in the signal junction phase diagram In Figure 12-25, which shows arms servicing Brampton Road (W), Edison Bell Way (N), George Street (E) and the Station Access (S). 379. Traffic signal data for this junction has been obtained from Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC). The traffic signals are divided in to ‘phases’, with each phase representing a movement or combination of movements that can be made at the junction. Each phase will normally have its own signal head or indicative arrow. The traffic signal phases for this junction are shown in Figure 12-26 below. The phases shown in black (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) are phases for traffic while those shown in blue (H, I, J, K, L) are phases for pedestrians. Table 12-60 provides a description of the movement and the type (traffic or pedestrian) for each of the phases.

Figure 12-26: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Existing)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 186 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-60: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Description of Signal Phases (Existing)

Phase Type Description A Traffic George Street (E) Ahead & Left B Traffic Brampton Road (W) Ahead C Traffic Brampton Road (W) Right D Traffic Station Access (S) Ahead, Left & Right E Traffic Edison Bell Way (N) Ahead & Left F Traffic Edison Bell Way (N) Right G Traffic Brampton Road (W) Left H Pedestrian Crossing on Edison Bell Way I Pedestrian Crossing on Brampton Road (W) Exit J Pedestrian Crossing on Brampton Road (W) Entry K Pedestrian Crossing on Brampton Road (W) Left Filter L Pedestrian Crossing on Station Access (S)

380. The junction cycle time describes the length of time taken to go through one complete sequence of the traffic signals. The traffic signal data provided by CCC indicates that the junction currently runs on Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) with a 120 second cycle time. It is understood that when the junction was opened in early 2014 it ran on a 90 second cycle time, however this was increased to 120 seconds in November 2014, shortly before the publication of the Transport Assessment. 381. The operation of the junction is divided in to ‘stages’. A stage describes a series of non-conflicting phases which run together. The signal timing data indicates that the junction currently operates with six stages, as shown in the staging plan in Figure 12-27 below. Phases shown in green are running in that stage, while those in red or grey are not. Phases shown in red cannot run because they conflict with one of the green stages that are already running in that stage. Phases shown in grey could run in that stage (i.e. they do not conflict with any of the stages that are already running) but are not allowed.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 187 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

1 Min >= 4 2 Min >= 7 3 Min >= 0 F E F E F E

K H K H K H G G G B J B J B J C C C

I A I A I A L L L

D D D

4 Min >= 0 5 Min >= 5 6 Min >= 4 F E F E F E

K H K H K H G G G B J B J B J C C C

I A I A I A L L L

D D D

Figure 12-27: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Diagram (Existing)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 188 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Do Something Scenario

382. In the ‘Do-Something’ scenario, the Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way junction would remain a four arm signalised junction. However, the southern arm would serve the Mill Common Link rather than the Station Access. The proposed layout is shown in Figure 12-28 below.

Figure 12-28: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Proposed Layout

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 189 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Transport Assessment (CHARM2)

383. As noted above, there are two versions of the ‘Do Something’ model; a ‘traffic optimised’ scenario and an ‘NMU optimised’ scenario. The traffic signal phases and stages are identical in both scenarios. The only difference between these two scenarios is that the junction operates on a 120 second cycle in the ‘traffic optimised’ scenario and on a 90 second cycle in the ‘NMU optimised’ scenario. The lower cycle time applied in the ‘NMU optimised’ scenario reduces the length of time that pedestrians and cyclists would need to wait to cross the junction compared with the ‘traffic optimised’ scenario, but would also reduce the capacity of the junction for traffic leading to longer queues and more delay. 384. The key changes compared with the existing situation are the replacement of the two-stage pedestrian crossing on Brampton Road (W) with a straight across crossing and the introduction of a new pedestrian crossing on the George Street approach, both of which would improve north-south connectivity. These are shown as phases L and M in Figure 12-31 respectively. 385. The proposed signal phases for the junction are shown below. As before, the phases shown in black (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K) are traffic phases while those shown in blue (L, M, N, O, P, Q) are pedestrian phases. Table 12-61 provides a description of each of the phases.

Figure 12-29: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Proposed)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 190 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-61: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Description of Signal Phases (Proposed)

Phase Type Description A Traffic Brampton Road (W) Left B Traffic Brampton Road (W) Ahead C Traffic Brampton Road (W) Right D Traffic Edison Bell Way (N) Left E Traffic Edison Bell Way (N) Ahead F Traffic Edison Bell Way (N) Right G Traffic George Street (E) Left H Traffic George Street (E) Ahead I Traffic Mill Common Link (S) Left J Traffic Mill Common Link (S) Ahead K Traffic Mill Common Link (S) Right L Pedestrian Crossing on Brampton Road (W) M Pedestrian Crossing on George Street (E) N Pedestrian Crossing on Mill Common Link (S) O Pedestrian Crossing on Mill Common Link (S) Left Filter P Pedestrian Crossing on Brampton Road (W) Left Filter Q Pedestrian Crossing on Edison Bell Way (N)

386. The staging plan used in these models is shown in Figure 12-30 below. This shows the junction operating with four stages, a reduction from the six indicated in Figure 2 for the current situation. Phases shown in green are running in that stage, while those in red are not.

1 Min >= 7 2 Min >= 4 3 Min >= 7 F E D F E D F E D

P Q P Q P Q A A A B B B C M C M C M L L L H H H G G G N N N O O O

I I I J K J K J K

4 Min >= 7 F E D

P Q A B C M L H G N O

I J K

Figure 12-30: Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Diagram (Proposed)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 191 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Traffic Modelling Update Report (CHARM3a)

387. The signal timing data provided by Cambridgeshire County Council indicates that the cycle time at this junction has recently been increased to 120 seconds. In light of these changes, the modelling of the Brampton Road / Edison Bell Way junction has been revisited as part of the work undertaken to update the operational assessments based on the CHARM3a traffic forecasts. The cycle time of the junction has been increased to 120 seconds in both the ‘traffic optimised’ and ‘NMU optimised’ scenarios for consistency with the existing situation. The staging plan for the junction remains the same. 388. Since the ‘traffic optimised’ and ‘NMU optimised’ scenarios now have the same staging and cycle time, there is no difference between them and therefore only a single ‘Do Something’ scenario has been assessed.

Impact on Non-Motorised Users

389. In order to assess the impact of the proposed changes to the junction layout and traffic signal staging on non-motorised users, two statistics have been calculated; the maximum wait time and the estimated total crossing time. 390. The maximum wait time records the longest period that a non-motorised user would need to wait to make a particular crossing movement. It assumes that the user arrives at the junction just after the invitation green man period has ended and therefore must wait until the start of the next invitation green man period before they can begin crossing the junction. No allowance is made for non-motorised users who cross against the signals. 391. The estimated total crossing time represents the time that would be taken to make a particular crossing movement. It assumes that the user starts crossing at the start of the invitation green man period and takes account of any time spent waiting within the junction (i.e. on traffic islands) between pedestrian phases. 392. Table 3 below compares the forecast maximum wait times and total crossing time between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours in 2035 based on the CHARM3a forecasts. No data are available for the existing situation. 393. This analysis shows that in the Do-Something scenario the maximum wait times for non-motorised users would be reduced on most movements compared with the Do-Minimum scenario, despite the junction carrying substantially more traffic. Estimated total crossing time would be slightly increased on some movements, but the total time (i.e. the sum of the maximum wait time and the total crossing time) is forecast to be comparable or lower on most movements through the junction.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 192 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Table 12-62: Brampton Road/Edison Bell Way Junction: Crossing & Wait Times (Secs)

Crossing AM Peak PM Peak Direction Location DM DS+ Change DM DS+ Change Maximum Wait Time Brampton Road NB 107 84 -23 107 84 -23 (W) SB 99 69 -30 96 66 -30 Edison Bell WB 51 61 +10 57 64 +7 Way EB 99 69 -30 96 66 -30 Station/Mill WB 113 110 -3 113 110 -3 Common Link EB 113 84 -29 113 84 -29 NB - 109 - - 109 - George Street SB - 109 - - 109 - Total Crossing Time Brampton Road NB 80 96 +16 74 93 +19 (W) SB 52 41 -11 58 44 -14 Edison Bell WB 86 67 -19 80 64 -16 Way EB 52 70 +18 58 73 +15 Station/Mill WB 7 20 +13 7 20 +13 Common Link EB 7 20 +13 7 20 +13 NB - 11 - - 11 - George Street SB - 11 - - 11 - Total Time Brampton Road NB 187 180 -7 181 177 -4 (W) SB 151 110 -41 154 110 -44 Edison Bell WB 137 128 -6 137 128 -9 Way EB 151 139 -12 154 139 -15 Station/Mill WB 120 130 +10 120 130 +10 Common Link EB 120 104 -16 120 104 -16 NB - 120 - - 120 - George Street SB - 120 - - 120 -

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 193 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.54 *If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flows entering the junction are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.48) Response 394. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of up to 85% for signalised junctions has been used as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little queuing, and above which queuing and delay might start to become an issue. This is slightly below the recommended benchmark of 90% given in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 “General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals Part 3 of 4”. However these limits are not fixed. 395. The Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 table 7.48) sets out the forecast capacity of the Brampton Road/ Edison Bell Way junction in a ‘Do- Something’ (with scheme) scenario showing the effects of optimising signals for traffic. It should be noted three analyses of this junction are presented in the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2 tables 7.46, 7.47 and 7.48). In addition to table 7.48, table 7.46 presents a do-minimum analysis (without the A14 improvement scheme works) and table 7.47 shows the effect of optimising signals for NMU (with scheme). The operational assessment indicates that while the junction would operate above capacity (RFC>85%) in design year this would be no worse and no better than the do- minimum scenario without the A14 scheme. If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flow flows entering Brampton Road/ Edison Bell Way junction is greater than the forecast, there are a number of options available: 396. A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. It would also discourage the use of Huntingdon town centre as a through route. However any queuing that ‘locks up’ adjacent junctions may not be safe nor desirable. 397. Review of the operation of the junction would be the responsibility of Cambridgeshire County Council in consultation with Huntingdonshire District Council. At this particular junction, because of the high NMU flows, operation is a balance between traffic and NMU needs and the criteria set for any review would need to take this into account. 398. Following a review, options for increasing capacity could be considered. The first consideration would be to review the actual turning movements and assess the primary flows. The signalisation of the junction could be reviewed to better optimise the timings for traffic rather than NMUs, and the lane signage reviewed for better lane control.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 194 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

399. Additionally the geometry of the junction would be reviewed. Several factors affect capacity depending on the particular situation including: 1. Number of lanes and lane width at entry 2. Filter lane length 3. Entry radii 4. Staging (number of stages and which entries released in which stage) 5. Traffic signal cycle time. (including potentially adjacent signal controlled junctions to manage the flow approaching this junction)

400. However, in some instances amending the above criteria in isolation may only bring marginal increases in capacity. 401. Additionally, in this case, there are significant practical constraints which limit the scope for improvements, such as widening, at this junction: the existing Brampton Road bridge over the East Coast Mainline Railway, Huntingdon Station Car park and access and the environmentally sensitive Mill Common (the location in question being adjacent to the area of Registered Common Land).

402. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 195 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.55 *If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flows entering the junction from Ermine Street are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.50) Response 403. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of up to 85% for signalised junctions has been used as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little queuing, and above which queuing and delay might start to become an issue. This is slightly below the recommended benchmark of 90% given in the Department for Transport’s Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/06 “General Principles of Traffic Control by Light Signals Part 3 of 4”. However these limits are not fixed. 404. The Edison Bell Way junction with Ermine Street is an existing junction beyond the limits of the proposed works of the A14 scheme. The Transport Assessment (document 7.2 tables 7.49 to 7.51) indicates that whether the signals are optimised for NMUs or for traffic, the junction would operate within capacity (RFC<85%) in both peak periods, in opening and design year. Therefore no works are proposed as part of the A14 scheme. 405. If actual future traffic turns out to be greater than the forecast, there are a number of points to consider: 1) The traffic could increase by 7% to 8% (reserve capacity) and the junction should be within the recognised benchmark RFC of 85%. 2) A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. 3) The junction is the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary as a part of traffic growth associated with future planning applications.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 196 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

406. If the capacity of the junction needed to be improved, this would require the reviewing of the actual turning movements and assessing the primary flows. The existing signalisation of the junction could be reviewed to propose optimisation of the signal timings for the actual traffic flows. This would be a matter for Cambridgeshire County Council, as the highway authority. 407. Additionally, the highway authority could review the geometry of the junction and carriageway widths, including the widening to provide additional lanes, storage length, entry flare length and entry width. However, some legs of the junction are quite space-constrained and in some instances increasing entry width or increasing the flare length would be only bring marginal increases in capacity.

408. The powers to undertake any future improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's (in this case Cambridgeshire County Council’s) existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 197 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.56 *How do the current traffic signal arrangements at the Ermine Street/ Edison Bell Way junction compare to the non-motorised user (NMU) and traffic optimised ‘Do-Something’ scenarios for NMUs? (Document 7.2 Table 7.51). Response 409. Tables 7.50 and 7.51 in the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) report the results of the operational assessments carried out to assess the performance of the proposed Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way junction in 2020 and 2035 with the scheme. Table 7.50 reports the results of the assessments for the ‘non-motorised user (NMU) optimised’ scenario while table 7.51 reports the results of the assessments for the ‘traffic optimised’ scenario. The location of the Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way junction is shown in 410. Figure 12-31 below.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 198 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-31: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Location Plan

Source: Google

Existing Situation

411. The existing Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way junction is a three arm signalised junction. Two arms serve Ermine Street to the east and west of the junction, with one servicing Edison Bell Way to the south. These arms are referred to as Ermine Street (E), Ermine Street (W) and Edison Bell Way (S) respectively. 412. Traffic signal data for this junction has been obtained from Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC). The traffic signals are divided in to ‘phases’, with each phase representing a movement or combination of movements that can be made at the junction. Each phase will normally have its own signal head or indicative arrow. The traffic signal phases for this junction are shown in Figure 2 below. The phases shown in black (labelled A, B and C) are phases for traffic while those shown in blue (labelled D, E and F) are phases for pedestrians and other non-motorised users. A description of these phases and the movements that they allow is provided in Table 12-63.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 199 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-32: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Phase Diagram (Existing)

Table 12-63: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way, Description of Junction Phases (Existing)

Phase Type Description A Traffic Ermine Street (W) Ahead & Right B Traffic Edison Bell Way (S) Left C Traffic Ermine Street (E) Ahead & Left D Pedestrian Ermine Street (E) Left Filter E Pedestrian Edison Bell Way F Pedestrian Ermine Street (W) Ahead

413. The junction cycle time describes the length of time taken to go through one complete sequence of the traffic signals. The traffic signal data provided by CCC indicates that the junction currently runs on a 120 second cycle time. 414. The operation of the junction is divided in to ‘stages’. A stage describes a series of non-conflicting phases which run together. The signal timing data indicates that the Edison Bell Way / Ermine Street junction currently operates with three stages, which are shown in Figure 12-33 below. Phases that run in a particular stage are shown in green, while those that do not are shown in red or grey. Phases shown in red cannot run because they conflict with one of the green stages that are already running in that stage. Phases shown in grey could run in that stage (i.e. they do not conflict with any of the stages that are already running) but are not allowed.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 200 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-33: Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way Junction, Traffic Signal Staging Plan (Existing)

1 Min >= 7 2 Min >= 6 3 Min >= 5 A A A F F F

E D C E D C E D C

B B B

Do Something Scenario

415. In the ‘Do-Something’ scenario, the Ermine Street / Edison Bell Way junction would have the same cycle time, phases and stages. As no changes are proposed to the signal staging as part of the scheme, the arrangements for non-motorised users would be unchanged. The signal timings would be optimised to minimise delays for traffic, taking account of changing traffic patterns associated with the scheme, however, this would not be expected to materially change conditions for non-motorised users.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 201 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.57 Is the heading for this table, and Table 7.55, correct? If not, what should it be? (Document 7.2 Table 7.54) Response 416. The headings for Tables 7.54 and 7.55 of the Transport Assessment are incorrect (document reference 7.2). 417. The tables are reproduced below, followed by the correct headings.

TA Table 7.54: Mill Common Link / Pathfinder Link junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario, non-motorised user-optimised)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Prince’s Street 14% 0 33% 0 22% 0 46% 0 Castle Moat 44% 3 39% 3 45% 4 40% 3 Road Pathfinder Link 36% 0 24% 0 36% 1 36% 0 Cycle Time 90 (secs)

418. The title of Table 7.54 should read: Table 7.54: Pathfinder Link / Ring Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do- Something’ scenario, non-motorised user-optimised)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 202 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

TA Table 7.55: Mill Common Link / Pathfinder Link junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario, traffic-optimised)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction Arm (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) Prince’s Street 14% 0 33% 0 22% 0 46% 0 Castle Moat 45% 4 40% 2 48% 4 44% 3 Road Pathfinder Link 37% 0 24% 0 38% 1 35% 0 Cycle Time 90 (secs)

419. The title of Table 7.55 should read:

Table 7.55: Pathfinder Link / Ring Road junction capacity assessment (‘Do- Something’ scenario, traffic-optimised)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 203 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.58 *If the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the junction from Middle Watch (south) is greater than that forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFC of 72%? How could the powers to undertake any such improvement be sought? (Document 7.2 Table 7.60) Response 420. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. The RFC of 85% is however not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 421. The Scotland Road/High Street/ Park Street mini roundabout in Dry Drayton is an existing junction about 1.8km from the A14 scheme. The Transport Assessment (document 7.2 tables 7.63 to 7.64) indicates the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from Scotland Road has RFC of 75%, whilst the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from Park Street has RFC of 72% and High Street has AM peak hour flow entering the roundabout with RFC of 30%. These peak hour flows show that the roundabout would operate within capacity (RFC<85%) in the peak flow periods, in opening and design year. Therefore no works are proposed as part of the A14 scheme. 422. If actual future traffic turns out to be greater than the forecast, then there would be a number of options available: 1) The traffic could increase by a small percentage (reserve capacity), whilst the junction should perform within the recognised benchmark RFC of 85%. 2) A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. 3) The junction is the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary as a part of traffic growth associated with future planning applications. They may also need to consider whether it would be desirable to facilitate traffic growth through Dry Drayton. Existing traffic calming including chicanes would limit through traffic.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 204 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

423. If the capacity of the junction needed to be improved, this would require the reviewing of the actual turning movements and assessing the primary flows. 424. The geometry of the junction and carriageway widths could be reviewed, including widening to provide additional lanes, entry flare length and entry width as well as increasing the diameter of the roundabout. Signalisation of the roundabout would also be an option. 425. If improvements to the mini roundabout were required then these would be the responsibility of the local highway authority. If more extensive works were required then the highway authority may need to acquire additional land. 426. The powers to undertake such improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 205 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.59 *If the 2035 AM and PM peak hour flows entering the junction from Scotland Road and Park Street are greater than those forecast, how could the performance of this junction arm be improved, in view of the forecast RFCs? How could the powers to undertake any such improvement be sought? (Document 7.2 Table 7.64) Response 427. It is standard practice to forecast demand peak hour flow 15 years after opening and use these flows to design the junction geometric layout, checking that any queuing and delay is within tolerable levels. A ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) of 85% is often taken as a benchmark below which there is likely to be little delay, and above which delay might start to become an issue. The RFC of 85% is however not a fixed limit. This is described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 6 standard TA23 section 6.2. 428. The Scotland Road/High Street/ Park Street mini roundabout in Dry Drayton is an existing junction about 1.8km from the A14 scheme. The Transport Assessment (document 7.2 tables 7.63 to 7.64) indicates the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from Scotland Road has RFC of 75%, whilst the 2035 PM peak hour flow entering the roundabout from Park Street has RFC of 72% and High Street has AM peak hour flow entering the roundabout with RFC of 30%. These peak hour flows show that the roundabout would operate within capacity (RFC<85%) in the peak flow periods, in opening and design year. Therefore no works are proposed as part of the A14 scheme. 429. If actual future traffic turns out to be greater than the forecast, then there would be a number of options available: 1) The traffic could increase by a small percentage (reserve capacity), whilst the junction should perform within the recognised benchmark RFC of 85%. 2) A degree of peak hour delay could be tolerated, as traffic demand may redistribute around the peak hour to compensate. 3) The junction is the responsibility of the local highway authority, who may need to consider any further junction improvement work that might be necessary as a part of traffic growth associated with future planning applications. They may also need to consider whether it would be desirable to facilitate traffic growth through Dry Drayton. Existing traffic calming including chicanes would limit through traffic.

If the capacity of the junction needed to be improved, this would require the reviewing of the actual turning movements and assessing the primary flows.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 206 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

430. The geometry of the junction and carriageway widths could be reviewed, including widening to provide additional lanes, entry flare length and entry width as well as increasing the diameter of the roundabout. Signalisation of the roundabout would also be an option. 431. If improvements to the mini roundabout were required then these would be the responsibility of the local highway authority. If more extensive works were required then the highway authority may need to acquire additional land. 432. The powers to undertake such improvements would vary depending on the nature and scale of improvements necessary, from the highway authority's existing powers (in the case of signalisation) to orders under the Highways Act 1980 or a further development consent order (if the area of the improvement works exceeds the thresholds in s.22 of the Planning Act 2008).

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 207 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.60 *To which particular junction and arms do this table and its rows refer? (Document 7.2 Table 7.66) Response 433. The A14 Junction 26 is formed of two t- junctions to the north of the A14 and a compact roundabout to the south of the A14. Table 7.66 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) refers to the north-western t- junction of the A14 Junction 26, which is located where A14 eastbound slip roads meet the A1096 (see Figure 12--36). 434. Table 7.66 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2) is reproduced below and should be read in conjunction with Figure 12-37 (overleaf) to understand the location of each junction arm.

TA Table 7.66: Summary of A1096 London Road / A14 eastbound slips T-junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario)

2020 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Something’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) Arm RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) A14 EB L 66% 2 40% 1 75% 3 31% 0 Slips R 98% 4 51% 1 * 34 * 32 A1096 R 107% 49 84% 6 135% 170 125% 123 Notes: L = Left Turn, R = Right Turn * Minor road blocking may occur

435. The row titled “A14 EB Slips (L)” refers to the left turn lane that connects the A14 eastbound off-slip to the A1096 northbound. 436. The row titled “A14 EB Slips (R)” refers to the right turn lane where the A14 eastbound off-slip meets the A1096. 437. The row titled “A1096 (R)” refers to the ghost-island right turn lane for traffic on the A1096 southbound to turn right on to the A14 eastbound on-slip. 438. The through traffic movements on the A1096 are unopposed and therefore they are not reported in Table 7.66.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 208 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-34: A14 / A1096 Junction (A14 Junction 26)

Source: Google Earth

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 209 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

A1096 LONDON ROAD (N)

A1096 London Road (R) A14 Eastbound Slips (L)

A14 Eastbound Slips (R)

A1096 LONDON ROAD (S)

A14 EASTBOUND SLIPS

Figure 12-35: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips Junction

Source: Google Earth

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 210 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.61 *In view of the forecast impact of the scheme on this junction, why are no improvements proposed? (Document 7.2 Table 7.66) Response 439. As set out in paragraph 7.9.1 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2), the extent of the wider area impacts of the scheme has been determined by assessing which junctions meet the following criteria:  Average flow per arm is greater than 250 vehicles per hour in the 2035 ‘Do-Minimum’ scenario (i.e. excludes any lightly trafficked junctions that are unlikely to be operating close to capacity);  Average increase in flow per arm is greater than 50 vehicles per hour (i.e. excludes any junctions where there is a small absolute change in flows due to the scheme);  Percentage increase in flow is greater than 30%9. 440. These criteria were applied to the 2035 traffic forecasts produced using CHARM2, with the following four junctions identified for further assessment:  Middle Watch / Ramper Road, near Swavesey;  Boxworth Road / Rose and Crown Road, near Swavesey;  Scotland Road / High Street, Dry Drayton; and  A14 Junction 26 (A1096/B1040). 441. The results of the operational assessments carried out for these junctions in 2020 and 2035 with and without the scheme are reported in tables 7.59 to 7.70 in the Transport Assessment. The results of the operational assessments indicate that all but one of these junctions is forecast to operate within capacity in 2020 and 2035 with the scheme and therefore do not require improvement as part of the scheme. Only A1096 / A14 Eastbound Slips t-junction at A14 Junction 26 is forecast to be adversely affected by the scheme. 442. Tables 7.65 and 7.66 from the Transport Assessment are reproduced below:

9 This is based on guidance for the assessment of environmental effects of traffic provided in the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, which suggests the scale and extent of assessment should be limited to highway links subject to traffic flow increases of more than 30%.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 211 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

TA Table 7.65: Summary of A1096 London Road / A14 eastbound slips T-junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Minimum’ scenario)

2020 ‘Do-Minimum’ Scenario 2035 ‘Do-Minimum’ Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Junction (0800-0900) (1700-1800) (0800-0900) (1700-1800) Arm RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue RFC Queue (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) (%) (vehs) A14 EB L 60% 1 34% 0 71% 1 12% 0 Slips R 84% 3 22% 1 105% 5 43% 1 A1096 R 108% 52 52% 0 110% 9 79% 4

TA Table 7.66: Summary of A1096 London Road / A14 eastbound slips T-junction capacity assessment (‘Do-Something’ scenario)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 212 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

443. The results of the operational assessments indicate that this junction is forecast to operate in excess of capacity in the Do-Minimum scenario in both 2020 and 2035. The performance of the junction is forecast to be further worsened by the scheme, leading to blocking of the minor arm of the junction (the A14 Eastbound off-slip). 444. In paragraph 3.6.29 of the Transport Assessment it is noted that the traffic forecasts do not take account of emerging transport policy as, at the time the traffic model was developed, these documents had not been adopted and therefore did not have sufficient certainty to be included in the core forecasts. Paragraph 3.6.30 goes on to note that the forecasts do not take account of potential transport improvements associated with planned development as these measures are unknown for the majority of development sites. 445. In combination, these transport policy interventions and infrastructure improvements would be expected to reduce the scale of future traffic growth compared with the forecasts presented in the Transport Assessment. While this is unlikely to materially affect the need for and design of the junctions along the length of the A14 that would be directly affected by the scheme, there remains some uncertainty regarding the scale of impacts at other junctions. Given this uncertainty, and in lieu of a specific improvement scheme for this junction, paragraph 7.9.14 of the Transport Assessment proposes that the volume of traffic using this junction is monitored against the forecast traffic flows with an improvement scheme to be identified and delivered by Highways England, in consultation with Cambridgeshire County Council, if necessary. 446. Since the Transport Assessment was published, further work has been undertaken to refine the traffic model, culminating in the development of CHARM3a. One of the key changes is in the assumptions regarding the future growth of external-to-external (i.e. long-distance) traffic. In CHARM2, external-to-external traffic growth is based on the Cambridge Sub-Regional Model (CSRM), which in turn is based on out-dated forecasts from the East of England Regional Model (EERM). For CHARM3a, external-external growth for ‘light’ vehicles is derived from forecasts from the National Trip End Model version 6.2 (NTEM 6.2), with the National Transport Model (NTM) Road Traffic Forecasts 2013 (RTF2013) providing the growth factors for HGVs. This change has resulted in generally lower growth in external-to-external traffic, which has freed up capacity for local traffic on the strategic road network. As a consequence, the volume and distribution of traffic has changed between CHARM2 and CHARM3a. 447. In recognition of this change, the assessment of the extent of the wider area impacts has been repeated based on the CHARM3a traffic forecasts using the criteria outlined above. This analysis indicates that the impact of the scheme on A14 Junction 26 (A1096/B1040) is forecast to be below the 30% threshold applied and therefore no further assessment has been undertaken.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 213 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.62 *What is the minor blocking impact and to what extent would it occur? (Document 7.2 Table 7.66) Response 448. The results of the PICADY assessments of the A1096 London Road / A14 eastbound slip roads junction are reported in Table 7.66 of the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2). These assessments show that in 2035 with the scheme the A1096 is forecast to operate in excess of capacity in both the morning and evening peak hours. No RFC is provided for the right turn lane at the A14 eastbound slip road as the PICADY software predicts that minor road blocking may occur. The minor road blocking impact would be where through flows on the major arms of the junction are sufficiently high that there are no gaps for traffic on the minor arm. This results in the effective capacity of the minor arm being reduced to zero and hence an RFC cannot be calculated. The right turn movement from the minor arm (A14 Eastbound off- slip) is particularly susceptible to this situation as it is opposed by through traffic in both directions on the major road (London Road). The location of the junction is shown in Figure 12-38, while the layout of the junction is shown in Figure 12-39. 449. The results of the PICADY assessment of the A1096 London Road / A14 eastbound slip roads junction indicate the minor road blocking would occur from the mid-point of the modelled time period (i.e. when demand is forecast to be highest) and would continue for the remainder of the modelled time period. In the AM (morning) peak hour, this is from 08:30 and in the PM (evening) peak hour this is from 17:30. Consequently, queues of up to 65 vehicles are forecast to occur on the A14 eastbound off-slip. This equates to a queue length of approximately 375 metres, which has potential to block back on to the A14 mainline. 450. In paragraph 3.6.29 of the Transport Assessment (Document Reference 7.2) it is noted that the traffic forecasts do not take account of emerging transport policy as, at the time the traffic model was developed, these documents had not been adopted and therefore did not have sufficient certainty to be included in the core forecasts. Paragraph 3.6.30 goes on to note that the forecasts do not take account of potential transport improvements associated with planned development as these measures are unknown for the majority of development sites.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 214 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

451. In combination, these transport policy interventions and infrastructure improvements would be expected to reduce the scale of future traffic growth compared with the forecasts presented in the Transport Assessment. While this is unlikely to materially affect the need for and design of the junctions along the length of the A14 that would be directly affected by the scheme, there remains some uncertainty regarding the scale of impacts at other junctions. These effects would be expected to reduce the volume of traffic using the road network, including the A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-junction. As a result the performance of the junction would be expected to be better than the operational assessments suggest and therefore minor blocking may not occur or the effects of it may be reduced. 452. Given this uncertainty, and in lieu of a specific improvement scheme for this junction, paragraph 7.9.14 of the Transport Assessment proposes that the volume of traffic using this junction is monitored against the forecast traffic flows with an improvement scheme to be identified and delivered by Highways England, in consultation with Cambridgeshire County Council, if necessary.

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 215 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-36: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-Junction, Location Plan

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 216 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

A1096 London Road (Major Road)

A14 Eastbound Slips A1096 London Road (Minor Road) (Major Road)

Figure 12-37: A1096 London Road / A14 Eastbound Slips T-Junction, Layout Plan

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 217 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Question 1.12.63 Is the location of Mill Common Link compatible with the general arrangement drawings? If not, what should it be? (Document 7.2 Appendix E) Response 453. The location of Mill Common Link as shown in the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2, Appendix E) is compatible with the General Arrangement Regulation 5 (2) (o) Huntingdon Town Centre drawing (number A14-JAC-ZZ-HT-DR-Z-01002). 454. Figure 12-40 shows an extract taken from the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2, Appendix E), where Point “D” is labelled as “Mill Common Link”. 455. Figure 12-41 is an extract taken from the Transport Assessment (document reference 7.2, Appendix E), where Point “D” is labelled as “Mill Common Link (east)” and Point “E” is labelled as “Mill Common Link (west)”. 456. Figures 12-40 and 12-41 have been overlaid onto the General Arrangement Regulation 5 (2) (o) Huntingdon Town Centre drawing in Figure 12-42 to demonstrate the location of references to Mill Common Link.

Figure 12-38: Extract from Document 7.2 Appendix E (replicated on pages pages 10 and 21)

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 218 of 219 June 2015

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Development Consent Order Application Response to the First Written Questions (Report 12,Transportation and Traffic)

Figure 12-39: Extract from Document 7.2 Appendix E (replicated on pages pages 11 and 22)

Figure 12-40

HE/A14/EX/39 Page 219 of 219 June 2015