appendices - stop stansted...
TRANSCRIPT
2032278 ECC/1/H
Application by BAA plc and Stansted Airport Limited for Stansted Airport Generation 1
Public Inquiry – 30 May 2007 Supplementary Evidence on Surface Access Transport Terry Wang BSc, MSc (Soils), MSc (Transport) CEng, MICE, FCILT
Appendices
www.essexcc.gov.uk
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Modelling Concerns in Transport Assessment Addendum Update Appendix B: Concerns in SRTM version 2 Model Appendix C: Comparison of Road Traffic Flows From TA, TAA and TAAU Appendix D: Uncertainties Inherent in the BAA Surface Access Forecasts Appendix E: Employment and Household Growth Changes in the Transport Assessment Addendum Update Appendix F: A Letter of 26 July from Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils and Uttlesford District Council to DfT Rail Seeking Further Clarification On Rail Issues
Appendix A: Modelling Concerns in Transport Assessment Addendum Update
Appendix A
Concerns Arising from the Revised Forecasts Presented in the TA Addendum Update.
• Forecasts for the A120 between the M11 and A10 are lower and at
Little Hadham are predicted to be less than 2003 observed flows
(Discussed by Mr Humby of HCC).
• Increased use of the B1004 between Ware and Bishops Stortford
(Discussed by Mr Humby of HCC).
• Traffic flow variations in Bishops Stortford (Discussed by Mr Humby of
HCC).
• The validation of the 2004 observed flows, in the vicinity of the Airport,
compared to the modelled flows from the SRTMv2 highway models for
the AM, Inter-peak and PM peak hours. This does suggests that ECC
is right to have concerns about the forecasting capability of the
SRTMv2 model in the light of the model being not even able to produce
valid flows for one year (i.e. 2004) into the future around the Stansted
Airport area (see Appendix B).
• In general, the differences between the original TA 2014 forecast flows
and those from the TAA Update are greater than the forecast
differences at 2023. This will compound the County Council concerns
as the 2014 forecasts (which reveals greater uncertainties) will be used
for negotiation of scheme contributions required from BAA.
• In the case of Harlow area, for the 2014 35 mppa (enhanced) scenario
(see Table 3.8 of TAA Update, page 17), the employee mode share by
rail is 384 trips (i.e. 26%) which is higher than expected as the Harlow
train station is 1 km north of the town centre, albeit many buses access
the station however most of the buses do take circuitous route via
residential areas and take around 20 minutes to get to the station from
the town centre.
• Anomalies in the percentages of HGV’s assigned to roads between the
regional and local traffic models. For example in the 2003 base year
the EERM flows contain 10% HGV’s whereas the SRTM only contains
3% on the A120 east of the M11 Junction 8.
Appendix B: Concerns of SRTM version 2 Model
Appendix B
Concerns in SRTM version 2 Model
1.1 The County Councils consider that the local 2003 base year SRTMv2
highway model did meet the various model convergence statistics (as
set out in the Design manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume
12, Section 2, Part 1, Table 4.1, page 4/25). By having a converged
model, the same model outputs could be repetitively reproduced.
However, meeting the DMRB (model convergence) criteria does not
demonstrate the reliability of the model outputs.
1.2 We understand from BAA/Halcrow’s Model Validation Report (MVR,
dated June 2007) that the update of the local SRTMv2 to 2003 base
year (for AM peak, PM peak and Inter-peak hour) was limited to the
use of the matrix estimation technique. The technique involves the
adjustment of the trip matrix trip ends using the most up-to-date
observed counts together with older trip patterns in order to ensure that
the “best match” between the observed data and modelled data can be
achieved. Although the matrix estimation technique can help to update
the trip matrices, the technique cannot account for the changes in trip
patterns from out-of-date origin-destination data.
1.3 By way of further re-inforcement of the need to incorporate more up-
date origin-destination data, there has been a major new scheme i.e.
the A120 (T) road to the east of the M11J8, next to the Stansted Airport
which open in 2004.
1.4 In accordance with the DMRB, Volume 12, Section 1, Part 1, Para
2.2.30 the objectives of validating traffic models are:
(a) to check that the calibration of the models are valid; and
(b) to assess the quality of the information provided by the models.
As such, the validation stage in the development of the base year
models is paramount and if either not undertaken or poorly undertaken
would significantly compromise the robustness of the forecasts which
are “pivoted” around the base year model.
1.5 The validation and the calibration of the 2003 base year models in the
core area does generally meet the DMRB criteria (as set out in DMRB,
Volume 12, Section 2, Part 1, Table 4.2, page 4/29).
1.6 The validation in 2004 as reported in Tables 7.20 to 7.22 in the MVR,
page 84 to 86 show the number of individual links that have a Geoff
Haver’s (GEH) statistic of more than or less than 5. It can be seen that
in the AM peak, twenty-four out of thirty-two links has a GEH of less
than 5. This is only 75% not 85% of individual link flows and fails to
meet the DMRB criterion (i.e. 85% of individual links have a GEH of
less than 5). In the case of the Inter-peak hour, twenty-five out of thirty-
two links has a GEH of less than 5. This is only 78% not 85% of
individual link flows and fails to meet the DMRB criterion. Also, in the
PM peak hour, eighteen out of thirty-two links has a GEH of less than
5. This is only 56% not 85% of individual link flows and fails to meet the
DMRB criterion. Therefore, the DMRB Para 4.4.43 guideline does not
assist BAA for all the AM, Inter-peak and PM peak hour. This does
suggests that ECC is right to have concerns about the forecasting
capability of the 2003 base year model in the light of the model being
not even able to produce valid flows for one year (i.e. 2004) into the
future around the Stansted Airport area. Moreover, the robustness and
reliability of the forecast flows for 2014 and 2023 assessment years
derived from this SRTMv2 2003 base year model must be highly
questionable and should be treated with caution.
1.7 The County Councils have raised the above matter with BAA/Halcrow
at the meeting on 14 August 2007 and it is unclear how this has been
resolved.
Appendix C: Comparison of Road Traffic Flows From TA, TAA and TAAU
Figure C1: Indicative Location of Selected Sites
1
84
6
5 37
2
Table C1: 2- Way Link Flow Variation by Source Report - Flows are in Vehicles
2023 2023 2014 2014 AM Peak 2-way Flows PM Peak 2-way Flows AM Peak 2-way Flows PM Peak 2-way Flows
Link No Link Name Source TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAUFlow 7120 6390 6870 7480 6520 6910 6260 no data 5820 6370 no data 5560
1 M11 North of Junction 8Diff wrt TA Flow 0 -730 -250 0 -960 -570 0 no data -440 0 no data -810% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -10% -4% 0% -13% -8% 0% no data -7% 0% no data -13%Flow 10170 9370 9900 10480 9290 10020 9370 no data 8390 9210 no data 8110
2 M11 South of Junction 8Diff wrt TA Flow 0 -800 -270 0 -1190 -460 0 no data -980 0 no data -1100% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -8% -3% 0% -11% -4% 0% no data -10% 0% no data -12%Flow 5370 4890 4870 5970 5050 5080 4780 no data 3830 5230 no data 4030
3 A120 ('new') East of M11 J8Diff wrt TA Flow 0 -480 -500 0 -920 -890 0 no data -950 0 no data -1200% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -9% -9% 0% -15% -15% 0% no data -20% 0% no data -23%Flow 2130 2050 2090 2260 2090 2230 2110 no data 2070 2150 no data 2120
4A120 West of M11 J8 Northwest of Bishop's Storford (i.e. btween A120/B1383 j'ctn & A120/A1250 j'ctn)
Diff wrt TA Flow 0 -80 -40 0 -170 -30 0 no data -40 0 no data -30% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -4% -2% 0% -8% -1% 0% no data -2% 0% no data -1%Flow 1230 800 840 1270 980 1010 1020 no data 720 1030 no data 810
5 B1256 East of B183/B1256 junctionDiff wrt TA Flow 0 -430 -390 0 -290 -260 0 no data -300 0 no data -220% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -35% -32% 0% -23% -20% 0% no data -29% 0% no data -21%Flow 690 570 610 470 560 610 510 no data 480 380 no data 350
6 B1256 West of B183/B1256 junctionDiff wrt TA Flow 0 -120 -80 0 90 140 0 no data -30 0 no data -30% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -17% -12% 0% 19% 30% 0% no data -6% 0% no data -8%Flow 980 850 900 1120 910 900 810 no data 810 910 no data 890
7 B183 South of B183/B1256 junctionDiff wrt TA Flow 0 -130 -80 0 -210 -220 0 no data 0 0 no data -20% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% -13% -8% 0% -19% -20% 0% no data 0% 0% no data -2%Flow 1450 1490 1590 1470 1330 1410 1300 no data 1430 1280 no data 1290
8 B1383 North of Stansted MountfitchetDiff wrt TA Flow 0 40 140 0 -140 -60 0 no data 130 0 no data 10% Diff wrt to TA Flow 0% 3% 10% 0% -10% -4% 0% no data 10% 0% no data 1%
Source Report DefinitionTA - TA FlowsTAA - TA Addendum FlowsTAAU - TA Addendum Update FlowsFlow Difference & % Flow Difference measured with respect to TA flow
Table C2: 2- Way Link Flow Variation by Source Report - Flows are in Vehicles
2023 2023 2014 2014
AM Peak 2-way Flows PM Peak 2-way Flows AM Peak 2-way Flows PM Peak 2-way Flows Link No Link Name TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU
1 M11 North of Junction 8 7120 6390 6870 7480 6520 6910 6260 no data 5820 6370 no data 55602 M11 South of Junction 8 10170 9370 9900 10480 9290 10020 9370 no data 8390 9210 no data 81103 A120 ('new') East of M11 J8 5370 4890 4870 5970 5050 5080 4780 no data 3830 5230 no data 4030
4A120 West of M11 J8 Northwest of Bishop's Storford (i.e. btween A120/B1383 j'ctn & A120/A1250 j'ctn) 2130 2050 2090 2260 2090 2230 2110 no data 2070 2150 no data 2120
5 B1256 East of B183/B1256 junction 1230 800 840 1270 980 1010 1020 no data 720 1030 no data 8106 B1256 West of B183/B1256 junction 690 570 610 470 560 610 510 no data 480 380 no data 3507 B183 South of B183/B1256 junction 980 850 900 1120 910 900 810 no data 810 910 no data 8908 B1383 North of Stansted Mountfitchet 1450 1490 1590 1470 1330 1410 1300 no data 1430 1280 no data 1290
Source ReportTA - TA FlowsTAA - TA Addendum FlowsTAAU - TA Addendum Update Flows
2023 2023 2014 2014 AM Peak 2-way Flows PM Peak 2-way Flows AM Peak 2-way Flows PM Peak 2-way Flows
Link No Link Name TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU TA TAA TAAU1 M11 North of Junction 8 0 -10% -4% 0% -13% -8% 0 no data -7% 0 no data -13%2 M11 South of Junction 8 0 -8% -3% 0% -11% -4% 0 no data 10% 0 no data -12%3 A120 ('new') East of M11 J8 0 -9% -9% 0% -15% -15% 0 no data -10% 0 no data -23%
4A120 West of M11 J8 Northwest of Bishop's Storford (i.e. btween A120/B1383 j'ctn & A120/A1250 j'ctn) 0 -4% -2% 0% -8% -1% 0 no data -2% 0 no data -1%
5 B1256 East of B183/B1256 junction 0 -35% -32% 0% -23% -20% 0 no data -29% 0 no data -21%6 B1256 West of B183/B1256 junction 0 -17% -12% 0% 19% 30% 0 no data -6% 0 no data -8%7 B183 South of B183/B1256 junction 0 -13% -8% 0% -19% -20% 0 no data 0% 0 no data -2%8 B1383 North of Stansted Mountfitchet 0 3% 10% 0% -10% -4% 0 no data 10% 0 no data 1%
Source ReportTA - TA FlowsTAA - TA Addendum FlowsTAAU - TA Addendum Update Flows
Appendix D: Uncertainties Inherent in the BAA Surface Access Forecasts
Appendix D
Uncertainties Inherent in the BAA Surface Access Forecasts The complicated nature of the BAA transport modelling suite and the
uncertainty surrounding future planning data and major transport scheme
programmes contribute to ECC and HCC concerns on the surface access
forecasts that have been submitted to-date. There are a large number of
factors that impact on the future year surface access forecasts including:
(a) The funding and timing of major transport schemes in the region
including the M25 widening between J23 and J30, widening of the M11
between J6 and J14, widening of the A12 between the M25 and
Colchester and the A120 Braintree to Marks Tey dual carriageway,
albeit these schemes are based on advice by GoEast and could
change again in the future.
(b) Differences in the planning data inputs associated with the
development of the East of England Plan. This includes various
assumptions on the total and spatial distribution of housing and
employment provision to the end of the 2021 plan period and varying
estimations of the volume and location of development completed by
2014, which could be subject to further changes following the new
Prime Minister’s recent announcement on the marked increase in
housing provisions in the South East by 2021.
(c) The incremental approach for transferring growth forecasts from the
regional highway models (RHRM and EERM) down to the more
detailed Stansted Road Traffic Model (SRTM). This method relies upon
a reasonable correlation between the regional and local models in the
2003 base year and ECC and HCC are currently not fully satisfied with
the model correlation around the Stansted area.
(d) The numerous assumptions and data inputs required within the 6
complex models of the BAA transport modelling suite which interact to
produce the forecasts reported in the TA and subsequent Addenda and
Errata. Examples of the assumptions and data inputs which can
change in the future and affect the resultant forecasts include:
- The relative costs of using bus and coach/ rail / tax/ private car
- Future car parking charges
- The number, location and nature of employee car parking
- The percentage of transfer passengers
- The number, home location, work location and reporting pattern
of employees
- Mode share proportions for employees
- The nature and number of flights using the runway
- Runway and terminal throughputs in any hour
- Changes to the rail timetable
- The distribution of passengers and employees over the working
day.
- The impact of increased security on transit times
- Vehicle occupancy rates
1
Appendix E: Employment and Household Growth Changes in the Transport Assessment Addendum Update
Employment and household growth changes in TAAU Appendix E(see Tables 2.1, 2.2 of TAAU, page 8)
Employment growth changesRegion TA Revised Abs Diff % Diff
2003-14 2014-23 2003-23 2003-14 2014-23 2003-23 2003-14 2014-23 2003-23 2003-14 2014-23 2003-23
Cambs 58600 32300 90900 52300 43100 95400 -6300 10800 4500 -11 33 5Essex 46200 29200 75400 65700 54300 120000 19500 25100 44600 42 86 59Herts 60500 19000 79500 37400 31000 68400 -23100 12000 -11100 -38 63 -14SE 613100 212500 825600 542900 266800 809700 -70200 54300 -15900 -11 26 -2EoE 270460 125480 395940 241830 200350 442180 -28630 74870 46240 -11 60 12
Household growth changesRegion TA Revised Abs Diff % Diff
2003-14 2014-23 2003-23 2003-14 2014-23 2003-23 2003-14 2014-23 2003-23 2003-14 2014-23 2003-23
Cambs 47400 38000 85400 52100 46200 98300 4700 8200 12900 10 22 15Essex 64100 56900 121000 67500 57400 124900 3400 500 3900 5 1 3Herts 37200 41300 78500 44600 38600 83200 7400 -2700 4700 20 -7 6SE 311400 249200 560600 365900 298300 664200 54500 49100 103600 18 20 18EoE 250470 214810 465280 269260 233900 503160 18790 19090 37880 8 9 8
Appendix F: A Letter of 26 July from Essex and Hertfordshire County Councils and Uttlesford District Council to DfT Rail Seeking Further Clarification On Rail Issues
Our Ref: G1/MC Your Ref: SKB ECC Let1 Date: 26 July 2007
Tony Ciaburro Director for Development, Highways Transportation
Essex County Council County Hall Chelmsford Essex CM1 1QH
Mr Stuart Baker Divisional Manager (National) DfT Rail Projects Zone 5/23 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Dear Stuart Provision of additional Rail Capacity for Stansted G1 Thank you for your letter of 23 April 2007, which I received in electronic form on 16 May 2007, sent in response to a number of queries that I previously raised on behalf of the Local Authorities affected by the Stansted Airport expansion proposals. This letter is again written on behalf of Essex County Council, Hertfordshire County Council and Uttlesford District Council. The Stansted Generation 1 Public Inquiry commenced at the end of May 2007. Consideration of surface access issues has been deferred towards the end of September to allow the Local Authorities time to consider the implications of an Addendum to the BAA Transport Assessment (TA) which was submitted in April 2007. The differences between the forecasts traffic published in the TA and the TA Addendum are so significant that the Local Authorities are, in effect, now considering the implications of a completely new Transport Assessment for the Stansted Generation 1 planning application. The Local Authorities have been heavily engaged in attempts to comprehend BAA’s revised transport forecasts but also need to use the deferral period to clarify all outstanding transport concerns before surface access issues are considered at the Public Inquiry. My reason for writing is to seek further clarification on a number of rail provision issues relating to the Stansted Generation 1 expansion. Present Level of Usage. There appears to be general agreement that the Stansted Express (STEX) passenger survey conducted by One Railway in 2006 indicates that there is already overcrowding on some STEX trains in the busiest morning and evening peak hours. I understand that the 2006 survey was based on a one day count but it would appear
to accord with my on-board STEX train observations of overcrowding on evening peak STEX services leaving Liverpool Street earlier this year. The County Council’s initial evidence to the Public Inquiry draws on the 2006 survey data reported in the draft Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Study (RUS). Table 3.9 of the draft RUS states that STEX carried 2012 and 1604 passengers, in the peak direction, in the busiest morning and evening peak hours respectively. Considering these flows with the 438 second class STEX seating capacity, which BAA have used in their TA, results in 2006 passenger to seating capacity ratios of 115% and 92% in the busiest morning and evening peak hours. Your letter indicates that the 2006 survey indicated that the ratio of STEX passengers to seats in the busiest morning and evening peak hours was 102% and 90% respectively. This suggests that you may have adopted slightly different passenger count or seating capacity figures, but this does not detract from the general conclusion that there is already overcrowding on some morning and evening peak hour trains. In order to avoid unnecessary discussions at the Public Inquiry I would be grateful if you could confirm the passenger numbers and seating capacities used in your calculations and the extent of up to date survey work available to you. Loading Specification Thank you for confirming that the G1 and G2 rail strategies are based on the principle of providing one seat per passenger for the morning and evening peak hours. The airport rail strategies are based upon serving the 95% busiest airport hour in the year. For the avoidance of any doubt it would be helpful if you could confirm that the loading specification refers to all passengers and not just airport related rail passengers. Monitoring and Delivery Measures in Place. All parties would appear to agree that STEX usage needs to be regularly monitored to ensure that measures to prevent overcrowding can be implemented in good time. There does however, appear to be a difference of opinion on when it will be necessary to develop and implement the capacity improvements to STEX that will be required to prevent continued and worsening overcrowding. The Local Authorities are concerned that DfT Rail’s position on this matter has been unduly influenced by BAA’s forecasts that suggest the need to consider selective lengthening of STEX to 12 cars as the airport throughput approaches 35 mppa in 2014. During recent discussions with BAA on the TA Addendum their consultants Halcrow have agreed, in light of the 2006 STEX passenger survey, that the PLANET rail model appears to be underestimating the current level of non-airport passengers
using STEX. The fact that the 2014 BAA PLANET forecasts for STEX appear to be lower than 2006 counts would appear to cast serious doubts over the accuracy of this model. In your letter you state “In terms of timescales, we expect to have to lengthen to 12-car trains as standard towards the middle of the next decade…..” I would be grateful if you could clarify if this statement was meant to refer to the provision of 12-car STEX trains throughout the day or throughout the morning and evening peaks. During our meeting back in March I recall that you said that the DfT would ask the train operators to suggest possible solutions for addressing overcapacity problems. At that time it was believed that the early evening peak represented a potential “Worst Case” scenario and that it might be possible to initially introduce an additional relief train before considering 12-car trains. The 2006 surveys indicate that the current STEX overcrowding is even worse in the morning peak. I understand that there are no free peak hour train paths to Liverpool Street in the morning peak which suggests that peak hour 12-car trains will need to be provided far earlier than the 2014 forecast previously suggested by BAA. Changes to the Current Franchise. The fact that overcrowding on STEX is already being experienced in the morning and evening peak hours suggests that measures for increasing capacity need to be initiated as soon as possible. In light of the serious concerns raised by the 2006 STEX passenger survey I have to ask for further clarification on the following matters:
1. Do DfT Rail intend to carry out further surveys to confirm the findings of the 2006 surveys?
2. When do DfT Rail intend to commence discussions with the current operator
of STEX to address the peak hour overcapacity problems that are observable now?
3. How quickly will additional peak hour STEX capacity be provided?
4. Can the HLOS process be expedited to provide the infrastructure required to
support additional peak hour STEX capacity? Timing and Certainty of STEX Improvements. In your previous letter you indicated that is not possible to tie future governments into the precise timing of funding for measures required to serve the Stansted expansion. At present neither the Local Authorities nor BAA are able to provide the Public Inquiry Inspectors considering the Stansted G1 Inquiry with any guarantees on either when STEX capacity improvements will be provided or what they might be.
In the experience of the three local authorities on whose behalf I write, no other private developer (of which BAA is an example) would be entitled to a grant of planning permission without having demonstrated that proper provision has been made for addressing the surface access impacts of the proposed development. This matter must surely be seen as especially important where we are concerned to maintain the critical public transport link between London and London’s third airport in a condition which is attractive and convenient not only for existing users, but also for as large a proportion as can be encouraged to use it of the additional 10mppa for which planning permission is now sought. We are aware that government funding priorities may change in the light of other circumstances and you have told us that you can offer no commitments in respect of the timing of funding on behalf of this or future governments. Against this background, we see the need for a potential Grampian condition restricting the increased throughput at STN until 12 car trains or alternative capacity improvements have been introduced to serve STEX at least in the AM and PM peak periods. We would be grateful for you comments on the above and for your response to the questions raised in this letter. Yours sincerely Martin Cooke Principal Transportation Officer Telephone: 01245 437241 Fax: 01245 280356 Internet: www.essexcc.gov.uk Email: [email protected] (Please reply to Martin Cooke at the ECC address provided at the top of this letter.) cc. Jonathan Holland – DfT Rail