city east gateway phase 3 - civica€¦ · paula paez senior consultant alan boyce project manager...

City East Gateway Phase 3

Issues and Options Report

Project Number: 60564983

December 2018



AECOM 2

Quality information

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Antonio Aguilera

Graduate Consultant

Paula Paez

Senior Consultant

Alan Boyce

Project Manager

Revision History

Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position

1 Feb 18 Draft Issues Report RH Richard Hill Project Manager

2 April 18 Draft Issues and Option Report

3 August 18 Draft Issues and

Option Report

LB Lydia Barnstable Project Director

4 December 18 Final Report

Issues and Option Report- Including

Model Outputs

AB Alan Boyce Project Manager

Prepared for:

City of Wolverhampton Council

AECOM Limited

The Colmore Building

Colmore Circus Queensway

Birmingham

B4 6AT

UK

T: +44 (121) 710 1100

aecom.com

© 2016 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved.



AECOM 3

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in

accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference

agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not

been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely

upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.



AECOM 4

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Project Overview and Objective ................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Issues identified ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 12

2.4 Option Generation ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.5 EAST Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Prioritisation .............................................................................................................................. 12

3. Current Situation and Issues................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Current Situation and Issues ...................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Future Situation and Issues ....................................................................................................... 41

3.4 Summary of Issues .................................................................................................................... 45

4. Scheme Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 48

5. Option Generation ................................................................................................................................ 50

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 50

5.2 Proformas ................................................................................................................................. 50

6. Stakeholder Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 66

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 66

6.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 66

6.3 Findings .................................................................................................................................... 66

6.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 66

7. Option Sifting ....................................................................................................................................... 70

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 70

7.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 70

7.3 EAST Outputs ........................................................................................................................... 70

7.4 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 70

8. Scheme Prioritisation and Programme .................................................................................................. 72

8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 72

8.2 Prioritisation Framework ............................................................................................................ 72

8.3 Results of Prioritisation .............................................................................................................. 72

9. Preferred Options ................................................................................................................................. 75

9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 75

9.2 Modelling Scenarios .................................................................................................................. 75

9.3 Flow Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 76

9.4 Journey Time Analysis ............................................................................................................... 79

9.5 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 87

10. Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 89

11. List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 92

Figures

Figure 1. Location of Neachells Lane Junction ................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Turning counts.................................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 3. Neachells Junction Flows during AM peak ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 4. Neachells Junction Flows during PM peak ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Deans Road Junction - Neachells Lane Junction Traffic Flows During AM Peak.................................. 16 Figure 6. Flows Deans Road Junction - Neachells Lane Junction During PM Peak............................................ 17



AECOM 5

Figure 7. Journey Times Routes ...................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 8. Delay Journey Times – From Moseley Road...................................................................................... 18 Figure 9. Delay Journey Times – From Neachells Lane .................................................................................... 19 Figure 10. Delay Journey Times – From Willenhall Road West ......................................................................... 19 Figure 11. Delay Journey Times – From Willenhall Road East .......................................................................... 20 Figure 12. Percentage of delay at Neachells Junction during AM peak .............................................................. 21 Figure 13. Percentage of delay at Neachells Junction during PM peak ............................................................. 22 Figure 14. Delay at Neachells Junction during the AM peak .............................................................................. 22 Figure 15. Delay at Neachells Junction during the PM peak ............................................................................. 23 Figure 16. Average AM Peak (07:00-9:00) journey time of Willenhall Road eastbound bus services ................... 24 Figure 17. Average AM Peak (07:00-9:00) journey time of Willenhall Road westbound bus services .................. 24 Figure 18. AM From Moseley Road ................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 19. AM From Neachells Lane ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 20. AM From Willenhall Road East ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 21. AM From Willenhall Road West ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 22. PM From Moseley Road ................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 23. PM From Neachells Lane................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 24. PM From Willenhall Road East........................................................................................................ 28 Figure 25. PM From Willenhall Road West ....................................................................................................... 28 Figure 26. Accidents (Feb 2013 – Jan 2018), classified by severity ................................................................... 30 Figure 27. Accidents Location.......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 28. Accidents involving cyclists by severity ............................................................................................ 32 Figure 29. Willenhall Road Bus Services ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure 30. Bus Services .................................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 31. Pedestrians and cyclists crossing movements ................................................................................. 35 Figure 32. Index of Multiple Deprivations Map .................................................................................................. 38 Figure 33. 2017 annual mean NOx concentration (2015 reference year projection) ............................................ 39 Figure 34. Air-Quality Monitors location............................................................................................................ 40 Figure 35. Annual average noise levels for the 16-hour period between 07:00 – 23:00 (LAeq 16h) .................... 40 Figure 36. Noise Action Planning Important Areas ............................................................................................ 41 Figure 37. Development Sites ......................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 38. M6 J10 scheme .............................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 39. Cycling network proposed from City of Wolverhampton Council ....................................................... 44 Figure 40. Neachells Lanes – Flow diagram..................................................................................................... 76

Tables

Table 1. Highway Flows per User class – AM Peak hour................................................................................... 16 Table 2. Highway Flows per User class – PM Peak hour .................................................................................. 16 Table 3. Journey times and percentages along routes and at the junction. ........................................................ 20 Table 4. Serious Accidents (Feb 2013 – Jan 2018) ........................................................................................... 28 Table 5. Accidents ........................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 6. Accidents including cyclists ................................................................................................................ 31 Table 7. Frequency of Bus Services ................................................................................................................. 33 Table 8. Bus services ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 9. Pedestrian counts .............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 10. Cyclists counts ................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 11. Method of travel to work of people employed in Wolverhampton ........................................................ 36 Table 12. Method of travel to work of people employed in Walsall ..................................................................... 37 Table 13. Method of travel to work of people employed in Sandwell .................................................................. 37 Table 14. Car and Van Availability .................................................................................................................... 37 Table 15. Economic Activity of Population ........................................................................................................ 38 Table 16. Age range of Population ................................................................................................................... 38 Table 17. NO2 Annual mean concentration measurements on Willenhall Road .................................................. 40 Table 18. Summary of Issues .......................................................................................................................... 45 Table 19. Scheme Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 20. First Stakeholder consultation........................................................................................................... 67 Table 21. Prioritisation Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 72 Table 22: Ranking of Option Prioritisation......................................................................................................... 73



AECOM 6

Table 23. Demand Flow DM and DS1 AM 2020 ................................................................................................ 77 Table 24. Demand Flow DM and DS3 AM 2020 ................................................................................................ 77 Table 25. Demand Flow DM and DS5 AM 2020 ................................................................................................ 77 Table 26. Demand Flow DM and DS1 PM 2020 ............................................................................................... 77 Table 27. Demand Flow DM and DS3 PM 2020 ............................................................................................... 77 Table 28. Demand Flow DM and DS5 PM 2020 ............................................................................................... 77 Table 29. Demand Flow DM and DS1 AM 2026 ................................................................................................ 78 Table 30. Demand Flow DM and DS3 AM 2026 ................................................................................................ 78 Table 31. Demand Flow DM and DS5 AM 2026 ................................................................................................ 78 Table 32. Demand Flow DM and DS1 PM 2026 ............................................................................................... 78 Table 33. Demand Flow DM and DS3 PM 2026 ............................................................................................... 78 Table 34. Demand Flow DM and DS5 PM 2026 ............................................................................................... 78 Table 35. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 AM 2020 ................................................................................ 79 Table 36. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 AM 2020 ................................................................................ 79 Table 37. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 AM 2020 ................................................................................ 79 Table 38. Journey Time Benefits AM 2020 ..................................................................................................... 79 Table 39. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 PM 2020 ................................................................................ 80 Table 40. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 PM 2020 ................................................................................ 80 Table 41. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 PM 2020 ................................................................................ 80 Table 42. Journey Time Benefits PM 2020 ..................................................................................................... 80 Table 43. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 AM 2026 ................................................................................ 81 Table 44. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 AM 2026 ................................................................................ 81 Table 45. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 AM 2026 ................................................................................ 81 Table 46. Journey Time Benefits AM 2026 ..................................................................................................... 81 Table 47. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 PM 2026 ................................................................................ 82 Table 48. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 PM 2026 ................................................................................ 82 Table 49. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 PM 2026 ................................................................................ 82 Table 50. Journey Time Benefits PM 2026 ..................................................................................................... 82 Table 51. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 AM 2020 ................................................................................ 83 Table 52. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 AM 2020 ................................................................................ 83 Table 53. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 AM 2020 ................................................................................ 83 Table 54. Journey Time Benefits AM 2020 ..................................................................................................... 83 Table 55. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 PM 2020 ................................................................................ 84 Table 56. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 PM 2020 ................................................................................ 84 Table 57. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 PM 2020 ................................................................................ 84 Table 58. Journey Time Benefits PM 2020 ..................................................................................................... 84 Table 59. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 AM 2026 ................................................................................ 85 Table 60. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 AM 2026 ................................................................................ 85 Table 61. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 AM 2026 ................................................................................ 85 Table 62. Journey Time Benefits AM 2026 ...................................................................................................... 85 Table 63. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 PM 2026 ................................................................................ 86 Table 64. Journey Time difference DM and DS3 PM 2026 ................................................................................ 86 Table 65. Journey Time difference DM and DS5 PM 2026 ................................................................................ 86 Table 66. Journey Time Benefits PM 2026 ...................................................................................................... 86 Table 68. Benefits Summary ............................................................................................................................ 87 Table 67. Demand Flow Summary ................................................................................................................... 87



AECOM 7

Introduction

01



AECOM 8

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Overview and Objective

Currently, City of Wolverhampton Council (CWC) is leading the regeneration of a number of significant

development opportunities coming forward over the next 20 years. This includes 35,000 sq m of net additional

non-food floor space, 70,000sqm of new office provision and around 8,000 new homes of which 2,000 are

expected to be delivered in the next few years. Transport network enhancements are therefore required to

provide improved accessibility to these development opportunities, whilst enabling the associated economic and

jobs growth.

Congestion is an existing issue along Willenhall Road during peak times, with limited scope for increased

highway capacity within the existing route alignment and highway boundary. CWC is currently developing a major

scheme along Willenhall Road (City East Gateway Phases 1 and 2) on approach to Wolverhampton Ring Road,

supported by a Strategic and Microsimulation model. Neachells Lane junction has been identified as a pinch

point, with longstanding congestion issues that will potentially limit the benefits of this scheme due to the delays

and current poor operational performance on all arms of the junction.

The objective of this task is to prepare an Issues and Option Report for this junction as Phase 3 of the City East

Gateway Scheme, with a focus on Neachells Lane. This report aims to capture as many local issues experienced

by transport users as possible, in addition to likely future issues that arise in the medium and longer term. The

location of the junction in relation with the ongoing Willenhall Road scheme can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Location of Neachells Lane Junction

A four-stage methodology as shown below has been followed. It will be used to inform the generation of options

that will take into consideration all modes of transport, including walking, cycling, public transport and highway

(including freight). Options developed will therefore ensure the full potential of the junction and will also help to

improve flows along the whole transport corridor, improving connectivity and access for all those living and

working in the area.



AECOM 9

This Issues and Option Report will cover the first three stages. This report will conclude with an initial sifting

process, where options generated have been ranked based on the EAST assessment and prioritisation process.

1.2 Structure

This document will detail the following sections to identify the key connectivity and accessibility gaps within the

corridor, and the demographics and travel patterns in the study area:

Methodology;

Current and Future Situation and Issues;

Objectives;

Proformas;

Stakeholder consultation;

EAST assessment;

Prioritisation;

Summary; and

Appendices.

Stage 4

Priority Scheme Development

Stage 3

Viability Sifting

Stage 2

Option Generation

Stage 1

Gap Analysis Identification of issues

Review and collate existing information. Review of current

travel patterns and trends, demographics, and propensity

for mode change. This will provide a robust evidence

base, in addition to the collation of existing and future

issues.

Exploration and development of options, exploring key

issues.

Initial sifting process undertaken to remove schemes that

are not considered viable at this stage.

It is anticipated that traffic models will need to be created

in order to fully assess the different options and inform

the further development of the preferred scheme.



AECOM 10

Methodology

02



AECOM 11

2. Methodology

2.1 Introduction

A variety of information sources have been interrogated as part of this analysis to ensure that a detailed picture of

current travel patterns and trends, issues, and gaps in connectivity is generated. This will ensure that, in future

stages of this study, options that are identified and developed solve specific problems and gaps in connectivity

and accessibility.

Moreover, on 13th February 2018, the study area was visited to validate gathered information reported in the

following sections of this report. On 6th of March 2018, the first stakeholder consultation workshop was

undertaken in CWC where options were shown to consultees.

2.2 Issues identified

2.2.1 2.2.1 Highways

2.2.1.1 Flows

Traffic counts were obtained from the traffic survey undertaken by TRACSIS on 17th of November 2016 on behalf

of CWC to inform the Willenhall Road traffic models. Turning counts at the junction were recorded and reported

by the survey company. All movements from four arms of the junction: Neachells Lane, Moseley Road, Willenhall

Road East and Willenhall Road West were collected from 6am to 7pm.

2.2.1.2 Journey Time Analysis

Trafficmaster information was used to study the journey times throughout the corridor, and to identify where there

are high levels of congestion and delay. Trafficmaster data is collected anonymously through GPS systems, from

which information from November 2015 was made available to CWC. Journey times from so-called ‘neutral days’

(Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) have been analysed during the AM and PM peaks (7am to 9am and 4pm to

6pm).

2.2.1.3 Delay

Journey times during AM and PM peak hours have been compared with free flow (off peak) journey times to

identify the delay experienced in the studied area.

2.2.1.4 Movement / Demand

The Willenhall Road 2015 SATURN model was interrogated to better understand the origin and destination of

vehicles travelling through the junction.

2.2.1.5 Accidents

Both accidents involving vehicles and cyclists have been analysed around the junction. Data has been obtained

from SPECTRUM, a portal for traffic survey information across the seven West Midlands authorities.

2.2.1.6 Constraints

From the site visit and information provided by City of Wolverhampton Council, constraints were identified in the

study area and reported in this section. These are to be considered during future steps.

2.2.2 Public Transport

Public transport provision was detailed using publically available data, including bus services routes and

timetables from Traveline West Midlands and NaPTAN data provided by CWC. GIS was used to provide a

geographical representation of the bus networks and demonstrate interactions along the Willenhall Road corridor.



AECOM 12

2.2.3 Cycling and Pedestrian

The pedestrian and cycling volumes have been analysed using manual counts of cyclists and pedestrians crossing the junction from a single day footage available from survey undertaken by TRACSIS on 17

th of

November 2016.

2.2.4 Social

A range of census data have been downloaded and analysed to understand the current demographic trends for

the area. All data within this section refers to Wolverhampton in comparison with the wider West Midlands and

England1 .

Travel to Work;

Car and Van Availability;

Employment;

Age Range; and

Index of Multiple Deprivation.

2.2.5 Environmental

Noise and air quality have been studied around the junction using different sources of information.

2.2.6 Future Situation

Major potential changes that can be expected that may affect Neachells Lane junction have been studied in this

area. New committed development and infrastructure schemes have been studied to understand the future

development growth scenario. In addition, local and regional policies have been analysed, such as Black Country

30 Year Policy Vision and West Midland Strategic Transport Plan, among others.

2.3 Objectives

Based on the issues identified and wider local and regional objectives the objectives of the scheme were

determined in accordance with CWC.

2.4 Option Generation

Thirteen options were developed for the junction improvement and, in light of the stakeholder consultation, a

fourteenth Option was been also developed that represents a combination of a couple of other options. A

detailed description of each option along with cost estimation and a basic scheme drawing are outlined in Section

5.

2.5 EAST Assessment

EAST assessment for each option was undertaken to inform the prioritisation process.

2.6 Prioritisation

The EAST assessment process allowed each option to be scored and enabled the production of a full list, which

ranks each option. This initial sifting process is carried out at this stage to remove schemes that are not

considered viable.

1 ONS DATA from Nomi. Accessed on 21 February 2018 and 1 March 2018. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/



AECOM 13

Identification of Issues

03



AECOM 14

3. Current Situation and Issues

3.1 Introduction

The study area is restricted to the junction and its immediate environs. This first stage of the study consisted of

identifying the issues in the study area in order to get a better understanding of the area, the current situation and

future developments and changes potentially impacting on the operation of the junction. It considered future

schemes that have the potential to impact on the area. This robust assessment enabled key issues in the area to

be established and also allowed the objectives for this scheme to be determined.

3.2 Current Situation and Issues

A key element in the development of a preferred scheme for City East Gateway Phase 3 is to understand the

current situation in the study area in terms of transportation issues and provision at the Neachells Lane junction

and demographics within the wider area. This analysis will be focused on following areas:

Highway;

Public Transport;

Cycling and pedestrian;

Social; and

Environmental.

3.2.1 Highway

3.2.1.1 Flows

All movements from and to the four arms of the Neachells Lane junction have been analysed, as shown in Figure

2: Neachells Lane, Willenhall Road West, Moseley Road and Willenhall Road East.

Figure 2. Turning counts

Traffic counts were collated from the traffic survey undertaken by TRACSIS on 17th November 2016 on behalf of

CWC. All movements were collected every 15 minutes from 6am to 7pm. Peak times were identified as 8-9am for

the AM peak and 5-6pm for the PM peak. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show flows at the junction per movement during

both peak times.



AECOM 15

It can be observed that the main movements during both peaks are from Willenhall Road in both directions. In

addition, the movement from Moseley Road to Neachells Lane has a significant demand in both peak periods. All

other movements have similar demand, with the exception of movements between Moseley Road and Willenhall

Road East in both directions which have negligible traffic flows in both peaks.

Figure 3. Neachells Junction Flows during AM peak

Figure 4. Neachells Junction Flows during PM peak



AECOM 16

The Willenhall Road corridor, especially at this junction, accommodates a large number of heavy vehicles during

peak hours. Peak hour user class proportions from each movement have been provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

As expected in an urban area, the car is the most common user class at the junction. However, there is a large

proportion of HGVs travelling between Neachells Lane (A) and Willenhall Road East (B) compared to all other

movements, as it can be seen in the table below, with percentages of 23% and 17% in the AM peak and 10% and

11% in the PM peak. As expected, the data demonstrates that Neachells Lane is a route with a high level of HGV

traffic because of the industrial area located to the north of the junction. Currently, the constrained geometry of

the junction results in HGVs having to significantly reduce their speed to make the turn into and out of Neachells

Lane. This, together with the quantity of HGVs, is clearly an issue that will need to be considered when

developing options.

Table 1. Highway Flows per User class – AM Peak hour

Cars LGV HGV

O/D A B C D O/D A B C D O/D A B C D

A - 58% 85% 73% A - 19% 13% 19% A - 23% 1% 9%

B 74% - 88% 82% B 9% - 13% 11% B 17% - 0% 7%

C 86% 90% - 90% C 10% 6% - 10% C 4% 3% - 0%

D 82% 80% 88% - D 14% 15% 12% - D 4% 6% 0% -

Table 2. Highway Flows per User class – PM Peak hour

Cars LGV HGV

O/D A B C D O/D A B C D O/D A B C D

A - 84% 92% 90% A - 4% 7% 10% A - 11% 1% 1%

B 81% - 84% 88% B 9% - 16% 11% B 10% - 0% 2%

C 90% 94% - 91% C 8% 6% - 8% C 2% 0% - 1%

D 90% 89% 94% - D 9% 9% 6% - D 1% 1% 1% -

Due to the proximity of Deans Road junction and its importance to the overall corridor performance, movements

between this junction and Neachells Lane have been studied. Using the flows from Neachells Lane and the traffic

distribution taken from the Willenhall Road SATURN model, an estimated trip distribution between both junctions

has been calculated for both periods and shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Figure 5. Deans Road Junction - Neachells Lane Junction Traffic Flows During AM Peak



AECOM 17

Figure 6. Flows Deans Road Junction - Neachells Lane Junction During PM Peak

Apart from the main east-west and west-east traffic flow, three notable flows have been observed:

From Stow Heath Lane to Neachells Lane at both peak times in both directions;

From Deans Road to Willenhall Road East at both peak times; and

From Willenhall Road East to Deans Road at both peak times.

These movements should be considered during the option generation stage.

3.2.1.2 Journey Time Analysis

Congestion at the Neachells Lane junction is a primary issue, with long delays in both peak periods. Journey

times along twelve routes have been studied based on data from Trafficmaster. Each of the 12 routes were

analysed during the AM, PM and free flow periods to understand the journey times through the junction. The

routes have been given a colour code based on their destinations, as below and are shown on Figure 7:

From Moseley Road/ Hill Street to Neachells Lane/ Wednesfield Way, (Green).

From Moseley Road/ Hill Street to Willenhall Road East - B4484 Bilston Road, (Purple).

From Moseley Road/ Hill Street to Willenhall Road West- Mayfiled Medical Practice, (Blue).

From Neachells Lane/ Strawberry Lane to Moseley Road - Bilston Road, (Pink).

From Neachells Lane/ Strawberry Lane to Willenhall Road East - B4484 Bilston Road, (Purple).

From Neachells Lane/ Strawberry Lane to Willenhall Road West- Mayfiled Medical Practice, (Blue).

From Willenhall Road West/ Deans Road junction to Neachells Lane/ Wednesfield Way, (Green).

From Willenhall Road West/ Deans Road junction to Moseley Road - Bilston Road, (Pink).

From Willenhall Road West/ Deans Road East - B4484 Bilston Road, (Purple).

From Willenhall Road East/ Somerford Pl junction to Neachells Lane/ Wednesfield Way, (Green).

From Willenhall Road East/ Somerford Pl junction to Willenhall Road( W)- Mayfiled Medical Practice, (Blue).

From Willenhall Road East/ Somerford Pl junction to Moseley Road - Bilston Road, (Pink).



AECOM 18

Figure 7. Journey Times Routes

Journey times were calculated as an average between 7am and 9am for the AM peak and between 4pm and

6pm for the PM peak on neutral days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday), with outlier values removed from the

analysis.

. Free flow time has been included as reference and it was obtained based on the minimum time spent travelling

on the route during the day. Free flow journey time (red line) was compared against the peak hour journey time.

In doing so, the extent to which delay increases during peak periods can be appreciated.

Figure 8 to Figure 11 show each journey time from the four arms of the junction. Within each bar chart, the total

bar length shows the total time taken to travel along the route and the yellow bar represents the time spent

travelling through the junction (number indicates the delay in seconds). Free flow time has been included as

reference and it was obtained based on the minimum time spent travelling on the route during the day. Free flow

journey time (red line) was compared against the peak hour journey time. In doing so, the extent to which delay

increases during peak periods can be appreciated.

Figure 8. Delay Journey Times – From Moseley Road

Routes from Moseley Road start at Hill Street and experience the largest delays. Although the total flow from this

arm (as shown in the previous section) was similar to Neachells Lane, the capacity of Moseley Road is lower,

having just one lane for most of the route.



AECOM 19

Figure 9. Delay Journey Times – From Neachells Lane

From Neachells Lane, the routes start at Neachells Lane/ Strawberry Lane junction. High levels of delay are

shown in the PM peak. It can be interpreted that trips from the industrial area to the north are experiencing delays

on all approach lanes to the junction. In addition, the rail bridge on Neachells Lane is a constraint, which

increases this delay due to the associated southbound carriageway width restriction.

Figure 10. Delay Journey Times – From Willenhall Road West

From Willenhall Road West, the routes start at Willenhall Road/ Deans Road junction. The levels of delay from

Willenhall Road West are much lower than those experienced on the other three arms, primarily due to the

proximity of Deans Road junction that meters the traffic flows. The traffic is regulated from Deans Road junction

by its traffic signal system. The increased delay during the PM peak would relate to commuter traffic from

Wolverhampton city centre.



AECOM 20

Figure 11. Delay Journey Times – From Willenhall Road East

The routes from Willenhall Road East start at Willenhall Road /Somerford Pl junction. During the AM peak,

Willenhall Road East experiences high levels of delay for all movements. It could be inferred that the movement

to Wolverhampton and to the industrial area are the main reasons for the delay.

Table 3 shows a comparison of travel times along the routes and at the junction. The percentages are the journey

times through the junction in relation with total travel times along each route during free flow and peak times.

Table 3. Journey times and percentages along routes and at the junction.

To Neachells To Willenhall East To Willenhall West

From Moseley Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM

JT Route 365 586 551 348 548 554 343 569 495

JT Junction 134 298 253 111 277 231 130 294 240

JT Proportion 37% 51% 46% 32% 51% 42% 38% 52% 49%

To Moseley To Willenhall East To Willenhall West

From Neachells Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM

JT Route 441 535 731 293 358 564 340 420 561

JT Junction 143 167 269 101 134 219 143 167 269

JT Proportion 32% 31% 37% 34% 37% 39% 42% 40% 48%

To Willenhall East To Neachells Ln To Moseley Rd

From Will. West Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM

JT Route 298 338 516 328 387 530 412 479 629

JT Junction 89 104 117 97 122 143 89 104 117

JT Proportion 30% 31% 23% 30% 31% 27% 22% 22% 19%

To Willenhall West To Neachells Ln To Moseley Rd

From Will. East Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM Free flow AM PM

JT Route 384 565 434 363 532 437 447 752 616

JT Junction 222 367 251 222 367 251 188 443 268

JT Proportion 58% 65% 58% 61% 69% 57% 42% 59% 43%



AECOM 21

It can be observed that the journey time from Moseley Road is around 35% of the journey time throughout the

whole route in a free flow situation to the three destinations. In contrast, from Willenhall East Road that time is

more than 50%.

During peak times, the journey time at the junction from Moseley Road increases to 50%. At Neachells Lane, this

increment is slightly higher during the PM peak than during the AM peak time, which has little impact. From

Willenhall Road East, the increment is around 10% during the AM peak. Willenhall Road West experiences only

small fluctuations in delay between free flow and peak times.

The data presented in the above tables and figures conclude that the routes with the largest delay are from

Moseley Road and Willenhall Road East during both peaks and from Neachells Lane during the PM peak.

3.2.1.3 Delay

Data from Trafficmaster has been analysed to report the percentage of peak journey time over free flow journey

time. Figure 12 and Figure 13 spatially demonstrate those delays and provide a wider network indication of where

delays are occurring, in addition to that presented above. There are numerous locations where the journey times

during the AM and PM peaks far exceed journey times that would be expected during free flow conditions.

The sections of routes with the highest delays are Moseley Road and Willenhall Road East during the AM peak

on the approach to the junction. Those sections have increases of free flow journey time higher than 100%

(where 100% is equal to journey times travelling at the speed limit) .

During the PM peak, some severe delays can be seen along Neachells Lane and Moseley Road, with sections of

this route having congestion levels causing more than 100% delay when compared with free flow journey times.

Figure 12. Percentage of delay at Neachells Junction during AM peak



AECOM 22

Figure 13. Percentage of delay at Neachells Junction during PM peak

Total delay has been calculated for the junction using a combination of traffic flow on each approach arm and

associated delays, with the proportion of delay in each movement and route during the peak times illustrated in

Figure 14 and Figure 15. This information helps to understand the movements that have significant total delay.

For instance, although the information above indicates that there are significant delays from Willenhall Road East

to Moseley Road during the AM peak, this only represents 1% of the total delay at the junction during the AM

peak.

Figure 14. Delay at Neachells Junction during the AM peak



AECOM 23

Figure 15. Delay at Neachells Junction during the PM peak

During the AM peak, more than 75% of the delay at the junction is from Willenhall East and Moseley Road.

Observations during the site visit indicated that vehicles travelling to Neachells Lane from Willenhall Road East

have insufficient stacking capacity, resulting in blocking back along the main lane and therefore affecting the east-

west movement. This explains the high percentage of delay for movements from Willenhall Road East to

Willenhall Road West, with 51% of the delay of the junction. The congestion experienced at the right turn also

has a significant impact on the total delay of the junction (19%).

During the PM peak, as in the AM peak, Willenhall Road East experiences significant delays. However, Neachells

Lane has a larger impact than during the AM peak, notably vehicles travelling southbound to Moseley Road or

westbound towards Wolverhampton.

3.2.1.4 Public Transport delay

Neachells Lane junction suffers from long queues and delays that are severely impacting the journey times of bus

services operating on Willenhall Road. 2015 journey time data for the #529 bus, which runs the length of the

Willenhall Road (from Wolverhampton Bus Station to Portobello Island) was analysed in order to identify the

significance of Neachells Lane junction on bus journey times and journey time reliability. Figure 16 and Figure 17

illustrate the average AM peak period (07:00-09:00) travel times between Willenhall Road bus stops for the

eastbound and westbound services, respectively. Neachells junction is marked so that it can be identified. The

average travel time between Neachells Lane and Noose Lane bus stops, for the eastbound direction, it is slightly

lower than 3 minutes; whereas the average journey time between Noose Lane and Neachells Lane, for the

westbound direction is more than 5 minutes. The impact of Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane junction on bus

journey delays demonstrates the necessity for traffic signal optimisation and better bus infrastructure at the

junction.



AECOM 24

Figure 16. Average AM Peak (07:00-9:00) journey time of Willenhall Road eastbound bus services

Figure 17. Average AM Peak (07:00-9:00) journey time of Willenhall Road westbound bus services

3.2.1.5 Movements / Demand

The strategic movements around the Neachells Lane junction have been studied to understand their behaviours

and origin/destination. The Willenhall Road SATURN model has been used for this analysis.

The model shows that both peak times have similar movements. Moseley Road takes traffic from the residential

areas to the south of the junction (Darlaston Lane, Proud’s Lane, and Green Lanes) to the industrial area north of

the junction. Traffic from Neachells Lane is primarily from Wednesfield and the industrial estate to Willenhall

Road East (to the M6).

The primary movement in the area is along Willenhall Road in both directions (eastbound and westbound).

Eastbound traffic is along Willenhall Road from the M6 motorway to Wolverhampton City Centre and the

westbound movement in the opposite direction.



AECOM 25

The purpose of the review was to identify traffic distribution that will require consideration in the development of

options. The cross corridor movement traffic between Deans Road and Neachells Lane junctions could be a

source of congestion along this section of Willenhall Road. Images below show origin and destinations of trips

using Neachells Lane junctions during both AM and PM Peak Periods.

Figure 18. AM From Moseley Road

Figure 19. AM From Neachells Lane



AECOM 26

Figure 20. AM From Willenhall Road East

Figure 21. AM From Willenhall Road West



AECOM 27

Figure 22. PM From Moseley Road

Figure 23. PM From Neachells Lane



AECOM 28

Figure 24. PM From Willenhall Road East

Figure 25. PM From Willenhall Road West

3.2.1.6 Accidents

Accident data has been obtained from SPECTRUM, which records personal injury accidents on public roads that

are reported to the police, and subsequently recorded. 89 accidents have been reported in the vicinity of the

study area between 01/02/2013 and 19/01/2018; 83% (74 accidents) of which have been classified as slight and

17% (15) as serious accidents. No fatal accident has been reported during this time period.

Table 4 summarises all the serious accidents occurred in the study area. The location and the severity of all

accidents occurred in the area are illustrated on Figure 24.

Table 4. Serious Accidents (Feb 2013 – Jan 2018)

Location Date Weather Conditions

Light Conditions Number of Casualties

Type of Vehicles

Main Contributing Factors

Willenhall Road / New Street

April 2013

Unknown Daylight: street lights present

1 Car / Motorcycle Poor turn or manoeuvre



AECOM 29

Location Date Weather Conditions

Light Conditions Number of Casualties

Type of Vehicles


roundabout

Willenhall Road / Hill Road jn

August 2013

Raining without high winds

Darkness: street lights present and lit

2 Car / Car Slippery road / Exceeding speed limit

Hurstbourne Crescent / Mayfield Road jn

April 2014

Fine without high winds


2 Car / Car Travelling too fast / Failed to look properly (pedestrian) / Stationary or parked vehicles

Willenhall Road / Deans Road jn

June 2014


Daylight: street lights present

1 Car Failed to look properly (driver)

Treynham Close September 2014



1 Motorcycle Exceeding speed limit / Vehicle travelling along pavement

Willenhall Road / Hurstbourne Crecent jn

February 2014



1 Car Failed to look properly (pedestrian) / Careless or Reckless or In a hurry (Driver) / Stationary or parked vehicle(s)

Moseley Road / Proud's Lane jn

June 2015



1 Car Failed to look properly (driver) / Impaired by alcohol (Pedestrian)

Willenhall Road / Cleveland Close jn

July 2015



1 Motorcycle / Car Slippery road / Failed to judge other persons path or speed

Willenhall Road / Bowker Street jn

February 2015

Fine with high winds


1 Car / Car Exceeding speed limit

Moseley Road / Proud's Lane jn

July 2016



1 Car / Car Not recorded

Oak Road August 2016



1 Car / Goods vehicle (unknown weight)

Stationary or parked vehicle(s) / Failed to look properly (driver)

Dans Road / Lewis Avenue jn

October 2016



1 Car Defective brakes / Careless or Reckless or In a hurry (Driver)

Deans Road / Tyburn Road jn

May 2017



1 Pedal cycle Failed to look properly (pedestrian)

Neachells Lane / Travis Perkins Trading jn

June 2017



1 Goods vehicle (unknown weight) / Pedal cycle

Failed to look properly (driver) / Failed to look properly (pedestrian)

St Matthias School, Deans Road

October 2017



1 Car Failed to look properly (pedestrian) / Disobeyed pedestrian crossing facility



AECOM 30

Figure 26. Accidents (Feb 2013 – Jan 2018), classified by severity

A total of 15 serious accidents have taken place in the area, with 9 of them taking place on Willenhall Road and 3

on Neachells Lane/Moseley Road. No serious accidents are directly related to the Willenhall Road / Neachells

Lane junction. However, a serious accident took place at on Neachells Lane / Travis Perkins junction involving a

pedestrian trying to cross the road. In addition, a large number of accidents can be observed at the Willenhall

Road / Neachells Lane junction; with 20 slight accidents taking place during the 5-year study period. A detailed

description of the accidents occurring at Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane junction from Feb 2013 to Jan 2018 is

included in Table 5 and a detailed map of the junction showing the locations of all the collisions is presented in

Figure 27.

Table 5. Accidents

Date Severity Weather Conditions

Lighting Conditions

Number of Vehicles

Number of Casualties

Type of Vehicles


February 2013

Slight Fine without high winds


2 3 Car / Car Stationary or parked vehicle(s) / Emergency vehicle on call

June 2013 Slight Fine without

high winds

Daylight: street lights

present

1 1 Bus or coach Other

July 2013 Slight Fine without high winds


2 1 Car / Car Disobeyed automatic traffic signal / Emergency vehicle on call

October 2013



3 1 Car / Car Other

October 2013



2 3 Car / Car Disobeyed automatic traffic signal

January 2014

Slight Unknown Darkness: street lights present and lit

2 1 Car / Car Other

February 2014

Slight Other Darkness: street lights present and lit

2 1 Car / Pedal cycle

Failed to look properly (pedestrian) / Inadequate or Masked signs or road markings

February 2014



2 1 Car / Car Junction overshoot

May 2014 Slight Unknown Daylight: street lights present

2 2 Car / Car Other

June 2014 Slight Fine without

high winds


present

2 1 LGV / Car Vehicle blind spot

December 2014



2 2 Car / Car Distraction in vehicle / Slippery road

December 2014



2 2 Car / Taxi Other



AECOM 31

Date Severity Weather Conditions

Lighting Conditions

Number of Vehicles

Number of Casualties

Type of Vehicles


February 2015



2 3 Car / LGV Stationary or parked vehicle(s) / Vehicle blind spot / Stationary or parked vehicle(s)

May 2015 Slight Fine without high winds


2 1 Car / Pedal cycle

Vehicle travelling along pavement

April 2016 Slight Fine without high winds


3 2 Car / Car Impaired by alcohol (Driver) / Disobeyed automatic traffic signal

October 2016



2 1 Car / Goods vehicle (unknown weight)

Disobeyed automatic traffic signal / Failed to look properly (pedestrian)

November 2016



2 1 Car / Goods vehicle (unknown weight)

Not reported

November 2016

Slight Raining without high winds


3 2 Car / Car Not reported

December 2016



2 2 Car / Car Failed to look properly (pedestrian)

July 2017 Slight Fine without high winds


2 1 Car / Car Disobeyed automatic traffic signal

Figure 27. Accidents Location

The observed accident data also includes a number of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists. 6 slight

accidents that included a cyclist have been observed on Willenhall Road between Bowker Street and Neachells

Lane, stressing the necessity to improve cycling infrastructure in the area. More details about these accidents are

included in Table 6 and Figure 28.

Table 6. Accidents including cyclists

Date Severity Casualties Location Weather Conditions Light Conditions Type of Vehicles

February 2014 Slight 1 Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane

Other Darkness: street lights present and lit

Pedal cycle / Car

March 2014 Slight 1 Bowker Street /

Willenhall Road

Fine without high

winds


present

Pedal cycle / Car

October 2014 Slight 1 Willenhall Road / Bowker Street



Pedal cycle / Car

May 2015 Slight 1 Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane



Pedal cycle / Car



AECOM 32

May 2016 Slight 1 Willenhall Road / Cleveland Close

Unknown Daylight: street lights present

Pedal cycle / Car

May 2016 Slight 1 Bowker Street / Willenhall Road



Pedal cycle / Car

Figure 28. Accidents involving cyclists by severity

3.2.1.7 Constraints

As part of the study, constraints around the Neachells Lane junction have been identified. Any constraints will

need to be considered when developing scheme options.

In Neachells Lane, the main constraint is the railway bridge with one lane in each direction. The bridge can cause

congestion and delay in the northbound direction, in addition to preventing capacity enhancements along this

section of Neachells Lane. Houses on the east side of Neachells Lane, in addition to the Travis Perkins

commercial land, have to be considered to ensure continued access. In addition, the location of the petrol station

adjacent to the junction will be critical in the development of options, noting the requirement to provide access for

primary movements.

On Moseley Road, the limited space within the highway boundary constrains the potential for highway capacity

enhancements along this approach to the junction.

Along Willenhall Road, there is also limited space available within the highway boundary although, there may be

availability within the central reservation or on the northern side along Willenhall Road West.

3.2.2 Public Transport

3.2.2.1 Rail Provision

A 12-minute rail passenger link between Wolverhampton and Walsall was reintroduced in 1998, but was closed in

2008. Today, rail passengers wanting to travel between Walsall and Wolverhampton have to go via Birmingham,

taking more than an hour. There are plans to reinstate the rail connection service between Wolverhampton and

Walsall as part of the recently awarded West Midlands rail franchise and to improve this through the introduction

of new railway stations but these are still in the early planning stage.



AECOM 33

3.2.2.2 Bus Provision

As one of the main corridors connecting Wolverhampton with Walsall and the Black Country, Willenhall Road is a

high volume bus route designated as a Bus Showcase with bus priority measures along the route. It is served by

4 bus services, as detailed below:

#53 running from Wolverhampton Bus Station to Bradley via Wednesfield;

#82 running from Wolverhampton Bus Station to Dudley via Bilston;

#529 connecting Wolverhampton and Walsall, running from Wolverhampton Bus Station to Walsall bus

station via Willenhall; and

#545 running from Wolverhampton Bus Station to Bilston via Moseley.

As illustrated in Figure 29 below, only #529 uses Willenhall Road as its main route to and from Wolverhampton

Bus Station. However, all 4 of the services are crossing Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane junction; with

approximately 30 buses (from and to Wolverhampton) running through the junction every hour. The bus

frequency through Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane during AM Peak, PM peak and Inter-Peak (Monday- Friday)

can be seen in Table 7.

Figure 29. Willenhall Road Bus Services

Table 7. Frequency of Bus Services

Service Number AM Peak (07:00 - 09:00) Inter-Peak (09:00 - 16:00) PM Peak (16:00 - 18:00)

53 1 per hour (each direction) 1 per hour each direction 1 per hour each direction

82 4 per hour (each direction) 4 per hour (each direction) 4 per hour (each direction)

529 8 per hour (each direction) 8 per hour (each direction) 8 per hour (each direction)

545 2-3 per hour (each direction) 2-3 per hour (each direction) 2-3 per hour (each direction)

There are a mix of bus stops and bus laybys on Willenhall Road and Neachells Lane close to the junction. West

of the junction on Willenhall Road, there are bus laybys for both eastbound and westbound traffic (Neachells

Lane bus stop) serving #529. The services #53, #82 and #545 running southbound through the junction are using



AECOM 34

Evans Street bus stop on Moseley Road, whereas northbound buses on Mosely Road stop at the Uplands Road

bus stop (Figure 30).

As mentioned above, the highly frequent #529 uses the Neachells Lane bus laybys on Willenhall Road, with 8

buses per hour stopping on each direction. Although, the laybys prevent buses from blocking other vehicles when

stopping; it is observed that during peak hours, buses travelling eastbound struggle to find a suitable gap back to

re-enter the traffic, resulting in delays. In addition, the proximity of the layby to the junction (approx. 160m) in

conjunction with the long queues observed during peaks exacerbates the issue.

Services #53, #82 and #545 are using in-line bus stops on Moseley Road, blocking other vehicles from entering

and exiting the junction and creating further delays to traffic in all directions. The 3 services have a combined

frequency of 7-8 buses stopping in each direction every hour.

Figure 30 below shows the bus routes running through the Willenhall Road / Neachells Lane junction and the bus

stops around the junction.

Figure 30. Bus Services

Table 8. Bus services

Service Number Route Nearest Bus Stop

53 Wolverhampton - Rocket Pool via Wednesfield Evans Street / Uplands Road

82 Wolverhampton - Dudley via Bilston, Coseley Evans Street / Uplands Road

529 Wolverhampton -Walsall via Willenhall Neachells Lane

545 Wolverhampton - Bilston via Moseley Evans Street / Uplands Road

3.2.3 Cycling and Pedestrian

The pedestrian and cycling volumes used in this section were populated using manual counts of cyclists and

pedestrians over a single workday (Thursday 17/11/2016). The survey was commissioned by AECOM.



AECOM 35

3.2.3.1 Current Trends and Facilities

Wide pavements are provided along both sides of Willenhall Road and Neachells Lane for pedestrians. However,

there is no dedicated provision for cyclists along Willenhall Road apart from a short path off-road between Deans

Lane and Neachells Lane though open space with unknown usage. Cyclists are however allowed to utilise the

bus lanes along parts of Willenhall Road. Neachells Lane also lacks in cycling provisions, with the narrow bridge

over the rail line exacerbating the issue.

With regards to crossing facilities at the junction, there are toucan crossings with pedestrian refuges on all arms

of the junction. However, the narrow width of the crossings and the refuge islands, in conjunction with the

compressed nature of the junction, presents a significant hazard for cyclists; as justified and highlighted in the

accident analysis section earlier. This, along with the high level of conflicting flows, means there is a large

amount of weaving between lanes, which increases the risk of collision for cyclists.

In addition, the traffic signals are configured for constant pedestrian green times without considering the

variations in demand around the day. Understanding the pedestrian and cyclists movements could provide an

opportunity to optimise the traffic signals, giving more green time for pedestrians and cyclists during peak

periods.

Table 9 and Table 10 below summarises the volume of each movement at all arms of the junction during the AM

and PM peaks. During the AM peak, a total of approximately 180 pedestrians and 45 cyclists cross the junction;

with the equivalent figures for the PM peak approximately 170 pedestrians and 50 cyclists.

The busiest movement during the AM peak is movement 8 (35 pedestrians and 9 cyclists); followed by movement

2 (31 pedestrians and 3 cyclists) and movement 6 (29 pedestrians and 5 cyclists). In addition, movement 1

presents a particularly high cyclist volume (11 cyclists), although the equivalent pedestrian flow is fairly low (9

pedestrians). Movement 5 (32 pedestrians and 6 cyclists), 7 (29 pedestrians and 6 cyclists) and 4 (26

pedestrians and 5 cyclists) appear to be the busiest movements during the PM peak; with movement 1

presenting a similar pattern as in the AM peak, counting 15 cyclists and 10 pedestrians.

Figure 31. Pedestrians and cyclists crossing movements



AECOM 36

Table 9. Pedestrian counts

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4 Movement 5 Movement 6 Movement 7 Movement 8

07:00-08:00 4 4 6 7 3 11 7 17

08:00-09:00 5 10 25 13 21 18 10 18

07:00-09:00 9 14 31 20 24 29 17 35

16:00-17:00 8 13 18 18 22 17 17 3

17:00-18:00 2 4 6 8 10 4 12 11

16:00-18:00 10 17 24 26 32 21 29 14

Table 10. Cyclists counts

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4

Movement 1 Movement 2 Movement 3 Movement 4 Movement 5 Movement 6 Movement 7 Movement 8

07:00-08:00 8 3 1 3 2 1 3 7

08:00-09:00 3 0 2 2 2 4 2 2

07:00-09:00 11 3 3 5 4 5 5 9

16:00-17:00 8 4 0 2 5 1 5 1

17:00-18:00 7 6 3 3 1 0 1 5

16:00-18:00 15 10 3 5 6 1 6 6

3.2.4 Socio-economic data

A range of census data has been downloaded and analysed to understand the socio-economic characteristics

within the study area and the current methods of travel to work.

3.2.4.1 Travel to work modes

The three areas chosen for analysis were Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell; as they are the primary source

of work based trips that travel via Willenhall Road (A454). Across all three areas, the most popular method of

travelling to work is by car, followed by public transport and active travel modes.

A total of 7,700 people that live in Walsall and 3,780 people that live in Sandwell are working in Wolverhampton;

accounting for approximately 7% and 3.5% of the total workforce in Wolverhampton, respectively. 49,388 people

are living and working in Wolverhampton, representing 45.5% of the overall employment in Wolverhampton.

Table 11 below presents the modal split between the main modes of travel to work for people living in

Wolverhampton, Walsall and Sandwell and work in Wolverhampton. A noticeable number of people living in

Walsall choose to travel by public transport (14%) and active modes (5%); but at the same time the majority

choose to commute to work by car or taxi (81%) which is significantly higher than Wolverhampton and Sandwell.

ln general, use of public transport is higher for Sandwell and Wolverhampton. A slightly higher number of people

living in Wolverhampton use public transport (16%) to travel to work; whereas a noticeably higher number walk or

cycle to work (20%). In addition, the majority choose to commute by car (64%). Sandwell commuters use

predominantly private vehicles (79%), with a noticeable percentage using public transport (18%). However, only

3% of the total commuters choose to travel by active modes due to the distance between Sandwell and

Wolverhampton.

Table 11. Method of travel to work of people employed in Wolverhampton

Place of residence Private vehicle or Taxi Public Transport Active Modes

Walsall 81% 14% 5%

Wolverhampton 64% 16% 20%

Sandwell 79% 18% 3%



AECOM 37

Table 12 presents the split between the main modes of travel to work for people living in Wolverhampton, Walsall

and Sandwell and working in Walsall. The majority of the population living and working in Walsall commute to

work by private vehicle or taxi (67%), followed by active modes (20%) and public transport (13%). Walsall

commuters from Wolverhampton and Sandwell follow a similar trend with 80% and 78% travelling by private

vehicle or taxi, respectively, whereas 14% and 16% travel by public transport, respectively. Only 6% of the total

commuters, from both origins, choose to walk or cycle to work.

Table 12. Method of travel to work of people employed in Walsall

Place of residence Private vehicle or Taxi Public Transport Active Modes

Walsall 67% 13% 20%


Sandwell 78% 16% 6%

Table 13 presents the split between the main modes of travel to work for people living in Wolverhampton, Walsall

and Sandwell and working in Sandwell. The majority of commuters from Wolverhampton (81%) and Walsall

(84%) travel to Sandwell by a private vehicle. In addition, 15% of commuters from both Wolverhampton and

Walsall travel to work by public transport. Only a small proportion of the Wolverhampton (4%) and Walsall (5%)

commuters choose to travel by active modes. On the other hand, the percentage of people living and working in

Sandwell that use a private vehicle to commute to work is noticeably lower (65%), with active modes representing

20% and public transport 15%. Overall, it can be observed a similar pattern of mode share between each

borough.

Table 13. Method of travel to work of people employed in Sandwell

Place of residence Personal Vehicle or Taxi Public Transport Active Modes

Walsall 84% 11% 5%


Sandwell 65% 15% 20%

3.2.4.2 Car and Van Availability

Car and van availability data was extracted from census data to understand how much of the population within

the study area have access to these modes. Comparing with the wider West Midlands and England, it is

considered that residents in Wolverhampton have less access to vehicles and are more reliant on travelling by

public transport or actives modes.

Table 14. Car and Van Availability

Car or van availability Wolverhampton % West Midlands % England %

Total 102,177 100% 2,294,909 100% 22,063,368 100%

No cars or vans in household 34,370 34% 566,621 25% 5,691,251 26%

1 car or van in household 42,007 41% 952,798 42% 9,301,776 42%

2 cars or vans in household 19,951 20% 591,210 26% 5,441,593 25%

3 cars or vans in household 4,479 4% 136,201 6% 1,203,865 5%

4 or more cars or vans in household 1,370 1% 48,079 2% 424,883 2%

When this data is split by categories, residents in Wolverhampton generally have similar availability to at least

one vehicle compared to the West Midlands and England, but in terms of more than one vehicle, this availability

is lower. This suggests that there will be greater reliance on public transport or active travel modes.

3.2.4.3 Employment

The economic activity in the study area is set out in Table 15, which indicates that the majority of the population is

economically active (67%). However, Wolverhampton exhibits a marginally higher unemployment rate (33%) in

comparison with West Midland and England rates.



AECOM 38

Table 15. Economic Activity of Population

Economic Activity Wolverhampton % West Midlands % England %

All usual residents aged 16 to 74 179,983 100% 4,067,119 100% 38,881,374 100%

Economically active 120,402 67% 2,778,859 68% 27,183,134 70%

Economically Inactive 59,581 33% 1,288,260 32% 11,698,240 30%

3.2.4.4 Age Range

Table 16 represents the age range of residents in Wolverhampton. Although the 25 to 44 age range is higher in

Wolverhampton, it can be seen that rates are very similar with the wider West Midlands and England.

Table 16. Age range of Population

Age Wolverhampton % West Midlands % England %

All 249,470 100% 5,601,847 100% 5,601,847 100%

0-15 49,423 20% 1,094,442 20% 1,094,442 20%

16-25 31,517 13% 678,398 12% 678,398 12%

25-44 69,346 28% 1,472,931 26% 1,472,931 26%

45-64 58,555 23% 1,410,101 25% 1,410,101 25%

65+ 40,629 16% 945,975 17% 945,975 17%

3.2.4.5 Index of Multiple Deprivations (IMD)

The Index of Multiple Deprivation, commonly known as the IMD, is the official measure of relative deprivation in

England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) combines information from the seven domains to produce an

overall relative measure of deprivation. Figure 32 shows the IMD across the Wolverhampton area. The domains

used are:

Income Deprivation

Employment Deprivation

Education, Skills and Training Deprivation

Health Deprivation and Disability

Crime Barriers to Housing and Services

Living Environment Deprivation

Figure 32. Index of Multiple Deprivations Map



AECOM 39

3.2.5 Environmental

3.2.5.1 Air Quality

Neachells Lane junction is located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).Clean air is considered to be

a basic requirement of human health and well-being, with air pollution posing a significant threat to human health.

Vehicle emissions are considered as one of the main sources of local air-pollution, with road transport being the

largest source of Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions in the UK.

Figure 33 illustrates the 2017 annual average background concentration of NOx per square kilometre, based on

2015 data projection, as published by Defra. The projected data shows a background NOx concentration of 20-

30μg/m3 in the direct study area of the junction. However, the concentration in the broad Wolverhampton area

meets or even exceeds the annual limit of 40μg/m3 (National Air-quality Objectives and European Directive limit),

covering an extensive part of Willenhall Road.

Figure 33. 2017 annual mean NOx concentration (2015 reference year projection)2

In addition to the high background air pollution of the wider Wolverhampton area, on-street NO2 concentration

measurements by roadside air-quality monitors (Figure 34) show slightly high annual average NO2

concentrations at the Neachells Lane junction. In addition, measurements at the nearby Deans Lane junction

show high NO2 concentrations (close to the national limit), highlighting the need for congestion reducing

measures on Willenhall Road that will improve air quality.

2 Background mapping data for local authorities – 2015. Accessed 22

nd February 2018. Available from:

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps?year=2015

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps?year=2015



AECOM 40

Figure 34. Air-Quality Monitors location

Table 17. NO2 Annual mean concentration measurements on Willenhall Road

Site ID Site Type Monitoring Type NO2 Annual Mean Concentration (µg/m

3)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A5 Roadside Automatic 44 37 28 31 31

WIL1 Roadside Diffusion Tube 27 23 22 21 25

WIL2 Roadside Diffusion Tube 42 37 37 35 42

3.2.5.2 Road Noise

Figure 35 illustrates the annual average noise levels for the 16-hour period between 7am and 11pm (LAeq 16h),

on the strategic roads of Wolverhampton. Willenhall Road experiences high road noise pollution due to

congestion. The noise level reaches more than 70dB in almost the full extent of the corridor, including the

Neachells Lane junction. In addition, the segment of Willenhall Road between Deans Road and Portobello

Roundabout has been identified as a Noise Action Planning Important Area (IA), as depicted on Figure 36.

Figure 35. Annual average noise levels for the 16-hour period between 07:00 – 23:00 (LAeq 16h)



AECOM 41

Figure 36. Noise Action Planning Important Areas

3.3 Future Situation and Issues

Before any potential schemes are identified and developed, the likely future situation and issues need to be

clearly understood. This section will review major potential changes that can be expected that may affect the

Neachells Lane junction, as well as review key local strategy documents.

3.3.1 Major Employment and Housing Developments

City of Wolverhampton Council (CWC) is leading the regeneration of a number of significant development

opportunities coming forward over the next 20 years. It is considered that this will increase the attractiveness of

the area as a place to live, work, visit, invest and do business. A total of 52 development sites have been

proposed in the areas around Neachells Lane junction. Figure 37 shows development sites.



AECOM 42

Figure 37. Development Sites

The development sites include housing development for over 3,000 residents and 4,000 jobs. Based on proximity

and size, the following development sites are estimated to have a significant impact on the Neachells Lane

junction:

Portobello - 40 dwellings and 50 jobs; located at Vernon Close;

Phoenix Road - 154 jobs; located at Phoenix Road;

Brook Point - 822 jobs; located at Bearing Dr;

Bentley Bridge - 206 jobs; located at Bentley Bridge;

Jennie Lee Centre - 220 jobs; located at Jennie Avenue; and

Open space Stow Heath Lane – 35 dwellings; located at Stow Heath Lane.

This level of growth, together with significant development sites around Wolverhampton City Centre, will draw

more people and traffic onto the network around the Neachells Lane junction.

3.3.2 Infrastructure

Within the study area, there are a number of major schemes that are proposed to be implemented in the medium

term.

M6 J10 improvement:

The proposed scheme at M6 J10 is a capacity improvement scheme requiring bridge demolition and construction

of two new four-lane bridge structures as well as capacity enhancements to the entry, exit and circulatory

carriageway that forms the junction.



AECOM 43

Figure 38. M6 J10 scheme

Willenhall Road improvement (City East Gateway Phase 1&2):

This scheme is a potential improvement along Willenhall Road between Wolverhampton City Centre and Deans

Road junction. It is being studied as a dual carriageway gyratory to the western extents of Willenhall Road. The

impact on Neachells Lane will be significant due to the proximity of the scheme. Any improvement to the western

extents of the corridor may exacerbate existing congestion at the junction.

Wolverhampton Interchange:

A masterplan has been prepared for Wolverhampton City Centre, focussing on transforming the area around the

train station by means of a new bus and train terminal, together with a wider development project in the area.

Willenhall Road is the current access to that area from the East and would therefore have a significant impact in

the corridor.

Railway connection Wolverhampton-Walsall:

There are proposals for a new frequent Wolverhampton to Walsall passenger service, including two new stations

in Willenhall and Darlaston. The proposed train service has the potential to:

Remove traffic from A554 Willenhall Road, reducing delays and improve journey times for road users; and

Rerouting of traffic using Noose Lane as consequence of level crossing being down more often.

Cycling network

Figure 39 shows the cycling network for the future. CWC propose to continue the cycle lane along Willenhall

Road through Neachells Lane Junction.



AECOM 44

Figure 39. Cycling network proposed from City of Wolverhampton Council

3.3.3 Trends and Targets

3.3.3.1 Policy Documents

The following sections indicate how a proposed scheme at the Neachells Lane junction will help to contribute to

achieving local and regional objectives.

The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

30 Year Policy Vision:

The scheme will improve accessibility to Wolverhampton City Centre from Willenhall Road and the

accessibility to the industrial estate located to the North;

Reducing the congestion will help to improve the air quality and therefore will contribute to achieving a higer

quality environment;

The scheme will maximise the benefit of its location; the schemes aim is to improve journey times by

reducing localised congestion and therefore will help to enhance connectivity both within the Black Country

and connecting to key areas of economic growth.

Black Country Growth Deal

Key Drivers and Focus:

The deal aims to drive business growth, provide people with new skills, test new innovations, investing

transport infrastructure and regenerate key sites through local, national and private funding. By investing in

transport infrastructure, the scheme improves journey times and reliability to aid business growth.

Key Priority Areas :

The scheme directly fits two key priority areas - ‘Transforming the Black Country Infrastructure and

Environment’ and ‘Improving Transport Infrastructure’.

Local Policy

West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan; Movement for Growth:

The scheme sets out the overall approach to deliver a Midlands ‘Engine for Growth’ through improved

health and quality of life for West Midlands Citizens through its transport system.

Investment will be focused on infrastructure and behavioural change (helping residents make the best travel

choice), which the scheme fully supports.

The scheme also supports the targets set out in the Plan in terms of improving the economy, reducing

emissions, reducing road traffic casualties, providing equality of opportunity and improving the local

environment.



AECOM 45

Willenhall Road, Neachells Lane and Moseley Road are identified as part of the ‘Key Route Network’ that

serves the main strategic demand flows of people and freight.

Black Country Core Strategy:

The scheme supports the objective ‘a first-class transport network providing rapid, convenient and

sustainable links between the Strategic Centres, existing and new communities, and employment sites’.

Neachells Lane provides access to the industrial estate; it will therefore unlock numerous business

development opportunities in the area.

The West Midlands Low Emission Strategy:

A primary scheme objective is to improve air quality in the Metropolitan Area through vehicle emission

reductions. The improvement at the junction should reduce emissions through reduced congestion and

delay.

3.4 Summary of Issues

Considering and reporting the current and future situation in the area of study, the identified issues have been

distributed into five categories:

H – Highway;

PT – Public Transport;

A – Active Transport;

S – Social; and

E – Environmental.

As shown inTable 18, the issues identified have been attributed to one of the above categories.

Table 18. Summary of Issues

Reference Title Description

H1 Congestion Significant delay on Willenhall Road East, Moseley Road and

Neachells Lane when compared with free flow speeds.

H2 Accessibility (private vehicles) Poor accessibility to the city centre, petrol station, private houses and

industrial estate as a result of delays at the junction.

H3 Connectivity Neachells Lane is the primary access to the industrial estate located to

the north.

H4 Right turning vehicles High proportion of right turning vehicles increases delay and safety

hazards for all vehicles at the junction, especially from Willenhall Road East.

H5 Stacking capacity There is a lack of stacking capacity for turning movements into and from Neachells Lane.

H6 Visibility Poor visibility due to the current geometry of the junction.

H7 Driver offenses Safety and operational hazards from drivers speeding and ignoring red

lights.

H8 Physical constraints Railway bridge, houses and highways boundaries.

H9 Accidents Significant number of accidents at the junction in the last 5 years.

H10 Traffic signals Traffic signals are not optimised.

PT1 Bus services Only one bus service uses Neachells Lane and has an infrequent service. There is no bus service from Willenhall Road East to

Neachells Lane.

PT2 Bus facilities Lack of facilities such as bus lanes and bus gates.

PT3 Bus accessibility Current congestion affects bus layby accessibility, increasing delay.

PT4 Bus Journey times Bus journey times along the corridor are unreliable.

A1 Cycle lanes Inconsistent cycle provision along the corridor.



AECOM 46

Reference Title Description

A2 Barriers Barriers including signs, advertising, rail bridges, houses and trees

block current and potential foot and cycle paths.

A3 On-road cycle lanes Cyclists have to use the highway to travel through the junction.

A4 Constrained pavement Narrow width of the crossing and refuge islands for pedestrians.

A5 Urban environment Urban realm creates an unpleasant and unwelcome environment,

increasing severance for active modes.

S1 Severance Willenhall Road acts as barrier for all modes.

S2 Growth Significant levels of economic growth planned in the area, increasing

travel demand.

S3 Resilience Lack of network resilience for all modes.

S4 Future schemes Proposed schemes will alter travel patterns and demand in the corridor, and may cause conflict with existing users and facilities.

S5 Funding Limited or delayed funding available for major schemes.

E1 Air Quality Congestion at the junction causes exceedances in Air Quality.

E2 Noise High levels of noise at the junction.

E3 Private vehicles Lack of travel planning has resulted in the continued use of private

vehicles.



AECOM 47

Scheme

Objectives

04



AECOM 48

4. Scheme Objectives

In order to identify the full range of options that may be available, it is important to set objectives which are

specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time constrained (SMART).Table 19 details the objectives and the

justification for their inclusion together with its reference for the options.

Table 19. Scheme Objectives

Reference Objective Justification

JT – Journey Time Improving journey times and reliability

for all road users and reducing the

level of delay.

High levels of traffic and poor journey time

reliability increase congestion and lead to a

degraded environment in terms of pollution and an

unattractive public realm. Lack of stacking

capacity and current geometry of the junction are

a cause of long delays. It also impacts on the

attractiveness of public transport.

E – Environmental Improving air quality and reducing

traffic related noise in the area.

Due to high levels of congestion, there is an

impact on air quality and noise in the area.

S – Safety Reducing the number and severity of

accidents for all users.

High levels of traffic together with the geometry of

the junction causes some accidents.

CR – Cycle Route Increasing cycling priority through and

adjacent to the junctions.

A cycle network is going to be delivered by CWC

in the future.

G – Growth

Supporting growth in terms of

economic and residential development

sites.

Meet ambitious targets for growth and

productivity. Encourage development through

improved connectivity and reduced congestion.

A – Accessibility Improving local connectivity. Reducing

severance across Neachells Lane and

Willenhall Road.

Industrial park needs to have better access from

Neachells Lane. Willenhall Road is a key road

from the network between Wolverhampton and

the M6.

PT – Public Transport Encouraging the use of public transport

with specific measures.

Lack of bus lane on Willenhall Road and poor

public transport services.

R- Network Resilience Improving resilience within the network

for all modes.

Noting future schemes and development in the

area of study, it is necessary to improve the

resilience of the network.

Those objectives are going to be considered for the Option Sifting for the City East Gateway Phase 3 scheme.

The objectives would help to evaluate each option and establish a prioritisation. Those steps are developed in the

following sections.



AECOM 49

Option

Generation

05



AECOM 50

5. Option Generation

5.1 Introduction

A number of different options were considered, in line with meeting the schemes objectives and issues. These

provide a number of potential options to meet this scheme requirement, which will later be sifted.

Costs have been prepared at a high level, making use of SPONS 2017, as well as past experience by LAs and

AECOM in implementing transport infrastructure improvements. The following allowances have been added to

estimated costs:

Preliminaries at 15%

Traffic management at 20%;

Scheme development fees at 20%;

Site supervision at 10%; and

Optimism Bias at 44%.

Preliminary concept designs have been created for a number of the options to provide confidence in deliverability,

ensuring options can pass a high level feasibility in terms of space requirements. Detailed designs for the final

options would be elaborated to ensure that the final options meet the requirements of Manual for Streets and

DMRB. Each proforma is further detailed in the next section and all individual drawings can be reviewed in

Appendix A together with Cost estimations in Appendix B.

5.2 Proformas

The following pages show the Proforma of each option. Each Proforma details the description of the option,

observations, contributing towards objectives, impact on constraints and issues addressed.



AECOM 51

Option 1: Widening Neachells Lane to the West side

Scheme Description

Option 1 proposes widening Neachells Lane to the west side extending the length of the existing southbound left-hand turn lane towards Willenhall Road East. This option will then allow having 3 lanes on Neachells Lane southbound, whilst retaining the two lanes northbound. In addition, Neachells Lane would be partly realigned to a more perpendicular position relative to Willenhall Road, to reduce the turning angle for traffic (specifically the large HGV demand) travelling between Willenhall Road East and Neachells Lane, and vice versa. The right hand turn out of Moseley Road onto Willenhall Road East will be restricted to reallocate green time for the ahead and left-turning traffic out of Neachells Lane, improving clearance and reducing queuing over the bridge. On Willenhall Road East, a second, but shorter, right-hand turn onto Neachells Lane will generate faster clearance through the turn.

This option will reduce congestion and improve the right turning with the new design of the junction. The stacking capacity will be increased with the two lanes for Neachells Lane. Visibility, Journey times, Noise and Air Quality will be improved together with a new crossing, pavement and signalisation of the junction.

Although it will have a small impact on the current network, with low levels of resilience, the low cost, limited land take and mitigation of capacity and congestion issues could provide good results for this option. The following options 2, 3 and 4, have been designed in conjunction with this option.

Potentially, the residential parking provision on the westbound carriageway between Neachells Lane junction and Deans Road junction could be removed to provide a bus lane westbound between the two junctions to improve westbound journey reliability through the junction. Although it has not been taken account in the assessment.

It is predicted that the construction of this scheme will be between 1-2 years.

Contributing towards objectives

JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔✔ G – Growth ✔✔ PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental ✔ CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility ✔✔ R – Network Resilience ✔

Impact on Constraints

No major constraints have been identified. There is some land take required beyond the highway boundary, next to Neachells Lane, that may impact on the delivery programme.

Contributing towards issues

Highways H1 Congestion H2 Accessibility H3 Connectivity H4 Right turning vehicles H5 Stacking capacity H6 Visibility H7 Driver offenses H8 Physical Constraints H9 Accidents H10 Traffic signals

Public Transport PT4 Bus Journey times

Active Mode A2 Barriers A4 Constrained pavement A5 Urban environment

Social S2 Growth S3 Resilience S4 Future schemes S5 Funding

Environmental E1 Air Quality E2 Noise

Description COST (£)

PAVEMENT AND FOOTWAYS 723,000.00

SIGNALS / JUNCTIONS 400,000.00

LAND ACQUISITION 1,096,000.00

SITE CLEARANCE 10,000.00

Subtotal 2,229,000.00

UPLIFT (65%)* 1,450,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 1,619,000.00

TOTAL 5,298,000.00

*Uplift: Preliminaries (15%), Traffic Management (20%), Scheme Develepment Fees (20%) and Site supervision (10%).



AECOM 52

Option 2: Link road between Deans Road Junction and Neachells Lane

Scheme Description

Option 2 proposes a two-lane one-way road running between Deans Road junction and Neachells Lane, via the open space site to the north of the Willenhall Road. The scheme will incorporate a long-tapered merge before exiting through a signalised junction onto Neachells Lane. This will provide a through-route for vehicles travelling eastbound from Deans Road, Willenhall Road and Stow Heath Lane that are destined for Neachells lane and would allow for simultaneous improvements to the existing cycling infrastructure.

The new route would help to free up capacity at the western arm of Neachells Lane junction, reducing peak hour congestion for ahead and right-turning traffic and improving the efficiency of movement through the junction, including public transport. The outlined improvements are proposed in conjunction with option 1 because there is a necessity to improve movements southbound on Neachells Lane as well as on Willenhall Road East onto Neachells Lane.

This option will require a significant land take and the partition of open space with undefined ground conditions. The environmental impact of this option would be significant. Otherwise, there will be a simultaneous upgrade of the existing cycling provision.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental CR – Cycle Route ✔ A – Accessibility ✔ R – Network Resilience ✔✔


A significant amount of land take would be required; building on Deans Road will need to be demolished. The scheme may also affect a cycle lane.




Active Mode A1 Cycle lanes A2 Barriers A3 On-road cycle lanes A4 Constrained pavement

Social S1 Severance S2 Growth S3 Resilience S4 Future schemes S5 Funding

Environmental


PAVEMENT AND FOOTWAYS 1472000.00

SIGNALS / JUNCTIONS 400000.00

CROSSINGS 10000.00

LAND ACQUISITION 4226000.00

SITE CLEARANCE 11000.00

Subtotal 6,119,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 3,978,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 4,443,000.00

TOTAL 14,540,000.00




AECOM 53

Option 3: Link road between Neachells to Willenhall Road East just before Noose Lane

Scheme Description

Creation of a link road between Neachells Lane and Willenhall Road East around the northern perimeter of the existing petrol station and the residential units, exiting out through the vacant open space site onto Willenhall Road East, to the west of Noose Lane. Proposed in conjunction with option 1 to provide a link road for traffic turning left from Neachells Lane just before the petrol station.

This option will free up capacity for ahead and right turn demand out of Neachells Lane and allow for the creation of a second right-hand lane onto Willenhall Road West. This option will mitigate congestion along Neachells Lane and provide extra stacking capacity on the road before the junction onto Moseley Road and Willenhall Road West.

The impact of this option on the residential properties and Travis Perkins land will need to be considered. The current access to the petrol station will also need to be considered and land take will be necessary.

Benefits to Willenhall Road East and the right turn movements onto Neachells Lane are included in Option 1 which also takes advantage of the proposed public transport improvements.

The cost and small impact on the network show this option as a good solution with high degree of mitigation on the main issues such as traffic from Neachells Lane and Willenhall Road East.



JT – Journey Time ✔✔ S – Safety ✔✔ G – Growth ✔✔ PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental ✔ CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility ✔✔ R – Network Resilience ✔


Land take from Travis Perkins is likely to be required as well as from the residential properties on Neachells lane and Willenhall Road East.




Active Mode A2 Barriers A4 Constrained pavement






CROSSINGS 10,000.00



Subtotal 3,579,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 2,327,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 2,599,000.00

TOTAL 8,505,000.00




AECOM 54

Option 4: Eastbound link road from Deans Road junction to Neachells Lane, and from Neachells lane to Willenhall Road East

Scheme Description

Option 4 proposes the combination of Options 1, 2 and 3. Constructing a two-lane one-way road running between Deans Road Junction and Neachells Lane via the open space site to the north, incorporating a long-tapered merge and signalised exit onto Neachells Lane. Eastbound traffic from Deans Road, Willenhall Road West and Stow Heath Lane destined for Neachells Lane will be re-routed through the open space site freeing up capacity on the western arm of Neachells Lane junction for ahead and right-turning traffic. A second link road connects Neachells Lane to Willenhall Road East around the northern side of the existing petrol station, with signalised exit onto Willenhall Road East, to cater for left turn demand from Neachells Lane. By removing left-turn demand from the junction, further capacity can be created for westbound traffic through the creation of a second right-hand turn lane.

The congestion on Neachells Lane junction will be significantly reduced with improved stacking capacity on all lanes of the junction except on Moseley Road. Possibility of upgrading the cycling route and improving the public transport facilities can be also considered.

Although improvements are expected to have some environmental benefits by improving noise and air quality due to reduction of the congestion, there is a significant impact on the local environment due to the construction of new roads.



JT – Journey Time ✔✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔



A significant amount of land take would be required; land take from Travis Perkins as well as from the residential properties on Neachells lane and Willenhall Road East.



Public Transport PT2 Bus facilities PT3 Bus Accessibility PT4 Bus Journey times



Environmental


PAVEMENT AND FOOTWAYS 1,697,000.00


CROSSINGS 10,000.00



Subtotal 7,459,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 4,849,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 5,416,000.00

TOTAL 17,724,000.00




AECOM 55

Option 5: Hamburger Roundabout

Scheme Description

Option 5 proposes the creation of signalised gyratory running clockwise around the northern side of the petrol station and residential units, connecting back onto Willenhall Road East to West of Noose Lane. The western arc of the roundabout will be constructed on the cleared land on the corner of Neachells Lane/Willenhall Road West, linking on from the Willenhall Road West entry arm, which will be realigned toward the north. Right turning traffic from Moseley Road will be re-routed along the gyratory. A connecting road running though the roundabout will be retained to allow for northbound movements from Moseley Road, providing extra stacking capacity and access to the petrol station.

The roundabout creates extra capacity for traffic and takes most of the traffic away from the existing junction. Access to the petrol station would need to be investigated further as it could be possible to connect it with the turn right movement from Willenhall Road East to the north through the central connection road instead of the western arc of the roundabout.

This option will improve the potential for investment in the area and will change the configuration of the junction with new pavements and traffic signal system. This option offers the possibility to improve bus services and facilities but it has not been taking account in the assessment.

On the whole, this option will simultaneously improve journey time and mitigate congestion. It is predicted that the construction of this scheme will be between 2-5 years.


JT – Journey Time ✔✔ S – Safety ✔✔ G – Growth ✔✔ PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility ✔✔ R – Network Resilience ✔✔


Residential properties on Neachells Lane will have to be demolished. Land take from houses on Willenhall Road and Travis Parkins will be required. The scheme will fully enclose the residential area on Willenhall Road East with roads. A new access to the Petrol Station and the houses on Willenhall Road will be required.




Active Mode A3 On-road cycle lanes A4 Constrained pavement


Environmental



SIGNALS / JUNCTIONS 1,050,000.00



Subtotal 6,717,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 4,368,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 4,878,000.00

TOTAL 15,963,000.00




AECOM 56

Option 6: Double Gyratory

Scheme Description

Option 6 proposes the creation of large double gyratory which builds on the layout proposed in Option 5. In addition

to the roundabout configuration outlined above, a second gyratory will be created from Deans Road junction. A

three-lane one-way link road from the Deans Road junction will connect onto the first gyratory at Neachells Lane via

the open space site to the north of Willenhall Road. From Willenhall Road West, at Deans Road junction, a right turn

slip road will be constructed to complete the double gyratory. Here, the existing right turn capacity will be extended

to cater for additional demand.

All eastbound traffic from Willenhall Road, Stow Heath Lane and Deans Road will be rerouted along the new road

removing all traffic from the existing eastbound Willenhall Road between the two junctions. This will provide the

capacity for segregated cycling infrastructure and a dual bus lane which would improve the bus journey time

reliability around the junction and significantly reduce the impacts of congestion during peak hours whilst improving

cycling safety.

On the whole, this option will simultaneously improve journey time and mitigate congestion.

There will be improvements with regards to stacking capacity, accessibility and connectivity of the network. The

cycle route will be upgraded in accordance with the future proposals outlined by the City of Wolverhampton Council.

There is possibility to improve bus services and facilities but it has not been taking account in the assessment.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔✔



Houses from Neachells Lane will have to be demolished together with a building on Deans Road. Significant land take from houses on Willenhall Road and Travis Parkins will be required and residents will need to be relocated. It will be necessary to provide access to the petrol station and the houses on Willenhall Road. The existing cycle lane will be modified. A large amount of land take is required to the north of Willenhall Road.






Environmental




CROSSINGS 10,000.00



Subtotal 14,738,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 9,581,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 10,701,000.00

TOTAL 35,020,000.00




AECOM 57

Option 7: Massive Gyratory between Deans Road junction and Willenhall Road (E) before Noose Lane.

Scheme Description

Option 7 proposes the construction of a large one way gyratory between Deans Road junction and Willenhall Road

(E), just west of Noose Lane; utilising the existing westbound Willenhall Road to make the southern side of the

gyratory, and an extended, two lane right hand turn function back onto the new eastbound road to complete the

gyratory. This produces a variation of Option 6 whereby the Western arc of the eastern gyratory is removed,

diverting all right-hand turn traffic for Neachells Lane towards Deans Road junction, entering Neachells Lane

through the open space site. Where the eastbound road meets Neachells Lane a signalised cross-road will be

created to facilitate the continuation for eastbound traffic toward Willenhall Road (E). A left-hand signalised slip road

will be created for Neachells Lane traffic and the connecting through-road will be retained to maintain the

northbound traffic movements from Moseley Road onto Neachells Lane. As above, the existing eastbound

Willenhall Road between Deans Road junction and Neachells Lane will provide adequate room to create a dual bus

lane and segregated cycling infrastructure.

This option will change the traffic in the area between both junctions. There will be an increment of journey time but

better connectivity and resilience of the network with regards to future levels of traffic. The stacking capacity will be

significantly higher so the congestion will be mitigated. Cycle facilities can be upgraded and there is possibility of

transport public services and facilities improvement but it has not been taken account into the assessment.



JT – Journey Time S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔✔



Houses from Neachells Lane have to be demolished together with a building on Deans Road meaning that residents will have to be relocated. A smaller amount of land take than the previous option is required from houses on Willenhall Road and Travis Parkins. It will be necessary to provide access to the petrol station and the houses on Willenhall Road. The existing cycle lane will be modified. A large amount of land take is still required to the north of Willenhall Road.



Public Transport PT2 Bus facilities PT3 Bus Accessibility



Environmental




CROSSINGS 10,000.00



Subtotal 15,081,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 9,806,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 10,951,000.00

TOTAL 35,838,000.00




AECOM 58

Option 8: Tunnel through Willenhall Road from east of Neachells Lane to west of Dean Road junction.

Scheme Description

Option 8 proposes the construction of a grade separated junction, creating a two-way one-lane tunnel between the

east of Neachells Lane junction, close to Noose Lane, and the east of Deans Road junction, 100 meters after the

junction.

This would alleviate demand on the existing surface network which would prioritise turning movements between the

two junctions, whilst facilitating the unrestricted movement of eastbound and westbound traffic through the tunnel.

By bypassing the two junctions for the large eastbound and westbound demand there will be potential capacity for

improvements such as bus lanes between the two junctions. Moreover, the turning movements onto Neachells Lane

can be improved.

That option has been designed to not require land take however there are some concerns about the compatibility

with traffic movements at the tunnel access points which will need to be investigate. Severe disruption during

construction phase to the existing network as well as businesses and houses in the surrounding area will be

expected. This is considered to be a high cost option.

As the main flow will be separated this option will address congestion issues. Turning movements at Neachells Lane

junction will be improved along with the urban environment, with the potential transport public improvements.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔✔

E – Environmental CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility ✔ R – Network Resilience ✔✔


No impact on the scheme constraints are identified at this stage but will need further consideration. Severe disruption during construction.


Highways H1 Congestion H4 Right turning vehicles H5 Stacking capacity H6 Visibility H7 Driver offenses H9 Accidents H10 Traffic signals


Active Mode A2 Barriers A4 Constrained pavement A5 Urban environment

Social S2 Growth S3 Resilience S4 Future schemes

Environmental




STRUCTURES 12,572,000.00

SITE CLEARANCE 4,950,000.00

Subtotal 20,322,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 13,212,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 14,755,000.00

TOTAL 48,289,000.00




AECOM 59

Option 9: New access from Deans Lane Junction to Industrial area. Scheme Description

Option 9 proposes the construction of a northbound two-lane one-way connecting road directly between Deans Road junction and the existing road network on the west side of the industrial area into Strawberry Lane. The road would divide the open space site and require the construction of two bridges over the two existing railway lines.

This option, combined with some of the improvements outlined in option 1, would split the traffic entering Neachells Lane between the two junctions. Diverting some traffic from Stow Heath Lane, Deans Road and Willenhall Road away from the Neachells Lane Junction and up through the new road. Wednesfield Industrial State will therefore have two accesses from Willenhall Road mitigating congestion further.

This would free up capacity for ahead and right turning traffic at Neachells Lane junction, from the Willenhall Road West arm, preventing blocking of the right turn lane during peak hours and improving clearance through the junction during the green phase. There will be more stacking capacity and better connectivity in the current network with low impact on the network and on the nearby residential areas.

There would be an opportunities to create new cycling provision and provide potential improvements to bus services by using the new road.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety G – Growth ✔✔ PT – Public Transport ✔ ✔

E – Environmental CR – Cycle Route ✔✔ A – Accessibility ✔✔ R – Network Resilience ✔ ✔


The existing cycle lane will be modified, buildings on Deans Road Junction will need to be demolished and Network Rail approval and rail line possessions will be required for the construction of the bridges. The new road will require a significant land take and the bridges will involve an increment in cost.


Highways H1 Congestion H2 Accessibility H3 Connectivity H5 Stacking capacity H8 Physical Constraints H9 Accidents


Active Mode A1 Cycle lanes A2 Barriers A3 On-road cycle lanes A5 Urban environment

Social S1 Severance S2 Growth S3 Resilience S4 Future schemes

Environmental







Subtotal 12,052,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 7,836,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 8,751,000.00

TOTAL 28,639,000.00




AECOM 60

Option 10: Tunnel at Neachells Lane junction from Willenhall East to Neachells Lane for the turn right movement.

Scheme Description

Option 10 proposes the construction of a sweeping right-turn tunnel between Willenhall Road East and Neachells

Lane, to cater for the heavy right-turn demand onto Neachells lane, whilst retaining the two lanes for westbound

traffic. The tunnel would start opposite Noose Lane, running under the junction and curving round under the vacant

land on the corner of Neachells/Willenhall Road West, where it would resurface onto traffic controlled merge with

the existing highway prior to Neachells Lane bridge.

This would almost double the available right turn stacking capacity onto Neachells Lane. Removing the right turn

competition from the junction would provide longer priority for the east and westbound traffic, allowing the two to run

simultaneously with a separate right hand filter for traffic destined for Moseley Road.

This option only focusses on one movement. The mitigation of the congestion addresses one issue but it would be

necessary to investigate further options for the rest of the arms.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility ✔ R – Network Resilience ✔


Land take next to Neachells Lane will be required. There may be difficulties with joining the exit of the tunnel to the current surface level of Neachells Lane. The current network will suffer disruptions during construction.


Highways H1 Congestion H3 Connectivity H4 Right turning vehicles H5 Stacking capacity H7 Driver offenses H8 Physical Constraints H9 Accidents H10 Traffic signals


Active Mode A4 Constrained pavement A5 Urban environment


Environmental



CROSSINGS 20,000.00


LAND ACQUISITION 548,000.00


Subtotal 5,021,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 3,267,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 3,647,000.00

TOTAL 11,935,000.00




AECOM 61

Option 11: Separate roundabouts at each junction Scheme Description

Option 11 proposes the construction of a signalised roundabout at both Deans Road and Neachells Lane junctions.

At Deans Road, the solution would be a hamburger roundabout and a gyratory at Neachells Lane. The gyratory is

the same layout as proposed in Option 5. The hamburger roundabout would allow public transport and ahead only

traffic to be prioritised. This option would improve the movement along Willenhall Road and reduce congestion at

both junctions.

This solution will increase the stacking capacity, mitigate congestion on the arms of both junctions and improve the

urban environment with new pavements and design of the junction. Connectivity and accessibility of both junctions

will be improved, increasing the resilience of the network.

This could provide benefits such as potential improvements with regards to public transport and cycling facilities but

it has not been taken account into the assessment as Option 5 suggests.

This option will have a significant impact on the network and specifically in the area around Deans Road with land

take requirements, demolition of buildings and disruption to existing traffic during construction.



JT – Journey Time ✔✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔✔ PT – Public Transport ✔



Houses on Neachells Lane will have to be demolished. Land take from residential properties on Willenhall Road and Travis Parkins will be required. It will be necessary to provide access to the petrol station and the houses on Willenhall Road. Buildings and land around Deans Road junction will also need to be taken.




Active Mode A4 Constrained pavement


Environmental




CROSSINGS 20,000.00



Subtotal 8,724,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 5,672,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 6,335,000.00

TOTAL 20,731,000.00




AECOM 62

Option 12: SCOOT operation at both junctions to allow for inter-operability Scheme Description

Option 12 is a fairly limited intervention to address the current issues. A coordination of adjacent signals over the

network between Neachells Lane junction and Dean Road junction. Preparation of a signal plan and traffic base

data will be required together with some works on the roads to implement the new devices and traffic signal

systems.

Connection of both junctions will have a positive impact on the traffic but it is only a short-term solution which covers

limited addressed issues.

It is predicted that the construction of this scheme will be between 6 months to1 year.


JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety G – Growth PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental ✔ CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility R – Network Resilience


No significant scheme constraints have been identified.


Highways H1 Congestion H7 Driver offenses H10 Traffic signals


Active Mode A5 Urban environment

Social S5 Funding



SIGNALS / JUNCTIONS

Subtotal 300,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 195,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 132,000.00

TOTAL 627,000.00




AECOM 63

Option 13: Big highway scheme

Scheme Description

Option 13 considers a new highway scheme from Wednesfield Way to Wolverhampton Road East. The proposed

highway will be a 3.5 km, 2-lane, one-way road which connects the Industrial Park in Wednesfield with M6 J10 by

means of the Wolverhampton Road. This option will provide an alternative route to Willenhall Road, linking

Wolverhampton City Centre to the M6 J10 using a new access route. Moreover, it will improve the accessibility of

the Industrial Park so traffic along Neachells Lane and Willenhall Road East will be reduced. The design of the

highway is based on the proposed metro scheme called “The 5Ws Route” which is a metro extension from

Wolverhampton to Wednesbury through Willenhall and Walsall. Along the corridor, there will be 6 small junctions

with the current network and 2 larger junctions at the beginning and the end of the corridor.

This option is proposed as a major highway scheme for mitigating the issues of Neachells Lane. Congestion of the

junction will be reduced as this option is an alternative route for access between the M6 and Wolverhampton City

Centre through Willenhall and Wednesfield. Therefore, the connectivity of the network will have significant

improvements and it improve network resilience.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔✔ PT – Public Transport ✔✔



There are constraints such as significant land take and it would travers sensitive areas such as Willenhall Memorial Park and a high number of trees.


Highways H1 Congestion H2 Accessibility (private vehicles) H3 Connectivity H5 Stacking capacity


Active Mode A5 Urban environment


Environmental






Subtotal 74,627,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 48,510,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 54,181,000.00

TOTAL 177,318,000.00




AECOM 64

Option 14: New Rail bridge at Neachells Lane

Scheme Description

Option 14 is focused on the rail bridge on Neachells Lane which routes over the railway line. The current rail bridge

is considered to be a significant constraint and acts as a pinch point as the bridge currently has just one lane in both

directions; this option widens the capacity of the road with a new bridge next to the current one. There will be 2-

lanes per bridge increasing the capacity.

A new bridge has been considered as widening the current bridge would require significant structural changes and

would have a similar cost to building a new bridge, which would provide good safety conditions.

This option could be delivered as a complementary option to any of the other options. The decision of including this

as part of the scheme should be evaluated with modelling, as there are some concerns about this increasing the

capacity of the corridor or just moving brining the issue further to the north.

This option will improve capacity, journey times and accessibility to the industrial estate. Congestion will be

mitigated and the rail bridge will no longer act as a barrier/constraint.



JT – Journey Time ✔ S – Safety ✔ G – Growth ✔ PT – Public Transport ✔

E – Environmental ✔ CR – Cycle Route A – Accessibility ✔ R – Network Resilience ✔


Possible impacts on the structure of the current bridge. Taking land from the Industrial Park and affecting its access. Network Rail approval required and construction will cause disruption to current road and rail traffic.


Highways H1 Congestion H2 Accessibility H3 Connectivity H4 Right turning vehicles H5 Stacking capacity H8 Physical Constraints


Active Mode A2 Barriers A5 Urban environment






LAND ACQUISITION 967,000.00


Subtotal 3,211,000.00

UPLIFT (65%) 2,090,000.00

OPTIMISM BIAS (44%) 2,333,000.00

TOTAL 7,634,000.00




AECOM 65

Stakeholder consultation

06



AECOM 66

6. Stakeholder Consultation

6.1 Introduction

Following the option generation process, a stakeholder consultation event on 6th March 2018 took place to review

and help with the sifting of options. The workshop allowed the delegates to use their local knowledge to evaluate

the identified issues in the area, options proposed and help to formulate potential improvements or new ideas.

The workshop comprised a number of local authority members and local bodies which covered a range of

specialities in various modes of transport.

Full details regarding the agenda, invitations, attendance list and groups can be found in Appendix C.

6.2 Methodology

Delegates for the consultation were invited from interested parties that this work may affect (i.e. through funding

bids in the future). Local representatives included those from:

City of Wolverhampton Council;

Black Country LEP;

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council;

Transport for West Midlands: and

AECOM.

At the start of the event, delegates were shown a presentation highlighting how issues had been identified and

the options that had been generated to date. Different options were explained and discussed among the

delegates.

6.3 Findings

Outcomes of the workshop included an additional two options and proposals to combine some options. At this

stage, it was concluded that all the options would need to be evaluated within the EAST assessment. Once the

assessment has been completed, another workshop is to be held, where options will be scored and reviewed

based on the EAST assessment and prioritisation ranking, establishing the options to be brought forward.

6.4 Conclusions

Following on from the workshop, each option is considered in Table 20, with the degree of consensus scored as

below:

1 - Consultation has revealed a high level of disagreement about the option’s ability to deliver the stated

outcomes;

2 - Strong reasons to suggest the outcomes are controversial;

3 - Some agreement during consultation with some concerns;

4 - Broad agreement, possibly one or two areas of disagreement remaining; and

5 - High degree of consensus.



AECOM 67

Table 20. First Stakeholder consultation

Option Name Degree Evaluation

1 Widening Neachells Lane to the west side. 4 It had a positive evaluation as low cost

solution which solves most the identified

issues l but there were concerns about

whether it would be enough.

2 Link road between Deans Road junction and

Neachells Lane

3 Combining with Option 1, it could be an

option to mitigate general congestion in

the area but it requires a significant land

take and the rail bridge is still a

considerable constraint.

3 Link road between Neachells to Willenhall Road

East just before Noose Lane

3 It was considered that this option may

not address all the issues at the junction

and may only relieve congestion in the

short term.

4 Eastbound link road from Deans Road junction to

Neachells Lane, and from Neachells Lane to

Willenhall Road

2 As a combination of the options above, it

had the positive and negative conclusion

from the previous ones.

5 Hamburger Roundabout 4 There were concerns about the AQ

impact and properties inside. Modelling

is necessary to show whether it will work.

6 Double Gyratory 3 This option is considered to be beneficial

however it may cause overall journey

times to increase.

7 Massive Gyratory between Deans Road junction

and Willenhall Road (E) before Noose Lane.

1 High level of disagreement about this

option.

8 Tunnel through Willenhall Road from east of

Neachells Lane to west of Dean Road junction.

2 Some agreements and interest in seeing

a proper design of this option.

9 New access from Deans Lane Junction to

Industrial area.

1 This option can be attractive but not

practical.

10 Tunnel at Neachells Lane junction from Willenhall

East to Neachells Lane for the turn right

movement.

1 There are so many difficulties in the

feasibility of this project that there was

some disagreement.

11 Separate roundabouts at each junction 2 It could be considered if Option 5 comes

forward but it will need to consider the

impact on Deans Road junction.

12 SCOOT operation at both junctions to allow for

inter-operability

2 It can be investigated further but traffic

lights are currently working well.

Two more options were generated during the workshop: Option 13 and 14.

The possibility of creating a completely new road to improve the accessibility to Wednesfield Industrial Estate

was discussed during the workshop. The initial suggested idea was the creation of a new road from Willenhall/

Someford Pl junction to Wednesfield Way. The option was investigated, however it was found that it will not be a

suitable option owing to the constraints in the area, including Willenhall Memorial Park and the significant number

of dwellings affected. In line with the idea of creating a new link to the west, a new route from Wolverhampton

Road East to Wednesfield Way was generated, named as Option 13. This scheme will provide an alternative

access to the Industrial Estate from the M6 J10, so congestion on the whole Willenhall corridor from M6 J10 to

Neachells Lane will be alleviated.

The idea of widening the Rail Bridge on Neachells Lane was also raised as a possibility and discussed during the

stakeholder meeting. There was an overall consensus on this as a possible scheme to be added to the options.

Different options such as widening or building a new bridge were explored with their associated cost and risks. It

was concluded, if this scheme were to be delivered a new bridge would be a better choice. Consequently, Option

14 was developed as New Rail Bridge on Neachells Lane and it would be considered as a complementary option



AECOM 68

to any of the others. The decision of including this as part of the scheme should be evaluated with modelling, as

there are some concerns about this increasing the capacity of the corridor and pushing the issue further to the

north.

City East Gateway Phase 3 Issues and Options Report

69

EAST

assessment

07


70

7. Option Sifting

7.1 Introduction

The next step in this study was to evaluate the options described in the proformas. The ‘Early Assessment Sifting

Tool’ (EAST) has been created by the Department for Transport (DfT) to assist in option assessment and

comparison for a single scheme or across a wider geographical area. It is defined by the DfT3 as:

The tool has been used to refine the current options following Stage 2 and the initial sifting process. This section

of the report will detail the methodology used and summarise the outputs.

7.2 Methodology

EAST was used for City East Gateway Phase 3 scheme to provide a high level appraisal and comparison of the

sifted schemes. The guidance note provided by the DfT3 will be utilised as required to complete the EAST. It

details an initial section that summarises the option, and a further five that align with a standard business case4,

analysing whether schemes:

Demonstrate a robust case for change that fits with issues and objectives identified and wider public

policy objectives – the Strategic Case;

Identify the nature and extent of all the economic, environmental and social impact– the Economic

Case;

Are achievable – the Management Case;

Are financially affordable – the Financial Case; and

Are commercially viable – the Commercial Case.

To ensure all options are reviewed and appraised in an equal way, a framework consisting of a template input

spreadsheet was developed. This will ensure the EAST was completed in a consistent and robust way, with an

evidence based approach that reflected work undertaken as part of Stages 1 and 2 of the study. The framework

has been provided in Appendix D.

7.3 EAST Outputs

An EAST file for each option has been prepared based on the input spreadsheets created, as discussed in

Section 7.2. A single document summarising all scores can be seen in Appendix F, alongside Appendix E which

contains all EAST assessment per option.

7.4 Summary

EAST has been utilised to provide a useful summary of all options considered as part of the City East Gateway

Phase 3 scheme.

The EAST assessment provides a deep analysis of each option to help the prioritisation process in a more

efficient and profitable way. It is somewhat limited, as it has deliberately been designed to not provide

prioritisation mechanisms or identify a preferred scheme using the spreadsheet. However it does allow careful

consideration of the preferred option or prioritisation, taking into account wider factors that may influence

successful development and implementation of a scheme.

3 Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST)

Guidance. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4475/east-

guidance.pdf. 4 The Transport Business Cases. Available from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85930/dft-transport-business-case.pdf.

“EAST is a decision support tool that has been developed to quickly summarise and present

evidence on options in a clear and consistent format. It provides decision makers with relevant,

high level, information to help them form an early view of how options perform and compare. ”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4475/east-guidance.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4475/east-guidance.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85930/dft-transport-business-case.pdf


71

Prioritisation

08


72

8. Scheme Prioritisation and Programme

8.1 Introduction

To identify the options that meet the objectives of this scheme, and assist in the generation of an outline

programme for delivery, a prioritisation process was undertaken. This section will detail the methodology behind

the prioritisation, as well as the final proposed priority list.

8.2 Prioritisation Framework

A prioritisation framework was developed to enable a dynamic prioritisation process to be undertaken. A number

of categories were selected to take into account the EAST outputs, including Strategic, Economic, Managerial,

Financial and Commercial considerations. Managerial, financial and commercial outputs have been included in

the Implementation. The most important elements, which have got a significant score, considered the ranking of

options from the stakeholder consultation, fitting with the scheme objectives and the impact of the option on

addressing the issues.

The stakeholder consultation ranked each option and can be seen in the Table 20. The objectives of the scheme

were studied individually following the grade of impact of each option with the criteria as explained in Appendix D

- Table 1. Based on this score, a percentage of how much the option fits in with the objectives of the scheme was

established. The impact of each option is based on the number of issues it addresses. Low, medium or high is

the level of impact of each option with each issue.

Scores and weightings were assigned to each category. A round table discussion with City of Wolverhampton

Council was held on the 12th April 2018 to finalise the prioritisation framework and ensure it aligned with their

objectives. The finalisation of the framework was completed ‘blind’, meaning the participants did not know how

schemes were ranked prior to or after making any adjustments. This ensured any bias towards or against specific

schemes or modes was not a factor in finalising scores and weightings. The final prioritisation framework can be

seen in Table 21. Further information about the Prioritisation scores can be found in Appendix G.

Table 21. Prioritisation Criteria

Criteria Sub-Criteria Weight

Strategic Case (55%)

Objectives met 15 %

Impact on Issues addressed 15 %

Wider fit with Transport and Governmental objectives 5 %

Fit with other objectives 5 %

Stakeholder consultation 15 %

Economic Case (25%)

Economic Growth 5 %

Carbon Emissions 5 %

Socio-distributional impacts 5 %

Local Environment 5 %

Well-being 5 %

Implementation (20%)

Implementation time 2.5 %

Acceptability 5 %

Feasibility 5 %

Capital Cost 5 %

Flexibility 2.5 %

100 %

8.3 Results of Prioritisation

Following the finalisation of the prioritisation process, the options were ranked. The final ranking can be seen in

Table 22 with the full spreadsheet within Appendix H where each option is detailed together with its score and

EAST assessment.


73

Table 22: Ranking of Option Prioritisation

Option Score Description

OPTION 1 74 Option 1: Widening Neachells Lane to the West.

OPTION 3 64 Option 3: Link road between Neachells to Willenhall Road East just before Noose Lane

OPTION 5 58 Option 5: Hamburger Roundabout

OPTION 2 45 Option 2: Link road between Deans Road Junction and Neachells Lane

OPTION 4 39 Option 4: Eastbound link road from Deans Road junction to Neachells Lane, and from Neachells lane

to Willenhall Road East

OPTION 12 39 Option 12: SCOOT operation at both junctions to allow for inter-operability

OPTION 9 36 Option 9: New access from Deans Lane Junction to Industrial area.

OPTION 8 35 Option 8: Tunnel through Willenhall Road from east of Neachells Lane to west of Dean Road

junction.

OPTION 11 33 Option 11: Separate roundabouts at each junction

OPTION 6 31 Option 6: Double Gyratory

OPTION 10 29 Option 10: Tunnel at Neachells Lane junction from Willenhall East to Neachells Lane for the turn right

movement.

OPTION 7 22 Option 7: Massive Gyratory between Deans Road junction and Willenhall Road (E) before Noose

Lane.

OPTION 13 12 Option 13: Big highway scheme

The following key outcomes were noted:

Option 13, which was proposed as an alternative big scheme in the Stakeholder Workshop, has the

lowest score due to the low buildability and high cost and impact to the local environment.

Option 6 and 7 will require a large amount of land take so the impact on the local environment of the

options is likely to be very significant.

Option 10 was proposed to solve the issues of congestion and stacking capacity in Willenhall Road East

onto Neachells Lane. This option has a significant construction impact and low level of issues addressed

and objectives met. Consequently, this option does not reach high score in the ranking.

Due to its relatively low cost with a significant impact on the issues addressed, Option 1 has the highest

score. It can be observed that this option improves the capacity and solves the core issues at the

junction.

Otherwise, Option 3 is considered to be a medium-scale option which will address most of the issues at

the junction through a new junction design. It provides more capacity to Neachells Lane southbound and

Willenhall Road East.

Finally, Option 5 met most of the objectives and has a positive evaluation in all the categories from

EAST assessment. Due to a new design of the junction, capacity and congestion issues are mitigated

but there is a significant impact to the local environment which can have negative public acceptability.


74

Preferred Options

09


75

9. Preferred Options

9.1 Introduction

As detailed in previous sections, the prioritisation process identified three options as preferred ones:

Option 1: Widening Neachells Lane to the West side;

Option 3: Widening Neachells Lane and new road between Neachells Lane and Willenhall Road; and

Option 5: Hamburger Roundabout.

Indicative models have been created using SATURN and LinSig software to undertake a high level assessment

of the operation of the proposed schemes. An existing Local Area SATURN Model available developed as part of

the City East Gateway Phase 1 and 2 schemes has been used in combination with observed turning counts to

inform LinSig demand.

This chapter summarizes the LinSig and SATURN outputs from options tested as well as their performance.

Nevertheless it has to be noted that this is just a high level modelling exercise and a detailed assessment using a

VISSIM model would be needed to gain a better understanding of the performance of the proposed schemes.

Key performance measures for each of the modelled scenarios described below are flow and journey time.

9.2 Modelling Scenarios

The following scenarios for both AM and PM were produced in LinSig:

2017 Base: existing network, observed flows;

2020 and 2026 Do Minimum (DM) - Baseline Reference Case: existing network + City East Gateway Phase

1 and 2.

The Baseline Reference Case was used to produce the following LinSig AM and PM scenarios under fixed

demand SATURN:

2020 and 2026 Do Something 1 (DS1 Fixed): Do Minimum + Option 1, Fixed Demand

2020 and 2026 Do Something 3 (DS3 Fixed): Do Minimum + Option 3, Fixed Demand; and

2020 and 2026 Do Something 5 (DS5 Fixed): Do Minimum + Option 5, Fixed Demand.

Base Year 2017 LinSig AM and PM Models were developed using observed flows from 2017. Those flows were

compared with the SATURN local area model in order to obtain forecast demand for 2020 and 2026 Do Minimum

LinSig models; while ensuring consistency between the two tiers of the transport modelling hierarchy; strategic

and junction model. Subsequently, options were coded into LinSig and run with DM 2026 SATURN demand to

find the most suitable traffic signals for the oncoming demand.

However, this demand does not capture any changes due to extra capacity at the junction provided by the

schemes. Those scenarios are therefore known as fixed demand scenarios. To fully understand the impact of the

schemes, variable demand models had to be created with demands derive from new SATURN assignments. New

demands were then fed back to LinSig to inform the 2020 and 2026 Do Something Models created as listed

below:

2020 and 2026 Do Something 1 (DS1): Do Minimum + Option 1, Variable Demand

2020 and 2026 Do Something 3 (DS3): Do Minimum + Option 3, Variable Demand; and

2020 and 2026 Do Something 5 (DS5): Do Minimum + Option 5, Variable Demand.


76

9.3 Flow Analysis

The changes in demand flow created by each of the modelled scenarios have been assessed. All movements

from and to the four arms of the Neachells Lane junction have been analysed using legend shown in Figure 40.

Figure 40. Neachells Lanes – Flow diagram

Table 23 to Table 28 show differences in demand (PCU) between DM and Do Something Variable demands

models for AM 2020 and PM 2020, respectively. The DS1 and DS3 models alter the demand flow in equivalent

ways. Both options were designed to improved capacity from Willenhall Road East (B) to all directions,

accordingly those demands have increased. Demand for both options and both periods towards to Willenhall

Road East (D) also grew. However, those increments are in detriment of the demand from D into B in the AM

Peak and D to A in PM Peak. Minor variations are seen between DS1 and DS3 despite the new link road

between Neachells Lane and Willenhall Road East proposed by DS3.

The DS5 model shows an increase in demand in the majority of the directions. Significant increases are seen in

demand from Willenhall Road East (B) and Moseley Road (C) in all directions. In addition, demand from

Neachells Lanes towards Willenhall Road East in both peak periods increases. However, the demand towards

the south and west decreases, which can be explained due to the longer travel distance.


77

Table 23. Demand Flow DM and DS1 AM 2020

DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 233 287 193 A 0 306 243 205 A 0 73 -44 12

B 256 0 8 674 B 536 0 8 857 B 280 0 0 183

C 396 34 0 216 C 357 118 0 396 C -39 84 0 180

D 233 735 225 0 D 161 535 390 0 D -72 -200 165 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 233 287 193 A 0 345 214 210 A 0 112 -73 17

B 256 0 8 674 B 550 0 8 890 B 294 0 0 216

C 396 34 0 216 C 345 121 0 349 C -51 87 0 133

D 233 735 225 0 D 160 517 391 0 D -73 -218 166 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 233 287 193 A 0 448 185 170 A 0 215 -102 -23

B 256 0 8 674 B 463 0 145 1144 B 207 0 137 470

C 396 34 0 216 C 436 126 0 236 C 40 92 0 20

D 233 735 225 0 D 174 739 268 0 D -59 4 43 0

Table 26. Demand Flow DM and DS1 PM 2020

DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 352 293 196 A 0 516 210 163 A 0 164 -83 -33

B 253 0 32 697 B 570 0 39 743 B 317 0 7 46

C 367 49 0 143 C 244 253 0 329 C -123 204 0 186

D 208 796 234 0 D 136 795 483 0 D -72 -1 249 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 352 293 196 A 0 376 232 199 A 0 24 -61 3

B 253 0 32 697 B 570 0 40 764 B 317 0 8 67

C 367 49 0 143 C 242 263 0 317 C -125 214 0 174

D 208 796 234 0 D 149 793 478 0 D -59 -3 244 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 352 293 196 A 0 637 198 98 A 0 285 -95 -98

B 253 0 32 697 B 403 0 209 903 B 150 0 177 206

C 367 49 0 143 C 399 326 0 353 C 32 277 0 210

D 208 796 234 0 D 149 746 203 0 D -59 -50 -31 0


78

The demand flows for the AM and PM 2026 scenarios are detailed in Table 29 to Table 34 below. All models

follow a similar pattern as in AM and PM 2020, with numbers marginally higher due to growth.


DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 238 296 202 A 0 316 256 213 A 0 78 -40 11

B 257 0 8 684 B 564 0 8 858 B 307 0 0 174

C 401 33 0 220 C 354 123 0 443 C -47 90 0 223

D 244 754 225 0 D 158 546 388 0 D -86 -208 163 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 238 296 202 A 0 340 233 223 A 0 102 -63 21

B 257 0 8 684 B 546 0 8 887 B 289 0 0 203

C 401 33 0 220 C 371 127 0 417 C -30 94 0 197

D 244 754 225 0 D 156 531 387 0 D -88 -223 162 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 238 296 202 A 0 472 193 155 A 0 234 -103 -47

B 257 0 8 684 B 443 0 150 1192 B 186 0 142 508

C 401 33 0 220 C 454 124 0 240 C 53 91 0 20

D 244 754 225 0 D 182 817 272 0 D -62 63 47 0


DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 192 296 232 A 0 507 228 155 A 0 315 -68 -77

B 252 0 32 698 B 563 0 40 755 B 311 0 8 57

C 364 54 0 144 C 244 254 0 334 C -120 200 0 190

D 237 817 236 0 D 155 821 501 0 D -82 4 265 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 192 296 232 A 0 380 252 196 A 0 188 -44 -36

B 252 0 32 698 B 569 0 40 771 B 317 0 8 73

C 364 54 0 144 C 244 261 0 323 C -120 207 0 179

D 237 817 236 0 D 160 814 499 0 D -77 -3 263 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 192 296 232 A 0 663 198 88 A 0 471 -98 -144

B 252 0 32 698 B 434 0 269 874 B 182 0 237 176

C 364 54 0 144 C 402 321 0 333 C 38 267 0 189

D 237 817 236 0 D 169 788 190 0 D -68 -29 -46 0


79

9.4 Journey Time Analysis

Modelled journey times for each of the modelled scenarios have been analysed, for both fixed and variable

demand and results are shown in this section. Do something models have been compared with the Do Minimum

to calculate the travel time saving. In addition, benefits due to journey time saving have been monetised for each

of the scenarios.

9.4.1 Fixed Demand

Journey times for the fixed AM 2020 demand models have been analysed and they are shown in Table 35 to

Table 37. In addition, benefits generated by these travel time saving have been calculated and they are shown in

Table 38. Benefits have been calculated as a product between the demand from each movement and journey

time difference (PCU *seconds). Benefits are shown as negative number as they are consequence on a

decrease in journey time. An overall benefit, as combination of all movement benefits, for each of the scenario

has also been included to make the comparison between options easier.

Table 35. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 AM 2020

DM DS1 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 64 91 63 A 0 46 76 77 A 0 -19 -16 14

B 66 0 68 70 B 54 0 85 86 B -12 0 17 16

C 110 110 0 101 C 82 82 0 72 C -28 -29 0 -29

D 85 85 78 0 D 66 66 59 0 D -19 -19 -19 0


DM DS3 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 64 91 63 A 0 18 89 56 A 0 -46 -2 -7

B 66 0 68 70 B 54 0 85 86 B -12 0 17 16

C 110 110 0 101 C 82 86 0 72 C -28 -24 0 -29

D 85 85 78 0 D 66 81 59 0 D -19 -4 -19 0


DM DS5 fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 64 91 63 A 0 44 80 77 A 0 -20 -12 13

B 66 0 68 70 B 90 0 58 59 B 24 0 -9 -11

C 110 110 0 101 C 97 127 0 59 C -13 17 0 -43

D 85 85 78 0 D 33 56 92 0 D -52 -28 13 0

Table 38. Journey Time Benefits AM 2020

DS1 Fixed DS3 Fixed DS5 Fixed

Benefits A B C D A B C D A B C D

A 0 -4311 -4449 2702 0 -10741 -689 -1428 0 -4753 -3301 2567

B -3072 0 138 10447 -3072 0 138 10447 6067 0 -74 -7414

C -11246 -969 0 -6307 -11246 -830 0 -6307 -5267 571 0 -9245

D -4427 -14039 -4275 0 -4427 -3014 -4275 0 -12000 -20727 2970 0

Total -39807 Total -35444 Total -50604


80

In the AM 2020 comparison it can be seen that benefits from DS1 and DS3 are coming from similar movement.

Both have big benefits for movement from Moseley Road (C) and Willenhall Road West (D), and disbenefits on

movement from Willenhall Road East to the south and west. Overall, DS1 shows larger benefits than DS3, with

overall travel times saving benefits of approximately 40,000 and 35,000 respectively. Despite the fact that DS5

will make some of the distances between arms of this junction longer, large saving are made on some of the main

movements. Therefore, this is translated into great benefits of around 50,000 (pcu*second).

Table 39 to Table 41 show changes in Journey time for each of the Fixed Demand option in PM 2020. Journey

time saving pattern are similar to the AM Peak. However the changes are greater than the DM Journey time

changes. Therefore more benefits are now apparent. Table 42 shows the travel times saving benefits generated

by them; as before DS1 benefits are greater than DS3 and DS5 is better than the other two.

Table 39. Journey Time difference DM and DS1 PM 2020

DM DS1 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 72 98 59 A 0 40 70 77 A 0 -32 -28 18

B 70 0 73 75 B 53 0 86 87 B -17 0 13 11

C 137 136 0 129 C 91 91 0 81 C -46 -45 0 -48

D 97 96 89 0 D 66 66 60 0 D -31 -31 -30 0


DM DS3 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 72 98 59 A 0 27 90 55 A 0 -45 -8 -3

B 70 0 73 75 B 51 0 80 81 B -19 0 8 6

C 137 136 0 129 C 94 98 0 85 C -43 -38 0 -44

D 97 96 89 0 D 65 80 59 0 D -31 -16 -31 0


DM DS5 fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 72 98 59 A 0 42 78 76 A 0 -30 -20 17

B 70 0 73 75 B 92 0 58 59 B 22 0 -15 -16

C 137 136 0 129 C 98 134 0 58 C -39 -2 0 -72

D 97 96 89 0 D 33 59 99 0 D -63 -38 9 0

Table 42. Journey Time Benefits PM 2020



A 0 -11264 -8263 3548 0 -15875 -2315 -666 0 -10595 -5831 3312

B -4301 0 426 7946 -4706 0 246 4321 5667 0 -470 -11291

C -16735 -2210 0 -6807 -15671 -1872 0 -6335 -14313 -118 0 -10225

D -6427 -24278 -6997 0 -6531 -12736 -7137 0 -13125 -30168 2153 0


Journey times for the fixed AM 2026 demand models have been analysed and they are shown in Table 43 to

Table 45. Travel Times of both DM and DS scenarios have increased due to the increase in demand. However

differences between them follow similar patterns to AM 2020.


81

Benefits generated by these travel time savings are shown in Table 46. Benefits are higher than the AM 2020

analysis, but they are coming from the same movements and have increased proportionally, with DS5 standing

out with higher benefits and again DS1 benefits being higher than DS3.


DM DS1 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 77 104 64 A 0 44 74 76 A 0 -33 -30 12

B 70 0 72 75 B 54 0 87 88 B -16 0 16 14

C 115 115 0 105 C 90 90 0 80 C -25 -25 0 -25

D 85 85 79 0 D 69 69 62 0 D -16 -17 -16 0


DM DS3 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 77 104 64 A 0 19 86 55 A 0 -59 -17 -9

B 70 0 72 75 B 54 0 87 88 B -16 0 16 14

C 115 115 0 105 C 90 94 0 80 C -25 -21 0 -25

D 85 85 79 0 D 69 84 62 0 D -16 -1 -16 0


DM DS5 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 77 104 64 A 0 44 79 78 A 0 -33 -25 13

B 70 0 72 75 B 90 0 59 60 B 20 0 -13 -15

C 115 115 0 105 C 100 130 0 59 C -14 15 0 -46

D 85 85 79 0 D 33 56 94 0 D -52 -29 15 0




A 0 -7854 -8732 2424 0 -13923 -5062 -1899 0 -7925 -7311 2646

B -4163 0 124 9302 -4163 0 124 9302 5012 0 -106 -10328

C -9905 -818 0 -5500 -9905 -686 0 -5500 -5734 498 0 -10098

D -3977 -12441 -3668 0 -3977 -1056 -3668 0 -12639 -21941 3398 0


Finally, journey times for the fixed PM 2026 demand models have been analysed and they are shown in Table 47

to Table 49, in addition benefits generated by these travel time saving are shown in Table 50. Difference between

Journey times due to the proposed scheme are for similar movements as in 2020. However, these saving are

significantly smaller, and therefore the benefits generated by them are not as great as before. This can be

explained due to the excess demand in the future. More trips will be present and all scenarios will be congested

such that means that the improvement of the journey time can be not as big as in 2020. However in the three

schemes tested benefits are still significant, and as before DS1 and DS3 have fewer benefits than DS5.


82


DM DS1 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 68 96 71 A 0 46 78 91 A 0 -22 -18 20

B 66 0 69 72 B 53 0 86 87 B -14 0 17 15

C 116 116 0 106 C 101 101 0 92 C -15 -15 0 -14

D 90 89 82 0 D 66 67 60 0 D -23 -23 -22 0


DM DS3 Fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 68 96 71 A 0 19 90 57 A 0 -50 -6 -14

B 66 0 69 72 B 53 0 86 87 B -14 0 17 15

C 116 116 0 106 C 101 105 0 92 C -15 -11 0 -14

D 90 89 82 0 D 67 82 60 0 D -23 -8 -22 0


DM DS5 fixed

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 68 96 71 A 0 45 79 76 A 0 -24 -18 4

B 66 0 69 72 B 98 0 59 60 B 32 0 -10 -12

C 116 116 0 106 C 104 133 0 59 C -12 17 0 -48

D 90 89 82 0 D 30 53 90 0 D -60 -36 8 0




A 0 -4301 -5358 4640 0 -9562 -1894 -3318 0 -4531 -5269 1021

B -3402 0 541 10540 -3402 0 541 10540 8014 0 -320 -8236

C -5351 -826 0 -2074 -5351 -605 0 -2074 -4259 896 0 -6854

D -5522 -18464 -5192 0 -5475 -6209 -5239 0 -14173 -29739 1817 0


9.4.2 Variable Demand

As in 9.4.1 journey times for each of the modelled scenarios have been analysed, in this case for the variable

demand models. Therefore benefits calculations have not only been influenced by the journey time changes, but

also by the extra trips accommodated by the junction due to the new capacity. Accordingly, journey time benefits

have been calculated so existing trips are credited with the whole journey time saving experienced and the new

trips attracted are only credited with half of it.

Journey times for the variable AM 2020 demand models have been analysed and they are shown in Table 51 to

Table 53. In addition, benefits generated by these travel time saving have been calculated and they are shown in

Table 54.


83


DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 64 91 63 A 0 44 76 146 A 0 -20 -15 83

B 66 0 68 70 B 57 0 95 96 B -9 0 28 26

C 110 110 0 101 C 93 93 0 81 C -18 -18 0 -20

D 85 85 78 0 D 76 77 83 0 D -8 -8 5 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 64 91 63 A 0 22 114 67 A 0 -42 23 3

B 66 0 68 70 B 54 0 87 88 B -12 0 19 17

C 110 110 0 101 C 93 97 0 81 C -17 -13 0 -21

D 85 85 78 0 D 70 85 77 0 D -15 1 -2 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 64 91 63 A 0 47 107 102 A 0 -18 16 38

B 66 0 68 70 B 91 0 59 61 B 25 0 -9 -10

C 110 110 0 101 C 111 145 0 69 C 1 35 0 -32

D 85 85 78 0 D 33 58 122 0 D -51 -26 44 0


DS1 DS3 DS5


A 0 -5471 -4002 16537 0 -12138 5661 685 0 -5959 3776 6970

B -3722 0 222 19597 -4675 0 151 13372 9095 0 -689 -8817

C -6702 -1360 0 -6181 -6336 -1008 0 -5791 416 2760 0 -7232

D -1615 -4953 1476 0 -2889 438 -462 0 -10399 -19457 10821 0

Total 3825 Total -12990 Total -18714

Journey time benefits for the AM 2020 scenarios are not as good as in the Fixed Demand. In fact, DS1 now

presents disbenefits while DS3 and DS5 still have benefits but they have reduced significantly. The explanation

for this is that the capacity increases at the junction cause a rerouteing of trips to take advantage of this increase.

The increase in traffic reduces the time saving compared to the fixed trip case but should create benefits in other

locations.

Table 55 to Table 57 show changes in Journey time for each of the Variable Demand options in PM 2020 while

Table 58 shows benefits generated by those scenarios. Results show that DS3 will have some overall

disbenefits. On the contrary DS1 and DS5 will bring benefits from Journey times despite the increase in demand.


84


DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 72 98 59 A 0 51 75 130 A 0 -22 -23 71

B 70 0 73 75 B 66 0 103 104 B -4 0 31 29

C 137 136 0 129 C 100 100 0 87 C -37 -37 0 -42

D 97 96 89 0 D 72 73 79 0 D -24 -24 -11 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 72 98 59 A 0 57 128 66 A 0 -16 30 7

B 70 0 73 75 B 66 0 115 116 B -4 0 43 41

C 137 136 0 129 C 118 122 0 105 C -19 -14 0 -24

D 97 96 89 0 D 78 94 84 0 D -19 -3 -5 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 72 98 59 A 0 41 85 84 A 0 -31 -13 26

B 70 0 73 75 B 97 0 55 63 B 27 0 -18 -13

C 137 136 0 129 C 84 112 0 58 C -53 -25 0 -71

D 97 96 89 0 D 41 71 128 0 D -56 -25 39 0


DS1 DS3 DS5


A 0 -9461 -5810 12727 0 -5751 7770 1383 0 -15428 -3118 3778

B -1811 0 1086 20880 -1811 0 1541 30097 8987 0 -2133 -10160

C -11273 -5527 0 -9841 -5816 -2231 0 -5428 -20337 -4631 0 -17583

D -4197 -18774 -3836 0 -3356 -2304 -1922 0 -9996 -19506 8412 0

Total -35836 Total 12171 Total -81716

Similarly to previous section, AM and PM 2026 scenarios have been also investigated. Table 59 to Table 62

below show changes in Journey Time and associated benefits for AM 2026 Variable Demand scenarios. Similar

to 2020 DS1 does not bring overall benefits and DS3 still provide some benefits, however they are very limited.

Consequently the only scheme which seems to work in this forecast scenario is DS5.


85


DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 77 104 64 A 0 46 79 140 A 0 -31 -25 76

B 70 0 72 75 B 58 0 95 96 B -12 0 24 22

C 115 115 0 105 C 98 99 0 85 C -16 -16 0 -19

D 85 85 79 0 D 85 85 92 0 D -1 0 13 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 77 104 64 A 0 23 122 66 A 0 -55 19 1

B 70 0 72 75 B 56 0 96 96 B -15 0 24 22

C 115 115 0 105 C 96 100 0 84 C -19 -15 0 -21

D 85 85 79 0 D 84 100 91 0 D -1 14 13 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 77 104 64 A 0 44 115 107 A 0 -33 11 43

B 70 0 72 75 B 94 0 60 62 B 24 0 -11 -13

C 115 115 0 105 C 113 150 0 72 C -1 35 0 -33

D 85 85 79 0 D 35 61 129 0 D -51 -24 51 0


DS1 DS3 DS5


A 0 -8532 -6900 15687 0 -15751 4920 255 0 -11644 2714 7622

B -5090 0 188 16654 -5862 0 190 16888 8225 0 -901 -11913

C -6191 -1279 0 -6431 -7257 -1192 0 -6657 -599 2716 0 -7636

D -101 65 4015 0 -260 9252 3947 0 -10757 -18695 12649 0

Total 2085 Total -1525 Total -28217

Finally, journey times for the PM 2026 Variable Demand models have been analysed together with their

associated benefits and they are displayed in Table 63 to Table 66. DS1 and DS3 journey times increase in most

of the movements and therefore this has a negative impact on the benefits. The DS1 shows significantly

increased journey time from the westbound movement along Willenhall Road while the DS3 increases are seen

in most of the movements. DS5 results show that the scheme is able to cope with the increased demand as most

of the journey times still show a decrease, therefore this scheme brings overall journey time saving benefits.


86


DM DS1

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 68 96 71 A 0 49 74 105 A 0 -19 -22 34

B 66 0 69 72 B 65 0 111 111 B -1 0 42 39

C 116 116 0 106 C 117 117 0 106 C 2 1 0 -1

D 90 89 82 0 D 88 88 95 0 D -2 -1 13 0


DM DS3

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 68 96 71 A 0 60 142 64 A 0 -9 46 -7

B 66 0 69 72 B 65 0 121 121 B -1 0 52 49

C 116 116 0 106 C 145 150 0 132 C 29 34 0 25

D 90 89 82 0 D 103 119 110 0 D 14 30 29 0


DM DS5

Difference

A B C D

A B C D

A B C D

A 0 68 96 71 A 0 42 89 87 A 0 -27 -7 15

B 66 0 69 72 B 98 0 54 60 B 32 0 -15 -12

C 116 116 0 106 C 86 112 0 59 C -30 -4 0 -48

D 90 89 82 0 D 40 70 126 0 D -50 -19 44 0


DS1 DS3 DS5


A 0 -6780 -5843 6521 0 -2431 12494 -1498 0 -11372 -1754 2448

B -571 0 1494 28406 -411 0 1868 36211 10942 0 -2318 -9353

C 456 77 0 -167 8877 5371 0 5884 -11490 -769 0 -11400

D -392 -737 4827 0 2719 24220 10474 0 -10109 -15328 9372 0

Total 27292 Total 103779 Total -51131


87

9.5 Summary

Table 67. Benefits Summary

AM 2020 PM 2020 AM 2026 PM 2026

DS1 Fixed Demand -39807 -75362 -45208 -34769

DS3 Fixed Demand -35444 -69276 -40412 -32047

DS5 Fixed Demand -50604 -85004 -64530 -61633

DS1 Variable Demand 3825 -35836 2085 27292

DS3 Variable Demand -12990 12171 -1525 103779

DS5 Variable Demand -18714 -81716 -28217 -51131

Table 68. Demand Flow Summary

AM 2020 PM 2020 AM 2026 PM 2026

DM 3490

3620

3562 3554

DS1 4112 18% 4481 24% 4227 19% 4557 28%

DS3 4100 17% 4423 22% 4226 19% 4509 27%

DS5 4534 40% 4624 28% 4694 32% 4729 33%

A benefits summary and demand flow summary can be seen in Table 67 and Table 68 respectively.

The benefits table confirms that overall in all AM and PM scenarios in the fixed demand analysed the proposed

schemes will bring benefits. Therefore all scheme improve the performance of the junction if they demand does

not change. However, due to the increase of the capacity, the junction will become more attractive and demand

will increase. This increase in demand will impact the journey time of all scenarios, reducing benefits.

As shown in Table 68, demand flow will increase in all scenarios due to the new capacities provided by the new

arrangements. Both DS1 and DS3 demand increases will be very similar in all scenarios, while DS5 demand will

increase substantial more than the others. Results show that DS1 will only bring benefits in PM 2020 and DS3 in

AM both 2020 and 2026. On the contrary, despite the big increase in demand DS5 will still bring benefits in all

scenarios.


88

Summary

10


89

10. Summary

This Issues and Options Report is for the Neachells Lane junction and forms Phase 3 of the City East Gateway

scheme. The report captures the local issues experienced by transport users, in addition to future issues that are

likely to arise in the medium and longer term.

In the identification of issues process, journey times and flows were studied from Trafficmaster and traffic survey

data to understand the current delay and congestion at the junction. Moreover, a wider review and analysis of

public transport, demography and movement patterns provided a holistic view of the area around the junction.

Finally, a site visit was undertaken to validate the information gathered. Overall, it was possible to identify issues,

which have classified into five categories: Highway, Public Transport, Active Transport, Social, and

Environmental.

Based on the issues identified, objectives were established to focus on enhanced capacity for all modes, key

connectivity and accessibility whilst mitigating congestion and the issues identified. The objectives considered

are:

Improving journey times and reliability for all road users and reducing the level of delay.

Improving air quality and reducing traffic related noise in the area.

Reducing the number and severity of accidents for all users.

Increasing cycling priority through and adjacent to the junctions.

Supporting growth in terms of economic and residential development sites.

Improving local connectivity.

Reducing severance across Neachells Lane and Willenhall Road.

Encouraging the use of public transport with specific measures.

Improving resilience within the network for all modes.


90

A total of 13 options were designed for the scheme which addressed the issues identified. Low, medium and high

cost options have been generated and focussed on enhanced capacity for all modes whilst reducing congestion

and improving capacity at the junction. The options were presented at a stakeholder consultation and it was

agreed to develop an additional option, (Option 14: new rail bridge at Neachells Lane), with the possibility of

combining this option with other options in future stages. All options are detailed in a proforma format with a

broad estimated cost and initial drawing together with the issues addressed and the objectives that have been

met.

EAST assessment has been used to provide a high level assessment of each option. Economic growth, local

environmental impact, feasibility and public acceptability are some of the categories that have considered in the

EAST assessment together with a strategic analysis with regard to issues, objectives and local policies.

After the assessment was completed, a prioritisation process has been carried out to score the options and

determine what options will come forward and the options which are unviable at this stage. The prioritisation

process has been established by looking at the Strategic Case, Economic Case and Implementation Case.

Finally, the following options achieved the best score:

Option 1: Widening Neachells Lane to the West side.

Option 3: Link road from Neachells Lane to Willenhall Road East just before Noose Lane.

Option 5: Hamburger Roundabout.

Indicative models were created using LinSig and an existing SATURN model which covers the area to undertake

a high level assessment of the operation of the identified top 3 schemes. Fixed demand and variable demand

scenarios for 2020, 2026 for both AM and PM Peak period were created.

On the 20th

of September a second stakeholder consultation was held at Wolverhampton City Council where

EAST assessment, Prioritisation task and modelling finding were presented. Representatives from Black Country

LEP, City of Wolverhampton Council, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council and Transport for the West Midlands

attended the meeting.

During consultation, it was proposed that Option 3 could become a two way link from Neachells Lane to

Willenhall Road. However this option had already been discounted during the option generation stage for the

following reasons:

The signalised junction on the Willenhall Road would require significant widening of the road to give the

necessary junction capacity and potentially would require a service road to maintain safe access to the

domestic properties fronting onto the Willenhall Road. This is not feasible without significant land and

property acquisition and would also mean that the residential properties adjacent to any proposed junction

would have significant noise and air quality detriment from the stopping and starting of vehicles at the

junction.

Significant issues would also be anticipated with the provision of a second signalised junction between

the existing Neachells Lane junction and the railway bridge on Neachells Lane.

Modelling assessment concluded that Option 5 will bring substantially bigger benefits than Option 1 and 3. The

option 3 was discarded as the impact on the constraints is excessive for the level of benefits achieved

demonstrated by the high level modelling assessment. Therefore, it was agreed that Option 5 and Option 1 will

be taken forward to the next steps. Existing Microsimulation models from Stage 1 and 2 will be extended to

include Neachells Lane junction both options will be tested to fully understand their operability.


91

Appendices

11


92

11. List of Appendices

Appendix A – Option Drawings

Appendix B – Cost estimation

Appendix C – Stakeholder Workshop

Appendix D – EAST framework – Guidance Note

Appendix E – EAST assessment – Options

Appendix F – Summary of EAST assessment

Appendix G – Prioritisation process

Appendix H – Ranking of Options


93

aecom.com