ely modelling study

Ely Modelling Study Identification & Testing of Transport Measures

July 2009

5076469/Phase 2 Report V2.0

Ely Modelling Study

Identification & Testing of Transport Measures

July 2009 Notice This report was produced by Atkins Transport Planning for East Cambridgeshire District Council for the specific purpose of the Ely Modelling Study. This report may not be used by any person other than East Cambridgeshire District Council without East Cambridgeshire District Council's express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than East Cambridgeshire District Council.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5076469 DOCUMENT REF: Phase 2 Report V2.0.doc

V2.0 Final with revisions CC/MA CC JL CC 17/07/09

V1.0 Final CC / MA CC JL CC 15/06/09

V0.2 Final Draft CC / MA CC JL CC 8/06/09

V0.1 Draft CC / MA CC JL CC 5/06/09

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date


5076469/Phase 2 Report V2.0 2

Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 3

Background 3 Purpose & Outline of Report 3

2. Overview of Phase 1 Option Testing 4 Introduction 4 The Land Use Scenarios 4 Observations 5 Phase 1 Conclusions 6

3. Identification of Transport Measures 7

4. Methodology 11 Identifying Modal Split 11 Coding the Transport Measures 11

5. Results 13 Modelled Scenarios 13 Assessment Indicators 13 Scenario Comparisons 14

6. Conclusions 27 List of Tables

Table 2.1 – Future Development for 2031 Reference Case and Land Use Scenarios 5 Table 3.1 – Agreed Transport Measures for Testing 8 Table 5.1 – 2008 Base / 2031 Reference Case / 2031 Trend Growth Network Performance Comparison, AM

Peak 14 Table 5.2 – 2008 Base / 2031 Reference Case / 2031 Trend Growth Network Performance Comparison, PM

Peak 15 Table 5.3 – Network Performance Comparison, AM Peak 25 Table 5.4 – Network Performance Comparison, PM Peak 26

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 – Ely Transport Measures for Phase 2 Testing 9 Figure 3.2 – Ely Southern Bypass Route B Alignment 10 Figure 5.1 - AM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Actual Flows) 16 Figure 5.2 - AM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Delay) 16 Figure 5.3 – Junction & Link Delay: Ely Southern Bypass, AM Peak 17 Figure 5.4 - PM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Actual Flows) 18 Figure 5.5 - PM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Delay) 18 Figure 5.6 – Junction & Link Delay: Ely Southern Bypass, PM Peak 19 Figure 5.7 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 1, AM Peak 20 Figure 5.8 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 1, PM Peak 21 Figure 5.9 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 2, AM Peak 22 Figure 5.10 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 2, PM Peak 23



1. Introduction 1.1 Atkins has been commissioned to support East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) in

developing an evidence base for the Local Development Framework (LDF). The purpose of the model framework is to test urban area measures which in turn will have wider impacts on the full range of travel movements within, into and through Ely. A SATURN highway model has been developed and used to examine the likely impact of possible transport options for Ely.

Background 1.2 The Phase 1 Option Testing work involved the identifying the impacts of three different levels of

growth for the 2031 future year scenario (outlined in detail in Chapter 2 of this report). The results showed that the increased number of trips associated with the 2031 Trend scenario development results in high levels of congestion in and around Ely. Much of the congestion in the 2031 Trend scenario within Ely is related to the increased traffic from the Northern Expansion development. Lynn Road in particular suffers increased delays, causing traffic to reroute onto Kings Avenue and High Barns.

1.3 With the increased traffic in the 2031 Trend scenario, the A10/A142 roundabouts suffer high delays, particularly on the A10 Cambridge Road northbound and the A142 eastbound in the PM peak. The report on this work recommended that to make the A10 a more attractive route, these junctions must be improved to accommodate both the traffic levels predicted in the Trend scenario, and the additional traffic from the Northern Expansion development currently causing congestion within Ely city centre.

Purpose & Outline of Report 1.4 This document outlines the work that has been undertaken investigating a series of possible

transport measures aimed at mitigating the increased congestion identified in the Phase 1 Option Testing work. It should be made clear that the options presented within this report are simply suggestions at this stage, and not a proposed package of measures.

1.5 The remainder of this report is arranged into 5 chapters following this introduction:

• Chapter 2 provides an overview of findings from the Phase 1 Option Testing work;

• Chapter 3 describes the Transport Measures that have been identifiedand how these were derived;

• Chapter 4 describes the methodology used to test the transport measures;

• Chapter 5 presents the results of the modelling tests;

• Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the transport measures tests.



2. Overview of Phase 1 Option Testing Introduction

2.1 Phase 1 of the Option Testing work undertaken for the Ely Modelling Study was completed in April 2009. Full details of this testing and results can be found in the Ely Modelling Study Forecasting & Option Testing Report, Volumes 1 & 2, written by Atkins.

2.2 A SATURN highway model has been developed and used to examine the likely impact of possible transport and land use policy options for Ely and the relative performance of differing development scenarios as proposed. The Forecasting and Option Testing Report described the forecasting and option testing procedures and results. Of relevance to this phase of work is Volume 1, which presented the land use option testing that was carried out (the results of the investigation into an Ely Southern Bypass are presented in Volume 2).

The Land Use Scenarios 2.3 For the Phase 1 work a 2031 forecast year Reference Case scenario, with residential, retail and

employment developments was developed on which to test three land use scenarios. These scenarios focus around the residential developments at the Northern Expansion site:

• LDF Growth Scenario – in which growth rates are based on existing RSS requirements;

• ‘Central’ Growth Scenario – based on growth rates half way between the LDF and ‘Trend’ scenarios; and,

• ‘Trend’ Growth Scenario – in which growth rates are based on the level of growth that occurred between 2001 and 2007, continued to 2031.

2.4 For each scenario changes were made to the forecast networks. In the 2031 Reference Case a new northern link road connecting Kings Avenue to the B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Road roundabout was added and the level crossing closure time on the A142 was increased from the current base year time of 20 minutes per hour to 30 minutes per hour during both peak hours.

2.5 In the 2031 LDF scenario, a fourth arm at the B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Road / Kings Avenue roundabout was added in connection with the residential development east of the Princess of Wales Hospital.

2.6 In the 2031 Central and Trend scenarios the following new access roads, indicated in the Draft Ely Masterplan, were provided for the Northern Expansion site:

• New access road connecting the B1382 Ely Road / Prickwillow Road / Kings Avenue roundabout to the A10 North;

• New signalised junction at the intersection of the above access road and Lynn Road; and,

• New access road leading to Cam Drive with a new roundabout on the A10.

2.7 The residential, retail and employment developments included in each of the three land use scenarios, which focus around the residential developments at the Northern Expansion site, are outlined in Table 2.1.



Table 2.1 – Future Development for 2031 Reference Case and Land Use Scenarios

Development Location 2031

ReferenceCase

2031 LDF

2031 Central

2031 Trend

Residential

Outstanding √ √ √ √ Windfall √ √ √ √ Large sites with boundary √ √ √ √ Lisle Lane √ √ √ √ North Expansion 1 (1,055 dwellings) √ North Expansion 2 (3,013 dwellings) √ North Expansion 3 (4,972 dwellings) √

Retail Aldi √ √ √ √ Additional convenience retail √ √ √ √ Comparison retail √ √ √ √

Employment Lancaster Way business park √ √ √ √ Octagon business park √ √ √ √

Observations Reference Case

2.8 The effect of development traffic on the AM and PM peak networks, demonstrated in each of the three land use scenarios, is substantial. In the AM peak Reference Case the following observations were made:

• The development pressure equates to a 39% increase in trips by 2031

• Trip length increases are restricted to 28% showing more sustainable travel patterns

• Trip travel time increases at 69% show that the road network performance is poor

• Journey times on the selected routes deteriorate mainly due to localised junction capacity problems

2.9 The effect of the development traffic on the PM peak Reference Case was also significant:

• The development pressure equates to a 47% increase in trips by 2031

• Trip length increases are restricted (26%) showing more sustainable travel patterns

• A large increase in trip travel time (54%) shows that the road network performance is also poor in the PM peak

• Journey times on the selected routes deteriorate in the PM peak due to localised junction capacity problems

2.10 In both time periods there is a percentage of trips that are suppressed, that is trips that are unable to get on to the network because it has become so congested.

Trend Scenario 2.11 The impacts on the network with the additional growth associated with the Trend Scenario were

much greater, effectively presenting a ‘worst-case’ scenario. Compared to the Reference Case (results outlined above), the following was noted during the AM peak:



• An increase of 16% total number of trips compared to 2031 Reference Case;

• 17% increase in total travel distance;

• 53% increase in total travel time; and,

• 24% reduction in average network speed.

2.12 For the PM peak scenario, the following comparison was made with the 2031 Reference Case:

• Increase of 22% total number of trips compared to 2031 Reference Case;

• 17% increase in total travel distance;

• 40% increase in total travel time; and,

• 17% reduction in average network speed.

Phase 1 Conclusions 2.13 The Phase 1 testing concluded that careful consideration should be given to whether the

increased delays across the network are acceptable for the level of development proposed.

2.14 For all three land use scenarios, comparisons of key indicators illustrated that total travel time increases in both time periods as the network becomes congested. Journey time comparisons on particular routes helped to identify where there will be localised junction capacity problems. In particular it was recognised that network improvements to both the A10 junctions and consideration for the importance of Lynn Road will be required if development is located on the northern side of Ely. Alternatively it may be that a greater emphasis should be placed on higher mode split to sustainable modes and that further investigation could establish whether greater mitigation of network improvement to assist existing users and the movement of public transport is possible.



3. Identification of Transport Measures 3.1 Through the Phase 1 growth scenario option testing work, the Ely Modelling Study highlighted

areas where there are likely to be particular problems on the highway network. The next stage was to identify the sorts of measures that may assist in relieving these issues. Measures were identified through discussion with the Project Stakeholders, and outlined in the Modelling Test Specification Note distributed on 5th May 2009. This chapter provides an outline of the measures identified and the rationale behind their selection.

Highway Measures (H1 & H2) 3.2 Measures to encourage people from the north of Ely to use routes to the west of the city instead of

winding through the east of the road network around Ely could relieve some of the congestion issues that have been identified. In doing so, consideration would also need to be given to ensuring the A10 and its junctions can cope with the development traffic.

3.3 The A10 / A142 Witchford Road roundabout and A10/A142 Angel Drove Roundabout are both problems areas within the network, particularly due to the proposed development at Lancaster Way Business Park. To overcome this, a test in which the section of the A10 between the A142 Witchford Road and A142 Angel Drove roundabout becomes dual carriageway, with selective entry arm widening at the roundabouts, was identified. This measure also includes the provision of a cycle bridge over the A10 with upgraded bridle way link to Lancaster Way.

3.4 Further discussion highlighted that a route to the east of the city would also assist in attracting traffic away from the centre of the City, particularly as the majority of growth will take place in the north east area of the City. Transport Measure H2 therefore sees improvements to Queen Adelaide Way, with junction improvements with the A142 at its southern end and a new link with Prickwillow Road to the north.

Bus Measures (B1 & B2) 3.5 On site observations, and local knowledge of the project team, suggest that current bus services

do not encourage bus use, with low frequencies and insufficient network coverage. The provision of a new bus service between the Northern Expansion site and Tesco could encourage trips by bus rather than by car, but the congestion identified in the growth scenarios between these two sites may make this less effective. However, in considering opportunities for bus priority, it was agreed that New Barns Avenue offers potential as a bus only route. Transport Measure B1 therefore tests the closure of High Barns to through traffic just south of its junction with Kings Avenue, providing a less congested route for a new shuttle bus service between Littleport and the Rail Station / Tesco’s to encourage mode shift to public transport. This proposal also includes a bus gate on Brays Lane and signal control at the junction of Kings Avenue / Lynn Road.

3.6 On-street parking makes some routes unsuitable for buses. There is on-street parking along the length of Lynn Road approaching the city centre. A review of this parking was considered so as to allow capacity for a bus route southbound along this road from just south of Cam Drive up to the junction with Deacons Lane. However, with the decision to designate High Barns / New Barns as a bus only route, it was decided that the removal of on street parking on Lynn Road would allow for a cycle lane instead. This forms Transport Measure B2.

Walking / Cycling Measures (W/C1) 3.7 Discussion with East Cambridgeshire officers suggested that increasing pedestrianisation in the

city centre could be beneficial. Transport Measure W/C1 identifies the pedestrianisation of High Street and Market Street.



3.8 Table 3.1 provides a summary of the measures identified, also shown in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1 – Agreed Transport Measures for Testing

Reference Description

H1 Dual the section of the A10 between the A142 Witchford Road and A142 Angel Drove roundabouts with selective entry arm widening at roundabouts. Provision of cycle bridge over A10 with upgraded bridle way link to Lancaster Way.

B1

Close High Barns to through traffic just south of Kings Avenue, providing a less congested route for a new shuttle bus service between Littleport and the Rail Station / Tesco’s to encourage mode shift to public transport. Proposal includes bus gate on Brays Lane and signal control at the junction of Kings Avenue / Lynn Road.

B2 Removal of on-street parking on Lynn Road to allow for a cycle lane southbound from just south of Cam Drive up to Deacons Lane. Allocate space for lane turning into Deacons Lane. Extend 2 lane approach to Nutholt Lane.

W/C1 Pedestrianisation of High Street and Market Street

H2 Improvements to Queen Adelaide Way – junction improvements with A142 and new link with Prickwillow Road.

Ely Southern Bypass

3.9 In addition to the Transport Measures identified above, the Ely Southern Bypass is also to be included in the package of measures that could be implemented in the 2031 future Ely scenario.

3.10 The Forecasting and Option Testing Report Volume 2 outlines in detail previous testing that has been undertaken looking at the impacts of an Ely Southern Bypass and also provides a detailed description of the scheme.

3.11 An alignment for an Ely Southern Bypass has not been decided upon and more work is needed to consider the exact alignment of the road. This work will involve key stakeholders. For the purpose of these tests the route of the bypass to the south of Ely would commence from a roundabout on the existing A142 Angel Drove east of its existing junction with the A10 and run eastwards to rejoin the A142 Stuntney Causeway at a roundabout south of its junction with Queen Adelaide Way. The route is 1.9km in length and would be single carriageway throughout. The proposal requires a viaduct to cross the railway and River Great Ouse. This proposed route alignment (referred to as Route B) is shown in Figure 3.2. Whilst the Route B alignment has been used for the purposes of this study, the impact of alternative alignments such as Route D would be much the same.

3.12 The highway tests include the Route B proposal for the bypass which sees the closure of the level crossing on Station Road and the underpass open to pedestrians and cycles only. Whilst it has been assumed that the underpass will be closed to vehicular traffic in these scenarios, further sensitivity tests will be undertaken to identify the traffic impacts in a scenario in which the underpass remains open, as previously reported in the Forecasting and Option Testing Report. There has been no decision on whether the underpass would remain open to all traffic or to pedestrians and cycles only.



Figure 3.1 – Ely Transport Measures for Phase 2 Testing



Figure 3.2 – Ely Southern Bypass Route B Alignment



4. Methodology 4.1 This chapter outlines the methodology used to code / include each of the Transport Measures in

the 2031 Trend Scenario highway network. It is assumed that the network will also include the Ely Southern Bypass, for which the Route B alignment, with level crossing closed and underpass open, has been used.

Identifying Modal Split 4.2 As a result of the implementation of some of the Transport Measures identified it is anticipated

that there will be mode shift from car use to more sustainable modes such as bus or cycling – dependant on the Transport Measure. Modal shift to cycling and public transport resulting from the proposed measure will result in fewer trips made by car. To represent this mode shift in the SATURN highway model, calculations have been undertaken and the demand matrix adjusted to reduce the number of car journeys currently anticipated.

Creation of a 2031 Trend Scenario Cycle Trip Matrix

4.3 A Home-Based-Work (HBW) cycle trip matrix for Ely has been extracted from the 2001 Census data. It has been assumed that all HBW cycle trips occur in the modelled AM peak hour. Growth factors have been identified using the 2001 Census and 2031 Trend Scenario and applied to the 2001 HBW cycle matrix for each of the model zones, to create an AM peak 2031 Trend Scenario cycle trip matrix.

4.4 This AM peak hour cycle trip matrix has been transposed to create a PM cycle trip matrix, with all cycle trips assumed to be travelling in the reverse direction in the PM peak.

Coding the Transport Measures Transport Measure H1

4.5 A cycle bridge over the A10 is assumed to result in an increase in cycle trips travelling between Lancaster Way Business Park/Witchford and zones within Ely and vice versa. The A10 is viewed as a perceived physical barrier to cycling especially at busier peak times. A target of doubling the number of cycle trips crossing the A10 has been applied.

Transport Measure H2 4.6 The measures to improve the junctions on Queen Adelaide Way will have no impact on the modal

split.

Transport Measure B1 4.7 It is assumed that the introduction of a shuttle bus between Littleport and the Rail Station/Tesco

will attract trips from car to bus between these two locations. Trips between the Northern Expansion development site and the Rail Station/Tesco will also be attracted to the new shuttle service. The testing of Transport Measure B1 has assumed that the new shuttle service will operate with a frequency of 2 buses per hour in each direction, each with an occupancy of 30 passengers. On the basis of a car occupancy of 1.2 persons per vehicle, 50 car trips will be removed from the network with the introduction of this shuttle service. These 50 trips have been removed from the model demand matrix in the inbound direction in the AM peak, and the outbound direction in the PM peak.



Transport Measure B2 4.8 The provision of a high quality cycle lane along the critical length of Lynn Road has been

assumed to result in a doubling of cycle trips between zones in the north of Ely and zones in the south.

Transport Measure W/C1 4.9 Any modal shift associated with the closure of High Street and Market Street is reflected by the

elastic assignment of trips to the network, the effect of the pedestrianisation, aside from the improvements to conditions for pedestrians, will potentially be localised increases in highway congestion and highway trips seeking longer routes to accommodate the closure, all of which are changes to which elastic assignment can respond.



5. Results 5.1 The Transport Measures (described in Chapter 3 and outlined in Table 3.1) have been collated

into a package of measures to determine their effectiveness. The measures have been tested during the AM and PM peak periods on the 2031 Highway Network which includes the Ely Southern Bypass (level crossing closed, underpass open to pedestrians / cycles only), with the 2031 Trend growth level of demands. The tests also assume that current bus services remain as existing provision.

Modelled Scenarios 5.2 This chapter presents the results for the following scenarios:

• 2008 Base Case

• 2031 Trend Growth Scenario

• 2031 Trend Growth Scenario with Ely Southern Bypass (underpass closed)

• Package Combination 1: 2031 Trend Growth with Ely Southern Bypass (underpass closed) + Transport Measures H1, B1, B2, W/C1 (i.e. excludes H2)

• Package Combination 2: 2031 Trend Growth with Ely Southern Bypass (underpass closed) + Transport Measures H1, B1, B2 & W/C1 & H2

Assessment Indicators 5.3 The network performance has been assessed for each option, with the following indicators being

used for comparison against the results of the 2031 Trend Growth Scenario (without the Ely Southern Bypass):

• Network Delay

• Total Travel Time

• Total Travel Distance

• Average Speed

5.4 The impact of the proposals has included particular attention to the following junctions:

• Egremont Street / Lynn Road

• High Street

• West Fen Road / Downham Road

• West Fen Road / A10

• Broad Street / Back Hill

• St Mary’s Street / Downham Road

• Fore Hill / Lisle Lane



Scenario Comparisons 5.5 The following section presents the results of each of the scenario comparisons that have been

investigated.

Comparison of 2008 Base Scenario & 2031 Trend Growth Scenario 5.6 The April 2009 Forecasting and Option Testing Report Volume 1 reported that the network

differences between the 2008 Base Scenario and the 2031 Reference Case were significant in both peak periods. With the additional growth associated with the 2031 Trend Scenario the percentage increase in queue and travel time, and the reduction in average speed on the network was extremely detrimental to the operational capacity of the highway network.

5.7 For reference, a comparison of the key network indicators for the 2008 Base, 2031 Reference Case, and 2031 Trend Growth Scenario is presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. These statistics demonstrate the future traffic problems faced by Ely with the potential levels of growth anticipated in the area.

Table 5.1 – 2008 Base / 2031 Reference Case / 2031 Trend Growth Network Performance Comparison, AM Peak

Indicator 2008 Base 2031 Reference Case

2031 Trend Growth Scenario

Overall queue time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff compared to 31 Ref Case)

96

587 511%

1380 1337% 135%

Total travel time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

1,190 2,011 69%

3,084 159% 53%

Travel distance (pcu-km) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

74,126 95,162 28%

111,495 50% 17%

Average speed (kph) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

62.3 47.3 -24%

36.1 -42% -24%

Total trips loaded (pcu) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

8,082 11,254 39%

13,066 61% 16%



Table 5.2 – 2008 Base / 2031 Reference Case / 2031 Trend Growth Network Performance Comparison, PM Peak


2031 Trend Growth Scenario

Overall queue time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff compared to 31 Ref Case)

85

398 368%

838 885% 110%

Total travel time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

1,156 1,784 54%

2,500 116% 40%

Travel distance (pcu-km) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

72,422 91,058 26%

106,089 46% 17%

Average speed (kph) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

62.7 51.0 -19%

42.4 -32% -17%

Total trips loaded (pcu) % diff (compared to 08 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case)

8,030 11,823 47%

14,398 79% 22%

Comparison of 2031 Trend Growth Scenario With and Without Ely Southern Bypass (Underpass Closed)

5.8 It has already been noted that the Trend level of growth creates significant congestion on the 2031 highway network. The objective of an Ely Southern Bypass is to relieve Ely of through traffic and traffic delays caused by HGVs using the A142 level crossing, and although this is not yet a committed scheme it was considered that this could be critical to relieving the problems identified with the 2031 Trend level of growth.

5.9 To understand the impact an Ely Southern Bypass may have, this section presents a comparison of the 2031 highway network with the Trend level of growth, with and without the Ely Southern Bypass (Route B alignment) in which the level crossing is closed and the underpass is open to pedestrians and cycles only.

AM Peak

5.10 Compared against the 2031 Trend Growth Scenario, the introduction of the Ely Southern Bypass results in traffic rerouting from The A10 onto Queen Adelaide Way, and to a lesser extent through Ely on Lynn Road, see Figure 5.1. A significant increase in inbound traffic on the A142 Angel Drove is the result of traffic rerouting from approaching Ely through the underpass, to travelling along the new bypass.

5.11 Figure 5.2 shows that the junction of the A10 and A142 Witchford Road experiences reduced delay southbound on the A10 and eastbound from Witchford, however the junction remains at over capacity. Delay within Ely is reduced at key junctions along the Lynn Road corridor. The junction of Prickwillow Road with Queen Adelaide Way suffers increased delay due to the increased traffic flow through the junction.



Figure 5.1 - AM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Actual Flows)

Figure 5.2 - AM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Delay)



5.12 Figure 5.3 shows that although delay within Ely is improved with the introduction of the Ely Southern Bypass, links on the approach to the junction of Queen Adelaide Way with Prickwillow Road suffer high delay due to the rerouting of traffic from the A10. The junction of the A10 with the A142 Witchford Road is over capacity with high delay on the A10 Cambridge Road.

5.13 Links on the approach to the Lynn Road/Egremont Street junction suffer delays, in particular Lynn Road from the north and Egremont Street. Nutholt Lane also suffers delay.

5.14 Other links experiencing high levels of delay include Kings Avenue, Broad Street and the access roads on Lynn Road for the proposed Northern Expansion site.

Figure 5.3 – Junction & Link Delay: Ely Southern Bypass, AM Peak

PM Peak

5.15 As in the AM peak, traffic in the PM reroutes from the A10 onto Queen Adelaide Way and Lynn Road (see Figure 5.4). Figure 5.5 shows the impact of the Ely Southern Bypass on delay compared with the 2031 Trend Scenario is less significant than in the AM peak, with small increases in delay on the A10 northbound from Cambridge, and the A142 Witchford Road eastbound. The increased traffic through the Queen Adelaide Way junction with Prickwillow Road results in increased delay northbound on Queen Adelaide Way.



Figure 5.4 - PM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Actual Flows)

Figure 5.5 - PM 2031 Trend Scenario vs 2031 Trend Scenario ESBT2 (Delay)



5.16 Figure 5.6 shows that, similar to the AM peak, the junction of the A10 with the A142 Witchford Road is over capacity with high delays on the approach arms. Kings Avenue and Deacons Lane continue to have high levels of delay in the PM peak.

Figure 5.6 – Junction & Link Delay: Ely Southern Bypass, PM Peak

Comparison of 2031 Trend Growth Scenario & 2031 Package Combination 1 5.17 This section provides results from the first package of measures to be tested – Package

Combination 1, which excludes Transport Measure H2 (improvements to Queen Adelaide Way). The impact of this package of transport measures is compared with the 2031 Trend Growth Scenario with an Ely Southern Bypass to enable us to understand the effectiveness of this proposal.

AM Peak

5.18 Combination 1 results in a decrease in traffic entering Ely on Cambridge Road and the A142 Angel Drove. Traffic reroutes from these roads onto the A10, bypassing Ely. The closure of High Street, Market Street and High Barns to through traffic causes trips to reroute onto Prickwillow Road and Lisle Lane and results in increased traffic on Broad Street. This rerouting has no significant impact on delay for junctions on Prickwillow road or Lisle Lane.

5.19 The increase in cycling associated with the proposed cycle bridge over the A10 results in fewer trips by car accessing the Lancaster Way development site. Delay at the A142/Lancaster Way roundabout is reduced, with improvements also to the A10/A142 Witchford Road junction.



5.20 Figure 5.7 shows that with Combination 1 the junction of the A10 with the A142 Witchford Road remains over capacity in the AM peak. The approaches to the junction of Queen Adelaide Way and Prickwillow Road also continue to experience high delay.

Figure 5.7 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 1, AM Peak

PM Peak

5.21 As in the AM peak, the closure of High Street, Market Street and High Barns to through trips results in increased traffic on Prickwillow Road and Lisle Lane, and consequently also on Broad Street, with no significant impact to delay at junctions on these roads.

5.22 The signalisation of the Kings Avenue/Lynn Road junction results in reduced delay for traffic exiting onto Lynn Road.

5.23 Figure 5.8 shows delay on the A142 Witchford Road and on the A10 southbound is reduced in the PM peak.



Figure 5.8 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 1, PM Peak

Comparison of 2031 Trend Growth Scenario & 2031 Package Combination 2 5.24 This section provides results from the second package of measures to be tested – Package

Combination 2. Effectively this is a package of all of the measures identified (along with the Ely Southern Bypass). The impact of this package of transport measures is compared with the 2031 Trend Growth Scenario with the Ely Southern Bypass to understand the effectiveness of such a proposal.

AM Peak

5.25 The improvements to the junctions on Queen Adelaide Way result in trips from the north of Ely rerouting from the A10 and Lynn Road to take advantage of the reduced delay at the junction with Prickwillow Road. Delay is also reduced for traffic on the eastbound approach to the junction. An increase in inbound traffic to Ely on Prickwillow Road results from traffic choosing this route in preference of Lynn Road.

5.26 Figure 5.9 shows that the inclusion of option H2 eliminates delay at the Queen Adelaide junction with Prickwillow Road.



Figure 5.9 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 2, AM Peak

PM Peak

5.27 In the PM peak the improvements to Queen Adelaide way result in northbound traffic rerouting from the A10, Cambridge Road and the Angel Drove/Broad Street/Prickwillow Road route, to using the Ely Southern Bypass and Queen Adelaide Way. In the southbound direction, the model predicts the reverse with traffic rerouting from the Ely Southern Bypass to the route through Ely via Prickwillow Road.

5.28 The rerouting associated with the improvements on Queen Adelaide Way has no significant impact on delay across the network.

5.29 Figure 5.10 shows that as in the AM peak, the inclusion of option H2 eliminates delay at the Queen Adelaide junction with Prickwillow Road. The increased traffic using the Ely Southern Bypass causes higher link delay on the approach to the junction with the A142 Angel Drove. Delays continue to be high at the Nutholt Lane/Lynn Road junction and on the links of Deacon Lane and Kings Avenue in the PM peak.



Figure 5.10 – Junction & Link Delay: Package Combination 2, PM Peak

Overall Network Performance Comparisons 5.30 Tables 5.3 and 5.4 provide a comparison of the key network indicators for the AM and PM peaks

respectively. These global indicators clearly show the differences in network performance between the various scenarios that have been tested. The 2008 Base and 2031 Reference Case data has been included for reference even though the impacts of the transport measures have primarily been assessed against the 2031 Trend Growth Scenario.

5.31 The data clearly show that the Ely Southern Bypass has a significant positive impact in reducing overall queue and travel time on the network compared to the 2031 Trend Growth Scenario. In the AM Peak the difference with the Ely Southern Bypass results in a 35% decrease in the total queue time and 15% decrease in total travel time. In the PM peak the improvements with the Ely Southern Bypass are a decrease of 5% in overall queue time and 1% in total travel time.

5.32 Whilst these indicators are important in demonstrating the reduction in time vehicles spend queuing and the effects on their travel time, a more general and telling statistic is the average speed. The difference in average speed with the Ely Southern Bypass compared to the 2031 Trend Scenario is a 21% increase in the AM peak which brings average speed much closer to the Reference Case levels.

5.33 The introduction of the remaining transport measures in Package Combination 2 enhances the improvements to the network experienced with the inclusion of the Ely Southern Bypass. Again there are further decreases to overall queue time and total travel time in both the AM and PM peak. The average speed on the Package Combination 2 network during the AM peak is 47.0kph and 46.0kph during the PM peak. For the AM peak this returns average speed to the same as that experienced in the 2031 Reference Case (47.3kph), and for the PM peak the average speed in this scenario is closest to the 2031 Reference Case (51.0kph) than any other.



5.34 Although very similar in terms of performance, it is interesting to note that Package Combination 1, without transport measure H2, provides a small improvement in average speed during the AM peak, compared to the full package of measures in Package Combination 2. A similar comparison for the PM peak shows that the average speed in Package Combination 1 is an improvement on the 2031 Trend and 2031 Trend with ESB scenarios, but Package Combination 2 provides further benefits still.



Table 5.3 – Network Performance Comparison, AM Peak


2031 Trend Growth

Scenario

2031 Trend Scenario with

ESB 2031 Package Combination 1

2031 Package Combination 2

Overall queue time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

96

587 511%

1380 1337% 135%

901 838% 54% -35%

714 643% 22% -48%

713 642% 21% -48%

Total travel time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

1,190 2,011 69%

3,084 159% 53%

2,627 120% 31% -15%

2,401 101% 19% -22%

2,407 102% 20% -22%

Travel distance (pcu-km) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

74,126 95,162 28%

111,495 50% 17%

114,922 55% 21% 3%

113,799 53% 20% 2%

113,191 52% 19% 2%

Average speed (kph) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

62.3 47.3 -24%

36.1 -42% -24%

43.7 -29% -8% 21%

47.4 -23% 0% 31%

47.0 -24% -1% 30%

Total trips loaded (pcu) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

8,082 11,254 39%

13,066 61% 16%

13,066 61% 16% 0%

13,053 61% 16% 0%

13,051 61% 16% 0%



Table 5.4 – Network Performance Comparison, PM Peak


2031 Trend Growth

Scenario

2031 Trend Scenario with

ESB 2031 Package Combination 1

2031 Package Combination 2

Overall queue time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

85

398 368%

838 885% 110%

797 837% 100% -5%

757 790% 90% -10%

681 701% 71% -19%

Total travel time (pcu-hr) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

1,156 1,784 54%

2,500 116% 40%

2,483 114% 39% -1%

2,435 110% 36% -3%

2,350 103% 32% -6%

Travel distance (pcu-km) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

72,422 91,058 26%

106,089 46% 17%

108,526 49% 19% 2%

108,192 49% 19% 2%

108,157 49% 19% 2%

Average speed (kph) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

62.7 51.0 -19%

42.4 -32% -17%

43.7 -30% -14% 3%

44.4 -29% -13% 5%

46.0 -26% -10% 8%

Total trips loaded (pcu) % diff (compared to 2008 Base) % diff (compared to 31 Ref Case) % diff (compared to 31 Trend)

8,030 11,823 47%

14,398 79% 22%

14,398 79% 22% 0%

14,336 78% 21% 0%

14,358 78% 21% 0%



6. Conclusions 6.1 This report presents the work that has been undertaken to identify a package of transport

measures that could be implemented to accommodate the level of growth associated with the Trend land use scenario.

6.2 The Phase 1 land use option testing highlighted that the level of growth in the 2031 Trend Scenario will cause unacceptable congestion in and around Ely, and measures will be required to address / accommodate this growth.

6.3 The analysis included in this report has shown that the Ely Southern Bypass proposals (set forward in this report as the Route B alignment, although this serves the same purpose as alternative alignments such as Route D for example) goes a long way to relieving the issues in the 2031 Trend growth scenario.

6.4 The introduction of the remaining transport measures, identified in this Phase 2 work, on top of the Ely Southern Bypass improves the situation further. It should be noted however, that without an Ely Southern Bypass the other measures alone could not address the problems identified. Consequently it is likely that an Ely Southern Bypass, or indeed any low cost alternative that serves the same purpose as a bypass, would need to be implemented before this level of growth is fully reached.

6.5 The transport measure H2 in addition to the other transport measures appears to have minimal benefits when observing the global indicators, however, a closer look at the distribution of delay and where the traffic is moving indicate there may be wider benefits. However, further consideration needs to be given to whether the use of Queen Adelaide Way as an effective eastern bypass of Ely would be appropriate, given the implications this might have in the Queen Adelaide Way / Prickwillow Road area, and on traffic levels on Branch Bank.

6.6 The work outlined in the report demonstrates that a package of measures can reduce the impacts of the Trend level of growth to similar levels experienced in the 2031 Reference Case Scenario, suggesting that growth of this magnitude could be accommodated in Ely in the future. Again, it should be noted that traffic levels and congestion in the 2031 Reference Case will be much greater than currently experienced and modelled in the 2008 Base Year.

Next Steps 6.7 This report presents an idea of what a package of transport measures could look like, but it is

important to note that none of the measures investigated are formal proposals or approved policy at this stage.

6.8 The study has been undertaken to provide an evidence base to inform the development of ECDC’s Local Development Framework documents, and the Ely Masterplan Proposals currently being prepared. Once a preferred development scenario is known the necessary next steps will be to consider transport options in much more detail. This will require additional work looking at testing and refining options, and to investigate the costs, detailed design, deliverability and funding of any transport improvements. It will also be necessary to ensure that there are transport assessments for each development as these will be required as part of the planning process and in order to consider the transport impacts of any detailed development proposals.

Atkins Limited Wellbrook Court Girton Road Girton Cambridge CB3 0NA Tel: +44 (0)1223 276002 Fax: +44 (0)1223 277529

ely modelling study

Documents