hoobrook link phase 2- transport · pdf filehoobrook link phase 2- transport assessment ... tm...

$: Hoobrook Link Phase 2- Transport · PDF fileHoobrook Link Phase 2- Transport Assessment ... TM SPECIFICATION AND BUILDING\62.0 REPORTS\HBL-PH2TA] 1.2 Report ... hour model and a PM$
Hoobrook Link Phase 2-

Transport Assessment

Traffic Modelling Report

Prepared for Worcestershire County Council

September 2013

Red Hill House 227 London Road

Worcester, WR5 2JG GB

+44 (0) 1905 361 361 +44 (0) 1905 361 362

HBL-PH2TA .DOCX/[WORCS-FS-01\\CTWALY WCC FRAMEWORK 2011\500 WYRE FOREST TM SPECIFICATION AND BUILDING\62.0 REPORTS\HBL-PH2TA] III

Contents Section Page

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Report Structure .................................................................................................................... 1‐2

Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Model Specification ............................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.3 Model Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.4 Do‐Minimum Network ........................................................................................................... 2‐4 2.5 Do‐Something Network ......................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.6 Generalised Costs .................................................................................................................. 2‐5 2.7 Forecast Matrices .................................................................................................................. 2‐7 2.8 Variable Demand Model ........................................................................................................ 2‐8

Model Results ............................................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2 Network Statistics .................................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.3 Link Flow ................................................................................................................................ 3‐2 3.4 Link Flow Differences ............................................................................................................. 3‐4 3.5 Junction Turn Flows and performance .................................................................................. 3‐7

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 4‐1 4.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 4‐1

Tables

Table 2‐1 Planning assumptions for Wyre Forest District ............................................................................... 2‐3 TABLE 2‐2 Development Trips .......................................................................................................................... 2‐7 TABLE 2‐3 Growth factors for LGV and HGV .................................................................................................... 2‐7 TABLE 2‐4 Reference Case Matrices Totals ...................................................................................................... 2‐8 TABLE 2‐5 Illustrative Parameter Values for Destination Choice..................................................................... 2‐8 TABLE 2‐6 Demand Supply Convergence Gap ................................................................................................. 2‐9 TABLE 3‐1 Network Summary Statistics Comparison‐ AM Peak Hour ............................................................. 3‐1 TABLE 3‐2 Network Summary Statistics Comparison‐ Avg. IP Hour ................................................................ 3‐2 TABLE 3‐3 Network Summary Statistics Comparison‐ PM Peak Hour ............................................................. 3‐2 TABLE 3‐4 Forecast traffic on HBL .................................................................................................................... 3‐3 TABLE 3‐5 Two‐ Way flow on A442 and A451 adjacent to HBL ‐ 2016 ............................................................ 3‐4 TABLE 3‐6 Two‐Way flow on A442 and A451 adjacent to HBL ‐ 2031 ............................................................. 3‐4 TABLE 3‐7 A442/HBL Junction Turn Flows (vehicles) ‐ 2016 DM and DS ......................................................... 3‐8 TABLE 3‐8 A442/HBL Junction Turn Flows (vehicles) ‐ 2031 DM and DS ......................................................... 3‐8 TABLE 3‐9 A451/HBL Junction Turn Flows (vehicles) ‐ 2016 DM and DS ......................................................... 3‐8 TABLE 3‐10 A451/HBL Junction Turn Flows (vehicles) ‐ 2031 DM and DS ....................................................... 3‐9 TABLE 3‐11 Performance of junctions (V/C ratio) around scheme ‐ 2016 DM and DS .................................... 3‐9 TABLE 3‐12 Performance of junctions (V/C ratio) around scheme ‐ 2031 DM and DS .................................. 3‐10

CONTENTS, CONTINUED

Section Page

IV HBL-PH2TA .DOCX/[WORCS-FS-01\\CTWALY WCC FRAMEWORK 2011\500 WYRE FOREST TM SPECIFICATION AND BUILDING\62.0 REPORTS\HBL-PH2TA]

Figures FIGURE 1‐1 Proposed HBL Alignment ............................................................................................................... 1‐1 FIGURE 2‐1 Model Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 2‐1 FIGURE 2‐2 Sites for Committed Developments .............................................................................................. 2‐3 FIGURE 2‐3 DM network Changes .................................................................................................................... 2‐4 FIGURE 2‐4 Do‐Something Network Changes .................................................................................................. 2‐5 FIGURE 3‐1 2016AM ‐ Link Flows (DS) .............................................................................................................. 3‐3 FIGURE 3‐2 2016 AM‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM) ...................................................................................... 3‐5 FIGURE 3‐3 2016PM ‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM) ....................................................................................... 3‐5 FIGURE 3‐4 2031AM ‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM) ...................................................................................... 3‐6 FIGURE 3‐5 2031PM ‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM) ....................................................................................... 3‐7

HBL-PH2TA .DOCX/[WORCS-FS-01\\CTWALY WCC FRAMEWORK 2011\500 WYRE FOREST TM SPECIFICATION AND BUILDING\62.0 REPORTS\HBL-PH2TA] V

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Avg. Average

Hrs Hours

DM Do minimum

DS Do something

HGV Heavy goods vehicle

Kms Kilometres

Kph Kilometres per hour

LGV Light goods vehicle

Min Minute

Pass‐hrs Passenger hours

Pass‐km Passenger kilometres

s Seconds

Sqm Square metres

Veh‐hrs Vehicle hours

Veh‐kms Vehicle kilometres

Vs versus

WCC Worcestershire County Council

WFDC Wyre Forest District Council

WFTM Wyre Forest Transport Model

SECTION 1

HBL-PH2TA .DOCX/[WORCS-FS-01\\CTWALY WCC FRAMEWORK 2011\500 WYRE FOREST TM SPECIFICATION AND BUILDING\62.0 REPORTS\HBL-PH2TA] 1-1

Introduction 1.1 Introduction CH2M Hill has been commissioned by Worcestershire County Council (WCC) to undertake a transport assessment of developing Phase 2 of the Hoobrook Link (HBL) Road in Kidderminster, Wyre Forest District. The HBL aims to connect the A442 Worcester Road and A451 Stourport Road across the River Stour and through the former British Sugar site providing better connectivity to the employment centres in Kidderminster and Stourport.

The HBL is proposed to be developed in two phases. The development of the 1st phase is part of the redevelopment of the British Sugar site into a mixed use development, accessed from A451 Stourport Road. Phase 2 of the HBL completes the link between A442 in the east and A451 in the west. The alignment of HBL is illustrated in FIGURE 1‐1.

This report sets out the transport modelling assessments undertaken to appraise the development of HBL phase 2 (‘the scheme’) via use of the Wyre Forest Transport Model.

FIGURE 1‐1 Proposed HBL Alignment

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1-2 HBL-PH2TA .DOCX/[WORCS-FS-01\\CTWALY WCC FRAMEWORK 2011\500 WYRE FOREST TM SPECIFICATION AND BUILDING\62.0 REPORTS\HBL-PH2TA]

1.2 Report Structure This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 describes the methodology adopted to assess the scheme and modelling undertaken;

Chapter 3 describes the results of the various models comparing the Do‐Something scenario with the Do‐Minimum scenario; and

Chapter 4 draws conclusions on the results presented.

SECTION 2


2 Assessment Methodology 2.1 Introduction The transport implications of building the HBL have been assessed using the Wyre Forest Transport Model (WFTM). The WFTM is a multi‐modal model comprising a highway assignment model, public transport model and a variable demand model. The WFTM model area is illustrated in FIGURE 2‐1. The WFTM has been developed using VISUM (version 12.52) and has been calibrated and validated in accordance with WebTAG guidelines. This section of the report discusses the WFTM which was used to assess the impact of the scheme.

FIGURE 2‐1 Model Study Area

SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY


2.2 Model Specification The highway and public transport models are validated to a 2011 base year and comprise an AM peak hour (08:00‐09:00) model, an average IP hour model and a PM peak hour (17:00‐18:00) model. The models were calibrated and validated to and meet the acceptability guidelines contained within WebTag and DMRB. Forecast models were developed for the opening year 2016 of the scheme and 2031, a design year period 15 years after the scheme opening year. These forecast models were used to assess the transport implications of HBL phase 2. An incremental variable demand model was developed to predict the demand responses due to change in generalised costs without the scheme and with the scheme. The variable demand model adopts a hierarchical model structure and incorporates trip frequency, mode choice, distribution choice and route choice with the least responsive (trip frequency) being at the top of the hierarchy. The model forms used for these choices are multinomial or nested logit models. These model forms have proved to be satisfactory for use to represent mode and destination choice in a number of previous important studies. The models represent the attractiveness of competing mode and destination alternatives through a ‘utility’ (or generalised cost) measure. For mode split an incremental logit model formulation was used which assessed the changes in costs by alternative modes across the time periods by purpose. So for example for commuting trips the assessment takes into account cost changes in the peak hours. Similarly for distribution modelling a logit model formulation was used which assessed the change in generalised costs from each zone to all other zones and identified whether there are any changes in destination choice. Again this was undertaken by purpose. For school and commuting trips this process was doubly constrained as it reflects a defined number of attractions. For 'other' purposes the constraint was only applied at the origin end of the journey. The trip frequency response represents the change in number of (typically short distance) trips due to change in travel costs. The WFTM models both highway and public transport trips but not active modes. As the choice between highway and public transport is realistically represented, the effect of trip frequency is likely to be negligible. WebTAG does not recommend any parameters for trip frequency and suggests this response would generally apply to Home‐based other trips. The demand models were run iteratively until the output matrices satisfied WebTAG convergence criteria. These output matrices were then assigned to the forecast networks to assess the implications of HBL phase 2.

2.3 Model Scenarios Two scenarios have been developed to assess the transport implications of the scheme, a Do‐Minimum (DM) and Do‐Something (DS) scenario. Currently the Wyre Forest District is required to accommodate new dwellings and employment as part of the overall strategy for Worcestershire as indicated in Table 2‐1. A number of sites have been identified in Kidderminster, Bewdley and Stourport and also some additional sites on Greenfield land.



TABLE 2‐1 Planning assumptions for Wyre Forest District

Location Residential Employment

Kidderminster 1840 19ha

Stourport on Severn 1049 ‐

Bewdley & Rural areas 398 2ha

Total 3287 21ha

The DM scenario includes all committed developments identified in the Transport position statement for Wyre Forest District Council and the associated transport network improvements. The spread of committed developments are shown in FIGURE 2‐2 and as indicated in Table 2‐1 above are concentrated in Kidderminster and Stourport. The DS scenario has the same extent of developments as in the DM scenario. Only network changes are considered in the DS scenario.

FIGURE 2‐2 Sites for Committed Developments



2.4 Do-Minimum Network The Do‐Minimum network includes transport schemes identified as part of various committed developments after the base year (2011) conditions. The schemes are illustrated in FIGURE 2‐3 and include the following:

Network changes on St.Marys Ringway, Blackwell street and Horse Fair lane as part of the Churchfields development;

Network changes on Kidderminster Ringway, Bromsgrove Street and Prospect Hill around the proposed Eastern Gateway development;

Parsons Chain Link Road in Stourport and its access junction;

Resolution Way, Severn Road and Mitton Street in Stourport;

HBL phase 1 in the British Sugar Site and its junction with A451 as a priority junction; and

New signalised junctions at St. Marys Ringway/Blackwell street junction, Churchfields, The Ringway/Eastern Gateway Access Road and Mitton Road/Severn Road junction.

FIGURE 2‐3 DM network Changes



2.5 Do-Something Network The Do‐Something network comprises the HBL phase 2 scheme and its associated network changes. The HBL on completion is proposed to be a single carriageway with its junction with A442 and with A451 signalised. The speed limit of the HBL is assumed to be 40mph. The Do‐Something network is illustrated in FIGURE 2‐4. FIGURE 2‐4 Do‐Something Network Changes

2.6 Generalised Costs The calculations in the variable demand model are driven by changes in Generalised Costs (GCs). Public Transport GCs are calculated for each purpose, differing only in respect of the value of time. They are derived as follows: Cij(pt.p) = f.Dij/v(pt) + Iij + w.Wij + x.Xij + a.Aij Where:

Cij(pt.p) = generalised cost by public transport between i and j for purpose segment (p); f = fare per kilometre in pence; D = travel distance in km; v(pt) = value of time for segment p in pence per minute;



I = in‐vehicle time in min; w = wait time weight; W = wait time in min; x = transfer penalty in min; X = number of transfers; a = access and egress time weight; and A = access and egress time in min.

Private vehicle GCs are calculated for each purpose, differing in respect of the value of time and the treatment of non‐fuel costs: Cij(car.p) = a.Aij + Iij + (VOC.Dij +Pj)/v(p) Where:

Cij (car.p) = generalised cost by car between i and j, for segment p; a = access and egress time weight; and A = access and egress time in min. I = in‐vehicle time in min; VOC = Vehicle Operating Cost; D = highway distance in km; P = parking charge in pence (taken as half per trip); v(p) = value of time for segment p in pence per minute.

The parameters for calculation of generalised costs are sourced from Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.5.6. The weights applied for walking, waiting are as follows:

Walk = 2.0

Wait = 2.0

Non fuel costs are also derived using WebTAG values. These are only applied to Working time journeys in line with the guidance which states that drivers on non‐working time journeys (commuting and other journeys) do not perceive non‐fuel vehicle operating costs. The travel times are taken from the public transport and highway assignments. The changes in generalised cost that drive the calculations in the mode choice model are calculated as follows:

Cijm(p) = (Cijm(p)’‐Cijm(p)), where:

Cijm(p) = change in generalised cost for mode m for segment p; Cijm(p)’ = test cost for mode m for segment p; and Cijm(p) = base cost for mode m for segment p.

Forecast VOT and VOC are based on WebTAG values. Bus fares and parking charge increases are assumed to be in line with RPI and Rail fares are assumed to increase by RPI+1%. All forecasts costs are in 2011 prices.



2.7 Forecast Matrices Forecast year reference case matrices for 2016 and 2031 incorporate growth in background trips due to income and car ownership changes and trips attributed to committed developments in the model area, the totals constrained to TEMPRO at the Wyre Forest District level. Growth in background trips were developed using 24‐hr PA growth factors from TEMPRO (v6.2) for car trips (driver and passenger) and bus trips split by journey purpose which were applied to the base year 24‐hr PA matrices. Growth in rail trips were based on factors derived from the Passenger Forecast Demand Handbook v5. The background forecast matrices were converted to peak hour OD matrices using generation and attraction factors. As mentioned earlier, all committed developments identified in the Transport position statement for Wyre Forest District Council were made available to the CH2M Hill. Trips for committed developments were taken from various transport assessments where available and trip rates from the TRICS database applied for the rest. The development trips were distributed based on gravity model parameters developed for the base year model. The total car trips related to the various committed developments identified in the Transport Position statement including those at Churchfields, Eastern Gateway, Parsons Chain and British Sugar Phase 1 for the years 2016 and 2031 are given in TABLE 2‐2.

TABLE 2‐2 Development Trips

Time Period 2016 2031

Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures

AM Peak Hr 815 976 967 1396

Average IP hr 787 789 938 928

PM 1065 1054 1306 1217

24 Hr 9918 9954 11825 11874

The forecast background matrices were combined with the distributed development trips to form the forecast year reference case matrices for various purposes and by modes and their totals constrained to TEMPRO forecasts. Forecasts for LGV and HGV vehicles were taken from Road Transport Forecasts 2011, based on DfT’s National Transport Model (NTM) and growth factors derived for the model forecast years. The LGV and HGV forecast growth factors are given in TABLE 2‐3. The forecast matrices totals are given in TABLE 2‐4.

TABLE 2‐3 Growth factors for LGV and HGV

Year Growth factors

LGV 2016 1.13

2031 1.65

HGV 2016 1.07

2031 1.34



TABLE 2‐4 Reference Case Matrices Totals

User Class 2016 2031

AM IP PM AM IP PM

Car_HBW 49338 12412 57507 54434 13828 62806

Car_HEB 3786 2328 5656 4432 2552 6139

Car_HBO 32944 53534 43511 39378 63932 51135

Car_HED 14358 6422 6996 17238 7715 8170

Car_NHB 5342 16360 6805 5808 17788 7398

Car_NHO 32166 42248 30400 38576 50737 35761

LGV 3165 1857 2164 4614 2707 3155

HGV 729 726 445 905 902 553

A similar approach was applied to forecast the public transport trip matrices. Only the non‐captive (car available) proportions for public transport users were used in the demand model.

2.8 Variable Demand Model VISUM has a nested demand add‐in module that incorporates the variable demand modelling approach recommended in WebTAG 3.10. Various tests were undertaken on the WebTAG recommended demand model parameter values to assess their suitability for the Wyre Forest Transport Model. Details of the tests are described in the WFTM Demand Model report. The recommended parameters values that satisfy the WebTAG criteria are minimum lambda values with cost damping applied at a 25km cut‐off. The minimum parameter values outlined in WebTAG 3.10.3 for destination choice responses are shown in TABLE 2‐5. For the purpose of trip frequency, a minimal parameter value of 0.01 was applied as this is the least sensitive response.

TABLE 2‐5 Illustrative Parameter Values for Destination Choice

Mode Trip Purpose Minimum

Car

Home‐based work 0.054

Home‐based employers business 0.038

Home based others 0.074

Non‐home‐based employers business 0.069

Non‐home‐based others 0.073

PT

Home‐based work 0.023

Home‐based employers business 0.030

Home based others 0.033

Non‐home‐based employers business 0.038

Non‐home‐based others 0.032

The demand model is an incremental model pivoting off the base year. Only the car and public transport matrices were run through the demand model. Freight demand forecasts were considered as fixed demand.



The matrices were input into the demand model developed and assigned separately to the DM and DS networks through an iterative loop till they satisfied the WebTAG convergence criteria. WebTAG recommends a demand‐supply convergence gap of at least 0.2%. The best convergence gap achieved for the various models are shown in TABLE 2‐6. The matrices from the iteration run that achieved the best convergence were finally assigned to the forecast network to obtain the final assignment results.

TABLE 2‐6 Demand Supply Convergence Gap

Best Convergence Gap (%) Scenario AM IP PM

2016 DM 0.09 0.08 0.07

DS 0.08 0.09 0.07

2031 DM 0.11 0.07 0.11

DS 0.11 0.05 0.11

SECTION 3


3 Model Results 3.1 Introduction The forecast model assignments results provide an indication of the changes attributed to developing the Hoobrook link (DS option) between the A442 and A451 by comparing it the DM option. This chapter compares the various traffic attribute results between the DS and DM options.

3.2 Network Statistics The network summary statistics for Wyre Forest district comparing the DM and DS options from the various models are given in TABLE 3‐1 to TABLE 3‐3. The tables provide the overall performance of trips made by public transport and private transport. The tables show that public transport performance statistics such as passenger‐kms and passenger‐hrs exhibit insignificant change between DM and DS options in both peaks and scenarios. The vehicle‐kms figures show that with the scheme in place, they increase by less than 1% in both peak hours. In the DS option, the vehicle‐hrs spent on the network decrease by around 2% in the peak hours in 2016. In 2031 however, it decreases by around 2% in the PM peak hour only whilst marginally increasing by 1.3% in the AM peak. An interrogation of the model shows that with the scheme, the variable demand model results in redistribution of trips around Kidderminster town centre resulting in increased congestion around Crossley Retail Park and A451 Stourbridge Road due to redistribution of other purpose trips. These are in addition to the delays brought about by the introduction of signals on A451 and A442 at their junctions with the scheme. The average vehicle speeds increase in all DS scenarios except 2031AM due to reasons mentioned above.

TABLE 3‐1 Network Summary Statistics Comparison‐ AM Peak Hour Wyre Forest Summary Statistics AM

2016 DM 2016 DS % change 2031 DM 2031 DS % change

Public Transport

Passengers Boarding 1265 1262 ‐0.2% 1215 1208 ‐0.5%

Passengers Alighting 1090 1087 ‐0.2% 1018 1012 ‐0.6%

Transfer Passengers 628 619 ‐1.4% 412 406 ‐1.4%

Pass‐km 9227 9144 ‐0.9% 8224 8189 ‐0.4%

Pass‐Hrs 259 257 ‐1.0% 231 231 ‐0.1%

Avg. Travel dist (km)/pass 7 7 ‐0.7% 7 7 0.1%

Avg. Travel time (min) /pass 12 12 ‐0.8% 11 11 0.4%

Private Transport

Veh‐Km 142979 143248 0.2% 167112 168079 0.6%

Veh‐Hrs 3911 3840 ‐1.8% 5166 5230 1.3%

Avg. Speed (kph) 37 37 2.0% 32 32 ‐0.7%

Total delay time (Hrs) 12 12 ‐1.5% 16 16 2.0%

SECTION 3 MODEL RESULTS


TABLE 3‐2 Network Summary Statistics Comparison‐ Avg. IP Hour Wyre Forest Summary Statistics IP


Public Transport

Passengers Boarding 898 820 ‐8.7% 968 885 ‐8.6%

Passengers Alighting 893 824 ‐7.7% 956 883 ‐7.6%

Transfer Passengers 379 268 ‐29.2% 432 296 ‐31.5%

Pass‐km 5218 4710 ‐9.7% 5591 5060 ‐9.5%

Pass‐Hrs 169 150 ‐11.2% 184 166 ‐9.9%

Avg. Travel dist (km)/pass 6 6 ‐1.1% 6 6 ‐1.0%

Avg. Travel time (min) /pass 11 11 ‐2.7% 11 11 ‐1.4%

Private Transport

Veh‐Km 117283 118201 0.8% 139919 135070 ‐3.5%

Veh‐Hrs 2865 2919 1.9% 3821 3766 ‐1.4%

Avg. Speed (kph) 41 40 ‐1.1% 37 36 ‐2.1%

Total delay time (Hrs) 8 8 0.4% 11 11 ‐3.4%

TABLE 3‐3 Network Summary Statistics Comparison‐ PM Peak Hour Wyre Forest Summary Statistics PM


Public Transport

Passengers Boarding 986 987 0.1% 1050 1057 0.6%

Passengers Alighting 1100 1101 0.1% 1152 1163 1.0%

Transfer Passengers 329 330 0.4% 402 392 ‐2.4%

Pass‐km 6875 6868 ‐0.1% 7582 7629 0.6%

Pass‐Hrs 193 194 0.6% 224 228 1.8%

Avg. Travel dist (km)/pass 7 7 ‐0.2% 7 7 0.0%

Avg. Travel time (min) /pass 12 12 0.5% 13 13 1.1%

Private Transport

Veh‐Km 147897 149204 0.9% 163643 164814 0.7%

Veh‐Hrs 4329 4230 ‐2.3% 5647 5551 ‐1.7%

Avg. Speed (kph) 34 35 3.2% 29 30 2.5%

Total delay time (Hrs) 11 11 0.1% 16 16 1.2%

3.3 Link Flow Link flow plots and link flow difference plots between the DS and DM options were generated for all three time model time periods and the two forecast years. A typical link flow diagram is illustrated in FIGURE 3‐1.

The two‐way flow on the Hoobrook link in the opening year 2016 is forecast to be over 900 vehicles in the AM peak hour and over 800 vehicles in the PM peak hour. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the link is forecast to be 10500 vehicles in the opening year. The forecast AADT on HBL for 2031 is expected to be around 12600 vehicles per day. The forecast traffic for the peak hours are given in TABLE 3‐4.


FIGURE 3‐1 2016AM ‐ Link Flows (DS)

TABLE 3‐4 Forecast traffic on HBL

Hoobrook Link 2016 2031

LV HV Total LV HV Total

AM Peak Hour 1034 6 1040 1168 11 1179

IP Hour 703 6 709 894 10 904

PM Peak Hour 888 3 891 982 5 987

TABLE 3‐5 and TABLE 3‐6 show the peak hour two‐way flows (all vehicles) on links adjacent to the HBL in 2016 and 2031 under both the DM and DS scenarios. The DS figures in the table are colour coded with green indicating a flow reduction and red a flow increase when compared to the DM flows. The tables show that under the DS scenario, in all time periods and forecast years, flow on the A451 south of HBL as well as on the A442 south of HBL increases whilst they reduce on other arms adjacent to HBL.



TABLE 3‐5 Two‐ Way flow on A442 and A451 adjacent to HBL ‐ 2016

2‐way Total Flow 2016 DM 2016 DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A451‐North of HBL 2164 1905 2206 1956 1757 1979

A451‐South of HBL 2188 1904 2233 2484 2078 2501

A442‐North of HBL 2127 1897 2148 1692 1474 1911

A442‐South of HBL 2199 1945 2147 2353 1729 2373

TABLE 3‐6 Two‐Way flow on A442 and A451 adjacent to HBL ‐ 2031

2‐way Total Flow 2031 DM 2031 DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A451‐North of HBL 2330 2047 2261 1897 1961 2010

A451‐South of HBL 2379 2052 2308 2473 2305 2492

A442‐North of HBL 2393 2266 2192 1874 1691 2050

A442‐South of HBL 2468 2321 2205 2643 2126 2582

3.4 Link Flow Differences Flow difference plots between the DS and DM scenarios for 2016 peak hours are given in FIGURE 3‐2 and FIGURE 3‐3. The figures show with the scheme in place, traffic reassigns itself to access the employment centres along the A451 between Kidderminster and Stourport. The scheme helps reduce traffic flow on the A442 Worcester Road, A451 section between The Ringway junction and HBL junction, Wilden Lane and in Stourport town centre. Traffic flow however increases on the A451 between Stourport town centre and HBL junction. The patterns are similar in other time periods as well as in 2031 forecasts.


FIGURE 3‐2 2016 AM‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM)

FIGURE 3‐3 2016PM ‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM)



Other links expected to be affected due to traffic reassignment are the Spennells Valley Road in the AM peak hour and A449 Chester Road South in the PM peak hour. The peak hour link flow difference plots between DS and DM for 2031 are shown in FIGURE 3‐4 and FIGURE 3‐5. As is expected, the scale of impacts are more pronounced in 2016 than 2031 as the increase in demand during the intervening period results in the network capacity being well utilised.

FIGURE 3‐4 2031AM ‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM)


FIGURE 3‐5 2031PM ‐ Link Flow Difference (DS‐DM)

3.5 Junction Turn Flows and performance The HBL phase 2 scheme introduces a new link between the A442 and A451. It introduces two new signalised junctions to the network, one each on the A442 and A451. These junctions in the DM scenario operate as priority junctions serving the Hoobrook industrial estate along the A442 and British Sugar Site along the A451. The turn flows at these junctions for 2016 and 2031 under both the DM and DS scenarios are given in TABLE 3‐7 to TABLE 3‐10. The tables show that under the DS option, major movements at the junction are between the A442 arms accounting for around 60% of the total junction volume. This is followed by movements between A442 south and HBL that account for 27‐34% of the total junction volume. The A442 north‐ HBL movements only account for 10% of the total junction volume. The turning proportions are very similar in both 2016 and 2031. This shows that HBL attracts trips primarily from south of Kidderminster.



TABLE 3‐7 A442/HBL Junction Turn Flows (vehicles) ‐ 2016 DM and DS

Turning Movement

2016

DM DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A442(N)‐HBL 8 8 6 83 105 103

A442(N)‐A442(S) 1042 862 932 805 651 827

A442(S)‐A442(N) 1017 949 1109 667 563 827

A442(S)‐HBL 132 125 94 449 261 357

HBL‐A442(S) 10 9 11 432 271 362

HBL‐A442(N) 53 65 91 137 164 154


Turning Movement

2031

DM DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A442(N)‐HBL 6 5 5 88 106 91

A442(N)‐A442(S) 1175 1018 948 895 754 886

A442(S)‐A442(N) 1136 1154 1140 733 651 889

A442(S)‐HBL 143 138 91 558 342 429

HBL‐A442(S) 13 11 14 457 378 378

HBL‐A442(N) 66 76 102 158 178 184

The tables show that at the A451/HBL junction, under the DS option, major movements at the junction are between the A451 arms accounting for around 70% of the total junction volume. This is followed by movements between A451 south and HBL that account for around 25% of the total junction volume. The A451 north‐ HBL movements only account for 3%‐6%% of the total junction volume. The turning proportions are very similar in both 2016 and 2031. This again shows that HBL attracts trips primarily from south of Kidderminster The interaction between A451 north – HBL are significantly lower than HBL‐A451 north due to the presence of a secondary access to the British Sugar site that draws most of the demand for left turning movements from A451 north.


Turning Movement

2016

DM DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A451(N)‐A451(S) 1115 975 1024 900 803 944

A451(N)‐HBL 15 21 24 49 0 8

HBL‐A451(N) 0 0 0 103 69 79

HBL‐A451(S) 14 9 13 363 215 335

A451(S)‐HBL 25 11 38 334 184 302

A451(S)‐A451(N) 1035 909 1158 904 878 948



Turning Movement

2031

DM DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A451(N)‐A451(S) 1168 997 1053 889 869 924

A451(N)‐HBL 16 21 24 8 34 68

HBL‐A451(N) 0 0 0 111 94 84

HBL‐A451(S) 15 11 12 381 273 350

A451(S)‐HBL 50 15 49 341 199 313

A451(S)‐A451(N) 1145 1029 1193 890 964 934

Junction performances were assessed using the Intersection Capacity Analysis (ICA) tool within Visum. The ICA adopts the US Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology for junction performance assessment. For roundabouts, Visum offers both the HCM approach and TRL/Kimberly approach widely used in the UK. The latter approach was used for assessing roundabouts in the model. The Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios as used in HCM or Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) (UK nomenclature) for various junctions around the scheme are given in TABLE 3‐11and TABLE 3‐12. For signalised junctions, the table provides the overall junction V/C ratio output by Visum whilst for roundabouts and priority junctions; they provide the maximum V/C for any junction approach arm. For signalised junctions, the approach arms V/C ratio could differ from the overall junction V/C ratio and is dependent on the signal settings. UK standards suggest priority junctions and roundabouts operate satisfactorily at RFC levels below 0.85 whilst signalised junctions operate satisfactorily at RFC levels below 0.90. When these are exceeded, random delays increase and flow breakdown can occur. The tables show that the introduction of signals at the A442/HBL and A451/HBL junctions will result in delays to all movements but the overall performance of the junctions are well within the 0.9 threshold. For the remaining junctions, introduction of the scheme improves the junction performance when compared with the DM scenario.

TABLE 3‐11 Performance of junctions (V/C ratio) around scheme ‐ 2016 DM and DS

Name of Junction Type of Junction

2016

DM DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM

A451/HBL Priority (DM)/ Signalised (DS)

0.06 0.03 0.05 0.55 0.58 0.55


0.06 0.07 0.1 0.47 0.51 0.43

A451/A4535Sutton Rd Signalised 0.76 0.65 0.72 0.64 0.54 0.6

Ringway Junction Roundabout 0.77 0.65 0.77 0.63 0.55 0.69

A442 /A449/Wilden Lane Roundabout 0.71 0.53 0.85 0.71 0.49 0.69

A451 Stourport Rd/B4549 Sutton Park Rd

Priority 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.23



Wilden lane/B4193 Hartlebury Rd Priority 0.04 0.32 0.02 0.04 0.28 0.02

A449/A4025 Stourport Road Roundabout 0.48 0.39 0.56 0.48 0.38 0.56

TABLE 3‐12 Performance of junctions (V/C ratio) around scheme ‐ 2031 DM and DS

Name of Junction Type of Junction

2031

DM DS

AM IP PM AM IP PM


0.07 0.04 0.05 0.55 0.67 0.55


0.07 0.08 0.11 0.51 0.63 0.46

A451/A4535Sutton Rd Signalised 0.8 0.72 0.74 0.64 0.6 0.63

Ringway Junction Roundabout 0.85 0.78 0.81 0.69 0.65 0.75

A442 /A449/Wilden Lane Roundabout 0.93 0.84 0.99 0.87 0.66 0.93

A451 Stourport Rd/B4549 Sutton Park Rd

Priority 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.24

Wilden lane/B4193 Hartlebury Rd Priority 0.05 0.41 0.02 0.05 0.37 0.02

A449/A4025 Stourport Road Roundabout 0.57 0.46 0.61 0.57 0.45 0.61

The above tables demonstrate that the scheme will improve the performance of most junctions around it. However, there is a possibility that due to the increase in traffic on both A442 and A451 south of HBL, junctions along them could experience deteriorating performance. The tables above include the A442/A449/Wilden Lane junction (south of the A442/HBL junction) that shows an improvement in performance primarily due to traffic re‐routeing away from Wilden Lane to HBL. Junctions on the A451 south of HBL leading to the A451/B4195 junction could experience additional delays as a result of increasing traffic.


4 Conclusions 4.1 Conclusions This report describes the traffic modelling work undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed Hoobrook link phase 2 scheme that will provide a direct connection between the employment centres along the A442 and A451. The modelling adopts a variable demand approach using the Wyre Forest Transport Model developed using Visum 12.5. Models were developed for the opening year 2016 and a design year 2031 for three time periods and two scenarios, a Do‐Minimum and Do‐Something scenario. The DM scenario includes all committed developments and those identified in the Transport Position Statement of the Wyre Forest District Council. The DS scenario includes the proposed scheme and its associated improvements. The modelling undertaken shows that the demand‐supply loops converge quite well satisfying WebTAG requirements. The models show that the scheme will benefit the A442 Worcester Road, A451 section between The Ringway junction and HBL junction, Wilden Lane and in Stourport town centre. Junctions along these routes too will benefit from the scheme, bringing about travel time savings in most scenarios as a result of the scheme.

hoobrook link phase 2- transport · pdf filehoobrook link phase 2- transport assessment ... tm...

Documents