stage 2 draft report v1 - south gloucestershire · 2017-07-11 · dhl supply chain limited great...

Techn i ca l Repo r t

Yate HGV Study - Stage 2 Report

Prepared for South Gloucestershire Council

14th November 2016

1 The Square Temple Quay 2nd Floor

Bristol, BS1 6DG

GB

+44 117 910 2580

+44 117 910 2581

Contents Section Page

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Approach and Structure of the report .................................................................................................. 2 Operators Feedback and Routing Assumptions ............................................................................... 3 Operators Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 4 Routing Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 6

Appraisal Matrix Methodology ............................................................................................................ 8 Principles of Appraisal Matrix Methodology ................................................................................... 8 Appraisal Criteria and Scaling .......................................................................................................... 8 Appraisal Weighting ....................................................................................................................... 14

Scenario Development and Appraisal Results ..................................................................................... 15 Base Case ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Scenario 1 – Night HGV Bans on all Study Routes ......................................................................... 17 Scenario 2 – Total HGV Ban on Winterbourne Route .................................................................... 18 Scenario 3 – Total HGV Ban on Latteridge and Rangeworthy Routes ........................................... 20 Scenario 4 – Total HGV ban on Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes ............................... 22 Scenario 5 – Total HGV Ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne Routes ..................................... 24 Scenario 6 – Ban on HGVs of Class 7 & 8 (Rigid plus Trailer & Articulated HGVs) from

Rangeworthy, Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes ............................................. 26

Other Measures ................................................................................................................................. 31

Summary of Appraisal Process ........................................................................................................... 34 Operator Feedback ........................................................................................................................ 34 Appraisal Matrix Development ...................................................................................................... 34 Scenario Development and Appraisal Results ............................................................................... 34 Overall Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 35

Appendixes

Appendix 1: Appraisal Matrices Appendix 2: Responses from Operators Appendix 1: Noise Calculations

Tables

Table 1. List of local transport operators contacted for feedback. ............................................................. 3 Table 2– Operator feedback ......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Appraisal criteria ............................................................................................................................. 8 Table 4. Magnitude of the impact .............................................................................................................. 13 Table 5. Base‐case appraisal result ............................................................................................................. 15 Table 6. Scenario 1: HGV Night bans all routes – appraisal result ............................................................. 17 Table 7. Scenario 2: Total HGV ban on Winterbourne Route – appraisal result ....................................... 18 Table 8. Scenario 3 – Total HGV ban on Latteridge and Rangeworthy Routes – appraisal result ............. 20 Table 9. Scenario 4 – Total HGV ban on Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes – appraisal result . 22 Table 10. Scenario 5 – Total HGV ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne Routes – appraisal result ..... 24 Table 11. Scenario 6 – Ban on HGVs of class 7 & 8 (Rigid plus trailer, and Articulated HGVs) from the Rangeworthy, Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes – appraisal result .......................................... 26 Table 12. Appraisal result summary and comparison ................................................................................. 28

YATE HGV STUDY

1-IV STAGE 2 REPORT V1 0.DOCX

Figures Figure 1. Study routes.................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Study routes and their highway classification ................................................................................ 6 Figure 3. Appraisal Criteria and Scaling table ............................................................................................. 10

Document History

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Checked by Approved by

01 12 Dec 14 Draft DC TA LT

01 14 Nov 16 Final TA

Acronyms and Abbreviations

SGC South Gloucestershire Council

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles

TRO Traffic Regulation Orders

NNG Night Noise Guideline

WHO World Health Organisation

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridge

FTA Freight Transport Association

UV ultra‐violet light

Yate HGV Routing Study – Stage 2 Report Introduction This study aims to analyse and assess at a high level the suitability of HGV routes between Yate and the Strategic highway network with a view to recommending a strategy for the future management of these routes within the local highway network hierarchy. The six routes being considered in this study are shown in Figure 1 and are as follows:

B4059/B4427 between B4058 Bristol Road and A38 (Latteridge route)

B4058 Bristol Road between B4509 and A4174 at Hambrook (Winterbourne route)

B4058/B4059 between B4059 and M5 Junction 14 (Rangeworthy route)

A432 Badminton Road between the SGC offices and A4174 Wick Wick roundabout (Badminton Road route)

A432 between Smarts Green roundabout and M4 Junction 18 at Tormarton (Old Sodbury route)

B4059/A432 Stover Road/Yate Road/Iron Acton Way/Goose Green Way/Link Road/Kennedy Way/Cotswold Way (Yate Town Centre Through Route)

Figure 1. Study routes

The study is being carried out in the following two stages.

Stage 1: Data collection and analysis;

Stage 2: Routes and Impact Assessment, and

The key deliverable of both stages of the study will be a report. This report deals only with stage 2 of the study.

This Stage 2 report summarises the routes and impact assessment. At this stage of the study the data collected and analysed in Stage 1 is assessed and interpreted through the development of a high level appraisal matrix/framework that compares the study routes. A multi‐criteria scoring system has been developed to qualitatively assess the following issues in order to establish an existing conditions base‐case appraisal matrix:

Network suitability to support strategic HGV links between Yate and the motorway networks, and

The existing usage of the specified routes by HGV traffic.

Further to developing the base‐case appraisal matrix, a number of scenarios have been built to assess the possible impacts of HGV management measures. These are a mixture of the following measures:

Overnight HGV bans;

Bans on particular sizes of vehicles;

24hr HGV bans, and

Bans on specific or all routes.

To allow a comparison between the different scenarios and the base‐case, the appraisal results for the different scenarios will highlight the impact on:

Anticipated usage of the specified routes by HGV traffic (Flow calculations, % of HGV shifting between the routes as a result of HGV management measures will be subjective, and will be calculated on a high level basis);

Environmental factors (noise and air quality), and

Social factors.

At this stage, paragraphs will be written that provide guidance on alleviation measures that could complement the assessed scenarios and alleviate the impact of HGV’S on local communities and improve the network. This stage will also contain a general statement on wider ranging economic impact relating to the introduction of HGV control measures including assessment on businesses outside the study area.

The Stage 2 deliverable is this report explaining the appraisal framework, the scenarios, and possible impacts of each of the scenarios.

Approach and Structure of the report The next section of the report summarises the feedback from local transport operators that was sought in order to inform the assumptions for the scenarios. The following section outlines the principles by which the appraisal matrix was developed and the rationale behind the criteria used, the criteria scaling, and the criteria weighting. Following that, the base‐case and scenario development process is summarised, and the appraisal results of each scenario are outlined. The final section of the report summarises the findings of the entire appraisal process.

Some of the plans used in the Stage 1 report are reproduced again in this report to provide context for some of the scenario proposals, as are the following tables:

List of local transport operators;

Feedback from local transport operators;

Appraisal criteria and scaling;

Summary of appraisal results for base‐case and each scenario – seven tables in total, and

Summary of overall appraisal results showing comparison between scenarios and the base‐case.

The full appraisal table for each scenario, including key assumptions, route characteristics, scoring breakdown for each criteria and overall result appear in Appendix 1 This is due to the fact that the appraisal

YATE HGV STUDY

STAGE 2 REPORT V1 0.DOCX 3

matrix is in Excel format and the size of each worksheet is difficult to reproduce in the main body of the report.

Operators Feedback and Routing Assumptions Operator feedback was sought in order to inform the development of the appraisal matrix and scenario building, in particular the cost of operating various sizes of HGV, and the study routes that are used by the operators.

In an effort to obtain the desired feedback, a letter was drafted by CH2MHILL, and sent to 35 local transport operators by South Gloucestershre Council (SGC), as part of Stage 1 of the study. The letter introduced the study and presented a number of questions to the operators in the form of a table to be completed and returned. Table 1 lists the main Yate transport operators who were contacted.

A letter was also drafted by CH2MHILL, and sent by SGC, to the Freight Transport Association (FTA) which is a trade association representing the transport interests of companies moving goods by road, rail, sea and air. This letter informed the FTA as to the nature of the study and the information being sought from local operators. Both letters appear as Appendix 2 to this report.

Table 1. List of local transport operators contacted for feedback.

Operator Operating Centres

TNT UK LTD WESTERLEIGH BUSINESS PARK,WOODWARD AVENUE,YATE,BS37 5YS

DAVID HATHAWAY TRANSPORT LTD WOODWARD AVENUE, YATE, BS37 5YS

BRAKE BROS LTD ARMSTRONG WAY, GREAT WESTERN BUSINESS PARK, YATE, BS37 5NG

SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNCIL ENGINE COMMON LANE, YATE, BS37 7PN

DHL SUPPLY CHAIN LIMITED GREAT WESTERN BUSINESS PARK, ARMSTRONG WAY, YATE, BS37 5NG

SITA UK LTD YATE HOUSE RECYCLING CENTRE, COLLETT WAY, YATE, BS37 5NL

TUFFNELLS PARCELS EXPRESS LTD UNIT V, WELLINGTON DRIVE, STOVER TRADING ESTATE, BS37 5NZ

DYNAMIC STORAGE LTD DYNAMIC HOUSE, STOVER ROAD, YATE, BS37 5JN

E R H (HOLDINGS) LIMITED DEAN ROAD, YATE, BS37 5NR

HANSON QUARRY PRODUCTS EUROPE LTD CHIPPING SODBURY QUARRY, BARNHILL RD, CHIPPING SODBURY, BS37 6BN

SITA UK LTD DEAN ROAD, YATE, BS37 5ND

A J M PET PRODUCTS LTD WAVERLEY ROAD, BEECHES INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, YATE, BS37 5QT

WEST HOUSE TRANSPORT (S&G) LTD ASSIDOMAN PACKAGING (STH WEST), WOODWARD AV, YATE, BS37 5YS

YATE DISPOSABLES LTD 26, NORTH ROAD, YATE, BS37 7PA

DURBIN METAL INDUSTRIES LTD HAWKESORTH HOUSE , HAWKESWORTH ROAD, GREAT WESTERN BUSINESS PARK , YATE, BS37 5NW

LATHAM'S LTD BADMINTON ROAD TRADING ESTATE, YATE, BS37 5JX

A NICHOLS (COW MILLS) LTD COW MILLS, CHIPPING SODBURY, BS37 4AD

JOHN ALEXANDER GENT UNIT 5, BADMINTON ROAD TRADING ESTATE, YATE, BS37 5NS

W H BENCE (COACHWORKS) LTD GREAT WESTERN BUSINESS PARK, ARMSTRONG WAY, YATE, BS37 5NG

B D THORNELL LTD COLET WAY, GREAT WESTER BUSINESS PARK, YATE, BS37 5NH

VICTORIA RECOVERY LTD 81, NORTH ROAD, YATE, BS37 7PS

Sharpak Yate Highway, Yate, BS37 7AA

A NICHOLS (COW MILLS) LTD Chipping Sodbury, BS37 4AD

Tesco Stores Limited 12 East Walk, Yate Shopping Centre, Yate, BS37 4AS

Iceland 9‐13 Northwalk, Yate Shopping Centre, Yate, BS37 4AP

Superdrug 29‐31 East Walk , Yate Shopping Centre, Yate, BS37 4AS

Operator Operating Centres

99p Stores 21‐27 South Walk , Yate Shopping Centre , BS37 4AU

McDonalds 43 Station Rd, Yate BS37 4AP

Halfords 7‐9 West Walk, Yate Shopping Centre, Yate BS37 4AX

Boots 15‐17 North Walk , Yate Shopping Centre , BS37 4AP

Sports Direct 35 East Walk, Yate Shopping Centre, Yate, BS37 4AS

M&S Simply Food 39‐41 East Walk, Yate Shopping Centre, Yate, BS37 4AS

Costa 33 East Walk, Yate Shopping Centre, Yate, BS37 4AS

Post Office 1‐5 South Parade , Yate Shopping Centre , Yate BS37 4BB

Wetherspoon 11‐17 South Parade , Yate Shopping Centre , Yate BS37 4BB

Operators Feedback The response from local transport operators was slightly disappointing, despite the fact that the letter stated that information provided would be treated in strictest confidence. In total, only six responses were received from the 35 operators contacted, and not all the questions were answered. Only two of the respondents included information on operating cost in a useful format, perhaps because some of the operators consider this information to be commercially sensitive. All six operators who responded are based in the industrial estates in western Yate. Table 2 summarises the key information received from those operators who did reply.

Table 2– Operator feedback

Operator Fleet Breakdown Common Origins & destinations

Study routes most commonly used

Vehicle operating times

Other comments

Operator A

36 vehicles including:

4 x 38 tonne Artic

18 x 26 tonne Rigid

11 x 18 tonne Rigid

1 x 15 tonne Rigid

2 x 7.5 tonne Rigid

Incoming deliveries = South West England and South Wales. Outgoing transport = Reading, Tamworth, Grantham, Highbridge

Latteridge Route, Yate Town Centre Through Route, Old Sodbury Route

24 hours except Sat PM / Sun AM

Bypass required for Latteridge Route

Operator B

37 vehicles in total:

3 x 28 tonne Artic

4 x 18 tonne Rigid

34 x 7.5 tonne Rigid

No information given except do not go to/from Yate Town Centre

All 0700 ‐ 1900

None

Operator C


6 x 44 tonne artic

Midlands via Latteridge Route, North via Rangeworthy Route, London via Yate Town Centre and Old Sodbury Route.

Latteridge Route, Rangeworthy Route, Yate Town Centre Through Route,

24 hours Latteridge Route should be non‐HGV

YATE HGV STUDY


Operator Fleet Breakdown Common Origins & destinations

Study routes most commonly used

Vehicle operating times

Other comments

No Yate town centre traffic

Old Sodbury Route

Operator D


1 x 12 tonne Rigid

1 x 7.5 tonne Rigid

1x 3.5 tonne van

Devon, London, Wiltshire, Midlands, Northampton, Milton Keynes

No Yate Town Centre traffic

All 0400 ‐ 1730

None

Operator E


3 x Artic (assumed to be 38 tonne)

2 x 26 tonne Rigid

6 x 18 tonne Rigid

4 x 7.5 tonne Rigid

1 x 3.5 tonne Transit van

All BS postcodes including Yate town centre

All 2 x Artic = 24 hours

Other vehicles = 0600 – 1900

None

Operator F


1 x 18 tonne Rigid

4 x 7.5 tonne Rigid

2 x 5.5 tonne Rigid

1 x 5 tonne Rigid

8 x 3.5 tonne Transit van

Gloucester, Bath, Bristol, Somerset, London, Brighton and occasionally Yate town centre

All 24 hours None

Of the six operators who provided information, in combination their fleet shows a variety of sizes of HGV from the smaller rigid categories all the way up to 44 tonne articulated vehicles, and origins and destinations seem to cover all parts of the country. Four of the operators have at least some vehicles that operate 24 hours a day.

From the limited data received, the inference is that preferred routing for London‐bound traffic is the Yate Town Centre Through Route / Old Sodbury Route rather than the Badminton Road Route. The preferred routing for South‐West England and South Wales‐bound traffic is less clear cut but may be the Latteridge Route rather than the Badminton Road Route and Winterbourne Route. The preferred routing for the North and Midlands would seem to be the Rangeworthy Route, although some traffic for the North and the Midlands may also use the Latteridge Route. Two of the operators have origin /destination in Yate Town Centre.

The operating cost information that was supplied by two of the operators suggested that smaller HGVs have an operating cost of around £0.90 per km and larger HGVs a cost of £1.20 per km. A cost of £1.00 per km would therefore seem to be a good ballpark figure for general HGV operating cost.

It is important to note that six respondents is a small sample size in terms of the overall number of HGV operators in Yate and Chipping Sodbury. However, the responses received at least give a flavour of HGV operating characteristics and preferences in the area.

Routing Assumptions Building on the six responses received from local transport operators, routing assumptions have been made on common sense principles and are outlined in the following paragraphs. Routing assumptions are important in the context of scenario building as HGV prohibition on a particular study route will have an impact on the other study routes in terms of diverted traffic. Figure 2 shows the study routes and their highway classification in order to provide context for the routing assumptions. The bullet points below summarise the assumptions.

Figure 2. Study routes and their highway classification

Latteridge route – It is assumed that HGVs on this route are mainly travelling to/from South Wales and the South West, although some may also be travelling to/from the Midlands and the North.

Rangeworthy route ‐ It is assumed that most HGVs on this route are travelling to the Midlands and the North

Winterbourne route – The least trafficked route in terms of HGVs, it is assumed that most HGVs on this route are travelling locally to/from Bristol or the North‐West fringe, and possibly some HGVs are travelling to/from the South‐West, South Wales and London and the South East

YATE HGV STUDY


Badminton Road route ‐ It is assumed that most HGVs on this route are travelling locally to/from Bristol and that some are also travelling to/from the South‐West, South Wales and London and the South East

Old Sodbury route ‐ It is assumed that most HGVs on this route are travelling to/from London and the South East and that some are travelling to/from the Midlands via the A432 section of the route and then A46 northbound in the direction of Cirencester.

Yate Town Centre Through Route ‐ It is assumed that most HGVs on this route are travelling to/from London and the South East via the Old Sodbury Route. Some HGVs may be travelling to/from Yate Town Centre and some may be travelling to/from the Midlands via the Old Sodbury route and the A46 northbound in the direction of Cirencester.

Appraisal Matrix Methodology This section of the report is intended firstly to explain the principles by which the appraisal matrix/framework has been developed. Secondly, each appraisal criterion is then discussed in turn, in terms of why it is valid and relevant to use, followed by an explanation of the scaling and weighting.

Principles of Appraisal Matrix Methodology An appraisal methodology was required to enable the various issues and factors pertaining to each study route that were established in Stage 1 of the study to be assessed. By defining criteria and putting a score to each one, a base‐case appraisal matrix was able to be established representing the existing conditions on each study route. Totalling the individual scores for each study route together generated an overall score for the base‐case.

As the scenarios of various HGV management measures were built, the methodology allowed not just the overall score for each scenario to be compared against the base‐case and the other scenarios, but also for the individual scores for each study route to be compared with the other study routes within each scenario. In this way the appraisal matrix results are totally transparent and provide an at‐a‐glance view as to whether a scenario contains significant disparities between the various study routes that comprise it.

The appraisal matrix was developed in an iterative approach by CH2MHILL study team members. It can be further developed if desired by a similar iterative approach between CH2MHILL and SGC. The criteria used are largely based on the information and data provided in Stage 1 of the study but further criteria could be added, and certain criteria removed relatively easily if required. The scaling and weighting of the criteria can be very easily amended if required and SGC may well wish to do this.

Appraisal Criteria and Scaling The appraisal criteria and scaling is outlined in Figure 3. The starting point for deciding on the range of criteria was the type and range of data/information provided and analysed in Stage 1 of the study. Other criteria were chosen based on best practice for this type of work. Ten criteria have been used in total and these are listed in Table 3. The process of defining the crieria and scoring them for each of the study routes is a subjective process to at least some extent, particualrly for a high level assessment such as this one. Certain criteria, such as accidents and traffic flow, lend themselves more to being quantified than others. However, each criterion had to be defined to a certain level of clarity to allow each study route to be given a score for the base‐case situation and Table 3 summarises the issues that were considered in order to provide the definition and score.

Table 3. Appraisal criteria

Criteria Considerations

Geometry Does the route geometry lend itself to HGV traffic? Are carriageway widths, bends, junctions, gradients, visibility and levels of on‐street parking suitable for HGVs?

Development Status

Is the route predominantly urban or rural? How much residential and industrial area does the route pass through? Are there many shops, facilities and schools? What is the likely level of pedestrian footfall?

Pavement Condition

Based on the Scanner survey subsection results and SCRIM deficiency scores, what is the pavement condition for the route in general?

Accidents How many accidents are there in total? How many serious and fatal accidents? How many accidents involved HGVs and pedestrians?

YATE HGV STUDY


Criteria Considerations

Air Quality (Day‐time)

How many air quality monitoring sites are there? What are the air quality readings? Air quality is likely to be poorer in the daytime when more vehicles and residents are at large.

Noise (Night‐time)

What are the noise levels? How do they compare to the recommended levels outlined in the WHO ‘Night noise guidelines for Europe’ document? Noise at night‐time can have more of an adverse effect on health than day‐time noise.

Awareness and Intimidation

Is HGV traffic perceived to be ‘out of place’ and ‘out of proportion’? Do carriageway widths, lack of footways and size of vehicles passing at speed in a rural setting increase the perception that HGVs are out of place? The proportion of HGVs of the total traffic volume has been used to try an capture this.

Feedback from communities

Which routes have received negative feedback regarding HGVs from residents and other stakeholders? What is the volume of correspondence?

Extra operating costs for SGC

Which scenarios will result in capital cost outlay for SGC? Which scenarios will result in additonal revenue cost due to increased SGC officer time for administration and management?

Disturbance to operators

Which scenarios prohibit HGVs on certain routes? How much disatisfaction to HGV operators ensues because of the extra vehicle kilometres having to be operated due to the re‐routing requirements?

A fuller explanantion of each criterion appears in the following paragraphs along with the logic behind the scaling. Having given each study route a base‐case score for each criterion, the scaling is essentially the method by which each criterion’s score is changed depending on the scenario in question. A great deal of thought was given to this aspect of the appraisal process, with the goal being to make the scenario scoring as objective as possible. For many of the criteria, the best way of doing this was to link the scoring to an increase or decrease in the number of HGVs. This is logical because most of the scenarios if implemented would likely cause an increase in HGVs on some of the study routes and a decrease in HGVs on others. Further detail on how each criterion was scored is included in the following paragraphs and outlined in Figure 3.

An overall scale of 0 to 8 was decided upon with a lower score indicating a negative situation/impact on the route and a higher score indicating a positive situation/impact. All scores in the base‐case were in the range 3 to 5 in order to represent a reasonably neutral ‘exsiting conditions’ starting point with a score of 4 being exactly mid‐point on the scale indicating ‘reasonable’ situation/impact. It was important to have a range of 3 to 5 for the base‐case because some of the study routes have a better starting position for each criterion than others. It was also important to have an overall range of between 0 and 8 so that scores for each criterion could increase or decrease from the base‐case depending on the potental change or impact that each scenario would have on the study route.

Each study route has been scored for each of the ten criteria, with the scores added together to give an overall grand total score for the route. The grand total scores for each study route have then been added together to give an overall result for the base‐case and each scenario. This allows each scenario to be compared against the others scenarios and with the base‐case. The following paragraphs describe in more detail each of the ten criteria and explain the logic behind the scaling.

Figure 3. Appraisal Criteria and Scaling table

Potential change

Potential change

01

23

45

67

8

Considerable negative

impacts

Moderate negative

impacts

Slight negative

impacts

Bad

Reasonable

Good

Slight positive

impacts

Moderate positive

impacts

Considerable positive

impacts

Geometry

????

Considerably more HGV along

route with Bad

or Reasonable

Geometry

Slightly more HGV along

route with Bad

or

Reasonable Geometry

Narrow, no setback, congested,

on street parking, many sharp

bends

Good setback, few on street

parking, few bends,

generally wider, some

gradient

Good carriageway width, no

on street parking, bends are

rare,

Slightly less HGV along route

with Bad

or Reasonable

Geometry

Considerably less HGV along

route with Bad

or Reasonable

Geometry

????

Neutral im

pact

Extra operating costs for

SGC

Moderate increase in

% HGV: 1‐

2% increase in

HGVs as

propotion of general traffic

over 24hrs

Slight increase in

%HGV: 0‐

1% increase in

HGVs as


over 24hrs

Awareness and

Intimidation (HGV %of 24hr

general traffic)

Considerable increase in

% HGV:

Greater than

2% increase in

HGVs

as propotion of general traffic

over 24hrs

Slight increase in

pollution

resulted from slight

increase of daytime HGV ‐

HGV day tim

e increase less

than

100 HGV

Moderate increase of noise at

night resulted from increase of

HGV. A

n increase in

noise of

betw

een 3 and 5 dB(A).

Slight increase of noise at

night resulted from

increase of HGV. A

n

increase in

noise of

betw

een 1 and 3dB(A).

Moderate increase in

pollution

resulted from slight increase of

daytime HGV ‐ HGV day tim

e

increase betw

een 100‐250

Neutral im

pact

Dissatisfaction from operators

due to HGV bans/restrictions

(full 24hr bans or entire HGV

category bans) resulting in

considerable increase in

vehicle KMs operated (less

than

3 additional KMs) or other

increased operating costs

Slight dissatisfaction from

operators due to partial

HGV bans/restrictions (tim

e

of day or certain weight

bans), or increased number

of speed limits resulting in

increased travel tim

es or

other increased operating

costs

Disturbance to operations,

expected feedback from

operators

Expensive

capital schemes

and/or significant increase in

required management of

highway netw

ork due to HGV

restriction measures

Medium cost capital

schemes and/or some

increase in

required

management of highway

netw

ork due to HGV


Significant dissatisfaction from

operators due to significant HGV

bans/restrictions (full 24hr bans

or entire HGV category bans)

resulting in significant increase in

vehicle KMs operated (more than



Considerable increase of noise at


HGV. A

n increase in

noise of

more than

5dB(A).

Base case

Simi‐urban, m

any schools,

shops, facilities and pedestrian

crossings

Sim

i‐urban, few schools,

shops, facilities and

pedestrian

crossings

Rural, no schools, lim

ited

shops and facilities and

pedestrian

crossings

Air quality constraint to

increasing flows on this route

Slightly less HGV through

semi‐urban

areas

Expected to respond very

positively to current

complaints, or elicits very

positive

feedback where

previously there was none

Considerably more HGV

through

semi‐urban

areas

Slightly more HGV through

semi‐urban

areas

Medium more deterioration

due diverted HGV HGV

increase betw

een 100‐250 HGV

Slightly more deterioration


increase less than

100 HGV

Fair

Good

Slightly less deterioration


decrease less than

100 HGV

Moderate less deterioration


decrease 100‐250 HGV

Does not respond to current

complaints, or may result in

negative

feedback where

previosuly there were no

complaints

Moderate decrease in

% HGV: 1‐

2% decrease in

HGVs as


over 24hrs

Slight decrease of noise at

night resulted from decrease

of HGV. A

decrease in

noise

of betw

een 1 and 3dB(A).

HGV less than

3.5% of total 24

hours flow

Slight decrease in

% HGV: 0‐

1% decrease in

HGVs as


over 24hrs

An existing Lnight,HGV level of

>=55dB(A) at 10m

from the road

An existing Lnight,HGV level

of betw

een 40 and 55dB(A)

at 10m

from the road


of <=40dB(A) at 10m

from the

road

Potential air quality issues

(one or tw

o air quality

monitors)

No air quality constraint on


(no air quality monitors)

Slight decrease in

pollution


decrease of daytime HGV ‐

HGV day tim

e decrease less

than

100 HGV

Less than

15 accidents

Development

Pavement Condition

Accidents

Air Quality (Day tim

e)

Noise (Night time)

Negative

feedback

No feedback

Expected to respond

positively in

some way to

current complaints, or elicits

positive

feedback where


Feedback from

Communities


complaints and is expected to

raise more complaints, or

results in significant negative

feedback where previously

there were no complaints

HGV more than

7% of total 24

hours flow

HGV bteween 3.5‐7 % of

total 24 hours flow

Considerable decrease in

pollution resulted from

considerable decrease of


e

decrease more than

250 HGV



considerable increase of daytime

HGV ‐ HGV day tim

e increase

more than

250 HGV

Considerable decrease in%

HGV: G

reater than

2% decrease

in HGVs as propotion of general

traffic over 24hrs

Significantly less deterioration


decrease more than

250 HGV

Moderate decrease in

pollution

resulted from slight decrease of


e

decrease betw

een 100‐250

Considerable decrease of noise

at night resulted from decrease

of HGV. A

decrease in

noise of

more than

5dB(A).

Significantly more deterioration

due diverted HGV HGV increase

more than

250 HGV

Considerably less HGV through

semi‐urban

areas

More than

30 accidents

15‐30 accidents

Moderate decrease of noise at

night resulted from decrease of

HGV. A

decrease in

noise of

betw

een 3 and 5dB(A).

YATE HGV STUDY


Geometry ‐ For the purposes of the appraisal process the definition of geometry is a combination of carriageway width, the number of tight bends, the number of complex junctions, visibility (sight lines) and gradients. It is clearly a more subjective criterion to score than criteria such as accidents and noise where absolute figures for a route can be translated to a score in the appraisal matrix. Furthermore, the volume of general traffic and HGVs does not have a direct impact on the criterion, that is, an increased number of HGVs doesn’t make the geometry of a route any better or worse, but it does serve to amplify the suitability or unsuitability of the route. The scaling of the Geometry criterion therefore reflects the characteristic of the criterion. A base‐case mid‐point score of 4 is awarded for Reasonable Geometry; ‘Good setback, little on‐street parking, few bends, generally wide carriageway width, some gradients, decent visibility’. A base‐case score of 3 is awarded for Bad Geometry; ‘No setback, significant on‐street parking, numerous bends, narrow carriageway‐width, significant gradients, and poor visibility’, and a base‐case score of 5 is awarded for Good Geometry; ‘Good carriageway width, no on‐street parking, good visibility, few gradients, few bends’. In the scenario assessment, a reduced score is achieved by a greater volume of HGVs on a route with bad or reasonable geometry, and an increased score is achieved by a reduced volume of HGVs on a route with bad or reasonable geometry. This reflects the opinion that it has to be considered negative for a route with poor geometry to have an increased number of HGVs, and positive if HGV traffic is reduced. As this is a fairly subjective criterion as previously stated, rather than a specific number of HGVs triggering the exact score, the score that is achieved depends on if the increase or decrease of HGVs is judged to be slight or considerable. It should be noted that if a study route has a base‐case score of 5 for Geometry ‐ Good geometry ‐ then the score is unchanged in the scenario appraisal irrespective of if it is subject to an increased or decreased number of HGVs because the route is considered able to accommodate various levels of HGV. Development Status – For the purposes of the appraisal process the definition of Development Status is a combination of the amount of residential properties along the route, amount of industrial units along the route, number of schools, shops and other community facilities along the route, and the level of likely pedestrian footfall. In short, it defines how urban or rural the route is. In common with the Geometry criterion, this is a fairly subjective criterion to score as an increased number of HGVs doesn’t actually alter the development status of the route, so a similar scoring approach has been used. A base‐case score of 4 is awarded for Reasonable (in the context of the suitability of HGVs) Development Status; significant numbers of residential properties along the route, few schools, few shops and other community facilities, limited pedestrian crossings and limited footway footfall. A base‐case score of 3 is awarded for Bad Development Status; Semi‐urban area with significant residential or industrial areas, several schools, numerous shops and other community facilities, numerous pedestrian crossings and significant footway footfall. In the scenario assessment, a reduced score is achieved by a greater volume of HGVs on a route with bad or reasonable development status, and an increased score is achieved by a reduced volume of HGVs on a route with bad or reasonable development status. This reflects the opinion that it is negative for routes through significant residential areas to have an increased number of HGVs, and positive for HGV traffic to be reduced. As this is a fairly subjective criterion as previously stated, rather than a specific number of HGVs triggering the exact score, the score that is achieved depends on if the increase or decrease of HGVs is judged to be slight or considerable. It should be noted that if a study route has a good base‐case score of 5 for Development Status ‐ Rural ‐ then the score is unchanged in the scenario appraisal irrespective of if it is subject to an increased or decreased number of HGVs because the route is considered to be able to accommodate various levels of HGV. Pavement Condition – This criterion is effectively a composite of the Scanner Subsection results and the SCRIM deficiency results. All the study routes have been awarded a score of 4 in the base case situation as they were all assessed as being in generally good condition. It is acknowledged that there is a direct

relationship between the volume of HGVs and the quality of highway pavement condition. Therefore, in the scenario assessment, reduced scores are achieved if a route is subject to an increased number of HGVs, and an increased score is achieved if a route is subject to a reduced number of HGVs. The exact score that is achieved depends on the scale of the increase or decrease.

Accidents – This criterion is defined as the total number of accidents for all vehicle types on the study route. Base‐case scores of between 3 and 5 have been awarded for each route on the basis of the total number of accidents of all types. The scores do not take account of the specific number of HGV accidents as these were insignificant in number. For the same reason, none of the assessed scenarios have achieved a reduced or increased score from the base‐case as it is difficult to present a case that a difference in the number of HGVs on a route will result in an increased or reduced number of accidents. Air Quality (day time) – This criterion is defined by whether each route is potentially constrained from having an increased volume of traffic on it by Air Quality. The Stage 1 analysis concluded that only the Winterbourne Route is constrained by air quality so this route has been awarded a base‐case score of 3. A score or 4 has been awarded to those routes that are considered to be potentially constrained by air quality and have one or two air quality monitors along their route, and a score of 5 has been awarded to those routes that have no air quality monitors along their route. In the scenario assessment, reduced scores are achieved if a route that is constrained by air quality, or potentially constrained, is subject to an increased number of day time HGVs. An increased score is achieved if a route that is constrained by air quality, or potentially constrained, is subject to a reduced number of day time HGVs. The exact score that is achieved depends on the scale of the increase or decrease.

Noise (night time) – This criterion is directly related to the results of the noise surveys conducted as part of Stage 1. The base case scores have been calculated from this measured data by the noise results being adjusted based on the predicted change in noise at each location according to the process described below. It should be noted that both directions of travel for a specific route have been added together to generate a total figure for each route.

The base‐case scoring has been determined by using guideline level for night time noise that are published by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In the 2009 publication ‘Night noise guidelines for Europe’, guideline values are recommended for the protection of public health from night noise. For the prevention of adverse health effects related to night noise it is recommended that the population should not be exposed to night noise levels greater than 40 dB of Lnight,outside during the part of the night when most people are in bed. This level is called the Night Noise Guideline (NNG). An interim target (IT) of 55 dB Lnight,outside is recommended in the situations where the achievement of NNG is not feasible in the short run for various reasons. For the WHO guideline levels, the Lnight,outside is for the time period 23:00 to 07:00, whereas for this assessment the night is considered to be from 19:00 to 07:00. A night time level in the WHO time period is likely to be less than that for this assessment, and therefore the assessment or categorisation for the base‐case can be considered as conservative. Although the WHO guideline levels relate to the overall noise level, they have been used here to relate to a specific source of noise (that is, that from HGV’s), as there is a direct relationship between the number of HGVs on a route and the noise levels.

The noise level for night HGV movements has been calculated by taking the HGV flow for the 12‐hour 19:00 – 07:00 period and using the equation presented in the Stage 1 report to calculate the LAeq. This level has been called the Lnight,HGV. On this basis, the base‐case scores range from 3 to 4 depending on the route in question, with an existing Lnight,HGV level of greater than 55dB(A) at 10m from the road (Bad) scoring a 3, and an existing Lnight,HGV level of between 40 and 55dB(A) at 10m from the road (Reasonable) scoring a 4. Only the Latteridge and Winterbourne routes scored 4 (reasonable) in the base‐case situation, the remaining routes all scored 3 (bad). In the scenario assessment, reduced scores are achieved if a route is subject to an increased number of night time HGVs as this means more noise at night, and an increased score is achieved if a route is subject

YATE HGV STUDY


to a reduced number of night time HGVs as noise levels at night will have decreased. The categorisation that triggers the scores has been based upon the change from the base noise level in the short term as provided in HD213/11. This is the guidance document provided in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridge (DMRB) for noise and vibration assessments. The DMRB categories are shown in Table 4 along with the categories that have been adopted for this study.

Table 4. Magnitude of the impact

Noise change, LA10,18h DMRB Magnitude of Impact Assessment Magnitude for HGV study

0 No change No significant change

0.1 – 1 Negligible No significant change

1.1 – 2.9 Slight Slight

3 – 4.9 Moderate Moderate

5+ Major Considerable (While these relate to a change in LA10,18h, they are considered appropriate for a change in LAeq.) Awareness and Intimidation – This criterion attempts to quantify the widely recognised issue that intimidation can be caused by awareness of heavy volumes of traffic or perception that traffic is heavy. In particular, intimidation can be caused in rural areas by large HGVs passing through narrow and unsuitable streets or where footways are narrow or limited. This criterion therefore attempts to capture the perception that HGVs and other traffic is ‘out of place’ on certain streets, and the proportion of HGVs of the total traffic has been used to quantify this criterion with base‐case scores of between 3 and 5 awarded depending on the proportion of HGVs on each study route. For the scenario assessment, reduced scores are achieved if a route is subject to an increased proportion of HGVs, and increased scores are achieved if a route is subject to a reduced proportion of HGVs. The exact score that is achieved depends on the scale of the change in HGV proportion. Feedback from Communities – This criterion recognizes the strength of feeling that local communities have regarding HGV traffic on the streets where they live. It is obviously a very subjective criterion to score but there is clearly some kind of relationship between the volume and nature of HGV movements on a study route and the volume of negative feedback generated by residents and other stakeholders. For the base‐case, routes that have generated negative feedback have scored a 3 and routes that have not generated any feedback have scored a 4. Unsurprisingly, no positive feedback about HGVs has been generated for any of the routes (or at least not communicated to CH2MHILL), so a base‐case score of 5 has not been achieved for any of the routes. In the scenario assessment, reduced scores are achieved if a scenario is deemed not to respond to current complaints or if it is expected to exacerbate current complaints or generate new ones. An increased score is achieved if a scenario addresses current complaints or generates positive feedback where previously there was none. It is difficult to predict the quantity and ferocity of potential feedback, so the exact score depends on if the potential increase or decrease is judged to be significant or not. Extra Operating Costs for SGC – This criterion recognizes that certain scenarios will result in either a capital cost outlay to SGC, or an increase in revenue cost due to more SGC officer time being required to administer and manage HGV prohibition on an ongoing basis. In the base‐case all study routes have been given a ‘neutral impact’ score of 4. None of the scenarios are expected to reduce cost so for the scenario assessment only a reduction from the base‐case score of 4 is possible. The exact score depends on how high‐cost the implementation and management of the scenario in question is expected to be. As it is difficult to predict how much each scenario will cost if implemented, the exact score achieved is based on if the expected cost is considered medium‐cost or high‐cost. Disturbance to Operators – As each scenario represents greater regulation of HGVs in the study areas over the base‐case, there is expected to be dissatisfaction from HGV operators due to increased operating cost due to re‐routing of HGVs. No scenario is expected to increase satisfaction. Therefore, from a starting point in the base‐case where all study routes have been given a ‘neutral’ score of 4, reduced scores are

achieved in the scenario assessment based on the level of dissatisfaction likely to be generated. The scoring is less subjective for this criterion than for the previous two criteria as it is considered relatively easy to predict the diversions that operators will have to take if certain study routes are subject to HGV prohibition. These diversion predictions are based on the routing assumptions outlined in the Operator feedback and routing assumptions section of the report, and the level of dissatisfaction for each scenario is based on the increased operating kilometres per vehicle that are expected to result from the predicted diversions.

Appraisal Weighting Having finalised the appraisal scaling, the next step was to decide on the weighting for each criterion as this allows the importance of each criterion to be differentiated. All the criteria have been given a weighting of 1 with the exception of the Development Status criterion which has been given a weighting of 3, and the Awareness and Intimidation criterion which has been given a weighting of 2. The reasons for this are as follows:

Development Status ‐ this criterion has been given a weighting of 3 as it is considered that the degree to which a study route is densely populated and has numerous community facilities is more important than the other criteria. A far greater number of residents and businesses are adversely affected by HGVs in a built up area than they are in a rural area, and it is undesirbale to have a large number of HGVS on routes where there are schools and significant footfall and numbers of pedestrians crossing the road.

Awareness and Intimidation ‐ this criterion has been given a weighting of 2 as it is considered that although it is less desirable to have HGVs on an urban route than a rural route, it is recognised that awareness, fear and intimidation of HGVs can be greater on rural routes where HGVs are perceived as being out of place, than on urban routes.

The weighting of all crteria can be adjusted very easily in the appraisal matrix if desired.

YATE HGV STUDY


Scenario Development and Appraisal Results Having finalised the base‐case, the next step was to build a number of scenarios for assessment. This section of the report examines the Base Case and each scenario in order to explain the logic behind each chosen scenario and the assumptions underpinning them. The results of the assessment are then outlined.

For each scenario that included prohibition of HGVs on a study route, a critical assumption was which routes the vehicles would be re‐routed along. These re‐routing assumptions are explained in the following sections and were informed by a combination of operator feedback and common sense.

The full detailed appraisal matrix for the Base Case and each scenario appears as Appendix 1 to this report. A summary of the results are outlined in Table 12 in the Appraisal Result and Comparison section of the report.

Base Case The Base Case apprasial scores are outlined in Table 5 and in the following paragraphs.

Table 5. Base‐case appraisal result

Criteria Weighting Factor

Latteridge route

Winterbourne route

Rangeworthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route

Yate Town Centre Through Route

Geometry Appraisal Score

1 4 3 4 5 4 5

Development status Appraisal Score

3 5 3 4 3 4 3

Pavement Condition Appraisal Score

1 4 4 4 4 4 4

Accidents Appraisal Score

1 5 3 4 4 4 4

Air Quality Appraisal Score

1 5 3 5 4 5 5

Noise Appraisal Score

1 4 4 3 3 3 3

Awareness and Intimidation (HGV Percentage of 24hr general traffic) Appraisal Score

2 4 5 3 4 3 4

Feedback from Communities Appraisal Score

1 3 4 3 4 4 4

SGC operating costs

1 4 4 4 4 4 4

HGV Operator disturbance

1 4 4 4 4 4 4

Total Score 56 48 49 49 50 50

Base‐case Grand Total ‐ 302

The base‐case represents the existing situation in the study area and the general principles by which the base‐case scores have been calculated has been outlined in the Appraisal Criteria and Scaling section of the report. As previously explained, base‐case scores for all criteria were between 3 and 5 in order that scores could go up or down in the scenario assessment. The overall aim of the base‐case scoring was two‐fold:

Firstly, to generate a total score for each study route to represents its suitability for HGVs in comparison with the other study routes. The higher the score, the more suitable for HGVs the study route is considered to be in comparison to the other study routes.

Secondly, to provide an overall score for the base case comprising the score of all the study routes totalled together, to provide a comparison with the developed scenarios.

The grand total score for the base‐case comprising all study routes totalled together is 302. The total scores for the individual study routes show that the Latteridge Route with a score of 56 is the most suitable HGV route and the Winterbourne Route with a score of 48 the least suitable. It is interesting to note that there is only an eight point difference between these two scores and that five of the six study routes have virtually the same score. This suggests that there is not a significant difference in the suitability for HGVs between the study routes in the base‐case situation. The following paragraphs summarise the key differences in the scoring between the study routes.

The Badminton Road Route which has ‘A’ road status for its duration, and the Yate Town Centre Through Route which is largely a purpose‐built distributor road, scored the best for geometry. The Winterbourne Route scored the worst for geometry due to the number of complex junctions, bends, gradients poor sight lines and sections of on‐street car parking.

The Latteridge Route scored top marks for development status as it is a very rural route with only two hamlets on the route. The Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes both scored 3 as these are the most ‘urban’ of the routes featuring significant sections of residential or industrial development and significant numbers of local facilities and amenities. A secondary school is located on the Wintebourne route.

As pavement condition is considered to be good across the board, all of the study routes received a score of 4. The scores for the accident criterion were calculated on the basis of the total number of accidents (all vehicle types). The top scoring route was the Latteridge route as this was subject to just 7 accidents and the worst scoring route was the Winterbourne route as this was subject to significantly the most accidents with 36 recorded.

The top scoring routes for Air Quality were unsurprisingly the more rural routes, plus the Yate Town Centre Through Route which has no monitoring sites along its length indicating that Air Quality is not considered an issue here. The lowest scoring route was the Winerbourne route due to the number of monitoring sites along its length and the results themselves.

None of the study routes scored the top mark of 5 for noise as there were no results with a LnightHGV result of less than 40dB. The Latteridge and Winterbourne routes scored 4 as these two routes had LnightHGV results of betweeb 40dB than 55dB. These results are largely due to the relatively low number of HGVs using these routes at night‐time compared to the other study routes which have much higher numbers of night‐time HGVs and scored 3 points accordingly as the LnightHGV results were all above 55dB.

The Awareness and Intimidation results were calculated on the basis of the percentage of HGVs of the 24hour general traffic flows. The top sccoring route was the Winterbourne Route as this has a very low proportion of HGVS (2.3%). The lowest scoring routes were the Rangeworthy and Old Sodbury routes as these have high proportions of HGVs at 7.13% and 8.1% respectively.

The scores for Feedback from Communities were 3 for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes as a signficant amount of negative feedback has been received by SGC rearding HGVs on these routes. No specific feedback of any kind has been received by SGC for the other routes so all the other study routes have been awarded a score of 4.

YATE HGV STUDY


The SGC Operating costs and HGV Operator Disturbance criteria have generated scores of 4 for all study routes in the base‐case situation. This is because there are currently no significant HGV restrictions or prohibitions on any of the study routes.

Scenario 1 – Night HGV Bans on all Study Routes The rationale behind Scenario 1 is:

A night‐time HGV ban would provide residents along the study routes with respite from HGVs for a significant part of the day but without disrupting operators too greatly as the bulk of HGV operations are in daytime hours as can be seen from the traffic flow figures, and

A night time HGV ban applied to all study routes would not advantage one set of residents over another. It would also be fair in terms of the disruption to operators as it would not penalise operators who predominantly use a particular study route.

The Scenario 1 assumptions were:

Night‐time is defined as the 12 hour period 1900‐0700, and

It is assumed that all night‐time vehicles will remain routed on the same study route as base‐case, and simply transfer from night‐time to day‐time operation.

The Scenario 1 apprasial scores are outlined in Table 6 and in the following paragraphs. In Table 6 the scores that have changed from the base‐case are highlighted in yellow:

Table 6. Scenario 1: HGV Night bans all routes – appraisal result


Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Geometry 1 4 3 4 5 4 5

Development status

3 5 3 4 3 4 3

Pavement Condition

1 4 4 4 4 4 4

Accidents 1 5 3 4 4 4 4

Air Quality 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

Noise 1 8 8 8 8 8 8

Awareness and intimidation

2 4 5 3 4 3 4

Feedback from Communities

1 6 6 6 6 6 6

SGC operating costs

1 2 2 2 2 2 2


1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Total Score 56 49 49 49 49 49

Scenario 1 Grand Total ‐ 301

The grand total score for Scenario 1 is 301, an almost identical result to the base‐case result of 302, with the individual study routes showing very little change in the scoring from the base‐case. This is perhaps

unsurprising given that the predicted impact of this scenario is that HGVs transfer from night‐time to day‐time but stay on the same route.

Looking at the breakdown of the scoring in Table 6 it can be seen that the scores for many of the criteria have remained unchanged. For the criteria where the scores have changed, increased scores have almost exactly been cancelled out by decreased scores elsewhere. The noise scores have significantly increased because the noise criteria is related to night‐time HGV noise which has been eliminated by this scenario, and the Feedback from Communities score has increased because this intervention is expected to elicit positive feedback for all the study routes. These increases however, have been outweighed by the decreased scores for Air Quality, SGC Operating Costs and HGV Operator Disturbance. The Air Quality result has decreased because this criteria is related to daytime levels, and this scenario would see an increase in daytime HGV movements. The score for SGC Operating Costs has decreased from the base‐case because there would be some captial cost, such as extrasignage,and some additional SGC officer time required to manage a new HGV prohibiton of this kind. The HGV Operator Disturbance figure has decreased from the base‐case because this ban would adversely affect those operators who run a 24 hour operation. It would also adversely affect some HGV operators who do not run a 24 hour operation because many day‐time operations, as evidenced by the operator feedback, commence before 7am.

Scenario 2 – Total HGV Ban on Winterbourne Route The rationale behind Scenario 2 is:

A total HGV ban on the Winterbourne Route might be appropriate as this was the worst‐scoring route in the base‐case and is therefore the least suitable route for HGVs, and

The Winterbourne Route carries the least HGVs and the ‘A’ class Badminton Road Route which runs broadly parallel to it provides a practical alternative for the diverted vehicles.


100% of HGVs from Winterbourne Route expected to transfer to the Badminton Road Route.

The Scenario 2 apprasial scores are outlined in Table 7 and in the following paragraphs. In Table 7 the scores that have changed from the base‐case are highlighted in yellow.

Table 7. Scenario 2: Total HGV ban on Winterbourne Route – appraisal result


Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Geometry 1 4 6 4 5 4 5

Development status 3 5 6 4 2 4 3

Pavement Condition 1 4 7 4 1 4 4

Accidents 1 5 3 4 4 4 4


Noise 1 4 8 3 3 3 3

Awareness and intimidation 2 4 8 3 1 3 4

Feedback from Communities 1 3 7 3 2 4 4

YATE HGV STUDY



Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


SGC operating costs 1 4 1 4 4 4 4

HGV Operator disturbance 1 4 1 4 4 4 4

Total Score 56 74 49 32 50 50


The grand total score for Scenario 2 is 311, a slightly higher score than the base‐case score and the Scenario 1 score. As only the Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes are affected by this scenario, it is only the scores for these study routes that have changed; the Winterboune Route score has increased significantly from 48 in the base‐case to 74, and the Badminton Road Route score has decreased significantly from 49 in the base case to 32. The disparity between the highest scoring route and the lowest scoring route is now 42 compared to a disparity of just 8 in the base‐case.

The geometry score for the Winterbourne route has increased to 6 as HGVs have been eliminated from this route which was designated as having Bad (a score of 3) geometry in the base‐case. A score of 6 has been awarded rather than 7 because although all the HGVs have been eliminated, there were not that many to start with so it is considered that there are only ‘slightly less’ HGVs on this route. The geometry score for the Badminton Road route is unchanged because the route was assessed as having Good geometry in the base‐case. The Development Status score for the Winterbourne Route has increased from 3 to 6 as there are now slighty fewer HGVs on this semi‐urban route. The Badminton Road Route score has decreased from 3 to 2 as there are now slightly more HGVs on this semi‐urban route.

The Pavement Condition score and Air Quality score have both increased for the Winterbourne Route from 4 to 7 and decreased for the Badminton Road Route from 4 to 1 as the number of HGVs in the daytime that have shifted from one route to the other is between 100 and 250. The accident scores have remained unchanged because HGVs are not considered to have been an important factor in the accidents recorded on the study routes.

The Noise score has increased for the Winterbourne Route from 4 to 8 to reflect the fact that there is a considerable (more than 5dBA) decrease in night HGV noise as all HGVs have been eliminated from this route. The Badminton Road Route noise score has remained at 3 because the increase in night HGV noise is calculated to be less than 1dBA in this scenario (0.6 dbA) ‐ this is due to the fact that the number of night‐time HGVs transferring from Winterbourne route to Badminton Road route is insignificant compared to the large number of night‐time HGVs already on the route resulting in the noise increase being marginal.

Awareness and Intimidation has increased from 5 to 8 for the Winterbourne Route and decreased from 4 to 1 for the Badminton Road Route. These scores have been calculated from the size of change of the HGV percentage of total traffic. Feedback from Communities has increased moderately from 4 to 7 for the Winterbourne Road and decreased moderately from 4 to 2 for the Badminton Road Route on the basis of the expected feedback for these routes which were subject to no feedback in the base‐case situation.

The score for SGC Operating Costs has decreased for the Winterbourne Route from 5 in the base‐case to 1 due to the expectation of significant captial cost and significant additional SGC officer time required to manage a total HGV prohibiton of this kind. The Badminton Road Route score is unchaged because this crierion is only applied to the route that is subject to the prohibition.

The HGV Operator Disturbance figure has decreased from the base‐case score for the Winterbourne Route from 4 to 1 because this total HGV ban would adversely affect operators who use this route. The exact score has been calculated on the basis of the size of the diverison that HGVs would be subject to; as the vehicles would be shifting from the Winterbourne route to the Badminton Road Route the diversion per vehicle is predicted to be less than 3km, hence the score of 1.

Scenario 3 – Total HGV Ban on Latteridge and Rangeworthy Routes The rationale behind Scenario 3 is:

A total HGV ban on these two routes would respond positively to the negative feedback received by SGC from Latteridge and Rangeworthy residents and stakeholders. None of the other study rotues were subject to negative feedback.


60% of the HGVs from these two routes expected to transfer to the Badminton Road Route, the most suitable of the nearest alternative routes in terms of overall base‐case score;

30% of the HGVs from these two routes expected to transfer to the Winterbourne Road Route, the least suitable route of the nearest alternative routes in terms of overall base‐case score, and

10% of the HGVs from these two routes expected to transfer to the Old Sodbury Route via the Yate Town Centre Through Route.


Table 8. Scenario 3 – Total HGV ban on Latteridge and Rangeworthy Routes – appraisal result


Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Geometry 1 7 1 7 5 2 5



Accidents 1 5 3 4 4 4 4


Noise 1 8 0 8 2 3 3





Total Score 73 19 80 24 31 36


The grand total score for Scenario 3 is 263, a significantly lower score than the base‐case score and the scores for Scenarios 1 and 2. As all the routes are affected by this scenario to a lesser or greater extent, scores have changed for most of the criteria for most of the routes, with the Laterridge and Rangeworthy routes obviously being the main beneficieries. The total scores for the Latteridge Route and Rangeworthy Route are very high at 73 and 80 respectively, but the scores for the other routes are very low, particualrly the Winterbourne Route and Badminton Raod route which score just 19 and 24 respectively. The disparity between the highest scoring route and the lowest scoring route is now 61 compared to a disparity of just 8 in the base‐case.

YATE HGV STUDY


The geometry scores for those routes that were assessed in the base case as having Bad or Reasonable geometry have moved up or down depending on the number of HGVs that are calculated to transfer. The geometry scores for the Badminton Road Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are unchanged because these route were assessed as having good geometry in the base‐case.

The Development Status scores have changed for all the routes except the Latteridge Route as this route was assessed as being ‘Rural’ in the base case. Scores for the other routes have increased or decreased according to if they are losing or gaining HGVs. The scores for the Old Sodbury route and the Yate Town Centre Through Route have changed less than the others because only 10% of the HGV traffic is assumed to transfer to these routes.

The Pavement Condition score and Air Quality score have both increased for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes and decreased for the other routes. The scores are bigger for the Rangeworthy route than the Latteridge Route because a greater number of HGVs will be transferring away from this route. The Badminton Road Route scores the lowest of the recipient routes with a zero as most of the HGVs will be transferring to this route.

The accident scores have remained unchanged because HGVs are not considered to have been an important factor in the accidents recorded on the study routes.

The Noise scores have increased for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes and decreased for all the other routes. Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes now score 8 reflecting the fact that there is a considerable (more than 5dBA) decrease in night HGV noise as all HGVs have been eliminated from these routes. The Badminton Road route and Winterbourne Route noise scores has reduced to zero as there has been a considerable (more than 5dBA) increase in night HGV noise for these routes. The noise scores for the Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are unchanged as only 10% of HGVs are transferring to these routes and the overall effect on night time HGV levels on these routes is negligble.

Awareness and Intimidation has increased to the maximum score of 8 for both the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes as the proportion of HGVs of total traffic has reduced dramatically to zero%. The Winterbourne Route and Badminton Road Route both achieve the minimum score of zero as they are both subject to a considerable increase in HGV%. The Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route score 1 and 2 respectively as the increases in HGV% are not as dramatic. All these scores have been calculated from the size of change of the HGV percentage of total traffic.

The scores for the Feedback from Communities criterion unsurprisingly increase to the maximum of 7 for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes. All the other routes were awarded a score of 2 as this scenario is expected to result in negative feedback for these routes that previously were subject to no feedback.

The score for SGC Operating Costs has decreased from the base‐case for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes from 4 to 1 due to the expectation of significant captial cost and significant additional SGC officer time required to manage a total HGV prohibiton of this kind. The scores for the other routes are unchaged because this crierion is only applied to the routes that are subject to the prohibition.

The HGV Operator Disturbance figure has decreased from the base‐case score for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes of 4 to the bottom score of zero because the total HGV ban on both these routes is expcted to significantly disatisfy operators who use these route due to the length of the diversions which are expected to be greater than 3km per vehicle.

Scenario 4 – Total HGV ban on Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes The rationale behind Scenario 4 is:

A total HGV ban on these two routes would have a positive impact on these two routes which are the most urban and therefore the least suitable for HGVs in terms of impact on the greatest number of residents and other stakeholders.


45% of the HGVs from these two routes expected to transfer to the Latteridge Route

35% of the HGVs from these two routes expected to transfer to the Rangeworthy Route

20% of the HGVs from these two routes expected to transfer to the Old Sodbury Route via the Yate Town Centre Through Route


Table 9. Scenario 4 – Total HGV ban on Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes – appraisal result


Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Geometry 1 1 7 1 5 2 5



Accidents 1 5 3 4 4 4 4


Noise 1 1 8 2 8 3 3





Total Score 31 77 21 78 29 32


The grand total score for Scenario 4 is 268, a significantly lower score than the base‐case score and the scores for scenarios 1 and 2, and only slightly higher than the Scenario 3 score of 263. The effect of this scenario is basically the same as for Scenario 3, except it is the Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes that are advantaged this time rather than the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes, with all the other study routes losing out. All the routes are affected by this scenario to a lesser or greater extent so the scores have changed for most of the criteria for most of the routes. The total scores for the Winterbourne Route and Badminton Road Route are very high at 77 and 78 respectively, but the scores for the other routes are very low, particularly the Rangeworthy Route which scores just 21. The disparity between the highest

YATE HGV STUDY


scoring route and the lowest scoring route is 57 in this scenario compared to a disparity of just 8 in the base‐case.

The geometry scores for those routes that were assessed in the base case as having Bad or Reasonable geometry have moved up or down depending on the number of HGVs that are calculated to transfer. The geometry scores for the Badminton Road Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are unchanged because these route were assessed as having good geometry in the base‐case.

The Development Status scores have changed for all the routes except the Latteridge Route as this route was assessed as being ‘Rural’ in the base case. Scores for the other routes have increased or decreased according to if they are losing or gaining HGVs.

The Pavement Condition score and Air Quality score have both increased for the Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes and decreased for the other routes. The scores are bigger for the Badminton Road route than the Winterbourne Route because the former has a greater number of HGVs that will be transferring to the other routes. The Latteridge Route scores the lowest of the recipient routes with a zero as almost half of the HGVs will be transferring to this route.


The Noise scores have increased for the Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes and decreased for all the other routes. These two routes now score 8 reflecting the fact that there is a considerable (more than 5dBA) decrease in night HGV noise as all HGVs have been eliminated from these routes. The Latteridge route and Rangeworthy Route noise scores have reduced to 1 and 2 respectvely as there have been moderate (between3 and 5dBA) and slight (between 1 and 5dBA) increases respectively in night HGV noise for these routes. The noise scores for the Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are unchanged as only 20% of HGVs are transferring to these routes and the overall effect on HGV levels on these routes is very slight.

Awareness and Intimidation has increased to the maximum score of 8 for both the Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes as the proportion of HGVs of total traffic has reduced dramatically to zero%. The Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes both achieve the minimum score of zero as they are both subject to a considerable increase in HGV%. The Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route both score 1 as the increases in HGV% are not as dramatic. All these scores have been calculated from the size of change of the HGV percentage of total traffic.

The score for the Feedback from Communities criterion unsurprisingly rockets to the maximum of 7 for the Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes. The Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route were awarded a score of two as this scenario is expected to result in negative feedback for these routes where previously there was none. The Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes both achieve the minimum score of 1 for this criterion as not only does this scenario fail to respond to the feedback that was received from these residents and communities, it will undoubtedly result in more complaints.

The score for SGC Operating Costs has decreased from the base‐case for Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes from 4 to 1 due to the expectation of significant captial cost and significant additional SGC officer time required to manage a total HGV prohibiton of this kind. The scores for the other routes are unchaged because this crierion is only applied to the routes that are subject to the prohibition.

The HGV Operator Disturbance figure has decreased from the base‐case score for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes of 4 to the bottom score of zero because the total HGV ban on both these routes is expected to significantly disatisfy operators who use these route due to the length of the diversions which are expected to be greater than 3km per vehicle.

Scenario 5 – Total HGV Ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne Routes The rationale behind Scenario 5 is:

A total HGV ban on these two routes would tackle two of the lowest scoring routes in the base‐case ‐ the route that was subject to the greatest volume of negative feedback (Rangeworthy) and the route that is the most urban (Winterbourne), and

Both of these routes have reasonably practical alternative routing options; the Latteridge route instead of Rangeworthy, and the Badminton Road Road instead of the Winterbourne route.


100% of the HGVs from Rangeworthy Route expected to transfer to the Latteridge Route, and

100% of the HGVs from the Winterbourne Route expected to transfer to the Badminton Road Route


Table 10. Scenario 5 – Total HGV ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne Routes – appraisal result


Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Geometry 1 1 7 7 5 4 5



Accidents 1 5 3 4 4 4 4


Noise 1 0 8 8 3 3 3





Total Score 30 78 80 29 50 50


The grand total score for Scenario 5 is 317 which is the highest score of all the scenarios and 16 points higher than the base‐case. The effect of this scenario is similar to Scenarios 3 and 4 but this time the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes are advantaged at the expense of the Latteridge and Badminton Road routes. As 100% of the HGVs from the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes trasfer to one route each, only four of the six study routes are affected by this scenario. The Old Sodbury Route and the Yate Town Centre Through Route are unaffected so their scores remain unchanged from the base‐case.

YATE HGV STUDY


The total scores for the Winterbourne Route and Rangeworthy Route are very high at 79 and 81 respectively, but the scores for the Latteridge Route and Badminton Road Route are low at 30 and 29 respectively. The disparity between the highest scoring route and the lowest scoring route is 51 in this scenario compared to a disparity of just 8 in the base‐case. The reason this scenario scores better as a whole – with 317 points ‐ than the other scenarios, is because the low scoring routes of Latteridge and Badminton Road are more capable of assimilating transferred HGVs than the other study routes.

The geometry scores for the Latteridge, Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes have moved up or down depending on the number of HGVs that are calculated to transfer. The geometry score for the Badminton Road Route is unchanged because this route was assessed as having good geometry in the base‐case. The scores for the Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are unchanged because these routes are unaffected by the scenario.

The Development Status scores have changed for all the routes affected by this scenario except the Latteridge Route as this route was assessed as being ‘Rural’ in the base case. Scores for the three routes affected have increased or decreased according to if they are losing or gaining HGVs.

The Pavement Condition score and Air Quality score have both increased for the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes and decreased for the Latteridge and Badminton Road routes. The scores are higher for the Rangeworthy route than the Winterbourne Route because the former has a greater number of HGVs that will be transferring to the other routes. The Latteridge Route scores the lowest of the two recipient routes with a zero as a greater number of HGVs are transferring to it than are transferring to the Badminton Road Route which was awarded a score of 1.


The Noise scores have increased for the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes and decreased for the Latteridge Route. These first two routes now score 8 reflecting the fact that there is a considerable (more than 5dBA) decrease in night HGV noise as all HGVs have been eliminated. The Latteridge Route noise score has reduced to zero as there has been a considerable (more than 5dBA) increase in night HGV noise for this route due to the significant number of HGVs transferring from the Rangeworthy Route. The noise score for the Badminton Road Route is unchanged at 3 as the number of transferring HGVs from the Winterbourne Route is insuffcient to change the night HGV noise level to any significance.

Awareness and Intimidation has increased to the maximum score of 8 for both the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes as the proportion of HGVs of total traffic has reduced dramatically to zero%. The Latteridge and Badminton Road routes achieve scores of zero and 1 respectively as they are both subject to significant increases in HGV%. These scores have been calculated from the size of change of the HGV percentage of total traffic.

The scores for the Feedback from Communities criterion unsurprisingly increase to the maximum of 7 for the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes. The Badminton Road Route was awarded a score of 2 as this scenario is expected to result in negative feedback where previously there was none. The Latteridge Route achieves the minimum score of 1 for this criterion as not only does this scenario fail to respond to the existing feedback from these residents and communities, it will undoubtedly cause more complaints.

The score for SGC Operating Costs has decreased from the base‐case for Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes from 4 to 1 due to the expectation of significant captial cost and significant additional SGC officer time required to manage a total HGV prohibiton of this kind on these two routes. The scores for the other routes are unchaged because this crierion is only applied to the routes that are subject to the prohibition.

The HGV Operator Disturbance figure has decreased from the base‐case score of 4 for the Winterbourne and Rangeworthy routes to 1 and zero respectively. The total HGV ban on both these routes is expected to significantly disatisfy operators who use these route due to the length of the diversions. The length of the diversion is expected to be less than 3km per vehicle for the Winterbourne Route, and greater than 3km for the Rangeworthy Route.

Scenario 6 – Ban on HGVs of Class 7 & 8 (Rigid plus Trailer & Articulated HGVs) from Rangeworthy, Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes The Scenario 6 development principles were:

A ban on the bigger, more problematic, HGVs on the three most ‘urban’ routes, and

Alternative routing options exist for the banned vehicles: vehicles travelling in a northerly, westerly and south‐westerly direction from Yate can use the Latteridge route. All HGVs travelling in an easterly and south‐easterly direction from Yate are unrestricted as the Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are not subject to the prohibition.


100% of the banned HGVs from the Rangeworthy, Winterbourne and Badminton Road routes will transfer to the Latteridge Route.

HGVs of all classes will continue to use the Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route as per the base‐case.


Table 11. Scenario 6 – Ban on HGVs of class 7 & 8 (Rigid plus trailer, and Articulated HGVs) from the Rangeworthy, Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes – appraisal result


Latteridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

Badminton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Geometry 1 2 3 6 5 4 5

Development status

3 5 3 6 6 4 3

Pavement Condition

1 0 4 7 7 4 4

Accidents 1 5 3 4 4 4 4


Noise 1 0 4 7 6 3 3

Awareness and intimidation

2 0 5 8 7 3 4


1 1 4 6 6 4 4

SGC operating costs

1 4 1 1 1 4 4


1 4 0 0 0 4 4

Total Score 31 41 72 68 50 50


The grand total score for Scenario 6 is 312 which is the second highest score of all the scenarios and 10 points higher than the base‐case. The effect of this scenario is similar to Scenario 5 but as only the larger categories of HGV are being prohibited the results are more nuanced. In this scenario, the Winterbourne, Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes are advantaged at the expense of the Latteridge Route. As 100% of the banned HGVs from the Winterbourne, Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes transfer to the Latteridge Route only, only four of the six study routes are affected by this scenario. The Old Sodbury

YATE HGV STUDY


Route and the Yate Town Centre Through Route are unaffected so their scores remain unchanged from the base‐case.

The total scores for the Rangeworthy Route and Badminton Road route are high at 72 and 68 respectively, while the total score for the Winterboune route has actually decreased from 48 in the base case to 41, as so few HGVs have transferred from this route due to the nature of the prohibition that the route is not really advantaged (and the reduced scores for the SGC Operating Costs and HGV Operator Disturbance criteria give it a reduced score overall). The score for the Latteridge Route is low at 31, but not extremely low as only the bigger categories of HGV have transferred. The disparity between the highest scoring route and the lowest scoring route is 41 in this scenario compared to a disparity of just 8 in the base‐case. This is a smaller disparity than scenarios 3, 4 and 5. The reason this scenario scores well as a whole – with 312 points ‐ is because the prohibited HGVs are transferring to the study route with the highest base‐case score and only the bigger categories of HGV are transferring.

The geometry scores for the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes have moved up or down depending on the number of HGVs that are calculated to transfer. The geometry score for the Badminton Road Route is unchanged because this route was assessed as having good geometry in the base‐case. The geometry score for the Winterbourne Route is unchanged because so few HGVS have transferred from this route. The scores for the Old Sodbury Route and Yate Town Centre Through Route are unchanged because these routes are unaffected by the scenario

The Development Status scores have increased moderately for just the Rangeworthy route and Badminton Road routes. The Latteridge Route score is unchanged as this route was assessed as being ‘Rural’ in the base case. The Winterbourne Route score is unchanged because so few HGVS have transferred from this route.

The Pavement Condition score and Air Quality score have both increased for the Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes and decreased for the Latteridge Route. The Latteridge Route scores the bottom mark of zero due to the large number of HGVs in total transferring to it. The score for the Winterbourne Route is unchanged for both the Pavement Condition and Air Quality criteria because so few HGVS have transferred from this route.


The Noise scores have increased for the Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes and decreased for the Latteridge Route. These first two routes now score 7 and 6 respectively reflecting the fact that there is a moderate (between 3 and 5 dBA) and slight (between 1 and 3 dBA) decrease in night HGV noise respecively due to the two bigger cargories of HGV having been eliminated. The Latteridge Route noise score has reduced to zero as there has been a considerable (more than 5dBA) increase in night HGV noise due to the significant number of HGVs in total transferring to this route. The number of transferring HGVs from the Winterbourne Route is insuffcient to change the night HGV noise level to any significance.

Awareness and Intimidation has increased to the maximum score of 8 for the Rangeworthy route and to a score of 7 for the Badminton Road Route. This reflects the significant reduction in HGV% for these two routes. The Latteridge Route achieved a score of zero as it is subject to a significant increase in HGV%. Again, the Winterbourne Route score remains unchanged from the base‐case as there has been such a minor decrease in the HGV% for this route. These scores have been calculated from the size of change of the HGV percentage of total traffic.

The scores for the Feedback from Communities criterion increased to 6 for the Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes. The Latteridge Route achieves the minimum score of 1 for this criterion as not only does this scenario fail to respond to the feedback from these residents and communities, it will undoubtedly result in more complaints. The Winterbourne Route score is again unchanged from the base‐case.

The score for SGC Operating Costs has decreased from the base‐case for Winterbourne, Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes from 4 to 1 due to the expectation of significant captial cost and significant additional SGC officer time required to manage a partial HGV prohibiton of this kind on these three routes.

The scores for the other routes are unchaged because this crierion is only applied to the routes that are subject to the prohibition.

The HGV Operator Disturbance figures have decreased from the base‐case scores of 4 for the Winterbourne, Rangeworthy and Badminton Road routes to scores of 1. The total HGV ban on both these routes is expected to significantly disatisfy operators who use these route due to the length of the diversions which is expected to be more than 3km per vehicle.

Apprasial Result Comparison Firstly, it is important to point out that the scores that have been achieved for each scenario are based on the scaling and weighting outlined in the previous sections of the report, and that the scaling and weighting was decided upon by CH2MHILL after much careful thought and deliberation. Secondly, although the overriding principle of the Appraisal Matrix process is to make the high level assessment of the study routes as objective as possible, it is impossible to eliminate all subjectivity; deciding upon the exact range, number and type of criteria to use is clearly a subjective process in itself, as is the finalisation of the scaling and weighting. Thirdly, it is therefore necessary to highlight that the criteria used, and the scaling and weighting used, may easily change depending on the subjective judgement of SGC. SGC may consider that due to it’s direct local knowledge of the study area and greater understanding of, and connection with, the residents and stakeholders, it is in a better position to make the final judgement on the criteria scaling and weighting than CH2MHILL. So finally, the appraisal results outlined above can be considered provisional, as they will be subject to change if SGC judge that the scaling and weighting should be adjusted. To that end, it is worth highlighting that the appraisal methodology used easily allows for the weighting to be adjusted and for the scores to be automatically updated as a result.

Table 12 summarises the overall appraisal results in tabular form. The paragraphs that follow summarise the results.

Table 12. Appraisal result summary and comparison

Total Score

L’ridge route

W'bourne route

R'worthy route

B’minton Rd route

Old Sodbury route


Disparity between highest and lowest route score

Base Case 302 56 48 49 49 50 50 8

Scenario 1 – Night bans all 301 56 49 49 49 49 49 7

Scenario 2 – Total Ban Winterbourne

311 56 74 49 32 50 50 42

Scenario 3 ‐ Total Ban Latteridge & Rangeworthy

263 73 19 80 24 31 36 61

Scenario 4 – Total Ban Badminton & Winterbourne

268 31 77 21 78 29 32 57

Scenario 5 – Total Ban Rangeworthy & Winterbourne

317 30 78 80 29 50 50 51

Scenario 6 – Category Ban Rangeworthy, Badminton & Winterbourne

312 31 41 72 68 50 50 41

YATE HGV STUDY


Results Overview The results shows that scenarios 2, 5 and 6 have a higher score than the base‐case and scenarios 1, 3, and 4 have a lower score. This might initially suggest that it would be preferable to implement scenario 2, 5 or 6 rather than maintain the base‐case status quo. However, the overall score for a scenario should not be viewed in isolation. As well as comparing the overall score for a scenario with the overall scores for the base‐case and the other scenarios, the individual scores for the study routes within each scenario should be examined in order to see if there is a big disparity between the scores for the different routes. Scenarios 2, 5 & 6 have overall scores that are higher than the base‐case, but they contain some study routes that score very highly and other study routes that have very low scores. In practice, this disparity means that certain study routes would likely benefit significantly from implementation of the scenario while others would be disadvantaged significantly. The disadvantaged routes would almost certainly be subject to negative impacts including negative feedback from residents and stakeholders. The following paragraphs analyse the appraisal results by looking at each scenario in turn. Analysis and Comparison by Scenario The base‐case has a total score of 302 points which is a lower score than than three of the scenarios. The total score for the base‐case is 15 points, or 4.7%, lower than the top‐scoring Scenario 5. However, there is very little disparity between the individual study route scores within the scenario. There is just an 8 point, or 14%, disparity between the top‐scoring Latteridge Route and the lowest‐scoring Winterbourne Route. Interestingly, the Latteridge Route is one of the rooutes that has been subject to negative feedback from residents and stakeholders, while no feedback has been received about the Winterbourne Route. Scenario 1 – HGV Night bans on all routes – has an almost identical score to the base‐case, with three of the individual study routes having exactly the same score as in the base‐case, and the rest of the study routes having just one point difference. There may therefore not be a strong case for implementing this scenario over the base‐case, given the capital and revenue costs likely to accrue from implementation of such an HGV restriction. Scenario 2 – Total HGV ban on Winterbourne Route – has the third best score overall with a total score of 311. This score is 10 points, or 3.2%, higher than the base‐case score of 302. The overall benefits of implementation of this scenario over the base‐case would have to be weighed against the fact that there is a 42 point, or 231%, disparity between the individual scores of the top‐scoring Winterbourne Route and the lowest‐scoring Badminton Road Route.

Scenario 3 – Total HGV ban on Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes – has the lowest score of all the scenarios with a total score of 263. This score is 39 points, or 13%, lower than the base‐case, and 54 points, or 17%, lower than the top‐scoring scenario which is Scenario 5. There is a 61 point, or 421%, disparity between the scores for the top‐scoring Rangeworthy Route and the lowest‐scoring Winterboune Route. Given the low overall score and the significant disparity between individual study routes, this scenario does not look to have the strongest argument for implementation. Scenario 4 – Total HGV ban on Badminton Road Route and Winterbourne routes – has the second lowest score of all the scenarios with a total score of 268. This score is 34 points, or 11.3%, lower than the base‐case, and 49 points, or 15.5%, lower than the top‐scoring Scenario 5. There is a 57 point, or 366%, disparity between the individual scores of the top‐scoring Badminton Road Route and the lowest‐scoring Rangeworthy Route. Given the low overall score and the significant disparity between individual study routes, this scenario does not look to have the strongest argument for implementation. Scenario 5 – total HGV ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne routes – has the best overall score of all the scenarios with a total score of 317. This score is 15 points, or 4.7%, higher than the base‐case, and 54 points, or 17%, higher than the lowest‐scoring scenario 3. This scenario may have the strongest argument

for implementation of all the scenarios, but the overall benefits of implementing this scenario over the base‐case would have to be weighed against the fact that there is a 51 point, or 276%, disparity between the individual scores of the top‐scoring Rangeworthy Route and the lowest‐scoring Badminton Road Route. Scenario 6 – Category HGV ban on Rangeworthy, Badminton Road and Winterbourne routes – is the second highest scoring route with a total score of 312. This score is 10 points, or 3.2%, higher than the base‐case, and 49 points, or 15.7%, higher than the lowest‐scoring scenario 3. This scenario may have the second strongest argument for implementation of all the scenarios, but the overall benefits of implementing this scenario over the base‐case would have to be weighed against the fact that there is a 41 point, or 232%, disparity between the individual scores of the top‐scoring Rangeworthy Route and the lowest‐scoring Latteridge Route. Although this is a smaller disparity between the study routes than Scenario 5, it is still significant at 232% compared to a scenario improvement as a whole of 3.2% over the base‐case. Analysis and Comparison by Study Route Another way of analysing and comparing the appraisal results is to look from the standpoint of which types of study routes might benefit. SGC might have a view as to the types of routes for which it is more appropriate to prohibit HGVs. The following paragraphs take this analytical approach. If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised in this appraisal process as ‘semi‐urban’, then the best scenario to implement would be Scenario 6. This is the second highest overall scoring scenario with 312 points, and within the scenario all the semi‐urban routes either increase their score or maintain their score, with the exception of the Winterbourne Route which has a reduced score. It should be noted that the score for the Winterbourne Route is only reduced moderately from 48 in the base‐case to 41 in this scenario, and that this is because the reduction in the number of HGVs is so minimal that the SGC operating costs and HGV operator disturbance score reductions outweigh the scoring gains for the other criteria. The main disadvantaged route is the Latteridge Route which has a reduced score from 56 in the base‐case to 31 in scenario 6. The disparity between the top and lowest scoring route – Rangeworthy Route and Latteridge Route ‐ in this scenario is 232%. If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised in this appraisal process as the most rural, then the preferred scenario to implement would be Scenario 3. In this scenario, the Latteridge Route and the Rangeworthy Route are the two beneficiaries, but all the other routes have reduced scores. The Winterbourne Route and Badminton Road Route in particular have very low scores at 19 and 24 respectively. The disparity between the top scoring and lowest scoring route is the largest of all the scenarios at 61 points, and the overall score for the scenario is the lowest of all the scenarios at 263 points compared to a base‐case score of 302. Given the low overall score and the significant disparity between individual study routes, this scenario does not look to have the strongest argument for implementation. If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes that were subject to the most negative feedback, then this would also mean that the preferred scenario to implement would be Scenario 3. As described in the previous paragraph, given the low overall score and the significant disparity between individual study routes, this scenario does not look to have the strongest argument for implementation. If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised in this appraisal process as the most urban, then this would mean that the preferred scenario to implement would be Scenario 4. However, Scenario 4 was the second‐worst scoring scenario with 268 points, and also had a significant 57 point disparity between the top‐scoring route and lowest‐scoring route. Scenario 5 would be preferable over Scenario 4 as it targets some of the more urban routes but is

YATE HGV STUDY


a more balanced scenario, comprising of a total HGV ban on the Winterbourne route which is the most urban route in the study, and a total HGV ban on the Rangeworthy Route which is classified as a semi‐urban route in this study. The Badminton Road and Latteridge routes represent good alternatives for the prohibited vehicles, and this is one of the reasons why Scenario 5 is the top‐scoring scenario with 317 points overall.

Other Measures The following paragraphs provide guidance on alleviation measures that could complement the assessed scenarios, in order to lessen the impact of HGV’S on local communities and improve the network.

Alleviation measures come in a number of forms. Alleviation measures aimed directly at HGV operators tend to be either passive measures or prescriptive measures. Passive measures are usually more cost effective and are more likely to be supported by transport operators, the FTA and local businesses, and place no obligation on the HGV operator to adhere to them. Prescriptive measures tend to be more expensive, usually require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), and often require ongoing management and enforcement. Other alleviation measures are not directly aimed at HGV operators, but mitigate the impacts of HGV movements through physical works such as highway pavement improvements and noise barriers.

It is important to consider the issues identified in Stage 1 of the study, and ensure that the alleviation measures that are considered are relevant and appropriate. Very few accidents with HGVs were recorded on any of the study routes, HGVs do not generally appear to be causing traffic congestion, and traffic tends to be free‐flowing at moderate to high speeds. Loading and unloading is not a major issue as the town centre areas are outside the study routes. A sensible approach might be to consider measures that are more appropriate for rural routes given that many of those considered are predominantly rural, including the Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes that were subject to negative feedback from residents and stakeholders. Examples of the various types of alleviation measure that could be considered, along with a brief description of each measure, follow in the paragraphs below.

HGV Operator Passive Measures

Signing strategy – Signage to guide HGVs to use certain routes. SGC already has a lot of good signage of this nature, particularly in and around the industrial areas in the western part of Yate. Such signage could be reviewed and potentially extended to include truck stops and HGV parking in addition to the recommended routes for certain destinations;

Improved SatNavs – The FTA has been working with the satellite navigation industry to develop a product specifically aimed at HGVs. The first result of this work is the Tom Tom Pro7100 Truck device. Drivers enter their vehicle’s weight and dimensions into the unit which then plans a route based on appropriate clearance heights, weight restrictions, speed restrictions and problematic sharp turns. The unit also provides appropriate routing even in the absence of statutory restrictions. Working with local transport operators to encourage them to use such devices is a measure that definitely could be considered as it could reduce the number of HGVs using inappropriate routes or the ‘wrong’ route, and

Delivery scheduling – scheduling deliveries for specific times of the day can mitigate peak hour congestion problems caused by HGVs. However, this kind of issue has not presented itself in this study as town centre routes have not been included.

HGV Operator Prescriptive Measures

Weight restriction – Rather than a total ban on all HGVs, particular weight category restrictions can be imposed on a highway, or on certain sections of highway. It is important to remember that weight restrictions generate street clutter through additional signage of both the restriction and diversionary routes and require regular enforcement often outside the control of the local authority. Therefore, weight restrictions must be considered carefully before they are implemented;

Loading restrictions – TROs can be applied to particular streets or areas to ensure HGVs can only load or unload at certain times of the day. This kind of problem is not generally an issue for this study as the study routes do not include the town centre areas;

Parking restrictions – Parking can be restricted where it is causing difficulties for HGV movements. This can often be the case in rural areas where pinch points cause HGVs to slow, resulting in general traffic congestion, and also pass very closely to buildings increasing the risk of structural strikes. However, this does not appear to be a particular issue in this study, and

Speed limits – Speed limits can be used to improve road safety, and reduce noise and vibrations, so a review of the speed limits on the study routes could be considered. During periods of traffic congestion, noise generated by vehicle exhaust and transmission tends to be worse. Under free‐flow traffic conditions, tyres on a road surface generate high‐frequency noise when vehicles are travelling at moderate to high speeds. It is the latter conditions that prevail for the majority of the time on the routes in this study. It should be noted that HGVs are currently legally restricted to 40mph on single carriageway highways although this will increase to 50mph in Spring 2015. All HGVs have speed limiters set at 56 mph.

Physical Alleviation Measures

Acoustic barriers – these are exterior structures, temporary or permanent, that can be used to mitigate vehicle noise. Permanent acoustic barriers can be constructed from a variety of materials from plastic to earthworks. In addition to the capital cost of this kind of measure, important considerations include practicality of terrain, aesthetic impact, and how much need there is to reduce noise levels. For the routes in this study, measures of this type may not be suitable on grounds of practicality and aesthetics – many of the potential locations do not have the necessary space for this kind of measure, and the rural character of some of the study routes would be adversely affected. It should also be noted that noise insulation measures are only a statutory requirement for new roads where noise levels are expected to be above 68 dB La10. The routes in this study are neither new or subject to noise levels above that threshold, and

Speed cushions – These can be used to reduce vehicle speed, but may not be appropriate for the routes in this study where traffic is often free‐flowing and speed limits are above 30mph for the greater part of the routes. Cushions, if not installed correctly, can also increase the vibrations generated by vehicles as they pass over them.

Pavement Condition

Pavement maintenance is essentially required for two purposes:

To defer or remediate the effects of environmental damage, and

To defer or remediate the effects of structural damage.

Environmental damage can be caused by water entering the pavement through cracks, or in a wet subgrade (natural ground beneath), or through ultra‐violet light (UV). Water will degrade and weaken the pavement layers, and the subbase leading to structural failure. UV tends to speed the process of natural hardening in the bitumen and causes surface cracking. If not arrested or replaced the cracking will propagate down through the pavement leading to structural failure. The cracks also allow water to enter the pavement; the process is progressive.

Structural damage occurs where the pavement is not “strong” enough to carry the loads imposed on it. Lack of adequate strength can be caused by the pavement layers being too thin, or degraded; the cause should be considered when maintenance works are being planned. The edges of older roads are often weaker than the centre. Older tracks, with well compacted granular bases (hardcore) have been widened ad‐hoc over the years to allow passing movements of increasing traffic with increasing weight and width. Edge construction is often thinner.

The visual surveys carried out as part of this study identified that the main defect caused by heavy goods vehicles was edge defects on narrower roads where wheel loads were close to the edge (haunch failure).

YATE HGV STUDY


These can be identified from routine visual inspections, or from SCANNER data. SCANNER output can also provide an edge defect index, which can be used to identify lengths for further examination.

During inspections of the roads in this study it was obvious that surface dressing had been used to good effect. Surface dressing seals cracks, provides good skid resistance and also slows down surface hardening from UV. It does not provide structural strength but there was visual evidence that significant lengths of edge strengthening (haunching) had taken place prior to surface dressing.

Traffic noise is mainly generated by tyres and is most noticeable from heavy goods vehicles; it is relatively insignificant at lower speeds. Most of the route length inspected was rural, with little high density housing areas. Noise tends to be higher on surfacings with higher texture depth. However, negatively textured surfacings (SMA/ Thin Surface Course) tend to be less noisy for any given texture depth. Very generally the noisiest surfacing is surface dressing followed by chipped HRA, asphaltic concrete (DBM), and SMA/ TSCS in that order. Again, the noise from surface dressing is approximately proportional to the aggregate size; some racked‐in/ double surface dressings are quieter. In most cases treatment with surface dressing will not increase noise further, but resurfacing with an appropriate material would reduce noise if considered necessary.

Economic Impact of Study Measures

Implementation of any of the scenarios outlined in the Scenario Development and Appraisal Results section of the report would not be expected to significantly negatively impact on HGV operators and the wider economy. Although some of the scenarios would require vehicles on certain routes to be diverted, all of the scenarios retain 24 hour access to the industrial estates of Yate where most of the local operators are based and which are the destination for many of the non‐Yate based operators.

The scenario that would have the greatest impact on HGV operators might be Scenario 3 – Total HGV ban Latteridge and Rangeworthy routes ‐ as it would require the most significant re‐routing diversion for prohibited vehicles. However, in the context of the overall general costs of operating a transport business, the extra mileage is expected to have marginal financial impact on operators.

Scenario 1 – Night HGV bans on all study routes – would also have an impact on HGV operators as night‐time operations would have to transfer to daytime operation. However, the feedback from those operators who responded to the request for operating information confirmed that most of their vehicles operate in daytime hours, so the financial impact on operators would not be expected to be significant.

In terms of the impact on the wider economy, there is expected to be no impact from implementation of any of the proposed scenarios. As HGV operations are not expected to be significantly disrupted by any of the scenarios. Yate is likely to remain an attractive base for logistics and distribution operations.

Summary of Appraisal Process The key findings of the operator feedback, appraisal matrix development and scenario development are summarised in the following paragraphs.

Operator Feedback Six individual transport operators replied to a request for feedback, all of whom are based in the

industrial estates in western Yate. In combination, their fleet shows a variety of sizes of HGV from the smaller rigid categories all the way up to 44 tonne articulated vehicles, and origins and destinations seem to cover all parts of the country, including Yate town centre. Four of the operators have at least some vehicles that operate 24 hours a day. Operating cost information suggests that smaller HGVs have an operating cost of around £0.90 per km and larger HGVs a cost of £1.20 per km.

The information fed back from the individual transport operators informed the routing assumptions that underpinned the scenario building.

Appraisal Matrix Development An appraisal methodology was developed by CH2MHILL to enable a current situation base‐case to

be created and objectively scored against several developed scenarios. The methodology allowed scenarios to be compared with each other, and enabled individual scores for each study route to be compared with the other study routes within each scenario. The developed scenarios consisted of different types of HGV prohibition applied to different combinations of study route.

Ten appraisal criteria were chosen based on the type and range of data/information provided and analysed in Stage 1 of the study, and based on best practice for this type of work. Each criterion was defined and quantified in order to allow each study route to be given a score for the base‐case situation, with the more objective criteria such as traffic flow lending themselves more easily to being quantified than the more subjective criteria such as feedback from communities.

A scaling system was devised in order that scores for each criterion could move up or down from the base‐case to varying degrees, depending on the potental change or impact that each scenario would have on the study route. Each criterion was also given a weighting to allow the importance of each criterion to be differentiated. For the base‐case and each scenario, each study route was scored for each of the ten criteria, with the scores added together to give an overall grand total for each study route. The grand total scores for each study route were then added together to give an overall appraisal result for the base‐case and each scenario.

Scenario Development and Appraisal Results Six scenarios were developed each involving prohibition of HGVs on one or more of the study

routes. For each scenario, routing assumptions were required as to which study routes the prohibited vehicles would be re‐routed along, and these assumptions were informed by a combination of operator feedback and common sense.

In the base‐case situation, all criteria were scored between 3 and 5 in order that scores could go up or down in the scenario assessment where the scale ran between 0 and 8. The higher the score, the more suitable for HGVs the study route was considered to be. The grand total score for the base‐case was 302 with a disparity between the highest and lowest scoring route of 8.

The results show that scenarios 2, 5 and 6 have a higher score than the base‐case, and scenarios 1, 3, and 4 have a lower score. However, the overall scores for the scenarios should not be viewed

YATE HGV STUDY


in isolation. Although scenarios 2, 5 and 6 have overall scores that are higher than the base‐case, they contain some study routes that score very highly and other study routes that have very low scores. In practice, this disparity means that certain study routes would likely benefit significantly from implementation of the scenario while others would be disadvantaged significantly.

Scenario 5 – total HGV ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne routes – has the best overall score of all the scenarios with a total score of 317. This score is 15 points, or 4.7%, higher than the base‐case, and 54 points, or 17%, higher than the lowest‐scoring scenario 3. This scenario may have the strongest argument for implementation of all the scenarios, but the overall benefits of implementing this scenario over the base‐case would have to be weighed against the fact that there is a 51 point, or 276%, disparity between the individual scores of the top‐scoring Rangeworthy Route and the lowest‐scoring Badminton Road Route.

Scenario 6 – Category HGV ban on Rangeworthy, Badminton Road and Winterbourne routes – is the second highest scoring route with a total score of 312. This score is 10 points, or 3.2%, higher than the base‐case, and 49 points, or 15.7%, higher than the lowest‐scoring scenario 3. This scenario may have the second strongest argument for implementation of all the scenarios, but the overall benefits of implementing this scenario over the base‐case would have to be weighed against the fact that there is 41 point, or 232%, disparity between the individual scores of the top‐scoring Rangeworthy Route and lowest‐scoring Latteridge Route.

If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised in this appraisal as ‘semi‐urban’, then the best scenario to implement would be Scenario 6. This is the second highest overall scoring scenario, and within the scenario all the semi‐urban routes either increase their score or maintain their scores, with the exception of the Winterbourne Route which has a moderately reduced score.

If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised as the most rural, or to restrict HGVs on the study routes that were subject to the most negative feedback, then the preferred scenario to implement would be Scenario 3. However, the disparity between the top scoring and lowest scoring route is the largest of all the scenarios at 61 points, and the overall score for the scenario is the lowest of all the scenarios at 263 points compared to a base‐case score of 302. Given the low overall score and the significant disparity between individual study routes, this scenario does not look to have the strongest argument for implementation.

Overall Conclusions The scaling and weighting of the apprasial matrix was decided upon by CH2MHILL after much careful thought and deliberation. Although the overriding principle of the Appraisal Matrix process is to make the high level assessment of the study routes as objective as possible, it is impossible to eliminate all subjectivity. It is therefore necessary to highlight that the weighting used, may easily change depending on the subjective judgement of SGC who may feel that due to direct local knowledge of the study area and greater understanding of, and connection with, their residents and stakeholders, they are in a better position to make the final judgement on the criteria scaling and weighting than CH2MHILL. So the appraisal results outlined above can be considered provisional, as they will be subject to change if SGC judge that the weighting should be adjusted. The base‐case and Scenario 1, with 302 and 301 points respectively, although not the top‐scoring scenarios, are the most balanced scenarios in terms of the individual study routes, as there is only an 8 point and 7 point disparity between the highest scoring and lowest scoring routes. Scenario 5 – Total HGV ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne routes, and Scenario 6 – Category HGV ban on Rangeworthy, Badminton Road and Winterbourne routes, are the two highest scoring scenarios

with 317 and 312 points respectively. However, although their overall scores are 4.7% and 3.1% higher than the overall score for the base‐case, they feature significant disparity between the highest scoring and lowest scoring routes. For scenario 5, the score for the Rangeworthy Route is 276% higher than the score for the Badminton Road Route and for scenario 6, the score for the Rangeworthy Route is 232% higher than the score for the Latteridge Route. These scenarios cannot therefore be recommended without reservation, as implementation of either might result in a marginal overall benefit being outweighed by negative impacts on the lowest scoring study routes. If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised in this appraisal as ‘semi‐urban’, then the best scenario to implement would be Scenario 6, but implementation would not be without reservation as described in the previous paragraph. If it was decided that the primary objective of the Yate HGV Study was to restrict HGVs on the study routes categorised as the most rural, or to restrict HGVs on the study routes that were subject to the most negative feedback, then the preferred scenario to implement would be Scenario 3. However, given the low overall score of this scenario and the significant disparity between individual study routes, this scenario does not look to have the strongest argument for implementation. Maintaining the status quo by retaining the base‐case situation, or by implementing Scenario 1, would be the preferred approach if the desired outcome is to implement the most balanced scenario. Although these are not the top‐scoring options, none of the individual study routes are greatly advantaged at the expense of the others.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Appraisal Matrices

Appraisal Criteria and Scaling Table

Potential change Potential change

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Considerable negative impacts Moderate negative impacts Slight negative impacts Bad Reasonable Good Slight positive impacts Moderate positive impacts Considerable positive impacts

Geometry

Considerably more HGV along

route with Bad or Reasonable

Geometry

Slightly more HGV along

route with Bad or

Reasonable Geometry

Narrow, no setback, congested,

on street parking, many sharp

bends

Good setback, few on street

parking, few bends,

generally wider, some

gradient

Good carriageway width, no

on street parking, bends are

rare,

Slightly less HGV along route

with Bad or Reasonable

Geometry

Considerably less HGV along

route with Bad or Reasonable

Geometry

Neutral impactExtra operating costs for

SGC

Moderate increase in % HGV: 1‐

2% increase in HGVs as


over 24hrs

Slight increase in %HGV: 0‐

1% increase in HGVs as


over 24hrs

Awareness and

Intimidation (HGV %of 24hr

general traffic)

Considerable increase in % HGV:

Greater than 2% increase in HGVs

as propotion of general traffic

over 24hrs

Slight increase in pollution


increase of daytime HGV ‐

HGV day time increase less

than 100 HGV

Moderate increase of noise at


HGV. An increase in noise of

between 3 and 5 dB(A).

Slight increase of noise at

night resulted from

increase of HGV. An

increase in noise of

between 1 and 3dB(A).

Moderate increase in pollution

resulted from slight increase of

daytime HGV ‐ HGV day time

increase between 100‐250

Neutral impact

Dissatisfaction from operators

due to HGV bans/restrictions

(full 24hr bans or entire HGV

category bans) resulting in

considerable increase in

vehicle KMs operated (less

than 3 additional KMs) or other


Slight dissatisfaction from

operators due to partial

HGV bans/restrictions (time

of day or certain weight

bans), or increased number

of speed limits resulting in

increased travel times or

other increased operating

costs

Disturbance to operations,

expected feedback from

operators

Expensive capital schemes

and/or significant increase in

required management of

highway network due to HGV


Medium cost capital

schemes and/or some

increase in required

management of highway

network due to HGV


Significant dissatisfaction from

operators due to significant HGV

bans/restrictions (full 24hr bans

or entire HGV category bans)

resulting in significant increase in

vehicle KMs operated (more than



Considerable increase of noise at


HGV. An increase in noise of

more than 5dB(A).

Base case

Simi‐urban, many schools,

shops, facilities and pedestrian

crossings

Simi‐urban, few schools,

shops, facilities and

pedestrian crossings

Rural, no schools, limited

shops and facilities and

pedestrian crossings

Air quality constraint to


Slightly less HGV through

semi‐urban areas

Expected to respond very

positively to current

complaints, or elicits very

positive feedback where


Considerably more HGV

through semi‐urban areas

Slightly more HGV through

semi‐urban areas

Medium more deterioration


increase between 100‐250 HGV

Slightly more deterioration


increase less than 100 HGV

Fair Good

Slightly less deterioration


decrease less than 100 HGV

Moderate less deterioration


decrease 100‐250 HGV


complaints, or may result in

negative feedback where

previosuly there were no

complaints

Moderate decrease in % HGV: 1‐

2% decrease in HGVs as


over 24hrs

Slight decrease of noise at

night resulted from decrease

of HGV. A decrease in noise

of between 1 and 3dB(A).

HGV less than 3.5% of total 24

hours flow

Slight decrease in % HGV: 0‐

1% decrease in HGVs as


over 24hrs

An existing Lnight,HGV level of

>=55dB(A) at 10m from the road


of between 40 and 55dB(A)

at 10m from the road


of <=40dB(A) at 10m from the

road

Potential air quality issues

(one or two air quality

monitors)

No air quality constraint on


(no air quality monitors)

Slight decrease in pollution


decrease of daytime HGV ‐

HGV day time decrease less

than 100 HGV

Less than 15 accidents

Development

Pavement Condition

Accidents

Air Quality (Day time)

Noise (Night time)

Negative feedback No feedback

Expected to respond

positively in some way to

current complaints, or elicits

positive feedback where


Feedback from

Communities


complaints and is expected to

raise more complaints, or

results in significant negative

feedback where previously

there were no complaints

HGV more than 7% of total 24

hours flow

HGV bteween 3.5‐7 % of

total 24 hours flow

Considerable decrease in


considerable decrease of


decrease more than 250 HGV



considerable increase of daytime

HGV ‐ HGV day time increase

more than 250 HGV

Considerable decrease in%

HGV: Greater than 2% decrease

in HGVs as propotion of general

traffic over 24hrs

Significantly less deterioration


decrease more than 250 HGV

Moderate decrease in pollution

resulted from slight decrease of


decrease between 100‐250

Considerable decrease of noise

at night resulted from decrease

of HGV. A decrease in noise of

more than 5dB(A).

Significantly more deterioration

due diverted HGV HGV increase

more than 250 HGV

Considerably less HGV through

semi‐urban areas

More than 30 accidents 15‐30 accidents

Moderate decrease of noise at

night resulted from decrease of

HGV. A decrease in noise of

between 3 and 5dB(A).

Base‐case appraisal result

Unit

Length of the corridor km

Number of lanes ‐ both directions n.

Speed Limit for majority of route mph

Road classification class

Permitted HGVs Y or N

Length of sections within urban environment km

% of sections within urban environment %

Road safety Number of accidents along the route n.

Site number ID

Direction Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound

Flows 12H,7‐19 Vehicles 3,578 3,756 3,679 4,269 6,000 5,664 8,851 7,326 4,994 5,076 7,400 6,692Flows 24H,0‐24 Vehicles 4,191 4,390 4,573 5,172 7,039 6,884 11,006 9,395 5,838 6,066 9,172 8,153Night flows 12H,19‐7 Vehicles 613 634 894 903 1039 1220 2155 2069 844 990 1772 1461

Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 277 526 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 446 412 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 23 35 11 12 48 47 51 52 35 53 35 53Timing of highest HGV volume time 16:00 07:00 14:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 5.41% 7.76% 3.30% 3.18% 10.00% 8.58% 8.13% 7.50% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 6.01% 6.04% 2.56% 2.44% 6.63% 6.73% 5.80% 5.68% 6.93% 8.85% 6.41% 5.81%% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 5.87% 6.31% 2.25% 2.32% 7.13% 7.12% 5.48% 5.46% 7.25% 9.20% 6.50% 6.14%N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 217 224 126 133 410 416 494 410 363 416 474 389N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 34 50 14 20 105 112 98 107 77 106 122 112N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 251 274 140 153 515 528 592 517 440 522 596 501N. of Rigid + trailer (7) + articulated HGVs (8) Vehicles 85 90 19 23 219 223 179 167 162 176 209 168

Day Vehicles 65 63 17 18 148 150 138 118 115 116 139 106

Night Vehicles 20 27 2 5 71 73 41 49 47 60 70 62

Base case night HGV – 2 directions HGV

Base case night HGV noise level Lnight,HGV

8 10 6 8 6

Noise84 34 217 205 183

54.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3

4 3

4 4 3 3 3

4

3 4 3 4 4

3 4 3 4 4

4 3 3 3

4 5 3

General

5 3 5 4 5

5 3 5 4 5

4

4

4 4 4 4

4

5 3 4 4 4

5 3 4 4 4

4 4 4

15

3 4 3 45

9 12 9 12

3 4 5 4

4800 4080 4782 4753 4745

Y

4.64 3.24 2.04

35.69% 57.55% 30.45%

4.47

58.66%

7 36 18 25 16

7.62

2

30 or 40 or 50

B

Y

13 5.63 6.7

2 2 2

40 or 50 30 or 40 40 and 60

56 48 49 49 50

Latteridge route Winterbourne route Rangeworthy route Badminton Rd route Old Sodbury route

4

6.56

2

40 or 50

B

Y

2.35

35.82%

B A A

Y Y

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

20080032

5

5

3

9

4

Yate Town Centre Through

Route

6.43

2

30 or 40 or 50

B & A

Y

4.3

66.87%

22

23461.0

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

3

Traffic flows

45434


Geometry Appraisal Result after weighting

50

4

Geometry (tight bends, significant gradients, poor sight lines, complex junctions)

Development status (residential areas, schools, shops and facilities)

Pavement Condition

Accidents and road safety

Envrionmental Factors ‐ Air Quality

Envrionmental Factors ‐ Noise

Awareness and Intimidation (HGV Percentage of 24hr general traffic)


SGC operating costs

HGV operator disturbance

3

48

4

Development status Apprasial Score

Development status Apprasial Result after weighting

Pavement Condition Apprasial Score

Pavement Condition Apprasial Result after weighting


Air Quality Appraisal Result after weighting

Proportion of 24hr HGVs Appraisal Score

Proportion of 24hr HGVs Appraisal Result

SGC operating cost Appraisal Score

Total Appraisal Result

SGC operating cost Apprasial Result after weighting

Accidents Apprasial Score

Accidents Apprasial Result after weighting


Noise Apprasial Result after weighting


Feedback from Communities Appraisal Result

HGV operator disturbance Appraisal Score

HGV operator disturbance Apprasial Result after weighting

Scenario 1: HGV Night bans all routes – appraisal result

Unit









Site number ID


Flows 12H,7‐19 Vehicles 3,612 3,806 3,693 4,289 6,105 5,776 8,949 7,433 5,071 5,182 7,522 6,804Flows 24H,0‐24 Vehicles 4,191 4,390 4,573 5,172 7,039 6,884 11,006 9,395 5,838 6,066 9,172 8,153

Night flows 12H,19‐7 Vehicles 579 584 880 883 934 1108 2057 1962 767 884 1650 1349

Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 277 526 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 446 412 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491

Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 23 35 11 12 48 47 51 52 35 53 35 53Timing of highest HGV volume time 16:00 07:00 14:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 5.41% 7.76% 3.30% 3.18% 10.00% 8.58% 8.13% 7.50% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%

% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 6.95% 7.20% 3.79% 3.57% 8.44% 9.14% 6.62% 6.96% 8.68% 10.07% 7.92% 7.36%% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 5.87% 6.31% 2.25% 2.32% 7.13% 7.12% 5.48% 5.46% 7.25% 9.20% 6.50% 6.14%

N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 251 274 140 153 515 528 592 517 440 522 596 501N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 251 274 140 153 515 528 592 517 440 522 596 501



Sc 1 night HGV – 2 directions HGV

Sc1 night HGV noise level Lnight,HGV

Change in night HGV noise level dB

Night HGVs 34 50 14 20 105 112 98 107 77 106 122 112

% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19 6.01% 6.04% 2.56% 2.44% 6.63% 6.73% 5.80% 5.68% 6.93% 8.85% 6.41% 5.81%% change I HGVs during 7‐19 0.94% 1.16% 1.24% 1.13% 1.80% 2.41% 0.82% 1.28% 1.75% 1.23% 1.51% 1.55%

Night HGVs

-54.2 -50.2 -57.8 -58.9 -59.3 -61.0

Noise 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0

84 34 217 205 183

56 49 49 49 49

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2

6 6 6 6 6

6 6 6 6 6

4 5 3 4 38 10 6 8 6

8 8 8 8 8

8 8 8 8 8

2 2 1 1 1

2 2 1 1 1

5 3 4 4 4

5 3 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

15 9 12 9 12

5 3 4 3 4

Traffic flows

20080032

4 3 4 5 4

4 3 4 5 4

4800 4080 4782 4753 4745


23454.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3

3.24 2.04

35.82% 58.66% 35.69% 57.55% 30.45%

7 36 18 25 16


40 or 50 30 or 40 or 50 40 or 50 30 or 40 40 and 60

General

6.56 7.62 13 5.63 6.7

2 2 2 2 2

B B B A A

Y Y Y Y Y

2.35 4.47 4.64

5

3

9

4

4

4

4


6.43

2

30 or 40 or 50

B & A

Y

4.3

66.87%

22

61.0

49

6

6

2

2

2

2



Pavement Condition






SGC operating costs


1

1

8

8

48

5





















Scenario 2: Total HGV ban on Winterbourne Route – appraisal result

Unit









Site number ID



Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 23 35 48 47 51 52 35 53 35 53Timing of highest HGV volume time 16:00 07:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 5.41% 7.76% 10.00% 8.58% 8.13% 7.50% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 6.01% 6.04% 0.00% 0.00% 6.63% 6.73% 6.91% 7.28% 6.93% 8.85% 6.41% 5.81%% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 5.87% 6.31% 0.00% 0.00% 7.13% 7.12% 6.57% 7.02% 7.25% 9.20% 6.50% 6.14%N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 217 224 0 0 410 416 620 543 363 416 474 389N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 34 50 0 0 105 112 112 127 77 106 122 112N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 251 274 0 0 515 528 732 670 440 522 596 501Base case night HGV – 2 directions HGV





N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: 0 0 0 126 133 0 0 494 410 0 0 0 0N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: 0 0 0 14 20 0 0 98 107 0 0 0 0N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: 0 0 0 140 153 0 0 592 517 0 0 0 0% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: 0 0 0 2.25% 2.32% 0 0 5.48% 5.46% 0 0 0 0

changes

0.0 -50.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0

Noise

84 34 217 205 183 23454.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3 61.084 0 217 239

4 1 4 4 4


3 7 3 2 4

4

4

4

1 4 4 4

4 1 4 4 4

3

4

4 8 3 1 38 16 6 2 6

5 3 4 4 4

5 7 5 1 5

5 7 5 1 5

4 7 4 1 4

4 7 4 1 4

Traffic flows

20080032


4 6 4 5 4

4 6 4 5 4

183 23454.2 0.0 57.8 59.5

4800 4080 4782 4753 4745

3.24 2.04

35.82% 58.66% 35.69% 57.55% 30.45%

7 36 18 25 16


40 or 50 30 or 40 or 50 40 or 50 30 or 40 40 and 60

General

6.56 7.62 13 5.63 6.7

2 2 2 2 2

B B B A A

Y Y Y Y Y

2.35 4.47 4.64

4

Yate Town Centre Through

Route

6.43

2

30 or 40 or 50

B & A

Y

4.3

66.87%

22

2 4

59.3 61.0








5

5

3

9

4

4

4


Pavement Condition


15 18 12 6 12

5 6

4

5

5

3

3

48




5 3 4 4 4

4 8 3 3 3

4 8 3 3

4

4

50

SGC operating costs


3 7 3 2 4

4 1 4 4 4

56 74 49 32 50



4













Scenario 3 – Total HGV ban on Latteridge and Rangeworthy Routes – appraisal result

Unit









Site number ID


Flows 12H,7‐19 Vehicles 3,361 3,532 3,867 4,461 5,590 5,248 9,227 7,710 5,057 5,140 7,463 6,756Flows 24H,0‐24 Vehicles 3,940 4,116 4,803 5,413 6,524 6,356 11,466 9,876 5,915 6,146 9,249 8,233Night flows 12H,19‐7 Vehicles 579 584 935.7 951.6 934 1108 2238.4 2166.2 857.9 1006.2 1785.9 1477.2

Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 277 526 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 446 412 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 11 12 51 52 35 53 35 53Timing of highest HGV volume time 14:00 09:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 3.30% 3.18% 8.13% 7.50% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 8.12% 7.29% 9.43% 10.30% 8.42% 9.34% 7.19% 6.71%% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 7.70% 7.27% 9.17% 10.11% 8.73% 9.80% 7.27% 7.06%N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 314 325 870 794 426 480 537 453N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 56 69 181 204 91 122 136 128N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 370 394 1,052 998 517 602 673 581Base case night HGV – 2 directions HGV



Sc 3 night HGV noise level Lnight,HGV


Difference in 24h HGV ‐251 ‐274 230 241 ‐515 ‐528 460 481 77 80 77 80

Difference in daytime HGV ‐217 ‐224 188 192 ‐410 ‐416 376 384 63 64 63 64

Difference in nighttime HGV ‐34 ‐50 42 49 ‐105 ‐112 83 97 14 16 14 16

Change in 24h HGV % ‐5.87% ‐6.31% 5.45% 4.95% ‐7.13% ‐7.12% 3.69% 4.65% 1.49% 0.60% 0.77% 0.92%

73 19 80 24 31 36

SGC operating costs

1 4 1 4 4 4

0 4 0 4 4

4


0 4 0 4 4 4

1 4 1 4 4

4

4Feedback from Communities

16 0 16 0 2Proportion of 24hr HGVs Appraisal Result

2 2 2

7 2 7 2 2Feedback from Communities Appraisal Score


2

7 2 7

8 2 3 3

8 0 8 2 3

4


5 3 4 4 4


2

7 1 8 0 2 2

7 1 8 0 2

2


5 3 4 4 4 4

7 1 8 0 2

Pavement Condition

7 1 8 0 2 2

2

15 3 21 3 6 6

5 1 7 1 2Development status Apprasial Score



5

7 1 7 5 2 5

7 1 7 5 2Geometry Appraisal Score



20080032

Noise

84 34 217 205 183 23454.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3 61.0

0 124

-57.8 2.7 0.6 0.6

Change

Traffic flows

4800 4080 4782 4753 4745

0 386 213 2640.0 55.8 0.0 61.6 59.9 61.6

-54.2 5.6

18 25 16 22

35.82% 58.66% 35.69% 57.55% 30.45% 66.87%

General

6.56 7.62 13 5.63 6.7

40 or 50 30 or 40 or 50 40 or 50 30 or 40 40 and 60

B B B A A

2 2 2 2 2

2.35 4.47 4.64

Latteridge route Winterbourne route Rangeworthy route Badminton Rd route Old Sodbury routeYate Town Centre Through

Route

30 or 40 or 50

B & A

6.43

2

3.24 2.04 4.3

Y Y Y Y Y Y

7 36
















8 0 8 0 1 2

3

8 0

Scenario 4 – Total HGV ban on Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes – appraisal result

Unit









Site number ID


Flows 12H,7‐19 Vehicles 3,857 4,000 3,553 4,136 6,217 5,854 8,357 6,916 5,118 5,185 7,524 6,801Flows 24H,0‐24 Vehicles 4,520 4,692 4,433 5,019 7,295 7,119 10,414 8,878 5,984 6,200 9,318 8,287Night flows 12H,19‐7 Vehicles 663.4 691.15 880 883 1078.2 1264.45 2057 1962 866.4 1015.4 1794.4 1486.4

Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 277 526 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 446 412 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 23 35 11 12 48 47 51 52 35 53 35 53Timing of highest HGV volume time 16:00 07:00 14:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 5.41% 7.76% 10.00% 8.58% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 12.86% 11.71% 10.09% 10.35% 9.52% 10.12% 7.95% 7.32%% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 12.84% 12.27% 10.57% 10.71% 9.80% 10.58% 7.97% 7.66%N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 496 468 627 606 487 525 598 498N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 84 107 144 156 99 131 144 137N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 580 576 771 763 586 656 742 635Base case night HGV – 2 directions HGV





Difference in 24h HGV 329 302 -140 -153 256 235 -592 -517 146 134 146 134

Difference in daytime HGV 279 244 -126 -133 217 190 -494 -410 124 109 124 109

Difference in nighttime HGV 50 57 ‐14 ‐20 39 44 ‐98 ‐107 22 25 22 25

Change in 24h HGV % 6.97% 5.96% ‐2.25% ‐2.32% 3.44% 3.59% ‐5.48% ‐5.46% 2.55% 1.38% 1.47% 1.52%

Change


3.6 -50.2 1.4 -58.9 1.0 0.8

192 0 301 0 231 28257.8 0.0 59.2 0.0 60.3 61.8

4

31 77 21 78 29 32

SGC operating costs

4 1 4 1 4 4

2

1 7 1 7

205 183

4 0 4 0 4

4


4 0 4 0 4 4

4 1 4 1 4

2 2

1 7 1 7 2





8 2 8 3 3

1 8 2 8 3

4


5 3 4 4 4


1

0 7 1 8 1 1

0 7 1 8 1

5 3 4 4 4 4

0 7 1 8 1

Pavement Condition

0 7 1 8 1 1

2

15 21 3 21 6 6




5

1 7 1 5 2 5




20080032

Traffic flows

4800 4080 4782 4753 4745

Noise

84 34 217 23454.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3 61.0

7 36 18 25 16 22

35.82% 58.66% 35.69% 57.55% 30.45% 66.87%

6.43

2 2 2 2 2 2

2.35 4.47 4.64 3.24 2.04 4.3

Y Y Y Y Y Y


Route

General

6.56 7.62 13 5.63 6.7

40 or 50 30 or 40 or 50 40 or 50 30 or 40 40 and 60 30 or 40 or 50

B B B A A B & A















0 8 0 8 1 1

3

1

1


Scenario 5 – Total HGV ban on Rangeworthy and Winterbourne Routes – appraisal result

Unit









Site number ID



Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 23 35 48 47 51 52 35 53 35 53Timing of highest HGV volume time 16:00 07:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 5.41% 7.76% 8.13% 7.50% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 15.72% 15.34% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.91% 7.28% 6.93% 8.85% 6.41% 5.81%% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 16.28% 16.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.57% 7.02% 7.25% 9.20% 6.50% 6.14%N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 627 640 0 0 0 0 620 543 363 416 474 389N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 139 162 0 0 0 0 112 127 77 106 122 112N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 766 802 0 0 0 0 732 670 440 522 596 501Base case night HGV – 2 directions HGV





Difference in 24h HGV 515 528 ‐140 ‐153 ‐515 ‐528 140 153 0 0 0 0

Difference in daytime HGV 410 416 ‐126 ‐133 ‐410 ‐416 126 133 0 0 0 0

Difference in nighttime HGV 105 112 ‐14 ‐20 ‐105 ‐112 14 20 0 0 0 0

Change in 24h HGV % 10.41% 10.00% ‐2.25% ‐2.32% ‐7.13% ‐7.12% 1.09% 1.56% 0 0 0 0


Change

59.3 61.0

5.5 -50.2 -57.8 0.6 0.0 0.0

301 0 0 239 183 23459.7 0.0 0.0 59.5 59.3 61.0


Route

General

6.56 7.62 13 5.63 6.7


B B B A A B & A

6.43

2 2 2 2 2 2

2.35 4.47 4.64 3.24 2.04 4.3

Y Y Y Y Y Y

7 36 18 25 16 22

35.82% 58.66% 35.69% 57.55% 30.45% 66.87%


20080032

Traffic flows

4800 4080 4782 4753 4745

Noise

84 34 217 205 183 23454.2 50.2 57.8 58.9


5

1 7 7 5 4 5



Pavement Condition

0 7 8 1 4 4

3

15 21 21 3 12 9



4


5 3 4 4 4

4


5 3 4 4 4 4

0 7 8 1 4


5

0 7 8 1 5 5

0 7 8 1 5

8 3 3 3

0 8 8 3 3

4

1 7 7 2 4





4 4

4


4 1 0 4 4 4

4 1 1 4 4

4

30 78 80 29 50 50

SGC operating costs

4 1 1 4 4 4

4

1 7 7 2 4

4 1















0 8 8 1 3 4

3

0 8

0

Scenario 6 – Ban on HGVs of class 7 & 8 (Rigid plus trailer, and Articulated HGVs) from the Rangeworthy, Winterbourne and Badminton Road Routes – appraisal result

Unit









Site number ID


Flows 12H,7‐19 Vehicles 3,881 4,042 3,662 4,251 5,852 5,514 8,713 7,208 4,994 5,076 7,400 6,692

Flows 24H,0‐24 Vehicles 4,608 4,803 4,554 5,149 6,820 6,661 10,827 9,228 5,838 6,066 9,172 8,153

Night flows 12H,19‐7 Vehicles 727 761 892 898 968 1147 2114 2020 844 990 1772 1461

Flows Am Peak v/h 416 534 277 526 872 669 1077 693 518 805 541 905

Flows PM Peak v/h 471 467 446 412 625 732 844 637 633 507 1080 491Highest HGV hourly volume v/h 23 35 11 12 48 47 51 52 35 53 35 53

Timing of highest HGV volume time 16:00 07:00 14:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 10:00 07:00 14:00 07:00 09:00 08:00

% of HGV during the highest HGV duration % 5.41% 7.76% 3.30% 3.18% 10.00% 8.58% 8.13% 7.50% 8.86% 6.73% 7.36% 5.83%% of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: % 13.40% 12.62% 2.98% 2.71% 4.48% 4.82% 4.09% 4.05% 6.93% 8.85% 6.41% 5.81%

% of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: % 14.50% 14.30% 2.66% 2.52% 4.34% 4.58% 3.81% 3.79% 7.25% 9.20% 6.50% 6.14%N. of HGVs during 12H,7‐19: Vehicles 520 510 109 115 262 266 356 292 363 416 474 389

N. of HGVs during 12H,19‐7: Vehicles 148 177 12 15 34 39 57 58 77 106 122 112

N. of HGVs during 24H,0‐24: Vehicles 668 687 121 130 296 305 413 350 440 522 596 501N. of additonal Rigid + trailer (7) + articulated HGVs (8) 417 413 19 23 219 223 179 167 162 176 209 168

Day 303 286 17 18 148 150 138 118 115 116 139 106Night 114 127 2 5 71 73 41 49 47 60 70 62






N. of additonal Rigid + trailer (7) + articulated HGVs (8) 417 413 19 23 219 223 179 167 162 176 209 168

Day 303 286 17 18 148 150 138 118 115 116 139 106

Night 114 127 2 5 71 73 41 49 47 60 70 62

Difference in 24h HGV 417 413 ‐19 ‐23 ‐219 ‐223 ‐179 ‐167 0 0 0 0

Difference in daytime HGV 303 286 ‐17 ‐18 ‐148 ‐150 ‐138 ‐118 0 0 0 0

Difference in nighttime HGV 114 127 ‐2 ‐5 ‐71 ‐73 ‐41 ‐49 0 0 0 0

Change in 24h HGV % 8.63% 7.99% 0.40% 0.20% -2.79% -2.54% -1.66% -1.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Rigid + trailer (7) +

articulated HGVs

61.0

5.9 -1.0 -4.7 -2.5 0.0 0.0

325 27 73 115 183 234

60.1 49.2 53.1 56.4 59.3 61.0


Route

General

6.56 7.62 13 5.63 6.7


B B B A A B & A

6.43

2 2 2 2 2 2

2.35 4.47 4.64 3.24 2.04 4.3

Y Y Y Y Y Y

7 36 18 25 16 22

35.82% 58.66% 35.69% 57.55% 30.45% 66.87%


200800324800 4080 4782 4753 4745

Noise

84 34 217 205 183 23454.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3


5

2 3 6 5 4 5

2 3 6 5 4


Pavement Condition

0 4 7 7 4 4

3

15 9 18 18 12 9



4


5 3 4 4 4

4


5 3 4 4 4 4

0 4 7 7 4


5

0 3 7 7 5 5

0 3 7 7 5

7 6 3 3

0 4 7 6 3

4 6 6 4Feedback from Communities Appraisal Score


8



31 41 72 68 50 50

SGC operating costs

4 1 1 1 4 4

4 0 0 0 4

4


4 0 0 0

Traffic flows


4

4

1

4 4

4 1 1 1 4

4 6 6 4 4

1
















0 5 8 7 3 4

3

0 4

Summary of Scores per Scenarios

Base Case Total score

per Scenario

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route

Old Sodbury route Yate Town Centre

Through Route

Geometry Appraisal Score 1 4 3 4 5 4 5

Development status Appraisal Score 3 5 3 4 3 4 3

Pavement Condition Appraisal Score 1 4 4 4 4 4 4

Accidents Appraisal Score 1 5 3 4 4 4 4

Air Quality Appraisal Score 1 5 3 5 4 5 5

Noise Appraisal Score 1 4 4 3 3 3 3

Awareness and Intimidation (HGV Percentage of

24hr general traffic) Appraisal Score

2

4 5 3 4 3 4

Feedback from Communities Appraisal Score 1 3 4 3 4 4 4



Total Score 56 48 49 49 50 50 302

Scenario 1 ‐ Night bans all

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route


Through Route








24hr general traffic) Appraisal Score 2 4 5 3 4 3 4




Total Score 56 49 49 49 49 49 301

Scenario 2 ‐ Total Ban Winterbourne

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route


Through Route












Total Score 56 74 49 32 50 50 311

Scenario 3 – Total Ban Latteridge & Rangeworthy routes

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route


Through Route












Total Score 73 19 80 24 31 36 263

Scenario 4 –Total ban Badminton & Winterbourne routes

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route Old Sodbury route

Yate Town Centre

Through Route












Total Score 31 77 21 78 29 32 268

Scenario 5–Total ban Rangeworthy & Winterbourne routes

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route Old Sodbury route

Yate Town Centre

Through Route












Total Score 30 78 80 29 50 50 317

Scenario 6 – Rigid +trailer (7) + articulated HGVs (8) have 2 entrances Latteridge route and Old Sodbury route (through Yate Town Centre Through Route)

Criteria Weighting

Factor

Latteridge

route

Winterbourn

e route

Rangeworthy

route

Badminton Rd

route


Through Route







Awareness and Intimidation (HGV Percentage of 24hr 2 0 5 8 7 3 4




Total Score 31 41 72 68 50 50 312

Appendix 2: Responses from operators

Appendix 3: Noise Calculations

Detailed noise analysis using just HGV flows HGV Noise Study during night

Latteridge Route Winterbourne

Route Rangeworthy

Route Badminton Rd

Route Old Sodbury

Route Yate Route

Measured Noise Data SEL ‐ HGV dB 81.3 81.2 80.8 82.1 83 83.7

Time period 12H, 19‐7 sec 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200

HGV Flows 12H,7‐19 Base

HGV

84 34 217 205 183 234 Scenario 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scenario 2 84 0 217 239 183 234 Scenario 3 0 124 0 386 213 264 Scenario 4 192 0 301 0 231 282 Scenario 5 301 0 0 239 183 234 Scenario 6 325 27 73 115 183 234

Noise Level Calculations Base

Lnight,HGV

54.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3 61.0 Scenario 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scenario 2 54.2 0.0 57.8 59.5 59.3 61.0 Scenario 3 0.0 55.8 0.0 61.6 59.9 61.6 Scenario 4 57.8 0.0 59.2 0.0 60.3 61.8 Scenario 5 59.7 0.0 0.0 59.5 59.3 61.0 Scenario 6 60.1 49.2 53.1 56.4 59.3 61.0

Difference between Scenarios and Base case Base

dB

54.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3 61.0 Scenario 1 ‐54.2 ‐50.2 ‐57.8 ‐58.9 ‐59.3 ‐61.0 Scenario 2 0.0 ‐50.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Scenario 3 ‐54.2 5.6 ‐57.8 2.7 0.6 0.6 Scenario 4 3.6 ‐50.2 1.4 ‐58.9 1.0 0.8 Scenario 5 5.5 ‐50.2 ‐57.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 Scenario 6 5.9 ‐1.0 ‐4.7 ‐2.5 0.0 0.0

Criteria Base

dB

4 4 3 3 3 3 Scenario 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 Scenario 2 4 8 3 3 3 3 Scenario 3 8 0 8 2 3 3 Scenario 4 1 8 2 8 3 3 Scenario 5 0 8 8 3 3 3 Scenario 6 0 6 7 6 3 3

Detailed noise analysis using HGV and general traffic flows Noise Study during night

SEL ‐ Cars dB 76.5 75.9 74.6 77.9 77 78.3

SEL ‐ HGV dB 81.3 81.2 80.8 82.1 83 83.7

Time period 12H, 19‐7 sec 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200 43,200

Flows Base Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

12H,7‐19 HGV 84 34 217 205 183 234

Scenario 1 Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

HGV 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scenario 2 Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

HGV 84 0 217 239 183 234

Scenario 3 Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

HGV 0 125 0 385 213 264

Scenario 4 Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

HGV 191 0 300 0 230 281

Scenario 5 Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

HGV 301 0 0 239 183 234

Scenario 6 Cars 1,163 1,763 2,042 4,019 1,651 2,999

HGV 564 27 73 115 76 102

Noise Level Calculations Base Leq Cars 60.8 62.0 61.3 67.6 62.8 66.7

Leq HGV 54.2 50.2 57.8 58.9 59.3 61.0

Leq Combined 61.7 62.3 62.9 68.1 64.4 67.8

Scenario 1 Leq Cars 60.8 62.0 61.3 67.6 62.8 66.7

Leq HGV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Leq Combined 60.8 62.0 61.3 67.6 62.8 66.7


Leq HGV 54.2 0.0 57.8 59.5 59.3 61.0

Leq Combined 61.7 62.0 62.9 68.2 64.4 67.8


Leq HGV 0.0 55.8 0.0 61.6 59.9 61.6

Leq Combined 60.8 62.9 61.3 68.6 64.6 67.9


Leq HGV 57.8 0.0 59.2 0.0 60.3 61.8

Leq Combined 62.6 62.0 63.4 67.6 64.7 67.9


Leq HGV 59.7 0.0 0.0 59.5 59.3 61.0

Leq Combined 63.3 62.0 61.3 68.2 64.4 67.8


Leq HGV 62.5 49.2 53.1 56.4 55.5 57.4

Leq Combined 64.7 62.2 61.9 67.9 63.6 67.2

Assessment Level Base dB 61.7 62.3 62.9 68.1 64.4 67.8

Scenario 1 dB ‐0.9 ‐0.3 ‐1.6 ‐0.5 ‐1.6 ‐1.0

Scenario 2 dB 0.0 ‐0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Scenario 3 dB ‐0.9 0.7 ‐1.6 0.4 0.2 0.1

Scenario 4 dB 0.9 ‐0.3 0.5 ‐0.5 0.3 0.2

Scenario 5 dB 1.7 ‐0.3 ‐1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0

Scenario 6 dB 3.1 ‐0.1 ‐1.0 ‐0.2 ‐0.9 ‐0.6

stage 2 draft report v1 - south gloucestershire · 2017-07-11 · dhl supply chain limited great...

Documents