wakefield- spd retail development assessment documents/rtc6.19... · 10 proposed retail and mixed...

Wakefield- SPD Retail Development Assessment

Wakefield Council

Transport Assessment Report

5 September 2015

Tra nspo rt Assess me nt Rep ort

Wakefield C ouncil


i


Project no: B2118300

Document title: Transport Assessment Report

Document No.:

Revision: 2

Date: 5 September 2015

Client name: Wakefield Council

Client no: N/A

Project manager: Daniel Osborne

Author: Daniel Osborne

File name: P:\B2000000\B2118300 - Wakefield SPD Retail Modelling\3 JC Tech Work\3.1Transportation\3.1.2 Reports\2015-09-17 Wakefield_Retail_Modelling_Report_V5.docx

1 City WalkLeeds, West Yorkshire LS11 9DXUnited KingdomT +44 (0)113 242 6771F +44 (0)113 389 1389www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2015 Please select a legal entity from the Change Document Details option on the Jacobs ribbon. The concepts and information

contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of

Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the

provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance

upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

1 26.08.15 Draft- for Client Approval DO, JG LC LC

2 05.10.15 Final DO LC LC


ii

Contents

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................................4

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

1.1 Overview................................................................................................................................................8

1.2 Purpose of report ...................................................................................................................................8

1.3 Structure of report ..................................................................................................................................9

2. Approach............................................................................................................................................10

2.1 Transport Model...................................................................................................................................10

2.2 Base Model updates ............................................................................................................................10

2.3 Scenario Models ..................................................................................................................................10

2.4 Traffic generation .................................................................................................................................11

2.5 Scenarios.............................................................................................................................................11

3. Analysis & Results.............................................................................................................................12

4. Scenario 1 - Castleford ......................................................................................................................13

4.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................14

4.2 Traffic Flow Changes ...........................................................................................................................14

4.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................16

4.4 Congestion (Volume Capacity Ratios) ..................................................................................................18

4.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................19

5. Scenario 2 - Pontefract ......................................................................................................................20

5.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................20

5.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................21

5.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................22

5.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................24

5.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................25

6. Scenario 3 - Featherstone..................................................................................................................26

6.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................26

6.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................27

6.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................28

6.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................30

6.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................31

7. Scenario 4 - Knottingley ....................................................................................................................32

7.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................32

7.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................33

7.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................34

7.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................36

7.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................37

8. Scenario 5 - South Elmsall.................................................................................................................38

8.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................38

8.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................39

8.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................40

8.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................42


iii

8.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................43

9. Scenario 6 - Ossett.............................................................................................................................44

9.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................44

9.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................45

9.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................46

9.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................48

9.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................49

10. Scenario 7 - All sites combined (excluding rejected sites) ..............................................................50

10.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................51

10.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................52

10.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................55

10.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................58

10.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................61

11. Scenario 8 - Sandal rejected sites.....................................................................................................61

11.1 Trip Generation....................................................................................................................................62

11.2 Traffic Flow ..........................................................................................................................................63

11.3 Travel Delay.........................................................................................................................................64

11.4 Congestion...........................................................................................................................................66

11.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................................67

12. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................68

Appendix A. Development site traffic generation

Appendix B. Change in volume over capacity

Appendix C. Combined scenario local plots

4

Disclaimer

The conclusions presented in this report regarding the traffic impact of a number of proposed developmentswithin the City of Wakefield should not prejudice any subsequent planning applications or be considered asubstitute for a detailed transport appraisal for said developments.

5

Executive Summary

Jacobs has been appointed by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) to undertake traffic modelling of10 proposed retail and mixed use development sites and two additional rejected developments in support of theRetail Strategy Transport Assessment for the Wakefield Local Plan.

The impact upon the traffic network has been assessed using the latest version of the Wakefield Transportmodel, as maintained by WMDC using the SATURN software package. This model was last updated and re-forecast for 2016 and 2022 as part of the LDF evidence base undertaken by WMDC in 2012 and meets relevantWebTAG standards in terms of count and journey time validation. As part of this project, the model has beenfurther updated to incorporate values of time in consistent with current 2015 WebTAG guidance and goodsvehicle forecasts published in the 2015 DfT road traffic forecasts.

The traffic assessment has been carried out for a forecast year of 2022 across both AM and PM peak periods.

Additional traffic generation for each proposed development has been estimated using rates published in theTRICS database for each relevant land use. Zero pass-by and transfer trips have been assumed for alldevelopments, providing what should be considered a conservative worst case assessment.

The origin/destination distribution of newly generated traffic has been based on the existing distribution (for therelevant trip purposes) of the selected model zone. Where new zones have been required, the origin/destinationtrip distribution of an existing nearby zone, covering suitable trip purposes, has been adopted.

Traffic impacts resulting from the proposed developments have been measured in terms of change in traveldelay and volume to capacity ratio. In a transport modelling context, these are defined as follows:

Volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. This is the ratio of the volume of traffic along a particular stretch of road,divided by the assumed capacity of the road. It is a useful metric for describing the level of congestion ona road.

Travel Delay. This represents the additional time taken to travel a stretch of road compared with theuncongested free flow travel time.

The proposed developments have been grouped by location and the following scenarios have been tested:

Scenario 1 - Castleford

Scenario 2 - Pontefract

Scenario 3 - Featherstone

Scenario 4 - Knottingley

Scenario 5 - South Elmsall

Scenario 6 - Ossett

Scenario 7 - All Sites Combined (excluding rejected sites)

Scenario 8 - Sandal Rejected Sites

Key results from the analysis of each scenario are as follows:

Scenario 1 – Castleford

The four proposed developments in Castleford are estimated to generated an additional 179 AM peak hour and319 PM peak hour trips. This is shown to result in a significant impact is to the Carlton Street / Bridge Streetjunction during the PM peak, where delay on the Carlton Street approach is shown to increase by 32 seconds,and V/C ratio by 11% to 89%, bringing the road above operational capacity, but still below absolute capacity. Noother significant impacts were found. It is expected that this impact could be mitigated through minor works.

Scenario 2 – Pontefract

The proposed development in Pontefract is estimated to generate an additional 94 AM peak hour and 204 PMpeak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impacts during the AM or PM peak hours, indicatingthe existing road network is able to adequately accommodate the additional traffic generation.

Scenario 3 – Featherstone

6

The proposed development in Featherstone is estimated to generate an additional 104 AM peak hour and 220PM peak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impacts during the AM or PM peak hours,indicating the existing road network is able to adequately accommodate the additional traffic generation.

Scenario 4 – Knottingley

The proposed development in Knottingley is estimated to generate an additional 96 AM peak hour and 136 PMpeak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impact during the AM Peak. During the PM peakhowever, the additional development traffic results in significant traffic impacts at the following locations:

Old North Great Road northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane: delay increased by 49 seconds,V/C ratio increased by 6% to 102%

Castleford Lane northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane: delay increased by 75 seconds, V/C ratioincreased by 5% to 101%

These locations are minor roads and it is expected that the impacts could be mitigated through minor works.

Scenario 5 – South Elmsall

The proposed supermarket development in South Elmsall is estimated to generate an additional 101 AM peakhour and 225 PM peak hour trips. This is shown to result in a significant congestion impact during the AM peakhour to the High Street / Doncaster Road junction, where the High Street approach V/C ratio is shown toincrease by 4% to 88%, causing the road to exceed operational capacity, but still remain below absolutecapacity. However, given the development associated volume increase at this location is small and theapproach is already very close to operational capacity, this should be considered the worsening of an existingissue. No other significant impacts were found.

Scenario 6 – Ossett

The proposed supermarket development in Ossett is estimated to generate an additional 181 AM peak hour and382 PM peak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impacts during the AM peak.

During the PM peak, owing to the greater volume of traffic generation, the proposed development is shown toresult in significant travel delay impacts at the following locations:

West Wells Road approach to Queen Street: 38 seconds

Prospect Road approach to Dale Street: 44 seconds

Dale Street approach to Prospect Road/Church St: 32 seconds

Prospect Road approach to Queen Street: 41 seconds

The Ossett road network surrounding the proposed development is forecast to largely reach capacity by 2022as existing, and is thus sensitive to minor increases in traffic volumes. As such, the impacts identified above arerepresentative of a worsening of existing issues. However, given the existing physical constraints at theProspect Road / Dale Street junction, an engineering solution to mitigate the traffic impacts may be difficult,requiring consideration of travel demand management.


For this this scenario, traffic impacts occurring on the wider Wakefield road network, as a result of the combinedtraffic generation of all proposed developments were considered. This is estimated to result in an additional 756PM peak hour trips and 1496 AM peak hour trips. Due to the localised nature of much of the traffic expected tobe generated by the proposed developments around Wakefield, the pattern of traffic impacts under the all sitescombined scenario is shown to be generally consistent with the individual town scenarios, with the followingcommon significant impacts identified:

Carlton Street approach to Bridge Street, Castleford: delay increased by 33 seconds, V/C ratio increasedby 11% to 89%



West Wells Road approach to Queen Street: delay increased by 41 seconds

Prospect Road approach to Dale Street: delay increased by 48 seconds

7

Dale Street approach to Prospect Road/Church St: delay increased by 33 seconds

Prospect Road approach to Queen Street: delay increased by 43 seconds

Further to the impacts identified above, a number of significant impacts to the wider Wakefield network havebeen identified in the combined scenario results, these are:

M62 Junction 30 eastbound on slip: Delay increased by 34 seconds

Fryston Road / Redhill Drive junction, Castleford: Delay increased by 50 to 53 seconds

Front Street / Holywell Lane junction, Castleford: 37 seconds

At each of these locations of additional impact, the pre-development V/C ratio is greater than 100%, exceedingabsolute capacity. Once the absolute capacity of a junction approach is reached, delay will increaseexponentially with any additional traffic demand. As such, at these locations, the significant delay impacts arethe result of an already over congested network reacting to minor changes in travel demand resulting from theproposed developments.

However, based on a detailed review of forecast traffic volumes, it is considered that due to local circumstances,the predicted 2022 pre-development volumes at these locations are most likely above what would bereasonably expected. As such, combined with the fact that the contributing development associated traffic issmall, it is considered that these increases to delay do not represent a material impact and are not likely torequire mitigating measures.

Scenario 8 – Sandal Rejected Sites

The proposed developments in Sandal are estimated to generate an additional 90 AM peak hour and 144 PMpeak hour trips. This is shown to result in the following significant traffic impacts:

Asdale Road westbound approach to the RTC4 development access: AM peak hour V/C ratio shown toincrease by 14% to 90%, causing the road to go over operational capacity.

Asda/ALDI retail development exit roundabout approach to Asdale Road. PM peak hour delay is shown toincrease by 152 seconds.

Given the scale of the impact to the Asda/ALDA access roundabout, substantial junction improvements may berequired to accommodate the proposed development traffic. Elsewhere, overall impact was found to be minor,with insignificant increases to delay and congestion.

8

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

Jacobs has been appointed by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (WMDC) to undertake traffic modelling ofa number of proposed retail and mixed use development sites in support of the Retail Strategy TransportAssessment for the Wakefield Local Plan.

The impact upon the traffic network has been assessed using the latest version of the Wakefield Transportmodel, as maintained by WMDC using the SATURN software package.

The model was last updated and re-forecast for 2016 and 2022 as part of the LDF evidence base undertaken byWMDC in 2012.

Further details of the model’s description, and it’s development can be found in the Wakefield Traffic Model-Local Model Validation Report. However, and in summary, the model meets relevant WebTAG standards interms of count and journey time validation performance, and represents the same base traffic model used inboth previous Transport Assessment work for the LDF, and that has been used to secure additional transportfunding for schemes promoted by the Council through the West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

As part of this work, as to ensure the model meets very latest guidance, Jacobs have updated the trafficforecasts to latest November 2014 WebTAG values of time, and also ensured full compliance with RegionalTraffic Forecasts 2015 (RTF15) in terms of LGV and HGV growth rates.

1.2 Purpose of report

The purpose of the report is to understand the impact of each development scenario on:

Traffic flow

Travel delay; and

Volume to capacity ratios

The tests and analysis have been set out for each area within the District, along with a cumulative run of alldevelopments to ensure a worst case assessment is also analysed from the point of view of future mitigationrequirements. Further, and in addition to this, a transport assessment of sites currently rejected has also beenundertaken for consistency of treatment.

These analyses will help to identify any pinch points and key impacted roads/ junctions in the immediate vicinityof the development sites and the surrounding area should the proposed developments proceed.

9

1.3 Structure of report

The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

Section 2 – Transport Model

Section 3 – Scenarios

Section 4 – Analysis & Results

Section 5 – Scenario 1 - Castleford

Section 6 – Scenario 2 - Pontefract

Section 7 – Scenario 3 - Featherstone

Section 8 – Scenario 4 - Knottingley

Section 9 – Scenario 5 - South Elmsall

Section 10 – Scenario 6 - Ossett

Section 11 – Scenario 7 - All Sites Combined (excluding rejected sites)

Section 12 – Scenario 8 - Sandal Rejected Sites

10

2. Approach

2.1 Transport Model

Each development scenario has been tested using the latest available version of the Wakefield SATURNmodel, as developed for LDF assessment by WMDC in 2012.

All traffic modelling carried out as part of this project have been undertaken using the existing WakefieldSATURN model. The model covers three time periods: the AM peak (8-9am); Inter peak (average 10am-4pm)and PM peak (5-6pm) and three vehicle classes; Cars; LGVs and HGVs.

The SATURN model was originally created in 2004 and most recently updated to a 2011 base year. The 2011update was a major area-wide update using 676 counts undertaken between summer 2009 and summer 2011.The network was modified to include a number of new roads and revised junction layouts. Additionally, thedemand matrices were updated to include new developments up to 2011.

Table 2-1: Model Validation Results 2011

Time Band % GEH < 5

AM peak 89%

Inter-peak 96%

PM peak 88%

The 2011 model validation between observed and modelled counts is good, as shown in Table 2-1, and inexcess of DMRB and WebTAG guidance, indicating the model is fit for purpose for this assessment.

The Wakefield SATURN model 2022 forecast year, originally developed in 2011 as part of the Wakefield LDFAssessment, has been used for all assessment of traffic impacts. The 2022 forecast year model incorporates allfuture year schemes since 2011 which have either been construction, are under construction or are fully funded.This, this represents a suitable, do-minimum position for the assessment.

2.2 Base Model updates

As part of this project, a number of minor updates to the existing Wakefield SATURN model have been made toensure that the assessment is robust and in line with current guidance. These include:

Values of time and vehicle operating costs have been updated to reflect 2015 WebTAG guidance.

Goods vehicle forecasts have been updated in line with the 2015 DfT road traffic forecasts.

Pontefract Northern Road, Wakefield Eastern Relief Road and the Town End Junction improvements inthe centre of Pontefract have been incorporated into the 2022 forecast year network.

2.3 Scenario Models

To develop each scenario model for this assessment, the following general approach as has been adopted:

Existing conventions within the Wakefield model relating junction coding and saturation flow values havebeen maintained for any new network coding.

Where new priority junctions have been required to facilitate development access, these have beencoded such that they operate within capacity under 2022 demand.

For development sites where no suitable zone and loading point existed, a new zone and loading pointhas been created.

The origin/destination distribution of newly generated traffic has been based on the existing distribution(for the relevant trip purposes) of the selected model zone.

For new zones, the origin/destination trip distribution of an existing nearby zone, covering suitable trippurposes, has been adopted.

11

2.4 Traffic generation

Traffic generation for existing and proposed land uses for all development sites has been calculated usinggeneration rates published in the TRICS database. Total new traffic generation has been calculated as thedirect difference between the volume of traffic generated between the existing and proposed land uses. No passby or transfer have been assumed, and as such, this assessment represents a conservative, worst caseapproach.

All adopted trips rates and calculated traffic generation at all proposed development sites is detailed inAppendix A.

2.5 Scenarios

For the purpose of impact analysis, all proposed development sites have been grouped into scenarios based onlocality.

Table 2-2 summarises the development sites associated with each scenario.

For a summary of each proposed development and the associated traffic generation, refer Appendix A.

Table 2-2 – Scenarios and development sites

Scenario Development sites

1 Castleford RTC 22, 23, 24 and 115

2 Pontefract RTC 53 and 54

3 Featherstone RTC 157

4 Knottingley RTC 160

5 South Elmsall RTC 91

6 Ossett RTC 101

7 All sites combined All development sites excluding rejected sites (RTC 4 and 5)

8 Sandal rejected sites RTC 4 and 5

12

3. Analysis & ResultsThe traffic plots on the following pages show congestion (measured in terms of volume to capacity ratio), as wellas change in traffic volumes and travel delay with the proposed developments in place.

Comparative change in volume to capacity ratio plots are included in Appendix B for reference.

Travel delay and volume to capacity ratio in a transport modelling context, as applied to a transport assessmentstudy, are defined as follows:

Volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. This is the ratio of the volume of traffic along a particular stretch of road,divided by the assumed capacity of the road. It is a useful metric for describing the level of congestion ona road.

Volume to capacity ratios closer to 0 represent free flow conditions while values approaching or greaterthan 1 indicate high levels of congestion.

A stretch of road is considered to have reached operational capacity at a V/C ratio of 0.85 and absolutecapacity at a V/C ratio of 1. Drawing from a large body of empirical research, the theoretical trafficcapacity per lane for a particular stretch of road can be estimated based on the standard of design, speedlimit and a number of additional environmental considerations.

Travel Delay. This represents the additional time taken to travel a stretch of road compared with theuncongested free flow travel time.

Sources of delay include control delay at signalised and priority junctions and reduced mid-block travelspeed due to high traffic volumes and queuing. This study uses both of these indicators together toprovide a rounded, full assessment of the impacts of the proposed developments on the transportnetwork.

In the results that follow, for all comparative results plots (traffic flow, travel delay, congestion), green linesrepresent a value increase and blue lines represent a decrease. The widths of the coloured lines indicate themagnitude of change.

It is important to note that the delay plots are in seconds, and the traffic flow plots are in units of Passenger CarUnits (PCUs). PCUs are used in transport modelling to account for the greater road capacity impact of a larger,slower moving vehicle (such as a lorry or bus) compared with a standard passenger vehicle. In this instance,Cars and LGVs have a value of 1 (ie. 1 PCU = 1 vehicle), and HGVs have a value of 2 (ie. 2 PCUs = 1 vehicle).Therefore the actual number of vehicles on each link may be slightly lower than the value quoted in PCUs.

For all analysis undertaken as part of this project, the following thresholds have been adopted to define thesignificance of traffic impacts against the metrics reported:

Traffic volume: Two-way flow increases of 30 PCUs or more PCUs considered significant

Travel delay: Increases of 30 seconds or more considered significant. This represents the point at whichthe change is considered generally noticeable to the motorist.

Congestion: Increases in V/C ratio causing a stretch of road to go over either 85% or 100%. Thisrepresents a worsening of congestion such that the operational or absolute capacity is reached.

In all cases where a significant impact has been identified, the location has been highlighted with a red circle onthe relevant SATURN results plot.

13

4. Scenario 1 - Castleford

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 1, Castleford.

This includes development sites RTC 22, RTC 23, RTC 24 and RTC 115 located in Castleford. Existing andproposed land use information is summarised in Table 4-1 to Table 4-4.

Figure 4-1 – Proposed development sites in Castleford

Table 4-1 – RTC 22 – Aire Street, Castleford, land use change summary

Existing Uses Proposed Uses

335m2

Food and drink 1,500m2

Supermarket

450m2

Non-food retail 1,000m2

Non-food retail

6,000m2

Public car park 40 Dwellings

Table 4-2 – RTC 23 – Bridge Street, Castleford, land use change summary


215m2


Non-food retail

1,800m2

Public car park

Table 4-3 – RTC 24 – Castleford Waterfront, land use change summary


300m2

Non-food retail 300m2

Non-food retail

800m2

Heritage/community centre (to remain) 800m2

Heritage/community centre

14


1,000m2

Offices (to remain) 1,000m2

Offices

225m2

Public House (to remain) 225m2

Public House

180m2

Business 300m2

Business

5 Dwellings 60 Dwellings

Table 4-4 – RTC 115 – Albion Street/Powell Street, Castleford, land use change summary


1080m2

Health centre 1,200m2

Health centre

675m2

Training & advice centre 1,200m2

Leisure use

315m2

British Legion Social Club 1,200m2

Community/social facilities

360m2

Salvation Army Citadel 1,500m2

Business/professional

1,800m2

Car park 700m2

Retail (not supermarket)

1,000m2


Miscellaneous

400m2

Retail (convenience but not supermarket)

180m2

Professional

560m2

Miscellaneous

4.1 Trip Generation

Table 4-5 shows each development site’s existing traffic generation based on existing land uses, and the site’sforecast trip generation based on the proposed land uses.

With the proposed development in place, there is forecast to be an overall increase in the number of tripsgenerated by all four development sites for both the AM and PM peaks.

Across all four sites there is an increase of 179 PCUs generated during the AM peak hour and 319 vehiclesduring the PM peak hour. RTC 22 is the development site with the largest change between the existing andforecast traffic generation of 100 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 188 vehicles in the PM peak hour.

Table 4-5 – Summary of proposed Castleford development peak hour trip generation

Site Existing Traffic Generation

(Veh/hr)

Forecast Traffic generation

(Veh/hr)

Change in Traffic Generation

(Veh/hr)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 22 6 26 106 214 +100 +188

RTC 23 2 9 24 89 +22 +80

RTC 24 31 40 61 70 +30 +30

RTC 115 116 149 143 170 +27 +21

Total 155 224 334 543 +179 +319

4.2 Traffic Flow Changes

The AM and PM peak hour traffic flow plots are shown respectively in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3.

In the traffic flow plots, green lines represent an increase in traffic flow, whilst the blue lines show a decrease intraffic flow. The widths of the coloured lines indicate the magnitude of change in traffic flow with the plannedchange in land use.

15

The results show a logical increase in AM traffic flows on the road network surrounding the proposeddevelopment sites.

The most substantial increase is on Aire Street (A6032) eastbound towards the Bridge Street (A656)roundabout, with traffic volumes increasing by up to 32 PCUs. Elsewhere, the additional generated trafficquickly disperses into the road network and there are no further substantial volume increases.

During the PM peak increases in traffic flow are comparatively higher, reflecting the greater PM trafficgeneration.

As expected, additional traffic generation is primarily confined to the A-road network nearest the proposeddevelopments, with increases of up to 50 PCUs on Church Street (A655), Aire Street and Bridge Street. Similarto the AM peak, increases elsewhere as less substantial as the additional traffic disperses into the roadnetwork.

In general, the increase in AM and PM traffic volumes in the Castleford area as a result of the proposeddevelopment is minor with the only significant increases occurring on the Church Street, Aire Street and BridgeStreet. The magnitude of increased volumes is reflective of the estimated increase in trip generation.

Figure 4-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (Castleford)

16

Figure 4-3 - Change in PM peak traffic flow (Castleford)

4.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development sites in Castleford are shown inFigure 4-4 for the AM peak hour and Figure 4-5 for the PM peak hour.

The results show minor increases to AM delays on roads close to the proposed development sites in the centreof Castleford. Given the relatively minor increasing in traffic volume, increases in delay are correspondinglysmall, with none being considered significant.

During the PM peak hour, increase to travel delay is overall greater. However, the magnitude is still relativelyminor in general. The only location where increased traffic generation results in significant impact to travel delayis the Carlton Street approach to the Bridge Street, where delay is shown to increase by 32 seconds.

17

Figure 4-4 – Change in AM peak delay (Castleford)

Figure 4-5 - Change in PM peak delay (Castleford)

18

4.4 Congestion (Volume Capacity Ratios)

V/C ratios with the proposed developments in place, illustrating the level of congestion in Castleford, are shownin Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7 for the 2022 for the AM and PM peaks respectively.

During the AM peak hour, it can be seen that are number of roads which are predicted to be operating at, orclose to capacity by 2022, particularly on approach to the Bridge Street roundabout. However, the impact on thelevel of congestion due to additional development traffic is minimal, with increases to the V/C ratio in the rangeof only 1% to 2%, resulting in no previously uncongested roads reaching operational capacity.

The PM peak hour shows a similar pattern of congestion to the AM, with a number of roads predicted to be at orapproaching capacity by 2022. However, reflective of the impacts to travel delay, PM the impact on the level ofcongestion as a result of the increased traffic generation is generally insignificant, with the exception of theCarlton Street approach to the Bridge Street, where the V/C ratio is shown to rise by 11% to 89%, bringing theroad above operational capacity.

Figure 4-6 – AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Castleford)

19

Figure 4-7 - PM peak 2022 volume over capacity ratio (Castleford)

4.5 Summary

The four developments proposed in Castleford are estimated to generate an additional 179 AM peak hour tripsand 319 PM peak hour trips compared to that presently on the network.

This additional traffic is shown to largely use main roads and have an overall minor impact. During the AM peakhour, the additional development traffic is found to cause no significant impact to travel delay or congestion.During the PM peak hour, the only significant impact is to the Carlton Street / Bridge Street junction, wheredelay on the Carlton Street approach is shown to increase by 32 seconds, and V/C ratio by 11% to 89%,bringing the road above operational capacity, but still below absolute capacity.

Given that the road is shown to not exceed absolute capacity and the overall increase in traffic volume is minor,it is expected that the impact to Carlton Street could be mitigated through minor work or signal optimisation.

20

5. Scenario 2 - Pontefract

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 2, Pontefract.

This includes development sites RTC 53 and RTC 54 located in Pontefract. Existing and proposed land useinformation can be found in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2.

Figure 5-1 – Proposed development sites in Pontefract

Table 5-1 – RTC 53 – North of Stuart Road, Pontefract, land use change summary


900m2

Swimming pool 1,800m2

Supermarket

Table 5-2 – RTC 54 – South of Stuart Road, Pontefract, land use change summary


270m2

Health centre (to remain) 270m2

Health centre

720m2

Commercial 2,400m2

Leisure

620m2

Industrial 5,100m2

Commercial

2,700m2

Staff car parking

5.1 Trip Generation

Table 5-3 shows each development site’s existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the site’sforecast trip generation based on the proposed land uses. With the proposed developments in place, during theAM peak, traffic generation is estimated to increase by 94 trips. During the PM peak, traffic generation isestimated to increase by 204 trips.

21

Table 5-3 – Summary of proposed Pontefract development peak hour trip generation


(Veh/hr)


(Veh/hr)


(Veh/hr)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 53 1 5 93 198 +92 +193

RTC 54 23 24 25 35 +2 +11

Total 24 29 118 233 +94 +204

5.2 Traffic Flow

The AM and PM peak traffic flow plots are shown respectively in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3.


The results show the increase in AM traffic flows on the roads closest to the two development sites is generallyno more than 15 PCUs and is considered insignificant. This is reflective of the relatively low estimated AM peaktraffic generation.

Due to the comparatively higher estimated traffic generation, the increase in PM peak traffic flows issubstantially higher. The additional traffic is generally concentrated on Stuart Rd / Headlands Ln and SkinnerLane, with significant two-way volume increases of between 83 and 45 PCUs. Given that Stuart Rd providesaccess to the A road network and Skinner Lane directly connects to a large nearby housing estate, this travelpattern is considered reasonable.

Figure 5-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (Pontefract)

22

Figure 5-3 – Change in PM peak traffic flow (Pontefract)

5.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development sites in Pontefract are shown inFigure 5-4 for the AM peak and Figure 5-5 for the PM peak.

For the AM peak, it can be seen from the results below that impact to travel delay is insignificant in all cases.This is reflective of the low volume of additional traffic generation (94 veh/hr). Similarly, during the PM peak,impact to travel delay is also insignificant, with the largest being a 15 second increase on the Southgate (A645)approach to Jubilee Way (A639).

23

Figure 5-4 – Change in AM peak travel delay (Pontefract)

Figure 5-5 – Change in PM peak travel delay (Pontefract)

24

5.4 Congestion

V/C ratios with the proposed development in place, illustrating the level of congestion in Pontefract, are shownin Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 for the 2022 for the AM and PM peaks respectively.

During the AM peak, it can be seen that a number of roads are forecast to reach capacity by 2022, particularlyalong Jubilee Way. However, the impact on congestion attributable to the proposed developments is negligible,with increases to V/C ratio is the range of only 1% to 3%, causing no previously uncongested roads to reachoperational or absolute capacity.

The PM peak shows a similar pattern of congestion to the AM, with a number of roads predicted to be at orapproaching capacity by 2022. Reflective of the impacts to travel delay, PM congestion impact as a result of theincreased traffic generation is also minimal, with increases to V/C ratio in the range of only 1% to 6%. The V/Cratio of the Jubilee Way southbound approach to Southgate is shown to increase by 1% to 85%, bringing theroad to operational capacity. However, given the impact attributable to the proposed developments is marginal,this is considered insignificant.

Figure 5-6 – AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Pontefract)

25

Figure 5-7 – PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Pontefract)

5.5 Summary

The two proposed developments in Pontefract are estimated to generate an additional 94 AM peak trips and204 PM peak trips compared to that presently on the network.

This additional traffic is show to be largely concentrated on Stuart Road, Headlands Lane and Skinner Lane,resulting in an overall minor impact. During the AM peak, the additional development traffic is shown to causeno significant impact to travel delay or congestion. Similarly for the PM peak, no significant impacts to traveldelay or congestion have been found.

As the proposed developments have been shown to cause no significant traffic impacts to the road network, it isnot expect that any mitigation measures will be required to accommodate the additional development trafficgeneration in Pontefract.

26

6. Scenario 3 - Featherstone

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 3, Featherstone.

This includes the development site RTC 157. Existing and proposed land use information can be found in Table6-1.

Figure 6-1 – Proposed development site in Featherstone

Table 6-1 – RTC 157 – Wilson Street, Featherstone, land use change summary


Vacant 2,000m2

Supermarket

6.1 Trip Generation

Table 6-2 shows the existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the site’s forecast tripgeneration based on the proposed land uses for RTC 157. The site is currently vacant and generates no traffic.The forecast traffic generation for the site is 104 trips during the AM peak and 220 trips during the PM peak.

Table 6-2 – Summary of proposed Featherstone development peak hour trip generation


(veh/hr)


(veh/hr)


(veh/hr)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 157 0 0 104 220 +104 +220

27

6.2 Traffic Flow



The results show a modest increase in AM traffic flows on the roads surrounding the proposed developmentsite, primarily on (B6421), Green Lane and Common Side Lane, with two way volumes increasing by up to 36PCUs. Elsewhere, changes in traffic flow are generally insignificant as the generated traffic disperses into theroad network.

Due to the comparatively higher estimated traffic generation, the increase in PM peak traffic flows iscorrespondingly higher. However it still follows the same general pattern, with significant two-way increases onStation Lane, Green Lane and Common Side Lane up to 77 PCUs. Elsewhere, changes in traffic flows areinsignificant.

Figure 6-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (Featherstone)

28

Figure 6-3 – Change in PM peak traffic flow (Featherstone)

6.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development sites in Pontefract are shown inFigure 6-4 for the AM peak and Figure 6-5 for the PM peak.

For the AM peak, it can be seen from the results below that impact to travel delay is insignificant in all cases.This is reflective of the low volume of additional traffic generation (104 veh/hr).

During the PM peak, owing to higher traffic generation, travel delay impact is somewhat higher, though stillinsignificant in all cases, with the greatest increase being 19 seconds on the Station Lane signalised approachto Wakefield Road (A645).

29

Figure 6-4 – Change in AM peak travel delay (Featherstone)

Figure 6-5 – Change in PM peak travel delay (Featherstone)

30

6.4 Congestion

V/C ratios with the proposed development in place, illustrating the level of congestion in Pontefract, are shownin Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 for the 2022 for the AM and PM peaks respectively.

During the AM peak, it can be seen that a number of roads are forecast to reach capacity by 2022, particularlyon Wakefield Road. However, the impact on the level of congestion attributable to the proposed developmentsis minimal, with increases to V/C ratio is the range of only 1% to 2%, resulting in no previously uncongestedroads reaching operational or absolute capacity.

The PM peak shows a similar pattern of congestion to the AM, with a number of roads predicted to be at orapproaching capacity by 2022. Reflective of the minor impact to travel delay, PM impact on congestion as aresult of the increased traffic generation is insignificant, resulting in no previously uncongested roads reachingoperational or absolute capacity.

Figure 6-6 – AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Featherstone)

31

Figure 6-7 – PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Featherstone)

6.5 Summary

The proposed supermarket development in Featherstone is estimated to generate an additional 104 AM peakhour trips and 220 PM peak hour trips.

In general, this additional development traffic is shown to have an overall insignificant impact on the surroundingroad network, with no significant increases in travel delay or congestion found during either the AM peak hour orPM peak hour.

Given the proposed developments have been shown to cause no significant traffic impacts to the road network,it is not expect that any mitigation measures will be required to accommodate the additional development trafficgeneration in Featherstone.

32

7. Scenario 4 - Knottingley

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 4, Knottingley. This includes the development siteRTC 160. Existing and proposed land use information can be found in Table 7-1.

Figure 7-1 – Proposed development site in Knottingley

Table 7-1 – RTC 160 – Hill Top/Glebe Lane, Knottingley, land use change summary


Vacant 1,800m2

Supermarket

410m2

Non-food retail

7.1 Trip Generation

Table 7-2 shows the existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the site’s forecast tripgeneration based on the proposed land uses for RTC 160. The site is currently vacant and generating no traffic.The forecast increase in traffic generation for the proposed development is 96 trips and 136 trips during the AMand PM peak hours respectively.

Table 7-2 – Summary of proposed Knottingley development trip generation


(veh/hr)


(veh/hr)


(veh/hr)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 160 0 0 96 136 +96 +136

33

7.2 Traffic Flow



Figure 7-2 shows a generally minor increase in AM traffic flows on the road network surrounding thedevelopment site. There are significant two-way increases on Hill Top, with up to an additional 46 PCUs.Elsewhere, the change is traffic volume is insignificant.

Figure 7-3 shows a comparatively larger increase in PM volumes compared to the AM, reflecting the higherlevel of traffic generation. There are again significant two way increases on Hill Top, up to 60 PCUs.Additionally, there are significant increases on Fishergate and Old Great N Road adjacent Ferrybridge (A162),the result of minor route choice changes in response to changing travel delays.

Figure 7-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (Knottingley)

34

Figure 7-3 – Change in PM peak traffic flow (Knottingley)

7.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development site in Knottingley are shown inFigure 7-4 for the AM peak and Figure 7-5 for the PM peak.

The results show minor increase in AM delays on links close to the development site in the centre ofKnottingley. However, none are of a magnitude great enough to be considered significant.

For the PM peak hour, the results show a similar pattern of minor to moderate increases in travel delaysurrounding the proposed development. As a result of increased traffic volumes, there are significant increasesto PM peak hour travel delay at the following locations:

Old North Great Road northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane (B6136): 49 seconds;

Castleford Lane northbound approaching Stranglands Lane: 75 seconds.

35

Figure 7-4 – Change in AM peak travel delay (Knottingley)

Figure 7-5 – Change in PM peak delay (Knottingley)

36

7.4 Congestion

V/C ratios with the proposed development in place, illustrating the level of congestion in Knottingley, are show inFigure 7-6 and Figure 7-7 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

During the AM peak hour, it can be seen that there are a number of roads which are predicted to be operatingat, or close to capacity by 2022. However, the impact on the level of congestion due to the increaseddevelopment traffic is minimal, with V/C ratio increases in the range of only 1% to 4%, resulting in no previouslyuncongested roads reaching operational or absolute capacity.

During the PM peak hour, a similar pattern of congestion can be seen in the results. However, again the impacton congesting attributable to the proposed development is generally minor, resulting in increases to V/C ratiosin the range of 1% to 6%. The additional development traffic generation results in a significant congestionimpact at the following locations:

Old North Great Road northbound approaching Ferrybridge: 6% increase to 102%, causing the road toexceed absolute capacity.

Castleford Lane northbound approaching Stranglands Lane: 5% increase to 101%, causing the road toexceed absolute capacity.

Figure 7-6 – AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Knottingley)

37

Figure 7-7 - PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Knottingley)

7.5 Summary

The proposed development in Knottingley is estimated to generate an additional 96 AM peak hour trips and 136PM peak hour trips compared to that presently on the network.

During the AM peak, this additional traffic is shown to have only a minor traffic impact, with no significantimpacts to travel delay or congestion.

During the PM peak, the additional development traffic results in significant traffic impacts at the followinglocations:

Old North Great Road northbound approaching the: delay increased by 49 seconds, V/C ratio increasedby 6% to 102%


The increase in delay at these locations can be attributed to the fact that they are priority junction minorapproaches which are already be operating close to capacity prior to development. As such, this represents theworsening of an existing problem rather than an entirely new traffic impact. Additionally, these locations are lowtraffic minor roads not forming a major part of the Knottingley road network. Given the generally low volume ofadditional traffic generation, it is expected that these impacts could be mitigated through minor works.

38

8. Scenario 5 - South Elmsall

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 5, South Elmsall. This includes the development siteRTC 91. Existing and proposed land use information can be found in Table 8-1.

Figure 8-1 – Proposed development sites in South Elmsall

Table 8-1 – RTC 91 – Exchange Street, South Elmsall, land use change summary


300m2

Library (to remain) 300m2

Library

2,400m2

Public car park 1,800m2

Supermarket

1,000m2

Non-food retail

8.1 Trip Generation

Table 8-2 shows the existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the site’s forecast tripgeneration based on the proposed land uses for RTC 91. The sites trip generation is forecast to increase 118trips and 238 trips during the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

39

Table 8-2 – Summary of proposed South Elmsall development trip generation


(veh/hr)


(veh/hr)


(veh/hr)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 91 17 13 118 238 +101 +225

8.2 Traffic Flow


The results show a generally minor increase in AM peak hour volume on the roads surrounding the proposeddevelopment site, with additional traffic generally evenly distributed around the network. The only significantincrease is on Doncaster Road / Barnsley Road (B6422) adjacent the proposed development, with an additional61 PCUs shown.

Due to the comparatively higher estimated traffic generation, the increase in PM peak traffic flows iscorrespondingly higher. The results show significant two way volume increases up to 127 PCUs on the B6422,Little Lane, Minsthorpe Lane and Westfield Lane.

Figure 8-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (South Elmsall)

40

Figure 8-3 - Change in PM peak traffic flow (South Elmsall)

8.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development in South Elmsall are shown inFigure 8-4 for the AM peak and Figure 8-5 for the PM peak.

The results show minor increases to AM peak hour delays surrounding the development site, however, noneare considered significant. Similarly, the PM peak hour results show a similar pattern of minor delay increases,however, despite the moderate increases to traffic volume, there are no significant travel delay impacts.

41

Figure 8-4 – Change in AM peak travel delay (South Elmsall)

Figure 8-5 – Change in PM peak travel delay (South Elmsall)

42

8.4 Congestion

V/C ratios with the proposed developments in place, illustrating the level of congestion in South Elmsall, areshown in Figure 8-6 and Figure 8-7 for the 2022 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

During the AM peak, it can be seen that a number of roads are forecast to reach capacity by 2022. However thecongestion impact attributable to the proposed development is generally minimal, with increases to V/C ratio isthe range of only 1% to 5%. The only congestion impact which could be considered significant is on the HighStreet (B6474) / Doncaster junction, where the High Street approach V/C ratio is shown to increase by 4% to88%, causing the road to exceed operational capacity. However, given the development associated volumeincrease at this location is small and the approach is already very close to operational capacity, this should beconsidered the worsening of an existing issue.

The PM peak shows a similar pattern of congestion to the AM, with the same roads predicted to be at orapproaching capacity by 2022. Reflective of the impacts to travel delay, PM impact on congestion as a result ofthe increased traffic generation is minimal, with increases to V/C ratio is the range of only 1% to 10%, causing inno significant impacts.

Figure 8-6 – AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (South Elmsall)

43

Figure 8-7 – PM peak congestion ratio (South Elmsall)

8.5 Summary

The proposed supermarket and retail development in South Elmsall is estimated to generate an additional 101AM peak trips and 225 PM peak trips compared to that presently on the network. In general, the road networksurrounding the proposed development is shown to be able to adequately accommodate the additional AM andPM peak hour traffic generation. The only significant traffic impact found to result from the additionaldevelopment traffic was found to occur at the High Street / Doncaster Road junction, where the High Streetapproach V/C ratio is shown to increase by 4% to 88%, causing the road to exceed operational capacity, but stillremain below absolute capacity. However, given the development associated volume increase at this location issmall and the approach is already very close to operational capacity, this should be considered the worsening ofan existing issue.

As the road is shown to not exceed absolute capacity, it is expected that the impact to High Street could bemitigated through minor junction improvements.

44

9. Scenario 6 - Ossett

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 6, Ossett. This includes the development site RTC101. Existing and proposed land use information can be found in Table 9-1.

Figure 9-1 – Proposed development site in Ossett

Table 9-1 – RTC 101 – Ossett Town Football Ground, Ossett, land use change summary


Football ground (semi-professional) 3,500m2

Supermarket

9.1 Trip Generation

Table 9-2 shows the existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the site’s forecast tripgeneration based on the proposed land uses for RTC 101.

As a result of the proposed development, traffic generation at the site is forecast to increase by 181 vehiclesand 385 vehicles during the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

Table 9-2 – Summary of proposed Ossett development trip generation


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 101 0.3 3 181 385 +181 +382

45

9.2 Traffic Flow



A general increase can be seen in AM traffic flows on the roads surrounding the development site, coupled withsome minor flow decreases. The results show significant increases in two-way traffic on Pildacre Lane andProspect Road (B6128). Minor decreases in traffic flow shown in the results are attributable to changes in routechoice behaviour in response to changing travel delays. Given the availability of numerous travel route optionsin Ossett, route choice behaviour in the area can be sensitive to only minor changes in travel delay.

There is a comparatively larger increase in PM peak hour traffic flows, reflective of the higher traffic generation.However, the additional traffic follows largely the same pattern as the AM peak, with significant two-flow flowincreases of up to 53 PCUs on Prospect Road and Pildacre lane.

Figure 9-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (Ossett)

46

Figure 9-3 - Change in PM peak traffic flow (Ossett)

9.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development in Ossett are shown in Figure 9-4for the AM peak hour and Figure 9-5 for the PM peak hour.

The results show minor increases in AM peak hour delay on the roads surrounding the proposed development.The only significant impact to travel delay during the AM peak hour is on the West Wells Road approach toQueen Street, where delay is shown to increase by 30 seconds.

During the PM peak, as a result of the comparatively higher traffic generation, there are significant increases totravel delay attributable to the proposed development at a number of locations:


Prospect Road approach to Dale Street (B6129): 44 seconds



47

Figure 9-4 – Change in AM peak travel delay (Ossett)

Figure 9-5 – Change in PM peak travel delay (Ossett)

48

9.4 Congestion

V/C ratios with the proposed development in place, illustrating the level of congestion in Ossett, are shown inFigure 9-6 and Figure 9-7 for the 2022 AM and PM peak hours respectively.

During the AM peak hour, it can be seen that there are a number of roads which are predicted to be operatingat, or close to capacity by 2022. However, the impact on the level of congestion due to the additionaldevelopment traffic, resulting in increases to V/C ratios between 1% and 3%, is generally insignificant. The V/Cratio of the Prospect Road approach to Queen Street is shown to increase by 3% to 101%, bringing the roadover absolute capacity. However, given the impact attributable to the proposed developments is marginal andthe road is already very close to capacity, this is considered insignificant.

The PM peak shows a similar pattern of congestion, on the intersections forming the Dale Street, Ventnor Wayand Prospect Road loop. However, the impact on the level of congestion due to the additional developmenttraffic is minimal, with increases to V/C ratios between only 1% and %5, resulting in no previously uncongestedroads reaching operational or absolute capacity.

Figure 9-6 – AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Ossett)

49

Figure 9-7 – PM peak congestion ratio (Ossett)

9.5 Summary

The proposed supermarket development in Ossett is estimated to generate an additional 180 AM peak hourtrips and 382 PM peak hour trips compared to that previously on the network.

This additional traffic generation is shown to result in an overall minor impact on the road network during the AMpeak. The results show no signification congestion impacts, and only a single significant impact to travel delay,with delay on the West Wells Road approach to Queen Street increased by 30 seconds.

During the PM peak, owing to the greater volume of traffic generation, the overall traffic impact iscorrespondingly larger. The proposed development is shown to result in significant travel delay impacts at thefollowing locations:





Given that the Ossett road network surrounding the proposed development is forecast to largely reach capacityby 2022 as existing, and thus sensitive to minor increases in traffic volumes, the impacts identified above arerepresentative of a worsening of existing issues. Due to existing physical constraints, an engineering solution tomitigate impact at the Prospect Road / Dale Street junction may not be feasible. In this case, a travel demandmanagement approach, such as a travel plan associated with the additional retail development could beconsidered.

50

10. Scenario 7 - All sites combined (excluding rejected sites)

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 7. This includes all the development sites, excludingthe rejected Sandal sites (RTC 4 and RTC 5). Existing and proposed land use information can be found below.

Table 10-1 – RTC 22 – Aire Street, Castleford, land use change summary


335m2


Supermarket

450m2

Non-food retail 1,000m2

Non-food retail

6,000m2

Public car park 40 Dwellings

Table 10-2 – RTC 23 – Bridge Street, Castleford, land use change summary


215m2


Non-food retail

1,800m2

Public car park

Table 10-3 – RTC 24 – Castleford Waterfront, land use change summary


300m2


Non-food retail

800m2

Heritage/community centre (to remain) 800m2

Heritage/community centre

1,000m2

Offices (to remain) 1,000m2

Offices

225m2

Public House (to remain) 225m2

Public House

180m2

Business 300m2

Business

5 Dwellings 60 Dwellings

Table 10-4 – RTC 115 – Albion Street/Powell Street, Castleford, land use change summary


1080m2

Health centre 1,200m2

Health centre

675m2

Training & advice centre 1,200m2

Leisure use

315m2

British Legion Social Club 1,200m2

Community/social facilities

360m2

Salvation Army Citadel 1,500m2

Business/professional

1,800m2

Car park 700m2

Retail (not supermarket)

1,000m2


Miscellaneous

400m2

Retail (convenience but not supermarket)

180m2

Professional

560m2

Miscellaneous

Table 10-5 – RTC 53 – North of Stuart Road, Pontefract, land use change summary


900m2

Swimming pool 1,800m2

Supermarket

51

Table 10-6 – RTC 54 – South of Stuart Road, Pontefract, land use change summary


270m2

Health centre (to remain) 270m2

Health centre

720m2

Commercial 2,400m2

Leisure

620m2

Industrial 5,100m2

Commercial

2,700m2

Staff car parking

Table 10-7 – RTC 157 – Wilson Street, Featherstone, land use change summary


Vacant 2,000m2

Supermarket

Table 10-8 – RTC 160 – Hill Top/Glebe Lane, Knottingley, land use change summary


Vacant 1,800m2

Supermarket

410m2

Non-food retail

Table 10-9 – RTC 91 – Exchange Street, South Elmsall, land use change summary


300m2

Library (to remain) 300m2

Library

2,400m2

Public car park 1,800m2

Supermarket

1,000m2

Non-food retail

Table 10-10 – RTC 101 – Ossett Town Football Ground, Ossett, land use change summary


Football ground (semi-professional) 3,500m2

Supermarket

10.1 Trip Generation

Table 10-11 shows the existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the forecast trip generationbased on the proposed land uses for all of the development sites. The proposed land uses for the developmentsites is estimated to increase traffic generation by 756 vehicles during the AM peak and 1490 vehicles duringthe PM peak. It is worth considering the scale of this increase in relation to the geographic spread ofdevelopment. An additional 1490 vehicles effectively represents only a single lane worth of traffic.

Table 10-11 – Summary of all proposed development sites (excluding rejected Sandal sites) trip generation


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 22 6 26 106 214 +100 +188

RTC 23 2 9 25 89 +23 +80

RTC 24 31 40 61 70 +30 +30

RTC 115 116 149 143 170 +27 +21

RTC 53 0.8 1 93 198 +92 +197

RTC 54 23 24 25 35 +2 +11

52


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 157 0 0 104 220 +104 +220

RTC 160 0 0 96 136 +96 +136

RTC 91 17 13 118 238 +101 +225

RTC 101 0.3 3 181 385 +181 +382

Total 196.1 265 952 1755 +756 +1490

10.2 Traffic Flow

The combined changes in traffic flow on the Wakefield Road network as a result of all proposed developmentsis illustrated in Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-2 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively. For legibility and tohighlight only larger changes, only increases in one way traffic flows of 15 PCUs or greater only are shown.Plots for each individual town have been included in Appendix C.

During the AM peak hour, it can be seen that increases in traffic volume are largely confined to the individualtowns where the proposed developments are located, and reflect the changes in each town seen in theindividual scenarios. In addition, it can be seen that there is a moderate increase in eastbound traffic volumes ofup to 33 PCUs on the M62 between the M1 and Junction 32.

During the PM peak hour, the increases in traffic volumes are substantially higher, reflecting the higher rate oftraffic generation. It can be seen that while the increases are still concentrated around the proposeddevelopments, increases of 15 PCUs or greater are more widespread throughout the Wakefield road network.Significant increases outside the immediate development areas can be seen on the M62, up to 50 PCUs in bothdirections and the M1 Southbound, up to 50 PCUs.

As a result of the significant increases in traffic on the motorway network, engagement with Highways Englandmay be required as the developments are progressed. However, given the relatively small scale of traffic, this isnot expected to post an issue.

53

Figure 10-1: Change in AM peak traffic flow (All sites)

54

Figure 10-2: Change in PM peak traffic flow (All sites)

55

10.3 Travel Delay

Reflective of the individual scenario results, it can be seen that for the AM peak hour, there are limitedoccurrences of significant impacts to travel delay, with none occurring away from the road network immediatelysurround the proposed developments.

During the PM peak, it can be seen that despite the moderate increase in traffic volumes on much of theWakefield Road network, the impact to travel delay is generally minimal and confined to the area immediatelysurrounding the proposed developments. The significant impacts to travel delay are largely consistent withthose identified in the individual scenarios, with the following significant increases common across both theindividual and combined scenarios:

Carlton Street approach to Bridge Street, Castleford: delay increased by 33 seconds

Old North Great Road northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane: delay increased by 59 seconds

Castleford Lane northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane: delay increased by 91 seconds

West Wells Road approach to Queen Street, Ossett: delay increased by 41 seconds

Prospect Road approach to Dale Street, Ossett: delay increased by 48 seconds

Dale Street approach to Prospect Road/Church St, Ossett: delay increased by 33 seconds

Prospect Road approach to Queen Street, Ossett: delay increased by 43 seconds

In addition to those identified above, the model results also show a small number of significant increases totravel delay present only in the combined scenario:

M62 Junction 30 eastbound on slip: 34 seconds

Fryston Road / Redhill Drive junction, Castleford: 50 to 53 seconds

Front Street (A656) / Holywell Lane (B6136) junction, Castleford: 37 seconds

At each of these locations, the pre-development V/C ratio is greater than 100%, exceeding absolute capacity.Once the absolute capacity of a junction approach is reached, delay will increase exponentially with anyadditional traffic demand. As such, at these locations, the significant delay impacts are the result of an alreadyover congested network reacting to minor changes in travel demand resulting from the proposed developments.This is especially evident at the M62 Junction 30 eastbound on slip, where the pre-development V/C ratio is110%, with additional development associated traffic volume of only 42 pcus on the M62 mainline causing thisto rise to 118% and resulting in a 34 second increase to travel delay.


Elsewhere, the wider area travel delay increases highlighted in Figure 10-4 are only marginally greater than 30seconds or are located on very low traffic minor roads.

56

Figure 10-3: Change in AM peak delay (All sites)

57

Figure 10-4: Change in PM peak delay (All sites)

58

10.4 Congestion

The combined impact to congestion on the Wakefield Road network, measured as change in V/C ratio, as aresult of all proposed developments is illustrated in Figure 10-5 and Figure 10-6 for the AM and PM peak hoursrespectively. For legibility and to highlight only significant changes, only increases in V/C ratio of 5% or greaterare shown. Plots for each individual town have been included in Appendix C.

For the AM peak, it can be seen that increases in V/C ratio of 5% or greater are almost entirely confined theroad network immediately surrounding the proposed developments. These results illustrate the generally minorimpact the additional traffic generation is forecast to have on the Wakefield Road network, with the V/C ratioforecast to increase by 5% or more on only a minimal number of roads.

Similarly for the PM peak, increases in V/C ratio of 5% or greater are largely confined to the area immediatelysurrounding the proposed developments. Occurrences of V/C ratios increasing by 5% or more on the widerWakefield road network are limited and generally do not substantially exceed 5%. Significant impacts to V/C areconsistent with those identified in the individual scenarios, with the following locations of significant travel delayimpact common to both the combined and individual scenarios:

Carlton Street approach to Bridge Street, Castleford: V/C ratio increased by 11% to 89%

Old North Great Road northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane: V/C ratio increased by 7% to 103%

Castleford Lane northbound approaching the Stranglands Lane: V/C ratio increased by 6% to 102%

No additional significant impacts on the wider Wakefield network were identified.

Combined with the travel delay results, this suggests that outside the immediate development areas, the trafficimpact on the Wakefield Road network as a result of the proposed developments is largely minor.

59

Figure 10-5: Change in AM peak congestion ratio (All sites)

60

Figure 10-6: Change in PM peak congestion ratio (All sites)

61

10.5 Summary

The retail and mixed used developments proposed for a number of towns in Wakefield are estimated togenerate a combined additional 756 AM peak hour trips and 1490 PM peak hour trips.

Due to the localised nature of much of the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed developmentsaround Wakefield, the pattern of traffic impacts under the all sites combined scenario is shown to generallyconsistent with of the individual town scenarios, with the following significant impacts common to both thecombined and individual scenarios:








Further to the impacts identified above, a small number of significant impacts to the wider Wakefield network areshown in the combined scenario results, these are:




At each of these locations, the pre-development V/C ratio is greater than 100%, exceeding absolute capacity.Once the absolute capacity of a junction approach is reached, delay will increase exponentially with anyadditional traffic demand. As such, at these locations, the significant delay impacts are the result of an alreadyover congested network reacting to minor changes in travel demand resulting from the proposed developments.


62

11. Scenario 8 - Sandal rejected sites

This section reports the analysis and results from Scenario 8, Sandal. This includes the rejected Sandaldevelopment sites RTC 4 and RTC 5. Existing and proposed land use information can be found Table 11-1 andTable 11-2.

Figure 11-1 – Rejected development sites in Sandal

Table 11-1 – RTC 4 – Land at Asdale Road (West of Asda), Sandal, land use change summary


Greenfield 1,000m2

Non-food retail

Table 11-2 – RTC 5 – Land at Asdale Road (East of Asda), Sandal, land use change summary


Greenfield 1,500m2

Supermarket

500m2

Non-food retail

11.1 Trip Generation

Table 11-3 shows each sites existing traffic generation based on its existing land use and the site’s forecast tripgeneration based on the proposed land uses. Both sites are Greenfield and are currently generating no traffic.Across all sites, there is a forecasted increase of 90 PCUs generated during the AM peak and 144 vehiclesduring the PM peak.

63

Table 11-3 – Summary of Sandal development sites trip generation (rejected)


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)


(Vehicles)

AM PM AM PM AM PM

RTC 4 0 0 8 28 +8 +28

RTC 5 0 0 82 116 +82 +116

Total 0 0 90 144 +90 +144

11.2 Traffic Flow



For the AM peak hour, the results show a generally minor increase in traffic flows on the road networksurrounding the proposed development sites, with the only significant increase located at the entrance to theexisting Asda and ALDI retail development. The results also show decreases on Asdale Road (A6186) adjacentDenby Dale Road (A636) and Barnsley Road (A61) either side of the Asdale Road. Due to the availability ofalternative routes in the area, the minor reductions in traffic on these roads are attributable to change in routechoice arising from increased travel delay.

During the PM peak changes in traffic flow generally follows a similar pattern, with generally minor increasesdue to additional traffic generation and corresponding decreases due to change in route choice. In addition to asignificant increase in volume on existing Asda and ALDI retail development access, there is also a significantincrease on the Asdale Road.

Figure 11-2 – Change in AM peak traffic flow (Sandal)

64

Figure 11-3 – Change in PM peak traffic flow (Sandal)

11.3 Travel Delay

Forecast changes in travel delay associated with the proposed development sites in Castleford are shown inFigure 11-4 for the AM peak and Figure 11-5 for the PM peak.

The results show minor decreases and increases to AM peak hour travel delays in response to the changedtraffic volumes. However, there is no increase large enough to be considered significant.

During the PM peak, the overall increase in travel delay is greater, reflecting the higher rate of traffic generation.However, the magnitude is still relatively minor in general. The only significant impact resulting from theproposed development is at the existing Asda and ALDI retail development access roundabout, with delay atthe exit approach to Asdale Road shown to increase by 152 seconds.

65

Figure 11-4 – Change in AM peak delay (Sandal)

Figure 11-5 – Change in PM peak delay (Sandal)

66

11.4 Congestion

V/C ratios with the proposed developments in place, illustrating the level of congestion in Sandal, are shown inFigure 11-6 and Figure 11-7 for the 2022 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

During the AM peak, it can be seen that many of the junctions surrounding the proposed developments whichare predicted to be operating at, or close to capacity by 2022. However, the impact on the level of congestion asa result of the increased traffic generation is generally insignificant, with the exception of the Asdale Roadapproach to the RTC4 development access, where the V/C ratio is shown to rise by 14% to 90%, bringing theroad above operational capacity.

The PM peak shows a similar pattern of congestion. However, the impact on the level of congestion as a resultof the increased traffic generation is generally insignificant, resulting in no previously uncongested roadsreaching operational or absolute capacity.

Figure 11-6 – AM peak volume over capacity ratio (2022) (Sandal)

67

Figure 11-7 - PM peak volume over capacity ratio (2022) (Sandal)

11.5 Summary

The proposed developments in Sandal are estimated to generate an additional 90 AM peak trips and 144 PMpeak trips compared to that presently on the network. This additional traffic is shown to have a substantialcapacity impact at the following two locations:



Given the large forecast impact to the Asda/ALDI site access roundabout, to accommodate the proposeddevelopment traffic, substantial junction improvements may be required, potentially including signalisation.

68

12. Conclusion

In support of the Retail Strategy Transport Assessment for the Wakefield Local Plan, the traffic impact of 10proposed retail and mixed used developments to be constructed in a number of Wakefield towns has beenassessed. Additionally, two further rejected retail developments located in Sandal towns have also beenassessed.

The assessment has been carried out using the existing Wakefield Saturn model for a forecast year of 2022.The 2022 forecast year model was originally developed in 2011. As part of this project, the model has beenupdated to incorporate values of time in consistent with current 2015 guidance and good vehicle forecastspublished in the 2015 DfT road traffic forecasts.

Additional traffic generation for each proposed development has been estimated using rates published in theTRICS database for each relevant land use. Zero pass-by and transfer trips have been assumed for alldevelopments, providing a conservative worst case assessment.

The proposed developments have been grouped by location and the following scenarios have been tested:

Scenario 1 - Castleford

Scenario 2 - Pontefract

Scenario 3 - Featherstone

Scenario 4 - Knottingley

Scenario 5 - South Elmsall

Scenario 6 - Ossett


Scenario 8 - Sandal Rejected Sites

In general, the scale of the proposed developments is not major, with additional peak period trip generationestimated to be in the range of 10 to 380 vehicles per hour, dependant on the development. Correspondingly,the scale of traffic impacts attributable to the developments, with some exceptions, has been found to begenerally insignificant.

Key results from the analysis of each scenario are summarised in the following:

Scenario 1 – Castleford

The four proposed developments in Castleford are estimated to generated an additional 179 AM peak hour and319 PM peak hour trips. This is shown to result in a significant impact is to the Carlton Street / Bridge Streetjunction during the PM peak, where delay on the Carlton Street approach is shown to increase by 32 seconds,and V/C ratio by 11% to 89%, bringing the road above operational capacity, but still below absolute capacity. Noother significant impacts were found. It is expected that this impact could be mitigated through minor works.

Scenario 2 – Pontefract

The proposed development in Pontefract is estimated to generate an additional 94 AM peak hour and 204 PMpeak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impacts during the AM or PM peak hours, indicatingthe existing road network is able to adequately accommodate the additional traffic generation.

Scenario 3 – Featherstone

The proposed development in Featherstone is estimated to generate an additional 104 AM peak hour and 220PM peak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impacts during the AM or PM peak hours,indicating the existing road network is able to adequately accommodate the additional traffic generation.

Scenario 4 – Knottingley

The proposed development in Knottingley is estimated to generate an additional 96 AM peak hour and 136 PMpeak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impact during the AM Peak. During the PM peakhowever, the additional development traffic results in significant traffic impacts at the following locations:


69


These locations are minor roads and it is expected that the impacts could be mitigated through minor works.

Scenario 5 – South Elmsall

The proposed supermarket development in South Elmsall is estimated to generate an additional 101 AM peakhour and 225 PM peak hour trips. This is shown to result in a significant congestion impact during the AM peakhour to the High Street / Doncaster Road junction, where the High Street approach V/C ratio is shown toincrease by 4% to 88%, causing the road to exceed operational capacity, but still remain below absolutecapacity. However, given the development associated volume increase at this location is small and theapproach is already very close to operational capacity, this should be considered the worsening of an existingissue. No other significant impacts were found.

Scenario 6 – Ossett

The proposed supermarket development in Ossett is estimated to generate an additional 181 AM peak hour and382 PM peak hour trips. This is shown to cause no significant traffic impacts during the AM peak.

During the PM peak, owing to the greater volume of traffic generation, the proposed development is shown toresult in significant travel delay impacts at the following locations:





The Ossett road network surrounding the proposed development is forecast to largely reach capacity by 2022as existing, and is thus sensitive to minor increases in traffic volumes. As such, the impacts identified above arerepresentative of a worsening of existing issues. However, given the existing physical constraints at theProspect Road / Dale Street junction, an engineering solution to mitigate the traffic impacts may be difficult,requiring consideration of travel demand management.


For this this scenario, traffic impacts occurring on the wider Wakefield road network, as a result of the combinedtraffic generation of all proposed developments were considered. This is estimated to result in an additional 756PM peak hour trips and 1496 AM peak hour trips. Due to the localised nature of much of the traffic expected tobe generated by the proposed developments around Wakefield, the pattern of traffic impacts under the all sitescombined scenario is shown to be generally consistent with the individual town scenarios, with the followingcommon significant impacts identified:








Further to the impacts identified above, a number of significant impacts to the wider Wakefield network havebeen identified in the combined scenario results, these are:




70

At each of these locations of additional impact, the pre-development V/C ratio is greater than 100%, exceedingabsolute capacity. Once the absolute capacity of a junction approach is reached, delay will increaseexponentially with any additional traffic demand. As such, at these locations, the significant delay impacts arethe result of an already over congested network reacting to minor changes in travel demand resulting from theproposed developments.


Scenario 8 – Sandal Rejected Sites

The proposed developments in Sandal are estimated to generate an additional 90 AM peak hour and 144 PMpeak hour trips. This is shown to result in the following significant traffic impacts:



Given the scale of the impact to the Asda/ALDA access roundabout, substantial junction improvements may berequired to accommodate the proposed development traffic. Elsewhere, overall impact was found to be minor,with insignificant increases to delay and congestion.


Appendix A. Development site traffic generation


0 Generation rate Traffic Generation Generation rate Traffic Generation

Site Existing land use Qty. Unit AM in AM out PM in PM out AM in AM Out PM in PM out Proposed land use Qty. Unit AM in AM out PM in PM out AM in AM out PM in PM out

RTC 22 Aire Street Castleford Food and Drink 3.35 100 m2 0.471 0.412 2.172 1.881 1.57785 1.3802 7.2762 6.30135 Supermarket 15 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 50.655 27.075 84.6 80.265

Retail 4.5 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 2.2545 1.188 6.066 6.3945 Retail 10 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 5.01 2.64 13.48 14.21

Public car park 60 100 m2 0 0 0 0 Dwellings 40 No. 0.115 0.399 0.324 0.2 4.6 15.96 12.96 8

Total traffic generation 3.83235 2.5682 13.3422 12.69585 60.265 45.675 111.04 102.475

Change in traffic generation 56.43265 43.1068 97.6978 89.77915

Percentage change 1473% 1678% 732% 707%

Food and Drink 2.15 100 m2 0.471 0.412 2.172 1.881 1.01265 0.8858 4.6698 4.04415 Non-food retail 32 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 16.032 8.448 43.136 45.472

Public car park 18 100 m2 0 0 0 0



1483% 854% 824% 1024%

RTC 24 Castleford Waterfront Non-food retail 3 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 1.503 0.792 4.044 4.263 Non-food retail 3 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 1.503 0.792 4.044 4.263

Heritage/community centre 8 100 m2 0.19048 0.14286 0.02857 0.14286 1.52384 1.14288 0.22856 1.14288 Heritage/community centre 8 100 m2 0.19048 0.14286 0.02857 0.14286 1.52384 1.14288 0.22856 1.14288

Offices 10 100 m2 1.51 0.327 0.361 1.272 15.1 3.27 3.61 12.72 Offices 10 100 m2 1.51 0.327 0.361 1.272 15.1 3.27 3.61 12.72

Public house 2.25 100 m2 0.471 0.412 2.172 1.881 1.05975 0.927 4.887 4.23225 Public house 2.25 100 m2 0.471 0.412 2.172 1.881 1.05975 0.927 4.887 4.23225

Business 1.8 100 m2 1.413 0.252 0.272 0.89 2.5434 0.4536 0.4896 1.602 Business 3 100 m2 1.413 0.252 0.272 0.89 4.239 0.756 0.816 2.67

Dwellings 5 No. 0.115 0.399 0.324 0.2 0.575 1.995 1.62 1 Dwellings 60 No. 0.115 0.399 0.324 0.2 6.9 23.94 19.44 12



36% 259% 122% 48%

Health centre 10.8 100 m2 5.151 1.966 3.493 3.676 55.6308 21.2328 37.7244 39.7008 Health centre 12 100 m2 5.151 1.966 3.493 3.676 61.812 23.592 41.916 44.112

Training & advice centre 6.75 100 m2 0.19048 0.14286 0.02857 0.14286 1.28574 0.964305 0.192848 0.964305 Leisure use 12 100 m2 0.101 0.009 0.107 0.333 1.212 0.108 1.284 3.996

British Legion Social Club 3.15 100 m2 0.19048 0.14286 0.02857 0.14286 0.600012 0.450009 0.089996 0.450009 Community/social facilities 12 100 m2 0.19048 0.14286 0.02857 0.14286 2.28576 1.71432 0.34284 1.71432

Salvation Army Citadel 3.6 100 m2 0.19048 0.14286 0.02857 0.14286 0.685728 0.514296 0.102852 0.514296 Business/professional 15 100 m2 1.413 0.252 0.272 0.89 21.195 3.78 4.08 13.35

Car park 18 100 m2 0 0 0 0 Retail (not supermarket) 7 100 m2 1.37 0.944 3.125 3.161 9.59 6.608 21.875 22.127

Non-food retail 10 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 5.01 2.64 13.48 14.21 Miscellaneous 5 100 m2 1.64 0.66 1.4 1.64 8.2 3.3 7 8.2

Retail (convenience but not supermarket) 4 100 m2 1.37 0.944 3.125 3.161 5.48 3.776 12.5 12.644

Professional 1.8 100 m2 1.413 0.252 0.272 0.89 2.5434 0.4536 0.4896 1.602

Miscellaneous 5.6 100 m2 1.28 0.55 1.18 1.36 7.168 3.08 6.608 7.616



33% 18% 7% 20%

Swimming pool 9 100 m2 0.06007 0.0318 0.06537 0.07597 0.54063 0.2862 0.58833 0.68373 Supermarket 18 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 60.786 32.49 101.52 96.318



11144% 11252% 17156% 13987%

Health centre 2.7 100 m2 5.151 1.966 3.493 3.676 13.9077 5.3082 9.4311 9.9252 Health centre 2.7 100 m2 5.151 1.966 3.493 3.676 13.9077 5.3082 9.4311 9.9252

Commercial 7.2 100 m2 0.05 0.02 0.032 0.06 0.36 0.144 0.2304 0.432 Leisure 24 100 m2 0.101 0.009 0.107 0.333 2.424 0.216 2.568 7.992

Industrial 6.2 100 m2 0.382 0.197 0.204 0.36 2.3684 1.2214 1.2648 2.232 Commercial 51 100 m2 0.05 0.02 0.032 0.06 2.55 1.02 1.632 3.06

Staff car parking 2.7 100 m2 0 0 0 0


Change in traffic generation 2.2456 0 2.7048 8.388

13% -2% 25% 67%

Vacant 0 100 m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supermarket 20 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 67.54 36.1 112.8 107.02

Total traffic generation 0 0 0 0 67.54 36.1 112.8 107.02


Vacant 0 100 m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supermarket 18 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 60.786 32.49 32.49 96.318

Non-food retail 4.1 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 2.0541 1.0824 1.0824 5.8261



Library 3 100 m2 3.6 2.2 1.8 2.4 10.8 6.6 5.4 7.2 Library 3 100 m2 3.6 2.2 1.8 2.4 10.8 6.6 5.4 7.2

Public car park 24 100 m2 0 0 0 0 Supermarket 18 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 60.786 32.49 101.52 96.318

Non-food retail 10 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 5.01 2.64 13.48 14.21


Change in traffic generation 65.796 35.13 115 110.528

609% 532% 2130% 1535%

Football ground (semi-professional) 1 Pitch 0.278 0 2.167 1 0.278 0 2.167 1 Supermarket 35 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 118.195 63.175 197.4 187.285

Total traffic generation 0.278 0 2.167 1 118.195 63.175 197.4 187.285


42416% 9009% 18629%

Greenfield 0 100 m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Non-food retail 10 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 5.01 2.64 13.48 14.21



Greenfield 0 100 m2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supermarket 15 100 m2 3.377 1.805 5.64 5.351 50.655 27.075 27.075 80.265

Non-food retail 5 100 m2 0.501 0.264 1.348 1.421 2.505 1.32 1.32 7.105



RTC 4 Land at Asdale Road

(West of Asda) Sandal

RTC 5 Land at Asdale Road,

(East of Asda), Sandal

RTC 160 Hill Top/Glebe Lane,

Knottingley

RTC 91 Exchange Street, South

Emsall

RTC 157 Wilson Street,

Featherstone

RTC 54 South of Stuart Road,

Pontefract

RTC 53 North of Stuart Road,

Pontefract

RTC 115 Albion Street/Powell

Street, Castleford

RTC 23 Bridge Street Castleford

RTC 101 Ossett Town Football

Ground, Ossett


Appendix B. Change in volume over capacity

Figure 12-1 – AM peak change in congestion ratio (Castleford)

Figure 12-2 – PM peak change in congestion ratio (Castleford)


Figure 12-3 - AM peak change in congestion ratio (Pontefract)

Figure 12-4 - PM peak change in congestion ratio (Pontefract)


Figure 12-5 - AM peak change in congestion ratio (Featherstone)

Figure 12-6 - PM peak change in congestion ratio (Featherstone)


Figure 12-7 - AM peak change in congestion ratio (Knottingley)

Figure 12-8 - PM peak change in congestion ratio (Knottingley)


Figure 12-9 - AM peak change in congestion ratio (South Emsall)

Figure 12-10 - PM peak change in congestion ratio (South Emsall)


Figure 12-11 - AM peak change in congestion ratio (Ossett)

Figure 12-12 - PM peak change in congestion ratio (Ossett)


Figure 12-13 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (Castleford)

Figure 12-14 - All sites combined PM peak change in congestion ratio (Castleford)


Figure 12-15 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (Pontefract)

Figure 12-16 - All sites combined PM peak change in congestion ratio (Pontefract)


Figure 12-17 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (Featherstone)

Figure 12-18 - All sites combined PM peak change in congestion ratio (Featherstone)


Figure 12-19 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (Knottingley)

Figure 12-20 - All sites combined PM peak change in congestion ratio (Knottingley)


Figure 12-21 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (South Emsall)

Figure 12-22 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (South Emsall)


Figure 12-23 - All sites combined AM peak change in congestion ratio (Ossett)

Figure 12-24 - All sites combined PM peak change in congestion ratio (Ossett)


Figure 12-25 - AM peak change in congestion ratio (Sandal)

Figure 12-26 - PM peak change in congestion ratio (Sandal)


Appendix C. Combined scenario local plots

Figure 12-27 – All sites combined change in AM peak traffic flow (Castleford)


Figure 12-28 – All sites Combined change in AM peak traffic flow (Pontefract)

Figure 12-29 – All sites combined change in AM peak traffic flow (Featherstone)


Figure 12-30 – All sites combined change in AM peak traffic flow (Knottingley)

Figure 12-31 – All sites combined change in AM peak traffic flow (South Elmsall)


Figure 12-32 – All sites combined change in AM peak traffic flow (Ossett)

Figure 12-33 – All sites combined change in PM peak traffic flow (Castleford)


Figure 12-34 – All sites combined change in PM peak traffic flow (Pontefract)

Figure 12-35 – All sites combined change in PM peak traffic flow (Featherstone)


Figure 12-36 – All sites combined change in PM peak traffic flow (Knottingley)

Figure 12-37 – All sites combined change in PM peak traffic flow (South Elmsall)


Figure 12-38 – All sites combined change in PM peak traffic flow (Ossett)


Figure 12-39 – All sites combined AM peak delay (Castleford)

Figure 12-40 – All sites combined AM peak delay (Pontefract)


Figure 12-41 – All sites combined AM peak delay (Featherstone)

Figure 12-42 – All sites combined AM peak delay (Knottingley)


Figure 12-43 – All sites combined AM peak delay (South Elmsall)

Figure 12-44 – All sites combined AM peak delay (Ossett)


Figure 12-45 – All sites combined PM peak delay (Castleford)

Figure 12-46 – All sites combined PM peak delay (Pontefract)


Figure 12-47 – All sites combined PM peak delay (Featherstone)

Figure 12-48 – All sites combined PM peak delay (Knottingley)


Figure 12-49 – All sites combined PM peak delay (South Elmsall)

Figure 12-50 – All sites combined PM peak delay (Ossett)


Figure 12-51 – All sites combined AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Castleford)


Figure 12-52 – All sites combined AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Pontefract)

Figure 12-53 – All sites combined AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Featherstone)


Figure 12-54 – All sites combined AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Knottingley)

Figure 12-55 – All sites combined AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (South Elmsall)


Figure 12-56 – All sites combined AM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Ossett)

Figure 12-57 – All sites combined PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Castleford)


Figure 12-58 – All sites combined PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Pontefract)

Figure 12-59 – All sites combined PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Featherstone)


Figure 12-60 – All sites combined PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Knottingley)

Figure 12-61 – All sites combined PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (South Elmsall)


Figure 12-62 – All sites combined PM peak 2022 congestion ratio (Ossett)

wakefield- spd retail development assessment documents/rtc6.19... · 10 proposed retail and mixed...

Documents