Bridgemere Land PLC and Redrow Homes Ltd - Hartford … · 2017-05-12 · The Hollies, Hartford 4...

$Page 1: Bridgemere Land PLC and Redrow Homes Ltd - Hartford … · 2017-05-12 · The Hollies, Hartford 4 H:\Projects\W140000\W141220 - The Hollies, Hartford\141220B - The Hollies, Hartford\WORD\R01-EA-141220-Transport$
Bridgemere Land PLC and Redrow Homes Ltd

Hartford

Transport Note

i

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 2

Sustainability ............................................................................................................. 2

Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 6

Committed Mobility Improvements ............................................................................ 6

3 THE PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................... 8

Accessibility ............................................................................................................... 9

Traffic ...................................................................................................................... 10

4 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 13

Figures

Figure 2.1 - Site Location in Local Context

Figure 2.2 - Active Travel Connections

Figure 2.3 - Public Transport Connections

Figure 3.1 - Site Location

Figure 3.2 - Local Accessibility

Figure 3.3 - Consented Vehicular Access on School Road

Appendices

Appendix A - Aerial Plans

Appendix B - Congestion Levels in 2012

Appendix C - DfT on A559

Appendix D - Travel Isochrones

Appendix E - Technical Note

Appendix F - PICADY Output

The Hollies, Hartford 1

H:\Projects\W140000\W141220 - The Hollies, Hartford\141220B - The Hollies, Hartford\WORD\R01-EA-141220-Transport

Note-Final.docx

April 2017

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This transport report supports the proposal by Bridgemere Land PLC and Redrow Homes Ltd

for 276 homes, a net increase of 205 homes to its consented and implemented development

of 350 homes at The Hollies, Hartford.

1.2 The proposal is contained within land defined by the Neighbourhood Plan1 as Hartford’s

settlement boundary.

1.3 The context of transport in Hartford, and at The Hollies, is set out by the February 2013

Inspector’s report for the planning appeals into development at The Hollies and Land at

Grange Farm, and the subsequent Secretary of State determination in November 20132.

1.4 The Secretary of State concluded that both developments represented sustainable

development, that the proposals would have an adverse impact on queuing on the highway

network in the morning peak, but that this effect does not represent severe impact on the

transportation network.

1.5 There has been no significant change to transport provision in the area since that decision,

and the superior policy document, the NPPF, remains relevant and unchanged. Therefore, it

is reasonable to conclude that an extension to The Hollies, within the Settlement Boundary,

represents sustainable development. It is reasonable to conclude that, based on the

judgements applied by the Inspector and the Secretary of State that the residual cumulative

transport impacts are not severe, and so this is not a material matter for the planning

balance.

1.6 We explain that it is reasonable to conclude that the proposal contributes positively to local

sustainable living, and in transport terms this is a good location for new housing

development.

1 Hartford’s Neighbourhood Plan, March 2016, p.35 2 Secretary of State Determination, 18 November 2013, Ref. APP/A0665/A/12/2179374



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 The site location in the context of Hartford, committed housing development, schools and

facilities is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 – Site Location in Local Context

Sustainability

2.2 Figure 2.2 establishes the local active travel (walking and cycling) connections, and Figure 2.3

shows the public transport connections. Appendix A puts this into context on aerial

photographs.



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

Figure 2.2 – Local Active Travel Connections

Figure 2.3 – Local Public Transport Connections

2.3 The propensity to walk and cycle (take active travel) is a function of the quality of the

community, ease and relative attractiveness compared with other options. Distance is one

determinant, but not the only determinant. Table 2.1 summarised the active travel distances

to local facilities.



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

Table 2.1 – Active Travel Distances to Local Facilities

Local Facility

Distance from The

Hollies (km)

Nearest Furthest

Schools

Hartford Manor Community Primary (The

Catchment School) Primary 0.5 0.6

St.Wilfred’s Catholic Primary School Primary 2.1 2.4

Hartford Primary Primary 0.6 1.0

The Grange Junior School Private 1.6 1.9

The Grange Senior School Private 1.6 2.1

Greenbank School Secondary 1.9 2.7

St. Nicholas’ Catholic High School Secondary 1.9 2.7

Hartford High School Secondary 1.3 2.0

Mid Cheshire College of Further Education College 1.1 1.9

Sir John Deane’s College College 3.1 3.8

Sir Leslie Martin Day Nursery Nursery 1.0 1.7

Cloughwood Special School Special

Needs 0.5 1.1

Rail Stations

Greenbanks 1.5 2.2

Hartford 1.4 2.1

Other Local Facilities

Community Hall 210 1.0 1.7

Tennis Club 3000 0.9 1.6

Hartford Post Office 750 0.7 1.4

St John's Church 1100 0.7 1.4

Saint John the Baptist Hartford Parish Church 1700 0.7 1.4

Willows Veterinary Hospital 2100 0.8 1.5

The Co-op 1900 0.8 1.5

Sayers Bakery 2300 0.8 1.5

Florist 2800 0.8 1.5

Littlers Butcher 1600 0.8 1.5

Zebou Hairdresser 1300 0.8 1.5

Elson Newsagent 2500 0.8 1.5

Gift Shop 1700 0.8 1.5

Chemist 450 0.8 1.5

*measurements taken from nearest access and furthest point on site in relation to the access used

(these relate to the entire Hollies Development including the consented and proposed development)



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

2.4 The public transport connectivity is summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 – Summary of Public Transport Connectivity - Buses

Service Route First

Bus

Last

Bus

Frequency (minutes) Operator

Weekday Saturday Sunday

1 Northwich - Weaverham

Circular 07:11 19:31 20 20 60

Arriva

29/ A Northwich - Over St Johns 06:07 18:25 30 30 -

Over St Johns - Northwich 07:13 19:57 30 30 -

31 Northwich - Winsford - Crewe 07:18 17:23 60 60 -

Crewe - Winsford - Northwich 06:51 18:55 60 60 -

37A/ E Northwich - Crewe 06:20 17:53 60 60 -

Crewe - Northwich 08:04 19:12 60 60 -

45 Northwich – Warrington 16:33 - 1 per day - - Network

Warrington Warrington - Northwich 08:36 - 1 per day - -

48/ A Northwich - Frodsham 09:10 16:50 120 - - Howards

Travel Frodsham - Northwich 08:25 16:38 120 - -

82/ A/ B

Northwich - Sandiway - Tarvin -

Chester 07:05 18:05 60 60 -

Arriva Chester - Tarvin - Sandiway -

Northwich 08:30 19:23 60 60 -

Table 2.3 – Summary of Public Transport Connectivity – Rail

Destination Closest

Station Links

Frequency (minutes)

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Manchester

Piccadilly Greenbank

Northwich, Lostock Gralam, Plumley,

Knutsford, Mobberley, Ashley, Hale

(Manchester, Altrincham, Navigation Road,

Stockport, Heaton Chapel, Levenshulme

60 60 60

Chester Cuddington, Delamere, Mouldsworth 60 60 120

Liverpool

Lime Street

Hartford

Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway 60 30 60

Birmingham

New Street

Crewe, Stafford, Penkridge,

Wolverhampton, Smethwick Galton Bridge 30 30 60

2.5 The consented Hollies development already provides substantial benefits in terms of the

Government’s objective to secure the creation of high quality, sustainable, mixed and



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

inclusive communities3. The social benefits include the availability of day to day services

within walking distance, a variety of education facilities within the community and the

proximity of sustainable commuting opportunities4.

2.6 Hartford is a sustainable location, with an extraordinary range of educational facilities5.

Travel relating to education makes up about 50% of morning peak hour movement6, and so

Hartford, and the extension of The Hollies, is in principle an excellent location for growing

the sustainable community.

Traffic

2.7 Hartford currently suffers from congestion7 at peak commuting and school drop-off and pick-

up times. Appendix B summarises the position in 2012.

2.8 The limiting capacity of the local highway network has maintained zero growth over many

years8 and this has been the case despite general and development related growth over

time. This is likely to be the consequence of the inconvenience resulting from congestion,

and indicative of a supressed demand for trips.

2.9 In situations such as this, the right place for the right home is a sustainable location, where

many day to day facilities are available within walking distance and particularly where

education facilities exist within the local community. This is what the location of the proposal

achieves.

Committed Mobility Improvements

2.10 The approved Hollies development has committed to a number of transport measures,

which include:

Funding a Travel Plan Coordinator for a period of ten years from first occupation, or five

years post final completion (whichever is the later);

Issue of a Travel Information Pack for each household upon occupation;

3 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.37 4 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.36 5 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.29 6 National Travel Survey (NTS) 2016 – Table NTS0502 7 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.39 8 Appendix C – DfT Traffic Count Data on A559 in Hartford



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

Issue of a cycle or scooter voucher at each first household occupation and

encouragement of cycle to work scheme;

Improvements to, or funding of improvements to Greenbank Railway Station

Funding the provision of cycle and scooter parking at Hartford High School

Funding a footpath link through the Hartford Campus

Funding cycle and scooter parking at Hartford Manor Community Primary School

Funding a footpath from the development through Marshall’s Arm Natures Reserve to

Hartford Manor Community Primary School

Funding a walking bus shelter, cycle and scooter parking at Hartford Primary School

Funding improvements at Hartford Railway Station

Funding improvements to the footpaths along the Weaver Navigation Towpath

A Travel Plan Reserve Fund

2.11 Taken together these result in better permeability, better environment and better provision

of sustainable transport measures for the benefit of the wider community.



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

3 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The proposal is for an intensification to the existing consented development of 350 homes at

The Hollies to a total of 555, resulting in a net increase of 205 homes. This includes land

within the previous Hollies consent.

Figure 3.1 – Site Location within Settlement Boundary

3.2 It draws the development boundary towards the southern edge of the Settlement Boundary,

and creates an active travel route that flows through the community, linking Hartford village

centre with the Weaver Navigation.



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

Accessibility

Figure 3.2 – Local Accessibility

3.3 The development is accessed from six places, including three active travel accesses linking to

the Weaver Navigation, and the committed Hollies development in four places. The

committed Hollies scheme links on to the Marshall’s Arm Nature Reserve, Douglas Close, and

School Lane by active travel routes.

3.4 Vehicular access is in two places to the committed Hollies scheme, with linkages on to School

Lane and Douglas Close (continuation of road link). The consented, and now constructed,

access arrangement is demonstrated in Figure 3.3.



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

Figure 3.3 – Consented & Implemented Vehicular Access on to School Road

3.5 The Mobility measures associated with the proposal include:

Extending the funding of The Hollies Travel Plan tying in with the community Travel

Plan9;

An extension of The Hollies cycle and scooter voucher scheme;

Active travel connection to the Weaver Navigation; and

Funding further improvements to active travel routes, subject to detailed discussion

with the relevant authorities

3.6 Indicative travel isochrones from the site (measured from the access onto School Lane),

taking into account the committed links from The Hollies development, and those included

with the proposals, are set out in Appendix D.

Traffic

3.7 This development will intensify the demand on the junction of School Lane with The Hollies.

9 Hartford’s Neighbourhood Plan 2010-2030, p.28



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

3.8 On the basis of an unfettered additional demand, calculated on the same basis as that

presented to the Inspector at the 2012 Inquiry, the junction will continue to perform within

its theoretical limits within the peak commuter hour. The general calculations are set out in

Appendix E.

3.9 The summary of performance based on 50 dwellings using the Douglas Close access,

therefore assuming 505 dwellings using the School Lane access following implementation of

this proposal, is set out in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. However, a robust assessment using a

proposed housing number of 517 dwellings accessed by the School Lane access has been

used.

Table 3.1 – Summary of Performance of School Lane/ The Hollies Junction – AM

AM Peak 567 dwellings

Max Q Max RFC

Arm A School Lane N - -

Arm B Site Access 6 0.89

Arm C School Lane S 1 0.20

Table 3.2 – Summary of Performance of School Lane/ The Hollies Junction - PM

PM Peak 567 dwellings

Max Q Max RFC

Arm A School Lane N - -

Arm B Site Access 6 0.88

Arm C School Lane S 9 0.84

3.10 If the unfettered demand continued through the network, it would add approximately 40

vehicles (circa 1 vehicle every 1½ minutes) northbound on School Lane. This is not significant.

This will not change the character or performance of the highway network. The PICADY

output is set out in Appendix F.

3.11 This takes no account of the effect on behaviour of congestion and alternatives. In practice,

it is reasonable to conclude that such behavioural change will occur and the continuation of

some suppressed demand would be likely10.

10 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.60



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

3.12 Furthermore, any additional delay carries less weight in the planning context as it is not the

aim of policy to protect the convenience of commuting car drivers11. The Inspector at the

2012 Inquiry made a judgement that an additional 66 vehicles, and an average additional

delay of over 1 minute at the junction of The Green and Chester Road, would not have a

severe effect on traffic conditions in Hartford12. He made the judgement that whilst there

was an adverse impact it could not be characterised as severe compared with the existing

situation13.

3.13 The proposal provides development in the right location, and the traffic effects are well

within the bounds of what has already been considered reasonable in the context of policy.

11 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.45 12 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.63 13 February 2013, Inspector’s Report, paragraph 14.50



Note-Final.docx

April 2017

4 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

4.1 This transport report supports the proposal for intensification of the consented and

implemented development of 350 dwellings at The Hollies, Hartford, to a total of 555

dwellings.

4.2 There has been no significant change to transport provision in Hartford, or the wider area

since the Inspector’s Report in 2013. Indeed, the traffic levels on the A559 have experienced

practically zero growth in the last fifteen years.

4.3 As exemplified by the Inspector in 2013, this site is located in a good location to encourage

travel by sustainable modes, especially for education purposes to the multitude of local

schools. The key to delivering this intensification of development is maintaining that

sustainability and the forecast social benefits within the existing consents.

4.4 There is no good reason to assume that this intensification will mar the social and

community benefits foreseen at this development. There is in fact a case to be made that the

larger the site, the greater this benefit. Building this critical mass provides an intensification

for the opportunity for social inclusion and sustainable travel choices, as well as increase in

funding.

4.5 As detailed in this report, there will be some adverse impacts on traffic. Whilst this is a

consideration of the scheme, the Inspector specifically indicated that the consented scheme

did not approach any limit to consider it unacceptable. Certainly, it is not the purpose of

planning policy to protect the convenience of the car driver.

4.6 In conclusion, our judgement is that the intensification to provide an extra 205 homes at The

Hollies is not ‘severe’ and certainly not enough to outweigh the benefits.

APPENDIX A

Weekday Saturday Sunday1 Northwich - Weaverham Circular 07:11 19:31 20 20 60

29/ A Northwich - Over St Johns 06:07 18:25 30 30 -Over St Johns - Northwich 07:13 19:57 30 30 -

31 Northwich - Winsford - Crewe 07:18 17:23 60 60 -Crewe - Winsford - Northwich 06:51 18:55 60 60 -

37A/ E Northwich - Crewe 06:20 17:53 60 60 -Crewe - Northwich 08:04 19:12 60 60 -

48/ A Northwich - Frodsham 09:10 16:50 120 - -Frodsham - Northwich 08:25 16:38 120 - -

82/ A/ B Northwich - Sandiway - Tarvin - Chester 07:05 18:05 60 60 -Chester - Tarvin - Sandiway - Northwich 08:30 19:23 60 60 -

OperatorFrequency (minutes)

Last BusFirst BusRouteService

Howards Travel

Arriva

Arriva

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

DRAWING TITLE :

DRAWN: CHECKED: DATE:

DRAWING NUMBER:

Key

EACLE 24.02.17

Land East of School Lane

Bridgemere Land Plc and

Redrow Homes Ltd

Active Travel

Footpath

Sustrans Route

Bridleway

Controlled Crossing

Proposed Footway

SITE

APPENDIX B

Queue Length Profiles (Vehicles)

Term Time (Tuesday 11/09/2012) School Holidays (Wednesday 29/08/2012)

Term Time (Tuesday 11/09/2012) School Holidays (Wednesday 29/08/2012)

Period of Continuous Residual Queuing (mins) (0800‐0900 Weekday)

Tuesday 11/09/2012 (Term time)

Arm >5 vehs >20 vehs >40 vehs

Chester Road Eastbound 60 40 30 The Green 60 40 15

Chester Road Westbound 0 0 0 Bradburns Lane 25 15 0

Wednesday 29/08/2012 (School Holidays)

Arm >5 vehs >20 vehs >40 vehs

Chester Road Eastbound 0 0 0 The Green 0 0 0

Chester Road Westbound 0 0 0 Bradburns Lane 0 0 0

APPENDIX C

AADF obtained from DfT 'Traffic Counts' database

37329 77841

2000 16280 8662

2001 18770 8941

2002 16292 9188

2003 17044 9447

2004 13350 9661

2005 15596 9628

2006 15880 9816

2007 16234 9781

2008 16027 9469

2009 16340 8144

2010 16391 8020

2011 16492 8096

2012 16316 7925

2013 16294 7846

2014 16778 8002

2015 17147 7977

Year

Total Vehicles (AADF) - Count

Location

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

AADF 2000-2015

A559 (north) A559 (south)

APPENDIX D

30 Mins

15 Mins SITE


APPENDIX E

The Hollies, School Lane, Hartford

Residential Capacity Assessment

Introduction

1. Vectos have been retained by Bridgemere Land PLC and Redrow Homes Ltd to provide

transportation advice in relation to the Hollies Farm site that is located on land to the

east of School Lane in Hartford, Northwich, Cheshire.

2. A planning application (reference 11/05805/OUT) was submitted to Cheshire West and

Chester (CWAC) in December 2011 for the Hollies Farm site comprising of 350 dwellings

and associated amenity areas together with a new access onto School Lane. The

application was refused by CWAC in June 2012 along with the Grange Farm site located

in close proximity to the Hollies site in Hartford. The LPA refused the application for the

following two reasons:

1. The development proposals would have a severe impact on the highway network.

It is considered that the mitigation measures proposed are insufficient to

overcome such impact. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of

the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy T1 of the Vale Royal Borough

Local Plan First Review Alteration 2006.

2. Insufficient information has been provided as to the transport impact that the

proposed development would have on the Northwich Vision Area. Accordingly,

the proposal is contrary to Policy GS9P of the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan First

Review Alteration 2006.

3. An appeal was lodged and a Public Inquiry sat in December 2012. Prior to the Public

Inquiry commencing, the second reason for refusal was withdrawn. The

recommendation of the Inspector was for the appeal to be allowed and planning

permission granted for 350 dwellings and this was supported by the Secretary of State.

Consented Scheme

4. The access arrangements into the Hollies site comprised of a new priority junction on

School Lane in the form of a simple priority junction arrangement and the existing

access from Douglas Close via School Lane/Whitehall.

5. It was noted in the CBO Transport Assessment that was submitted with the application

that whilst the School Lane junction would be the primary access serving the site,

agreement was reached with CWaC that Douglas Close and the existing School

Lane/Whitehall Drive junction could accommodate up to 225 dwellings on the site. As a

Page: 2

separate access was being provided from School Lane the Transport Assessment

reported that only 50 dwellings would be accessed from Douglas Close.

6. The access from School Lane is a simple T junction with a 6m carriageway width with

10m radii and 2m footways on either side. Vis splays of 2.4m x 90m provided. This

access was agreed by CWaC. As the development comprises of 350 dwellings in total

this junction was designed to accommodate 300 dwellings. The junction arrangement is

shown below

7. The PICADY assessments for 2011 flows, the maximum RFC in the AM peak is 0.440 on

the site access arm with a queue of 1 vehicle. Similarly, for the PM peak the maximum

RFC is 0.253 with no queuing.

Updated Capacity Assessment

8. A further capacity assessment of the junction arrangement above has been undertaken

using PICADY. The assessment has been necessarily broadbrush as we haven’t

discussed the detail with the authority.

9. An assessment has been undertaken based upon 50 dwellings be accessed from Douglas

Close and 600 dwellings accessed from the new junction on school lane.

10. The results of the capacity assessments for the AM peak hour are included in the Table

1 below.

Table 1: Capacity Assessment of School Lane Access (AM Peak)

300 dwellings 600 dwellings

Max

Q Max RFC Max Q Max RFC

Arm A School Lane N - - - -

Arm B Site Access 1 0.44 6 0.898

Arm C School Lane S 1 0.056 1 0.112

Page: 3

11. The findings demonstrate that with an additional 300 dwellings the junction operates

within its theoretical capacity. It should be noted that the site access arm operates

slightly above 0.85 and a queue length of 6 vehicles.

12. Similarly in the PM peak capacity assessment results are shown in Table 2

Table 2: Capacity Assessment of School Lane Access (PM Peak)

300 dwellings 600 dwellings

Max

Q Max RFC Max Q Max RFC

Arm A School Lane N - - - -

Arm B Site Access 1 0.253 1 0.422

Arm C School Lane S 1 0.244 3 0.514

13. In considering the findings of the capacity assessment, our judgement is that with a

combination of the two site accesses in use (with some trips via Douglas Close) a good

argument can be made for up to 650 homes.

14. It should be considered that whilst the junction has been shown to work this doesn’t

mean that the local highway network will not be subject to queuing. However, in

planning terms there is a good case for the additional number of dwellings.

15. An equally important consideration is that of the sustainable transport measures that

were developed over the course of the appeal. Whether or not the size of the

development will be found acceptable by either CWAC or the Secretary of State may

depend to a large extent on the confidence and deliverability of the sustainable travel

initiatives presented at the Inquiry.

16. At the Public Inquiry, the Inspector was convinced that the whilst the network was

congested at peak times, he was cognisant of the merits in adopting and implementing

a series of measures and initiatives that would provide real alternatives to the private

car.

17. It will be necessary to demonstrate the same level enthusiasm to deliver the Travel Plan

in order provide the authority with confidence in our sustainable travel measures. If we

can provide that confidence then it is reasonable to expect the Council to follow the

lead of the Inspector and accept that the traffic impact disbenefits are not so significant

as to outweigh the community and other benefits of delivering more homes.

APPENDIX F

Junctions 9

PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module

Version: 9.0.0.4211 []

© Copyright TRL Limited, 2017

For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL:

Tel: +44 (0)1344 770758 email: [email protected] Web: http://www.trlsoftware.co.uk

The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in

no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution

Filename: School Lane_Site Access_517 dwellings ONLY.j9 Path: H:\Projects\W140000\W141220 - The Hollies, Hartford\141220B - The Hollies, Hartford\Modelling Report generation date: 28/02/2017 17:47:27

»567 Dwellings, AM

»567 Dwellings, PM

Summary of junction performance

AM PM

Queue

(Veh)

Delay

(s) RFC LOS

Junction

Delay (s)

Junction

LOS

Queue

(Veh)

Delay

(s) RFC LOS

Junction

Delay (s)

Junction

LOS

567 Dwellings

Stream B-AC 5.8 84.02 0.89 F

12.77 B

5.1 89.36 0.88 F

18.94 C

Stream C-AB 0.6 5.23 0.20 A 8.6 27.09 0.84 D

Stream C-A

Stream A-B

Stream A-C

Values shown are the highest values encountered over all time segments. Delay is the maximum value of average delay per arriving vehicle.

Junction LOS and Junction Delay are demand-weighted averages.

File summary

File Description

Title School Lane Test

Location Hartford

Site number

Date 30/01/2014

Version

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.trlsoftware.co.uk/

Status

Identifier

Client Harrow

Jobnumber 120759

Enumerator VECTOS"ellen.axon

Description

Units Distance

units

Speed

units

Traffic units

input

Traffic units

results Flow units

Average delay

units

Total delay

units

Rate of delay

units

m kph Veh Veh perHour s -Min perMin

Analysis Options Vehicle

length (m)

Calculate Queue

Percentiles

Calculate detailed

queueing delay

Calculate residual

capacity

RFC

Threshold

Average Delay

threshold (s)

Queue threshold

(PCU)

5.75

0.85 36.00 20.00

Demand Set Summary

Scenario name

Time

Period

name

Description Traffic profile

type

Model start

time (HH:mm)

Model finish

time (HH:mm)

Time segment

length (min)

Run

automatically

567

Dwellings AM

School

Lane

ONE

HOUR 07:45 09:15 15

567

Dwellings PM

School

Lane

ONE

HOUR 17:00 18:30 15

567 Dwellings, AM

Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings

Analysis Set Details ID Include in report Network flow scaling factor (%) Network capacity scaling factor (%)

A1 100.000 100.000

Junction Network

Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS

1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 12.77 B

Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting

Left Normal/unknown

Arms

Arms Arm Name Description Arm type

A School Lane N

Major

B Site Access

Minor

C School Lane S

Major

Major Arm Geometry

Arm Width of carriageway

(m)

Has kerbed central

reserve

Has right turn

bay

Visibility for right turn

(m) Blocks?

Blocking queue

(PCU)

C 7.30

100.0 0.00

Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D.

Minor Arm Geometry Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m)

B One lane 3.00 23 20

Slope / Intercept / Capacity

Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts

Junction Stream Intercept

(Veh/hr)

Slope

for

A-B

Slope

for

A-C

Slope

for

C-A

Slope

for

C-B

1 B-A 494.887 0.085 0.215 0.135 0.307

1 B-C 636.527 0.092 0.233 - -

1 C-B 631.874 0.231 0.231 - - The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments.

Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted.

Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments.

Traffic Demand

Demand Set Details

ID Scenario name

Time

Period

name

Description Traffic

profile type

Model start

time (HH:mm)

Model finish

time (HH:mm)

Time segment

length (min)

Run

automatically

D3 567

Dwellings AM

School

Lane

ONE

HOUR 07:45 09:15 15

Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU)

HV Percentages 2.00

Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%)

A

ONE HOUR 820.00 100.000

B

ONE HOUR 244.00 100.000

C

ONE HOUR 578.00 100.000

Origin-Destination Data

Demand (Veh/hr)

To

From

A B C

A 0.000 33.000 787.000

B 95.000 0.000 149.000

C 527.000 51.000 0.000

Proportions

To

From

A B C

A 0.00 0.04 0.96

B 0.39 0.00 0.61

C 0.91 0.09 0.00

Vehicle Mix

Heavy Vehicle proportion

To

From

A B C

A 0 0 1

B 0 0 0

C 1 0 0

Average PCU Per Veh

To

From

A B C

A 1.000 1.000 1.012

B 1.000 1.000 1.000

C 1.013 1.000 1.000

Results

Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (Veh) Max LOS Average Demand (Veh/hr) Total Junction Arrivals (Veh)

B-AC 0.89 84.02 5.8 F 223.90 335.85

C-AB 0.20 5.23 0.6 A 118.71 178.07

C-A

411.67 617.51

A-B

30.28 45.42

A-C

722.16 1083.25

Main Results for each time segment

Main results: (07:45-08:00)

Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 183.70 183.70 45.92 0.00 393.40 0.467 180.31 0.0 0.8 16.646 C

C-

AB 77.49 77.49 19.37 0.00 773.06 0.100 76.66 0.0 0.2 5.169 A

C-A 357.65 357.65 89.41 0.00

357.65

A-B 24.84 24.84 6.21 0.00

24.84

A-C 592.49 592.49 148.12 0.00

592.49


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 219.35 219.35 54.84 0.00 356.06 0.616 216.73 0.8 1.5 25.353 D

C-

AB 108.12 108.12 27.03 0.00 806.29 0.134 107.61 0.2 0.3 5.158 A

C-A 411.49 411.49 102.87 0.00

411.49

A-B 29.67 29.67 7.42 0.00

29.67

A-C 707.50 707.50 176.87 0.00

707.50


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 268.65 268.65 67.16 0.00 302.10 0.889 255.24 1.5 4.9 63.899 F

C-

AB 169.67 169.67 42.42 0.00 860.90 0.197 168.61 0.3 0.6 5.209 A

C-A 466.72 466.72 116.68 0.00

466.72

A-B 36.33 36.33 9.08 0.00

36.33

A-C 866.50 866.50 216.63 0.00

866.50


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 268.65 268.65 67.16 0.00 301.95 0.890 264.93 4.9 5.8 84.017 F

C-

AB 170.19 170.19 42.55 0.00 861.50 0.198 170.16 0.6 0.6 5.228 A

C-A 466.20 466.20 116.55 0.00

466.20

A-B 36.33 36.33 9.08 0.00

36.33

A-C 866.50 866.50 216.63 0.00

866.50


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 219.35 219.35 54.84 0.00 355.85 0.616 235.56 5.8 1.7 33.185 D

C-

AB 108.68 108.68 27.17 0.00 807.10 0.135 109.71 0.6 0.4 5.186 A

C-A 410.93 410.93 102.73 0.00

410.93

A-B 29.67 29.67 7.42 0.00

29.67

A-C 707.50 707.50 176.87 0.00

707.50


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 183.70 183.70 45.92 0.00 393.20 0.467 186.99 1.7 0.9 17.720 C

C-

AB 78.12 78.12 19.53 0.00 773.58 0.101 78.65 0.4 0.2 5.192 A

C-A 357.03 357.03 89.26 0.00

357.03

A-B 24.84 24.84 6.21 0.00

24.84

A-C 592.49 592.49 148.12 0.00

592.49

567 Dwellings, PM

Data Errors and Warnings No errors or warnings

Analysis Set Details

ID Include in report Network flow scaling factor (%) Network capacity scaling factor (%)

A1 100.000 100.000

Junction Network

Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS

1 untitled T-Junction Two-way 18.94 C

Junction Network Options [same as above]

Arms

Arms [same as above]

Major Arm Geometry [same as above]

Minor Arm Geometry [same as above]

Slope / Intercept / Capacity [same as above]

Traffic Demand

Demand Set Details

ID Scenario name

Time

Period

name

Description Traffic

profile type

Model start

time (HH:mm)

Model finish

time (HH:mm)

Time segment

length (min)

Run

automatically

D4 567

Dwellings PM

School

Lane

ONE

HOUR 17:00 18:30 15

Vehicle mix varies over turn Vehicle mix varies over entry Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU)

HV Percentages 2.00

Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Profile type Use O-D data Average Demand (Veh/hr) Scaling Factor (%)

A

ONE HOUR 805.00 100.000

B

ONE HOUR 204.00 100.000

C

ONE HOUR 787.00 100.000

Origin-Destination Data

Demand (Veh/hr)

To

From

A B C

A 0.000 147.000 658.000

B 89.000 0.000 115.000

C 579.000 208.000 0.000

Proportions

To

From

A B C

A 0.00 0.18 0.82

B 0.44 0.00 0.56

C 0.74 0.26 0.00

Vehicle Mix

Heavy Vehicle proportion

To

From

A B C

A 0 0 0

B 0 0 0

C 0 0 0

Average PCU Per Veh

To

From

A B C

A 1.000 1.000 1.000

B 1.000 1.000 1.000

C 1.000 1.000 1.000

Results

Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (Veh) Max LOS Average Demand (Veh/hr) Total Junction Arrivals (Veh)

B-AC 0.88 89.36 5.1 F 187.19 280.79

C-AB 0.84 27.09 8.6 D 534.88 802.31

C-A

187.29 280.93

A-B

134.89 202.33

A-C

603.79 905.69

Main Results for each time segment


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 153.58 153.58 38.40 0.00 369.39 0.416 150.82 0.0 0.7 16.277 C

C-

AB 338.19 338.19 84.55 0.00 807.85 0.419 333.50 0.0 1.2 7.574 A

C-A 254.30 254.30 63.58 0.00

254.30

A-B 110.67 110.67 27.67 0.00

110.67

A-C 495.38 495.38 123.84 0.00

495.38


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 183.39 183.39 45.85 0.00 325.28 0.564 181.27 0.7 1.2 24.634 C

C-

AB 481.04 481.04 120.26 0.00 850.75 0.565 476.97 1.2 2.2 9.712 A

C-A 226.45 226.45 56.61 0.00

226.45

A-B 132.15 132.15 33.04 0.00

132.15

A-C 591.53 591.53 147.88 0.00

591.53


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 224.61 224.61 56.15 0.00 259.40 0.866 212.92 1.2 4.1 65.624 F

C-

AB 762.57 762.57 190.64 0.00 915.62 0.833 741.34 2.2 7.5 21.116 C

C-A 103.93 103.93 25.98 0.00

103.93

A-B 161.85 161.85 40.46 0.00

161.85

A-C 724.47 724.47 181.12 0.00

724.47


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 224.61 224.61 56.15 0.00 255.34 0.880 220.67 4.1 5.1 89.358 F

C-

AB 782.20 782.20 195.55 0.00 927.28 0.844 777.64 7.5 8.6 27.089 D

C-A 84.30 84.30 21.08 0.00

84.30

A-B 161.85 161.85 40.46 0.00

161.85

A-C 724.47 724.47 181.12 0.00

724.47


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 183.39 183.39 45.85 0.00 320.43 0.572 198.18 5.1 1.4 32.409 D

C-

AB 501.91 501.91 125.48 0.00 868.26 0.578 526.38 8.6 2.5 11.557 B

C-A 205.58 205.58 51.40 0.00

205.58

A-B 132.15 132.15 33.04 0.00

132.15

A-C 591.53 591.53 147.88 0.00

591.53


Stream

Total

Demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

demand

(Veh/hr)

Junction

Arrivals

(Veh)

Bypass

demand

(Veh/hr)

Capacity

(Veh/hr) RFC

Throughput

(Veh/hr)

Start

queue

(Veh)

End

queue

(Veh)

Delay (s) LOS

B-

AC 153.58 153.58 38.40 0.00 367.77 0.418 156.35 1.4 0.7 17.238 C

C-

AB 343.34 343.34 85.84 0.00 812.39 0.423 348.42 2.5 1.3 7.910 A

C-A 249.15 249.15 62.29 0.00

249.15

A-B 110.67 110.67 27.67 0.00

110.67

A-C 495.38 495.38 123.84 0.00

495.38

Date post:	09-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuthuan
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Bridgemere Land PLC and Redrow Homes Ltd - Hartford … · 2017-05-12 · The Hollies, Hartford 4...

Documents