Runnymede Borough Council Local Plan...Runnymede Borough Council Local Plan Transport Assessment...

S

RUNNYMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN

Transport Assessment

Issue No. 02 Page 2 Document No. 53613T41/01

Project Title: Runnymede Borough Council Local Plan Document Title: Transport Assessment Client Reference: Date: 07 June 2016 Prepared By: Georgina Sharpe Authorised By: Gemma Joyner

All maps contained in this document are licensed © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100019613

Amendment List

Iss. / Rev.

Iss. / Rev Date

Alterations

Page Iss. / Rev.

0201SF10 07/08/02 Filename: S:Project-current\3613\53613T41_Runnymede_2016\Report\Doc01_Runnymede_Local Plan Transport Assessment_v2.docx

Runnymede Borough Council Local Plan Transport Assessment


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 4 2.1 Model and Scope 4 2.2 Base Year 4 2.3 Modes of Transport 4 2.4 Time periods 5 2.5 Study Area and Base Model Development 5 2.6 Zones 6 2.7 Assignment 7 2.8 Model Validation 7 2.9 2014 Reference Year 9

3 MODEL FORECASTING, TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 10 3.1 Forecast Year 10 3.2 Forecast Scenarios 10 3.3 Development Sites and Pro-Forma 11 3.4 Vehicle Trip Generation 13 3.5 External and Background Traffic Growth 22 3.6 Vehicle Trip Distribution 22 3.7 Forecast Network 22 3.8 Assignment 23

4 MODEL RESULTS AND ANALYSES 23 4.1 Network Statistics 23 4.2 Level of Service (LOS) 26 4.3 Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) 26 4.4 Increase in Link Flow 27 4.5 Link Capacity 33 4.6 Increase in Junction Delay 37 4.7 The Motorway and Trunk Road Network 45 4.8 Cross Boundary Impacts 49 4.9 Network Hotspots and Mitigation 51

5 CONCLUSIONS 53

6 APPENDIX A: LINK FLOW VALIDATION 55 6.1 Average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000) 55



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 Runnymede Borough Council is in the process of developing its Local Plan. To assist with this review, Surrey County Council has been commissioned to assess the traffic impact for multiple scenarios using the county’s strategic highway model. The overall aim is to help inform the decision making surrounding the suitability of potential development sites which have been identified, and to highlight junctions and sections of road to focus mitigation solutions.

1.1.2 This document sets out the development and validation of the model, the forecasting methodology, and the results and appraisal of the traffic impact of the potential development sites.

2 BASE MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

2.1 Model and Scope

2.1.1 Surrey County Council’s strategic model, SINTRAM version 6 (27/05/16) was used for the appraisal, with OmniTRANS modelling program, version 6.0.22.

2.1.2 SINTRAM is a strategic highway model for the county of Surrey. The model encapsulates the road network of Surrey and surrounding local authorities. Figure 2.1 presents the entire model area.

2.1.3 All motorways, A and B roads, together with most local roads are represented within SINTRAM. Where traffic junctions and traffic signals have a significant effect in terms of delay or route choice, details of their layout and/or timing of the signals have been included in the model.

2.1.4 Strategic models, such as SINTRAM, use aggregate descriptions of traffic such as flow, density, speed and the relationships between them. The model is unable to answer detailed questions regarding traffic interactions, such as queuing and individual driver behaviour. It can however, provide approximate answers to transport problems across a vast geographical area, including the level of vehicle demand, junctions and stretches of road which will be operating above their theoretical capacity, and highlighting areas where some form of mitigation is likely to be required to reduce the impact of potential development sites. This makes SINTRAM a suitable tool for assessing the potential traffic impacts of the development sites at this initial review stage.

2.1.5 Once the development sites are established with confirmed detail of their composition and access to the highway, more detailed transport modelling will be required. This is often a core element of the development’s Transport Assessment which forms a key part of the planning application.

2.2 Base Year

2.2.1 The model base year is 2009.

2.2.2 To bring the model more up to date, it has been reviewed and enhanced in Runnymede, and a reference year of 2014 has been created. These revisions are described in Sections 2.5 and 2.9 respectively.

2.3 Modes of Transport

2.3.1 Vehicle classes that are represented in the model are: car; light goods vehicles (LGV); and heavy goods vehicles (HGV).



2.4 Time periods

2.4.1 The model represents a twelve-hour weekday (0700 – 1900), broken down into the following time periods:

- Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000); - Weekday average inter peak hour (1000 – 1600) and - Weekday average PM peak hour (1600 – 1900).

2.4.2 Since the majority of the future large scale developments are focused on residential land uses, the majority of trips will take place during the weekday morning peak. As a result only the weekday average AM peak hour has been assessed.

Figure 2.1: Model extent

2.5 Study Area and Base Model Development

2.5.1 The base model was reviewed and enhanced in the study area of Runnymede borough, to ensure that it was suitable for the evaluation of the highway impact arising from the potential development sites.

2.5.2 This included an area wide audit of the model network to:

- Ensure that the network is up to date; - Ensure that the network coverage is sufficient for this appraisal; - Check link type classification; - Check junction configuration; and - Ensure that the access points of large potential development sites are

reflected by the appropriate location of the zone centroid connectors.



2.5.3 The audit was assisted by site visits, aerial photography and Surrey County Council’s speed limit dataset. Where necessary additional highway network and junctions were inserted into the model, and centroid connectors adjusted accordingly. In particular, special attention was given to the areas of Longcross, Chertsey, Row Town, Ottershaw, Addlestone and Virginia Water where the largest of the potential development sites have been proposed.

2.5.4 A calibration factor of 0.5 has been applied to the A30 Egham By-pass approach to Runnymede roundabout in the base model. The factor reduces the model delay at the junction by half to more accurately reflect observed conditions. Without it the model was overestimating delay and flow on the A30 was consequently very low, providing a poor replication of reality.

2.6 Zones

2.6.1 A zone represents a geographical area where vehicle trips are generated by the land uses contained within.

2.6.2 The borough of Runnymede is split into 21 zones, listed below and shown in Figure 2.2.

378 Virginia Water

379 Ottershaw

380 Woodham

381 Row Town

382 Addlestone Town Centre

383 Addlestone Moor

384 Englefield Green

385 Chertsey

386 Thorpe

387 New Haw

388 Addlestone residential and Ham Moor

389 Coopers Hill

390 Egham

391 Pooley Green

569 Longcross South and former DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) Site

570 Ottershaw East

571 Virginia Water North

572 Bittams

573 Thorpe Lea Road West and North

574 Addlestone redevelopment

575 Rusham Park Centre

2.6.3 The zones were reviewed to ensure that they were suitable for the assessment of the development sites. Seven new zones, shown in red, were created to contain the largest development sites and to ensure that the vehicle trips generated would access the highway network at a relevant point. This ensured that their impacts on the highway network could be captured more accurately.



Figure 2.2: Zone plan

2.7 Assignment

2.7.1 The base matrices were assigned to the network using a fixed trip equilibrium assignment. This was performed using the method of successive averages (MSA) for 100 assignment iterations.

2.8 Model Validation

2.8.1 Validation simply compares modelled with observed data. In this case observed and modelled link flows at 92 locations in the borough have been compared for each model time period, in accordance with the Department for Transport’s validation acceptability guidelines1, presented in Table 2.1.

Criteria Acceptability Guidelines

Link Flows

Individual flows within 100 vph of counts for flows less than 700 vph

> 85% of cases Individual flows within 15% of counts for flows from 700 to 2,700 vph

Individual flows within 400 vph of counts for flows more than 2,700 vph

GEH < 5 for individual flows

Table 2.1: Validation acceptability guidelines

2.8.1 Link flow validation compares the absolute differences between modelled flows and observed counts, together with the presentation of the GEH (Geoffrey E.

1 Department for Transport (2014) Transport Appraisal Guidance Unit M3.1, Highway Assignment

Modelling.

N



Havers) statistic. The GEH statistic is a form of the Chi-squared statistic that incorporates both relative and absolute errors, defined as:

GEH is the GEH statistic M is the modelled flow C is the observed flow

2.8.2 Table 2.2 presents the summary of the validation of the weekday average AM peak hour in terms of the Department for Transport’s acceptability guidelines. The flow and GEH criteria have been met.

Surrey

Average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000)

Values % Met

Criteria Counts Met

Criteria

No. of counts 92 - -

Average GEH 3.09 - -

GEH > 10 4 - -

GEH < 5 79 86% Yes

Flow criteria 78 85% Yes

Table 2.2: Link flow validation results for Runnymede

2.8.3 Figure 2.3 shows the modelled flows plotted against the observed with best-fit regression line and correlation coefficient (R2). This helps visualise the goodness of fit. An R2 value greater than 0.95 is considered to indicate that the model reflects observed traffic flows well.

2.8.4 A full comparison of observed and modelled flows is provided in Appendix A.

Figure 2.3: Comparison plot of modelled against observed link flows with best-fit regression

line and correlation coefficient (R2) for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

y = 0.96x R² = 1.00

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Mo

de

lled

Flo

ws

Observed Flows



2.8.5 Figure 2.4 displays observed versus model flow bandwidth plots for the weekday average AM peak hour.

2.8.6 The bandwidths are proportional to the level of flow. A bandwidth coloured green indicates that an observed count is present on the link. Where the green bands have a yellow edge, the model flow is less than the observed flow. Where the green bands show a blue edge, the model flow is greater than the observed flow.

Figure 2.4: Link flow validation for the average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

2.9 2014 Reference Year

2.9.1 Given the model base year is more than 5 years past from the present day, a 2014 reference year has been created. This is to bring the model base up to date and to reflect 2014 trends.

2.9.2 64 observed counts within Surrey were extracted from the Department for Transport’s manual classified count annual survey program for the years 2009 and 2014. From these, growth factors have been derived, as shown in Table 2.3, and applied to the 2009 validated trip matrices for each vehicle type.

Car LGV HGV All

Average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)

2009 Total Flow 154,686 26,131 12,383 193,201

2014 Total Flow 148,765 28,453 12,814 190,031

Growth Factor 0.962 1.089 1.035 0.984

Table 2.3: 2009 to 2014 growth factors

N

Key Modelled flow greater than observed Modelled flow less than observed No count on link



2.9.1 It can be seen that the number of cars has reduced during the weekday average AM peak hour between 2009 and 2014, but there has been a growth in the number of light and heavy goods vehicles.

3 MODEL FORECASTING, TRIP GENERATION AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION

3.1 Forecast Year

3.1.1 The model forecast year is 2036.

3.2 Forecast Scenarios

3.2.1 To identify the traffic impacts of potential development sites, six scenarios have been assessed as set out in Table 3.1. The scenarios form a compilation of the five components as described below:

- Component A (baseline growth) includes all commercial and residential development sites that have received planning permission within Runnymede since 2014, specific future urban development sites that are likely to progress, previously developed land in the green belt, windfalls and prior approval sites;

- Component B includes the potential residential development in the green belt

parcels at Bittams (A-E), Thorpe Lea (North and West), and Longcross (South);

- Component C includes the potential residential development at Row Town

(East and West);

- Component D includes the potential residential development at Virginia Water

(North and South); and

- Component E includes the potential residential development at Ottershaw

(East).

Table 3.1: Model scenario definition

3.2.2 Scenario 1 combines component A (baseline growth) with all of the proposed residential development site components B to E.

3.2.3 Model scenarios 2 to 5 each assess component A (baseline growth) together with a combination of potential residential development sites situated in varying locations across the borough.

3.2.4 Scenario 6, the do-minimum baseline growth, represents the borough’s ‘do-nothing beyond existing strategy’. It includes committed developments identified from the base year of 2014 to the forecast year 2036, together with specific future urban development sites which are likely to be progressed, windfalls and prior approval

Model Scenario

Component

A B C D E

Baseline

Bittams (A-E), Thorpe Lea North and West, and Longcross

South

Row Town East and

West

Virginia Water North and South

Ottershaw East

1

2

3

4

5

6



sites. Committed developments comprise of sites which have already been built or are in the process of construction.

3.2.5 Since the developments contained within scenario 6 can be found in all scenarios, this transport assessment has focused on a comparison between this and the other scenarios.

3.3 Development Sites and Pro-Forma

3.3.1 Information regarding the composition of both commercial and residential development sites to be considered in this appraisal was provided by Runnymede Borough Council in the form of the county council’s pro-forma. The pro-forma was finalised on 10/05/2016.

3.3.2 Each development site listed in the pro-forma was matched to the model zone system using the grid references provided and Geographic Information System (GIS).

3.3.3 Figure 3.1 geographically presents all of the commercial development sites that have been set out in the pro-forma. Figure 3.2 shows the same but for residential sites.2

2 These maps are produced at A0 size and therefore the quality is inhibited in this report. As a

result these maps have also been issued separately to this document.



Figure 3.1: Commercial development sites in Runnymede



Figure 3.2: Residential development sites in Runnymede

3.4 Vehicle Trip Generation

3.4.1 Vehicle trips generated by each development site were calculated using the information contained within the pro-forma and the Trip Rate Information Computer Database (TRICS) version 2015 7.2.4. External and background growth was also considered, as detailed in the following Section 3.5.



3.4.2 TRICS is the national standard database system of trip generation and analysis used in the planning application process. The database holds thousands of trip rate surveys generated by different land uses and location type.

3.4.3 For developments within Runnymede, the database was interrogated for sites of a similar geographical location and land use in line with guidance from the 2013 Good Practice Guide. The database produces trip rates per 100m2 gross floor area (GFA), site area (Ha), number of residents or by residential unit. The resulting trip rates were applied to the size and composition of each development to calculate the trip generation for each site. Consideration was also made to the previous or existing land use of the development site and the trips it would have created. These trips were deducted from those generated by the new development to prevent double counting.

3.4.4 The trip generation was calculated separately for vehicles arriving and departing each development site. This was also split into the vehicle types: car, LGV and HGV, similarly informed by the information contained within the TRICS database.

3.4.5 Historic information regarding the numbers of windfalls and prior approval sites was supplied by ward. Since the exact location of future windfall and prior approval schemes are unknown, the relating trip generation was apportioned by the area of model zone contained within each ward, based on historic trends.

3.4.6 At this concept stage, all development related trips have been assumed to be new trips, and as such can be considered to represent a worst case scenario. No allowance has been made for linked, pass-by, diverted or transferred trips.

3.4.7 The resulting trip generation by Runnymede zone for scenarios 1 to 6 is shown in Tables 3.2 to 3.7 for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000).

3.4.8 A summary of all the scenarios and time periods for the whole of Runnymede borough has also been provided in Table 3.8.

3.4.9 Negative values are due to a greater number of vehicle trips being generated from the previous development(s) than the new site(s) being proposed. Where negative trips were present in the new zones 569 to 575, these were removed from the surrounding zone when applied in the model.

3.4.10 Scenario 1 comprises all of the potential development sites (components A to E) totalling 4,613 net residential units more than scenario 6, the baseline growth, which only contains component A. It has been estimated that this will give a net increase of 1,622 vehicle trips in the weekday average AM peak hour, compared with scenario 6.

3.4.11 Scenario 2 includes the baseline development in scenario 6 together with potential development in Bittams (A-E), Thorpe Lea North and West, Longcross South, Row Town East and West, and Ottershaw East (components A, B, C and E). This totals 4,231 net residential units on top of that in scenario 6. It has been estimated that this will give a net increase in vehicle trips of 1,489 in the weekday average AM peak hour compared with scenario 6, which have been assigned to zones 381 “Row Town”, 569 “Longcross South and former DERA Site”, 570 “Ottershaw East” and 573 “Thorpe Lea Road West and North”.

3.4.12 Scenario 3 includes the baseline development in scenario 6 together with potential development in Bittams (A-E), Thorpe Lea North and West, Longcross South, Row Town East and West, and Virginia Water North and South (components A, B, C and D). This comprises of 3,974 additional residential units, and gives a net



increase above that of scenario 6 of 1,378 vehicle trips in the average AM peak hour. These additional trips relate to zones 378 “Virginia Water”, 381 “Row Town”, 569 “Longcross South and former DERA Site”, 571 “Virginia Water North” and 573 “Thorpe Lea Road West and North”.

3.4.13 Scenario 4 includes the potential development in Bittams (A-E), Thorpe Lea North and West, Longcross South, Virginia Water North and South, and Ottershaw East with a total of 4,117 net residential units, together with the baseline development in scenario 6 (components A, B, D and E). It has been estimated that this will give a net increase in vehicle trips of 1,433 in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000) compared with scenario 6. The trips have been assigned to zones 378 “Virginia Water”, 569 “Longcross South and former DERA Site”, 570 “Ottershaw East”, 571 “Virginia Water North” and 573 “Thorpe Lea Road West and North”.

3.4.14 Scenario 5 includes the baseline development in scenario 6 together with potential residential developments in Bittams A-E comprising 758 net units, Thorpe Lea North and West comprising 359 net units and Longcross South comprising of 1,979 net units (components A and B). This gives a net increase above that of scenario 6 of 1,056 vehicle trips in the average AM peak hour. These additional trips relate to zones 569 “Longcross South and former DERA Site” and 573 “Thorpe Lea Road West and North”.

3.4.15 Scenario 6 represents just the baseline growth across the borough of 3,157 net residential units. Its component A is the foundation of all the other model scenarios and generates an estimated 827 vehicle trips during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000).

3.4.16 The largest number of additional trips in scenario 6 is in zone 569; this is due to the former DERA site. Zones 389 and 391 also have high numbers of additional trips. Zone 389 relates to the development of Royal Holloway and the former Brunel University amongst other developments in Englefield Green. Zone 391 mainly relates to the commercial redevelopment of the industrial estate between Egham and Staines. In contrast, zones 390 and 574 experience a sizeable reduction in trips, which is due to the replacement of commercial uses for residential use. Zone 390 relates to commercial and residential development of Egham town centre, here the development at Station Road North Broad location creates a large loss of trips, whilst zone 574 relates to the redevelopment within Addlestone including the large residential developments on Station Road and Aviator Park.

3.4.17 Scenario 6 has the smallest net trip generation of 827 vehicle trips which has been generated from an additional 3,157 residential units and an additional 172,457m2 commercial GFA.

3.4.18 In contrast, scenario 1 has the largest net trip generation of an additional 2,449 vehicle trips in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000). This scenario contains all of the components (A to E) which offer an additional 7,770 residential units and 146,129m2 commercial GFA.



Runnymede Zone All Vehicles Arrivals Departures

No. Name Arrivals Departures Car LGV HGV Car LGV HGV

378 Virginia Water 17.1 53.2 15.2 1.7 0.2 47.4 5.3 0.5

379 Ottershaw 2.9 12.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 10.7 1.2 0.2

380 Woodham 2.5 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1

381 Row Town 78.2 159.5 69.1 8.3 0.8 141.4 16.6 1.6

382 Addlestone Town Centre 33.0 53.5 29.8 2.9 0.3 48.6 4.4 0.6

383 Addlestone Moor -36.6 36.8 -35.4 -0.1 -1.1 28.9 7.6 0.3

384 Englefield Green 12.1 30.6 10.4 1.6 0.2 26.5 3.8 0.4

385 Chertsey 24.4 66.8 16.7 7.3 0.4 56.1 9.9 0.7

386 Thorpe 4.8 -4.8 3.7 0.8 0.3 -5.3 0.4 0.1

387 New Haw 17.1 30.7 15.0 2.1 0.0 27.2 3.3 0.3

388 Addlestone residential and Ham Moor 73.8 26.5 69.4 3.7 0.6 24.7 1.6 0.3

389 Coopers Hill 237.9 99.4 228.0 7.6 2.2 91.6 5.9 2.0

390 Egham -139.1 -130.5 -117.1 -20.3 -1.7 -110.6 -18.4 -1.4

391 Pooley Green 133.5 21.4 123.9 8.0 1.5 19.9 1.3 0.2

569 Longcross South and former DERA Site 468.7 636.2 421.1 43.4 4.2 565.9 64.4 5.9

570 Ottershaw East 77.9 166.1 69.1 8.1 0.7 147.7 16.9 1.6

571 Virginia Water North 10.9 31.2 9.6 1.1 0.1 27.7 3.2 0.3

572 Bittams 93.1 198.5 82.5 9.6 0.9 176.5 20.2 1.9

573 Thorpe Lea Road West and North 0.2 67.6 4.4 -2.8 -1.4 62.1 5.6 -0.1

574 Addlestone redevelopment -108.5 -54.4 -96.4 -10.9 -1.1 -48.9 -4.9 -0.6

575 Rusham Park Centre -62.2 1.0 -58.2 -3.6 -0.4 -0.1 1.0 0.1

Totals 941 1508 866 69 7 1343 150 15

Table 3.2: Scenario 1 proposed minus existing trip generation for the average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000)





378 Virginia Water -10.9 -9.7 -9.9 -1.1 0.1 -8.7 -0.9 0.0

379 Ottershaw 2.9 12.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 10.7 1.2 0.2

380 Woodham 2.5 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1

381 Row Town 78.2 159.5 69.1 8.3 0.8 141.4 16.6 1.6


383 Addlestone Moor -36.6 36.8 -35.4 -0.1 -1.1 28.9 7.6 0.3


385 Chertsey 24.4 66.8 16.7 7.3 0.4 56.1 9.9 0.7

386 Thorpe 4.8 -4.8 3.7 0.8 0.3 -5.3 0.4 0.1

387 New Haw 17.1 30.7 15.0 2.1 0.0 27.2 3.3 0.3


389 Coopers Hill 237.9 99.4 228.0 7.6 2.2 91.6 5.9 2.0

390 Egham -139.1 -130.5 -117.1 -20.3 -1.7 -110.6 -18.4 -1.4

391 Pooley Green 133.5 21.4 123.9 8.0 1.5 19.9 1.3 0.2


570 Ottershaw East 77.9 166.1 69.1 8.1 0.7 147.7 16.9 1.6


572 Bittams 93.1 198.5 82.5 9.6 0.9 176.5 20.2 1.9




Totals 903 1414 831 65 7 1259 140 14






378 Virginia Water 17.1 53.2 15.2 1.7 0.2 47.4 5.3 0.5

379 Ottershaw 2.9 12.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 10.7 1.2 0.2

380 Woodham 2.5 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1

381 Row Town 78.2 159.5 69.1 8.3 0.8 141.4 16.6 1.6


383 Addlestone Moor -36.6 36.8 -35.4 -0.1 -1.1 28.9 7.6 0.3


385 Chertsey 24.4 66.8 16.7 7.3 0.4 56.1 9.9 0.7

386 Thorpe 4.8 -4.8 3.7 0.8 0.3 -5.3 0.4 0.1

387 New Haw 17.1 30.7 15.0 2.1 0.0 27.2 3.3 0.3


389 Coopers Hill 237.9 99.4 228.0 7.6 2.2 91.6 5.9 2.0

390 Egham -139.1 -130.5 -117.1 -20.3 -1.7 -110.6 -18.4 -1.4

391 Pooley Green 133.5 21.4 123.9 8.0 1.5 19.9 1.3 0.2


570 Ottershaw East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


572 Bittams 93.1 198.5 82.5 9.6 0.9 176.5 20.2 1.9




Totals 864 1342 797 61 6 1196 133 13






378 Virginia Water 17.1 53.2 15.2 1.7 0.2 47.4 5.3 0.5

379 Ottershaw 2.9 12.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 10.7 1.2 0.2

380 Woodham 2.5 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1

381 Row Town 17.9 30.9 15.6 2.0 0.2 27.1 3.5 0.3


383 Addlestone Moor -36.6 36.8 -35.4 -0.1 -1.1 28.9 7.6 0.3


385 Chertsey 24.4 66.8 16.7 7.3 0.4 56.1 9.9 0.7

386 Thorpe 4.8 -4.8 3.7 0.8 0.3 -5.3 0.4 0.1

387 New Haw 17.1 30.7 15.0 2.1 0.0 27.2 3.3 0.3


389 Coopers Hill 237.9 99.4 228.0 7.6 2.2 91.6 5.9 2.0

390 Egham -139.1 -130.5 -117.1 -20.3 -1.7 -110.6 -18.4 -1.4

391 Pooley Green 133.5 21.4 123.9 8.0 1.5 19.9 1.3 0.2


570 Ottershaw East 77.9 166.1 69.1 8.1 0.7 147.7 16.9 1.6


572 Bittams 93.1 198.5 82.5 9.6 0.9 176.5 20.2 1.9




Totals 881 1379 812 63 6 1229 137 14






378 Virginia Water -10.9 -9.7 -9.9 -1.1 0.1 -8.7 -0.9 0.0

379 Ottershaw 2.9 12.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 10.7 1.2 0.2

380 Woodham 2.5 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1

381 Row Town 17.9 30.9 15.6 2.0 0.2 27.1 3.5 0.3


383 Addlestone Moor -36.6 36.8 -35.4 -0.1 -1.1 28.9 7.6 0.3


385 Chertsey 24.4 66.8 16.7 7.3 0.4 56.1 9.9 0.7

386 Thorpe 4.8 -4.8 3.7 0.8 0.3 -5.3 0.4 0.1

387 New Haw 17.1 30.7 15.0 2.1 0.0 27.2 3.3 0.3


389 Coopers Hill 237.9 99.4 228.0 7.6 2.2 91.6 5.9 2.0

390 Egham -139.1 -130.5 -117.1 -20.3 -1.7 -110.6 -18.4 -1.4

391 Pooley Green 133.5 21.4 123.9 8.0 1.5 19.9 1.3 0.2


570 Ottershaw East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


572 Bittams 93.1 198.5 82.5 9.6 0.9 176.5 20.2 1.9




Totals 764 1119 708 51 5 997 110 11






378 Virginia Water -10.9 -9.7 -9.9 -1.1 0.1 -8.7 -0.9 0.0

379 Ottershaw 2.9 12.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 10.7 1.2 0.2

380 Woodham 2.5 6.2 2.2 0.2 0.0 5.5 0.6 0.1

381 Row Town 17.9 30.9 15.6 2.0 0.2 27.1 3.5 0.3


383 Addlestone Moor -36.6 36.8 -35.4 -0.1 -1.1 28.9 7.6 0.3


385 Chertsey 24.4 66.8 16.7 7.3 0.4 56.1 9.9 0.7

386 Thorpe 4.8 -4.8 3.7 0.8 0.3 -5.3 0.4 0.1

387 New Haw 17.1 30.7 15.0 2.1 0.0 27.2 3.3 0.3


389 Coopers Hill 237.9 99.4 228.0 7.6 2.2 91.6 5.9 2.0

390 Egham -139.1 -130.5 -117.1 -20.3 -1.7 -110.6 -18.4 -1.4

391 Pooley Green 133.5 21.4 123.9 8.0 1.5 19.9 1.3 0.2


570 Ottershaw East 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


572 Bittams 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

573 Thorpe Lea Road West and North 3.7 1.3 3.7 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0



Totals 466 361 444 19 3 325 32 5




Scenario Arrivals Departures Total Difference from

Scenario 6

Weekday Average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000)

1 941 1508 2449 1622

2 903 1414 2316 1489

3 864 1342 2205 1378

4 881 1379 2260 1433

5 764 1119 1883 1056

6 466 361 827 -

Table 3.8: Net trip generation summary for all the Runnymede development sites captured in the pro-forma

3.5 External and Background Traffic Growth

3.5.1 Traffic growth forecasts have been based on the development trip generation calculated from TRICS set out above, and TEMPRO (Trip End Model Program).

3.5.2 TEMPRO, supplied by the Department for Transport, is based on the National Trip End Model (NTEM) used to derive forecast trip ends.

3.5.3 Outside the study area of Runnymede borough, standard TEMPRO forecast factors have been used to growth vehicle trips.

3.5.4 In Runnymede, only background growth from TEMPRO has been applied, using alternative planning assumptions whereby jobs and population were changed to remain the same as the reference year 2014. This provided growth factors which only represent changes in demographics and car ownership.

3.5.5 Since the pro-forma supplies up to date estimates of housing and commercial developments and at a finer geographical scale than TEMPRO, the trip rates calculated from TRICS have been added to the background growth for the borough. Together these have provided the optimum estimates of demand in all of the model scenarios.

3.6 Vehicle Trip Distribution

3.6.1 The origins and destinations of trips travelling to and from the development sites, known as trip distribution, were derived from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Census 2011 journey to work dataset.

3.6.2 The borough of Runnymede was split into the following three areas:

- North (Englefield Green, Egham and Thorpe); - West (Virginia Water and Ottershaw); and - South (Row Town, Addlestone and Chertsey).

3.6.3 Separate distributions were comprised for each of these areas using the journey to work dataset. Since the majority of travel from home to work occurs in the AM peak, it was assumed that the home end of the trip is the origin, and work is the destination.

3.7 Forecast Network

3.7.1 The forecast network is an exact copy of the base but with the following changes listed below. These are committed or completed highway schemes of strategic importance.

- M25 junction 16 to 23 widening of the carriageway from dual 3 lanes to dual 4 lanes;



- M25 junction 27 to 30 widening of the carriageway from dual 3 lanes to dual 4 lanes;

- M25 new Cobham services that can be accessed from both sides of the carriageway and permits u-turns between junctions 9 and 10;

- M3 hard shoulder running between junctions 2 and 4a; - A3 Hindhead tunnel and associated local junction alterations; - Sheerwater link Road, Woking; - Redhill balanced network; - New signalled junction at A25 South Street with Junction Road converted to

two-way between this junction and the Waitrose entrance, Dorking; - Epsom Plan E highway improvements to the A24 town centre gyratory; - Increase to two lanes of travel between Toshiba and Hospital roundabouts in

an eastbound direction, Frimley; - Improvements to the signalled junction of the A243 Leatherhead Road with

B280 Fair Oak Lane and Rushett Lane, Malden Rushett; - Signalled junction of Egerton Road with Gill Avenue, Guildford, formerly

known as Hospital roundabout; and - Runnymede roundabout major scheme.

3.8 Assignment

3.8.1 It has been assumed that there will be no issue with access to and egress from the development sites.

3.8.2 The trips within the forecast matrices have been fixed when assigned to the network. In comparison to a variable demand approach, where demand for each origin and destination pair can vary according to demand elsewhere to reflect behavioural change, this represents a worst case situation and makes the impact of the development sites more transparent to aid the decision making process.

3.8.3 The forecast matrices were assigned to the network using a fixed trip equilibrium assignment. This was performed using the method of successive averages (MSA) for 100 assignment iterations.

4 MODEL RESULTS AND ANALYSES

4.1 Network Statistics

4.1.1 Table 4.1 presents the network summary statistics for the study area of Runnymede borough, for the weekday average AM (0700 – 1000) peak hour. This is broken down by road type and for each model scenario.

4.1.2 In Scenario 6, the baseline growth, the total vehicle kilometres is 368,599. This increases by a maximum of 2% in all other scenarios, with the exception of scenario 5. Beyond the development contained in scenario 6, scenario 5 just contains component B which comprises the development in green belt at Bittams, Thorpe Lea North and West and Longcross South.

4.1.3 The total vehicle hours in scenario 6 is 5,843. This increases by 3% in all other scenarios, with again the exception of scenario 5 which experiences a lower increase of 2%.

4.1.4 The average vehicle speed is 63.1 kph in scenario 6, and reduces by 1% in all other scenarios.



4.1.5 In scenario 1, which groups together all components A to E, there is a maximum increase of 12% in vehicle kilometres and 15% in vehicle hours on minor roads, during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000).

4.1.6 Minor roads suffer the greatest increase in vehicle kilometres and consequent reduction in network performance of all the road types. Many of the potential development sites under review are situated adjacent to these minor roads, such as the Ottershaw East potential development site located off Brox Road in Ottershaw and Longcross Road which accesses the Longcross South site.



Statistic Road Type Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 6

Values

Vehicle kilometres (veh km)

Motorway 255,376 255,329 255,298 255,338 255,042 254,150

A Principal Road 67,729 67,569 67,328 67,513 66,942 65,622

B Road 29,171 28,995 28,816 28,775 28,296 27,311

Minor Road 24,192 23,871 23,640 23,937 23,067 21,516

Total 376,469 375,763 375,081 375,562 373,346 368,599

Vehicle hours (veh hr)

Motorway 3,528 3,527 3,523 3,522 3,515 3,485

A Principal Road 1,370 1,365 1,358 1,362 1,347 1,315

B Road 725 720 717 714 703 677

Minor Road 420 414 408 413 396 365

Total 6,042 6,027 6,006 6,011 5,961 5,843

Average speed (kph)

Motorway 72.4 72.4 72.5 72.5 72.6 72.9

A Principal Road 49.5 49.5 49.6 49.6 49.7 49.9

B Road 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.3 40.2 40.3

Minor Road 57.6 57.7 57.9 57.9 58.3 58.9

Weighted Average 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.6 63.1

Difference from Scenario 6


Motorway 1,226 1,179 1,148 1,188 892 -

A Principal Road 2,107 1,947 1,706 1,891 1,320 -

B Road 1,860 1,684 1,505 1,464 985 -

Minor Road 2,676 2,355 2,124 2,421 1,551 -

Total 7,870 7,164 6,482 6,963 4,747 -


Motorway 43 42 38 37 30 -

A Principal Road 55 50 43 47 32 -

B Road 48 43 40 37 26 -

Minor Road 55 49 43 48 31 -

Total 199 184 164 168 118 -

Average speed (kph)

Motorway -1 -1 0 0 0 -

A Principal Road 0 0 0 0 0 -

B Road 0 0 0 0 0 -

Minor Road -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -

Weighted Average -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -

% Change from Scenario 6


Motorway 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

A Principal Road 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% -

B Road 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% -

Minor Road 12% 11% 10% 11% 7% -

Total 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% -


Motorway 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -

A Principal Road 4% 4% 3% 4% 2% -

B Road 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% -

Minor Road 15% 13% 12% 13% 8% -

Total 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% -

Average speed (kph)

Motorway -1% -1% -1% -1% 0% -

A Principal Road -1% -1% -1% -1% 0% -

B Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

Minor Road -2% -2% -2% -2% -1% -

Average -1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -

Table 4.1: Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000) network summary statistics for Runnymede



4.2 Level of Service (LOS)

4.2.1 Level of service (LOS) is a term used to qualitatively describe the operating conditions of a section of road or turning movement at a junction based on factors such as speed, travel time and delay. The level of service is designated with a letter, A to F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. Table 4.2 describes the performance rating of each letter A to F.

A Free flow Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and motorists have complete mobility between lanes.

B Reasonable

free flow

LOS A speeds are maintained, manoeuvrability within the traffic stream is slightly restricted. Motorists still have a high level of physical and psychological comfort.

C Stable flow

Ability to manoeuvre through lanes is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more driver awareness. Most experienced drivers are comfortable, roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is maintained. This is the target LOS for some urban and most rural roads.

D Approaching unstable flow

Speeds slightly decrease as traffic volume slightly increases. Freedom to manoeuvre within the traffic stream is much more limited and driver comfort levels decrease.

E

Unstable flow,

operating at capacity

Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly because there are virtually no usable gaps to manoeuvre in the traffic stream and speeds rarely reach the posted limit. Any disruption to traffic flow, such as merging or lane changes, will create a shock wave affecting traffic upstream. Drivers' level of comfort becomes poor.

F Forced or

breakdown of flow

Every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent slowing required. Travel time cannot be predicted, with generally more demand than capacity.

Table 4.2: A to F Level of Service (LOS) categories

4.2.2 The methodology for calculating the LOS is set out in The Highway Capacity Manual (1994) and has been applied to the analysis of both link flow and junction delay to aid the interpretation of the model results. The calculated LOS has been colour coded using the traffic light colours: green; amber; and red.

4.3 Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC)

4.3.1 Another tool for assessing the performance of a stretch of road or a turning movement at a junction is the ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) measure.

4.3.2 An RFC value greater than 1 means that the stretch of road or turning movement has a higher level of traffic flow than its theoretical capacity. As a result flow breakdown and extensive queues can be expected.

4.3.3 With the exception of signalised junctions, an RFC value below 0.85 is considered acceptable as there is still scope to accommodate future growth. For signalled junctions the threshold is higher at 0.90. A value of between 0.85 and 1, or 0.90 and 1 for signalled junctions, suggests the stretch of road or junction is beginning to struggle with the weight of traffic causing delay, queues and driver stress.

4.3.4 As with LOS, RFC has been applied to the analysis of both link flow and junction delay to aid the interpretation of the model results. All presented RFC between 0.85 and 1, or 0.90 and 1 for signalled junctions, have been marked in orange text, and in red text for RFC values greater than 1.



4.4 Increase in Link Flow

4.4.1 Table 4.3 presents the top 10 links which have the greatest increase in flow in scenarios 1 to 5 when compared with scenario 6 for the weekday average AM (0700 – 1000) peak hour. Notably all of the listed sections of roads are clustered around the proposed development sites.

4.4.2 In all of scenarios 1 to 5, the largest increase in vehicle flow, when compared with the baseline of scenario 6, is on the B368 Longcross Road in an eastbound direction of travel with a maximum increase of 330 vehicles per hour (vph) in scenario 1. This is due to trips generated by the potential development site of Longross South which lies adjacent to this road. This potential development site of 2000 new residential dwellings produces 64% of the 1,056 vph estimated for component B during the AM weekday average peak hour (0700 – 1900).

4.4.3 The following sections of road are also ranked within the 10 top greatest increases in flow for all of the scenarios 1 to 5. Similarly, their increases are predominantly a result of the Longcross South potential development site, which contains 43% of the total residential units being evaluated in all scenarios.

- B386 Longcross Road westbound, Longcross;

- B386 Holloway Hill eastbound, Cherstey;

- C10 Chobham Lane northbound, Longcross;

- C10 Chobham Lane southbound, Longcross

- Kitsmead Lane northbound, Longcross; and

- Kitsmead Lane southbound, Longcross.

4.4.4 The A319 Chobham Road westbound and Foxhills Road northbound are both ranked within the top 10 in scenarios 1, 2 and 4. Both of these roads are situated in Ottershaw and their increases in flow of approximately 200 vph are largely a result of the Ottershaw East potential development site (component E) which features in these scenarios only.

4.4.5 The C10 Trumpsgreen Road southbound in Virginia Water made the top 10 ranking in scenarios 1 and 3. The increase in flow, of up to 175 vph in scenario 1 compared with the baseline of scenario 6, is a result of the Virginia Water North and South potential development site (component D), which features in both of these scenarios. Although this site is also apparent in scenario 4, the increase in vehicle flow was 156 vph, ranked at number 11, just outside the top 10 listed.

4.4.6 As would be expected, the largest increases in flow are contained in scenario 1. Scenario 1 contains all of the potential development sites, together with the baseline growth of scenario 6 (components A to E). This gives a net total of 7,770 residential units, and flow increases of between 174 and 330 vph for the top 10 ranked sections of road.

4.4.7 In contrast, scenario 5 has the smallest increases in flow when compared with the baseline of scenario 6, with a range of 99 to 250 vph. Scenario 5 contains the least amount of potential development, comprising 6,253 net residential units from just components A and B.

4.4.8 Moreover, all of the sections of road listed in Table 4.3 have an RFC value less than 0.85 and LOS of E or lower. This suggests that these roads will able to accommodate the predicted increase in vehicle demand in all of the scenarios without causing undue delay and driver stress. The only exception is A319 Cherstey Road westbound in Ottershaw. Its RFC value is 0.86 in scenario 4, which is just above the threshold of 0.85.



Rank Name Link Ref.

Increase in Flow from Scenario 6

(vph)

RFC LOS

Scenario 1 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Row Town, Virginia Water and Ottershaw)

1 B386 Longcross Road eastbound, Longcross 19188, 2 360 0.66 E

2 B386 Holloway Hill eastbound, Chertsey 17748, 1 252 0.62 D

3 Kitsmead Lane northbound, Longcross 19978, 2 250 0.43 C

4 B386 Longcross Road westbound, Longcross 19979, 2 240 0.49 D

5 A319 Chobham Road westbound, Ottershaw 9682, 1 220 0.52 D

6 Kitsmead Lane southbound, Longcross 19978, 1 211 0.36 C

7 C10 Chobham Lane northbound, Longcross 19189, 1 208 0.37 C

8 C10 Chobham Lane southbound, Longcross 19189, 2 206 0.68 E

9 Foxhills Road northbound, Ottershaw 19210, 1 192 0.56 D

10 C10 Trumpsgreen Road southbound, Virginia Water 19192, 1 174 0.22 B

Scenario 2 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Row Town and Ottershaw)









9 B3121 Spinney Hill eastbound, Ottershaw 19200, 2 172 0.29 C


Scenario 3 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Row Town and Virginia Water)

1 B386 Longcross Road eastbound, Longcross 19188, 2 318 0.64 D


3 B386 Longcross Road westbound, Chertsey 17748, 1 219 0.60 D






Rank Name Link Ref.

Increase in Flow from Scenario 6

(vph)

RFC LOS


8 C10 Trumpsgreen Road southbound, Virginia Water 19192, 1 150 0.20 B

9 B386, Longcross Road eastbound, Cherstey 17746, 2 136 0.49 D

10 A319 Chertsey Road westbound, Ottershaw 19195, 2 131 0.84 E

Scenario 4 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Virginia Water and Ottershaw)










10 A319 Chertsey Road westbound, Ottershaw 19195, 2 156 0.86 E

Scenario 5 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea and Longcross)

1 B386 Longcross Road eastbound, Longcross 19188, 2 250 0.60 D






7 C127 Green Lane eastbound, Addlestone 10316, 1 112 0.40 C

8 C10 Chobham Lane northbound, Longcorss 19189, 1 110 0.29 C

9 B386, Longcross Road eastbound, Chertsey 17746, 2 104 0.47 D

10 B386, Longcross Road eastbound, Longcross 19379, 1 99 0.53 D

Table 4.3: Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 100) top 10 links with the highest increase in flow compared with scenario 6



4.4.1 Flow difference plots for the entire study area of Runnymede have been presented for scenarios 1 to 5 in relation to scenario 6, in Figures 4.1 to 4.5 respectively. Bandwidths coloured red show an increase in flow, whereas those coloured blue represent a decrease in flow, with their size being proportional to the increase or decrease. Highways England roads have not been presented on these plots for clarity. For information on Highways England roads please see section 4.7.

4.4.2 All of the flow difference plots are very similar, with the largest increases in flow along routes which feed the proposed development sites. This is especially the case around Longcross South and Bittams in Chertsey, which are both contained in component B and present in all of these scenarios 1 to 5.

4.4.3 The impact of the addition of component B can be seen in Figure 4.5, which displays the difference between scenarios 5 and 6. In terms of potential development sites, the only difference is therefore the inclusion of Longcross South, Bittams and Thorpe Lea North and West sites.

4.4.4 The addition of Row Town East and West (component C), and Ottershaw East (component E), contained within scenarios 2 to 4, have produced increases in vehicle flow centred on and around Ottershaw. In particular, as shown in Figures 4.2 to 4.4, the B3121 Murray Road, Foxhills Road, Woodham Park Road, and a short section of A319 Chobham Road and Brox Road, are impacted.

4.4.5 The impact of the potential development sites at Virginia Water North and South (component D) which form part of scenarios 1, 3 and 4 can be seen in Figures 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. The impact here is less apparent in terms of increase in vehicle flow along sections of road in the vicinity of the development.

4.4.6 Sections of the highway network also display reductions in vehicle flow in all of the scenarios 1 to 5, when compared with the baseline of scenario 6. This includes sections of: C10 Chobham Lane, Accommodation Road and Stonehill Road near Ottershaw; Lyne Lane, Lyne Crossing Road and Almners Lane near Lyne; and A317 St Peter’s Way in Chertsey. With the increase in vehicle trips from the potential development sites, there is an increased pressure on the network. As a result, vehicles find the optimum routes between their origin and destination which can lead to route switching, and on occasion decreases in vehicle flow.



Figure 4.1: Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000) flow difference plot

between scenarios 6 and 1



Key

Increase in flow Decrease in flow Approx. 100 vph

N

N

Key








N

N

Key


Key






4.5 Link Capacity

4.5.1 Figures 4.6 to 4.11 show which links are nearly operating at, or above capacity, for each of the scenarios. Links shaded orange have an RFC value of between 0.85 and 1, whereas those shaded red have an RFC above 1. Highways England roads have not been presented on these plots for clarity. For information on Highways England roads please see Section 4.7.

4.5.2 Figures 4.6 to 4.11 are similar for every scenario; they show limited capacity during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000) on the following sections of road:

- A320 Guildford Road, Chertsey;

- A318 Chertsey Road, Addlestone;

- A320 Guildford Road, Ottershaw; and

- B375 Bridge Road, Chertsey.

4.5.3 Moreover, the following sections of roads are shown to be operating above capacity, with an RFC above 1, in all scenarios:

- A308 Staines Bridge at Runnymede’s boundary with Spelthorne;

- A317 Weybridge Road, Addlestone;

- A317 St Peter’s Way eastbound jet lane to M25 junction 11 clockwise on-slip;

and

- M25 junction 11 anticlockwise off-slip jet lane to A317 St Peter’s Way eastbound.

4.5.4 Figure 4.6 presents links which are nearly operating at, or above capacity, for scenario 1. Scenario 1 is the worst impacted of all the scenarios as it contains all

N

Key




of the potential development sites. Compared with all of the other scenarios, there are three additional sections of roads shown to be operating above capacity:

- A328 Priest Hill, Englefield Green;

- A328 St. Jude’s Road, Englefield Green; and

- A319 Chobham Road between Foxhills Road and the A320.

4.5.5 This section of the A319 Chobham Road is also highlighted in scenarios 2 and 4, Figures 4.7 and 4.9 respectively. This implies that this pressure on the road’s capacity is due to the Ottershaw East potential development site which is only present in scenarios 1, 2 and 4.

Figure 4.6: Scenario 1 link values RFC greater than 0.85 for the weekday average AM peak

hour (0700 – 1000)

Key

RFC between 0.85 and 1 RFC greater than 1

N




hour (0700 – 1000)


hour (0700 – 1000)

N

Key


Key


N




hour (0700 – 1000)


hour (0700 – 1000)

Key


N

Key


N




hour (0700 – 1000)

4.6 Increase in Junction Delay

4.6.1 Table 4.4 presents the top 10 junctions which have the greatest increase in average delay in scenarios 1 to 5 when compared with scenario 6 for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000).

4.6.2 The six listed junctions below have been ranked in all of the scenarios 1 to 5 when compared with the baseline of scenario 6:

- B386 Holloway Hill priority junction with Hardwick Lane, Chertsey;

- A30 Egham Hill signalled junction with Prune Hill, A30 London Road and A328

St Jude’s Road, Englefield Green;

- B386 Holloway Hill priority junction with Stonehill Road and B386 Longcross

Road, Chertsey;

- B375 Heriot Road roundabout junction with A317 Eastworth Road, A320

Guildford Road and A320 Chilsey Green Road, Chertsey;

- A320 Guildford Road signalled approach to the roundabout junction with

A320 St. Peter’s Way, Ottershaw; and

- A30 London Road signalled junction with B389 Christchurch Road, Virginia

Water.

4.6.3 Both the priority junction B386 Holloway Hill with Stonehill Road and B386 Longcross Road in Cherstey, and the signalled junction of A30 London Road with B389 Christchurch Road in Virginia Water have been predicted to have a maximum RFC value of 0.63 and 0.68 respectively, and a LOS value of D. This suggests that the forecasted increases in vehicle delay can be accommodated at

Key


N



these locations and should not cause any significant deterioration of the junction’s operation.

4.6.4 However, for the remaining four junctions which are predicted to have an RFC value greater than 0.85 and/or a LOS of F, any minor increases in delay will exacerbate exiting queues and driver stress.

4.6.5 The two other junctions which are shown to have an RFC value greater than 0.85, showing limited or no available highway capacity, and have a LOS of F are:

- A317 Chertsey Road roundabout junction with A317 Woburn Hill, A318

Chertsey Road and A317 St. Peter's Way, Addlestone (scenario 4 only); and

- A318 Chertsey Road signalled junction with B3121 Station Road and B3121

Church Road, Addlestone (scenarios 1 to 4).

4.6.6 It is likely that some form of mitigation will be required to ensure that the development sites do not further impede the performance of these junctions which have limited or no highway capacity.



Rank

Name Type Node Ref.

Increase in Average

Delay from Scenario 6 (seconds)

RFC LOS

Scenario 1 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Row Town, Virginia Water and Ottershaw)

1 A318 Chertsey Road junction with B3121 Station Road and B3121 Church Road, Addlestone Signal 13581 19.0 1.06 F

2 B386 Holloway Hill junction with Hardwick Lane, Chertsey Priority 15830 13.9 0.49 F

3 A30 Egham Hill junction with Prune Hill, A30 London Rd and A328 St. Jude's Rd, Englefield Green Signal 15363 13.5 0.90 F

4 B386 Holloway Hill junction with Stonehill Road and B386 Longcross Road, Chertsey Priority 15475 12.4 0.63 D

5 B375 Heriot Rd junction with A317 Eastworth Rd, A320 Guildford Rd and Chilsey Green Rd, Chertsey Roundabout 13577 5.5 0.86 D

6 A320 Guildford Road approach to the roundabout junction with A320 St. Peter’s Way, Ottershaw Signal 13573 5.0 1.80 F

7 A30 London Road junction with B389 Christchurch Road, Virginia Water Signal 13455 4.8 0.68 D

8 A320 Staines Rd junction with A320 Chilsey Green Rd, Almers Road and B388 Thorpe Rd, Chertsey Roundabout 13570 4.8 0.74 C

9 B388 Thorpe Bypass junction with B388 Mill House Lane and B389 Green Road, Thorpe Roundabout 13475 4.8 0.73 C

10 A317 St. Peters Way southbound approach to the M25 J11 grade separated junction, Addlestone Priority 13571 4.7 0.62 E

Scenario 2 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Row Town and Ottershaw)








8 B386 Longcross Road junction with Accommodation Road, Longcross Priority 16304 4.4 0.37 B



Scenario 3 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Row Town and Virginia Water)








Rank

Name Type Node Ref.

Increase in Average

Delay from Scenario 6 (seconds)

RFC LOS




9 A320 Staines Rd junction with A320 Chilsey Green Rd, Almers Rd and B388 Thorpe Rd, Chertsey Roundabout 13570 3.8 0.73 C


Scenario 4 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea, Longcross, Virginia Water and Ottershaw)


2 A317 Chertsey Rd junction with Woburn Hill, A318 Chertsey Rd and St. Peter's Way, Addlestone Roundabout 13588 15.8 1.01 F

3 B386 Holloway Hill junction with Stonehill Road and B386 Longcross Road, Englefield Green Priority 15475 12.0 0.62 D





8 B386 Longcross Road junction with Accommodation Road, Longcross Priority 16304 3.9 0.37 B



Scenario 5 (baseline growth, Chertsey Bittams, Thorpe Lea and Longcross)






6 B386 Longcross Road junction with Accommodation Road, Longcross Priority 16304 2.7 0.37 A





Table 4.4: Weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000) top 10 junctions with the highest increase in average vehicle delay compared with scenario 6



4.6.7 Figures 4.12 to 4.17 present the average junction delay in Runnymede borough for scenarios 1 to 6. The diameter of the circles corresponds to the estimated level of delay.

4.6.8 Junctions with an average delay value of 50 seconds or more are individually reported and have been listed below in a descending order of magnitude:

- A320 St Peter’s Way approach to the roundabout junction with A320 Guildford

Road, Ottershaw;

- A320 Guildford Road approach to the roundabout junction with A320 St.

Peter’s Way, Ottershaw;

- A318 Chertsey Road signalled junction with B3121 Station Road, Addlestone;

- A317 Chertsey Road roundabout junction with A317 Woburn Hill, A318

Chertsey Road and A317 St. Peter's, Addlestone;

- A30 Egham Hill signalled junction with Prune Hill, A30 London Road and A328

St Jude’s Road, Englefield Green;

- B375 Bridge Road priority junction with B387 Fordwater Road, Chertsey;

- B389 signalled junction with Stroude Road and Trumpsgreen Road, Virginia

Water; and

- B386 Holloway Hill priority junction with Hardwick Lane; Chertsey.

4.6.9 For the majority of these junctions the average delay value differs by only a marginal amount between scenarios. The only exception is the A317 St Peter’s Way roundabout junction with A318 Chertsey Road and A317 Woburn Hill in Addlestone, which increases to 152 seconds in scenario 4.

4.6.10 Average delay at the level crossings in Egham is a maximum of 45 seconds in the baseline scenario 6 at Pooley Green. All four of the level crossings increase, however, by no more than 1 second in scenario 1, which contains all of the proposed development sites.



Figure 4.12: Average junction delay for scenario 1 for the weekday average AM peak hour

(0700 – 1000)


(0700 – 1000)

N

Key

Average junction delay in seconds

90

Key


90

N

256

256




(0700 – 1000)


(0700 – 1000)

Key


90

N

Key


90

N

255

255




(0700 – 1000)


(0700 – 1000)

N

Key


90

N

Key


90

251

254



4.7 The Motorway Network

4.7.1 Runnymede borough contains sections of the M25 and M3. These roads are the responsibility of Highways England. The impact of all the model scenarios on the Highways England road network within Runnymede is set out in Table 4.5 for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000).

4.7.2 For the majority of the sections of the motorways the increase in vehicle flow compared with the baseline of scenario 6 is negligible. There are two exceptions: the M25 anticlockwise junction 11 on-slip which receives a percentage change in flow of 7% in scenario 4, and 5% in all other scenarios; and the M25 junction 12 on-slip to the M3 westbound with a percentage change in flow of between 3 and 5%. Nevertheless, these increases in flow can still be considered minimal. Furthermore, the maximum RFC for these links are 0.23 and 0.39 respectively, with corresponding LOS values of A and B. Therefore it can be considered that these sections of motorway can accommodate these largest increases in flow in all of the model scenarios.

4.7.3 Sections of the M25 and M3 that the model suggests will be approaching, or above, theoretical capacity, with an RFC value greater than 0.85, and/or a LOS of E or F, are listed below:

- M25 mainline junctions 10 to 11 clockwise;

- M25 mainline at junction 11 anticlockwise;


- M25 mainline at junction 11 clockwise;

- M25 mainline junctions 12 to 11 anticlockwise;


- M25 mainline at junction 12 clockwise;

- M25 on-slip to M3 westbound;

- M3 eastbound junction 2 off-slip to M25; and

- M3 junction 2 off-slip to M25 clockwise.

4.7.4 The flow increases on these links, however, are minimal. Furthermore, the RFC

and LOS values are similar for all of the model scenarios, suggesting that this is an existing operational issue rather than the potential development sites causing the network performance to noticeably worsen.

4.7.5 There are also small decreases in flow on sections of the Highways England network. Although the M25 is designed for long distance trips it is also used for travel to nearby towns. Changes in flow patterns at congested junctions on route to the motorway will impact the route choice of some of these trips.



Section of Motorway Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 6

Absolute Flow (vph)

A317 on-slip to M25 J11 clockwise 2150 2150 2134 2159 2127 2088

J13 on-slip to M25 anticlockwise 1483 1480 1491 1484 1481 1465

M25 anticlockwise J11 off-slip 1874 1878 1880 1874 1877 1895

M25 anticlockwise J11 on-slip 859 857 859 873 855 818

M25 anticlockwise J12 on-slip to M3 2539 2535 2542 2539 2521 2511

M25 anticlockwise J13 off-slip 1716 1713 1716 1719 1731 1729

M25 clockwise J11 off-slip to A317 1438 1439 1440 1453 1441 1432

M25 clockwise J12 off-slip to M3 2560 2561 2544 2554 2539 2514

M25 clockwise J13 off-slip 1025 1026 1018 1028 1026 1007

M25 clockwise J13 on-slip 1218 1214 1208 1215 1203 1190

M25 J12 on-slip to M3 eastbound 1485 1480 1466 1473 1447 1409

M25 mainline J10-11 clockwise 7019 7019 7019 7019 7020 7013

M25 mainline at J11 anticlockwise 5589 5587 5587 5580 5587 5575

M25 mainline J11-10 anticlockwise 6449 6444 6446 6453 6443 6393


M25 mainline at J11 clockwise 5581 5580 5579 5566 5579 5582








M25 on-slip to M3 westbound 3615 3616 3620 3620 3612 3616

M3 eastbound J 2 off-slip to M25 4133 4133 4128 4130 4130 4100

M3 J2 off-slip to M25 clockwise 3586 3589 3584 3588 3582 3546

M3 J2 slip on to M25 anticlockwise 2634 2635 2631 2630 2640 2651

M3 mainline J1- 2 westbound 3699 3701 3696 3699 3712 3704

M3 mainline at J2 westbound 1611 1611 1609 1611 1620 1607

M3 mainline J2-1 eastbound 3486 3479 3472 3478 3446 3415

M3 mainline at J2 eastbound 2001 1999 2006 2005 1999 2006

M3 mainline J2-1 westbound 3699 3701 3696 3699 3712 3704

M3 mainline J2-3 westbound 5225 5227 5229 5231 5232 5223

M3 mainline J3- 2 eastbound 6134 6131 6134 6135 6129 6106

M3 westbound J2 on-slip to M25 2088 2091 2087 2088 2092 2097


A317 on-slip to M25 J11 clockwise 62 61 46 71 39 -

J13 on-slip to M25 anticlockwise 18 14 26 19 16 -

M25 anticlockwise J11 off-slip -21 -17 -15 -20 -18 -

M25 anticlockwise J11 on-slip 41 39 40 54 37 -

M25 anticlockwise J12 on-slip to M3 28 25 31 28 10 -

M25 anticlockwise J13 off-slip -13 -16 -13 -10 2 -

M25 clockwise J11 off-slip to A317 7 7 8 21 9 -

M25 clockwise J12 off-slip to M3 46 47 30 40 25 -

M25 clockwise J13 off-slip 18 19 11 21 19 -

M25 clockwise J13 on-slip 28 24 19 26 13 -

M25 J12 on-slip to M3 eastbound 76 71 57 64 38 -

M25 mainline J10-11 clockwise 6 5 6 6 7 -

M25 mainline at J11 anticlockwise 14 13 13 6 13 -

M25 mainline J11-10 anticlockwise 55 51 53 60 49 -


M25 mainline at J11 clockwise -1 -2 -2 -15 -2 -




M25 mainline J12-11 anticlockwise -6 -4 -3 -15 -5 -



M25 mainline at J13 clockwise 37 37 40 37 28 -

M25 mainline at J12 clockwise 15 13 14 16 11 -

M25 mainline J13-12 anticlockwise 39 37 48 34 16 -


M25 on-slip to M3 westbound -1 1 4 4 -3 -

M3 eastbound J 2 off-slip to M25 33 33 28 31 30 -

M3 J2 off-slip to M25 clockwise 40 43 38 42 36 -

M3 J2 slip on to M25 anticlockwise -17 -16 -19 -21 -11 -

M3 mainline J1- 2 westbound -6 -3 -8 -5 7 -

M3 mainline at J2 westbound 4 3 2 4 13 -

M3 mainline J2-1 eastbound 71 63 57 62 31 -

M3 mainline at J2 eastbound -5 -8 0 -1 -7 -

M3 mainline J2-1 westbound -6 -3 -8 -5 7 -

M3 mainline J2-3 westbound 3 4 6 8 9 -

M3 mainline J3- 2 eastbound 28 25 28 29 23 -

M3 westbound J2 on-slip to M25 -9 -6 -10 -9 -5 -

Percentage Change from Scenario 6

A317 on-slip to M25 J11 clockwise 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% -

J13 on-slip to M25 anticlockwise 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% -

M25 anticlockwise J11 off-slip -1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -

M25 anticlockwise J11 on-slip 5% 5% 5% 7% 5% -

M25 anticlockwise J12 on-slip to M3 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% -

M25 anticlockwise J13 off-slip -1% -1% -1% -1% 0% -

M25 clockwise J11 off-slip to A317 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% -

M25 clockwise J12 off-slip to M3 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% -

M25 clockwise J13 off-slip 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% -

M25 clockwise J13 on-slip 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% -

M25 J12 on-slip to M3 eastbound 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% -

M25 mainline J10-11 clockwise 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M25 mainline at J11 anticlockwise 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M25 mainline J11-10 anticlockwise 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -


M25 mainline at J11 clockwise 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -








M25 on-slip to M3 westbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M3 eastbound J 2 off-slip to M25 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -

M3 J2 off-slip to M25 clockwise 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% -

M3 J2 slip on to M25 anticlockwise -1% -1% -1% -1% 0% -

M3 mainline J1- 2 westbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M3 mainline at J2 westbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% -

M3 mainline J2-1 eastbound 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% -

M3 mainline at J2 eastbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M3 mainline J2-1 westbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M3 mainline J2-3 westbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -




M3 mainline J3- 2 eastbound 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

M3 westbound J2 on-slip to M25 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

RFC

A317 on-slip to M25 J11 clockwise 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.55

J13 on-slip to M25 anticlockwise 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

M25 anticlockwise J11 off-slip 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50

M25 anticlockwise J11 on-slip 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22

M25 anticlockwise J12 on-slip to M3 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66

M25 anticlockwise J13 off-slip 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.45

M25 clockwise J11 off-slip to A317 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

M25 clockwise J12 off-slip to M3 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.66

M25 clockwise J13 off-slip 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

M25 clockwise J13 on-slip 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31

M25 J12 on-slip to M3 eastbound 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.37

M25 mainline J10-11 clockwise 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

M25 mainline at J11 anticlockwise 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98

M25 mainline J11-10 anticlockwise 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84


M25 mainline at J11 clockwise 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98








M25 on-slip to M3 westbound 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

M3 eastbound J2 off-slip to M25 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.08

M3 J2 off-slip to M25 clockwise 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93

M3 J2 slip on to M25 anticlockwise 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70

M3 mainline J1- 2 westbound 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

M3 mainline at J2 westbound 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.42

M3 mainline J2-1 eastbound 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60

M3 mainline at J2 eastbound 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53

M3 mainline J2-1 westbound 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

M3 mainline J2-3 westbound 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69

M3 mainline J3- 2 eastbound 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.80

M3 westbound J2 on-slip to M25 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55

Level of Service

A317 on-slip to M25 J11 clockwise C C C C C C

J13 on-slip to M25 anticlockwise B B B B B B

M25 anticlockwise J11 off-slip B B B B B B

M25 anticlockwise J11 on-slip A A A A A A

M25 anticlockwise J12 on-slip to M3 C C C C C C

M25 anticlockwise J13 off-slip B B B B B B

M25 clockwise J11 off-slip to A317 B B B B B B

M25 clockwise J12 off-slip to M3 C C C C C C

M25 clockwise J13 off-slip A A A A A A

M25 clockwise J13 on-slip B B B B A A

M25 J12 on-slip to M3 eastbound B B B B B B

M25 mainline J10-11 clockwise E E E E E E

M25 mainline at J11 anticlockwise E E E E E E

M25 mainline J11-10 anticlockwise D D D D D D




M25 mainline J11-12 clockwise F F F F F F

M25 mainline at J11 clockwise E E E E E E

M25 mainline J12-11 anticlockwise E E E E E E

M25 mainline at J12 anticlockwise D D D D D D

M25 mainline J12-13 clockwise E E E E E E

M25 mainline at J13 clockwise D D D D D D

M25 at J12 clockwise D D D D D D

M25 mainline J13-12 anticlockwise D D D D D D

M25 mainline at J13 anticlockwise C C C C C C

M25 on-slip to M3 westbound E E E E E E

M3 eastbound J2 off-slip to M25 F F F F F F

M3 J2 off-slip to M25 clockwise E E E E E E

M3 J2 slip on to M25 anticlockwise C C C C C C

M3 mainline J1- 2 westbound C C C C C C

M3 mainline at J2 westbound B B B B B B

M3 mainline J2-1 eastbound C C C C C C

M3 mainline at J2 eastbound C C C C C C

M3 mainline J2-1 westbound C C C C C C

M3 mainline J2-3 westbound C C C C C C

M3 mainline J3- 2 eastbound D D D D D D

M3 westbound J2 on-slip to M25 C C C C C C

Table 4.5: Weekday average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000) traffic flow summary for the motorway network

4.8 Cross Boundary Impacts

4.8.1 Traffic flows on A principal and B roads which cross into neighbouring authorities have been analysed for all scenarios in Tables 4.6 and 4.7. The roads have been listed in a clockwise direction, starting with the borough of Spelthorne.

4.8.2 Table 4.6 shows the traffic flows for each scenario on A principal and B roads which enter into Runnymede borough from neighbouring authorities for the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000).

4.8.3 The largest increases, of up to 100 vph, are along the B386 and A319 from the borough of Surrey Heath. In scenarios 1 to 4 the model suggests an increase of between 89 and 100 vph on the B386 Longcross Road, and between 46 and 57 vph on the A319 Chertsey Road. The B386 Longcross Road is situated adjacent to the Longcross South potential development site of component B, whilst the A319 Chertsey Road provides direct access to the potential development site of Bittams (also component B), and indirect access to Row Town East and West, and Ottershaw East potential development sites (components C and E respectively). In scenario 5, which only contains components A and B, the increases on the B386 and A319 are lower at 56 and 38 vph respectively, which will be mostly influenced by just the Longcross South and Bittams potential development sites.

4.8.4 In Table 4.7, which presents the flow of vehicles leaving the borough in the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000), the greatest increases in flow are shown on the A317 Weybridge Road travelling into Elmbridge borough of up to 61 vph, and the A320 Chertsey Road travelling into Woking borough of up to 53 vph, both in scenario 1. The model suggests that these increases are a result of vehicles travelling from the potential development sites of Bittams, Ottershaw East and Row Town East and West, via the A317 and A320 to access the boroughs of Elmbridge and Woking respectively.



4.8.5 With all the other flow differences being modest in size, the impact to other neighbouring authorities can be considered to be minimal in all scenarios. The only possible exception is the B386 Longcross Road which travels through Runnymede’s border with Surrey Heath. The model suggests that the maximum difference is just 100 vph and is recommended that this is investigated further at the planning application stage.

Link Nr Road Borough Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 6

Vehicle Flows (vph)

16499, 2 A308 Staines Bridge Spelthorne

911 911 910 908 899 908

19371, 1 B375 Bridge Road 1163 1162 1157 1163 1148 1151

9732, 2 A317 Weybridge Road Elmbridge 1525 1525 1524 1517 1522 1520

17901, 2 A318 Oyster Lane

Woking

551 552 550 550 547 545

15134, 1 B385 Woodham Lane 490 490 493 487 488 480

15363, 2 A320 Chertsey Road 1178 1178 1176 1178 1170 1164

19216, 2 A319 Chertsey Road Surrey Heath

504 503 493 499 485 447

19980, 1 B386 Longcross Road 665 666 654 658 622 566

16709, 2 A30 London Road

Windsor and Maidenhead

496 489 485 495 483 474

19215, 2 A329 London Road 511 515 512 514 514 513

16869, 1 B3021 Burfield Road 163 163 164 166 166 161

16875, 2 A308 Straight Road 1088 1088 1085 1086 1081 1080



3 3 2 0 -9 -

19371, 1 B375 Bridge Road 13 12 6 13 -3 -

9732, 2 A317 Weybridge Road Elmbridge 6 6 5 -3 3 -


Woking

7 7 6 6 2 -

15134, 1 B385 Woodham Lane 10 10 13 8 8 -

15363, 2 A320 Chertsey Road 14 14 12 14 6 -


57 56 46 52 38 -

19980, 1 B386 Longcross Road 99 100 89 93 56 -



22 15 11 21 9 -

19215, 2 A329 London Road -2 1 -1 0 1 -

16869, 1 B3021 Burfield Road 2 2 3 5 4 -

16875, 2 A308 Straight Road 7 8 5 5 1 -



0% 0% 0% 0% -1% -

19371, 1 B375 Bridge Road 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% -

9732, 2 A317 Weybridge Road Elmbridge 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -


Woking

1% 1% 1% 1% 0% -

15134, 1 B385 Woodham Lane 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% -

15363, 2 A320 Chertsey Road 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% -


13% 13% 10% 12% 9% -

19980, 1 B386 Longcross Road 18% 18% 16% 16% 10% -



5% 3% 2% 4% 2% -

19215, 2 A329 London Road 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

16869, 1 B3021 Burfield Road 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% -

16875, 2 A308 Straight Road 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% -

Table 4.6: Weekday average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000) traffic flow summary entering Runnymede borough for A principal and B roads which cross into neighbouring authorities



Link Nr Road Borough Sc 1 Sc 2 Sc 3 Sc 4 Sc 5 Sc 6

Vehicle Flows (vph)


1092 1090 1089 1090 1085 1055

19371, 2 B375 Bridge Road 578 576 571 573 577 566

9732, 1 A317 Weybridge Road Elmbridge 1070 1066 1070 1060 1050 1009


Woking

726 725 716 706 696 679

15134, 2 B385 Woodham Lane 480 480 479 479 478 478

15363, 1 A320 Chertsey Road 1176 1174 1166 1172 1155 1123


197 197 185 189 178 167

19980, 2 B386 Longcross Road 249 244 249 245 248 252



399 399 401 398 400 402

19215, 1 A329 London Road 427 429 426 428 422 402

16869, 2 B3021 Burfield Road 193 193 193 193 192 190

16875, 1 A308 Straight Road 1103 1098 1095 1100 1086 1087



37 35 34 35 30 -

19371, 2 B375 Bridge Road 12 10 5 6 10 -

9732, 1 A317 Weybridge Road Elmbridge 61 57 60 51 41 -


Woking

47 46 37 27 17 -

15134, 2 B385 Woodham Lane 2 2 1 1 0 -

15363, 1 A320 Chertsey Road 53 51 44 49 32 -


31 30 19 22 11 -

19980, 2 B386 Longcross Road -4 -8 -4 -8 -4 -



-2 -3 -1 -4 -2 -

19215, 1 A329 London Road 25 26 24 25 20 -

16869, 2 B3021 Burfield Road 3 3 3 3 2 -

16875, 1 A308 Straight Road 16 11 8 13 -1 -



3% 3% 3% 3% 3% -

19371, 2 B375 Bridge Road 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% -

9732, 1 A317 Weybridge Road Elmbridge 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% -


Woking

7% 7% 5% 4% 3% -

15134, 2 B385 Woodham Lane 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -

15363, 1 A320 Chertsey Road 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% -


18% 18% 11% 13% 7% -

19980, 2 B386 Longcross Road -2% -3% -1% -3% -2% -



-1% -1% 0% -1% 0% -

19215, 1 A329 London Road 6% 7% 6% 6% 5% -

16869, 2 B3021 Burfield Road 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% -

16875, 1 A308 Straight Road 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% -

Table 4.7: Weekday average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000) traffic flow summary exiting Runnymede borough for A principal and B roads which cross into neighbouring authorities

4.9 Network Hotspots and Mitigation

4.9.1 To summarise the traffic impacts identified in this study, Table 4.8 lists the junction and sections of road which experience large vehicle delay, termed ‘hotspots’. The hotspots are shown geographically in Figure 4.18, and apply to all scenarios unless noted.

4.9.2 Hotspots are areas of stress where drivers are subject to considerable delay and are likely to require mitigation to facilitate any development in the local area. This could be ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ measures, or most likely a combination of both. Hard engineering measures could involve increasing the number of lanes of the



carriageway or introducing a cycle lane for example, whilst soft measures could be the implementation of a travel plan to encourage travel by sustainable modes.

4.9.3 The hotspots provide a preparatory list of where potential mitigation should be focused, to inform the borough’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and subsequent Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

4.9.4 Although motorway links have been included, the model suggests that this is an underlying issue rather than attributable to any of the potential development sites which have been assessed.

Links

Egham A308 Staines Bridge

Englefield Green

A328 Priest Hill (scenario 1 only)

A328 St. Jude’s Road (scenario 1 only)

Chertsey B375 Bridge Road

A320 Guildford Road

Addlestone

A317 Weybridge Road

A318 Chertsey Road

A317 St Peter’s Way eastbound jet lane to M25 junction 11 clockwise on-slip

M25 junction 11 anticlockwise off-slip jet lane to A317 St Peter’s Way eastbound

Ottershaw

A320 Guildford Road

A319 Chobham Road (scenario 1 only)

A319 Chertsey Road (scenario 4 only)

Highways England

M25 mainline junctions 10 to 11 clockwise

M25 mainline at junction 11 anticlockwise


M25 mainline at junction 11 clockwise

M25 mainline junctions 12 to 11 anticlockwise


M25 mainline at junction 12 clockwise

M25 on-slip to M3 westbound

M3 eastbound junction 2 off-slip to M25

M3 junction 2 off-slip to M25 clockwise

Junctions

Englefield Green

A30 Egham Hill signalled junction with Prune Hill, A30 London Road and A328 St. Jude's Road

Virginia Water

B389 Sandhills Lane signalled junction with B389 Christchurch Road, Stroude Road and Trumpsgreen Road

Chertsey

B375 Bridge Road priority junction with B387 Fordwater Road

B386 Holloway Hill priority junction with Hardwick Lane

B375 Heriot Road roundabout junction with A317 Eastworth Road, A320 Guildford Road and A320 Chilsey Green Road

A318 Chertsey Road signalled junction with B3121 Station Road and B3121 Church Road

A317 St. Peter’s Way roundabout junction with A318 Chertsey Road and A317 Woburn Hill

Ottershaw

A320 St Peter’s Way approach to the roundabout junction with A320 Guildford Road, Ottershaw

A320 Guildford Road approach to the roundabout junction with A320 St. Peter’s Way, Ottershaw

Table 4.8: Network hotspots



Figure 4.18: Network hotspots

5 CONCLUSIONS

5.1.1 The traffic impacts of potential development sites, identified as part of Runnymede Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan, have been assessed using Surrey County Council’s strategic highway model for the forecast year 2036.

5.1.2 Six model scenarios have been created as shown below in Table 5.1. The scenarios assess potential residential development sites situated in varying locations across the borough.

Table 5.1: Model scenario definition

Model Scenario

Component

A B C D E

Baseline

Bittams (A-E), Thorpe Lea North and West, and Longcross

South

Row Town East and

West

Virginia Water North and South

Ottershaw East

1

2

3

4

5

6

N

Key

Sections of road under high stress

Junctions under high stress



5.1.3 Scenario 1 contains all the components of scenarios 2 to 6, together with baseline growth, and has been estimated to generate 2,449 net vehicle trips during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 - 1000).

5.1.4 In contrast, scenario 6 represents just the baseline growth which has been estimated to generate 827 net vehicle trips during the weekday average AM peak hour (0700 – 1000). This is Runnymede borough’s ‘do-nothing beyond existing strategy’ and includes: committed developments; specific future urban development sites which are likely to be progressed; windfalls; and prior approvals sites. Since the developments contained within scenario 6 can be found in all scenarios, this transport assessment has focused on a comparison between this and the other scenarios.

5.1.5 Unsurprisingly, the assessment has found that the greatest increases in vehicle flow are on the roads which surround the potential development sites. In particular, the Longcross South potential development site, which can be found in scenarios 1 to 5, and to a lesser extent the Row Town East and West, and Ottershaw East sites. With the exception of the A319 Chertsey Road westbound in Ottershaw, the model suggests that all of the top 10 ranked sections of road with the highest increase in vehicle flow can accommodate the growth without causing undue delay and stress to drivers. Moreover this section of the A319 is at the lower threshold of approaching theoretical capacity, and thus the impact of additional vehicle demand will also be limited.

5.1.6 Although at a strategic level the immediate impact of vehicle flow from the potential development sites can be mostly accommodated, where a road or junction has been shown to have limited or no available capacity, or a poor level of service, any additional vehicles, albeit small, will result in vehicle delay and driver stress.

5.1.7 Links and junctions within the borough which have been forecasted to be under stress, where drivers will be subject to considerable delay, have been defined as ‘hotspots’. These hotspots are likely to require mitigation to reduce the impact of any development in the local area, and provide a preparatory list to inform the borough’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and subsequent Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

5.1.8 Although motorway links, which exhibit potential capacity issues, have been included in the hotspot list, the model suggests that this is an underlying issue rather than attributable to any of the potential development sites assessed.



6 APPENDIX A: LINK FLOW VALIDATION

6.1 Average AM Peak Hour (0700 – 1000)

Count No.

Count Name Observed

Flow Modelled

Flow Diff % Diff GEH

Met Flow Criteria

GEH <5.5 GEH >

10

94 A320 Staines Road 751 713 -38 -5% 1.41

95 A320 Staines Road 480 412 -68 -14% 3.22

158 A30 Egham By-pass 738 807 69 9% 2.48

265 Trumpsgreen Road 339 346 7 2% 0.37

266 Trumpsgreen Road 178 305 127 71% 8.19

273 A317 St. Peter’s Way 891 761 -130 -15% 4.53

381 B375 Chertsey Bridge 952 850 -102 -11% 3.40

382 B375 Chertsey Bridge 421 416 -5 -1% 0.24

422 A317 Chertsey Road 809 779 -30 -4% 1.05

423 A317 Chertsey Road 1197 1221 24 2% 0.68

426 A317 St. Peter's Way 1272 1218 -54 -4% 1.54

440 A308 Staines Bridge 753 802 49 6% 1.75

441 A308 Staines Bridge 939 840 -99 -11% 3.31

455 B385 Woodham Lane 362 371 9 3% 0.48

676 M25 Clockwise J11 off-slip 1004 1065 61 6% 1.89

677 M25 Anticlockwise J11 on-slip 949 717 -232 -24% 8.03

678 M25 Clockwise J11 after off-slip 5901 5387 -514 -9% 6.84

679 M25 Anticlockwise J11 after off-slip 5416 5213 -203 -4% 2.78

681 M25 Anticlockwise J12-11 7014 6776 -238 -3% 2.86

682 M25 Clockwise J12 after off-slip 5165 4899 -266 -5% 3.76

683 M25 Anticlockwise J12 after off-slip 4491 4399 -92 -2% 1.38

684 M25 Clockwise J12 off-slip 2377 2414 37 2% 0.76

685 M25 Anticlockwise J12 on-slip 2468 2377 -91 -4% 1.85

686 M25 Clockwise J12–13 8259 7945 -314 -4% 3.49

687 M25 Anticlockwise J13-12 6749 6609 -140 -2% 1.72

797 Link road from M25 J12 clockwise to M3 J2 eastbound 1280 1209 -71 -6% 2.03

798 M3 westbound within J2 1112 1053 -59 -5% 1.79

822 M25 Clockwise J11-12 7605 7313 -292 -4% 3.39

897 B385 Woodham Lane 382 364 -18 -5% 0.93

899 A317 St Peter’s Way 1114 1032 -82 -7% 2.51

903 B388 Vicarage Road 390 361 -29 -7% 1.48

904 A308 The Causeway 820 777 -43 -5% 1.51

951 A317 St Peter’s Way 987 962 -25 -3% 0.80



Count No.

Count Name Observed

Flow Modelled


Met Flow Criteria

GEH <5.5 GEH >

10

1029 B387 Weir Road 598 523 -75 -13% 3.16

1030 B387 Weir Road 421 436 15 3% 0.70

1037 B3407 The Avenue 428 657 229 53% 9.82

1038 B3407 The Avenue 417 458 41 10% 1.97

1039 B388 Vicarage Road 387 257 -130 -34% 7.26

1041 B388 High Street, Egham 519 120 -399 -77% 22.35

1042 B388 High Street, Egham 535 423 -112 -21% 5.13

1084 B388 Vicarage Road 379 257 -122 -32% 6.85

1085 B388 Vicarage Road 331 361 30 9% 1.63

1086 C10 Station Road 206 203 -3 -1% 0.18

1087 C10 Station Road 153 147 -6 -4% 0.49

1088 B3376 Thorpe Road 359 368 9 2% 0.46

1089 B3376 Thorpe Road 191 160 -31 -16% 2.34

1090 B3407 High Street, Egham 471 496 25 5% 1.15

1091 B3407 High Street, Egham 251 269 18 7% 1.12

1094 A308 The Causeway 620 489 -131 -21% 5.55

1095 A308 The Causeway 942 938 -4 0% 0.14

1136 A30 London Road 600 488 -112 -19% 4.80

1137 A30 London Road 386 411 25 6% 1.25

1182 A308 Windsor Road 495 413 -81 -16% 3.80

1183 A308 Windsor Road 830 606 -225 -27% 8.39

1184 A308 The Causeway 799 801 2 0% 0.08

1194 A319 Chobham Road 494 486 -8 -2% 0.36

1195 A319 Chobham Road 235 261 26 11% 1.64

1196 A320 Chertsey Lane 504 447 -57 -11% 2.64

1197 A320 Chertsey Lane 681 726 45 7% 1.70

1198 A320 Guildford Road 986 904 -82 -8% 2.67

1199 A320 Guildford Road 1076 1112 36 3% 1.08

1208 A328 St Jude’s Road 305 304 -1 0% 0.04

1209 A328 St Jude’s Road 367 185 -182 -50% 10.99

1245 B3376 Thorpe Road 355 368 13 4% 0.67

1246 B3376 Thorpe Road 231 160 -71 -31% 5.07

1247 A317 Weybridge Road 1062 1172 110 10% 3.29

1248 A317 Weybridge Road 842 771 -71 -8% 2.49

1441 C127 Lyne Crossing Road 252 300 48 19% 2.90

1442 C127 Lyne Crossing Road 366 299 -67 -18% 3.66

1443 C127 Hardwick Lane 341 301 -40 -12% 2.25



Count No.

Count Name Observed

Flow Modelled


Met Flow Criteria

GEH <5.5 GEH >

10

1444 C127 Hardwick Lane 381 368 -13 -3% 0.67

1445 D3005 Almners Road 67 69 2 2% 0.20

1446 D3005 Almners Road 141 0 -141 -100% 16.72

1447 D7008 Lyne Lane 249 231 -18 -7% 1.17

1448 D7008 Lyne Lane 306 105 -201 -66% 14.02

1449 C127 Bridge Lane 287 296 9 3% 0.51

1450 C127 Bridge Lane 220 267 47 21% 3.03

1991 C10 Trumpsgreen Road 273 267 -6 -2% 0.35

1992 C10 Trumpsgreen Road 118 155 37 31% 3.15

1993 D3406 Foxhills Road 155 142 -13 -8% 1.07

1994 D3406 Foxhills Road 106 145 39 37% 3.51

1995 D3918 Wellington Avenue 348 340 -8 -2% 0.41

1996 D3918 Wellington Avenue 222 215 -7 -3% 0.48

1997 D4045 Accommodation Road 108 145 37 35% 3.33

1998 D4045 Accommodation Road 90 85 -5 -6% 0.54

1999 D3017 Kitsmead Road 110 92 -18 -16% 1.78

2000 D3017 Kitsmead Road 69 171 102 147% 9.29

2001 A30 Egham By-pass 791 669 -122 -15% 4.51

2009 M3 eastbound Off-slip to M25 J2 3716 3733 17 0% 0.28

2010 M25 westbound Slip-on M3 westbound 1404 1205 -199 -14% 5.50

2019 B386 Longcross Road 186 183 -3 -1% 0.19

2020 B386 Longcross Road 439 409 -30 -7% 1.45

Date post:	31-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	15 times
Download:	1 times

Runnymede Borough Council Local Plan...Runnymede Borough Council Local Plan Transport Assessment...

Documents