WSP RESPONSE TO CAPITA AUDIT OF WSP TA

Introduction This technical note has been prepared in response to the comments received from Torfaen County Borough Council’s (TCBC) Transport Consultants (Capita) in relation to the WSP Transport Assessment (TA) dated July 2012 that supported the planning application for the proposed 450 bed SCCC hospital in Cwmbran. This note also includes further work based on discussions with planning and highway Officers at TCBC and Capita at a meeting held on 3rd October 2012. It is noted that whilst the Capita audit has made a number of observations and statements it has not sought to quantify the significance of those statements to the correctness and robustness of the TA. Therefore, this response will set-out clearly the significance of those comments, without prejudice to the correctness of the original TA, in traffic impact terms and establish the robustness of the traffic impact assessment. In order to provide a clear response, the Capita report has been replicated below and the WSP response to each issue is shown in blue text..

AUDIT RESPONSE 1.0 Introduction The masterplan, Drawing P012X-BDP-L-GA-GR-008 Rev 10 is contained in Appendix B not Appendix A as stated and should be provided to scale. A Disc plans and drawings was passed to Capita at the meeting on 3rd October. 2.0 Existing Conditions The following traffic junction classified counts form the basis of the analysis:

• Crown Roundabout – 24th April 2008 • Turnpike Roundabout – 5th July 2007 and 12th January 2011

Project SCCC, Cwmbran

Date 08 October 2012

Prepared by Dafydd Rees

Checked by Jeremy Penfold / Neil Brant

Colston 33

Colston Avenue

Bristol

BS1 4UA

Tel: +44 (0)117 930 2000

Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4624

http://www.wspgroup.com

WSP Group plc

Offices worldwide

www wspgroup com

• Treherbert Roundabout 5th July 2007

• Croes-y-Mwylach Roundabout 11th July 2007

• Llanfrechfa Hospital Access (Caerleon Road) April 2008

CAPITA Query 1 – Assessment Periods Peak periods for 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18:00 hours have been assumed for the highway network and analysed in capacity terms. However, the data in Appendix B highlights that the AM peak hour at Turnpike Roundabout in 2011 is 07:45-08:45 and the PM peak is 16:00-17:00 hours. The PM peak for existing traffic generated by the current hospital on the site is also 16:00-17:00 generating 212 vehicles compared to the 122 between 17:00 to 18:00. The capacity analysis should be repeated based on network and development peak periods. WSP RESPONSE TO QUERY 1 It should be noted that the critical assessment period within the TA is the AM peak period, as this is the one hour period for the day as a whole where traffic flows on the network are highest. The assessments within the TA has therefore been based on the AM peak period and therefore based on a worst case. We have also analysed the PM peaks of 1600 to 1700 and 1700 to 1800 to ensure that a robust and worst case scenario is assessed. AM Peak Assessment Capita has indicated that based on the Turnpike Roundabout Counts the AM peak period is 0745 to 0845 and not 0800 to 0900 as modelled within the WSP TA. Table 1 below provides a comparison of the baseline flows and development flows for the AM peak hour as modelled and an AM period of 0745 to 0845. For the purpose of simplicity this does not take into consideration the background traffic growth and committed development traffic – this is dealt with separately later in the note. Table 1: Turnpike AM Peak Hour Assessment (2011)

Periods Base Flows

Development Traffic at Turnpike

Base + Development

0800 to 0900 4700 582 5282

0745 to 0845 4730 532 5262

As outlined in Table 1 traffic flows for the 0800 to 0900 peak hour at the Turnpike Roundabout equates to 4,700 vehicles whilst the flow for 0745 to 0845 is 4,730. There is a negligible difference of only 30 vehicles (or 0.6%) and with such a variance falling well within the daily fluctuation, typically +/- 10% (i.e. traffic flows on the network can vary by up to 10% on a day to day basis), in flow that will be experienced. As such it is unnecessary to undertake an assessment for the 0745-0845 period as the combined base plus development traffic is at its highest between 0800 to 0900, thus providing a worst case scenario for assessment. Furthermore, it should be noted that the vehicular trip generation associated with the proposed development is higher (50 vehicles) during

the 0800 to 0900 period in comparison to the 0745 to 0845 period and therefore the combined base and development traffic peak is the 0800-0900 period. In light of the above, an assessment of the impact of the development during an AM peak of 0800 to 0900 (AM Base plus Development) provides a worst case and therefore robust scenario for assessment. Traffic flows for the modelled AM peak (0800 to 0900), inclusive of development traffic, are 20 vehicles higher than an assessment based on an AM peak of 0745 to 0845. PM Peak Period Capita has requested that the PM peak assessment is undertaken for the 1600 to 1700 period. It should be noted that traffic flows along the network are significantly higher during the AM peak hour, and therefore, as demonstrated within our assessment that the AM peak is the critical period for assessment and mitigation. However, notwithstanding the above, further traffic data analysis has been undertaken. Table 2 provides a comparison of the impacts of assessment between a peak of 1600 to 1700 and 1700 to 1800. Table 2: Turnpike PM Peak Hour Assessment (2011)

Periods Base Flows

Development Traffic at Turnpike

Base + Development

0800 to 0900 4700 582 5282

1600 to 1700 3798 570 4368

1700 to 1800 3564 403 3967

As is clearly evident within the assessment, traffic flows during the AM peak are 17% higher than during the 1600 1700 period, when comparing the 2011 base and development traffic. This therefore confirms that the AM peak period is the critical assessment period, as identified within our TA. However, and notwithstanding the above, an assessment of a PM peak of 1600 to 1700 has been undertaken and the details of which are included within section ‘WSP Response to 14 B’ of this response. CAPITA Query 2 – Baseline Data Excluding Turnpike Roundabout, the junction counts are all undertaken in 2007/2008. To validate the counts, comparisons of the 2007 and 2011 survey at Turnpike Roundabout, automatic traffic counts on the A4042 between 2008 and 2010 and Tempro growth factors between 2007 and 2011 have been undertaken. Unsurprisingly, three different sets of factors generate three different results: AM PM TEMPRO (2007-2011) 1.013 1.023 Turnpike Roundabout (2007-2011)

1.025 -1.055

ATC (2008-2010) -12% No comparison of 2007 or 2008 to 2011 ATC flows has been undertaken. Furthermore a 2011 base has been assumed even though the TA has been submitted in the second half of 2012.

Are the growth rates on Turnpike Roundabout the same for the trunk road as well as the local road network? No growth has been assumed at Crown Roundabout and 2.5% and 2.3% in the AM and PM peaks at Croes-y-Mwylach and Treherbert Roundabouts. This does not provide a consistent approach. No growth has been applied to the Crown Roundabout between 2008-11 as trunk road flows are stated to have reduced by 12% between 2008-10. However, is this reduction in the peak hour? The survey data is missing from Appendix B. Has traffic reduced or increased on the local highway network? Up to date traffic surveys, especially for a development of this size, would provide a more robust basis on which to analyse the predicted impact of the site. WSP Response to QUERY 2 Baseline Traffic Data Turnpike Roundabout – We consider the use of 2011 baseline surveys are acceptable. Traffic data of less than 3 years old is considered valid for use within an assessment. Crown Roundabout – We have continuously monitored and reviewed the acceptability and robustness of survey data as the scheme has evolved. This includes a review of whether surveys should be updated and a key consideration has been whether we are presenting a worst case. The traffic survey was undertaken in 2008 and as detailed in Table 3 below traffic flows have reduced significantly along the A4042 since then. A reduction of 308 movements between 2008 and 2009; a reduction of 3,443 between 2008 and 2010; and a reduction of 6272 between 2008 and 2011. The use of 2008 data is therefore a robust approach, by circa 6,272 vehicle movements daily, and provides a worst case scenario for assessment when compared to using 2011 data. Table 3 provides a summary of DfT data and survey data for the A4042 from 2007 to 2011. Should we use more recent survey data, the impacts of the development on the operation of the network would be less. Table 3: Daily Traffic along the A4042

Year Source Daily Flow

2006 DfT 32,784

2007 DfT 26,445

2008 DfT 33,195

2009 DfT 32,887

2010 DfT 29,752

2011 Survey 26,918

Further analysis of the link flows along the A4042 has been undertaken comparing link data obtained from the 2011 survey of the Turnpike Roundabout (link count south of Turnpike Roundabout and North of Crown Roundabout) and the 2008 survey of the Crown Roundabout (link count to the north of Crown Roundabout and South of Turnpike). A summary of the link flow data is provided in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Assessment of A4042 Link between Turnpike and Crown (2008 and 2011)

AM Peak PM Peak

2008 2011 Difference 2008 2011 Difference

Northbound 1614 1631 +17 (1.1%) 1577 1560 -17 (-1.1%)

Southbound 2052 1897 -155 (-7.6%) 1190 1231 -41 (-3.4%)

Total 3666 3528 -138 (-3.8%) 2767 2791 +24 (+0.9%)

1.1.22 As outlined in the above table peak hour traffic flows along the A4042 between the Turnpike and Crown Roundabout have reduced between 2008 and 2011on average by circa 4% during the AM Peak hour and increased on average by less than 1% during the PM peak hour. These variances are in line with expected daily fluctuations in traffic flows, +/- 10%, and as such would indicate that there has been no material change to peak hour flows. In light of the above, it is considered that the use of 2008 traffic flows at the Crown Roundabout is acceptable and robust. 1.1.23 Treherbert Roundabout and Croes y Mwylach Roundabout – Traffic surveys undertaken in 2007. There is an anomaly in the traffic data obtained from the DfT in that the 2007 daily flows are significantly lower than 2006 and 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. It was therefore considered that the same methodology as used for the Crown Roundabout was not appropriate. In light of this consideration was given to Tempro data and survey data at the Turnpike Roundabout (2007 and 2011). This sufficiently demonstrates that suitably robust traffic data has been used. CAPITA Query 3 Accidents statistics have been analysed for the period 01/11/2006 to 31/10/2011. Please note that although the footnote on Table 2.5 states January to April 2011, the 2011 data is to the end of October. It is noted that there have been two pedestrian injuries on Caerleon Road to the south of the site, but no footway improvements are proposed. As part of the audit a review of the period between 01/11/2011 to 31/5/2012 has been undertaken, which highlights two further slight accidents on Turnpike Roundabout. These consisted of a shunt on the Caerleon Road approach and a vehicle exiting Turnpike Road colliding with a circulating vehicle. WSP Response to QUERY 3 Capita has indicated that there has been two pedestrian injuries on Caerleon Road to the south of the site, but no footway improvements are proposed. Table 5 below provides a summary of these incidents and an assessment of how they relate to the requirement for any form of footway improvement as a result of the proposed development. Table 5: Review of PIA Incidents on Caerleon Road involving pedestrians

Accident Reference

Description Location Assessment

00103/07 Child pedestrian has run out between buses into the road and was struck at low speed by a vehicle

2.6km to the south of the site access

Sufficient footways on either side of the road. Accident is not related to footway provision.

00248/10 Veh travelling S.W along Lamb Lane at junction with Caerleon Road. pedestrian stepped into road an collided with car

2.4km to the south of the site access

Footway provision along Lamb Lane and eastern side of Caerleon Road. Accident is associated with pedestrian walking into the road, and not lack / poor footways.

As outlined in Table 3 the two accidents along Caerleon Road are over 2.4km away from the proposed site access and do not therefore relate directly to the proposed development. It should also be noted that these incidents are not attributable to poor footway provision. In conjunction with the reasons set out in the TA, it is therefore not necessary to undertake improvements to the footway as a result of the proposed development. 3.0 Development Proposal CAPITA Query 4

A. Vehicular access – Off site, no improvements to the local highway network are currently proposed except the Caerleon Road approach to Turnpike Roundabout, with a minor widening of the entry width from 7.7m to 8.7m and an increase in the half width from 3.64m to 6.0m.

B. Bus Access – Off site, no bus improvements are currently proposed. To be included within

the Travel Plan

C. Pedestrian Details – Off site, a toucan crossing is proposed on Caerleon Road, but further details of the proposed layout are required.

D. Cycle Details - Off site, a toucan crossing is proposed on Caerleon Road. On site, no

details of the level of provision for facilities to shower, change and store belongings for cyclists have been provided. The TA states ‘around 100 covered cycle parking spaces’. This figure needs to be fixed and the location of the spaces identified.

WSP Response to QUERY 4

B Bus access to the site will be addressed within the Travel Plan. It has been agreed that a full and detailed Travel Plan will be secured via a Section 106 agreement. The details of the agreement are to be set out within the Heads of Terms. See further response to Capita Query 6 A and C Further details of the proposed Toucan crossing are provided in Drawing P012-WSP-C-XX-GA-GR-XX-1904 Rev 2. In relation to pedestrian access it is also now proposed that improvements to the pedestrian link between the proposed Toucan crossing and the underpass of the A4042 are provided. The details of the agreement are to be set out within the Heads of Terms. It is also proposed that a formal crossing point with dropped kerbs and tactile paving are to be provided on the existing access to provide a pedestrian link to the footway that runs along the southern side of the existing access road. These improvements are to be secured via a S.278 agreement. D The development includes the provision of 100 cycle parking spaces. The location of these will be identified and approved through the layout and landscape Reserved Matters. It is confirmed that shower, changing and storage facilities for staff cycling to work will be provided and these will be identified within the Travel Plan. CAPITA Query 5 Parking – The CSS Wales Parking Standards state:

• 2.5 spaces per bed (This level of provision would be appropriate for acute and neighbourhood District Hospitals. For other types of hospitals a lower level of provision may be acceptable).

• Essential operational vehicles as required

• A minimum of one space per each employee who is disabled motorist plus 6% of the car

park capacity for visiting disabled motorists

• Cycle provision of 1 space per 20 beds (long stay) and 1 space per 20 beds (short stay)

• Motorcycle parking at 5% of the provision for car parking

Car Parking (exc disabled)

Disabled Parking

Cycle Parking Motorcycle Parking

Guidelines 1058 67 + one space per each disabled

employee

45 56

Proposed 880

64 + 6 emergency only

Around 100 ?

The TA calculates a total 1043 space provision to be in accordance with the guidelines. With 450 beds at 2.5 spaces per bed, the actual figure is 1125 spaces. The provision of 175 less spaces (15%) than the guidelines is due to ‘visitor trips will be lower than a conventional hospital’. However, no evidence to support this statement is provided. Furthermore, trip rates have been set between the average rates for a general hospital with and without an A&E.

Are there any other SCCCs in the country on which parking demand can be observed? Are the staff requirements per bed at a SCCC higher than at a conventional hospital with associated increased demand in parking? It should be noted that there are significant parking issues at the other hospitals in the area and there is a significant concern that parking overflow will be into the adjacent Llanfrechfa area. How has the visitor/staff split been calculated? Separating staff and visitor parking results in possible overspill of one or the other. Where will drivers who have been unable to park within the hospital seek a space and what TRO’s in the adjacent area will be introduced to manage this? Will time limits be set on parking provision? Will spaces for car sharing nearest the entrances be provided to encourage shared use? The majority of car borne trips in the peak hours are stated to be by staff, with visitors, due to no allocated visiting periods, being spread with no peak demand. However, for those visitors who work, it is envisaged that visiting will occur soon after work, creating a peak arrival in the PM peak. WSP Response to QUERY 5 The development proposal includes the provision of 950 spaces provided at a ratio of 2.1 per bed. As outlined within CSS Wales – Wales Parking Standards 2008 and re-iterated within Capita’s response, the standards are as follows: 2.5 spaces per bed (This level of provision would be appropriate for acute and

neighbourhood District Hospitals. For other types of hospital a lower level of provision may be acceptable) (such as the SCCC);

Essential operational vehicles as required; A minimum of on space per each employee who is a disabled motorist plus 6% of the car

park capacity for visiting disabled motorists. As identified by the standards, which are a discretionary guidance target and not an absolute requirement, lower parking levels may be appropriate for other types of hospitals such as the SCCC which will have a variable and more balanced distribution of staff and visitors. Moreover, Capita has queried what parking demand information exists within the TRICS database to provide confidence in a parking provision which is below the recommended guidelines. In response to this a car parking accumulation assessment has been undertaken based on the TRICS data used within the T A. A summary of which is provided in Table 6 below: Table 6: Car Parking Accumulation Assessment

SCC+HSDU Accumulation Surplus Parking IN OUT TOTAL 250*

07:00-08:00 290 124 414 416 534

08:00-09:00 477 150 627 743 207

09:00-10:00 396 233 629 905 45

10:00-11:00 306 267 573 945 5

11:00-12:00 255 286 541 913 37

12:00-13:00 242 298 540 857 93

13:00-14:00 331 279 610 909 41

14:00-15:00 331 343 674 897 53

15:00-16:00 268 381 649 784 166

16:00-17:00 188 422 610 551 399

17:00-18:00 142 302 444 391 559

18:00-19:00 162 160 322 393 557

19:00-20:00 154 179 333 368 582

20:00-21:00 111 175 286 304 646

21:00-22:00 75 138 213 241 709

22:00-23:00 56 70 126 226 724

*Assumes 250 cars parked over night As outlined in Table 6 above, 950 car parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the upper maximum of likely demand associated with the proposed SCCC. The assessment shows that demand will peak during the 1000 to 1100 period. Table 7 below provides a summary of car parking requirements based on standards, the proposed level of car parking and details extracted from the TRICS database on car parking at various other hospitals. This provides a clear comparison of the proposed provision within other hospital and demonstrates that the provision is mid-way between hospitals with and without and A&E which is not to be present at the SCCC Table 7: Summary of car parking

Standards Total Requirement

Disabled 6%

Guidelines 2.5 spaces per bed

1125 68

Proposed 2.1 spaces per bed

950 57

TRICS without casualty 1.78 spaces per bed 801 48

TRICS sites with casualty 2.26 spaces per bed 1017 61

Average of TRICS sites with and without casualty

2.024 spaces per bed 911 55

The development would theoretically require 1,043 spaces based on a car parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per bed (appropriate for acute and neighbourhood District Hospital). However, as stated within CSS Wales and re-iterated within Capita’s response to the WSP TA “for other types of hospital a lower level of provision may be acceptable”. Consideration should be given to the fact that the proposed hospital does not provide an outpatients service and no casualty department, however, it does provide blue light access, and these factors will have an impact on the level of car parking requirement. The nature of the hospital (without a conventional A&E or outpatients) means that the allocation of car parking for staff and visitors is difficult to measure. What is important is that the overall provision is appropriate and meets the forecasted demand,

and the allocation of these spaces, between staff and visitors, can be dealt with when the full detail of the layout is included within the Reserved Matters application. In light of the above, it is considered that the provision of 950 spaces is sufficient for the proposed development. It must be noted that the SCCC will not include a casualty department or an outpatients service and therefore demand for car parking is likely to be lower than comparable general hospitals which have casualty and outpatients services. The assumption made in relation to staff visitors is 2/3 staff and 1/3 visitors. The detail of this will be determined through approval of layout / landscape Reserved Matters application. Given the nature of the site, it is not considered appropriate for any time restriction to be enforced and it is considered that such restriction would encourage off site parking. Patients at the SCCC will be critically ill and therefore the duration of stay may be longer than a general hospital, and therefore the introduction of a time limit for car parking could encourage visitors to park off site on local streets. Details in relation to the split of staff / visitor parking location of car sharers will be dealt with when the masterplan is submitted for Reserved Matters. Management of the car park will be detailed in an Operational Management Plan. However, the concerns of the council and local residents regarding parking provision are noted. Following discussions with Highway Officers from TCBC and Capita it was agreed that through the Travel Plan (secured via a S.106 agreement) measures would be put in place to ensure that contingency plans for overspill car parking can be made if required in the future. This will be set out within the Heads of Terms of the S.106 agreement and any overspill provision would be dealt with via a separate planning application and having regard to environmental constraints. 4.0 Accessibility Audit CAPITA Query 6 The existing footway on Caerleon Road is between 0.6-2.0m wide south of Twm Barlwm View on the northbound carriageway. Therefore, it is substandard and no improvements are proposed. The potential provision of a footbridge across the A4042 (T) is a trunk road matter and therefore not reviewed within this audit. There are hourly services stated to be the 7/7B (paragraph 4.7.2 and 4.7.4) but 29/29B (Cwmbran/Caerleon/Newport) in Table 4.1, with bus stops on both sides of Caerleon Road within 70m of the existing access to the hospital. Bus stops are located on the A4042, 400m to the west of the site with Service 30 (Newport/Pontypool/Brynmawr) operating on an hourly basis. Is hourly sufficient? How many people are expected to travel by bus to and from the proposed development? What is the predicted distribution of these passengers? It is noted that 34.42% of traffic is envisaged to travel from Cardiff, but there is no direct bus service to/from Cardiff to the site. Is there existing spare capacity on these services to accommodate the predicted increase in passenger numbers? Drawing P012X-BDP-L-GA-GR-008 Rev 10 shows a proposed kerb line extending through the existing southbound bus lay-by on Caerleon Road adjacent to the access the hospital. This needs to be revised. WSP Response to QUERY 6

Footway improvements to the pedestrian link between the proposed toucan crossing and the pedestrian underpass of the A4042 will be secured through a s278 agreement. It is understood that the primary concern of TCBC on footway widths on Caerleon Road relates to cars parking on footways. As such action in contrary to the Road Traffic Act and is a enforcement matter, it cannot be considered as a material consideration in the determination of a planning application. Details of any bus services will be dealt with within the Travel Plan. The current aim is that the SCCC is operational in 2018 (6 years from now) and therefore details of bus services are to be determined closer to the opening date. The provision of bus services will be a commercial decision by the providers based on demand. The Travel Plan will monitor and encourage bus usage and consider provision of a shuttle bus service is required in future. Drawing PO12x-BDP-L-GA-GR-008 Rev 10 has now been revised and re-issued to TCBC. 5.0 Policy Review CAPITA Query 7 Policy SAA7 of the Deposit Torfaen Local Development Plan (March 2011) states the development should be aided by ‘strategic highway infrastructure improvements’. Furthermore, paragraph 4.4.12 states that the creation of a SCCC represents an opportunity to improve the connectivity of the Llanfrechfa community to Cwmbran. Furthermore, the Adopted Llanfrechfa Grange Development Framework (December 2008) specifically promotes the reduction in severance caused by the A4042 by maximising the opportunities for pedestrian and cycle crossing points. The TA needs to clearly show how these policies are met. WSP Response to QUERY 7 The proposed development includes the introduction of a new toucan crossing on Caerleon Road at an appropriate location along a key desire line between the site and the existing underpass which provides a convenient route under the A4042. It is also proposed that improvements are made to the underpass. Following a meeting with highway officers at Torfaen Council and their Transport Consultants (Capita) on Wednesday 4 October 2012 it was agreed that improvements to the pedestrian route between the Toucan and the underpass would be provided. To be secured via a S.278 agreement. This will further improve connectivity of the site and reduce severance whilst also reducing use of the at-grade crossing of the A4042. The above measures demonstrate that the proposed development will improve connectivity and meets relevant policy requirements. 6.0 Trip Generation CAPITA Query 8 6.2 Trip Generation – Existing Use Paragraph 6.2.1 states that ‘During the construction period the closure of the hospital will therefore result in a reduction of traffic upon the local highway network’. However, the number of construction trips is only quantified in daily terms and the existing hospital in peak hour terms. It is envisaged that the number of HGV movements to/from the site during the construction period will substantially increase.

WSP Response to QUERY 8 When considered as Passenger Car Units (PCUs), i.e. the volume of traffic considered to a common unit of measurement, it is likely that the number of movements associated with the construction phase of the proposed development will be significantly below the trip generation associated with the operational phase of the development. However, it is recognised that construction vehicles will have a different impact than PCUs and in order to mitigate any potential impacts a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan is proposed which will include a strict routing plan and control on delivery hours. A comprehensive CEMP is proposed that will address the routing of deliveries to ensure that the majority of HGV movements occur to the north, via the A4042 via Turnpike roundabout, and restricting movements via Caerleon Road to the south of the proposed access roundabout. The CEMP will be secured via a section 106 agreement. CAPITA Query 9 6.3 Trip Generation Proposed Trip rates for the SCCC have been based on an average of general hospitals with and without an A&E. The TRICS data within the TA is incomplete. Full details of the chosen sites are required. Only three survey days for general hospitals without casualty have been used to generate the trip rates for this development type. However, details of trip rates for nine survey days have also been included and show higher AM and PM peak rates by 0.219 and 0.194 respectively. Why have the lower rates been used? Do the sites chosen have a Travel Plan? Is so, the impact of a plan will already be included in the trip rates and not additional, as per the analysis undertaken for Crown Roundabout. The TRICS data identifies that development PM peak generation between is 1600-1700 hours, not the 1700-1800 hours analysed in the TA. As the development is not a general hospital with or without A&E, there is concern that an average instead of 85th percentile figures of both types of development has been used. Are there no similar SCCCs within the country from which a traffic survey could provide trip rate data? If not, details of the number of proposed staff and associated shift patterns are required to provide some support in the predicted trip figures. Paragraph 6.3.17 states ‘The assessments included within this report assume that all development traffic would access and egress the site via the 4 arm access roundabout. However, it should be noted that only light goods and blue light vehicles will access the hospital via the proposed access roundabout, whilst all HGV vehicles would access the SCCC via the existing Llanfrechfa Grange access junction.’ Until road markings are provided, Drawing P012X-BDP-L-GA-GR-008 Rev 10, does indicate that visitors and staff can access via the priority junction as well. The staff/visitor split between the accesses and associated parking provision is unclear and this needs to be clarified. The most southern section of staff parking is only accessed via the priority junction. The capacity analysis is required to be based on how parking spaces / drop off areas are proposed to be accessed. Table 6.8 provides HGV percentages based on TRICS data. This data and the sites it relates to needs to be included within the appendices for review. The figures are incorrectly totalled and equate to 19 HGV movements in the AM peak and 16 in the PM peak. These figures are stated to

be ‘significantly lower than what the access currently accommodates’. In fact, for the periods quoted, the 2008 HGV observed flows are only 6 in the AM peak and 0 in the PM peak.

Figure 6.1 and 6.2 indicate only 1 HGV movement into the site in the AM peak and 1 in the PM peak. Therefore, these need to be amended.

Laundry Facility Can it be confirmed that the hospital utilised within the TRICS have their laundry facilities on site. Does the laundry serve other hospitals and is this case for the sites within the TRICS database? Hospital Sterilisation and Disinfection Unit Trip rates for the unit have been based on information provided by the Health Board. This needs to be included in the final TA and supporting information on why HGV movements have been spread throughout the day. The trip generation has been based on full time equivalents. How many part time staff are proposed to be within the unit? Details of their shift patterns should be provided. Total Forecasted Hospital Traffic What parking demand information exists in TRICS to provide confidence in a parking provision which is below the recommended guidelines? Trip generation for the existing site is based on a junction classified count undertaken on Tuesday 29th April 2008. This survey is now over four years old. Has use of the site altered in the last 4 years? For a development of this size it is expected that an up to date count of existing traffic generation would have been undertaken. WSP Response to QUERY 9 It should be noted that there are no similar hospital sites to obtain information from that might assist in forecasting development traffic. Additionally, no information is currently available regarding shift patterns and therefore the trip generation cannot be calculated based on first principles. This is an outline planning application with the details to be developed as the scheme and services require. The proposed development is a 450 bed Specialist Critical Care Centre, which does not include a casualty department or an outpatients service. Being critical care it is likely that patients will remain at the hospital for longer periods resulting in less of a ‘turnover’. All of these characteristics would result in significantly reduced numbers of trips when compared to general hospitals as contained within the TRICS database. On this basis TRICS average trip rates have been adopted as opposed to 85th%ile rates which would significantly over estimate travel to the hospital. Capita has raised concern that the SCCC could generate a peak demand for visitors after work. The traffic impact assessment included within the WSP TA is based on general hospitals which will also have visitors arriving ‘afterwork’ and therefore the trip profile used within the TA inherently includes that demand. Therefore the assessment of the PM peak is considered robust.

The trip generation forecast associated with the proposed development is based on an assessment of TRICS sites, which are inclusive of laundry trips to the site. Some of the site will also include a Laundry distribution facility on site and therefore, the trip rates used on average include Laundry trips. Given the nature of the HSDU – staff will be highly specialised and it is unlikely that there will be many part time staff. Trip generation forecast based on Whole Time Equivalents is therefore considered robust given that a worst case scenario of staff change over is assumed to be during the AM and PM peaks. It is confirmed that there has been no significant changes to the operations at the Llanfrechfa Grange Hospital since the survey was undertaken. CAPITA Query 10 6.4 Trip Distribution The trip distribution has been based on population statistics. However, no account has been taken of distance. This results in 34.42% of traffic envisaged to travel to / from Cardiff. With regards to patient/visitor movements, how similar are the hospital facilities within Cardiff to the proposed facilities in Llanfrechfa. Will patients in the Cardiff area be sent to Llanfrechfa? With regards to staff, due to the distance to travel and significantly higher house prices in Cardiff, will one third of staff live in Cardiff and work in Llanfrechfa? What are the current home locations of medical staff working on the site? A registration survey of vehicle entering or exiting Turnpike Roundabout and the existing hospital would provide existing information on distribution for a medical facility at this location. A comparison of the 2008 survey of the site access to the predicted movements is summarised in the following table: AM Peak Existing Proposed

Arrive Depart Arrive Depart To/From A4042 93.5% 89.3% 94% 89% To/From Caerleon

6.5% 10.7% 6% 11%

PM Peak To/From A4042 77.7% 82.0% 94% 89% To/From Caerleon

22.3% 18% 6% 11%

Therefore, the traffic distribution in the 2008 AM peak, to and from the site access, is similar to that proposed in the TA. However, the observed PM peak has 18% rather than 11% of traffic departing to Caerleon and 6% rather than 22%.3% arriving from Caerleon. No sensitivity testing of the distribution has been undertaken. WSP Response to QUERY 10

The distribution of the development traffic has been undertaken within the WSP TA based on population statistics. Further analysis of various datasets has been undertaken which includes origin point of the workforce in Cwmbran and also for the ward in which the Royal Gwent hospital is located. It is envisaged that some staff from the Royal Gwent Hospital would be transferred the SCCC and therefore it is considered appropriate to consider this ward.

Cwmbran Royal Gwent

(Ward) TA

Newport 12% 59% 15%

Torfaen 67% 10% 10%

Caerphilly 5% 10% 19%

Cardiff 3% 7% 34%

Monmouthshire 6% 7% 9%

Blaenau Gwent 3% 2% 8% Other 4% 6% 6%

Whilst the data for Cwmbran shows that the proportion of trips to Newport and Cardiff equates to 15%, the data for the ward that the Royal Gwent Hospital is located in shows circa 66% travelling to Cardiff and Newport and thus southbound along the A4042. The assessment within the WSP TA assumes 49% of trips travelling towards Cardiff / Newport on the A4042. In the event that the actual distribution reflected one of the other distribution profiles the proportion would range between 15% and 66%. Therefore, in view that the TA adopts 49%, it is considered that an upper quartile and robust assumption has been made. CAPITA Query 11 6.5 Trip Generation – Committed Development The residential developments of 103 and 40 units on Llantarnam Road have already been built and have therefore been assumed to be included in the baseline traffic flows. However, Crown Roundabout, the closest junction to these developments to be assessed, is based on a 2008 count, prior to development. No growth has been applied between 2008-2011 as trunk road flows have reduced by 12% between 2008-2010. However, have traffic flows on the local highway network increased, particularly with 143 new dwellings in the adjacent area? Furthermore, is the 12% flow reduction in 2008-2010 based on peak or daily flows and over what survey period? Paragraph 6.5.3 – development is spelt incorrectly. Traffic generation for the South Sebastopol development has been based on a PFA prepared TA dated 2001. A more recent (2011) TA has been prepared and is available from Torfaen CBC. A copy of the proposed 150 residential units at Panteg Steelworks should also be available. The trip rates and distribution for the proposed residential development have not been provided. WSP Response to QUERY 11 The assessment of committed development traffic considered the following development schemes: Residential development at Llantarnam Road - 103 and 40 units; Llanfrechfa Grange residential development – 300 units;

South Sebastopol – 1,200 units; Malthouse Farm – 11,923sqm B1 and 3,874 sqm B1c/B2; Panteg Steelworks – 150 residential units and school; County Hall Development Framework – 225 units.

The assessment therefore includes 2,018 residential units as committed development and circa 16,000 sqm of employment land. Not only has this level of committed development been included, a further 19% (TEMPRO) blanket growth has been applied to the network up until 2025. This methodology therefore includes a significant element of double counting as the committed development schemes are also accounted for within the TEMPRO growth. The level of traffic growth at the Turnpike Roundabout, when considered in terms of vehicule numbers, is summarised in Table 7 below. Table 7: Summary of Traffic Growth at the Turnpike Roundabout

Periods Base Flows

Growth (19%)

Committed Development

Total Growth

0800 to 0900 4,700 893 109 1,002

1600 to 1700 3,798 722 Not calculated

1700 to 1800 3,564 677 203 880

This level of growth equates to 1,882 vehicles (combined AM and PM peak). An assessment of historic growth (negative and positive) along the A4042 demonstrates that the level of background and committed development growth assumed within our assessment is high. Higher than any year on year growth experienced on the network since 1999 (traffic data from before 1999 is not available). The growth assumed within our assessment equates to an increase in traffic of 806 vehicles daily year on year (2011 to 2025). The largest year on year increase up to 2011 is 471 year on year. The growth assumed within our assessment is therefore almost double, the highest year on year growth experienced between any year from 1999 to 2011. Full details of the historic daily traffic flow is summarised in Table 8. Table 8: Historic Traffic Growth

Year Daily Flow

Comparison of Yearly flow and

2011

Annual growth up to 2011

1999 25295 1623 135

2000 23520 3398 309

2001 27308 -390 -39

2002 25601 1317 146

2003 30335 -3417 -427

2004 29926 -3008 -430

2005 24561 2357 393

2006 32784 -5866 -1173

2007 26445 473 118

2008 33195 -6277 -2092

2009 32887 -5969 -2985

2010 29752 -2834 -2834

2011 26918

The Tempro Growth factors include developments in the area and therefore a significant element of double counting has been included within our assessment, as some traffic generation associated with the committed development schemes and the proposed development are included in the TEMPRO growth assumptions. Planning data within Tempro can be manually manipulated to remove development growth that has been considered as committed development, but we have chosen not to do so to present an absolute worst case. In light of the above and to quantify the extent of any double counting of trips, the Tempro work has been revisited and household increase up to 2025 within the Cwmbran area has been reduced by 2,018 houses (as this is included as committed development within our assessment) and circa 1,800 jobs (associated with the SCCC, The SCCC is expected to create 2,900 jobs, however the planning data assumes only 1,800 job growth in the area up to 2025). Table 5 outlines the revised Tempro growth factors that do not include the committed developments and SCCC development. This provides a realistic basis for assessment, as opposed to the robust methodology used within the WSP TA (July 2012). Table 9: Updated Growth Rates (excluding committed development) Tempro 6.2

2011 TO 2025

URBAN > PRINCIPLE

URBAN > TRUNK

AM PM AM PM

1.08397 1.08475 1.10750 1.10830

The application of the above updated TEMPRO growth rates to our baseline flows are summarised In Table 10. Table 10: Updated Traffic Growth (excluding committed development)

Periods Base Flows

Updated Growth*

Committed Development

TOTAL

0800 to 0900 4700 505 109 614

1700 to 1800 3564 386 203 589

*Based Urban Trunk Growth providing a robust assessment

Table 11 provides a comparison of the robust traffic flow growths used within our assessments and a realistic traffic growth assumption which does not include any double counting of flows. Table 11: Comparison of Growth

Periods TA Growth

Updated Growth Difference

0800 to 0900 1002 614 -388

1700 to 1800 880 589 -291

Given the element of double counting within the TA, the traffic models include an additional 388 (AM) and 291 (PM) vehicles within the traffic impact assessment. The original assessment is therefore considered extremely robust for the purpose of assessing the impacts of the proposed development. The updated growth equates to a year on year growth of 515 vehicles daily which would still provide a very robust basis for assessment. This figure exceeds the largest increase (+393) in year on year flow along the A4042 since 1999 by circa 24%. Based on historic data our growth could be factored down by a further 24%. This therefore demonstrates the extreme robustness of the assessments included within the WSP TA (July 2012) In summary the WSP TA assessment includes a growth of 388 vehicle trips more than what is realistically expected at the Turnpike Roundabout during the AM peak and 291 more vehicle trips during the PM peak. This level of additional growth in traffic terms equates to a development proposal of a further 284 beds (+63%) at the site, which is not proposed but demonstrates how robust and worst case the TA is. Our assessments are therefore extremely robust, by a margin of 63%, and provide a worst case scenario for assessment. 7.0 Transport Impact Assessment Methodology CAPITA Query 12 7.1.2 It is noted that the study area has ‘generally been agreed with the officers at Torfaen Council and the Welsh Government Trunk Road Agency’; Have the officers of Newport City Council be contacted regarding assessment of the impact of the proposed development on Caerleon and Ponthir? The TA has been based on 2025 design year. The TA states that earliest full occupation is anticipated to be at the end of 2018, giving a design year of opening year plus seven. This is stated in the TA to be based on: ‘TAN 18 suggests that the forecast design years “should be defined and secured through a policy in the development plan” and therefore a 2021 figure should be used, and the fact that the NTEM 6.1 dataset only provides growth figures up to 2025. However, to put the extract of Paragraph 9.2 of TAN 18 into context: ‘Developers should be required by local authorities to submit transport assessments to accompany planning applications for developments that are likely to result in significant trip generation (see

Annex D for suggested thresholds). This requirement should be defined and secured through a policy in the development plan with relevant details in the SPG. The precise scope and content of each TA will depend upon the scale, travel intensity and characteristics of the proposal.’ Therefore, based on the scale of this development and due to the close proximity of the access to the Trunk Road, Torfaen CBC requires an opening year plus 15 to assess the development. This is possible if NTEM 6.2 with the 2009 dataset (as recommended by DfT in April 2012) is used rather than NTEM 6.1, providing growth figures to 2035. NTEM 6.2 has now replaced NTEM 5.4 as the definitive dataset. NTEM 5.4 remains available on the DfT website for checking historic work undertaken between 2008 and 2011, but the former ‘in draft’ dataset NTEM 6.1, used in the TA, has now been removed from the website. Paragraph 7.5.2 states ‘All four junctions to be assessed within this TA are priority controlled roundabouts’. The major/minor priority junction that forms the access for staff into the site also needs to be analysed. WSP Response to QUERY 12 Newport City Council are statutory consultees and we have been in dialogue with them on the development and supporting technical assessments. The forecast year assessments and growth is detailed in section ‘WSP Response to Query 11’. The justification for the use of a forecast year of 2025 is provided within section 7 of the WSP TA. Having reviewed historic growth along the A4042 and considering the extreme robustness of our growth it is considered that our forecast assessment years are robust. Our growth overestimates traffic on the network by 388 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 291 vehicles in the PM peak. The Tempro growth has been revisited (WSP Response to Query 11) based on the latest Tempro 6.2 dataset. The priority access junction for the site has now been analysed and is discussed at Query 14 in this note. 8.0 Caerleon Road Assessment CAPITA Query 13 Analysis has been based on Caerleon Road being an urban UAP2 road with an average width of 6.1m. However, paragraph 1.6 of TA79/99 (DMRB Vol 5) states ‘On-road parking reduces the effective road width and disrupts flow e.g. where parking restrictions are not applied on a road type UAP2 the flows are likely to be similar to UAP3 where restricted parking applies. UAP2 has restricted parking and loading, whilst Caerleon Road and UAP3 road type has unrestricted parking. With the proposed development increased parking on Caerleon Road is likely to occur. Therefore, the analysis should be repeated based, on a UAP3 type. Paragraphs 8.3.4 and 8.3.8 refers to DB32, which has been superseded. Paragraph 8.4.3 refers to only two reported accidents on Caerleon Road over a period of 9 years. However, paragraphs 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 refer to 6 incidents in a 5 year period. Paragraph 8.5.7 states the increase of the development traffic above the 2025 base is 5.58%. Table 8.6 identifies a 6.20% increase.

Paragraph 8.8.4 states ‘It will therefore be necessary to ensure that the access arrangement for the hospital is compatible with the future implementation of the bypass’. However, the proposed access arrangements for staff will cause issues should a bypass be developed on its proposed alignment. The TA suggests no improvement to Caerleon Road from Edgehill to the site access. This is essential for development because any increase in traffic makes the existing substandard situation worse. WSP Response to QUERY 13 It is noted that DB32 is a superseded document, but we would content that it remains as a valid terms of reference when used with suitable judgement. It is noted that a typing error in para. 8.5.7 occurred and that the figure of 6.30%, as stated in Table 8.6 of the TAR, was the correct figure. Assuming Caerleon Road is classed as a UAP3 road, the assessment within the WSP TA still demonstrates that Caerleon Road would operate within capacity. The capacity for a UAP3 road is 900 vehicles in any direction within a one hour period. In a forecast year of 2025 with the presence of committed and development traffic (and the inherent 63% margin of robustness) on the network, the flows along Caerleon Road during the Peak hours is 822. In relation to the future implementation of the bypass we have shown an indicative alignment. However, the actual arrangement will be designed as and when the housing development comes forward. 9.0 Traffic Impact Assessment CAPITA Query 14 For all existing junctions modelled, queues from observed flows should be compared against actual queue surveys to validate the ARCADY analyses. Analyses of the roundabouts should take into account any unequal lane use. The ARCADY analysis has been based flat profiles throughout the analysis period. Synthesised or direct profiles are preferred. If flat profiles are to be used, these need to be evidenced by existing flat profiles at the junction being analysed. 9.2 Site Access Roundabout Paragraph 8.2.11 states that Caerleon Road has a width which varies from 5.2 to 7.3m. The previous draft TA had the approach half widths to the roundabout at 3.5m. Why have these been increased to 3.65m in the submitted TA, when the location of the roundabout and the width of Caerleon Road have not altered?

The entry widths of the roundabout have also increase from 5.0m to 5.4m. These changes, combined with an increase in flare length results in a roundabout which was overcapacity in the draft TA, to be under capacity with an increase flow due to the additional beds. In reality, unless two lanes are being proposed at the entry arms, an increase from 5.0m to 5.4m will make minimal difference in the flow of traffic.

A 1:500 scale plan of the proposed junction is required as Drawing P012X-WSP-C-XX-GA-GR-XX-1801 Rev 01 states ‘No Not Scale’. Deflection from Caerleon Road south to north can then be assessed.

A 5% HGV figure has been used for all turning movements. The analysis should be based on actual HGV percentages recorded on Caerleon Road combined with predicted HGV movements to and from the site. As stated previously in the audit (re Paragraph 6.3.17) the capacity analysis is required to be based on both access junction to the site being utilised.

It is noted that modelled flows are slightly higher than predicted flows. The AM peak flows into the site within the ARCADY total 492 compared to 477 in Table 6.6. Flows exiting the site in the PM peak ARCADY are 312 compared to 303 in Table 6.6. 9.3 Treherbert and Croes-y-Mwylach Roundabouts All arms of the Croes-y-Mwylach Roundabout are trunk road and therefore no comment is provided. With regards to Treherbert Roundabout the increase in flow is shown to be less than 5% and therefore no analysis has been undertaken. 9.4 Turnpike Roundabout Capacity analysis needs to be undertaken so that modelled queues can be validated against observed actual queues. The turning count identifies the actual peak periods as 07:45-08:45 and 16:00-17:00 hours not 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18:00 as modelled. Analysis of these periods should include the correct HGV percentages e.g. the percentage HGV figure from A4042 northbound in the PM peak should be increased from 1% to 6%. A 1:500 scale plan of the proposed junction is required as Drawing P012X-WSP-C-XX-GA-GR-XX-1803 Rev 01 states ‘No Not Scale’ and therefore an audit of the geometries used in the ARCADY analysis cannot be undertaken. The plan should include proposed lane markings.

The proposed junction geometry modelled results in an increase in the half width on Caerleon Road from 3.64m to 6.0m. This is incorrect and the measurement should be undertaken at a point in the approach upstream from any entry flare.

Is a three lane entry proposed on the Caerleon Road approach? If not, then the 1m increase in entry width will, in reality, have little impact on the capacity of the junction. If a three lane approach is proposed than the entry width should be increase from the proposed 8.7m.

With the provision of the required traffic flow diagrams, the requirement to review unequal lane usage on all arms will be assessed.

Even with improvements and the impact of the Travel Plan taken into account, the queue on the A4042 North arm in the AM peak is 101.7 vehicles with an RFC of 1.031. This causes concern for ambulances approaching from the north. The RFC on the Caerleon Road and A4042 south approaches in the AM peak at 0.852 are just over the 0.85 limit. Without the development and associated improvements, the RFC on Caerleon Road is 0.846.

In the AM peak the modelled queue, taking into account a 4% reduction in flow due to the Travel Plan, results in a queue of 21.6 vehicles on Caerleon Road. At 5.75m per vehicle, this equates to 124.2m. There will be some stacking provision with the second lane at the entry, but changes in the flow profile and testing of unequal lane use etc may all cause potential queues to extend back through the access roundabout.

9.5 Crown Roundabout Capacity analysis needs to be undertaken so that modelled queues can be validated against observed actual queues.

No increase in traffic flow on Crown Road has been assumed. However, with increased flows and junctions on Caerleon Road, it is envisaged that flows on this rat run will increase and this should be taken into account in the assessment.

The impact of the development traffic, with a 4% reduction in flow due to the Travel Plan, is quantified in Table 9.23 as a doubling of the delay from 50.4 to 109.2 seconds on Newport Road in addition to a queue of 53 vehicles on the A4042 North arm in the AM peak. The AM peak queue on Newport Road nearly trebles from 10.7 to 29.5 vehicles. In the PM peak Newport Road delay increases by 71.8 seconds with a queue increase of 25.2 vehicles. This contradicts paragraph 9.5.13 which states ‘the relative impact is still very low and that mitigation beyond the implementation of the Travel Plan is not required.’ Site Access Priority Junction No analysis has been required and should be undertaken, taking into account the Crown Rise arm. WSP has modelled this junction as a staggered three arm junction. For the purpose of robustness it is assumed that all development traffic would access and egress the site WSP Response to QUERY 14

Site Access The junction has been modelled based on the proposed geometries of the junction using industry standard software. Inevitably the junction geometry evolved during the design process and which explains the changes between the draft and final TAs. The assessment demonstrates that the access junction comfortably operates within capacity based on an overly robust assessment which includes significantly higher traffic growth than what would be expected in reality. Turnpike Roundabout

The Geometry of the junction has been updated so that the approach half width is 3.62m and entry width increased to 9.1 (three lane entry). The updated Turnpike Roundabout design is provided in Drawing P012-WSP-C-XX-GA-GR-SK-0007 Rev 2.

Additionally a PM peak assessment of 1600 to 1700 has been undertaken, see Table 11 and Appendix A.

Furthermore, an assessment of unequal lane usage has also been undertaken (as requested by Capita) in order to provide confidence to TCBC that queuing at Caerleon Road does not block back onto the proposed access junction.

Capita indicate that a queue of 21.6 vehicles is forecast to occur on Caerleon Road based on the assessments within the WSP TA. It must be noted that this is not correct and in fact the TA states queuing is forecasted to be 5.5 vehicles whilst the delay is forecasted to be 21.6 seconds.

The results of the updated model results are provided in Table 11. It should be noted that these assessments do not take into account the reduction in development traffic, circa 4%, that would be associated with the implementation of a Travel Plan.

Table 11: Updated 2025 Turnpike Roundabout Assessment (Arcady outputs provided in Appendix A)

AM (0800 to 0900) 1600 to 1700 RFC Queue Delay RFC Queue Delay

A4042 North 1.038 113.8 68.58 0.553 1.2 3.0 Caerleon Road 0.990 22.2 65.4 0.676 2.1 7.2 A4042 South 0.869 6.5 10.8 0.958 19.0 25.8

Turnpike Road 0.858 5.6 27.0 0.891 6.9 42.6

As outlined within the updated assessment the key impact during the AM peak is an increase in queuing at the Caerleon Road approach which equates to 22.2 vehicles or 128 metres. The distance between the turnpike Roundabout and the proposed access roundabout equates to circa 150 metres, and therefore queuing on Caerleon Road will not back up onto the proposed access roundabout. The assessment of the PM peak is for the 1600 to 1700 period as requested by Capita. This generally shows the junction operating within capacity with minimal queuing on the Caerleon Road arm.

A further assessment of the Turnpike Roundabout has been undertaken taking into consideration unequal lane usage for the 0800 to 0900 and 1600 to 1700 period. It is proposed that Caerleon Road will include a three lane entry (nearside lane = left turn only, middle lane = left turn and straight ahead, offside lane = right turn only). This has been modelled by removing the right turn traffic from Caerleon Road and then reducing the entry width down to 6m with a 25 metre flare. The results of the assessment shows queuing at the Caerleon Road arm of only 2.3 vehicles between 0800 to 0900 and 2.9 vehicles between 1600 to1800. The full ARCADY outputs are provided in Appendix A.

Crown Roundabout Further analysis of the Crown Roundabout has been undertaken to take into consideration any re-routing in traffic which could be associated with queuing and delay at the junction. Table 12 provides a summary of how the junction is likely to operate in a forecast year of 2025 with the presence of committed development traffic and without the development on the network.

Table 12: 2025 Base + Com Dev

Arm AM Peak (0800 to 0900) PM Peak (1700 to 1800)

RFC Queue Delay RFC Queue Delay

A4042 North 1.126 313.4 207.6 0.529 1.1 3

Crown Road 1.148 34.2 268.2 0.147 0.2 4.8

A4042 South 0.742 2.8 6 0.846 5.4 9.6

Newport Road 0.932 10.7 50.4 1.193 99.9 307.2

Llanfrechfa Way 0.752 2.9 20.4 0.608 1.5 14.4

The presence of development traffic on the network is forecasted to have the following impacts (Table 13 below) on the capacity, delay and queuing at the junction. Table 13: Traffic Impact of the Development on Crown Road

Arm AM Peak (0800 to 0900) PM Peak (1700 to 1800)

RFC Queue Delay RFC Queue Delay

A4042 North 0.022 52.6 28.2 0.022 0.1 0

Crown Road -0.006 -0.9 -5.4 0.005 0 0.6

A4042 South 0.053 1 1.8 0.025 1.2 1.8

Newport Road 0.087 18.9 58.8 0.067 25.2 72

Llanfrechfa Way 0.062 1.2 6.6 0.018 0.2 1.2

Given the increases in queuing and delay at Newport Road it is considered that there could be re-routing of some traffic. A realistic alternative for those approaching the Crown Roundabout via Newport Road would be to approach the junction via the A4042 south approach to the junction which operates within capacity with minimal queuing and delay. If 25% of traffic, which travels along Newport Road, were to re-route the impact on junction performance would be as summarised in Table 14. Table 14: Traffic Impact assuming re-routing

Arm AM Peak (0800 to 0900) PM Peak (1700 to 1800)

RFC Queue Delay RFC Queue Delay

A4042 North 0.022 52.6 28.2 0.022 0.1 0

Crown Road -0.006 -1.2 -5.4 0.006 0 0.6

A4042 South 0.107 2.7 4.2 0.077 5.9 7.8

Newport Road -0.03 -2.9 -3 -0.054 -37 -63.6

Llanfrechfa Way 0.075 1.6 9 0.048 0.4 3

As outlined in Table 14 the proposed development is likely to have a negligible impact on the junction with minimal increases in queuing and delay on most arms of the junction. The A4042 North approach experiences an increase in queuing of 53 vehicles however this only equates to a delay of 28 seconds. In light of the above, it is considered that the impact of the development on the Crown Road Roundabout is negligible based on an extremely robust assessment. Details of the ARCADY outputs are provided in Appendix B. The issue of rat running via Crown Road has also been identified as a concern. It is proposed that the Travel Plan will encourage staff to travel to and from the site via the Turnpike Roundabout. The Travel Plan will include a signage strategy to discourage the use of Crown Road as a ‘rat run’ to the A4042 Crown Roundabout and will also be monitored through the Travel Plan. Any material increase in traffic on Crown Road, attributed to the development, will result in management measures being promoted to TCBC. The details of the S.106 will be included within the Section 106 Heads of Terms to be agreed with TCBC. Site Access Priority An assessment of the existing priority Access has been undertaken which demonstrates that the junction operates within capacity in a forecast year of 2025 with the presence of committed and development traffic on the network. For the purpose of this assessment it is assumed that 50% of the development traffic will utilise the priority junction, however, in reality, this figure is likely to be lower. The PICADY assessment outputs are provided at Appendix C. Construction Traffic CAPITA Query 15 Enabling works will commence in early 2013, with main construction works between July 2014 to the end of 2017 with the earliest full occupation by the end of 2018. A figure of 1,177 (two way) vehicular movements during the most intense period of construction is provided. Details on how this figure has been calculated are required. Furthermore, over what duration does this intense period of construction last and the traffic generation levels predicted between early 2013 and late 2018 need to be quantified. The 1,177 (two way) trip generation is based on 448 HGVs and 729 car movements associated with staff. Can evidence of previous construction works be provided to support these figures and inform the assumption of 80% of staff during this period will drive to the site? Will construction vehicles from the Ponthir Industrial Estate be forced to travel via the A4042 (T) and how will such routing restrictions be applied? The percentage change in flow on the network is provided in AADT terms. AM and PM peak flows changes are also required to be summarised. The increase in HGV movements on the local road network also needs to be assessed. From the limited figures provided, during construction there will be over a 6 percent increase in traffic on Caerleon Road. This increase is significant given that two large opposing vehicles cannot pass and the adjacent footway is narrow. Any increase in large vehicles would be detrimental to pedestrian safety. The proposed hours for construction traffic movements need to be provided as does a construction travel plan.

WSP Response to QUERY 15 The level of impact identified in the TA and ES on Caerleon Road relates to the section from the proposed site access and then northbound to the Turnpike Roundabout. The impact on Caerleon Road to the south of the proposed access is likely to be negligible as construction traffic routing can be controlled within a defined routing plan to be included within the CEMP secured by s106 agreement. The construction traffic routing will be managed through the Construction Management Plan, which will be an intrinsic part of the Contractor’s process of procuring and appointing sub-contractors and suppliers for the project. It should be noted that the construction trip generation volumes are broad, yet robust, estimates as they will ultimately depend on the agreed construction methodology and the final building design. The most intense period of construction will occur during the enabling work period. The intention is to undertake this over the quickest period possible (2 months September / October 2013). The construction impact and mitigation strategy will be finalised within the CEMP, however, it must be iterated that the construction impacts along Caerleon Road are largely confined to the section between the proposed site access and the Turnpike Roundabout. It is proposed that a CEMP will be secured and monitored via a section 106 agreement. One of the objectives of the CEMP will be to deter construction traffic from using Caerleon Road to the south of the site with measures including;

A construction traffic signing strategy to/from the A4042 via the Turnpike roundabout; Signage on Caerleon Road to the south of the site prohibiting construction traffic ‘except for

local access’; Monitoring of compliance and where necessary its enforcement.

10.0 Employment Land CAPITA Query 15 Trip generation figures for 10,000 sqm employment are provided. However, the split between B1 and B2 land uses needs to be provided and the associated TRICS datasets. Are these average or 85th percentile rates? WSP Response to QUERY 15 There is currently no detail available for an employment scheme, which is not currently a committed development. Therefore, this has not been assessed as accumulative development but to simply as a stand-alone test of the appropriateness of the proposed site access roundabout to also accommodate access to future employment land. The TRICS data is based on the average of 11 sites with B2 land use and 4 sites with B1 land use and applied to a 10,000 sq.m employment development. 11.0 Travel Plan Framework CAPITA Query 16

• Further details of existing public transport services, walking / cycling routes should be included as part of the Travel Plan Framework and / or the TA. • The commitment to effective Travel Planning could be demonstrated by a more definite commitment to the development of a Travel Plan Management Framework / demonstrating the existing commitment of the Health Board at other sites. Some of the statements used throughout could also do with being made definite commitments. • The data used to develop the modal shift targets (Section 11.6) is very generic. It seems a bit simplistic to use 2001 Census data for the ward in which the development is located, when: • The development will attract patients from a much larger area, • More detailed information should be available i.e. relocating staff In addition, there is no back-up information on how the modal shift targets were derived • The Travel Plan should be in place prior to occupation, in accordance with the proposed worded condition in 11.1.1. This conflicts with the final sentence of 11.7.2, which states a draft will be prepared within one year of occupation.

• Furthermore, due to the nature of the development there should be greater emphasis on:

• Disability Issues • Operational related transport – i.e. deliveries of supplies, equipment and support services to

the site. WSP Response to QUERY 16 As an outline application, the Travel Plan is proposed as a framework. It is proposed that a full and detailed Staff and Visitor Travel Plan will be secured via a Section 106 agreement. The Health Board will work with TCBC in developing the detailed Travel Plan and ensuring all areas of sensitivity are encompassed within it. The Health Board has, within the last 12-18 months, successfully implemented Green Travel Plans for two significant new Local General Hospital developments at Ysbyty Aneurin Bevan in Blaenau Gwent and Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr, in Caerphilly. The Green Travel Plans for the above locations were conditioned by the Local Planning Authority’s via the planning process and the Health board has successfully discharged the corresponding conditions for each location. In specific terms of the SCCC, the Health Board remains fully committed to implementing and delivering a Travel Plan for the proposed development and we expect its implementation will be secured by way of a planning condition. It is also proposed that an Operational Management Plan (OMP) will be secured which will include an assessment to determine the requirement for any overspill parking. The Travel Plan and OMP will be secured via a section 106 agreement. CAPITA QUERY 17 Drawing P012X-BDP-L-GA-GR-008 Rev 10

• Access to the main entrance is shown for buses. Which buses are proposed to access the hospital and with what frequency? What pull in /waiting provision is to be provided?

• A toucan crossing is proposed on Caerleon Road. A detailed plan of the proposal is required.

With the crossing on the northern side of the staff access to the site, the footway on the staff access road should also be on the northern side and extended further on the link road.

• Footway provision from the Twm Barlwm View junction to link into the proposed footway within

the site would provide a more direct access from the at grade crossing of the A4042 (T).

• With the staff and FM entrance in close proximity to Crown Road, has potential increases in rat running on this road by these users been assessed? Furthermore, the new site access roundabout and additional traffic from the development may encourage existing traffic on Caerleon Road to rat run via Crown Road. This is a sensitive location and deterrents / contributions to improvements, should be investigated.

• How will the Emergency Only Car Park be managed? Are these six spaces for disabled parking? If these six spaces are full, there is no other parking in the vicinity and therefore the possibility of illegal parking on the Ambulance Access Road to the Emergency Department.

• Are seven ambulance bays at the Emergency Department sufficient? • Swept path analysis of the proposed junctions and internal layout are required.

• 1:500 scale plans of alterations to existing junctions and proposed new junctions are be required.

• The proposed parking spaces need to be 2.6m x 4.8m with the disabled bays measuring 3.6m

x 4.8m • How will the split between the staff and visitor car parking be managed? • Cycle and motorcycle parking provision needs to be identified • How will the drop off and bus bays area work? Spaces need to be demarcated and swept path

analysis undertaken. What time limits to drop off are to be used and how will it be controlled. Based on hospitals elsewhere, what drop off demand is envisaged.

• Servicing bays needs to be demarcated and servicing demand detailed to confirm sufficient

spaces are proposed.

• More detail of the access junction to the staff car park to the south needs to be provided.

• With provision of a plan to scale, larger than A4, shown parking provision will be compared to the numbers stated in the TA.

• As a Critical Care Centre, priority should be given to accessing the emergency department on the emergency access link road, rather than to future employment land.

WSP Response to QUERY 16

The design of the masterplan will be finalised and agreed as part of a reserved matters planning application(s). However, as stated previously in this note, the indicative site layout fully accommodates bus services serving the development directly and which would be determined at a later stage. A revised layout for the Toucan crossing is included within this submission. See the relevant sections of this response. It is not proposed to improve accessibility to the at-grade crossing of the A4042 but to encourage use of the underpass by footway and underpass improvements. See the relevant sections of this response. The control and monitoring of rat-running via Crown Road has been addressed in this response. See the relevant section for details. The site layout is indicative at this stage, as this is an outline planning application, and will be subject to reserved matters applications. Additionally, an Operational Management Plan is proposed (secured via Section 106) which will detail how the site operates. Figures

• Flow diagrams showing AM and PM peak flows in the opening and design year with development traffic are required.

• The elements that make up the committed development flows as shown in Figure 7.3 and 7.4 should be identified by each development.

12.0 Summary and Conclusion The only transport related improvements proposed outside of the development area are to Turnpike Roundabout with:

• A4042 North entry width widened to 11.5m with a increase in the flare length to 40m • Caerleon Road entry width widened to 8.7m with an increase in the road half width to 6m.

and the provision of a toucan crossing on Caerleon Road. Therefore, there is no improvement to the connectivity of the Llanfrechfa community to Cwmbran by maximising the opportunities for pedestrian and cycle crossing points as stated in the Deposit Torfaen Local Development Plan and the Adopted Llanfrechfa Grange Development Framework There are no proposed improvements to the public transport service and associated facilities. There are no proposed improvements to the alignment or footway of Caerleon Road. Furthermore, TAN 18 states that a Transport Assessment should include a Transport Implementation Strategy (TIS) in which should ‘Set objectives for the development referring back to the development plan. Set out measures to achieve those objectives. Identifies the impacts that will be mitigated by the strategy including proposed enforcement through condition or obligations. Details for monitoring the scheme.’ This has not been included. WSP SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The assessment within the WSP TA is extremely robust (equivalent to a 63% increase in development) and provides a worst case scenario for assessment. Further analysis has been

undertaken to demonstrates the robustness of the report. Further improvements have been submitted for the Caerleon Road arm of the Turnpike roundabout. This includes extending the entry width to 9.1 metres and providing a 40 metre flare. It is confirmed that based on an extremely robust assessment, queuing at the Caerleon Road arm of the Turnpike Roundabout will not extend back onto the proposed access roundabout. Sufficient car parking is provided; however, an Operational Management Plan will be provided (secured via S106) to monitor car parking and to identify contingency plans and measures for overspill parking in the short and long term. Pedestrian access from the proposed Toucan Crossing to the improved underpass will be improved. Improvements to be delivered through a S278 agreement. A detailed Construction Environmental Management plan is proposed which will ensure that HGV movements on Caerleon Road to the south of the proposed access are minimised. The CEMP is to be secured and monitored via a S106 agreement. A staff and visitor Travel Plan will be secured via a S.106 agreement. This will include pedestrian and cycling signage, and road signs to discourage the use of Crown Road as a ‘rat run’ onto the A4042. The Travel Plan will monitor pedestrian access to the site and usage of Crown Road as a result of the development.

Appendix A

Updated Geometry 0800 to 0900 and 1600 to 1700

Unequal Lane usage assessments 0800 to 0900 and 1600 to 1700

Appendix B – Crown Roundabout Assessment

Appendix C – Site Access Priority (PICADY)