Appendix B3 - Forecasting Report

8/12/2019 Appendix B3 - Forecasting Report

1/89

Telford FutureLocal Action forSustainable Growth

December 2011

Forecasting ReportQ30061/VAA/FR

Submitted by Pell Frischmannon behalf of


2/89

TELFORD FUTURELOCAL ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTHFORECASTING REPORTQ30061/VAA/FR/REV C

Pell Frischmann

This report is to be regarded as confidential to our Client and it is intended for their use only and may not beassigned. Consequently and in accordance with current practice, any liability to any third party in respect ofthe whole or any part of its contents is hereby expressly excluded. Before the report or any part of it isreproduced or referred to in any document, circular or statement and before its contents or the contents ofany part of it are disclosed orally to any third party, our written approval as to the form and context of such apublication or disclosure must be obtained

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Telford and Wrekin CouncilEnvironment & Regeneration,

Network Management & Policy

Darby House

PO Box 212

Lawn Court, Telford

Shropshire TF3 4LB

Pell Frischmann9-10 Frederick Road

BirminghamB15 1JD

REVISION RECORD Report Ref:Rev Description Date Originator Checked Approved

A Draft Nov 2011 LA SW GTB Draft Final Nov 2011 LA SW GTC Final Dec 2011 LA SW GT


3/89


Pell Frischmann

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 11.1 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 11.2 STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... 11.3 CONSIDERATION FOR FUTURE DEMAND AND NETWORK ......................... 31.4 SCHEME OPTIONS ......................................................................................... 31.5 TRAFFIC MODEL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 41.4 OUTLINE METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 41.6 CONTENTS OF REPORT ................................................................................ 71.7 REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION.................................................................... 7

2. FUTURE YEAR MODEL SCENARIO ......................................................................... 8

2.1

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 8

2.2 FORECAST NETWORKS ................................................................................. 82.3 NETWORK CODING ........................................................................................ 8

3. FUTURE YEAR MATRIX DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 103.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 103.2 FORECAST MODEL TIME PERIODS ............................................................ 103.3 FORECAST REFERENCE CASE TRIP MATRICES ....................................... 113.4 MATRIX BUILDING METHOD ........................................................................ 113.5 TEMPRO GROWTH ....................................................................................... 123.6 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRIPS ........................................................... 133.7 UNCERTAINTY .............................................................................................. 22

3.8 COMBINATION OF MATRICES ..................................................................... 233.9 CONSTRAINING TO TEMPRO ...................................................................... 233.10 PUBLIC TRANSPORT FORECAST ................................................................ 26

4. TRAFFIC FORECASTING RESULTS ...................................................................... 304.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 304.2 VARIABLE DEMAND MODELLING ................................................................ 344.3 FORECAST CONVERGENCE ........................................................................ 344.4 DEMAND RESPONSE FOR CAR ................................................................... 36

5. HIGHWAY NETWORK PERFORMANCE ................................................................ 425.1 NETWORK PERFORMANCE ......................................................................... 42

6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE .............................................. 54

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................... 607.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 607.2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 60

APPENDICESAppendix A TEMPRO Forecast for Cars and Public TransportAppendix B Committed Development Trips EmploymentAppendix C Committed Development Trips Residential


4/89


Pell Frischmann


5/89


Pell Frischmann

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 Pell Frischmann has been commissioned by Telford and Wrekin Council (T&WC)to use the recently completed VISUM Strategic transport model for Telford. The

model has been used to generate traffic forecasts to aid in the assessment of the

Telford Future scheme. The model traffic forecasts will be used in the economic

assessment of the scheme which is seeking funding from the DfT.

1.1.2 The model is intended to replace and update the existing strategic model with new

data and multi-modal capability. The model incorporates the Public Transport

services and the M54 as the strategic route enabling access to wider catchment in

the West Midlands Region.

1.1.3 This report describes the methods and process undertaken in preparing the traffic

forecasts derived from the 2009 Telford Strategic Model. The details of the 2009

Telford Strategic Model, its calibration and validation are described in the Telford

Strategic Transport Model - Phase 3 - Local Model Validation Report.

1.2 Study Area

1.2.1 Telford is a large town in the borough of Telford and Wrekin. The town has grown

from being a fledgling New Town to become a successful and thriving town of

over 140,000 people, with a wider Telford & Wrekin population of around 165,000

1.2.2 Telford is expected to grow rapidly in the next 20 years with an additional 25,000

homes and as a key sub-regional centre where office and retail growth will be

directed.

1.2.3 The study area that is encompassed in the model is shown on Figure 1.1.

1.2.4 Telfords strategic road network is based upon three roads, the town is bisected

east-west by the M54 Motorway with the A442 and A5223 forming a ring around

the conurbation. This ring distributes traffic to the districts that make up the widercommunity.

1.2.5 The town is served by four Junctions on the M54 motorway:

! Junction 4 is on the east side of the conurbation and primarily provides

access to the east end of Stafford Park and to the A442 to the south of the

town and the local districts of Priorslee and Saint Georges via the B5060 to

the north;

! Junction 5 provides access to the Town Centre;


6/89


Pell Frischmann

! Junction 6 is on the west side of the conurbation providing access to

Wellington and Hadley in the North and Lawley and Dawley in the south via

the A5223; and.

! Junction 7 is some distance to the west and forms the change of the main

route from motorway to the A5 all purpose dual carriageway. This junction

also provides access to the west side of Wellington.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. License No 100004912

Figure 1.1: Study Area

1.2.6 Junction 5 of the M54 takes the form of two separate sets of slip roads thatconnect at a single off set roundabout, known as Forge Roundabout. Forge

Roundabout suffers considerable peak period congestion. This is particularly a

problem for the east bound exit slip in the AM peak and for Rampart Way, Forge

Gate and Hall Park Way in the PM peak period.

1.2.7 Hollinswood Interchange is a grade separated junction over the A442 laid out

originally as a large roundabout, but is now mostly signal controlled. As well as

the slip roads to the A442 and the link to Forge Roundabout via Rampart Way,

there is also a link directly to the town centre via Hollinsgate, an access road to

the rail station car park and main bus/rail interchange, an access road to StaffordPark, a major employment centre, and a seventh arm the A5 Telford Way.


7/89


Pell Frischmann

Congestion occurs on all arms of the junction in both peak periods, particularly as

the amount of stacking space on the circulating carriageway is limited, which in

turn limits the efficient operation of the junction.

1.2.8 The main highways into Telford town centre are high capacity two way roads

which lead to a 3 lane wide, one way system which encircles the main shopping

area (referred to as the box roadit includes Coach Central, Woodhouse Centre,

Lawn Central and Grange Central).

1.3 Consideration for Future Demand and Network

1.3.1 An earlier consideration identified 26,500 new houses for Telford as part of

Regional Spatial Strategy, which was subsequently abolished. The development

of the Local Development Framework (LDF) will identify the options and numbers

for housing.

1.3.2 Central Telford Area Action Plan (CTAAP) adopted in March 2011 forecasts major

employment growth in the Town Centre. The associated locations identified in the

CTAAP documents are considered in the development of the model.

1.3.3 Local Transport Plan 3 development is also taking place which sets out the

transport interventions. The CTAAP network improvements, likely future

Greyhound Link development and potential other network improvements

associated with the Borough are also considered in the base model development.

1.4 Scheme Options

1.4.1 Telford and Wrekin Council have produced a strategy aimed at promoting bus,

pedestrian and cyclist movements and slowing down traffic in and around the

town centre. This will reduce journey times and improve the accessibility of the

town centre by pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in healthier life styles, lower

carbon footprint of the town, and increased capacity of the town centre access

roads.

1.4.2 The proposals include the following elements:

! Improvements to Forge and Malinslee Roundabouts;

! Changes to traffic circulation measures - introduction of a two-way system

around the town centre;

! Junction, pedestrian and cyclist movement improvements; and

! Introduction of a shared vehicle-cyclist-pedestrian area.


8/89


Pell Frischmann

1.4.3 The proposed transport scheme will facilitate the delivery of the Central Telford

Area Action Plan (CTAAP), as adopted by the Council in March 2011, setting out

a strategy and policies for development in the town centre.

1.5 Traffic Model Background

1.5.1 Previously, a SATURN model was developed by Atkins for T&WC in association

with English Partnerships. The Atkins model developed in 2002 for Telford was

based on 2001 Road Side Interview data.

1.5.2 A Strategic Highway Model was developed for Telford by Jacobs in December

2007. The Strategic Highway model was developed using the VISUM package.

The network and matrices from the previously developed SATURN were updated

by Jacobs. More recent data was also used to develop the Jacobs VISUM model.

1.5.3 The 2007 VISUM model was developed for the AM and PM peak only, there was

no model developed for the inter-peak period, a requirement for a Major Scheme

Business Case. The model was not multi-modal and had no Variable Demand

Model element.

1.5.4 The approaching LTP, LDF and the potential for a Major Scheme Business Case

(MSBC), together with the need for multi-modal ability, a WebTAG requirement,

necessitates the re-development of the existing VISUM model. Amongst others,

the requirement was to produce a multi-modal model with a far more detailedzoning system to enable assessment of LDF options and provide a tool for LTP

assessment and future MSBC requirements.

1.4 Outline Methodology

1.5.5 This Forecasting Report describes the development and results of a demand

forecast of land use in 2015 and 2030 using the Telford Transport Models (TTM).

The TTM include a demand model (TDN), a highways model (THM) and a public

transport model (TPTM). The modelling approach takes future year developments

and changes in transport provision and produces forecasts of highway and publictransport demand.

1.5.6 As such, the Telford Transport Model will be able to:

! Identify the impact on the transport network of locating development in each

of the strategic residential and employment sites;

! Identify the potential for maximising the use of public transport for movements

to from sites;

! Identify the potentially significant switches in travel patterns arising from major

changes in employment type and location;


9/89


Pell Frischmann

! Support the District Council through the Local Development Framework (LDF)

process and any subsequent statutory processes.

1.5.7 The development of the forecast matrices for the TTM can be summarised in the

following tasks:

! Background Growth;

! Development Trips;

! Combination of Matrices; and

! Constraining to TEMPRO.

1.5.8

1.5.9 In summary, the main elements of the forecasting procedure are as follows:

! Produce base year 2009 AM/IP/PM calibrated models;

! Identify forecast years and traffic growth parameters (most likely case);

! Calculate any background growth of existing vehicle trips and apply to matrix;

! Assess planning data and quantify development-related trips to and from

specific model zones;

! Define future year highway networks;

! Calculate variable demand parameters (i.e. elasticity of demand);

! Undertake variable trip matrix VISUM assignment; and

! Analyse model outputs.

1.5.10 Traffic flow outputs and network performance will vary between forecast years,

growth scenarios, time periods and with/without scheme situations. The report will

show and explain why any major variations are expected to occur.

Future Year Model Development


10/89


Pell Frischmann

1.5.11 The development of the future year model relates to projecting changes in travel

demand and supply into the future. The base year model provides the starting

point for each element of these projections.

1.5.12 Future year travel demand relates to factoring the base year trip matrix in relation

to projected growth in travel demand. The Department for Transport (DfT)

provides national based forecasts via published summaries of traffic growth from

its National Transport Model (NTM) split into several vehicle types. Additionally,

the DfT provides localised projections for personal trips including cars via its

software suite TEMPRO. This suite encapsulates a range of responses that drive

changes in traffic levels, including car ownership, population, employment,

number of households, etc.

1.5.13 TEMPROs spatial detail although more localised than NTM, is still relatively

coarse for detailed modelling, with traffic growth factors typically split into several

areas for each local authority district. The software does include an adjustment

process to identify specific developments and exclude them from the wider traffic

growth factors to enable the use of development specific trip rates and

distributions.

1.5.14 Future year travel supply relates to updating the highway network to represent the

future year both withand withoutthe proposed road improvementscheme. The

without improvements network, known as the Do Nothing (DN), includes other

committed changes to the network which are planned to be delivered irrespective

of the scheme going ahead. The withimprovements network, known as the Do

Something (DS), includes the same committed schemes as in the Do Nothing plus

the scheme.

Traffic Forecasts


11/89


Pell Frischmann

1.5.15 The traffic forecasts developed for the study have been undertaken by assigning

the forecast trip matrices to the DN and DS networks within the VISUM software

suite.

1.5.16 The assignment process allows route choice, so the provision of the scheme in

the DS network may open up a new route onto which traffic re-assigns onto, if the

new route has lower trip costs than the existing routes. As a consequence of

traffic diverting to the scheme travel costs on existing routes change and are

generally lower due to reduced congestion on the existing routes

1.6 Contents of Report

1.6.1 This document provides a report of the methods and processes used in the

development of the traffic forecasts using the Telford Strategic model. The report

follows the approach previously outlined and is split into two chapters, as follows:

! Chapter 2 Future Year Model Scenarios; and

! Chapter 3 - Traffic Forecasts.

1.6.2 The report is concluded with Chapter 4, this summarises the forecast modelling

process and provides a conclusion on the robustness of the model for use in

assessing economic benefits of the scheme.

1.7 Reference Documentation

1.7.1 The following documents have been referenced in the development of the traffic

forecasts using the Telford Strategic Model:

! Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) Department for Transport;

! Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DNRB), Volume 12 - Traffic Appraisal

of Road Schemes - Department for Transport;

! Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DNRB), Volume 13 - Economic

Assessment of Road Schemes - Department for Transport;

! Guidance Note for Traffic Consultants Employed on Highways Agency

Schemes, Interim Advice Note 106/08 - Highways Agency; and

! VISUM 11.5 User Manual PTV, September 2010.

1.7.2 These documents have been referenced during the process. However, for clarity

the guidance given in these documents has been referenced only when it aids in

understanding the process. The guidance has been used too frequently for it to

be referenced at each instance of use, since this would clutter the report,

hindering the discussion and descriptions given. Where the reader requires

further clarity on the use of these references in the study please contact theauthor.


12/89


Pell Frischmann

2. FUTURE YEAR MODEL SCENARIO

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This section describes the methods used in the development of the future yearhighway network and the travel demand matrices using the TTM. This includes a

description of the changes to the model network to represent the Do Nothing (DN)

and Do something (DS) schemes and forecasting processes used to produce

future year travel demand trip matrices.

2.1.2 Traffic forecasts have been produced for various scenarios. The scenarios

comprise a combination of assessment years, model time periods, traffic growth

conditions and highway network options.

2.1.3 As an input to this process, the compilation of network options for the futurescenarios are summarised in Section 2.2. Similarly, the full growth, reference

case, trip matrix production for each forecast scenario is detailed in Sections 3.

2.2 Forecast Networks

2.2.1 The assessment process is based on considering the differences in traffic impacts

from comparing trips assigned to the DN and DS networks with fixed and variable

demand.

2.2.2 The Do Nothing network required no modification to the base year network wasundertaken.

2.2.3 The Do Something network required the following modifications:

! Improvements to Forge and Malinslee Roundabouts;

! Changes to traffic circulation measures - introduction of a two-way system

around the town centre;

! Junction, pedestrian and cyclist movement improvements; and

! Introduction of a shared vehicle-cyclist-pedestrian area Coach Central.

2.2.4 The growth assumptions used are described in Section 3.5 of this report.

2.3 Network Coding

2.2.5 The coding of the Do Something network into the VISUM model simulation model

was based on estimating junction capacity related to the physical layout of the

intersections. This process was based on the calculation of VISUM saturation

flows (capacities) using the ARCADY, TRANSYT and PICADY formula in the

following Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) reports:

! Signalised junctions TRL Research Report 67;

!

Roundabout junctions

TRL Research Report 36;! Priority Junctions, Opposed movements TRL Research Report 35; and


13/89


Pell Frischmann

! Priority Junctions, Unopposed movements TRL Research Report 67.

2.3.1 The modifications to the network included new traffic signals at existing junctions.

In addition to layout information the VISUM model requires signal timings for each

stage within the signal cycle. These signal timings were initially estimated fromthe base year traffic flows at the relevant junction. These were then used in

calibration forecast assignments, and were adjusted to reflect future year travel

demand. In general, this related to adjustment of stage lengths in the opening

year, while in the design year cycle times were generally extended with stage

lengths adjusted appropriately. However, at the Forge junction the traffic signals

are to be MOVA controlled


14/89


Pell Frischmann

3. FUTURE YEAR MATRIX DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 In determining future year traffic forecasts the following has been reviewed: theLocal Transport Plan 3 (LTP3), which includes recent traffic growth patterns within

the authority, and the CTAAP which shows committed development proposals

within the town centre.

3.1.2 The core traffic growth scenario proposed assumes an opening year assessment

of 2015 including committed development. This scenario reflects small growth

being observed in the town centre but it also show that the committed

developments identified, which are reviewed in Section 4.2 of this report, are of a

significant size and influence. Thus, the core testing scenario is the opening year

of 2015 with committed developments identified constrained to TEMPRO growth.

Matrices have also been developed for the Design Year of 2030 constrained to

TEMPRO growth.

3.2 Forecast Model Time Periods

3.2.1 Modelled time periods for the traffic forecasts have been retained from the base

2009 Base model, namely:

! AM peak hour (08:00-09:00);

! PM peak hour (17:00-18:00); and! Inter peak hour (10:00-16:00).

3.2.2 The future Model forecast years have been selected to be 2015 and 2030.

Forecasts have been produced for the DN and DS network.

3.2.3 In line with appraisal guidance, traffic growth from base year 2009 has been

accounted for in all of the model forecasts. Traffic growth is considered to be

inevitable in response to economic and demographic change.

3.2.4 Initially, the above scenario has been forecast as full-growth for each future yearand time period. This full growth represents conditions that would prevail in

future, if vehicle users did not adjust their trip patterns in response to changes in

road congestion and their ease of travel. However, the forecasts have

subsequently been adjusted to allow for such variable trip matrix effects (induced

and suppressedtraffic).

3.2.5 The determinants of the growth scenario are as follows:

! TEMPRO local area planning data;

!

DfT 2009 Road forecast for England! Site-specific development proposals; and


15/89


Pell Frischmann

! Road infrastructure schemes.

3.3 Forecast Reference Case Trip Matrices

3.3.1 The need to forecast growth in car, public transport, light and heavy goodsvehicles trip ends from 2009 to 2015 and 2030 is termed background growth. In

order to calculate the vehicle and public transport forecast trip ends, TEMPRO

(v6.2) has been used to obtain growth forecasts. However in order to more

realistically reflect projected land use changes, travel demand growth has been

distributed throughout the area using more detailed local planning data supplied

by the T&WC.

3.3.2 In this section, there is a summary of how the full-growth reference case all-

vehicle trip matrices have been constructed for each of the forecast situations.

These full growth matrices have been derived from the 2009 base year calibrated

AM peak, Inter peak and PM peak models, but with adjustments made to take

account of the following:

! Background growth of existing trips after 2009 in response to demographic

economic, as predicted in TEMPRO and NTM forecast; and

! Zone-specific land use committed development as per planning permission

registered by planning authorities.

3.4 Matrix Building Method

3.4.1 Future year matrices have been produced by applying separate forecasting

techniques to different parts of the 2009 base matrix and by then combining the

constituent parts. Key stages in the matrix forecasting, for 2015 and 2030

forecast year and time period, were as follows:

! 2009 Base matrix by journey purpose as a starting point;

! Separation of car and LGV matrices into longer distance (strategic) traffic and

local shorter distance (internal) traffic;

! Calculation of TEMPRO background growth factors by journey purpose;

! Application of TEMPRO background growth to cars and LGV for internaltraffic only;

! Calculation of strategic traffic growth factors using NTM forecast;

! Application of strategic traffic growth factors to strategic, longer distance car

and LGV trips;

! Application of strategic traffic growth factors to heavy vehicle trips;

! Addition of land use development trips to the cars, LGV and HGV matrices

after factoring for background growth; and

! Derivation of trip origins and destinations at key land use developments.


16/89


Pell Frischmann

3.4.2 Details of the various stages of matrix building are set out in the following

sections.

3.5 TEMPRO Growth

3.5.1 The factors have been derived from TEMPRO 6.2 and without modification by fuel

and income factors for use in a highway model as recommended by guidance.

The mean of the Originsand Destinationsbackground growth factors have been

presented by TEMPRO zones as shown in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: TEMPRO zones in Telford and Wrekin

3.5.2 The seven TEMPRO zones representing the key study area of Telford are:

! Rural area of Telford and Wrekin;

! Newport;


17/89


Pell Frischmann

! Oakengates and Donnington;

! Telford;

! Ironbridge and Madeley;

!

Hadley; and! Wellington.

3.5.3 TEMPRO factors were not adjusted for fuel and income effects (as advised in

WebTag 3.15.2). TEMPRO Growth factors applied to the validated 2009 Base

Year matrix are shown in Appendix A by peak period, journey purpose and

TEMPRO zone.

Strategic Longer Distance Traffic Growth between 2009 and 2015 and 2030

3.5.4 Growth rates derived from the DfT 2009 Road Forecasts for England were used to

forecast car, LGV and HGV for strategic movements. The growth factors for 2009

to 2015 and 2030 are shown in Table 3.1.

Future year Car LGV OGV1/OGV2

2015 1.0149 1.1404 1.0365

2030 1.2635 1.5974 1.1492

Table 3.1: Growth Factors Based on 2009 Road Forecasts for England

3.5.5 Overall, full growth, all-vehicle, trip matrices for 2015 and 2030, time period and

growth scenario were produced, by combining the internal cars and LGV trips,

strategic cars, LGV and HGV trips as well as development trips for cars, LGV and

HGV trips.

3.6 Committed Development Trips

3.6.1 In accordance with WebTAG 3.15.5 The Treatment of Uncertainty in Model

Forecasting and following consultation with TWC, we have developed an

Uncertainty Log, which identified the proposed developments within the study

area and attaches a level of uncertainty. This is reproduced from the Guidance in

Table 3.2below.

Probability of the Input Status

Near Certain:The outcome will happen or thereis a high probability that it willhappen.

! Intent announced by proponent to regulatoryagencies;

! Approved development proposals; and

! Projects under construction.

More than likely:The outcome is likely to happenbut there is some uncertainty.

! Submission of planning or consent applicationimminent; and

! Development application within the consentprocess.

Reasonably Foreseeable:The outcome may happen, but

! Identified within a development plan;! Not directly associated with the transport


18/89


Pell Frischmann

Probability of the Input Status

there is significant uncertainty. strategy/scheme, but may occur if thestrategy/scheme is implemented;

! Development conditional upon the transportstrategy/scheme proceeding; and

! Or a committed policy goal, subject to testswhose outcomes are subject to significantuncertainty.

Hypothetical:There is considerable uncertaintywhether the outcome will everhappen.

! Conjecture based upon currently availableinformation;

! Discussed on a conceptual basis;

! One of a number of possible inputs in an initialconsultation process; and

! Or a policy aspiration.Table 3.2: Classification of Future Inputs

3.6.2 The Core Scenario includes those Developments with a status of Near CertainorMore than Likely. Table 3.3 presents the Uncertainty Logs for future

developments for the larger scale development locations.

Input/Land use Quantum Uncertainty Comments Include

Southwater

PlanningConsent granted

ConstructionStarted on site

High Quality Office space 27,300 m2 More than likely Yes

A3/A4 Bars and RestaurantsA1/A2 Retail Space

4,127 m2 Near Certain Yes

Community facility including a

library3,029 m2 Near Certain Yes

TIC events facilities 13,000 m2 Near Certain Yes

Three Hotels 450 beds More than likely Yes

Nine screen cinema 3,716 m2 Near Certain Yes

Residential units 330 More than likely Yes

Two Energy Centres - More than likely Yes

Multi-storey car park - Near Certain Yes

ASDA Southwater WayPlanning

Consent grantedSupermarket 60/40

Food/Non Food8,500

m

2 Near Certain Yes

Red Oak PlanningConsentGrantedA1 Retail space 11,675 m

2 More than likely Yes

Residential only

Britannia Way, Hadley 200 Near Certain



Yes

Ketley Millennium Community 700 Near Certain Yes

Lawley Village 3,300 Near Certain Yes

Lightmoor Urban Village 800 Near Certain

Station Road, Donnington 250 Near Certain

Apley Castle, A442 200 More than likely Planning


19/89


Pell Frischmann

Input/Land use Quantum Uncertainty Comments Include

Frame Lane, Dosley 58 More than likely Consent granted

Furnace Road, Snedshill 60 More than likely

Marshbrook Way, Muxton 144 More than likely

Park Lane, Woodside 186 More than likely

Priorslee East 230 More than likely

Redhill Way 350 More than likely

Shifnal Road 129 More than likely

TAFS Development, Gower St 200 More than likely

Trench Lock Capewell 400 More than likely

Trench Lock Phase 1 100 More than likely

Lakeside Development


B1 66,500 m2 More than likely Yes

Hotel (beds) 225 More than likely Yes

Residential 550 More than likely Yes

Nom Dairy Muston PlanningConsent granted


B1 2,970 m2 Near Certain Yes

B2 9,977 m2 Near Certain Yes

Queensway Business Park PlanningConsent granted

B2 5,800 m

2

Wickes Holyhead Road Planning

Consent grantedNon Food Retail 5,653 m2

Table 3.3: Core Scenario Uncertainty Log

3.6.3 It is assumed that all committed developments will be completed by the 2030

Design Year but only some of them will be occupied by 2015, the Scheme

Opening Year. Table 3.4details how much will be completed by opening year

Location Land Use Units Quantum OY Total

Central Park, HollingswoodRoad

B1 m2 10204 10204

Lakeside Development, CastleFarm Way nr Ricoh Site

B1 m2 66500 66500

Nom Dairy Muston, Granville Rdadj. Granville R'bout

B1 m2 2970 2970

Nom Dairy Muston, Granville Rdadj. Granville R'bout

B2 m2 9977 9977

Queensway Business ParkHadley Park

B2 m2 5120 5120

Queensway Business ParkHadley Park

B2 m2 680 680

Lakeside Development, Castle

Farm Way nr Ricoh Site Hotel beds 225 225


20/89


Pell Frischmann

Location Land Use Units Quantum OY Total

Wickes Holyhead Road, adj.Greyhound r'bout

NFR m2 5653 5653

B1/B3 Apley Castle, A442

Adj.Sparrowhawk Way Res Dwellings 200 200Britannia Way Hadley Res Dwellings 200 186

Frame Lane Doseley Res Dwellings 58 58

Furnace Road, adj. SnedshillTrading Estate

Res Dwellings 60 60

Ketley Millennium Community Res Dwellings 700 699

Lakeside Development, CastleFarm Way nr Ricoh Site

Res Dwellings 550 550

Lawley Village Res Dwellings 3300 1413

Lightmoor Urban Village Res Dwellings 800 800

Muxton C2/C3 (MarshbrookWay)


Park Lane Woodside Res Dwellings 186 186

Priorslee East (off GatecombeWay)


Redhill Way, op LodgewoodFarm


Shifnal Road, opp Halls ofResidence


Station Road Donnington Res Dwellings 250 250

TAFS Development, Gower Stadj. mini r'bout


Trench Lock Capewell,Sommerfield Road


Trench Lock Phase 1,Sommerfield Road


Red Oak (60% food/40% nonfood)

A1 m2 11,675 11.675

ASDA (off Southwater Way) A1 m2 8,178 8,178

Malinslee Link (south ofSouthwater Way)

Res Dwellings 80 80

Southwater

Office m2 27,300 1,300

A1/2/3/4 m 4,127 3,451

Library m2 3,029 3,029

TIC m 13,000 7,000

Hotel Beds 450 82

Cinema m2 3,716 3,716

Res Dwellings 330 0

EnergyCentres

2 1

MSCP Spaces 604 604

Table 3.4: Core Scenario Development


21/89


Pell Frischmann

Smaller Scale Committed Developments

3.6.4 T&WC provided details of smaller scale Committed Developments from theirplanning applications which have been approved. These developments are

therefore classed with a near certain probability and will be included in the core

scenario.

3.6.5 It is assumed that all these committed developments will be completed by the

2015 Opening Year. Development trip predictions were produced for the 891 key

land use sites that are committed within the study area.

3.6.6 The development trips were then added into the internal matrices. The locations of

these sites are as shown in Figure 3.2. The development matrices have beenderived based on:

! Land Use Trip Rates;

! Development Distributions.


22/89


Pell Frischmann

3.6.7 Vehicle trip generations and attractions at the development sites have been

adopted from TRICs 2011(b) and agreed with T&WC.

3.6.8 Trip rates for new developments have been supplied and agreed between T&WC

and the planners. These have been based on the TRICS database and are

outlined in Table 3.5on a per unitbasis, being per household for residential, and

per hectare gross floor area for employment.

3.6.9 It is recognised that trips generated from the new developments consist of cars,

LGVs, HGVs and PSVs. The split by journey purpose was assumed to be of

similar to TEMPRO forecast year

3.6.10 Distribution of development trips amongst origin and destination zones in the

model matrices has been determined using a Furnessprocedure. This technique

predicts how new trips from origin zones were likely to be distributed amongst

distribution zones. The process was structured to match the pattern and

distribution of origin destination movements contained in the validated matrices in

the 2009 base model.

3.6.11 A separate development-only trip matrix was created for each of the committed

development sites and for each time period, assessment year and growth

scenario. These were then combined and added to the internal and heavy vehicle

matrices.

3.6.12 The predicted trip patterns for developments with planning permission, at the

development sites to be included in the forecasts, are as shown in Appendix B

for employment and Appendix Cfor residential.


23/89


Pell Frischmann

Figure 3.2: Location of Residential and Employment Committed developments

3.6.13 Land use option scenarios were defined for this study. From these, individual

residential and employment developments have been specified and this data has

been used to create an overall new development trip matrix for the 2015 and 2030

AM and PM peak hours. Each development has been modelled using a separate

zone, so that the impacts of any individual development can be identified in the

assignments. A summary of the Development trip rates is detailed in Table 3.5

and data used is shown in Appendix D.


24/89

TELFORD FUTURE LOCAL ACTION FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTHFORECASTING REPORTQ30061/VAA/FR/REV C

Pell Frischmann Page 20

Table 3.5: Land Use Trip Rates

CAR PSV OGV CAR PSV OGV CAR PSV OGV CAR PSV OGV CAR PSV

2 A1 SHOPS 2.60 0.05 2.44 0.03 3.40 0.00 0.05 3.41 0.00 0.05 2.96

3 A2 FINANCIAL & PROF SERVICES 0.52 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.04

4 A3 FOOD & DRINK 0.00 0.00 1.95 1.67 2.87

5 B1a OFFICES 1.33 0.003 0.007 0.244 0.003 0.006 0.302 0.003 0.004 0.320 0.003 0.004 0.177 0.003

6 B1b R&D 0.66 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.097 B1c LIGHT INDUSTRY 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00

8 B2 GENERAL INDUSTRY 0.29 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.00

9 B3 - B7 SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL GROUPS 0.14 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.04

10 B8 STORGAGE AND DISTRIBUTION 0.60 0.00 0.02 1.28 0.00 0.31 0.51 0.00 0.05 0.55 0.00 0.05 1.15 0.00

11 C1 HOTELS AND HOSTELS 0.32 0.01 0.52 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.41

12 C2 RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTION 0.502 0.046 0.0025 0.2475 0.0155 0 0.0698 0.0088 0.0025 0.0781 0.0075 0.0023 0.103 0.013

13 D1 DENTAL SURGERY 7.14 1.43 5.05 5.14 1.43

13 D1 EXH CENTRE 0.37 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00

13 D1 LIBRARY 0.75 0.06 0.58 0.04 1.28 0.01 1.07 0.00 0.62

13 D1 MEDICAL CENTRE 5.63 0.00 2.58 0.00 4.04 0.01 4.20 0.01 2.31

13 D1 MUSEUMS 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01

13 D1 NURSERY 5.24 0.00 0.02 4.05 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.01 0.00 1.12 0.01 0.00 3.84 0.00

13 D1 PLACE OF WORSHIP 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.40

13 D1 TRAINING CENTRE 0.49 0.81 0.02 0.16 0.81 0.02 0.26 0.41 0.00 0.33 0.54 0.00 0.20 0.00

13 D1 VETS 2.80 1.33 2.42 2.42 3.47

14 D2 ASSEMBLY & LEISURE 0.73 0.88 1.50 1.64 2.24

16 C3 RESIDENTIAL 0.10 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.30

17 SG SUI-GENERIS 0.52 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.0419 A5 TAKEAWAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.91 0.61 10.54 0.61 23.37

TYPECLASSUCOArrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals

AM IP

8 - 9 10 - 4


25/89



Plan NoDwellings/

Sqm

AMArrivalTotal

AMDeparture

Total

IPArrivalTotal

IPDeparture

Total

PMArrivalTotal

PMDeparture

Total

Residential 10,033 1,032 3,592 1,233 1,287 3,225 1,628

Employment 489,299 3,742 2,060 3,698 4,161 3,371 4,347

Total 4,774 5,652 4,931 5,448 6,596 5,976

Table 3.6: Summary of Development Trips

Development Distributions

3.6.14 The new developments have been broadly categorised into Residential and

Employment land uses. Different trip distribution matrices were built for each, as

they:

! Have different attractors and generators; and

! Have a different make-up of cars, LGV and Heavy Vehicles.

3.6.15 The development distributions are summarised in the following sections.

Cars and LGV

3.6.16 For new residential developments, cars and LGV trips leaving the sites weredistributed according to the nearest identical zone in term of Land use.

3.6.17 For employment developments, the distribution was derived based on destinations

from the employment zone.

Heavy Goods Vehicles

3.6.18 Development zones are also likely to generate and attract HGV trips as outlined

above. The distribution of these trips was estimated using the distributions of HGV

trips from the 2009 Base Year model.

Inter Development Trips

3.6.19 With such high levels of residential and employment sites proposed within T&WC,

the potential for trips to occur between new residential and employment

developments is high. To ensure that the model does not over-estimate trips,

potential linked movements between new residential and new employment zones

have been considered. This has been undertaken by considering the increase in

employment development trips relative to the total potential movements from all

residential areas within the study area. This proportional increase then provides a


26/89



guide for the level of movements 'to' new employment developments from the

new residential developments.

3.6.20 An example of this approach is outlined below:

! Total number of trip 'Origins' the study area in the AM peak (including the new

residential developments) = 40000;

! Number of trips with a 'Destination' at new employment areas in Telford =

800;

! Therefore the new employment sites represent around 12.5% of the trips

'Originating' from the study area; and

! Consequently it may be assumed that 12.5% of trips from the new residential

areas could go to the new employment sites.

3.6.21 These trips have been distributed between the new residential sites to the new

employment sites on a pro-rata basis, based upon the size of the employment site

in terms of trips. This approach differs from a traditional gravity model approach

which uses the relative size and distances between sites. This is because after

consideration of the study area, combined with the relative small size of Telford; it

is considered that distance would have a limited impact on destination choice.

Intra Development Trips

3.6.22 Intra development trips are trips that occur entirely within a mixed land use

development, and will not be observed as trips on the highway network.

3.6.23 In the Telford Model, the only significant site with large scale residential /

employment mixed use development is the Lakeside development. This site

contains 550 residential dwellings, 66,500 sqm of employment development and a

hotel. In this case, intra development trips have been assumed to be 30% of the

new residential trips within the Lakeside development and the demand matrices

have been adjusted to account for this. This methodology ensures that the

numbers of trips accessing and egressing the site are not overestimated.

3.7 Uncertainty

3.7.1 Current guidance requires that forecasts be based on most-likely (central) growth

estimates calculated from the TEMPRO and NTM based factors. These were

adjusted to include the most likely development related trips and are the core

forecasts in the assessment process. In addition to most-likely growth forecasts

guidance in WebTAG Unit 3.15.5 paragraph 1.4.13 requires the development of

two uncertainty forecasts. This guidance treats uncertainty by considering an

upper and lower range of variation around the central forecast provided by

TEMPRO and the NTM. This range varies travel demand around the central


27/89



forecasts by 2.5% for traffic forecasts one year ahead, rising with the square root

of the number of years to 15% for forecasts 36 years ahead.

3.7.2 The resulting range calculation for the design years from the base year 2009 areas follows:

! Opening Year (2015) range =6.12%.

! Design Year (2030) range = 11.46%.

3.7.3 These range values were applied to the most-likely travel demand matrices to

provide pessimistic (low-range) and optimistic (high-range) forecasts. The

identified developments incorporated in the most-likely forecasts are assumed to

go-ahead in both the pessimistic and optimistic forecasts, and are assumed to be

subject to the same range adjustments.

3.8 Combination of Matrices

3.8.1 The two components of matrix growth (as described in the previous sections)

were added and combined to produce the Pre-constrained Matrices for the 2015

and 2030 AM and PM Peak. These are:

! Background Growth; and

! Development Trips.

3.8.2 The combination process described above gives high demand forecasts for the

model. DfT guidance states that after the addition of developments to the

background growth matrices, the growth must be constrained to TEMPRO as

described in the next section.

3.9 Constraining to TEMPRO

3.9.1 To be compliant with DfT guidance, overall growth in the pre-constrained matrices

must be constrained to the TEMPRO 6.2 growth level. However, the development

growth proposed by T&WC in 2015 and 2030 as a whole exceeds the TEMPRO

household and job provisions for the Telford & Wrekin area. Each matrix by

journey purpose was constrained by TEMPRO sector separately so as to

accurately reflect growth within each TEMPRO sector, defined previously in

Figure 3.1. The overall total growth of each matrix is shown in Table 3.7 3.9.

AM Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth

2030 TotalTEMPROGrowth

EMP 2464 2546 2812 1.0333 1.1412

HBE 8500 8805 9805 1.0359 1.1535

HBO 5659 6236 7781 1.1020 1.3750


28/89



HBW 17337 17991 19853 1.0377 1.1451

NHB 2597 2737 3016 1.0539 1.1613

Total 36557 38315 43267 1.0595 1.1598

Table 3.7: AM Peak TEMPRO constrained Growth 2015/2030

3.9.2 The AM peak TEMPRO constrained car development growth is around 6% higher

in 2015 and 16% higher in 2030 than 2009 Base Year traffic;

IP Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 2427 2506 2727 1.0326 1.1236HBE 1738 1787 1905 1.0282 1.0961

HBO 8966 9892 12319 1.1033 1.3740

HBW 3424 3538 3799 1.0333 1.1095

NHB 5712 6018 6633 1.0536 1.1612

Total 22267 23741 27383 1.0580 1.2242

Table 3.8: Inter Peak TEMPRO constrained Growth 2015/2030

3.9.3 The Inter-peak TEMPRO constrained car development growth is around 6%

higher in 2015 and 22% higher in 2030 than 2009 Inter Peak Base Year traffic;

PM Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 1520 1573 1745 1.0349 1.1480

HBE 886 916 1005 1.0339 1.1343

HBO 11744 12690 15262 1.0806 1.2996

HBW 10911 11314 12476 1.0369 1.1434

NHB 4686 4964 5517 1.0593 1.1773

Total 29747 31457 36005 1.0532 1.1823

Table 3.9: PM Peak TEMPRO constrained Growth 2015/2030


29/89



3.9.4 The TEMPRO constrained car development growth is around 5% higher in 2015

and 18% higher in 2030 than 2009 PM Base Year traffic;

Figure 3.3: AM Peak Comparison of Growth by Journey purpose 2015 & 2030

3.9.5 As it can be seen in Figure 3.3 the overall TEMPRO growth in Telford is only

slightly lower than unconstrained growth.

Figure 3.4: Inter Peak Comparison of Growth by Journey purpose 2015 & 2030

0

5000

1000015000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

EMP HBE HBO HBW NHB Total

AM Growth Comparison

Base Year

2015 AM

2030 AM

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000


IP Growth Comparison

Base Year

2015 IP

2030 IP


30/89




slightly lower than unconstrained growth in inter peak period.

Figure 3.5: PM Peak Comparison of Growth by Journey purpose 2030


slightly lower than unconstrained growth in PM peak.

3.10 Public Transport Forecast

3.10.1 TEMPRO growth for bus and coach passengers has been used to project the

2015 and 2030 public transport matrices by TEMPRO sectors within Telford.

3.10.2 To be compliant with DfT guidance, overall growth in the pre-constrained matrices

must be constrained to the TEMPRO 6.2 growth level. TEMPRO Growth factors

applied to the validated 2009 Base Year public transport matrix are shown in

Appendix A by peak period, journey purpose and TEMPRO zone. The bus

passenger growth proposed by T&WC in 2030 as a whole is far lower than

TEMPRO as shown in Tables 3.10 to 3.15. Each matrix by journey purpose wasconstrained separately for car and non car available so as to accurately reflect

growth with each TEMPRO sector.

AM - CA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 16 16 17 1.0000 1.0625

HBE 148 151 171 1.0203 1.1554

HBO 189 196 232 1.0370 1.2275

HBW 151 150 154 0.9934 1.0199

NHB 16 17 18 1.0625 1.1250

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000


PM Growth Comparison

Base Year

2015 PM

2030 PM


31/89



AM - CA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


Total 520 530 592 1.0226 1.1181

Table 3.10: 2015 & 2030 AM Peak Public Transport Growth for Car Available

AM - NCA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 134 135 143 1.0075 1.0672

HBE 488 495 560 1.0143 1.1475

HBO 880 918 1096 1.0432 1.2455

HBW 746 742 761 0.9946 1.0201

NHB 126 132 146 1.0476 1.1587

Total 2374 2422 2706 1.0214 1.1278

Table 3.11: 2015 & 2030 AM Peak Public Transport Growth for non Car Available

3.10.3 The 2030 public transport growth for car and non car available passengers is

around 14% higher than 2009 AM Base Year traffic;

IP - CA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 16 16 17 1.0000 1.0625

HBE 38 39 44 1.0263 1.1579

HBO 216 226 275 1.0463 1.2731

HBW 28 28 28 1.0000 1.0000NHB 107 112 124 1.0467 1.1589

Total 405 421 488 1.0239 1.1305Table 3.12: 2015 & 2030 Inter Peak Public Transport Growth for Car Available

IP - NCA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 94 96 99 1.0213 1.0532

HBE 229 236 263 1.0306 1.1485

HBO 976 1021 1239 1.0461 1.2695

HBW 156 156 157 1.0000 1.0064

NHB 539 564 624 1.0464 1.1577

Total 1994 2073 2382 1.0289 1.1271Table 3.13: 2015 & 2030 Inter Peak Public Transport Growth for non Car Available


around 20% higher than 2009 Inter Base Year traffic;

PM - CA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 7 7 7 1.0000 1.0000


32/89



PM - CA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


HBE 78 81 89 1.0385 1.1410

HBO 91 94 111 1.0330 1.2198

HBW 72 72 72 1.0000 1.0000

NHB 46 48 53 1.0435 1.1522

Total 294 302 332 1.023 1.1026Table 3.14: 2015 & 2030 PM Peak Public Transport Growth for Car Available

IP - NCA Base Year 2015 20302015 TotalTEMPROGrowth


EMP 126 127 130 1.0079 1.0317

HBE 267 275 305 1.0300 1.1423HBO 559 583 685 1.0429 1.2254

HBW 327 327 328 1.0000 1.0031

NHB 234 245 271 1.0470 1.1581

Total 1513 1557 1719 1.0256 1.1121Table 3.15: 2015 & 2030 PM Peak Public Transport Growth for non Car Available


around 14% higher than 2009 PM Base Year traffic;

3.10.6 Changes in bus fares were derived using historical fare data from the Bulletin of

Public Transport Statistics. Table 3.16 shows the changes in bus fare receipts

since 1990/91. On this basis, a linear bus fare growth factor of 1.014% p.a. in real

terms was calculated for the period 1995 to 2010, and this was assumed to apply

from 2010 onwards. The fare was therefore assumed to increase by 5.2% by 2015

and 22.4% by 2030 in comparison to the base.

*adjusted for inflation using the RPI.

March 1995=100

Year1 London

English

metropolitan

areas

English non-

metropolitan

areas England Scotland Wales Great Britain

1995 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01996 101.8 102.7 102.0 102.1 100.4 98.9 101.8

1997 102.8 105.9 104.4 104.4 105.1 100.4 104.5

1998 103.3 107.6 106.0 105.7 109.9 103.8 106.3

1999 105.4 110.2 109.1 108.3 112.1 106.7 108.9

2000 102.5 112.0 111.3 109.1 111.8 110.9 109.6

2001 101.1 115.4 114.7 111.2 112.5 114.3 111.5

2002 97.0 119.3 118.6 112.9 112.6 118.1 113.1

2003 94.4 119.8 120.5 113.0 112.2 118.4 113.2

2004 97.7 122.4 123.3 115.9 110.5 120.6 115.5

2005 109.0 125.2 125.4 121.2 110.3 122.0 119.8

2006 112.5 133.9 132.0 127.5 112.7 124.2 125.6

2007 118.4 128.2 119.0 121.7 111.2 124.6 120.4

2008 108.8 129.5 120.8 120.4 111.0 126.0 119.4

2009 117.9 141.4 129.1 130.1 122.9 134.8 129.2

2010 127.1 136.5 125.2 130.4 120.3 131.8 129.1


33/89



Table 3.16: Local bus fares index (at 2009/10 prices*) by area type: Great Britain1995 to 2010


34/89



4. TRAFFIC FORECASTING RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This chapter summarises the results of the traffic forecasts for the opening year of

2015 and the scheme Design Year of 2030.

4.1.2 The full-growth future year reference casetrip matrices, were assigned on to the

DN and DS networks, to produce forecast traffic model outputs for 2015 and 2030,

model time periods (AM, IP and PM peak).

4.1.3 This section discusses the main aspects of the VISUM model runs. It summarises

the impact of full-growth trip volumes that is expected to arise in each forecast

situation.

4.1.4 The trip assignments were based on matrices with future year growth and

development trips constrained to TEMPRO growth. The matrices were assigned

for the DN and DS using the vehicle value of time and distance parameters shown

in Table 4.1and 4.2for 2015 and 2030.

2015 Weekday

MODEJourneyPurpose

AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

p per s

p per

m p per s

p per

m p per s

p per

mCar EMP 0.8104 0.0113 0.7928 0.0112 0.8104 0.0113

Car HBW 0.1747 0.0060 0.1733 0.0059 0.1747 0.0060

Car HBO 0.2217 0.0060 0.2305 0.0059 0.2217 0.0060

Car HBE 0.2217 0.0060 0.2305 0.0059 0.2217 0.0060

Car NHB 0.2217 0.0060 0.2305 0.0059 0.2217 0.0060LGV work/non-work

LGV0.3126 0.0065 0.3126 0.0065 0.3126 0.0065

OGV1/OGV2 HGV 0.2707 0.0203 0.2707 0.0200 0.2707 0.0203Table 4.1: Vehicle Values of Time and Distance 2030


35/89



2030 Weekday

MODEJourneyPurpose

AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

p per sp per

mp per s

p per

mp per s

p per

mCar EMP 1.0332 0.0099 1.0134 0.0098 0.9956 0.0100

Car HBW 0.2110 0.0042 0.2096 0.0042 0.2073 0.0042

Car HBO 0.2610 0.0042 0.2710 0.0042 0.2806 0.0042

Car HBE 0.2610 0.0042 0.2710 0.0042 0.2806 0.0042

Car NHB 0.2610 0.0042 0.2710 0.0042 0.2806 0.0042

LGV work/non-work

LGV 0.4005 0.0071 0.4005 0.0071 0.4005 0.0071

OGV1/OGV2 HGV 0.3483 0.0222 0.3483 0.0219 0.3483 0.0226

Table 4.2: Vehicle Values of Time and Distance 2030

4.1.5 The growth in traffic in the model area has increased the number of trips in the

network by around 5%, 7% and 6% respectively in the 2015 AM, Inter peak and

PM peak respectively. This has had an effect on traffic flows & delays in the

network when compared to the base year. Tables 4.3 4.5below illustrates the

difference in trips between the base year 2009 and 2015. The highest growth will

be in the Inter peak (7%).

Journey Purpose 2009 Base 2015Growth from

BaseGrowth from

Base %

Employers Business 2464 2543 79 3.2%Home Based Education 8500 8718 218 2.6%

Home Based Others 5659 6210 551 9.7%

Home Based Work 17337 17938 601 3.5%

Non Home Based 2597 2722 125 4.8%

Light Good Vehicles 1937 2209 272 14.0%

Heavy Good Vehicles 958 993 35 3.7%

Total 39452 41333 1881 4.8%Table 4.3: AM Comparison of 2009 and 2030 Matrices by Journey Purpose


BaseGrowth from

Base %

Employers Business 2427 2503 76 3.1%

Home Based Education 1738 1773 35 2.0%


Home Based Work 3424 3529 105 3.1%

Non Home Based 5712 5993 281 4.9%



Total 24596 26219 1623 6.6%Table 4.4: IP Comparison of 2009 and 2015 Matrices by Journey Purpose


36/89




BaseGrowth from

Base %




Home Based Work 10911 11278 367 3.4%

Non Home Based 4686 5195 509 10.9%



Total 31667 33685 2018 6.4%Table 4.5: PM Comparison of 2009 and 2015 Matrices by Journey Purpose

4.1.6 The growth in traffic in the model area has increased the number of trips in thenetwork by around 20%, 25% and 22% respectively in the 2030 AM, Inter peak

and PM peak respectively. This has had an effect on traffic flows & delays in the

network when compared to the base year. Tables 4.6 4.8below illustrate the

difference in trips between the base year 2009 and 2015. The highest growth will

be in the Inter peak (25%).


BaseGrowth from

Base %




Home Based Work 17337 19852 2515 14.5%

Non Home Based 2597 3016 419 16.1%



Total 39452 47460 8008 20.3%Table 4.6: AM Comparison of 2009 and 2030 Matrices by Journey Purpose


Base

Growth from

Base %Employers Business 2427 2727 300 12.4%



Home Based Work 3424 3799 375 11.0%

Non Home Based 5712 6633 921 16.1%



Total 24596 30759 6163 25.1%Table 4.7: IP Comparison of 2009 and 2030 Matrices by Journey Purpose


37/89




BaseGrowth from

Base %




Home Based Work 10911 12476 1565 14.3%

Non Home Based 4686 5517 831 17.7%


Heavy Good Vehicles 668 768 100 15.0%Total 31667 38773 7106 22.4%

Table 4.8: PM Comparison of 2009 and 2030 Matrices by Journey Purpose


38/89



4.2 Variable Demand Modelling

4.2.1 The WebTAG Guidance on Variable Demand Modelling (Units 3.10.1 to 3.10.5)

recommends that the assessments of Government funded investments intransport schemes needs to consider the effects of variable demand. The

guidance provides methods for assessing a schemes impact on travel demand on

consequential economic benefit.

4.2.2 The Telford Model has been formulated to represent travel demand relating to

highway movements. In the base year model development realism testing was

undertaken to establish parameters for use in variable demand modelling to

representing the distribution response.

4.2.3 Variable demand modelling has been undertaken using VISUMAddIn

nested

demand model which provides a direct link with the VISUM assignment software.

4.2.4 The trip distribution demand response only applies to trips with the differing

responses dependant on trip purpose. The car trips relating to work (employers

business) are least responsive, with commuting trips being more responsive and

other trips being the most responsive. The AddIn is based on incremental

changes from the pivot reference for each origin-destination pair, in the Do

Nothing assignments the pivot costs are the base year, while for the do something

assignments the pivot costs are the Do Nothing. The demand model loop

excludes LGV and OGV based trips which are considered to be fixed demands.

4.2.5 The average car occupancy were obtained from the RSI interviews.

4.2.6 Do Nothing highway networks, vehicle matrices, and pivot reference assignments

were input into VISUM demand model. The demand model then skims the

reference assignment costs and then uses the variable demand parameters to

create new VDN trip matrices. These matrices are then reassigned within

VISUM to recalculate new highway costs. This continues until specified

convergence criteria are met.

4.2.7 The demand response distribution lambda parameters for each journey purpose

used in the model are given in variable demand model report

4.3 Forecast Convergence

4.3.1 The model can be said to be properly assigned if it has converged through an

iterative methods of reaching equilibrium. The importance of achieving

convergence is related to the need to provide stable, consistent and robust model

results. On addition model convergence is the key to robust economic appraisal.

In VISUM, convergence is considered to be achieved if all matrix values of the link


39/89



attribute in the network differ from their preceding values by less than a given

threshold value. Two convergence criteria which are used are:

! Duality gap (absolute deviation) which expresses the convergence qualityas the volume-weighted difference between current total impedance

calculated on the network and the hypothetic vehicle impedance if all

vehicles would use nothing impedance routes (i.e. the best route). The

absolute value between maximum and nothing impedance should be less

than 5 seconds; and

! The relative gap (relative deviation) which determines the difference

between the current volume in the network and the equilibrium. It

measures the excess cost of vehicles that do not yet take the optimum

routes in proportion to the total impedance in the network. This valueshould be less than 0.1%.

4.3.2 The assignments undertaken for the base year model have been assessed in this

manner in order to ensure that the appropriate convergence has been achieved.

The results of these assignments are shown in Table 4.1.

Criteria AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak

Convergence after loop No. 15 9 17

Duality Gap (sec) 0.0015 0.0005 0.0027

Relative Gap (%) 0.0016 0.0005 0.0029

% Link Flows differing by < 5% 97.8 98.6 97.8Table 4.1: Highway Model convergence Results

4.3.3 The convergence criteria are set by the Department for Transport in Variable

Demand Modelling Convergence Realism and Sensitivity, Tag Unit 3.10.4 (April

2011). It states that a supply / demand %GAP value of less than 0.2% is an

acceptable level of convergence between supply and demand, with a desire level

less than 0.1%.

4.3.4 A summary of the convergence gap values is shown in Table 4.2 for the core

scenario forecast results for each of the model runs.

Criteria 2015 2030

Convergence after loops 16 22

% Gap 0.012% 0.016%Table 4.2: Demand Model convergence Results


40/89



4.4 Demand Response for Car

4.4.1 It is often easier to visualise the trip matrix in a sector form. For the Telford

Transport Model the following sectoring system was used (shown in Figure 4.1):

Figure 4.1 - Sector System in Telford

4.4.2 The model output for each time period have also been analysed and summarised

for Do Nothing and DS variable demand by Telford Super Output Area (SOA).

SOA 2015 AM DN 2015 AM DS Diff Diff%

1 South 508 508 0 0.0%

2 Hadley/Ketley 3713 3695 19 0.5%

3 Halesfield/Sutton Hill 820 804 16 2.0%


41/89



4 Iron Bridge/Madeley 1626 1611 16 1.0%

5 North Telford 1375 1363 11 0.8%

6 North-East Telford 5785 5749 36 0.6%

7 North-West Telford 5174 5035 139 2.7%

8 South-East Telford 1982 1902 80 4.0%

9 Stafford Park 1461 1453 8 0.6%

10 Town Centre 4380 4667 -287 -6.5%

11 West 2202 2202 0 0.0%

12 Newdale/Lightmoor 23 28 -5 -20.7%

13 Lawley 313 308 6 1.8%

14 South-West Telford 3467 3506 -39 -1.1%

15 North 2544 2544 0 0.0%

16 South 2947 2947 0 0.0%38322 38322 0 0

Table 4.3: AM Comparison of 2015 Cars trips

4.4.3 As it can be seen from the Table 4.3 the 2015 Do Something AM peak will lead to

an increase of 6.5 % increase Town Centre in car journeys.


42/89



SOA 2015 IP DN 2015 IP DS Diff Diff%

1 South 693 693 0 0.0%

2 Hadley/Ketley 2028 1959 69 3.4%



5 North Telford 839 850 -11 -1.3%



8 South-East Telford 1484 1522 -38 -2.6%

9 Stafford Park 198 200 -3 -1.3%

10 Town Centre 1764 2222 -458 -26.0%

11 West 1888 1888 0 0.0%

12 Newdale/Lightmoor 52 51 2 3.2%

13 Lawley 144 140 5 3.2%

14 South-West Telford 2588 2446 142 5.5%

15 North 1552 1552 0 0.0%

16 South 2049 2049 0 0.0%

23752 23752 0 0Table 4.4: Inter Peak Comparison of 2015 Cars trips

4.4.4 As it can be seen from the Table 4.4the 2015 Do Something Inter peak will lead

to an increase of 26 % in Town Centre increase in car journeys

SOA 2015 PM DN 2015 PM DS Diff Diff%

1 South 1087 1087 0 0.0%

2 Hadley/Ketley 2832 2817 14 0.5%

3 Halesfield/Sutton Hill 356 370 -14 -4.0%

4 Iron Bridge/Madeley 1072 1083 -11 -1.0%

5 North Telford 964 990 -26 -2.7%



8 South-East Telford 2252 2350 -98 -4.4%9 Stafford Park 92 88 4 4.0%

10 Town Centre 1020 1112 -92 -9.0%

11 West 3375 3375 0 0.0%

12 Newdale/Lightmoor 175 173 3 1.6%

13 Lawley 781 804 -24 -3.0%


15 North 3647 3647 0 0.0%

16 South 2448 2448 0 0.0%

31473 31473 0 0

Table 4.5: PM Comparison of 2015 Cars trips


43/89



4.4.5 As it can be seen from the Table 4.5the 2015 Do Something PM peak will lead to

an increase of 9 % in Town Centre increase in car journeys.

SOA 2030 AM DN 2030 AM DS Diff Diff%

1 South 571 571 0 0.0%

2 Hadley/Ketley 4313 4231 82 1.9%



5 North Telford 1476 1456 20 1.3%




9 Stafford Park 1597 1587 10 0.6%

10 Town Centre 4715 5057 -342 -7.3%

11 West 2482 2482 0 0.0%


13 Lawley 391 380 10 2.6%

14 South-West Telford 3846 3888 -41 -1.1%

15 North 2859 2859 0 0.0%

16 South 3294 3294 0 0.0%

43268 43268 0 0Table 4.6: AM Comparison of 2030 Cars trips

4.4.6 From the Table 4.6the 2030 Do Something AM peak it can be seen that there is

an increase of 7.3 % increase Town Centre in car journeys.


44/89



SOA 2030 IP DN 2030 IP DS Diff Diff%

1 South 807 807 0 0.0%

2 Hadley/Ketley 2369 2254 114 4.8%



5 North Telford 893 881 12 1.4%




9 Stafford Park 219 222 -3 -1.3%

10 Town Centre 1915 2466 -552 -28.8%

11 West 2188 2188 0 0.0%


13 Lawley 171 172 -1 -0.3%


15 North 1807 1807 0 0.0%

16 South 2344 2344 0 0.0%

27386 27386 0 0Table 4.7: Inter Peak Comparison of 15 Cars trips

4.4.7 As it can be seen from the Table 4.7the 2030 Do Something Inter peak will lead

to an increase of 29 % in Town Centre increase in car journeys.

SOA 2030 PM DN 2030 PM DS Diff Diff%

1 South 1237 1237 0 0.0%

2 Hadley/Ketley 3284 3196 88 2.7%


4 Iron Bridge/Madeley 1213 1241 -28 -2.3%

5 North Telford 1090 1081 9 0.8%



8 South-East Telford 2778 2819 -41 -1.5%9 Stafford Park 109 95 14 13.2%

10 Town Centre 1106 1250 -144 -13.0%

11 West 3858 3858 0 0.0%


13 Lawley 869 901 -32 -3.7%


15 North 4169 4169 0 0.0%

16 South 2767 2767 0 0.0%

36009 36009 0 0

Table 4.8: PM Comparison of 2015 Cars trips


45/89



4.4.8 As it can be seen from the Table 4.8the 2015 Do Something PM peak will lead to

an increase of 13 % in Town Centre increase in car journeys.

Journey Purpose 2015DN 2015DS Diff Diff %

Employers Business (EMP) 161 165 4 2.4%

Home Based Education (HBE) 732 742 10 1.4%

Home Based Others (HBO) 1329 1382 54 4.0%

Home Based Work (HBW) 916 945 29 3.1%

Non Home Based (NHB) 165 170 6 3.4%

Total 3302 3404 102 3.1%

Table 4.9: AM Comparison of 2015 Public Transport Passengers

4.4.9 From the Table 4.9 the variable demand will lead an increase of passengers by

3.1%. The highest increase will be for the HBO journeys.

Journey Purpose 2030 DN 2030 DS Diff Diff %




Home Based Work 185 192 7 3.9%

Non Home Based 749 770 21 2.8%

Total 2870 2978 107 3.7%

Table 4.10: IP Comparison of 2015 Public Transport Passengers

4.4.10 From Table 4.10, it can be seen that the variable demand will lead an increase of

passengers by 3.7%. The highest increase will be for HBO (4.6%) and the lowest

increase will be for Employers Business (1.7%).

Journey Purpose 2030 Fixed2030

VariableDiff Diff %



Home Based Others 795 821 25 3.2%Home Based Work 399 425 26 6.4%

Non Home Based 324 342 18 5.5%

Total 2051 2153 102 5.0%

Table 4.11: PM Comparison of 2030 Public Transport Passengers

4.4.11 Table 4.11shows that the variable demand will lead an increase of passengers by

5.0%. The highest increase will be for HBE (8.3%) and the lowest increase will be

for Employers Business (0.5%).


46/89



5. HIGHWAY NETWORK PERFORMANCE

5.1 Network Performance

5.1.1 The network performance for Telford is summarised in term of the following:

! Total distance travelled (vehicle kilometres) the total distance travelled on the

modelled highway network multiplied by the number of vehicles

! Total travel time (vehicle hours) the total time travelled on the modelled

network including delays multiplied by the number of vehicles

! Total delay (vehicle hours) total delay is taken as the difference between

congested and free flow travel time on the modelled highway network in hours

multiplied by the number of vehicles.

5.1.2 As it can be seen in Table 5.1, the vehicle hour in 2015 reduces in all peak

periods with the highest in PM peak (0.27%). The vehicle kilometre slightly

increases with the highest in PM peak (0.19%).

Period Attributes 2015 DN 2015 DS Diff Diff %

2015 AM Peak

Vehicle 38322 38322 0 0.00%

Vehicle hr 7606 7588 18 0.24%

Vehicle km 426175 426396 -221 -0.05%

2015 Inter Peak

vehicle 23752 23752 0 0.00%

Vehicle hr 4649 4643 6 0.13%

Vehicle km 265449 265903 -454 -0.17%

2015 PM Peak

Vehicle 31473 31473 0 0.00%

Vehicle hr 7058 7039 19 0.27%

Vehicle km 388380 389129 -749 -0.19%

Table 5.1: Comparison of 2015 DN and DS Network Performance

5.1.3 As it can be seen in Table 5.2,the vehicle hour in 2030 reduces only in PM peak

periods (0.30%). Slight increase is noticed Inter Peak (0.09%) and AM peak

(0.16%).The vehicle kilometre slightly increases with the highest in AM peak

(0.32%).


47/89



Period Attributes 2030DN 2030 DS Diff Diff %

2030 AM Peak

Vehicle 43268 43268 0 0.00%

Vehicle hr 8782 8796 -14 -0.16%

Vehicle km 482399 483930 -1531 -0.32%

2030 Inter Peak

vehicle 27386 27386 0 0.00%

Vehicle hr 5461 5466 -5 -0.09%

Vehicle km 308271 309060 -789 -0.26%

2030PM Peak

Vehicle 36009 36009 0 0.00%

Vehicle hr 8281 8256 25 0.30%

Vehicle km 443398 443623 -225 -0.05%

Table 5.2: Comparison of 2030 DN and DS Network Performance

5.1.4 The 2030 Do nothing traffic is shown in Figures 5.1 5.3and 2030 Do something

is shown in Figures 5.4 5.6. It can be seen that the M54 and A442 will carry the

highest amount of traffic. There is no significant change in traffic in box but slight

increase is noticed to the links leading to the Town Centre. There is also

increased level of traffic in the location of committed development within the urban

area of Telford.


48/89



Figure 5.1 2030 Traffic Flow in Telford DN AM Peak


49/89



Figure 5.2 2030 Traffic Flow in Telford DN Inter Peak


50/89



Figure 5.3 2030 Traffic Flow in Telford DN PM Peak


51/89



Figure 5.4 2030 Traffic Flow in Telford DS AM Peak


52/89



Figure 5.5 2030 Traffic Flow in TelfordDS Inter Peak


53/89



Figure 5.6 2030 Traffic Flow in Telford DS PM Peak


54/89



5.1.5 There are no considerable delays at the key junctions in Telford in 2015. However

in 2030 AM peak the junctions with slight delays are:

! B4373/ Wombridge Road Junction

! St Quentin Signalised Junction

! Hollinswood Junction

5.1.6 No significant delays will be experienced in the Inter peak except for the following

junction:

! ASDA Junction


5.1.7 In the PM peak the junctions with average delays are shown in Figure 5.9 and

are:

! St Quentin Signalised Junction

! ASDA Junction



55/89



Figure 5.7: 2030 Junction Delay in TelfordDS AM Peak


56/89



Figure 5.8 2030 Junction Delay in Telford DS Inter Peak


57/89



Figure 5.9: 2030 Junction Delay in Telford DS PM Peak


58/89



6. PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE

6.1.1 The overall 2030 boarding and alighting is shown in Table 6.1and public transport

network performance for the whole modelled area is summarised in Figure 6.1

6.3. As it can be seen the number of passenger is significantly high especially to

town centre. This is as a result of high predicted growth by TEMPRO forecast.

Other areas which will have high number of passengers include:

! Wellington Bus Station

! Muxton

! Donnington Aldi

! Sutton hill

! Oakengates Bus Station

! Brookside Avenue! Woodside

! Madeley Centre

! Dawley Bus Station

! Telford Rail Station

6.1.2 The significant growth is attributed to the predicted growth high growth

2030 AM Peak 2030 Inter Peak 2030 PM Peak

PassBoard

PassAlight

PassBoard

PassAlight

PassBoard

PassAlight

Woodside (Any stop on loop) 131 57 108 70 48 79

Wombridge Road 16 9 10 15 6 17

Willowfield 79 75 62 129 22 87

Wellsfield 52 24 35 61 15 41

Wellington Bus Station 105 456 231 294 162 108

University 6 9 6 6 20 0

Unicorn 6 0 1 0 1 1

Trench Lock / Summerfield Road 22 15 22 20 21 22

Trench (Shawbirch) 16 4 8 29 4 11

The Grove 14 12 4 6 8 7Telford Rail Station 59 144 28 34 59 27

Telford Bus Station 456 2077 1185

Documents

Appendix B3 - Forecasting Report