Basford Regional Investment Site, Crewe

Basford Regional Investment Site, Crewe

Transport Planning Delivery Strategy for Comprehensive Development

JOB NUMBER: DOCUMENT REF: Basford_Final_Report.doc

0 Final GR GDC GJ GJ May 07

Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Revision Purpose Description

BASFORD REGIONAL INVESTMENT SITE, CREWE


1-1 Basford_Final_Report.doc

Contents Section Page

1. Introduction 1-2

2. Background 2-1

3. Existing Highway Conditions 3-1

4. Scenarios for Comprehensive Development 4-1

5. Basford Development Flows 5-1

6. Assessment Year and Background Traffic Growth 6-1

7. Highway Infrastructure and Demand Management Strategy to Deliver Comprehensive Development 7-1

8. Strategy to Enable Partial Development and Delivery of Crewe Green Link Road 8-1

9. Impact of M6 Targeted Programme of Improvement Scheme and M6 Demand Management Strategy 9-1

10. Approach To Travel Planning and Demand Management 10-1

11. The Way Forward to Deliver Comprehensive Development At Basford 11-1




1. Introduction 1.1 Cheshire County Council have commissioned Atkins to provide advice on the traffic

impact of the comprehensive development of the Basford regional investment site on the highways network, including Junction 16 of the M6. Detailed issued surrounding the impact at M6 Junction 16 have been informed through close collaboration with the Highways Agency and their consultants FaberMaunsell.

1.2 The County Council is concerned about the scale of the traffic impact on the local highway network that could follow the opening up of land for development in the Basford area of Crewe. Two sites, Basford West and Basford East make up an area designated as a strategic Regional Investment Site, which broadly lie to the north of the A500 Basford, Hough, Shavington Bypass, between the B5071 Crewe Road to the west, the A5020 to the east, and the urban edge south of the A534 and Crewe Railway Station. The Basford west and east sites are divided by the West Coast Mainline.

1.3 The Basford sites are earmarked for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 land use types. Basford West is, in the main, in one ownership, being Rosemound. The Basford East site is split into three elements; Basford Sidings on ProLogis-owned land, Basford Sidings on Witter family-owned land, and the remaining are owned by the Co-operative Wholesale Society (CWS). Each development has been or will be subject to a Transportation Assessment produced by each of the developers’ Transport Consultants.

1.4 It has always been the County Council’s position from the earliest considerations of the outline application at Basford West, through to the subsequent discussions on the emerging position on Basford East, that a comprehensive assessment was necessary to determine the impact of development-related traffic on both the local and strategic road network. This comprehensive assessment would inform on the scale of the impact and its likely consequences and acceptability. Further, it will provide a mechanism for determining a fair apportionment of costs between the different developer interests, and as a result, the delivery of the overall planning strategy for the Regional Investment Site.

1.5 This report has been structured as follows;

♦ Section 2 provides a summary of the background of the transportation issues surrounding the Basford site,

♦ Section 3 describes the existing conditions at M6 Junction 16 and the A500 Barthomley Link,

♦ Section 4 describes the development scenarios that have been used in the impact assessment of the comprehensive development of the Basford site;

♦ Section 5 details the derivation and assignment of Basford development traffic under each development scenario,

♦ Section 6 outlines the background traffic growth forecasts and assessment years,

♦ Section 7 describes the highway infrastructure and demand management strategy that is required to deliver comprehensive development of the Basford




site, and to set a limit on the amount of traffic that such a development could generate,

♦ Section 8 presents an alternative strategy to enable partial development and delivery of the Crewe Green Link Road,

♦ Section 9 considers the impact of the M6 Targetted Programme of Improvements scheme and M6 demand management strategy, and

♦ Section 10 describes the steps required to deliver the comprehensive development of the Basford site.




2. Background

PLANNING CONTEXT

2.1 The Basford sites are identified as a Regional Investment Site (RIS) which is covered by Policy EC5 in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), and as Policies IND6 and IND8 in the Cheshire 2016 Structure Plan Alteration (adopted December 2005). Policy E3 of the Crewe and Nantwich Borough Replacement Local Plan (adopted February 2005) allocates the sites for strategic employment purposes. Both are greenfield sites, having previously been used for agricultural purposes.

2.2 Cheshire County Council, Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council and the NWDA have prepared a Development Brief for Basford West and East. These Briefs were adopted by the Borough Council in April 2004 as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

CREWE GREEN LINK ROAD

2.3 Cheshire County Council highway officers indicated concerns over the traffic impact of the Basford development-related traffic on the town centre road network prior to the completion of the Crewe Green Link Road (CGLR) linking the A500 to Weston Road. Consequently the Developments Briefs for both Basford West and East restrict development to 25% of their developable area prior to the completion of the CGLR.

2.4 This highway infrastructure scheme is being developed with potential funding from the County Council, the Borough Council, the landowners/developers, the NWDA and from the DfT through the Regional Funding Allocation. Land for the scheme is safeguarded under proposal TRAN.11 in the Local Plan. In January 2005, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) granted greenfield consent for the road scheme to enable the development of Basford East and West.

M6 JUNCTION 16 AND A500 BARTHOMLEY LINK

2.5 Basford development-related traffic currently first accesses the trunk road network at M6 Junction 16 via the A500 Barthomley Link to the south-west of Crewe. The A500 Barthomley Link was de-trunked in Autumn 2006 with responsibility for it passing from the Secretary of State to Cheshire County Council as local highway authority.

2.6 Prior to this and from the initial proposals to de-trunk this section of A500 a system of virtual de-trunking had been in place, with the local highway authority taking responsibility for the impact of development-related traffic upon it and the Highways Agency retaining an interest on safety matters.

2.7 The County Council outlined their concerns relating to the impact that Basford development-related traffic would have on A500 Barthomley Link in correspondence to the Highways Agency, dated 22nd December 2003;

“It is our opinion that the traffic generated by these two developments, and the remaining sites on Basford East, could have a material impact on the Non




Core Network, namely the A500 Barthomley Link between Mere Moss Roundabout and J16 of the M6. Indeed, concerns were discussed at our meeting about the possible impact on the Core Network at J16 of the M6.

As such, following the procedures set out in the relevant government circular on detrunking, I would suggest that considerable further work be undertaken on assessing the impact of these developments on the Non Core Network ahead of any detrunking of these roads to Cheshire County Council. I hope that following our meeting you will support this view and work closely with us during this process.”

2.8 As part of the consultation relating to the Development Briefs for Basford West and East, the Highways Agency requested via correspondence with the Borough Council, dated 20th February 2004, that the Briefs should refer to the need for Transport Assessments to take account of the development impact on the M6 and the A500. The Highways Agency requested that the following statement should be incorporated into to both Development Briefs;

“The Highways Agency is the Highway Authority for the Strategic Trunk Road Network including the M6 and the A500. The Agency will seek comprehensive Transport Assessments, which clearly identify the impact upon the trunk road network, including the cumulative effects of development in the area and if appropriate, proposed mitigation measures, particularly but not exclusively, the identified improvements at M6 Junction 16 and A500/A5020 Roundabout. The Highways Agency should be consulted at an early stage in development proposals including scoping studies.”

2.9 Following this consultation, a general statement was included in both of the adopted Development Briefs;

“As part of the planning process, developers will be expected to submit a Transport Assessment, the scope of which should be agreed with the Highway Authority prior to submission. This Transport Assessment should outline the impact the development proposals will have on the Basford West [East] access junctions and any other junctions likely to be materially affected as a result of development proposals, which should be considered at the outset of any assessment work, as well as outlining access details for the individual units within the development site.”

BASFORD WEST

2.10 Basford West is a large greenfield employment site situated in the University Quadrant of Crewe. The site is bordered by the West Coast mainline (to the east) and Crewe Road/Gresty Road (to the north and west) and the A500 Hough-Shavington By Pass (to the south).

Development Brief

2.11 Basford West covers approximately 55 hectares and is allocated as a regional warehousing and distribution park, and includes the provision for appropriate rail sidings.




2.12 A land use framework was developed which directs specific uses to identified areas. The core focus for B8 storage and distribution units will be in areas adjacent to the West Coast mainline. Office (B1) and light industrial buildings (B2) should be developed at the site gateways and adjacent to the new spine road.

Outline Planning Application

2.13 Taylor Woodrow, the previous owners of the Basford West site, submitted an outline planning application in August 2003, this was supported by a transport assessment prepared by Capita Symonds. The Basford West development proposal comprise;

♦ B1 4,645 sqm

♦ B2 18,580 sqm

♦ B8 120,770 sqm

2.14 The rail linked B8 development is envisaged on the eastern area of the site adjacent to the railway. A mix of B8 and B2 uses are anticipated on the central and southern part of the site with the B1 development adjacent to the new road junction with the A500.

2.15 Since the submission of the 2003 planning application ownership for the site has passed from Taylor Woodrow to Rosemound. This outline planning application has yet to be determined.

BASFORD EAST

2.16 Basford East is a large greenfield employment site situated in the University Quadrant of Crewe. The south-east quadrant covers the area from the edge of Crewe town centre down to Wychwood Park and stretches from the town centre to encompass Crewe Hall. The site itself is bordered by the West Coast mainline (to the west), Stoke-on-Trent/Nottingham rail line (to the north), and the A500 Hough-Shavington By Pass to the south.

Development Brief

2.17 Basford East covers approximately 92 hectares site and is allocated for strategic and major industrial and business related development. A land use framework has been developed which directs specific uses to identified areas. The Basford site will provide for a mixture of employment uses including; office and light industrial use (B1), general industrial use (B2), storage and distribution (B8) and limited ancillary facilities such as food and drink (A3) and potentially a hotel (C1).

2.18 The mix of uses and commercial viability of delivering the overall masterplan has been informed by an economic appraisal of the overall scheme. This appraisal also informed on the amount of the site to be zoned for either B1, B2 or B8 development. An indication of the optimum thresholds for certain uses is given in the Development Brief and set out below;

♦ B1 Office/Light Industry minimum of 20% of the site

♦ B2 General Industrial maximum of 40% of the site




♦ B8 Storage and Distribution maximum of 40% of the site

Basford Sidings Extant Outline Planning Permission

2.19 There is an extant planning permission on part of Basford East, known as Basford Sidings (ProLogis-owned and Witter-owned land), which was granted in 1999 for a period of 10 years.

2.20 The 1998 planning application for the development at Basford Sidings was for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 development. The transport assessment (prepared by Aspen in 1999) that was submitted in support of the application was, however, based on a scheme comprising 1.7 million sqft (157,930 sqm) of entirely B8 development with a rail-freight link into the site.

2.21 A package of highway works that would be required to accommodate the complete Basford Sidings development, were conditioned to the outline planning permission and subsequently incorporated into a Section 106 agreement. The most significant element that is still relevant is improvements to M6 Junction 16, in advance of any development over and above a first phase of development comprising 612,000 sqft (56,855 sqm) equivalent to 36% of the total Basford Sidings development. Since granting outline planning permission the Highways Agency has made modifications to M6 Junction 16, notably the signalisation of the southbound off-slip road.

Basford Sidings Reserved Matters Planning Application

2.22 ProLogis has submitted a Reserved Matters planning application for the first phase of the Basford Sidings development, along with a Section 73 application for the removal of the planning condition relating to the rail-freight link.

2.23 ProLogis’ proposals for Phase 1 comprise;

♦ B1 13,753 sqm

♦ B2/B8 82,766 sqm

2.24 The trip generation calculations, however, presented in the transport assessment (prepared by Waterman Burrow Crocker) that was submitted in support of the application makes no allowance for any B2 component.

2.25 ProLogis propose that the full Basford Sidings development would comprise approximately 1.6 million sqft and split as follows;

♦ B1 16,192 sqm

♦ B2 44,161 sqm

♦ B8 86,851 sqm

♦ Hotel 90 beds

2.26 This reserved matters planning application has yet to be determined.




CWS Development

2.27 The County Council had pre-application discussions with CWS who indicated that they were looking towards a development comprising mainly B8. To date, however, no planning application has been submitted in relation to the CWS development.

OPERATIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF M6 JUNCTION 16

Basford Sidings Extant Permission

2.28 The TA prepared by Aspen in 1999, in relation to the extant permission for Basford Sidings, included a operational assessment of M6 Junction 16. The roundabout was unsignalised at the time, and hence the assessment was based on the junction modelling program ARCADY.

2.29 The M6 Junction 16 ARCADY model was used to develop the conditioned mitigation measures at the junction.

Basford West Outline Planning Application

2.30 The original TA prepared by Capita in August 2003, in relation to the full Basford West application, contained no junction assessment of M6 Junction 16, on the basis that they considered there would be no material impact at this junction arising from the Basford West development proposals. This conclusion was not accepted by the Highways Agency following discussions with the County Council.

2.31 In November 2004 agreement was reached between the Highways Agency and Taylor Woodrow/Capita that as part of the full assessment of Basford West that an operational impact assessment of M6 Junction 16 was required in accordance with Highways Agency policy as set out in the Department for Transport (DfT) publications “Control of Development Affecting Trunk Roads and Agreement with Developers Under Section 278 of the Highways Act”, Circular 04/2001. In this instance it was agreed that the following criteria should apply;

“Where further highway improvements are required upstream or downstream of this point, these will be to a standard capable of ensuring that conditions on the trunk road are no worse at any time during the 15 year assessment period than if the development had not taken place.”

2.32 Under this approach the Highways Agency considered that any queuing of slip road traffic back on to the mainline motorway carriageway would be unsatisfactory in terms of the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road. In order, therefore, to ensure there is no adverse impact on the safe and efficient operation of the trunk road it was agreed that any demand management/highway infrastructure mitigation measures would restrict queuing traffic to the confines of the motorway off-slip roads.

2.33 Capita proposed to model the partially signalised M6 Junction 16 roundabout using the computer program TRANSYT (with an ARCADY sub-model). This approach was considered acceptable to the Highways Agency, subject to the model demonstrating that queues would not block upstream junctions, notably blocking back to the M6 mainline diverge areas.




2.34 Despite considerable effort, in November 2005 Atkins’ concluded on behalf of the Highways Agency, that Capita’s M6 Junction 16 TRANSYT model was deficient in its ability to the westbound merge on to the A500 Barthomley Link (without blocking back into the roundabout). As a result it was not possible to identify a scheme (that did not involve significant improvements to the A500 Barthomley link) that could be shown to be capable of ensuring that conditions on the trunk road would be no worse at any time during the 15 year assessment period than if the development had not taken place.

2.35 Rosemound/Capita accepted these conclusions, and consequently in early 2006 began the process of developing a micro-simulation S-Paramics model of the junction supplemented by new count and queuing data.

2.36 In March 2006, Atkins’ and FaberMaunsell’s joint review (on behalf of the Highways Agency) concluded that Capita’s M6 Junction 16 base Paramics model had been validated to a sufficient level to enable future year scenario testing to commence.

2.37 Subsequently, Capita developed a highway improvement scheme (drawing 56814/SK/03 Rev P2) that when modelled in Paramics was considered by the Highways Agency to adequately the mitigate the impact of the full Basford West development.

2.38 The County Council, however, did not accept this assessment on the grounds that it did not take into account the development of Basford East site nor did it address eastbound capacity issues on the A500.

Basford Sidings Reserved Matters Planning Application

2.39 Waterman Burrow Crocker (now Waterman Civils Ltd) submitted two reports entitled ‘Transport Assessment: Reserved Matters Planning Application for Phase 1’ dated June 2005 and ‘Proposed Mitigation Works at M6 Junction 16’, dated June 2005 (and revised July 2005) in support of ProLogis’ reserved matters application.

2.40 The latter report sought to establish whether the modified Section 106 works “provide satisfactory mitigation of the development’s impact, given the development scheme now proposed” and that the scheme is “compatible with signal control of the M6 southbound off-slip road entry”.

2.41 Watermans modelled the partially signalised M6 J16 roundabout using ARCADY, with site-specific intercept corrections applied to the southbound off-slip entry in an attempt to model the signal operation. This approach was considered unacceptable to the Highways Agency.

2.42 Watermans accepted the inadequacy of their ARCADY model. Waterman Civils Ltd (WCL) submitted two further reports entitled ‘Transport Assessment: Reserved Matters Planning Application for Phase 1’ dated November 2005 and associated report entitled ‘Proposed Mitigation Works at M6 Junction 16’, dated January 2006. In their Phase 1 report, Waterman’s contest that Phase 1 of Basford Sidings would have no material impact at M6 Junction 16. This conclusion was not accepted by the Highways Agency.




2.43 Waterman’s assessment of the full impact of Basford Sidings in January 2006 was based on a superseded version of Capita’s M6 Junction 16 TRANSYT model. Notwithstanding any outstanding technical issues with the TRANSYT model, it was already apparent that TRANSYT was not a suitable tool for developing a scheme that did not involve significant improvements to the A500 Barthomley Link.

2.44 No further M6 Junction 16 traffic modelling work has been undertaken by Waterman.

CWS Pre-Application

2.45 CWS have commissioned MouchelParkman to provide transport consultancy advice with respect to their development aspirations. To date no operational impact assessments of M6 Junction 16 has been undertaken or at least shared with the relevant highway authorities.

Highways Agency M6 Junction 16 VISSIM Model

2.46 In Spring 2006, the Highways Agency commissioned FaberMaunsell to develop a micro-simulation VISSIM traffic model of the roundabout junction and its associated merges and diverges. The purpose of the VISSIM model was to provide the Agency with the control to examine the effects of any potential development scenarios and effectiveness of any proposed highway improvements without reliance on the co-operation of developers and their consultants, and to share this information with the County Council.

2.47 Atkins acting on behalf of the Highway Agency, independently approved the validation of the FaberMaunsell M6 Junction 16 Base VISSIM model in July 2006.




3. Existing Highway Conditions

M6 JUNCTION 16 VISSIM MODEL

3.1 In order to fully understand the operational issues associated with the impact of the Basford developments at M6 Junction 16, the Highways Agency commissioned FaberMaunsell to develop a micro-simulation VISSIM traffic model of the roundabout junction and its associated merges and diverges.

3.2 Junction 16 of the M6 lies between Stoke-On-Trent and Crewe, and it connects the M6 with the A500 and B5078. The junction layout is grade separated, with a 5-arm roundabout passing underneath the M6 mainline. Traffic signal control exists at the southbound exit slip entry, while the remaining roundabout entries are priority controlled. The junction layout is shown in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 – M6 Junction 16 Layout

M6 (South)

A500 (West) Barthomley Link

B5078 Radway Green Road

M6 (North)

A500 (East)




TRAFFIC FLOWS

3.3 As part of the VISSIM model development, Sky High was commissioned to carry out a full manual classified count (MCC) of turning movements at the roundabout. This survey was undertaken on Wednesday 5th April 2006 for the following time periods: morning peak period (07:00 to 10:00) and evening peak period (16:00 to 19:00).

3.4 Tabulated below are the 2006 base traffic flows at M6 Junction 16 for the morning peak hour (08:00 to 09:00) and evening peak hour (17:00 to 18:00).

Table 3.1 – Base Traffic Flows – 2006 Morning Peak Hour (Vehicles)

M6 (North) A500 (East)

M6 (South)

A500 (West)

B5078 Total

M6 (North) 677 0 265 32 974

A500 (East) 428 218 552 296 1494

M6 (South) 0 172 380 96 648

A500 (West) 161 458 389 80 1088

B5078 38 175 147 69 429

Total 627 1482 754 1266 504 4633

Table 3.2 – Base Traffic Flows – 2006 Evening Peak Hour (Vehicles)

M6 (North) A500 (East)

M6 (South)

A500 (West)

B5078 Total

M6 (North) 0 629 0 263 37 929

A500 (East) 496 0 124 651 187 1458

M6 (South) 0 159 0 327 103 589

A500 (West) 101 550 367 0 65 1083

B5078 33 137 103 76 0 349

Total 630 1475 594 1317 392 4408

3.5 In summary the 2006 base traffic flows on the A500 Barthomley Link are;

♦ Morning Peak Hour A500 Westbound 1266 vph

A500 Eastbound 1088 vph

♦ Evening Peak Hour A500 Westbound 1317 vph





TRAFFIC QUEUES

3.6 Sky High were also commissioned to carry out vehicle queue length surveys on the five approach arms to the roundabout. These surveys were carried out over three days namely; Tuesday 4th, Wednesday 5th and Thursday 6th April 2006.

3.7 The queue lengths were recorded in metres, at 10 minute intervals, and separately for each approach lane to the junction. A queue length was recorded at the end of each time interval, and additionally, the maximum queue length during the interval was recorded. Analysis of the queue length data showed that the traffic conditions on the three survey days were similar, further confirming that the day of the MCC could be considered to be a typical weekday.

3.8 As part of the VISSIM model validation comparisons were made between the modelled queue lengths with those observed. Since queue lengths were observed over three separate days, average queues across the three days were used as the basis for comparison.

3.9 The VISSIM model was calibrated so that the model queues match the observed as closely as possible, while maintaining the correct flow across the junction. The following tables show the difference between hourly observed and assigned queues.

Table 3.1 - Morning Peak Hour Queue Comparisons

Queue Length (m) 08:00-09:00 Average

Observed Average Modelled

Difference (m)

M6 North 38 20 -17

A500 East 65 100 35

M6 South 125 180 55

A500 West 142 85 -57

B5078 17 13 -4

Table 3.2 - Evening Peak Hour Queue Comparisons

Queue Length (m) 17:00-18:00 Average

Observed Average Modelled

Difference (m)

M6 North 46 20 -26

A500 East 43 92 49

M6 South 60 61 1

A500 West 290 249 -41

B5078 14 10 -4




3.10 The comparison of observed and modelled queue lengths shows that the maximum difference in queue length between the observed and the modelled is 57m, which equates to about 8 to 9 pcus.

3.11 It should also be noted that observation of the model shows that the queues on M6 northbound off-slip road (M6 South) form mainly in the nearside lane which is consistent with the queue length surveys, especially in the morning peak, where most of the traffic on this arm turns left towards Crewe. Unfortunately, VISSIM is unable to report separate queue lengths for each lane of a link with two or more lanes – it reports the largest length of queue across all the lanes on the link.

A500 BARTHOMLEY LINK CAPACITY

3.12 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) TD 46/97 “Traffic Flow Ranges for Use in the Assessment of New Rural Road” defines the maximum sustainable hourly throughput of a link.

CAPACITY = [A - B * Pk%H] * NL * Wf where,

Pk%H is the percentage of ‘Heavy Vehicles’ in the peak hour. The term ‘Heavy Vehicles’ always includes the vehicle categories OGV1, OGV2 and PSV’s according to the COBA definition. A and B are parameters dependant on road standard;

A B Single Carriageway 1380 15.0 Dual Carriageway 2100 20.0 Motorway 2300 25.0

Wf is a carriageway width factor. For standard lane widths (3.65metres) this factor equates to unity for carriageway types.

NL is the number of lanes per direction.

3.13 At capacity the effect on traffic is usually one or more of the following: flow breaks down with speeds varying considerably, average speeds drop significantly, the sustainable throughput is reduced and queues are likely to form. This critical flow level can vary significantly from day to day and from site to site and must be considered as an average. However, the effect of junctions must still be considered separately.

3.14 The A500 Barthomley Link is a single carriageway that is typically 7.3 metres wide. Using the percentage of heavy vehicles taken from the 2006 traffic count, the capacity of the Barthomley Link can be determined for each direction and for both peak periods.

3.15 Table 3.3 overleaf summarises the operational performance of the Barthomley Link under existing conditions.




Table 3.3 - A500 Barthomley Link Capacity Assessment Under Existing Conditions

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound

2006 Base Flows (vehs), Q 1266 1088 1317 1083

Parameter A 1380 1380 1380 1380

Parameter B 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

Pk%H 11.0 10.3 7.4 6.6

NL 1 1 1 1

Wf 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Capacity, Qc (vehs) 1215 1226 1269 1281

Volume to Capacity Ratio (Q/Qc) 1.04 0.89 1.04 0.85

3.16 On this evidence the A500 Barthomley Link is already operating at about its design capacity in the westbound direction during both the morning and evening peak hours, while there is only a limited amount of residual capacity in the eastbound direction.

3.17 It should be noted, however, that the link capacity calculations above do not take into account the effects of the uphill gradient on the eastbound carriageway, which acts as a pinch point due to slow-moving vehicles. The problem is identified in LTP2;

“Currently, queues of stationary or slow moving traffic occur during peak hours and regularly extend from Junction 16 westwards for 3km at peak times.”

3.18 The effect of these delays is to constrain traffic flows at M6 Junction 16, particularly during the evening peak, and as a result some drivers already seek alternative less suitable routes to the motorway including for example Radway Green Road.

3.19 The cost for providing a climbing lane on the eastbound carriageway is estimated to be £18m on the basis that it is unlikely that three standard traffic lanes can be accommodated on the A500 under the existing bridges and substandard lane widths or reduced speed limits would be undesirable on the A500 at this location.

3.20 A scheme such as this may be justified into the future to address these issues with no Basford development. However, such a scheme would require backing from the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) and the Department for Transport (DfT), which based on current funding levels for major transport projects in the North West Region, is considered unlikely for at least the next 10 years or so.




4. Scenarios for Comprehensive Development

INTRODUCTION

4.1 In order to fully understand the impact that Basford development-related traffic would have on the A500 Barthomley Link and junction 16 of the M6, a number of scenarios for comprehensive development were identified as being worthy of consideration to take into account both the aspirations of developers and the needs of the planning authority.

4.2 At a meeting held on 19th June 2006, it was agreed that the following scenarios (4, 6 and 7) would form the basis for an impact assessment for the comprehensive development of the Basford site on the A500 Barthomley Link and junction 16 of the M6;

♦ Scenario 4 Background growth plus the Borough’s interpretation of the Basford Development Briefs,

♦ Scenario 6 Background growth plus developers’ initial proposals for Basford West and East, and

♦ Scenario 7 Background growth plus Basford West plus potential ‘compromise’ development mix for Basford East.

4.3 These development scenarios are compared to a base scenario (Scenario 1) comprising background traffic growth plus the Basford Sidings extant permission. Development scenarios 2, 3 and 5 related to partial development of the Basford site and are not considered further in this report.

BASFORD SIDINGS EXTANT PERMISSION (SCENARIOS 1)

4.4 There is an extant planning permission on part of Basford East, known as Basford Sidings (land owned by ProLogis and the Witter family), which was granted in 1999 for a period of 10 years. The Transport Assessment prepared by Aspen in support of the consented development comprised 1.7 million sqft (157,930 sqm) of entirely B8 development with a rail-freight link into the site.

BASFORD WEST (SCENARIOS 4, 6 AND 7)

4.5 The developer’s proposals for Basford West comprises;

♦ B1 4,645 sqm

♦ B2 18,580 sqm

♦ B8 120,770 sqm

4.6 The Borough Council is satisfied that the developer’s proposals for Basford West meets with the requirements of the Development Brief in planning terms.




BASFORD EAST (SCENARIO 4)

4.7 The development thresholds outlined in the Development Brief have subsequently been translated into development areas by the Borough Council (in correspondence dated 5th January 2006) and are given below;

♦ B1 46,000 sqm

♦ B2 92,000 sqm

♦ B8 92,000 sqm

♦ C1 (Hotel) 90 beds

♦ A3 2,230 sqm


4.8 ProLogis propose in their reserve matters application that the full Basford Sidings development would comprise approximately 1.6 million sqft and split as follows;

♦ B1 16,192 sqm

♦ B2 44,161 sqm

♦ B8 86,851 sqm

♦ Hotel 90 beds

4.9 As part of their pre-application discussions, in June 2006, CWS indicated that they were looking towards a development comprising;

♦ B2 9,290 sqm

♦ B8 102,910 sqm


4.10 During summer/autumn 2007 further discussions were held with ProLogis/CWS, outlining their proposals for a joint application for Basford East. The following development mix was put forward; B1 15%, B2 25% and B8 60%, which in terms of development areas is equivalent to;

♦ B1 38,803 sqm

♦ B2 64,671 sqm

♦ B8 155,210 sqm

4.11 This development scenario was seen as potential ‘compromise’ solution between developers and the Borough Council from a land-use planning and economic development perspective.




SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

4.12 A summary of the development areas and development mix for each scenario is provided below.

Table 4.5 – Summary of Development Areas and Development Mix for each Scenario

Development Areas GFA (m2) Basford East Mix Basford West Mix Development Scenarios B1 B2 B8 Total B1 B2 B8 B1 B2 B8

DS 1 157,930 157,930 100%

DS 4 50,645 110,580 212,770 373,995 20% 40% 40% 3% 13% 84%

DS 6 20,837 72,031 309,811 402,679 6% 21% 73% 3% 13% 84%

DS 7 43,448 83,251 275,980 402,679 15% 25% 60% 3% 13% 84%




5. Basford Development Flows

TRIP GENERATION

5.1 The document Guidance on Transport Assessments (March 2007) prepared by the Department for Transport/Communities and Local Government recommends that 85th percentile trip generation rates should be considered as a starting point for assessment of the baseline trip generation. The reason for this is as follows:

♦ as the level of public transport and non-car model travel for sites within such trip databases is often unknown, a true like-for-like comparison is unlikely to be achieved; and

♦ it is considered that the use of average trip rates with deductions for sustainability measures could result in overly optimistic trip rates for the proposed development.

5.2 Agreement on trip generation rates has been reached between the Highways Agency, County Council, Capita (developer’s consultants for Basford West) and Waterman (developer’s consultants for Basford East - ProLogis land), and are provided below.

Table 5.1 - 85th Percentile Trips Rates

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Land Use

Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound

B1 (trips/100m2 GFA) 2.32 0.37 0.31 1.56

B2 (trips/100m2 GFA) 1.90 0.29 0.31 1.68

B2+ (trips/100m2 GFA) 1.71 0.26 0.28 1.51

B8 (trips/100m2 GFA) 0.19 0.11 0.21 0.19

B8* (trips/100m2 GFA) 0.14 0.08 0.16 0.14

Hotel (trips/bed) 0.41 0.39 0.42 0.39

B8 (1999 Aspen TA) 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.36

+ This takes into account a reduction of 10% as a result of the provision of the rail freight link * This takes into account a reduction of 25% as a result of the provision of the rail freight link

5.3 Application of the trip generation rates above to the development areas defined in Table 4.1 yields the following levels of traffic generation.




Table 5.2 – Basford Traffic Generation (85th Percentile Trip Rates – Vehicles)

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Development Scenarios Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound

DS 1 295 168 337 295

DS 4 3618 731 923 2990

DS 6 2376 613 917 2059

DS 7 3050 693 950 2537

5.4 The proportion of heavy goods vehicles (hgvs) assumed in the total trip rate has been based on an interrogation of the TRICS database, namely that 25% of the total movements are hgvs for B8, and 5% for B2, and that these movements would have a 50%/50% directional split.

5.5 The relative contribution that the two Basford sites have in terms of traffic impact can be approximated by comparing their traffic generation in passenger car units (pcus) as shown below;

Table 5.3 – Basford Traffic Generation (85th Percentile Trip Rates – PCUs)

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour % Contribution Development Scenarios Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound BEast BWest

DS 1 353 226 416 374 100%

DS 4 3745 858 1068 3135 80% 20%

DS 6 2516 754 1092 2234 74% 26%

DS 7 3185 824 1113 2701 78% 22%

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

5.6 Agreement has also been reached on the trip distribution for both employees and heavy goods vehicles as outlined below.

Table 5.4 – Trip Distribution

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour

Inbound

From M6 J16 Outbound To M6 J16

Inbound From M6 J16

Outbound To M6 J16

Employees 29% 8% 5% 20%

Heavy Goods Vehicles 66% 66% 66% 66%




5.7 The agreed distribution of employees and heavy goods vehicles at M6 Junction 16 is given below.

Table 5.6 – Trip Distribution at M6 Junction 16 (Employees)


Employees Inbound

To A500 West Outbound

From A500 West Inbound


From A500 West

Radway Green Road 6% 6% 9% 5%

M6 North 16% 13% 14% 13%

A500 East 50% 52% 56% 57%

M6 South 28% 29% 21% 25%

Table 5.7 – Trip Distribution at M6 Junction 16 (HGVs)


HGVs Inbound


From A500 West Inbound


From A500 West

Radway Green Road 0% 0% 0% 0%

M6 North 36% 36% 36% 36%

A500 East 14% 14% 14% 14%

M6 South 50% 50% 50% 50%

DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT – A500 BARTHOMLEY LINK

5.8 Applying the traffic generation to the trip distribution defined previously results in the following levels of Basford development-related traffic on the A500 Barthomley Link to the west of M6 Junction 16.

Table 5.8 – Basford Development Traffic Flows on the A500 Barthomley Link (85th Percentile Trip Rates – Vehicles)

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Development Scenarios Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound

DS 1 106 47 65 96

DS 4 1079 133 136 671

DS 6 730 132 153 496

DS 7 920 135 148 587




6. Assessment Year and Background Traffic Growth

ASSESSMENT YEAR

6.1 The County Council have advised that 2020 is taken to be the design year, a period of 10 years after the scheduled completion of the CGLR and the full development of the Basford sites in 2010.

BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH

6.2 The County Council have also advised that a traffic growth factor of 1.26 should be applied to background traffic between 2001 and 2010 for consistency with their strategic transport model for the area, the Crewe & Nantwich Transportation Model (CNTM). This level of growth is slightly less than National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) central growth value of 1.32.

6.3 Traffic growth between 2001 and the 2006 traffic count has been based on NRTF central growth adjusted in accordance with Tempro predictions for the local area, where a factor of 1.087 has been applied.

6.4 The level of background traffic growth between 2006 and 2020 is therefore taken to represent an increase of 10.9% above existing levels.




7. Highway Infrastructure and Demand Management Strategy to Deliver Comprehensive Development

INTRODUCTION

7.1 At a meeting held on 19th June 2006, it was agreed that the following scenarios would form the basis for an impact assessment of the comprehensive development of the Basford site on the A500 Barthomley Link and M6 junction 16;

♦ Scenario 4 Background growth plus the Borough’s interpretation of the Basford Development Briefs,

♦ Scenario 6 Background growth plus developers’ initial proposals for Basford West and East, and

♦ Scenario 7 Background growth plus Basford West plus potential ‘compromise’ development mix for Basford East.

7.2 These development scenarios are compared to a base scenario (Scenario 1) comprising background traffic growth plus the Basford Sidings extant permission

A500 BARTHOMLEY LINK CAPACITY ASSESSMENT

7.3 The first stage of the impact assessment of Basford development-related traffic on the A500 Barthomley Link and junction 16 of the M6 was to undertake a link capacity assessment under design year conditions for each development scenario.

7.4 Applying traffic growth of 10.9% to the 2006 base flow contained in Table 3.3 and adding the development-related traffic flows outlined in Table 5.8 yields the following results.

Table 7.1 - A500 Barthomley Link Capacity Assessment Under Future Conditions


2006 Base Traffic Flows 1266 1088 1317 1083

2020 DS 1 Traffic Flows 1510 1254 1526 1297

2020 DS 4 Traffic Flows 2483 1340 1596 1872

2020 DS 6 Traffic Flows 2134 1338 1614 1697

2020 DS 7 Traffic Flows 2324 1341 1608 1788

Capacity (vehs/hr) 1215 1226 1269 1281

2006 V/C Ratio 1.04 0.89 1.04 0.85

2020 DS 1 V/C Ratio 1.24 1.02 1.20 1.01

2020 DS 4 V/C Ratio 2.04 1.09 1.26 1.46

2020 DS 6 V/C Ratio 1.76 1.09 1.27 1.32

2020 DS 7 V/C Ratio 1.91 1.09 1.27 1.40




7.5 These results demonstrate that the A500 Barthomley Link would experience link capacity related problems into the future without any additional development, but also highlights that these problems would be exacerbated through the comprehensive development of the Basford site to the extent that would be considered unacceptable to the County Council.

M6 JUNCTION 16 FUTURE YEAR VISSIM MODEL

7.6 The development of the M6 Junction 16 Future Year VISSIM Model was a joint venture between FaberMaunsell and Atkins, reflecting the close co-operation between the Highways Agency and County Council in this matter.

7.7 In terms of highway improvements two schemes were considered; Capita’s M6 J16 highway improvement scheme as detailed in drawing 56814/SK/03 Rev P2, and Capita’s scheme plus full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link.

7.8 In conjunction with any highway improvement scheme consideration was also given to reducing the 85th percentile employee trip rates to reflect the introduction of a series of targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures.

Capita M6 Junction 16 Highway Improvement Scheme

7.9 Since development scenario 6 (developers’ aspirations for Basford West and East) would result in the fewest trips being added to the highway network this was the first scenario assessed against the Capita’s M6 J16 highway improvement scheme.

7.10 This scheme was tested in conjunction with a 30% reduction in 85th percentile employee trip rates to set, a perhaps unrealistic, upper-bound contribution that a series of targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures could provide.

M6 J16 - 2020 Morning Peak HourBasford DS 6 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - 30% Reduction in Trip Rates

M6 J16 Improvements (Capita Scheme)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0

Time (5 minutes ending)

Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)

M6SA500WB5078M6NA500E

Figure 7.1 – DS 6: 2020 Morning Peak Predicted Queues (Capita Scheme)




M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford DS 6 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - 30% Reduction in Trip Rates


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 7.2 – DS 6: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues (Capita Scheme)

7.11 This graph represents an under-representation of the level queuing that would be experienced on the A500 east in the morning peak and A500 Barthomley Link in the evening peak due to the fact that they are “capped” to the approach lengths in the VISSIM model of 1055 metres and 950 metres respectively.

7.12 In contrast the following level of queuing would be expected under a hypothetical scenario comprising background traffic growth, development traffic from the Basford Sidings extant permission and the Capita highway improvements scheme.

M6 J16 - 2020 Morning Peak HourBasford DS 1 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - No Reduction in Trip Rates


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

08:3

5

08:4

0

08:4

5

08:5

0

08:5

5

09:0

0

09:0

5

09:1

0

09:1

5

09:2

0

09:2

5

09:3

0

09:3

5

09:4

0

09:4

5

09:5

0

09:5

5

10:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 7.3 – DS 1: 2020 Morning Peak Predicted Queues (Capita Scheme)




M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford DS 1 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - No Reduction in Trip Rates


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 7.4 – DS 1: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues (Capita Scheme)

7.13 On the basis of this evidence presented in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 there can be no doubt that the A500 Barthomley Link would need to be dualled to accommodate comprehensive development of the Basford site.

Capita M6 J16 Scheme Plus Dualling of A500 Barthomley Link No Reduction in 85th Percentile Trip Rates

7.14 The following series of figures presents the impact of future development scenarios on improved M6 Junction 16 with full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link.


M6 J16 Improvements (Capita Scheme) plus Full Dualling of A500 Barthomley Link

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 7.5 – DS 1: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues (A500 Dualling Scheme)






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)





0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)







M6 J16 Improvements (Capita Scheme) plus Full Dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)



7.15 It is apparent from inspection of these results that even with full dualling of the A500 Barthomley the level of queuing experienced on the A500 eastbound approach to the junction would be unacceptable to the County Council, and hence a series of targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures would have to be implemented before comprehensive development of the Basford site could be supported.

Reductions in 85th Percentile Trip Rates To Reflect Targeted Travel Plan and/or Demand Management Measures

7.16 A range of reduction factors were applied to the 85th percentile employee trip rates in an attempt to establish whether a series of targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures could be introduced in conjunction with the A500 dualling scheme to adequately mitigate the impact of the Basford developments.

7.17 A 30% reduction was used to set, a perhaps unrealistic, upper-bound contribution that a series of targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures could achieve. The impact arising from this level of reduction for each development scenario is shown in the following scenarios.






0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 7.9 – DS 4: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues

(A500 Dualling Scheme plus 30% Demand Management Strategy)


M6 J16 Improvements (Capita Scheme) plus Improvements to A500 Barthomley Link

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)







M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford DS 7 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - 30% Reduction in Single Occupancy Cars

M6 J16 Improvements (Capita Scheme) plus Full Dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)




7.18 Even with a perhaps unrealistic 30% reduction in employee car trips arising from a series of targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures the level of queuing on the A500 Barthomley is still considered to be unacceptable, for Development Scenario 4 (the Basford Development Briefs). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that level and type of development outlined in the Development Briefs are not sustainable from a transportation perspective.

7.19 Setting aside potential capacity issues associated with the B5078 Radway Green Road (which are discussed later), a 30% reduction in employee trips in conjunction with the A500 dualling scheme and improvements at M6 J16 would have to be delivered through appropriate planning conditions for Development Scenario 7 (Basford West plus plus potential ‘compromise’ development mix for Basford East) to be considered acceptable to the County Council.

7.20 There would, however, appear to be some limited scope to relax the percentage reduction targets for employee trips for Development Scenario 6 (developers’ proposals for Basford West and East). The effects of relaxing the percentage reduction targets for employee trips to 25% and 20% are shown below.




M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford DS 6 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - 25% Reduction in Single Occupancy CarsM6 J16 Improvements (Capita Scheme) plus Improvements to A500 Barthomley Link

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)




M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford DS 6 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - 20% Reduction in Employee Trip Rates


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)







7.21 On this evidence a 25% reduction in employee trips in conjunction with the A500 dualling scheme and improvements at M6 J16 would have to be delivered through appropriate planning conditions for Development Scenario 6 (developers’ proposals for Basford West and East) to be considered acceptable to the County Council.

7.22 Some concern was still expressed from the County Council regarding potential capacity issues associated with the B5078 Radway Green Road. However, it was accepted that the VISSIM model is perhaps over-estimating the level queuing compared to what would actually occur in practice. It is likely that by dualling the A500 Barthomley Link that a proportion of vehicles that currently use the B5078 to avoid the A500 would switch back. To explore this further a sensitivity test was undertaken that assumed a 25% reassignment of B5078 traffic. The results of this sensitivity test are shown below under Development Scenario 6 assuming a 30% reduction in employee trips.

M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford DS 6 (85th Percentile) - 30% Reduction in Employee Trips/25% Diversion


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)



(A500 Dualling plus 30% Demand Management Strategy/25% Diversion of B5078)

7.23 The marked reduction in the level of queuing on the B5078 Radway Green Road brought about by a modest percentage of traffic reassigning back on to the A500 Barthomley Link has allayed many of these concerns.

7.24 The focus thus far has been on the impact of the Basford development-related traffic on the County highway network and in particular the A500 Barthomley Link. The impact of greatest to concern to the Highways Agency is the impact on the M6 mainline motorway, and to a lesser extent the A500 to the east of the junction.

7.25 As far as the impact in evening peak hour is concerned both motorway off-slip road are expected to have modest levels of queuing traffic, which can safely be accommodate without any blocking back on to the M6 mainline. Queues reaching similar levels to that predicted on the Barthomely Link are forecast on the A500 to




east of junction 16 in the latter part of the evening peak period. This effect is in part a reflection of queuing patterns that currently exist.

M6 J16 - 2020 Morning Peak HourBasford DS 6 (85th Percentile Trip Rates) - 30% Reduction in Employee Trip Rate


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

08:3

5

08:4

0

08:4

5

08:5

0

08:5

5

09:0

0

09:0

5

09:1

0

09:1

5

09:2

0

09:2

5

09:3

0

09:3

5

09:4

0

09:4

5

09:5

0

09:5

5

10:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 7.15 – DS 6: 2020 Morning Peak Predicted Queues


7.26 In broad terms dualling the A500 Barthomley Link has limited impact to conditions on the trunk road network, queues on the southbound off-slip road are predicted to be slightly shorter, while queues on the northbound off-slip road are predicted to be slightly longer but importantly without blocking back on to the M6 mainline.

7.27 It is clear, however, that the VISSIM model is predicting capacity issues associated with the A500 to the east of junction 16. Like the A500 Barthomley Link, this arm is not signalled and in the morning there is limited opportunity for vehicles to gap seek against strong movements from M6 North to Crewe, and from Crewe to M6 South. Indeed queuing problems on this approach are forecast in the morning peak under the base scenario (see Figure 7.3). At the time of writing this report the Highways Agency are currently reviewing their position as to what level of service would be acceptable on the A500 trunk road.

POTENTIAL FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPER FUNDING FOR DUALLING THE A500 BARTHOMLEY LINK

7.28 It is estimated that the A500 Barthomley Link would cost over £40 million to dual over its entire length. Whilst this level of expenditure is perhaps not out-of-scale for the development being proposed, it is doubtful whether there would be buy-in from developers for full contribution, and whilst there may be the prospect for partial developer contributions this would place a significant requirement for public sector funding.




CONCLUSION

7.29 This study has demonstrated that the A500 Barthomley Link would start to experience link capacity related problems into the future without any additional development, but also highlights that these problems would be exacerbated through the comprehensive development of the Basford site to the extent that would be considered unacceptable to the County Council.

7.30 This study has established beyond all reasonable doubt that full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link along with improvements to M6 Junction 16 is required to deliver comprehensive development of the Basford site. Furthermore, this assessment has shown that the scale and mix of development put forward in the Development Briefs is unsustainable from a transportation perspective.

7.31 Indeed even if the developers’ proposals for Basford West and East (development scenarios 6 and 7) were to be pursed there would need to be stringent travel plan and/or demand management measures implemented that are capable of reducing employee car trips by in the order of 25 to 30% in conjunction with any highway improvement schemes.

7.32 It is considered unlikely that private developer funding alone could deliver the full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link, estimated at over £40 million, and that there is no immediate prospect of delivering the scheme through public sector funding.

7.33 To make any progress towards realising the planning strategy for these sites a phased strategy needs to be developed. A phased startegy that enables partial development of the Basford sites, includes the delivery of the Crewe Green Link Road and, at the same time, does not prejudice comprehensive development in the longer term.




8. Strategy to Enable Partial Development and Delivery of Crewe Green Link Road

INTRODUCTION

8.1 Further work was undertaken using the M6 Junction 16 VISSIM model to identify a level of development (or more accurately a trip generation threshold) which could be implemented without the need for full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link.

TRAFFIC GENERATION

8.2 Although based on a series of different development compositions of B1/B2/B8 and overall gross floor area, along with a 20% reduction in employee trips through targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures, it is the level of trip generation that is important in defining Development Scenario 8.

8.3 Tabulated below is the range of different levels of total development-related traffic generated by the site that was tested and consequently how much of this traffic would be added to the A500 Barthomley Link

Table 8.1 – Basford DS 8 – Traffic Generation

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Development Scenarios Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound

DS 8a 1175 304 454 1002 DS 8b 1252 316 467 1070 DS 8c 1328 328 480 1138 DS 8d 1405 340 493 1205 DS 8e 1481 352 506 1273 DS 8f 1558 364 519 1340 DS 8g 1635 377 531 1408

Table 8.2 – Basford DS 8 – Traffic Generation on A500 Barthomley Link

Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Development Scenarios Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound

DS 8a 366 73 87 251 DS 8b 389 76 89 265 DS 8c 412 78 91 280 DS 8d 435 81 94 295 DS 8e 458 84 96 310 DS 8f 481 86 98 325 DS 8g 503 89 100 339




M6 JUNCTION 16 FUTURE YEAR VISSIM MODEL

8.4 The Capita M6 Junction 16 highway improvement scheme was used a starting point for developing a scheme that could maximise the development of the Basford site without triggering the need for full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link.

8.5 Indeed the proposals to partially signalise the roundabout were left unaltered, with amendments restricted to widening from the first structure on the eastbound carriageway and extension of the westbound merge. The eastbound widening was introduce to maximise throughput in the evening peak, such that queues do not extend beyond the widened section, whist the westbound merge was extended to prevent blocking back into the roundabout (and it’s knock-on effects to the eastbound approach). The scheme that formed that basis of the VISSIM modelling testing is shown below in Figure 8.1

Figure 8.1 – M6 Junction 16 Highway Improvements

8.6 The following figures present the level of queuing for each of the development scenarios 8a to 8g.

M6 (South)

A500 (West) Barthomley Link

B5078 Radway Green Road

M6 (North)

A500 (East)




M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Development Scenario 8a

M6 J16 Improvements (Modified Capita Scheme)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

140016

:35

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.2 – DS 8a: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues

(M6 J16 Improvements – Modified Capita Scheme)

M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Development Scenario 8b


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.3 – DS 8b: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues





M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Development Scenario 8c


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

140016

:35

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.4 – DS 8c: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues


M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Development Scenario 8d


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.5 – DS 8d: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues





M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Develoment Scenario 8e


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

140016

:35

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.6 – DS 8e: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues


M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Development Scenario 8f


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

16:3

5

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.7 – DS 8f: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues





M6 J16 - 2020 Evening Peak HourBasford Development Scenario 8g


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

140016

:35

16:4

0

16:4

5

16:5

0

16:5

5

17:0

0

17:0

5

17:1

0

17:1

5

17:2

0

17:2

5

17:3

0

17:3

5

17:4

0

17:4

5

17:5

0

17:5

5

18:0

0


Max

imum

Que

ue (m

etre

s)


Figure 8.8 – DS 8f: 2020 Evening Peak Predicted Queues

(M6 J16 Improvements – Modified Capita Scheme) 8.7 On the basis of this sensitivity testing it is considered that Basford DS 8c could be

used to define the traffic generation threshold beyond which full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link is required to address junction capacity concerns. In terms of traffic added to the Barthomley Link this is equivalent to;

♦ Morning Peak Hour A500 Westbound 412 vph


♦ Evening Peak Hour A500 Westbound 91 vph


and in terms of traffic generated by the Basford site this translates to;

♦ Morning Peak Hour Inbound 1328 vph

Outbound 328 vph

♦ Evening Peak Hour Inbound 480 vph

Outbound 1138 vph




8.8 The preceding junction assessment, however, does not take account of the increasing concern, shared by the County Council, towards the ability of the Barthomley Link itself to cater for future demand, and in particular the increasing need for an eastbound climbing lane. It is estimated that a climbing lane would cost about £18m on the basis that it is unlikely that three standard traffic lanes can be accommodated on the A500 under the existing bridges and substandard lane widths or reduced speed limits would be undesirable on the A500 at this location.

8.9 Whilst such a scheme may be justified to address future issues with no Basford development, such a scheme would require backing from the NWRA and the DfT, which based on current funding levels for major transport projects in the North West Region, is considered unlikely for at least the next 10 years or so.

8.10 In the event, however, that public sector funding is not forthcoming, the onus to deliver this infrastructure would have to fall on developers. An intermediate traffic threshold is needed, which defines an acceptable level of development beyond that required for the M6 junction 16 improvement scheme up to the where conditions on the A500 arising from the absence of an eastbound climbing lane would be considered unacceptable to the County Council.

8.11 In effect this intermediate level of Basford development would bring forward the need for the climbing lane. It is proposed therefore that this traffic threshold is set to a level of Basford development (Development Scenario 9) approximating to background traffic growth plus development-related traffic associated with the Basford Sidings extant permission (1.7 million sqft of B8) on the A500 Barthomley Link in the eastbound direction during the evening peak hour.

Table 8.3 - A500 Barthomley Link Flows


2006 Base Traffic Flows 1266 1088 1317 1083

2020 DS 1 Traffic Flows 1510 1254 1526 1297

Difference (2020 DS 1 minus 2006) 244 166 209 214

DS 8c Only 412 78 91 280

DS 9 Only 315 60 70 214

8.12 In terms of traffic generated by the site this translates to;

♦ Morning Peak Hour Inbound 1015 vph

Outbound 251 vph

♦ Evening Peak Hour Inbound 367 vph

Outbound 870 vph

8.13 Section 11 of this report presents these proposed traffic thresholds in a potential delivery strategy mechanism for use in a phased approach to development of the Basford sites.




9. Impact of M6 Targeted Programme of Improvement Scheme and M6 Demand Management Strategy

INTRODUCTION

9.1 The inter-urban section of the M6 between J11A and J19 carries high volumes of heavy goods vehicles and is combined with high overall traffic flows. This section of motorway serves the West Midland and North West regions and forms an essential and important link in the national motorway network.

9.2 In 1994 Draft Orders for a Parallel Widening Scheme (constructing a new carriageway alongside the existing M6) were about to go before a Public Inquiry, but were ultimately withdrawn in 1997 with the announcement of a reduced scale option. This option was subsequently superseded by the formation of the West Midlands to North West Conurbations Multi-Modal Study (MidMan), which considered all transportation needs along the M6 and West Coast mainline corridor.

9.3 A decision to again investigate the provision of additional capacity along the M6 was made by the Rt. Hon. Alistair Darling in 2002 in response to the MidMan study, which identified a need to add additional capacity. A later 2004 M6 Expressway consultation was about whether this work should be expanded to include an entirely different concept of a new tolled road.

9.4 In July 2005, Dr Ladyman asked the Highways Agency to undertake further work on the two options with a view to making a decision on the way forward in summer 2006, taking account of the consultation response and the need to make the right choice on what will be a very significant investment project. On 20 July 2006, Dr Ladyman announced that development of the Expressway option would cease, but that Widening would continue to be developed.

9.5 A scheme is currently being developed for the provision of additional capacity to the M6 by widening to dual four lanes through a combination of techniques. There is an expectation that to provide sufficient capacity, significant and effective demand management measures would be required to cater for the needs up to 2031. These proposals are to be refined for an expected mid-2007 entry into the Department's Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI).

9.6 Following TPI entry, the scheme is expected to be taken to public consultation. This could take place as early as 2007, with a Preferred Scheme Announcement in 2008, but would depend on the scheme being taken forward and whether in whole or in sections. Draft Orders and an Environmental Statement would need to be published and it is expected a Public Inquiry would also be held. Again, dates would depend on the form of the scheme, but draft Orders publication of part is not expected to be possible before 2009/10.

9.7 In light of these proposals the Highways Agency has expressed some concern regarding the level of impact that comprehensive development of the Basford site would have on the M6 mainline following the proposed introduction of the M6 TPI scheme, and the possible need for an extra fifth lane.




M6 JUNCTION 11 TO 19 STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION MODEL

Core Study Area

9.8 Atkins has developed, on behalf of the Highways Agency, an updated model for the assessment of a proposed Scheme for widening the M6 motorway between Junctions 11 to 19. The model is capable of evaluating traffic conditions on both the motorway junctions and the adjacent roads feeding the junctions.

9.9 The update model is based on the SATURN buffer network model developed by ARUP and Scott Wilson in 2000 on behalf of the DETR Government Offices for the West Midlands and the North West (MidMan Model), which in turn had been based on a previous model developed for mainland Britain.

9.10 The core study area for the M6 J11-J19 SATURN Model is shown in Figure 9.1. This figure shows that the model study area encompasses the road network directly influenced by the M6 motorway between junctions 11 to 19, from the north of Birmingham to the south-west of Manchester, including the A34 and A50 roads as well as the main junctions with the M56, M54 and M6 Toll motorways. The core study area could be described as bounded by the following roads:

♦ M56 motorway to the north,

♦ A50 and A34 to the east,

♦ Some 2 km west of the M6 comprising the adjacent A and B roads, and

♦ M54 and M6 Toll to the south.

9.11 The primary road system within the core study area is as follows:

♦ The M56 provides an important access to the south of Manchester and connects the M60, which also offers drivers an alternative route for accessing Yorkshire and The Humber, and the North-East,

♦ The A50 and A34 together provide a north-south parallel route to the M6 between north of Birmingham and south of Manchester; as well as providing local access to the intermediate towns,

♦ The A500, connected to Junctions 15 and 16, provides access to the north and south of Stoke-on-Trent, and links the A50 strategic route for connecting the M1 on the East of England, which in turn connects to London and the South-East,

♦ The M6 Toll offers drivers an alternative route to avoid a congested sections of the M6 with in the Midlands, for access to and from the East of England, London and the South-East, and

♦ The M54 constitutes the main connection from Birmingham to the West.

9.12 It is perhaps worth noting that since the MidMan model covered a much wider area than the core M6 J11-19 study area, as its network was developed for the whole of mainland Britain, the updated SATURN model also includes this wider network.




Figure 9.1 – M6 J11-19 Core Study Area




M6 Junction 16 Modifications Associated with M6 TPI Widening Scheme

9.13 The M6 TPI widening scheme includes modifications to M6 Junction 16, as illustrated below.

Figure 9.2 – Illustrative Proposals for M6 J16 – M6 TPI Widening Scheme

Impact of Comprehensive Basford Development on M6

9.14 The impact of the comprehensive development of the Basford site on the M6 mainline was based on forecast traffic flows from the M6 J11-19 SATURN model and with reference to merge and diverge requirements as detailed in design standard TD 22/06 “Layout Of Grade Separated Junctions”.

9.15 This exercise was carried out for Development Scenario 7 (Basford West plus plus potential ‘compromise’ development mix for Basford East), based on 85th percentile trips with no reduction for any targeted travel plan and/or demand management measures, for the both the morning and evening peak.




Table 9.1 – 2021 Morning Peak Hour – Basford DS 7

Morning Peak 2021 Base

Dev Flows

Total %Impact Layout Required

J15-16 5352 277 5629 5.2% 4 Lanes

J16 Off 878 277 1155 31.6% C Lane Drop at Taper Diverge

J16 Thru 4474 0 4474 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 1063 38 1101 3.6% E Lane Gain

M6

N’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-17 5537 38 5575 0.7% 4 Lanes

J17-16 6219 165 6384 2.7% 4 Lanes

J16 Off 1183 165 1348 14.0% C/D Lane Drop At Taper Diverge/Ghost Island Diverge for Lane Drop

J16 Thru 5036 0 5036 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 561 57 618 10.1% E Lane Gain

M6

S’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-15 5597 57 5654 1.0% 4 Lanes

Table 9.2 – 2021 Evening Peak Hour – Basford DS 7


Dev Flows


J15-16 5882 62 5944 1.1% 4 Lanes


J16 Thru 5096 0 5096 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 1064 101 1165 9.5% E Lane Gain

M6

N’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-17 6160 101 6261 1.6% 4 Lanes

J17-16 5820 44 5864 0.8% 4 Lanes

J16 Off 834 44 878 5.3% C Lane Drop At Taper Diverge

J16 Thru 4986 0 4986 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 797 163 960 20.5% E Lane Gain

M6

S’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-15 5783 163 5946 2.8% 4 Lanes




Table 9.3 – 2031 Morning Peak Hour – Basford DS 7


Dev Flows


J15-16 5522 277 5799 5.0% 4 Lanes


J16 Thru 4696 0 4696 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 1080 38 1118 3.5% E Lane Gain

M6

N’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-17 5776 38 5814 0.7% 4 Lanes

J17-16 6677 165 6842 2.5% 4 Lanes

J16 Off 1289 165 1454 12.8% D/B Ghost Island Diverge for Lane Drop/Ghost Island

Diverge

J16 Thru 5388 0 5388 0.0% 3/4 Lanes

J16 On 629 57 686 9.0% E/A Lane Gain/Taper Merge

M6

S’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-15 6017 57 6074 0.9% 4 Lanes

Table 9.4 – 2031 Evening Peak Hour – Basford DS 7


Dev Flows


J15-16 6211 62 6273 1.0% 4 Lanes


J16 Thru 5338 0 5338 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 1092 101 1193 9.2% E Lane Gain

M6

N’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-17 6430 101 6531 1.6% 4 Lanes

J17-16 6147 44 6191 0.7% 4 Lanes

J16 Off 870 44 914 5.1% C Lane Drop At Taper Diverge

J16 Thru 5277 0 5277 0.0% 3 Lanes

J16 On 786 163 949 20.8% E Lane Gain

M6

S’B

ound

C’w

ay

J16-15 6063 163 6226 2.7% 4 Lanes




9.16 On the basis of the preceding analysis it would appear that an M6 widened to dual four lanes along its length would be capable of accommodating the development-related traffic associated with the comprehensive development of the Basford site.

9.17 It is acknowledged, however, that this does not take into account any effects that dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link may have, such as the release of suppressed trips. The County Council has also raised the possibility that there may be future proposals to grade separate the A500 through movement, which has the potential to address wider strategic network issues.

9.18 In order to examine both of these issues, further strategic transport modelling using the M6 J11-19 SATURN Model is required and which is currently outside of the scope of this study.




10. Approach To Travel Planning and Demand Management

THE APPROACH

10.1 A travel planning and demand management proposal has been developed for the Basford sites to limit the number of vehicle movements to and from the planned development. The proposal would be implemented in conjunction with other measures to improve highway and public transport networks as part of a delivery strategy mechanism (which is presented in Section 11 of this report). The travel planning and demand management approach follows two key principles.

1. Travel Planning and Demand Management

10.2 The proposal aims to reduce the need to travel, particularly in peak periods, by better managing business operations, car sharing initiatives and through the provision and promotion of public transport and other modes of travel.

10.3 The proposal would be implemented through setting traffic limits to be generated by each development site. The level of permissible development at each phase would be related to the predicted levels of traffic generation. It should be noted that there are multiple permutations of development mixes, which would generate an equal level of traffic. This approach could theoretically allow a greater area of development assuming the traffic limits are not exceeded.

10.4 The delivery strategy mechanism (see Section 11) sets out what the traffic limits would be. This then provides a target driven approach to demand management which would be complemented by a framework of Travel Plans covering both sites and their individual plots. This is set out below.

2. Delivering Infrastructure and Transport Services

10.5 On the granting of outline planning permission a level of infrastructure and transport service provision is required to support the initial phase of development on both Basford sites. Beyond this, additional infrastructure and transport service requirements would be triggered once the traffic limits set out in the delivery strategy mechanism (see Section 11) are exceeded. These infrastructure works and transport services require public sector and developer contributions.

10.6 It is envisaged that this delivery strategy should form the basis of the Heads of Terms for the legal agreements for the development of the Basford Sites, which will allow development of the sites to an acceptable level in transportation terms, while securing the required infrastructure improvements. To enable its successful implementation the Highway Authority and the Highway’s Agency should be co-signatories on any legal agreement along with the developer and subsequent occupiers of the individual plots.




TRAVEL PLANNING AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT

10.7 As set above the travel planning and demand management proposal for the Basford sites is based upon traffic generation outcomes with the Travel Plan acting as the mechanism to reduce traffic flows. It would be developer led and supported and monitored by the public sector stakeholders. Figure 10.1 sets out the working arrangements.

10.8 A successful Travel Plan regime would address transport issues and allow development to proceed linked to the phased delivery of infrastructure once a series of phased targets are exceeded. If the Travel Plans were unsuccessful, sanctions would be paid for either further demand management measures or trigger the infrastructure requirements, which could be at an earlier point in the phasing of the developments.

The Essential Elements of the Travel Plan

10.9 The Travel Plan is prepared in three different stages, through the lifespan of the development. Firstly, a draft interim Umbrella Travel Plan should be agreed at the outline planning stage. This would be developed into an Interim Umbrella Travel Plan produced prior to first occupation, which would become the basis for producing Subsidiary Travel Plan’s for individual occupiers. An annual review process would be assumed to ensure revisions to the Umbrella and Subsidiary Travel Plans. It is envisaged there would be separate Umbrella Travel Plan’s for Basford East and Basford West with the complementary Subsidiary Plans. The Travel Plan should not only cover commuter journeys but should include traffic reduction measures and modal shifts in general business operations.

Guidance

10.10 Travel Plans should be prepared in accordance with national, regional and local best practice guidance. This should include ‘Using the planning process to secure travel plans – Best Practice Guide‘ (DfT, ODPM 2002) or its subsequent successor; ‘Steps to success – the guide for preparing Travel Plans in Cheshire’ (CCC 2003) and ‘Using the planning process to secure workplace Travel Plan’s in Cheshire’ (CCC 2005) and/or any successor and supplementary documents. Any Travel Plan should be in accordance with the County Council’s model framework for Travel Plan’s or subsequent documents.

10.11 Any Travel Plan would be submitted by or on behalf of the developer and agreed by the County Council and the Local Planning Authority. The purpose of the Travel Plan is to encourage modes of transport to and from the site other than the car, discourage the use of single occupancy car travel to the site (through initiatives such as car sharing), operational management of activities at the site that reduces vehicular traffic demand, particularly in the peak period, and reduce the need to travel to the site (e.g. encouraging home working) to be operated during the outline planning stages of the development. The Travel Plan may also extend to business conduct and may consider non-employee related travel to the site such as freight movements and HGV trips.




The Travel Plans

a) Interim Umbrella Travel Plan

10.12 The first stage of the Umbrella Travel Plan is the Interim Umbrella Travel Plan which should be submitted at the outline planning stage of the development proposal.

10.13 The Interim Umbrella Travel Plan would include the setting of targets for transport use, procedures for linking the plan with Subsidiary Travel Plans, procedures to carry out annual reviews, procedures to monitor its success and failure including sanctions to ensure the delivery of agreed measures and outcomes. It would also include proposals to replace the Interim Umbrella Travel Plan with an Umbrella Travel Plan.

10.14 The envisaged remedial measures would be set out as part of the delivery mechanism and incorporated within the details of Section 106 Agreement. If previously agreed targets had not been achieved then remedial action would include reasonable sanctions. These would in the first instance include the introduction of additional reasonable measures aimed at further encouraging car sharing, bus use, walking and cycling to/from the site, discouraging car travel to the site, parking restrictions and reducing the impact of vehicular traffic both commuters and freight shipments at peak times. If targets are still not met contributions to highway infrastructure would be required as set out in the delivery strategy mechanism.

10.15 Measures in the legal agreement would require the submission and operation of an Interim Travel Plan to the County Council and Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any part thereof. The requirement for the provision of infrastructure and improved public transport services by the developer or by developer contributions to the County Council provided with sufficient time for the County Council to provide the infrastructure and improved transport services.

10.16 The Interim Travel Plan would remain in place until the adoption of the Umbrella Travel Plan, and should be reviewed annually in consultation with the County Council in accordance with current best practice. A monitoring report or an amended Interim Travel Plan would then be submitted to the County Council for approval. As part of the review process the developer would consult and liaise with the County Council and the local planning authority.

b) Umbrella Travel Plan

10.17 Submission of the Umbrella Travel Plan would be submitted to the County Council and the Local Planning Authority within a defined time period tied to the occupation of Plots within defined phases of the development. This then replaces the Interim Travel Plan.

10.18 The review of the Umbrella Travel Plan is carried out on an annual basis after the first anniversary of its implementation. The results of this are submitted through a ‘Travel Plan Monitoring and Review Report’. As part of the review process the developer would consult and liaise with the occupiers of individual plots, the County Council and the Local Planning Authority.




c) Subsidiary Travel Plan

10.19 Travel Plan’s for individual plots within the Basford sites would be set within the parameters of the Umbrella Travel Plan. These would be submitted by or on behalf of the Occupier/s of each Plot and agreed by the County Council and the Local Planning Authority. The Subsidiary Travel Plan (and/or its successors) would be operated throughout the life of an individual plot within the development.

10.20 A draft Subsidiary Travel Plan would be submitted with the reserved matters applications and the final Subsidiary Travel Plan would be submitted prior to occupation of the first unit. This would be agreed in writing by the County Council and the Local Planning Authority and the plan would be submitted to the County Council the Local Planning Authority for approval.

10.21 In respect of the review process, from the first anniversary of the occupation of the building each Subsidiary Travel Plan will be reviewed annually. The developer will liaise with the County Council and the Local Planning Authority and the occupiers of individual plots in this process and this will be included with the Travel Plan Monitoring and Review Report. All changes to the Subsidiary Travel Plan would be agreed in writing by the County Council and the Local Planning Authority.

10.22 As part of the review process, which would be linked with the review process for the Umbrella Travel Plan, the Subsidiary Travel Plan/s would be updated, amended or replaced, as necessary. Early action would be taken if the review process demonstrates that occupiers are nearing thresholds/trigger points.

10.23 As for the Umbrella Travel Plan the envisaged remedial measures would be set out as part of the delivery mechanism and incorporated within the details of Section 106 Agreement. These would in the first instance include the introduction of additional reasonable measures aimed at further encouraging car sharing, bus use, walking and cycling to/from the site, discouraging car travel to the site and reducing the impact of vehicular traffic both commuters and freight shipments at peak times. If previously agreed targets have not been achieved then remedial action would include reasonable sanctions in the form of contributions to required infrastructure and transport services.

10.24 In the event that any plot or part of a plot is sold or let to a new Occupier, a new or revised Subsidiary Travel Plan in accordance with the Umbrella Travel Plan for that plot would be produced by the new Occupier and would be submitted to the County Council and the Local Planning Authority for approval.

ORGANISATION

10.25 The flow chart overleaf demonstrates who would be involved in the implementation of the delivery strategy mechanism and the interactions between the various stakeholders. This network would ensure that all the relevant parties are involved throughout the development process to ensure necessary transportation outcomes are achieved.




Figure 10.1 – Organisation Flow Chart

CREWE AND NANTWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL Local Planning Authority with responsibility for determination, conditions, legal agreement & enforcement of sanctions

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Highway Authority & Strategic Planning Authority with responsibility for implementing Local Transport Plan, Structure Plan & Regional Spatial Strategy

HIGHWAYS AGENCYResponsibility for M6 J16 and demand management

PLANNING APPLICATIONS Basford West & Basford East

LEGAL AGREEMENTS

BASFORD TRANSPORT STEERING GROUP Cheshire County Council, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Highways Agency, North West Development Agency, Developer, Occupiers, Travel Plan coordinators, Transport Operators. Overall control & ability to “call in” failing Subsidiary Travel Plan

UNIVERSITY QUADRANT OFFICER GROUP Cheshire County Council, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, NWDA

UNIVERSITY QUADRANT MEMBER STEERING GROUP Cheshire County Council, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Business & Community Representatives

BASFORD WEST BASFORD EAST

UMBRELLA TRAVEL PLANOverall targets for phased development. Agreed targets for individual plots subject to monitoring & review.

SUBSIDIARY TRAVEL PLANIndividual company Travel Plan’s for each Plot within principles of Umbrella Travel Plan

TRAVEL PLAN COORDINATOR TRAVEL PLAN

COORDINATOR

TRAVEL PLAN MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION Developer Led Responsibility for Travel Plan’s

TRAVEL PLAN MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION Developer Led Responsibility for Travel Plan’s




Basford Transport Steering Group

10.26 It is envisaged there would be an overarching group made up of representatives of the Highway Authority, the Planning Authority, along with NWDA, Highways Agency, the Travel Plan coordinator, developer representatives and site occupiers from both Basford East and Basford West. This group would review the progress of the sites development, review the triggers, review the infrastructure requirements etc. This group could also report to an appropriate Member group such as the University Quadrant Member Steering Group to ensure political accountability.

Travel Plan Management Organisation

10.27 A Travel Plan Management Organisation should be appointed or created by the site developers to carry out some or all of the actions with respect to the operation of travel plan initiatives at the site. This would be developer funded and would require revenue support from the developer for the Travel Plan Co-ordinator secured through the legal agreement. This would include the production, monitoring and reviewing of travel plans; procuring, providing, maintaining and operating infrastructure and services associated with the operation of the travel plan initiatives and liaising with the County Council, the Local Planning Authority and Occupiers of individual plots in respect of the preparation, monitoring and review of all site Travel Plans. The Travel Plan Management Organisation would report to the Basford Transport Steering Group and would employ the Travel Plan Co-ordinators.

Travel Plan Co-ordinator

10.28 The person appointed for the purpose of ensuring and overseeing implementation of the Travel Plans and the revision and amendment of these. It may be appropriate to have a full time Travel Plan Co-ordinator in charge of all Travel Plans on site, or for individual occupiers to have their own co-ordinators which report to the Travel Plan Management Organisation. Basford East and Basford West would have individual site Travel Plan Co-ordinator’s who would deal with their own sites issues within their Umbrella Travel Plan’s.

MONITORING

10.29 The reduction of vehicular numbers through demand management is the responsibility of the developers and occupiers through the implementation of the Travel Plan regime. If successful the management of trips would follow the delivery strategy mechanism. As such early action on Travel Plan progress would maximise the potential for increasing the developable area at each stage of the delivery strategy mechanism.

10.30 Prudent monitoring of the Travel Planning process is the key to assessing if thresholds have been breached to trigger the necessity for developer contributions to transport services and infrastructure improvements. The series of Travel Plans would be reviewed and reported thorough the submission of a ‘Travel Plan Monitoring and Review’ report annually, however more frequent monitoring would be




required through this period to assess traffic generation against fixed traffic thresholds.

10.31 The review process would be set out in the Umbrella Travel Plan. The Travel Plan Management Organisation would be responsible for monitoring the Umbrella and Subsidiary Travel Plan’s in agreement with the Basford Transport Steering Group. At appropriate thresholds, an agreed monitoring fee would be paid to the County Council and the Local Planning Authority at an agreed rate per hour to collect and independently check vehicle flows.

10.32 The delivery strategy mechanism for the Basford sites sets out traffic generation thresholds above which certain infrastructure requirements or transport services are required. There is also the potential for the Local Planning Authority to add floorspace areas or specify use classes if desirable, however, the principle driver from the Highway Authority’s point of view is traffic generation limits.

10.33 There needs to be flexibility in the implementation of the delivery strategy to allow for monitoring and review of the thresholds to take into account the long term timeframes of fully delivering the sites.

10.34 Traffic generation thresholds would be related to vehicle movements on the respective outline permissions for Basford East and Basford West. Once reserved matters applications come forward, on each site traffic generation thresholds would be proportionate to expected vehicle numbers for each plot, dependant on the nature of the operations (B1, B2, B8).

10.35 The monitoring of compliance to thresholds would be carried out by equipment positioned at relevant points at the entrance to each site and each individual plot. This would be installed by the Travel Plan Management Organisation on agreement with the Basford Transport Steering Group on various details and specification of the monitoring equipment.

10.36 Within the monitoring regime, dispensation days (exceptions to the norm) are allowed if appropriate notice is given. These would be restricted in number per year and agreed on an annual basis as part of the monitoring process.

10.37 There will also be a number of days in a monitoring period when the triggers are breached before the developer has to implement a set of infrastructure improvements.

10.38 It may also be appropriate to have a definition of peak times and to set targets to reduce traffic flows at these times. Thresholds for peak time travel could be set within individual Travel Plans. This issue would be addressed through the reserved matters stage.




Sanctions

10.39 The envisaged remedial measures would be set out as part of the delivery mechanism and incorporated within the details of Section 106 Agreement. At the Umbrella Travel Plan level agreed at outline planning stage traffic thresholds limits would be set for Basford West and Basford East respectively. At reserved matters stage, the traffic levels for each plot would be conditioned and these would be monitored through the Subsidiary Travel Plans.

10.40 If traffic threshold limits are met there would be a restriction on further development of the sites. No further approvals of reserved matters or occupation of other plots would be permitted. The introduction of additional reasonable measures through the Subsidiary Travel Plan would be aimed at further encouraging car sharing, bus use, walking and cycling to/from the site, discouraging car travel to the site and reducing the impact of vehicular traffic at peak times. If either such efforts fail to deliver the target traffic limits or insufficient efforts are being made then further remedial action would include the Basford Transport Steering Group taking over management of the offending plot’s Subsidiary Travel Plan for a set time. If after this time period there is no successful resolution then the onus would fall on the developer and contributions to necessary infrastructure set out in the delivery strategy and the Umbrella Travel Plan would be required.




11. The Way Forward to Deliver Comprehensive Development At Basford

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

11.1 The key findings that can be drawn from this study are that;

♦ the scale and mix of development put forward in the Development Briefs is unsustainable from a transportation perspective,

♦ the A500 Barthomley Link is already operating at about its design capacity, notwithstanding the effects of the uphill gradient on the eastbound carriageway, which acts as a pinch point due to slow-moving vehicles. A climbing lane scheme would cost about £18m and although this may be justified into the future to address issues with no Basford development, such a scheme would require backing from the NWRA and the DfT. On the basis of current funding levels for major transport projects in the North West Region, this is considered unlikely for at least the next 10 years or so,

♦ full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link along with improvements to M6 Junction 16 would be required to deliver an alternative mix of comprehensive development of the Basford site,

♦ if the developers’ proposals for Basford West and East were to be pursued stringent travel plan and/or demand management measures capable of reducing employee car trips by in the order of 25 to 30% would need to be implemented in conjunction with the CGLR, dualling of the A500, improvements to M6 Junction 16 and local highway network improvements,

♦ it is unlikely that private developer funding alone could deliver the full dualling of the A500 Barthomley Link, estimated at over £40 million, and that there is little immediate prospect of delivering the scheme through public sector funding,

♦ a phased strategy is therefore required to enable partial development of the Basford site and delivery of the CGLR, and which at the same time does not prejudice comprehensive development of the site in the long term, and

♦ the phased development strategy can be defined through a series of a development-related traffic generation trigger thresholds.

BASFORD DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIAL DELIVERY STRATEGY MECHANISM

11.2 On the evidence of the findings contained within this report it is apparent that the delivery of comprehensive development at Basford is complex with the need for compromise and cooperation by all parties, and whilst due consideration should be given to applications currently with the Borough they should be set within the context of an overall delivery strategy mechanism.

11.3 Although transportation issues are the key driver for the need to re-define the Development Briefs for Basford West and East, and will guide the amount of development that can be accommodated on this site, other economic and land use




requirements will define the precise nature of what can be delivered in terms of comprehensive development.

11.4 In terms of transportation constraints, the following traffic thresholds are proposed based on the major highway infrastructure measures previously identified.

Table 11.1 – Basford Developments Proposed Traffic Thresholds

Highway Infrastructure Traffic Threshold+ (Vehicles)

A500 Barthomley Link (Eastbound Climbing Lane)* Background Traffic Growth

M6 Junction 16 and A500 Improvements 279

Crewe Green Link Road 861

A500 Barthomley Link (Eastbound Climbing Lane)** 1885

A500 Barthomley Link Dualled (M6 J16 Capacity) 2466

No Further Development 3405

+ The traffic threshold relates to the total number of vehicles generated by the Basford Development comprising inbound traffic in the morning peak hour and outbound traffic in the evening peak hour.

* An eastbound climbing lane on the A500 may be justified into the future to address issues with no Basford development. However, such a scheme would require backing from the NWDA, NWRA and the DfT, which based on current funding levels for major transport projects in the North West Region, is considered unlikely for a least the next 10 years or so.

** In the absence of any public sector funding, the onus to deliver this infrastructure would have to fall on developers

11.5 These traffic threshold proposals are based on an illustration for the peak hours; however, further detail will be required to assess corresponding thresholds for other times of the day.

11.6 By way of illustration these peak hour traffic thresholds are presented in Appendix A along with examples of development mix and travel plan/demand management target that generate this level of traffic. For comparative purposes, the chart also presents the level of traffic generation for each of the development scenarios considered as part of this study.

11.7 Applying the traffic thresholds to the travel planning and demand management approach, a proposed delivery strategy mechanism has been developed (see Table 11.1 overleaf) that could potentially enable comprehensive development of the Basford sites.




Table 11.2 – Basford Developments Potential Delivery Strategy Mechanism


Requirements % of full cost or cost contribution

Requirements % of full cost or cost

contribution

1 – Prior to any development at Outline Planning Approval 1 – Prior to any development at Outline Planning Approval

Contribution to Crewe Green Link Road 50%* of £12m Contribution to Crewe Green Link Road 50%* of £12m

Establishment of Basford Transport Steering Group Establishment of Basford Transport Steering Group

Establishment of Travel Plan Management Organisation and appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator

Developer to agree with CCC and LPA local network contributions as part of Transport Assessment e.g. Crewe Green Roundabout

Developer funded

Establishment of Travel Plan Management Organisation and appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator

Submission of Interim Umbrella Travel Plan

Submission of Interim Umbrella Travel Plan

2 – Prior to first occupation of Reserved Matters 2 – Prior to first occupation of Reserved Matters

Submission of Umbrella Travel Plan Submission of Umbrella Travel Plan

Submission of relevant Subsidiary Travel Plan’s for reserved matters units

Submission of relevant Subsidiary Travel Plan’s for reserved matters units

New footpath/cycle link from Clough Walk across Gresty Brook under railway to link to Gresty Road

Implemented by developer or

through commuted sum

New pedestrian/cycleway link to Weston village



Improved footpath link from Claughton Ave to Small Brook Walk



Cycle link from Weston Road and northern section of Crewe Green Link Road to the site. (Intended provision as part of the Crewe Green Link Road)









contribution

Cycle ways along Crewe Road, Shavington Implemented by

developer or through

commuted sum

Revenue support for public transport and demand responsive services of an appropriate scale and nature

Up to circa £1m over a number of

years

Provision of pedestrian link to Crewe Road close to A500 through 3rd party land

Commuted sum and Planning Act

CPO

Traffic management contribution to works in local villages, including Shavington A534 Nantwich Road; B5071 Gresty Road and Davenport Av, Brookhouse Dr and Manor Way.

Circa £300,000

Provision of a pedestrian link through land adjacent to the Cheshire Cheese to Crewe Road to the north



Car parking restrictions: Traffic Regulation Orders on internal roads, Controlled Parking Zone with decriminalised parking and maximum parking standards or less than if appropriate

Commuted sum

Car parking restrictions: Traffic Regulation Orders on internal roads, Controlled Parking Zone with decriminalised parking and maximum parking standards or less than if appropriate

Commuted sum

3 – At 279 vehicles+

Completion of Basford West Spine Road Developer funded

M6 Junction 16 and A500 Improvements Total cost circa £6m

Revenue support for public transport services through the application site between Crewe bus station and Shavington including bus stops

Circa £250,000 (approx £50,000

per annum)

4 – At 636 vehicles+ (25% of Basford East development)

Traffic management contribution to works in local villages, including Shavington and in the residential area bounded by south of A534 Nantwich Road; B5071 Gresty Road and Davenport Av, Brookhouse Dr and Manor Way.

circa £150,000

Sanction 1 - Vehicle reduction measures to keep within Subsidiary Travel Plan targets (encouraging car sharing, contributions to bus infrastructure to further encourage bus use, measures to promote walking and cycling to/from the site, reducing the impact of vehicular traffic at peak times)

Developer contributions agreed relevant to vehicle

numbers







contribution

3 – At 215 vehicles+ (25% of Basford West development) 5 – At 1024 vehicles+

Sanction 1 - Vehicle reduction measures to keep within Subsidiary Travel Plan targets (encouraging car sharing, contributions to bus infrastructure to further encourage bus use, measures to promote walking and cycling to/from the site, reducing the impact of vehicular traffic at peak times)

Developer contributions

agreed relevant to vehicle numbers

A500 Barthomley Link – Eastbound climbing lane* Total cost circa £18m

4 – At 279 vehicles+ 6 – At 1604 vehicles +

M6 Junction 16 and A500 Improvements Total cost circa £6m

Provision of rail link and sidings Circa £5m A500 Barthomley Link Dualled Total cost circa

£40m

5 – No further development would take place at 861 vehicles+ 7 – No further development would take place at 2544 vehicles+

Vehicle reduction measures to keep within Subsidiary Travel Plan targets Vehicle reduction measures to keep within Subsidiary Travel Plan targets

+ The traffic threshold relates to the total number of vehicles generated by the Basford Development comprising inbound traffic in the morning peak hour and outbound traffic in the evening peak hour. Further detail will be required to assess corresponding traffic thresholds for other times of the day.

* In the absence of any public sector funding the onus to deliver this infrastructure would have to fall on developers. The need for a climbing lane for the eastbound carriageway may be justified into the future to address link capacity issues with no Basford development. However, such a scheme would require backing from the NWDA, NWRA and the DfT, which based on current funding levels for major transport projects in the North West Region, is considered unlikely for at least the next 10 years or so.

Appendix A

Basford Developments Traffic Thresholds

Documents

Basford Regional Investment Site, Crewe