Transport Main Proof of Evidence Paul Parkhouse

Transport Main Proof of Evidence Paul Parkhouse

CEN/P6.1/TRA

Page 1 of 12

Reference Document: CEN/P6.1/TRA The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension Land Acquisition and Variation) Order Paul Parkhouse MEng MIHT, Mott MacDonald Ltd Transport Assessment Process Main Proof of Evidence on behalf of the Applicants October 2014

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA

14 October 2014 Page 2 of 12

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Outline of Evidence 4

Defining the Transport Assessment Scope 4

Predicted Impacts 5

Response to Objections 6

Overall Conclusions 11

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


Introduction

Qualifications and Experience

1. I am Paul Parkhouse, a Master of Civil Engineering from Nottingham University and a

Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I am a Principal Transport

Planner employed by Mott MacDonald Ltd in their Birmingham office.

2. I have 18 years of Transport and Development Planning experience, working for both

private and public sector clients on a variety of projects, covering a wide range of

transport planning areas, including Light Rail Transit schemes.

3. I completed the Transport Impact Assessment for the Midland Metro Centenary

Square Extension (CSQ) Variation (2013). I was also responsible for preparing the

Transport chapter of the 2013 ES and the Transport Assessment which forms part of

the Order 2013 (hereafter the ‘Order’).

Scope of Evidence

4. My evidence covers the Transport Impact Assessment aspects of the Order, as

documented by the Transport Assessment and Transport chapter of the 2013 ES. It

does not cover the Transport Option Assessment aspects which were undertaken to

support the Transport and Works Act Order Business Case. This work is covered in

the evidence produced by Peter Adams of Centro and by Neil Chadwick of Steer

Davies Gleave.

5. My Proof also refers to information from the proof of evidence provided by Gavin Last

of Mott MacDonald.

Declaration of truth

6. I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in this Proof of Evidence are within my own

knowledge, I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true. In my

professional opinion, I believe that this Proof of Evidence represents an unbiased and

true assessment of the Transport Planning and assessment implications of the

scheme.

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


Outline of Evidence

Overview

7. My evidence concerns the Transport Impact Assessment aspects of the Order and will

address the following:

a. How the scope for the Transport chapter (2013 Environmental Statement) and the

Transport Assessment for the Order was defined and agreed.

b. A summary of the predicted transport impacts of the Order during construction and

operation and the mitigation measures proposed.

c. Response to objections with regards to transport impacts to the Order.

d. Overall conclusions.

8. In my evidence I will refer to:

• The Midland Metro Paradise Circus Variation Transport Assessment (CD14 [MMD/4.5D])

and Environmental Statement (CD13 [MMD/4.5C]);

• Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’, 2007;

• Department for Transport WebTAG guidance;

• Department for Transport ‘Inclusive Mobility’, 2005; and

• Transport for London ‘Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London’, 2010

Defining the Transport Assessment Scope

9. Mott MacDonald is responsible for the preparation of the following documents which

support the Order:

• The Transport chapter within the 2013 Environmental Statement (CD13

[MMD/4.5C]); and

• The Transport Assessment (CD14 [MMD/4.5D])

10. The most recent guidance available for Transport Assessments is the 2007

Department for Transport’s ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’. This guidance

applies primarily to land use development schemes, but the principles are nonetheless

applicable for assessing the transport impacts of Light Rail Transit schemes similar to

the Order.

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


11. The Guidance is based on the DfT’s ‘New Approach to Appraisal’ (NATA) principles.

In paragraph 4.30, the Guidance states that this approach ‘will ensure that a proposed

development’s impacts are considered in the context of two alternative scenarios –

‘with development’ and ‘without development’ – and will enable a comparative analysis

of the transport effects of allowing the development to take place.’ The Guidance also

states that future year assessment scenarios should include the effects of committed

developments and transport schemes. This is therefore the approach adopted in the

Transport Assessment for the Order.

12. In the case of the Order, the ‘without development' scenario (referred to as the ‘do

minimum’ scenario in the Transport Assessment and ES) includes all relevant

committed land use developments and committed transport schemes, including the

2005 Order. The ‘with development’ scenario (referred to as the ‘do something’

scenario in the Transport Assessment and ES) is concerned with the same committed

land use developments and transport schemes, but with a short section of variation to

the 2005 Order alignment at the Paradise Circus Redevelopment.

13. The Transport Assessment is therefore concerned with the assessment of the net

impact of the Order only, over and above those envisaged in the 2005 Order.

14. In line with the 2005 Order Transport Assessment and the principles of current DfT

Transport Assessment guidance, the TA considered impacts on a wide range of

transport-related receptors, including: pedestrians and cyclists; buses and hackney

cabs; access and servicing; changes in traffic patterns and flow; and road safety

15. This approach was agreed in principle with the DfT Orders Unit in May 2013 through

the EIA scoping process and with the Highway Authority (Birmingham City Council) in

July 2013 through the Transport Assessment scoping process.

16. The outputs of the Order Transport Assessment formed the basis and supporting

information for the Transport chapter of the 2013 ES.

Predicted Impacts

17. I will now provide a brief summary of the findings from the Transport Assessment and

Transport chapter of the 2013 ES, which support the Order.

18. Overall, the Order and the 2005 Order were found to be very similar in terms of their

construction-phase and operational-phase transport impacts on sensitive receptors.

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


19. During construction, both the Order and the 2005 Order are expected to have a

potentially ‘low adverse’ impact on pedestrians and cyclists during construction stage.

However, given the high sensitivity rating of these receptors, the construction impact is

considered to be ‘significant’. With the provision of alternative pedestrian/cycle routes

(during scheme construction) that are safe and well marked, any residual impacts on

pedestrians and cyclists will be temporary and are considered not significant.

20. During the construction of the Order, there will be reduced impact on traffic compared

to the 2005 Order, as the construction period is shorter and fewer construction vehicle

trips are generated.

21. Both the Order and the 2005 Order are expected to result in a ‘significant’ impact on

bus routes during construction. It is expected that any residual impacts will be reduced

to not significant’ if appropriate mitigation measures (including temporary re-routing of

buses and revised bus timetabling) are delivered.

22. There will also be an improvement in the performance of the Paradise Circus

Queensway West / Broad Street junction with the Order compared against that of the

2005 Order. This is because the junction design presented in the Order offers more

highway lane capacity than is proposed in the equivalent design for the 2005 Order

layout.

23. The conclusion of the Transport Assessment is that the net transport-related impacts

of the Order relative to those of the 2005 Order are either neutral or beneficial.

Mitigation works proposed as part of the 2005 Order are also considered appropriate

to facilitate the Order. Additional mitigation works recommended to support the Order

concern road safety at the Paradise Circus junction, as follows:

a. Signage on westbound traffic approach to Paradise Street, visible change in road

surface treatment and number plate recognition cameras to deter general traffic from

following tram into Paradise Street; and

b. Traffic signal control and staging to allow trams to pass through Paradise Circus

junction in one movement, to minimise tram/traffic interactions and to prevent tram

from blocking traffic movements in junction.

Response to Objections

24. I will now respond directly to matters raised by objectors which relate to the Transport

Assessment process.

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


OBJ/08: Arena Central

25. I have read the Statement of Case of Arena Central (OBJ/08). It is my understanding

that this objection relates to matters concerning the justification and impact of the

acquisition of certain land parcels to facilitate implementation of the Order. This

objection is not covered by the scope of the Transport Assessment process.

Responses to this objection are dealt with in the proof of Gavin Last of Mott

MacDonald.

OBJ/09: HRB Hotel Company Ltd

26. I have read the Statement of Case of HRB Hotel Company Ltd (OBJ/09). It is my

understanding that this objection relates to matters concerning the justification and

impact of the acquisition of certain land parcels to facilitate implementation of the

Order. This objection is not covered by the scope of the Transport Assessment

process. Responses to this objection are dealt with in the proof of Gavin Last of Mott

MacDonald.

OBJ/11: Victoria Square House

27. I have read the Statement of Case of Victoria Square House (OBJ/11). It is my

understanding that the objections relevant to and/or making reference to the Transport

Assessment process are:

a. That the Transport Assessment has not been prepared in accordance with the DfT’s

2007 Guidance on Transport Assessment or WebTAG Transport Analysis Guidance;

b. That the Transport Assessment has not included a reconsideration of potential

scheme routing options from New Street Station to Five Ways; and

c. That the Transport Assessment has not considered the impacts of the Order on

pedestrian amenity in Pinfold Street.

28. I will respond to each point in turn.

Accordance with Guidance

29. We disagree with the statement that the Transport Assessment has not been prepared

in accordance with the DfT’s 2007 Guidance on Transport Assessment and 2013

WebTAG guidance.

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


30. WebTAG is based on the DfT’s NATA principles. The 2007 Guidance on Transport

Assessment was also developed based on these principles in order to be consistent

with the WebTAG process.

31. I have already described how our Transport Assessment approach was consistent with

the recommended guidance that the transport impacts of the Order be identified

through comparison of a ‘with development’ scenario with the equivalent ‘without

development’ scenario. This approach led to the Transport Assessment being

focussed on the net transport impacts of the Order only, over and above those

envisaged in the 2005 Order.

32. Paragraph 4.31 of the Guidance also states that ‘A TA should adopt the principles of

NATA by assessing the potential impacts of a development proposal within the

framework of the five NATA objectives.’ The five NATA objectives are: Environment,

Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration. The Transport Assessment and

associated EIA process considered these objectives as follows:

a. Regarding environmental impacts, a full EIA was undertaken to support the Order.

This considered the noise and air quality impacts related to any changes in traffic

flow.

b. Regarding safety, the Transport Assessment assessed the impact of the Order on

road safety.

c. Regarding economy, the Transport Assessment assessed the impact of the Order on

general traffic flows and journey times in the weekday peak hours.

d. Regarding accessibility, the Transport Assessment assessed the impact of the Order

on pedestrian and cycle routes, public transport operations and on local access and

servicing.

e. Regarding integration, the Transport Assessment identified no negative impacts of

the Order, but the Scheme itself will be beneficial for promoting better integration

between modes and key land uses within the city centre.

33. In addition, it is reiterated that this approach was agreed in principle with the DfT

Orders Unit in May 2013 through the EIA scoping process and with the Highway

Authority (Birmingham City Council) in July 2013 through the Transport Assessment

scoping process.

34. I therefore conclude that the Order Transport Assessment was prepared in accordance

with the principles of relevant guidance. Though the 2005 Order Transport

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


Assessment was prepared before the DfT’s guidance was issued, it is noted that this

was also based on NATA principles. There is therefore a consistency of approach

between the two Transport Assessments.

Reconsideration of Alternative Routes

35. The Transport Assessment does not include a reassessment of the 2005 Order route

as the preferred route. The primary reason for this is that the Transport Assessment

was specifically an assessment of the transport impacts of the Order alone, with a view

to identifying the need for any associated mitigation measures over and above that

already committed for the 2005 Order. This approach is again in accordance with the

DfT’s Guidance on Transport Assessment, which does not require the assessment of

alternatives.

36. A WebTAG appraisal was undertaken separately to support the Order Business Case

by Steer Davies Gleave (SDG). This assessed alternative route options through

Paradise Circus in order to justify the preferred Order alignment and a summary of this

process is presented in Section 3.2 of the Environmental Statement and is covered in

the proofs of Neil Chadwick of SDG and Peter Adams, the Applicant.

37. The approach taken to the more substantial alternatives to the 2005 Order route, such

as those suggested by this objector, is covered in the proofs of Neil Chadwick of SDG,

Peter Adams, the Applicant, and Gavin Last of Mott MacDonald.

38. It is equally my professional opinion that the Order route still represents the preferred

route option between Stephenson Street and Centenary Square. Neither the

circumstances on the ground nor the principles of Transport Appraisal have changed

sufficiently since the making of the 2005 Order to suggest that the Order route is not

still the preferred option. The alternatives put forward by the applicant also still involve

the same significant engineering and cost issues which caused them to be discounted

in the original appraisal. I am therefore satisfied that the Order route remains the

preferred option.

Pedestrian Impact on Pinfold Street

39. The impact of the 2005 Order on pedestrian amenity in Pinfold Street was considered

by the 2005 Order Transport Assessment. These impacts were not reassessed as

part of the Order Transport Assessment as the Order would not result in any net

change in impacts on Pinfold Street compared to the scheme that would be

implemented under the 2005 Order.

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


40. With respect to whether the pedestrian impacts of the Order on Pinfold Street will be

acceptable, this will be ensured by the Highway Authority through the Order design

approvals process. However, I have considered the design proposals which received

detailed planning consent in May of this year and am also satisfied that the Order can

be delivered on Pinfold Street without resulting in unacceptable impacts for

pedestrians.

41. Once the Order is implemented, Pinfold Street will be restricted to tram and pedestrian

movements only. The scheme design for Pinfold Street which recently gained detailed

planning consent includes a demarcated footway along the north eastern side of the

street which will provide a continuous width from kerbline to building line of at least

1.8m and more commonly 2m, except for a single pinch-point at the southern end of

Pinfold Street where the width will be 1.74m. On the occasions that an eastbound

tram passes within Pinfold Street, pedestrian movements will be accommodated within

this footway section. When a westbound tram passes, pedestrians will be able to use

the footway section and the adjacent eastbound tram alignment. In between tram

passes, pedestrians can use the full width of street.

42. Trams will be scheduled to pass in each direction once every six minutes and will

therefore be present in the street once every three minutes on average. The section of

Pinfold Street in question is about 80 metres long which, at a standard design walking

speed of 1.4 m/s, takes about a minute to traverse. On average, therefore, a

pedestrian might only encounter a tram within this section in about one in every three

trips, and an eastbound tram that causes them to use the footway in one in every six

trips. Pinfold Street will therefore operate acceptably as a shared space between

trams and pedestrians.

43. From the point of view of accessibility standards, recent Transport for London

guidance from 2010, ‘Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London’, advises that the clear

width of a footway bounded by a wall should be taken as being 0.2m less than the

physical width. This results in a minimum continuous clear width of 1.6m for the

proposed footway on Pinfold Street, and 1.54m at the pinch point.

44. This clear width provision is acceptable according to DfT ‘Inclusive Mobility’ guidance

from 2005. Though this recommends a desirable minimum width of 2m to allow two

wheelchairs to pass, where physical constraints exist it permits a lower minimum of

1.5m to allow a wheelchair and walker to pass each other and an absolute minimum of

1m where there are obstacles. In reality, given the 9% gradient of the street, it will be

a rare occurrence that two wheelchair users need to pass each other at the same time

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


that an eastbound tram is passing along this street, in which case the proposed

minimum continuous clear width of 1.6m is considered acceptable from an accessibility

perspective.

45. From a capacity point of view, I am also satisfied that the proposed footway provision

is acceptable. The TfL guidance recommends for office and retail areas a minimum

‘comfortable’ Pedestrian Comfort Level of 12 to 14 pedestrians per metre per minute

during peak times. The upper value of this range would permit a footway with a clear

width of 1.6m to comfortably accommodate a flow of 1,344 pedestrians per hour. The

pedestrian count cited by the objector of 5,600 pedestrians per day would therefore be

easily accommodated by the proposed provision. It is also noted again that

pedestrians will only be limited to using this footway once every six minutes on

average when an eastbound tram passes. A greater width will therefore be available

the rest of the time.

46. I therefore conclude that the proposed footway provision on Pinfold Street is adequate

to accommodate the need of both pedestrians and tram operations.

OBJ/13: One Birmingham Dandara

47. I have read the Statement of Case of One Birmingham Dandara (OBJ/13). It is my

understanding that this objection relates to matters concerning the justification and

impact of the acquisition of certain land parcels to facilitate implementation of the

Order. This objection is not covered by the scope of the Transport Assessment

process. Responses to this objection are dealt with by the proof of Gavin Last.

Overall Conclusions

48. In conclusion, I am satisfied that:

• the transport impacts of the Order have been fully and robustly considered in

accordance with appropriate guidance and in agreement with DfT and the Highway

Authority, as reported in the 2013 ES and accompanying Transport Assessment;

• the Order would result in no material worsening, and indeed some improvement, of

transport impacts in comparison with the 2005 Order;

• the measures proposed to mitigate the transport impacts of the Order are appropriate

and deliverable;

• the Order route is still the preferred route between Stephenson Street and Centenary

Square; and

Transport

Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA


• the proposed pedestrian footway provision on Pinfold Street is adequate to

accommodate the need of both pedestrians and tram operations.

Documents

Transport Main Proof of Evidence Paul Parkhouse