TFSH Fareham Study

Fareham SDA Access Study
Fareham Borough Council Civic Offices Civic Way Fareham Hampshire PO16 7AZ
February 2009
Stoneham Place Stoneham Lane Southampton Hampshire SO50 9NW Tel: 44 (0) 23 8062 8800 Fax: 44 (0) 23 8062 8801
Environment Department Hampshire County Council The Castle Winchester SO23 8UD
227552/01/D - 6 February 2009/ P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report01D.doc/P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/APAP
Issue and Revision Record

Rev A B C D Date 31.10.2008 12.12.2008 6.1.2009 6.2.2009 Originator A Palmer S Almond S Almond S Almond Checker A Thompson A Thompson A Thompson A Thompson Approver G. Maclean G. Maclean G Maclean G Maclean Description 1st DRAFT Amendments made in light of Highways Agency meeting Final Issue 2nd Final Issue
227552/01/D - 6 February 2009/ P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report01D.doc/P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/APAP
List of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2
Page 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................. 5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Solent Strategic Transport Model.................................................................................. 5 New Transport Model.................................................................................................... 6 Development Traffic...................................................................................................... 6 Past Reports ................................................................................................................... 7 Other Supporting Documents or Studies ..................................................................... 11
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 13 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Assessment Year.......................................................................................................... 13 Assessment Period ....................................................................................................... 13 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 13 Assignment of Traffic.................................................................................................. 13 Design flows for lane requirements ............................................................................. 14
ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS................................................................................. 15 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 General......................................................................................................................... 15 Description of Options................................................................................................. 15 Option Cost Review..................................................................................................... 16 Assessment Criteria ..................................................................................................... 17 Option Evaluations ...................................................................................................... 18 Merge and Diverge analysis ........................................................................................ 30 Summary of the Initial Option Assessment ................................................................. 34
5 6
TRAFFIC MODELLING ......................................................................................................... 35 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 37 6.1 6.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 37 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 38
List of Figures Figure 1.1 Proposed Fareham SDA Site Location .................................................................................. 3 Figure 2.1: Highway Network Density ................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3.1: Illustration of Trip Reassignment Assumptions.................................................................. 14 Figure 4.1 Option 1 Do Minimum ...................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4.2 Option 2 new M27 J10 with BRT........................................................................................ 20 Figure 4.3 Option 3 split M27 J10 with A32 realigned......................................................................... 23 i
227552/01/D - 6 February 2009 P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
Figure 4.4 Option 4 M27 J10 all traffic movements with A32 realigned.............................................. 26 Figure 4.5 Option 5 M27 J10 with A32 realigned and BRT ................................................................. 28 Figure 4.1: Taper merge ........................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 4.2: Parallel merge ..................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain .......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1 ................................................................................. 31 Figure 4.5: Lane gain with Ghost Island merge option 2 ...................................................................... 32 Figure 4.6: 2Two lane gain with Ghost Island ...................................................................................... 32 Figure 4.7: Taper diverge ...................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 4.8: Lane drop at taper diverge .................................................................................................. 33 Figure 4.9: Ghost Island diverge for lane drop...................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.10: 2 lane drop ........................................................................................................................ 33 List of Tables Table 4-1 Option Matrix....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4-3 Summary of the Interchange Parameters ............................................................................. 30 Table 5-1: M27 Junction 11 Signalised Junction Modelling Results.................................................... 35
ii
Executive Summary
This study assesses the suitability of a number of options for providing road access to the proposed Strategic Development Area at Fareham from the Strategic Road Network. The study is focused on two junctions of the M27, Junction 10 and Junction 11, which form part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). Preceding this assessment of options three studies have been carried out over the past which have considered transport issues associated with the Strategic Development Area (SDA) itself. These previous reports are listed below and a short description is provided in the report of each: BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP August 2008; Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development Framework Proposals on the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates July 2008; and Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.
This study assesses the options for access to the SDA from the M27 in two stages. The first stage tests each proposal against broad evaluation criteria to narrow down the number of access options to be taken forward to a more detailed assessment in Sage 2. The option appraisal section provides concepts to illustrate the proposed access options. The five options considered in the report are: Option 1 Do Minimum Minor changes to the highway network are made in this scenario. Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10 with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10. Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32 realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10; Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route and the A32 is realigned to join M27 J11. The option evaluation section assesses each access proposal against five criteria, which are: Policy; Design Standards; Traffic Capacity; Cost/ Benefit; and Deliverability Issues.
1
The Policy criterion in the evaluation process is deemed as the primary operator in terms of whether the proposed access strategy would be a suitable option. Therefore if an option fails to satisfy current transport policy then it would not go through for further traffic analysis. For example, where an option is considered to be a new junction onto the M27 this would contravene Department for Transport Policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07, which states that no new junctions would be permitted on the SRN to facilitate new development, except for motorway service areas. The traffic element of the study bases its traffic assessment on a simple reassignment of a traffic network model. The model is based on an AM Peak period only and is not all coded is simulation. That is, not all the junctions and links in the model include the geometric data that would influence the assignment of the trip within the network. Therefore further work will be required to upgrade the network in the locality of the proposed SDA and a PM peak period. This will provide confidence that the preferred option is still a valid with the return trip. Nevertheless, in the absence of a fully simulated model covering the Fareham area including the county roads, the existing SSTM represents the best traffic data source available for this project, a view shared by the Highways Agency. A sort summary of why each option was dismissed or considered suitable is provided for reference below: Option 1 The exiting junctions on the M27 do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed SDA traffic.
Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements would contravene policy set out DfT Circular 02/07. Option 3 The option would be viewed as a new M27 J10 and would therefore contravene policy set out DfT Circular 02/07. Option 4 Provide west facing slip roads which would provide little benefit to the whole scheme and does not easily prioritise BRT movements to Fareham Town Centre; and Option 5 is viewed as the most suitable option and is therefore taken forward for more detailed traffic modelling analysis. The traffic levels likely to be generated by the proposed SDA will not be accommodated by any of the options proposed. Therefore the solution for access to the proposed SDA will requiring a significant proportion of the forecast car demand to be accommodated in an alternative way, eg containment or mode shift. Following the first stage of the assessment, only Option 5 is taken forward for further analysis. The detailed traffic analysis is focused on the M27 Junction 11 only. The junction is tested using a programme used to model linked traffic signals. The results reveal that Option 5 in the AM peak period works satisfactorily. This assumes that eastbound trips from the A32 are channelled to the M27 on a segregated left turn lane. This lane has limited capacity and the study advises that the development will need to reduce its eastbound traffic generation by between 50% and 60%. It is concluded that OPTION 5 is the most suitable access option for the proposed Fareham SDA, based on the initial evaluation and an AM peak period traffic assessment. To fully understand the area wide reassignment impact of the scheme, including issues in the PM peak, further testing is essential once the new area wide transport model is available.
2
INTRODUCTION
The South East Plan proposes that a Strategic Development Area (SDA) is built on land to the north of Fareham. The proposed SDA is to consist of up to 10,000 dwellings and 121,000 square metres of employment development, delivered between 2016 and 2026. It is recognised that this scale of development will have a significant impact on the local transport infrastructure. The location of the proposed SDA site is to the north of the M27 at Fareham, Figure 1.1. Figure 1.1 Proposed Fareham SDA Site Location
SDA
A32
J10
M27
J11
A32 A27 Fareham
Three studies have been carried out over the past year to consider the transport issues associated with the proposed SDA. These previous reports are listed below: BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP August 2008; Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development Framework Proposals on the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates July 2008; and
3
Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.
The study is to review options for providing access to the proposed SDA from the SRN. We have applied a two stage approach to the assessment. The first stage of this assessment considers all options available and assesses the proposals against criteria such as; conformity with relevant policy or/and compliance with the standards. The more feasible options are then taken forward to detailed traffic modelling and junction analysis. The scope of this assessment does not consider proposals for the internal network of the proposed SDA. The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 states the data sources used for this study Chapter 3 - describes the methodology for the assessment of the junctions Chapter 4 provides an initial assessment of the options; Chapter 5 - presents the results of the traffic modelling of each of the feasible options; Chapter 6 - highlights the cost implications for each of the feasible options; Chapter 7 - sets out summary of the report findings; and Chapter 8 - highlights the conclusions and recommendations.
4
2
2.1
ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

Solent Strategic Transport Model
Background traffic flow data for the study has been sourced from the Solent Strategic Traffic Model (SSTM) developed by Atkins for Hampshire County Council to represent travel demand in the Solent area. The SSTM represents an average hour within the morning peak period (0700-1000) and an average hour within the inter peak period (1000-1600) in 2004. The evening peak period has not been modelled within SSTM and has not been considered as part of this study. Assessment of the PM peak will be important at some stage as a valid option for the AM peak may not be suitable for the PM peak and additional refinement may potentially be needed. The highway network has been modelled using the SATURN suite of programs. It was based on an existing model developed by WSP for the Highways Agency, which was in turn based on based on the M27 ITS study carried out by MVA. The network density is shown in Figure 2.1. The model includes all the Motorways, A roads, B roads and other roads that are considered to carry high volumes of traffic. Figure 2.1: Highway Network Density
Southampton
Portsmouth
5
The network has a mixture of buffer and simulation coding (simulation coding takes account of delays due to junctions). The motorway network and associated junctions have been coded in simulation and the Portsmouth area has also been coded in simulation; the rest of the network has been coded as buffer using speed-flow curves to take account of delays. This type of coding is only suitable for areas that are not congested. Within the study area for this project, both M27 Junction 10 and 11 are simulated in the model, although junctions on the A32 north and south of the motorway are coded in buffer making the predicted reassignment of traffic on the wider network in response to any proposed changes at M27 Junctions 10 and 11 (e.g. realigned A32) potentially open to question. However, in the absence of a fully simulated model covering the Fareham area including the county roads, the existing SSTM represents the best traffic data source available for this project, a view shared by the Highways Agency (Appendix A).
2.2
New Transport Model
The limitations of the existing SSTM to provide an accurate representation of the traffic implications associated with new highway infrastructure are recognised by the two relevant highway authorities, Hampshire County Council and the Highways Agency. A new more detailed model of the local area is in preparation, with data collection currently ongoing. The new transport model will capture the current network issues, such as queuing on the M27 mainline in the peak periods. Any preliminary conclusions set out in this report will need to be reassessed once the new improved modelling tool is available.
2.3
Development Traffic
Traffic forecasts for development proposals in the local area as set out in the draft core strategies including the SDA, are taken from Peter Brett Associates (PBA) Transport Assessment titled Assessing the Impact of Harbour Authorities LDF Proposals on the Strategic Highway Network and produced in July 2008. The PBA work provides a very detailed quantification and distribution analysis of traffic associated with all development sites included within the draft core strategies for Fareham, Gosport, Havant and Portsmouth. This study has taken the PBA figures at face value as scrutiny of the PBA report is not part of this project scope. We understand from PBA that the following approach was applied to the derivation of traffic forecasts associated with the SDA SDA housing trip rates are 30% higher than the standard TRICS rates to account for the location near the M27 (derived from 2001 CENSUS Home to Work statistics); Employment trip rates were calibrated against an area in North Fareham as observed in CENSUS 2001 data; and 20% of vehicle trips are contained within the development area.
6
PBA provided traffic turning movements for the study area network extracted from SSTM in the with and without SDA development scenarios set out below. Where Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is included in Scenario 3, a reduction in traffic demand as a result of mode switch to BRT by car users has been allowed for in the PBA figures: Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Base (No Development SDA) Base + Development SDA existing highway network; and Base + Development SDA + BRT +A32 realigned to M27 J11.
Initial observations of the data show a considerable increase in traffic travelling eastwards towards Fareham and Portsmouth. It is not possible with the data selected for this study from the PBA model to determine the likely increase in traffic north of the proposed SDA.
2.4
Past Reports
As described above, three studies have been carried out over the past year to consider the transport implications of the SDA. These previous reports are listed below and a short description of each report follows: 2.4.1 BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP August 2008; Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development Framework Proposals on the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates July 2008; and Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008. BRT Alignment and Operation Assessment WSP (August 2008)
WSP Development and Transportation was commissioned by PRUPIM, a stakeholder in the development for the proposed Fareham SDA, to assess the BRT alignment options between Fareham Town Centre and the SDA. The alignments investigated by the study were put forward by both PRUPIM and Hampshire County Council as part of previous related studies. The principle focus of the assessment was to identify a route that would best serve the SDA in terms of: Journey times; Reliability; Accessibility; and Interaction with the proposed wider South Hampshire BRT system.
7
The study provided policy context for the development of a comprehensive BRT network in South Hampshire. The BRT proposal developed from a light rail transit (LRT) which HCC was forced to abandon by central government in 2005 on the grounds of cost. The LRT project proposed to link Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth and was also known as the South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT). Despite the abandonment of the LRT scheme, development of a new transit system continued. During the development of LRT two alternative schemes were considered, with BRT seen as the next best option to deliver some of the strategic benefits of the LRT for the area. This is supported in both the Hampshire County Councils Local Transport Plan 2 (2006-2011) and Fareham Borough Council transport strategies for the proposed SDA. The WSP report therefore explored four BRT options, three of which had sub-options for routes through Fareham. The options considered were as follows: Option 1 Access via disused rail line route; Option 2 Access Via Kiln Lane; Option 3 Access via Funtley Hill; and Option 4 Access via the A32 (M27 Junction 10). The report tested the options in terms of operational requirements, assessing whether the options provided an efficient network with high levels of accessibility. The assessment examined the potential journey times, locations of bus stops and vehicle requirements to operate the route option and provided an engineering assessment of each route. The report ranked the options using a scoring matrix against the following Criteria: Integration with the wider BRT system; Ensuring Journey Time Reliability; Provide access to central Fareham; An efficient and accessible route throughout the SDA sectors; Cost; and Deliverability.
The matrix awarded a maximum score of 60 points for satisfying the criteria identified above. The assessment concluded that Option 3 was the most favoured scoring 54 points, with Option 4 the second favoured scoring 52 points. Options 1, 2 and a sub-option of Option 3 scored between 44 and 50 points.
8
The report did not select an option but provided data to inform debate on the options available to serve the proposed SDA with BRT. This assessment cannot, and does not, determine the preferred BRT routing. However, of the two highest scoring options, Option 4 provides a scheme that requires considerably less traffic management measures to be implemented, as the route for BRT would follow the A32 for the majority of its journey. Whereas, Option 3 would require considerable investment in junction improvements to accommodate bus priority systems and permanent changes to the management of residential traffic flows in the north Fareham area. For the SDA Access Study it is assumed that Option 4 is used as the basis for BRT provision between the SDA and Fareham Town Centre. However, it should be stressed that this selection is for the assessment of SDA Access options to the M27 only and does not conclude the selection process required for BRT routing. Indeed the final access strategy for the proposed SDA will need to consider the wider impact of BRT options which is outside the scope of this study. 2.4.2 Assessing the Impact of the Harbour Authorities Local Development Framework Proposals on the Strategic Highways Network Peter Brett Associates (July 2008)
The Peter Brett Associates (PBA) study focused on updating the Solent Strategic Transport Model and calculating a detailed forecast of growth and distribution patterns related to the development proposals set out in the Core Strategies of the Harbour Authorities. The model was for an AM peak period only. PBA supplied Mott MacDonald with the model results for the M27 Junctions 10 and 11. Three scenarios were provided which were the with and without the proposed SDA development. The PBA assessment was not required to investigate mitigation measures for the traffic issues identified in their model. Mott MacDonald therefore continues on from PBAs initial assessment and investigates suitable access options for the proposed SDA. It was noted that the projected traffic flows at the M27 J10 and J11 showed that demand to and from the east was considerably higher than those to and from the west. 2.4.3 Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA (February 2008)
The report considered the transport implications of the proposed large development area included in the South East Plan known as North Fareham Strategic Development Area (SDA). The Summary of the report provides a concise review of the report main findings and is provided in Appendix B for reference. A distilled version of the summary is provided below, focusing on the main transportation issues pertinent to this Access Study. Traffic generation associated with the SDA is very significant. The current evidence base regarding the Smarter Choices agenda suggests that a reduction of 10% of car trips is the high end figure that could be expected in the absence of demand management initiatives. The role of public transport is critical given that the 10% transfer will not include those very short commutes which are likely to be contained within the site;
9
A containment factor of 40% was assumed for the purposes of the study, i.e. 40% of the economically active population will live and work in the SDA. If the containment factor were lower, the movements to and from the SDA during the peaks could be very significantly higher. The robustness of the 40% figure should be considered in detail before any clear conclusions are drawn regarding transport measures required to deliver the SDA; The distribution of trips associated with the SDA during the peak periods is orientated strongly towards Portsmouth as the main employment and retail centre; Public transport connectivity to key destinations is critical and Bus Rapid Transit is the centrepiece of the public transport strategy for the SDA, with a route proposed to penetrate the site through M27 J10. Consideration of highway access from the Strategic Road Network (SRN) involved the M27 J10 and M27 J11, as well as a combination of the two. Any solution will need to complement the SDAs public transport package rather than compete against it and any option which allows movement for all traffic through M27 J10 will dilute the attractiveness of the BRT by limiting its journey time advantage over the car for trips between the SDA and Fareham; With a 40% containment factor applied and a progressive approach to the impact of smarter choices, the preferred option for highway access from the SRN is to realign the A32 just south of Albany Farm to tie in the M27 J11. The link will need to be a dual carriageway with two lanes both north and southbound. M27 J11 would be improved through the introduction of a single lane free-flow eastbound on-slip. The existing A32 through M27 J10 and its existing east-facing slip roads would operate as bus/High Occupancy Vehicle only, thus accommodating the buses on a north/south alignment whilst providing quick access from the SDA to/from the M27 and the proposed bus/HOV lane using the M27 hard shoulder. Careful consideration would be needed regarding the enforcement of this proposal, as with any HOV scheme and the time periods in which the restrictions would apply; Only a small percentage of trips associated with the SDA would be distributed to the north towards Alton. The A32 north of the SDA would carry significant traffic levels with or without the SDA going ahead, as background traffic using this route is forecast to increase in 2026; and Although a transport strategy has been identified which will provide multi-modal access between the SDA and its key destinations, the strategy has not been considered in the context of demand management measures such as city centre parking controls. The aspirations for sustainable development are only likely to be realised in terms of transport if area wide demand management of some sort is implemented at some point over the next 20 years.
10
2.5
2.5.1
Other Supporting Documents or Studies

Circular 2/07: Planning and the Strategic Road Network - Department for Transport
Circular 2/07 provides an explanation of how the Highways Agency (HA) is to participate in all stages of the planning process. The document sets out a framework for collaborative working coordinating a number of organisations including Government Offices, regional and local planning authorities, local highway authorities, public transport providers and developers. The aim of this working alliance is to ensure national and regional objectives are aligned with a common objective in terms of the strategic road network and standards. In summary the circular details how: The HA will have an active involvement in the development of Regional Spatial Strategies, Local Development Frameworks; Working together and in partnership will establish mutual goals and assist in the production of a sustainable development policy; and Sets out how the HA will deal with planning applications.
The circular emphasises the importance of consultation in securing delivery of sustainable and effective outcomes for the road network, which will not burden other road users should a development go ahead. With regard to this assessment, an access study, 'The Capacity enhancements and access to the network' section is the most pertinent in determining the appropriate access strategy for the SDA onto the SRN. In section 41 of the DfT document it states that: There is a general presumption that there will be no additional accesses to motorways and other routes of strategic national importance, other than the provision of service areas, facilities for the travelling public, maintenance compounds and, exceptionally, other major transport interchanges. Access from other types of development to motorways and other routes of strategic national importance will be limited to existing junctions with all-purpose roads. Modifications to existing junctions will be carried out only where traffic flows and safety will not be adversely affected. Connections to slip roads and/or connector roads will not be permitted. Therefore, based on the above statement, if an option for access to the SDA requires a new junction on the M27 it will be discounted. The HA were consulted about the SDA Access Study at a meeting held on the 4 December 2008. They provided valuable comments on the assessment at the meeting which have been incorporated into this report. 2.5.2 South East Plan Companion Document Government Office for the South East
To communicate the Secretary of States amendments to the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England, also known as the South East Plan, the Government Office for the South East has published a companion document.
11
For the Fareham SDA the Companion Document states: At Fareham: careful balance between maintaining settlement identity and maximising opportunities for sustainable movement between the SDA and the existing urban area; quality of public transport connections with Portsmouth, including the development of an attractive bus based service linking Portsmouth and Fareham via Gosport; sensitive treatment of the relationship with Portsdown Hill to the east of the SDA location, and of the setting of the neighbouring settlements This statement therefore confirms regional planning policy support for providing options that improve transport links eastwards, towards Portsmouth. 2.5.3 A32 Access Study - Mott Gifford (December 2008)
Although not part of this assessment the realignment of the A32, as identified in the Mott Gifford/ MVA report above plays a significant role in the development of any access improvements for the proposed Fareham SDA. A high level assessment of the route options for the A32 realignment has been undertaken for the A32 Realignment Study carried out by Mott Gifford. The realignment study assesses seven potential routes between the existing A32 and M27 Junction 11. The implication of the A32 realignment has also been considered in the WSP and PBA reports. Indeed the PBA model provided a projection of likely reassignment of trips between M27 J10 and J11, should the link be provided. For this assessment the exact line of the route is not important, however the likely reassignment of trips between M27 J10 and J11 with improved infrastructure in place is a key issue. 2.5.4 High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO 1999 (Leeds City Council)
The use of an High Occupancy Vehicle lanes is considered in this study. To determine the likely reassignment of traffic movements the High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO 1999 has been referenced. The link to the online document is provided below. (www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/instruments029/12_029c.htm accessed on 29/10/2008 The study investigated HOV lanes and provides case studies. In essence an HOV lane is designed to discourage single or low occupancy car use by providing priority to vehicles with more than a minimum number of people (usually 2 or 3). In turn, possible congestion will be reduced as there will be fewer vehicles on the road. In order to gain public support for HOV lanes, it is crucial to police the appropriate use of this lane. Enforcement, according top the case study at the above link, can be either manual or automated. Manual enforcement is expensive and can take police away from their core work, whilst automated systems are still unproven in terms of cost benefit and effectiveness. Leeds has adopted a manual approach, but the financial implications of continuous policing were a factor in their decision to restrict the HOV lane to peak hours only. The document states that the proportion of HOVs is in the order of 35% of total traffic. This figure is used to reassign trips for the SDA.
12
3
3.1
TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Assessment Year
The year of assessment is 2026 when it assumed that the SDA will be completed.
3.2
Assessment Period
In the absence of a PM peak model, and with confirmation that an AM peak assessment using SSTM is acceptable to the Highways Agency for the purposes of assessing impact of Farehams core strategy on the Strategic Highway Network, the SSTM 2026 AM peak hour period is the assessment period.
3.3
Study Area
The study area includes M27 Junctions 10 and 11 including motorway slip roads. Non-motorway junctions are not considered within this study.
3.4
Assignment of Traffic
The short study programme does not allow for an iterative approach to testing and developing all the potential access strategy options. Ideally, proposed modifications to the network would be coded into the SATURN model with assignments run to understand the resultant redistribution of traffic between the two junctions (including background traffic), prior to more detailed analysis. The approach to reassignment in this study is therefore mainly a first principles manual approach based upon a number of assumptions. The one exception is the option to realign the A32 to tie in to M27 Junction 11, which PBA had assumed in their study and the reassignment of traffic from the wider area in response this scheme has been allowed for in the flows extracted from SSTM. Assumptions applied to the manual assignment of traffic are : If a new all moves junction is provided at J10 then traffic to and from the A27 will be shared between J11 and J10 70%/30% respectively. The distribution of these trips east and west is in the same proportion to the base data; Where BRT priority is proposed at the M27 Junction 10, only BRT vehicles are permitted on the J10 slips. The remaining vehicles are assumed to reassign to M27 J11. For options where M27 J10 slip roads operate as bus/high occupancy vehicle only, 35% of the SDA traffic is assumed to be high occupancy and using the J10 slip road for all movements (turning westbound via J11). High occupancy vehicles relating to through traffic are assumed to use the realigned A32 accessing/egressing the M27 via J11, rather than J10. The factor applied is based on a DfT 2004 case study on HOV lanes, undertaken by Leeds City Council, HOV Fact Sheet 2002 and ICARO 1999.
13
Figure 3.1: Illustration of Trip Reassignment Assumptions
SDA
A32 35% SDA 65% SDA
J10
M27 30%
J11
70% A32 A27
Fareham
3.5
Design flows for lane requirements
The design flows for the traffic lanes requirements are based on the Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads Bridges standards TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. It is assumed that the design flow per lane is 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for all-purpose roads, and 1,800vph per lane for motorways. Although these figures do not represent the maximum throughput per lane, greater traffic flows are not recommended as it results in a reduction in the level of service and safety.
14
4
4.1
ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS

General
This section reviews the highway options proposed for access to the Fareham SDA from the M27. For reference an indicative highway layout is presented with each option. For this first stage the internal layout of the proposed SDA and details of lane layouts at the junctions is not considered.
4.2
Description of Options
Five broad options have been proposed which provide access to the proposed SDA from the M27. Three of the options have previously been considered in the Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA report produced by Mott Gifford/MVA Consultancy. The options which are considered in this study are: Option 1 Do Minimum Only minor changes to the highway network are made in this scenario. Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10 with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10. Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32 realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10; Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route in peak periods and the A32 is realigned to join M27 J11. A matrix of which features are included in each option is presented in Table 4.1 below. A description of the elements is also provided for reference. Table 4-1 Option Matrix
Additional West facing slip roads at J10 New All moves junction at M27 J10 A32 Realigned to tie into M27 J11 All traffic on M27 J10 Slip roads
Option
BRT & HOV Lane
1 2 3 4 5
15
Additional West facing slip roads at J10 The option proposes to provide west facing slip roads at M27 Junction 10 but as a separate junction. New All moves junction at M27 J10 - A new junction is constructed to the west of M27 J10. This would be an all moves junction allowing traffic from the north and south of the M27 to access the M27 east and westbound mainlines. A32 Realigned to tie into M27 J11 - Assumes a link between the existing A32 and the M27 J11. For this study the alignment of the link is not significant and therefore the reassignment of traffic between the junctions is the same for each option that includes this element. The realignment of the A32 at M27 J11 assumes the provision of a segregated left turn lane from A32 to the M27 eastbound slip road. The type of segregated lane is illustrated in the Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TD51/03 at Figure 2/6. This shows a segregated lane feeding directly into the offside lane of the slip road. This arrangement takes advantage of the current M27 J11 layout where two lanes are provided on the slip road to M27 eastbound mainline BRT & HOV Lane Assumes that access at the existing M27 is restricted to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). This restriction is assumed to be applied across the whole peak assessment, ie the AM peak period. BRT and HOV could be phased in at stages of development, with the HOV element of the proposal coming in much later. Once the development matures, an HOV policy could be initiated, furthering the cumulative impact of modal shift to ease possible congestion. As per the Leeds case study, the restrictions on access through the junctions would most probably be for peak periods only. As highlighted in the WSP report, reducing congestion on the Fareham/Gosport peninsula is a priority for Hampshire County Council. This will be achieved in part by the provision of a dedicated route for high speed bus travel between Gosport and Fareham. The proposed BRT link between the proposed SDA and Fareham Town Centre is seen as a key element of that scheme. All traffic on M27 J10 Slip roads Some options assume that certain turning moves would be banned for all motorists as a result of HOV or BRT at M27 J10. Therefore if no restrictions are implemented then an all moves/ all traffic junction is possible.
4.3
Option Cost Review
An order of magnitude cost for each option has been estimated which allows comparison between each option. However, the estimates were based upon basic information with a high level of risk. Therefore, it is proposed that an Optimism Bias of 65% in line with the recommendation of the Green Book published by HM Treasury. When undertaking the initial cost estimate several factors were unknown and were excluded from the estimate. The following items were not included: VAT Professional fees Land and compensation costs Landscaping Accommodation works Service diversions
16
Statutory undertakings Major road land drainage Design
4.4
Assessment Criteria
The options will be assessed against the following criteria: Policy o Whether the proposal meets the aspiration of providing a suitable BRT link between SDA, Fareham and towards Portsmouth; In line with Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East that the option prioritises improvements to eastern facing transport links between the SDA and the Portsmouth area; and The access strategy conforms to Department for Transport Circular 02/07.
Design Standards - Compliance with HA DMRB; Traffic Capacity - Suitability in terms of providing appropriate level of traffic capacity; Cost/ Benefit Whether the scheme is Value for money considering the likely traffic flows using the proposed facility; and Deliverability Issues Assesses likely land take and construction issues such as likely impact on existing structures, road infrastructure (outline design level only) or communities.
As this is a high level assessment the identification of deliverability issues for each option is in broad terms only. This study does not investigate detailed issues such as; geotechnical constraints, structural suitability, construction phasing issues, exact land take and associated works. The deliverability assessment is to determine whether the option has any fundamental risks that would result in the option being wholly undeliverable. Therefore there may still be some construction challenges/ risks even if the scheme is viewed in this assessment as a suitable option. The assessment may not provide commentary on every aspect identified above as analysis may reveal that a single criterion is sufficiently detrimental for the option to be discounted eg if the scheme contravenes policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07.
17
4.5
4.5.1 (i)
Option Evaluations
Option 1 Do Minimum Description of Option
This option assumes that there would be no improvements made to the existing road network. Access to the proposed development would therefore be achieved via J10 where east facing only slip roads are currently provided. Trips arriving from the west on the M27 would be required to u-turn at J11 then travel west to J10 to access the development. All egress from the proposed development onto the M27 is achieved at J10 through the east facing slip road. Therefore vehicles from the development wishing to travel west would need to undertake a u-turn at J11. This option is identified as the Do Minimum scenario and is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below. Figure 4.1 Option 1 Do Minimum
A32 N
SDA
J10
M27
A32 Fareham
J11
A27
(ii) Policy
Option Appraisal
This scheme does not provide a dedicated link for BRT between the proposed SDA and Fareham. Although an alternative route could be provided for the BRT, as per the WSP options report, the remaining traffic demand as been forecast by PBA to be greater than both J10 and J11 could accommodate.
18
In addition the alternative BRT alignments through North Fareham west of the A32 are likely to be challenging to deliver as they could require substantial traffic management measures and bus priority junction improvements to be made. Such an option would reduce journey time advantages for the BRT and could result in additional land take requirements. The option does not provide an improved access for east facing slip roads and therefore could be seen as contravening Regional Spatial Strategy aspirations. The option does not provide any improvements to accommodate the additional traffic demand. The Highways Agency, in accordance with DfT Circular 02/07, would not endorse this option as this could compromise the level of service on the M27 by placing addition traffic pressure on slip roads and junctions that are currently over capacity. Conclusion To dismiss any improvements would exacerbate existing queuing problems, due to the additional development traffic demand. This scheme has been discounted as a viable access option as it does not satisfy current transport policy.
19
4.5.2 (i)
Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements Description of Option
Option 2 proposes to provide a new all moves junction, located to the west of the existing J10. For Option 2 a BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10 and therefore southbound access for traffic travelling to Fareham is restricted. Access north bound for local traffic is still permitted. A sketch of Option 2 is shown at Figure 4.2 (schematic layout only). Figure 4.2 Option 2 new M27 J10 with BRT
A32 N
SDA
J10
M27
J11
Fareham A32 A27
(ii) Policy
Option Appraisal
This option would allow a high speed bus link to be provided between the SDA and Fareham through the existing M27 J10. Therefore this option is considered a suitable option in policy terms. Priorities for BRT and HOV lanes have been proposed for the eastern movement onto the M27 J10 on the existing network. The option does provide improvements for east facing transport links. However, the Highways Agency, in accordance with DfT Circular 02/07, would not indorse this option as this constitutes as a new junction onto the SRN.
20
Design Standards Notwithstanding the above policy failure of such an access proposal, a major risk for the suitability of providing a new all moves M27 J10 is achieving the weaving length specified in the Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB). The minimum distance specified for the weaving length is 2km between junctions (DMRB Vol. 6 TD22/06). An alternative solution would be to reduce the weaving distance required by lowering the existing speed limit on this section of the M27. It is questionable whether the Highways Agency (HA) would find such a strategy an acceptable solution. Traffic Capacity The PBA traffic model for the AM peak scenario indicates that the A32 would need to be upgraded to a dual carriageway with three lanes southbound and two lanes northbound. To reduce the A32 southbound carriageway to a two lane carriageway the development traffic would need to be reduced by between 10% and 20% in the AM Peak. Beyond the SDA development the number of lanes required is likely to be less. Having such a major road travelling through the site on a north-south axis would result in a major severance issue within the proposed SDA development compromising the east/ west permeability of the site. Cost/ Benefit The order of magnitude cost for Option 2 has been estimated to be in the region of 11,535,000 The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand. Such low levels of demand could make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and land purchase when investment in the A32 link and associated M27 J11 improvements could provide similar benefits to this westbound traffic, as well as improve eastbound access capacity. Deliverability Issues The provision of a new major grade separated junction on the M27 will require considerable land take. As well as land take for the junction itself, consideration will need to be made on how such a junction could be linked to the existing highway network. It is likely that any connector roads could result in moderate severance issues for both the proposed SDA and considerable traffic impact on the residential area north of Fareham Town Centre. Conclusion The Option is considered unsuitable for the following reasons: The option does not conform to policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07 as this is considered to be a new junction onto the SRN. The likely cost to benefit ratio may be disproportionate for a new junction as the flows westbound that the junction would facilitate are low.
21
To satisfy DMRB standards the new junction would be located and aligned in such a manner that the connector roads would result in considerable traffic impact on the residential area north of Fareham Town Centre. The connector roads would also impact on the aspirations of the SDA master plan layouts by splitting the site into two parts.
This option will therefore not be considered for further assessment.
22
4.5.3 (i)
Option 3 Split M27 J10 all traffic movements Description of Option
Option 3 proposes to upgrade M27 J10 to an all moves junction for access to the SDA only. The junction improvement would essentially be a mirror of the existing junction providing the missing west facing slip roads. Option 3 would therefore have the following improvements or features: New west facing slip roads for all traffic moves at M27 J10. Realigned A32 to M27 J11; Southbound access to Fareham through J10 would be restricted to BRT only; Slip roads at J10 would be restricted to HOV and BRT access only.
A sketch of Option 3 is presented in Figure 4.3 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford report A32 Realignment, Options Identification) Figure 4.3 Option 3 split M27 J10 with A32 realigned
A32 N
SDA
J10
A32
M27
J11
Fareham
A27
(ii) Policy
Option Appraisal
The realignment of the A32 to join the M27 J11 would provide an opportunity to have a dedicated BRT and HOV link to Fareham at the existing M27 J10. The A32 New Link road from SDA to Portsmouth and Fareham and the BRT and HOV will assist eastbound traffic movement from the development site.
23
In terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy this proposal does provide improvements for east facing transport links via the realigned A32 to the M27 J11. However, the Highways Agency, in accordance with DfT Circular 02/07, would not endorse this option as the new slip roads would be viewed as a new junction onto the M27. Design Standards For the west facing slip roads it is assumed that any new junction designed at this site will be designed in accordance with HA DMRB standards. To satisfy DMRB standards the new slip road could be located and aligned in such a manner that the connector roads could result in considerable traffic impact on the aspirations of the SDA master plan layouts by splitting the site into two parts. This study does not consider issues associated with the potential alignment of the new A32 link road. A separate Mott Gifford study provides an assessment of potential link alignments called Fareham Strategic Development Area, A32 Realignment Options Identification. It is assumed that the M27 J11 segregated left turn lane from the new A32 link to the eastbound M27 mainline will be designed in accordance to TD51/03. Traffic Capacity With these probable changes in flows it is envisaged that no alterations would be required for the existing A32. However, the new A32 realignment would need to be a dual carriageway with three lanes eastbound to M27 J11 and two lanes westbound from the junction. To reduce the realigned A32 to a dual carriageway with two lanes in both directions the eastbound development traffic would need to be reduced by up to 10%. Based on the reassignment of PBA flows the new connector roads at the split J10 could be single carriageway. It should be noted that the proposed junction improvements at J11 might not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the eastbound flows derived from the PBA model. Therefore it is assumed that any demand over and above the capacity of the segregated left turn lane will be dealt with by reducing trips from the SDA. The likely reduction of trips required from the site may be in the order of between 50-60% of east bound trips after the BRT and HOV reassignment. Cost/ Benefit The order of magnitude cost for Option 3 has been estimated to be in the region of 65,538,000. The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand. Such low levels of demand might make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and land purchase when investment in M27 J11 improvements could provide similar benefits to this westbound traffic, as well as improve the junctions performance for eastbound access. Deliverability Issues The provision of a new grade separated junction on the M27 will require land take. It is likely that any connector roads could result in moderate severance issues for the proposed SDA.
24
As discussed above in the option descriptions the A32 will connect to M27 J11. For eastbound traffic from the SDA a segregated left turn lane will be provided. There is a risk that the additional traffic on this slip road could require the merging section of the slip road to be extended beyond the bridge for Downend Road. This could result in the span of the bridge needing to be increased. Conclusion The Option is considered unsuitable for the following reasons: The option does not conform to policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07 as this is considered to be a new junction onto the SRN. The likely cost to benefit ratio may be disproportionate for a new west facing slip roads as the flows to and from the west that the junction would facilitate are low. To satisfy DMRB standards the new junction may be located and aligned in such a manner that the connector roads compromise the aspirations of the SDA master plan layouts by severing the site into two parts.
This option is therefore not considered further due to the cost and severance issues identified above.
25
4.5.4 (i)
Option 4 Existing M27 J10 all traffic movements Description of Option
Option 4 proposes to provide a dumbbell type junction. Option 4 would therefore have the following improvements or features: Two new roundabout junctions located on the existing A32 either side of the M27 New west facing slip roads for all traffic moves at M27 J10. Realigned A32 to M27 J11;
A sketch of the layout is presented in Figure 4.4 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford report A32 Realignment, Options Identification). The assessment of this proposal assumes that the new A32 link would be provided to M27 J11. Figure 4.4 Option 4 M27 J10 all traffic movements with A32 realigned
SDA
A32
J10
M27
A32
J11
Fareham
A27
It should be noted that the junction cannot provide a priority route for BRT as the road through J10 needs to be open to all traffic to access the westbound slip road.
26
(ii) Policy
Option Appraisal
This option requires access to the southern section of the junction to be open to all traffic for the west facing slip roads. This option would therefore not be able to provide a priority route for BRT through M27 J10. The proposed A32 Link Road prioritises eastbound movement by providing a second link to/from the SDA site. Although an alternative BRT route could be provided, as discussed above in Section 2, BRT alignments through North Fareham west of the A32 are likely to be challenging to deliver as they could require substantial traffic management measures and bus priority junction improvements to be constructed. Such measures could result in additional land take requirements. Providing west facing slips at M27 J10 may have considerable impact on the residential area in North Fareham as additional trips could reassign from M27 J9 and J11 to this junction. With regard to DfT Circular 02/07, this option is viewed as a junction improvement, so is acceptable. Cost/ Benefit The order of magnitude cost for Option 4 has been estimated to be in the region of 79,096,000. The PBA model flows indicate that westbound demand is considerably lower than eastbound demand. Such low levels of demand might make it difficult to justify a large expenditure on infrastructure and land purchase when investment in M27 J11 improvements could provide similar benefits to this westbound traffic, as well as improve the junctions performance for eastbound access. Conclusion This scheme has been discounted as the access option does not provide a priority route for BRT from the proposed site to Fareham. An alternative BRT route could be used instead, however such a scheme could be complex to deliver compared to a direct route along the A32 through J10 which would have better journey time savings. There is a considerable risk of trips currently using M27 J9 and J11 reassigning to use this junction to travel west. This could greatly increase congestion in this area of north Fareham. In cost benefit terms the infrastructure investment for the west bound slip roads may be disproportionate to the volumes that they would serve.
27
4.5.5 (i)
Option 5 Existing M27 J10 BRT/HOV only with A32 link to J11 Description of Option
Option 5 would have the following improvements or features: No major infrastructure changes to M27 J10; Realigned A32 to M27 J11; Segregated left turn lane at J11 to allow direct access to M27 eastbound mainline; Southbound access to Fareham through J10 would be restricted to BRT only; and Slip roads at J10 would be restricted to BRT access only.
Option 5 is illustrated in Figure 4.5 below (schematic layout only see Mott Gifford report A32 Realignment, Options Identification). Figure 4.5 Option 5 M27 J10 with A32 realigned and BRT
A32 N
SDA
J10
M27
A32 Fareham
J11
A27
(ii) Policy
Option Appraisal
The realignment of the A32 to join the M27 J11 would provide an opportunity to have a dedicated BRT link to Fareham at the existing M27 J10. Therefore this option is considered a suitable option in policy terms. Having a segregated left turn lane at J11 allows access to the M27 eastbound mainline to Fareham and Portsmouth, with the BRT facilitating movement to eastern settlements.
28
In terms of the Regional Spatial Strategy this proposal does provide improvements for east facing transport links via the realigned A32 to the M27 J11. With regard to DfT Circular 02/07, this option is viewed as a junction improvement. Traffic Capacity It is assumed that there would be no need for any improvements to the existing A32 southbound. The new A32 realignment to M27 J11 would need to be a dual carriageway with two lanes to and from the M27 J11. It is recognised that the proposed segregated left turn lane at J11 would not have sufficient capacity for the eastbound demand. Therefore the eastbound trips generated by the development in the AM peak would need to reduce by between 50% and 60%. Cost/ Benefit The order of magnitude cost for Option 5 has been estimated to be in the region of 46,035,000. This option is focused on providing improvements to the M27 J11 and the realignment of the A32. The changes proposed at J10 could be minimal such as additional road markings and road signs backed up by suitable enforcement measures. Deliverability Issues The connector road to J10 may still have substantial traffic flows as it is assumed that 35% of the trips generated by the site may be HOV. This could still result in moderate severance issues for the proposed SDA if the site was spilt east and west of the current A32. Conclusion The Option will be taken forward for further analysis for the following reasons: It facilitates BRT access from the SDA to Fareham; Provides improved east facing transport links; Conforms with DfT Circular 02/07; and The option provides additional junction capacity.
This option is therefore taken forward for further analysis in the next section.
29
4.6
Merge and Diverge analysis
All options have been assessed to determine the number of lanes required to meet merge and diverge standards as set out in HA DMRB guidance. The required merging and diverging parameters have been extracted from the DMRB standards TD22/06 Layout of Grade Separated Junctions. The assessment is presented in Table 4.2 below. Option 2 has not been analysed as it is assumed that the junction will be designed to HA DMRB standards, whereas the other options are improvements to existing junction layouts and therefore require analysis. Table 4-2 Summary of the Interchange Parameters
Existing n/a A n/a A n/a C E
Diverge A - Taper diverge C - Lane drop at Taper diverge D - Ghost Island diverge for lane drop E - 2 Lane drop
M27 EB
M27 WB A32 SB
J10 J10 J11 J10 J10 J10 J10
Diverge (New ) Merge Merge (New ) Diverge Merge (New) Diverge Merge
Option 1 n/a F n/a A n/a D E
Option 3 A A F A A A E
Option 4 A B F A G C E
Option 5 n/a E F A n/a A E
Merge A - Taper merge B - Parallel merge E - Lane gain F - Lane gain with Ghost Island G - 2 Lane gain with Ghost Island
For reference some broad descriptions and the illustration from DMRB for the merge and diverge layouts are provided below: o Taper Merge Is where a slip road from a junction joins the mainline carriageway through an area forming a funnel to the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1: Taper merge
Parallel Merge As above however the funnel is elongated to form a parallel lane to provide additional time for vehicle joining the mainline to merge into the traffic (Figure 4.2).
30
Figure 4.2: Parallel merge o Lane Gain The slip road from the junction does not taper but forms a new lane on the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain
Lane gain with ghost island This is where a two lane slip road is provided from the junction . The off side lane of the slip road merges with the mainline carriageway and the inside lane continues on to form a new lane on the mainline. The two slip road lanes are separated by a ghost island (Figure 4.4 and Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1
31
Figure 4.5: Lane gain with Ghost Island merge option 2
2 Lane gain with ghost island A two lane slip road from a junction form two new lanes on the mainline carriageway. The slip road lanes are separated by a ghost island (Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6: 2Two lane gain with Ghost Island
Taper Diverge - Where the slip road from the junction leaves the mainline carriageway through an area forming a funnel from the mainline carriageway (Figure 4.7).
Figure 4.7: Taper diverge o Lane Drop at Taper Diverge The nearside lane on the mainline carriageway diverts to the junction to form the off slip road (Figure 4.8).
32
Figure 4.8: Lane drop at taper diverge
Ghost island diverge for lane drop Where a two lane off slip road is provided by diverting the nearside lane to form the first lane of the slip road and an additional taper diverge type slip for lane two of the mainline carriageway. The diverging lanes are separated with a ghost island (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9: Ghost Island diverge for lane drop
2 lane drop Two lanes on the mainline carriageway divert to form the off slip roads (Figure 4.10).
Figure 4.10: 2 lane drop
33
The results indicate that for the M27 eastbound merge at J10 only Option 3 satisfies the standards for a taper merge. All the other options could require the merging to be upgraded. Option 5, the preferred access option, will require a review of mainline flows to determine the actual design of the merge. Based on the PBA data indicates that the diverge movement for all the options satisfy the standards and therefore no changes would be required for options that include westbound diverge movements at M27 J10.
4.7
Summary of the Initial Option Assessment
The initial review of options reveals that OPTION 5 is the best option to satisfy the brief to provide access for the proposed SDA from the Strategic Road Network. The merge and diverge analysis revealed that Option 5 might require additional slip road capacity at J11 for eastbound trips. This can be achieved by increasing the slip road length and alignment. However, any such improvements could require the span of Downend Road bridge to be lengthened to accommodate any additional lanes on the M27. In this study such infrastructure improvements are not considered. The assessment of the option is therefore not a predict and provide based assessment but uses a reverse engineering approach where analysis is made only on improvements that can be constructed within the limitations of the existing highway infrastructure. The traffic that cannot be accommodated within the improvements is then highlighted as the amount of demand that needs to be dealt with in some other manner, eg containment or mode switch. In the case of Option 5, based on the reassignment of PBA traffic forecasts, the eastbound SDA traffic could need to be reduced by between 50% and 60% in the AM peak.
34
TRAFFIC MODELLING
This chapter presents the results of the traffic modelling (Stage 2) for Option 5, which is the only option to be assessed. Option 5 requires the M27 Junction 11 to be modelled. The junction is fully signalised in Option 5 and therefore the TRANSYT computer program has been used for the capacity assessment. TRANSYT is the industry standard program, developed by Transport Research Laboratories to analyse fullysignalised or partially-signalised roundabouts. The junctions can be modelled, and their delay minimised, by calculating timings which reduce blocking-back by keeping the circulating carriageway free flowing. The base traffic model has been provided by WSP. The year of assessment for the proposed SDA is 2026 when it is assumed that the site will be fully developed. The assessment was carried out for the morning peak period (AM) as per the PBA traffic data. It is assumed that improvements to M27 J11 will be required to accommodate the SDA development Flows and proposed A32 realignment. The model therefore includes the following alterations to the existing layout: Eastbound traffic from the A32 does not enter the roundabout but uses the segregated left turn lane; and A third lane on the M27 Mainline West Off Slip at the stop line.
This is for an AM peak period only and additional changes or improvements may be required for a PM peak period to accommodate the return trip. A summary table of the results is provided below: Table 5-1: M27 Junction 11 Signalised Junction Modelling Results
2026 Arm Proposed A32 Link M27 Mainline East Off slip A27 Eastern Way M27 Mainline West Off Slip Base Case No Development
Max Degree Of Saturation (%)
Max Q 0 26 20 13
2026 With Development and improvements Max Degree Of Max Q Saturation

(%)
37 83 93 85
70 83 93 85
9 26 20 13
Based on the reassignment of PBA model flows the results indicate that with the improvements proposed, the junction is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of performance in the with development scenario, with no deterioration in performance compared to the base case. Only one arm of the junction is forecast to operate at a level above the target design threshold of 90% saturation, although still well within its theoretical capacity of 100% saturation. This is the case for the base case scenario also.
35
It should be noted that this assessment assumes that the majority of demand for M27 Junction 11 channelled into a segregated left turn lane between the realigned A32 and the M27 east mainline. Further assessment of the mainline flows and the merge arranges is required to confirm that this option is suitable. It should also be noted that the provision of the segregated left turn lane requires a significant reduction in vehicle trips generated by the proposed SDA development. Further refinement of the strategic model and the junction layouts should be undertaken to confirm that M27 J11 is suitable for the propose Fareham SDA.
36
6
6.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
This study approached the selection of the options for access to the SDA from the M27 in two parts. The first part assessed each proposal against broad evaluation criteria to narrow down the number of access options to be taken forward to detailed traffic assessment. The second section of the report provided a more detailed traffic assessment of the preferred option. This study reviewed five access options for the proposed Fareham SDA from/to the M27. The option appraisal section provided outline designs to illustrate the proposed access options. The five options were: Option 1 Do Minimum Only minor changes to the highway network are made in this scenario. Option 2 New all traffic movements junction is provided west of the existing M27 J10 with the Bus Rapid Transit route using the existing M27 J10. Option 3 West facing slip roads are provided to the west of M27 J10 with the A32 realigned to M27 J11. A BRT route is provided through the existing M27 J10; Option 4 Existing M27 J10 is upgraded to accommodate all traffic movements and the A32 is realigned to join M27 J11; and Option 5 M27 J10 remains unchanged with a dedicated BRT route in peak periods and the A32 is realigned to join M27 J11. The option evaluation section assessed each access proposal against five criteria which were: Policy; Design Standards; Traffic Capacity; Cost/ Benefit; and Deliverability Issues.
The Policy criterion in the study has been taken as the key determinent in terms of whether the proposed access strategy would be suitable option. Therefore options that failed to satisfy transport policy would not go through for further traffic analysis. For example, where an option would be considered to be a new junction onto the M27 this would contravene Department for Transport Policy set out in DfT Circular 02/07. The document states that no new junctions will be permitted on the SRN to facilitate new development.
37
The traffic review element of the study based its traffic assessment on the reassignment of PBA SATURN traffic model data. The model used was for an AM peak period only and therefore there is an element of risk when considering the traffic implications of each option. The return trip in the PM peak could reveal that a valid option for the AM peak is not suitable for the PM peak and therefore require additional refinement or an alternative option, previously dismissed on other grounds, be considered. It is important to note that all the options which were considered beneficial in traffic terms included the A32 realignment. After the first stage of the assessment only Option 5 was taken forward for further analysis. The traffic data was input into a TRANSYT Model, a programme used to model linked traffic signals. This revealed that Option 5 in the AM peak period worked satisfactorily. It was concluded that OPTION 5 is the most suitable access option for the proposed Fareham SDA, based on an AM peak period traffic assessment.
6.2
Recommendations
The traffic assessment of each option was based on the manual reassignment of an AM peak period model only. It would be advisable that the preferred option, Option 5, is coded into the new traffic model currently being developed. As well as providing more robust reassignment, this will reveal whether Option 5 is suitable, in traffic terms, for a PM peak period.
38
Appendix A
HA Letter
A-1
227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/A-1 of 1 P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
Appendix B
Summary section of Mott Gifford / MVA Consultancy Report
B-1
227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/B-1 of 1 P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
B-1
B-2
Appendix C
TRANSYT Results
C-1
227552/01/C - 6 February 2009/C-1 of 1 P:\Southampton\HCC\Projects\227552\JD Fareham SDA Access\02 Documents\Out\MG-Fareham SDA Access Study Report-01D.doc/AP
2006 Existing AM Peak

Network Diagram 2026 AM Base
4000
Access Road
401
309
307
1852
30
30
4000
403 402
4 30 3 308 305 30
401
M27 E/B Offslip
403
401
4
306
40
404
2400
1864
301
30
3
1908
40 2
M27 Eastbound Merge
1915
302
1980
1908
M27, J11 Option 5B New Flow - Giveway
103
1978
2015
20
20 6
104
105
106
305
308
306
303
208
106 10 1 5 0
304
1978
102
102 101
1917
210
207
2 04
2
2061
202
102
206
103
104
3856
1965
1908
1965
2105
A27 Eastern Road
201
202
6000
TRANSYT Link Results Summary 2026 AM Base C-1

107
10
4000
207 204
M27 W/B Offslip
202
203
20 1
203

Mean Cruise Time Per PCU (sec) Mean Delay Time Per PCU (sec) Uniform Delay (PCUH/H) Rand + OverSat Delay (PCU-H/H) Mean Stops Per PCU (%) Mean Max Queue (PCU) Average Excess Queue (PCU)
Link
Node
Actual Flow (PCU/H)
Sat. Flow (PCU/H)
Degree Of Saturation (%)
Cost Of Delay (/H)
Cost Of Stops (/H)
P.I. (/H)
Green1 Start
Green1 End
Green2 Start
Green2 End
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 201 202 203 204 206 207 208 210 301 302 303 304 305
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
1702 763 218 207 278 84 2127 873 1000 978 284 363 78 400 1235 527 541 450 363 394
3856 1978 2015 2015 1978 1978 6000 1908 1965 2105 1965 2061 2061 1917 4000 1864 1915 1980 1980 1908
83 72 70 70 61 61 35 83 93 84 51 76 76 74 31 85 85 82 82 83
11 11 8 8 8 8 11 18 18 18 5 5 5 5 11 11 11 8 8 8
17 17 28 24 25 21 1 21 32 21 27 24 32 24 1 37 36 16 28 18
5.5 2.3 1.1 0.8 1.4 0.3 0.0 2.7 3.4 3.1 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.3 0.0 2.7 2.8 0.8 1.8 0.8
2.4 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 2.4 5.5 2.6 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.2 2.6 2.6 1.2 1.0 1.2
112.2 50.4 24.1 19.4 27.9 6.9 3.9 72.8 126.3 81.3 29.8 34.5 9.9 37.4 3.2 76.2 77.1 28.7 39.4 27.6
82 77 99 111 92 106 1 89 111 89 110 69 119 62 1 113 113 68 115 73
79.6 33.6 12.3 13.2 14.6 5.1 0.9 17.3 24.7 19.5 17.9 14.4 5.3 14.2 0.8 34.1 34.8 17.4 23.9 16.6
26 11 8 8 6 6 0 14 20 16 5 7 7 5 0 11 11 13 13 14
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
191.8 84.0 85.7 32.5 100.9 11.9 4.8 90.1 150.9 100.8 47.7 110.1 18.8 108.2 3.9 110.3 111.9 115.5 63.3 110.5
39 39 17 17 17 17
10 10 34 34 34 34
5 5 5 44 44 44 44
37 37 37 0 0 0 0
44 44 10 10 10
3 3 39 39 39
C-2
306 307 308 309 401 402 403 404
3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
761 1607 400 777 496 291 761 761
1908 4000 1908 4000 1852 4000 4000 2400
80 60 83 60 37 26 26 32
8 11 8 11 18 9 9 11
12 1 30 1 2 1 1 1
0.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.9 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2
36.4 7.1 46.5 3.4 4.2 0.7 1.8 3.3
26 2 117 2 0 1 1 2
11.4 1.7 26.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8
4 1 14 1 0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
47.8 8.7 73.2 4.2 4.2 0.9 2.3 4.1
10
39
10
39
C-3
M27 Junction 11
Network Diagram 2026 AM
4000
Access Road 401
309
307
3856
30
30
5632
403 402
4 30 3 308 305 30
401 401
M27 E/B Offslip
403
4
306
40
404
2400
1864
301
30
3
1908
40 2
M27 Eastbound Merge
1915
302
1980
1908
M27, J11 Option 5B New Flow
103
1978
2015
20
20 6
8
1978
104
105
106
305
308
306
303
208
106 10 1 5 0
304
102
102 101
1917
210
207
2 04
2
2061
202
102
206
103
104
3856
1965
1908
1965
2105
A27 Eastern Road
201
202
6000
TRANSYT Link Results Summary C-4

107
10
4000
207 204
M27 W/B Offslip
202
203
20 1
203
2026 AM
Link Node Actual Flow (PCU/H) Sat. Flow (PCU/H) Degree Of Saturation (%) Mean Cruise Time Per PCU (sec) Mean Delay Time Per PCU (sec) Uniform Delay (PCUH/H) Rand + OverSat Delay (PCU-H/H) Cost Of Delay (/H) Mean Stops Per PCU (%) Cost Of Stops (/H) Mean Max Queue (PCU) Average Excess Queue (PCU) P.I. (/H) Green1 Start Green1 End Green2 Start Green2 End
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 201 202 203 204 206 207 208 210 301 302 303 304
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
1702 763 218 207 278 84 2127 873 1000 978 284 363 78 400 1235 527 541 450 363
3856 1978 2015 2015 1978 1978 6000 1908 1965 2105 1965 2061 2061 1917 4000 1864 1915 1980 1980
83 72 70 70 61 61 35 83 93 84 51 76 76 74 31 85 85 82 82
11 11 8 8 8 8 11 18 18 18 5 5 5 5 11 11 11 8 8
17 17 12 22 9 18 1 21 32 21 26 23 28 23 1 37 36 16 28
5.5 2.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.7 3.4 3.1 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.0 2.7 2.8 0.8 1.8
2.4 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 2.4 5.5 2.6 0.5 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.2 2.6 2.6 1.2 1.0
112.2 50.4 10.0 17.9 10.2 5.9 3.9 72.8 126.3 81.3 28.8 33.4 8.7 36.0 3.2 76.2 77.1 28.7 39.4
82 77 22 106 17 94 1 89 111 89 110 71 118 63 1 113 113 68 115
79.6 33.6 2.8 12.5 2.6 4.5 0.9 17.3 24.7 19.5 17.9 14.7 5.2 14.4 0.8 34.1 34.8 17.4 23.9
26 11 5 5 2 2 0 14 20 16 5 7 7 5 0 11 11 13 13
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
191.8 84.0 23.8 30.4 23.3 10.5 4.8 90.1 150.9 100.8 46.7 110.6 17.9 107.8 3.9 110.3 111.9 115.5 63.3
40 40 18 18 18 18
11 11 35 35 35 35
7 7 7 46 46 46 46
39 39 39 2 2 2 2
46 46 12 12
5 5 41 41
C-5
305 306 307 308 309 401 402 403 404
3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
394 761 1607 400 777 496 291 761 761
1908 1908 4000 1908 4000 3856 5632 5632 2400
83 80 60 83 60 70 29 29 32
8 8 11 8 11 18 9 9 11
18 12 1 30 1 31 2 6 3
0.8 0.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 3.2 0.1 1.1 0.4
1.2 1.9 0.5 1.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
27.6 36.4 7.1 46.7 3.4 61.5 2.2 17.6 8.9
74 26 2 117 2 101 8 56 45
16.6 11.4 1.7 26.7 0.8 11.2 1.3 24.1 19.7
14 4 1 14 1 9 9 9 11
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
110.5 47.8 8.7 73.4 4.2 72.7 3.5 41.7 28.6
12 12
41 41
12
41
17 34 34
27 12 12
C-6

TFSH Fareham Study

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TFSH Fareham Study

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Issue and Revision Record

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Setting Strategic Direction, Fareham SDA Mott Gifford/MVA February 2008.

Fareham SDA Access Study

ACCESS STUDY DATA SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS

Fareham SDA Access Study

New Transport Model

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Other Supporting Documents or Studies

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Fareham SDA Access Study

Figure 3.1: Illustration of Trip Reassignment Assumptions

A32 35% SDA 65% SDA

70% A32 A27

Design flows for lane requirements

Fareham SDA Access Study

ASSESSMENT OF ACCESS OPTIONS

BRT & HOV Lane

Fareham SDA Access Study

Option Cost Review

Fareham SDA Access Study

Statutory undertakings Major road land drainage Design

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Option 2 New M27 J10 all traffic movements Description of Option

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

This option will therefore not be considered for further assessment.

Fareham SDA Access Study

Option 3 Split M27 J10 all traffic movements Description of Option

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Option 4 Existing M27 J10 all traffic movements Description of Option

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Fareham SDA Access Study

Merge and Diverge analysis

J10 J10 J11 J10 J10 J10 J10

Option 1 n/a F n/a A n/a D E

Option 5 n/a E F A n/a A E

Figure 4.1: Taper merge

Fareham SDA Access Study

Figure 4.3: Merge with lane gain

Figure 4.4: Lane gain with Ghost Island option 1

Fareham SDA Access Study