Economic Case Supporting Information v2 · stakeholders on how the economic, environmental, social and operational assessments will be undertaken and how they will be supported by

Torquay Gateway Economic Case Supporting Information December 2014

Document control sheet BPP 04 F8 version 16 Oct 2013

Project: Torquay Gateway Client: Torbay Council Project No: B2305034 Document title: Torquay Gateway – Economic Case Supporting Information Ref. No: B2305034/R/0003

Originated by Checked by Reviewed by

ORIGINAL

NAME

Chris Shipway

NAME

Samantha Taylor

NAME

Chris Sanders

Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the

above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue

INITIALS

Chris Sanders

DATE October 2014 Document status – Draft

REVISION NAME NAME NAME

Chris Sanders N/a N/a



INITIALS Chris Sanders

DATE December

2014

Document status – Final

REVISION NAME NAME NAME



INITIALS

DATE Document status

Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.

Economic Case Supporting Information v2.docx

1

Contents

1 Introduction 4

1.1 Location and Scheme Background 4

1.2 Purpose of this Report 5

1.3 Other Reports 5

1.4 Structure of the Report 5

2 Base Year Model Development 6

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 Study Area 6

2.3 Data Collection 6

2.4 Time Periods 6

2.5 Vehicle Types 6

2.6 Observed Traffic Flows 7

2.7 Model Software 8

2.8 Model Validation 9

2.9 ARCADY Model 10

2.10 Conclusion 10

3 Forecast Modelling 11

3.1 Model Years 11

3.2 Network Coding 11

3.3 Growth Scenarios 11

3.4 Application of Traffic Growth 11

3.5 Application of TEMPro Growth 12

3.6 Impact of A380 South Devon Link Road 13

3.7 Income and Fuel Adjustment Factors 15

3.8 National Uncertainty 15

3.9 Point Loaded Development 16

3.10 Goods Vehicle Growth 20

3.11 Assignment of Models 20

3.12 Model Results 20

4 Economic Assessment 22

4.1 Elements of Economic Assessment 22

4.2 TUBA Assessment 22

4.3 Health Benefits 26

4.4 Accident Savings 27

4.5 Summary of Results 27

4.6 Social and Distributional Impacts 28

5 Conclusion 30

5.1 Summary 30

5.2 Conclusion 30


2

6 Glossary 31

Tables Table 1: Count sites 7

Table 2: Base Matrix Totals for the A3022 (PCUs) 8

Table 3: Base Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate Roundabout (PCUs) 8

Table 4: Base LinSig Model Delay comparison – Delay in seconds 10

Table 5: Base ARCADY Model Delay comparison – Delay in seconds 10

Table 6: TEMPro planning assumption reductions 12

Table 7: TEMPro Matrix Totals for the A3022 (Light Vehicles) 13

Table 8: TEMPro Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate (Light Vehicles) 13

Table 9: TEMPro Growth for A3022 (Light Vehicles) 13

Table 10: TEMPro Growth for Gallows Gate (Light Vehicles) 13

Table 11: Matrix Totals for A3022 After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles) 14

Table 12: Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles) 14

Table 13: Growth After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles) – A3022 (from 2012) 14

Table 14: Growth After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles) – Gallows Gate (from 2014) 15

Table 15: Income and Fuel Adjustment Factors 15

Table 16: National Uncertainty Factors 15

Table 17: Matrix Totals for A3022 After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles) 15

Table 18: Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles) 16

Table 19: Growth After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles) – A3022 (from 2012) 16

Table 20: Growth After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles) - Gallows Gate (from 2014) 16

Table 21: Development Sites (*see 3.9.2) 16

Table 22: Developments Included in Forecast Scenarios 17

Table 23: Light Vehicle Trip Rates Used For Point Loaded Developments 17

Table 24: Development Distributions on A3022 18

Table 25: Development Distributions at Gallows Gate 18

Table 26: Matrix Totals for Development Trips – Torquay Gateway 18

Table 27: Matrix Totals for Development Trips – Gallows Gate Roundabout 19

Table 28: Final Matrix Totals for A3022 (Light Vehicles) 19

Table 29: Final Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate (Light Vehicles) 19

Table 30: Final Matrix Predicted Growth (Light Vehicles) – A3022 (from 2012) 19

Table 31: Final Matrix Predicted Growth (Light Vehicles) – Gallows Gate roundabout (from 2014) 19

Table 32: TUBA User classes 23

Table 33: User Time Benefits for A3022 23

Table 34: User Time Benefits for Gallows Gate roundabout 24

Table 35: TEE Benefits (£000s) 60 Year Appraisal - Core 24

Table 36: Disaggregated Travel Time Savings (£000s) - Core 24

Table 37: TEE Benefits (£000s) 60 Year Appraisal – High 25

Table 38: Disaggregated Travel Time Savings (£000s) - High 25

Table 39: TEE Benefits (£,000s) 60 Year Appraisal – Low 25

Table 40: Disaggregated Travel Time Savings (£,000s) - Low 25

Table 41: Assumed Expenditure Profile 26

Table 42: Present Value of Benefits - (£000s) 28


3

Table 43: Benefit Cost Ratios 28

Table 44: Zone allocation for social and distributional impact assessment 28

Table 45: Social and Distributional Impacts 29

Diagrams Diagram 1: Location Plan 4

Diagram 2: Count Data 7

Figures Figure 1: Location of the Scheme Improvements

Figure 2: Zone and Link System

Figure 3: Junction Turning Movement Diagrams

Figure 4: LinSig model by junction

Figure 5: Planned and Existing Developments map

Appendices Appendix 1: Detailed Scheme Plans

Appendix 2: Observed Matrices

Appendix 3: Matrix Sector Analysis: TEMPro Growth

Appendix 4: Matrix Sector Analysis: SDLR Growth

Appendix 5: Matrix Sector Analysis: Income and Fuel Adjustment Growth

Appendix 6: Matrix Sector Analysis: Point Loaded Development Growth

Appendix 7: Heavy Vehicle Growth

Appendix 8: LinSig Model Results

Appendix 9: ARCADY Model Results


4

1 Introduction

1.1 Location and Scheme Background

1.1.1 The Torquay “Gateway” Scheme consists of a series of junction enhancements along key routes (A3022 and A380), as shown in Diagram 1 below. The A3022 is the key strategic route between Torquay Town Centre and a major new designated growth area, Edginswell, plus expanding development areas located on the edge of Torquay namely Shiphay / Old Edginswell, and Scotts Meadow / The Willows. The Gateway is indeed the boundary of and gateway to Torbay itself, shortly to be emphasised by the junction of the A380 with the new South Devon Link Road (SDLR).

Diagram 1: Location Plan

1.1.2 Proposals for the Scheme have been submitted to the Heart of the South

West Local Transport Body (HotSW LTB) in the form of an mEast submission. It was subsequently selected to be brought forward in a second tranche of deliverable schemes to be prioritised for funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) for 2015/16. The scheme is seeking funding from the LTB in the region of £3.44m; any funding will be subject to a compliant Business Case document being submitted.

1.1.3 The location of the Torquay Gateway scheme is shown in Figure 1. Detailed scheme plans have been included in Appendix 1.

Shiphay

Gateway Route

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014

Torquay Town Centre

SDLR

A3022 A380

Edginswell

Scotts Meadow


5

1.2 Purpose of this Report

1.2.1 As part of the Business Case submission, an Economic Case for the scheme must be made. This includes completion of the Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) which are broken down into four key sections as follows:

• Economy Impacts;

• Social Impacts;

• Environmental Impacts; and

• Public Accounts

1.2.2 This report provides technical information relating to the completion of the

Business Case document and associated AST.

1.3 Other Reports

1.3.1 This report forms part of a family of documents which support the Value for Money (VfM) assessment of the Torquay Gateway scheme. The other reports include

• Option Assessment Report (OAR) – identifies the need for the scheme, its objectives and the process for generating options. Also provided is the methodology for assessing alternatives and the recommendations on the scheme(s) to be taken forward to detailed appraisal.

• Appraisal Specification Report – compiled to inform decision makers and stakeholders on how the economic, environmental, social and operational assessments will be undertaken and how they will be supported by the traffic modelling work, taking account of budgetary and environmental constraints.

• Data Collection Report – details the collection and analysis of all data supporting the study.

1.4 Structure of the Report

1.4.1 The report is structured as follows:

• Section 2: Base Year Model Development

• Section 3: Forecast Modelling

• Section 4: Economic Assessment

• Section 5: Conclusion


6

2 Base Year Model Development

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Models have been developed to understand the behaviour at key junctions along the A3022 and at Gallows Gate roundabout under a number of scenarios. This section covers the development of these models and calibration to base year conditions.

2.2 Study Area

2.2.1 The study area for the Torquay Gateway model(s) is the A3022 and the small area surrounding Gallows Gate roundabout inside the blue polygon provided in Diagram 1 with the junctions included in the study highlighted in Figure 1.

2.3 Data Collection

2.3.1 A range of traffic data has been collected for the Torquay Gateway study, including Manual Classified Counts (MCCs), Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) and journey time data. More detail on the data collected and analysis conducted is given in the Data Collection Report (Ref No. B2305034/R/0002).

2.4 Time Periods

2.4.1 The base year models have been created to represent a typical weekday in a neutral month. The A3022 model has a base year of 2012, whereas the base year for the Gallows Gate roundabout is 2014, as more recent count data was available. The modelled time periods have been derived from traffic counts as described in the Data Collection Report (Ref No. B2305034/R/0002, paragraph 4.8.2) and consist of the AM peak (08:00-09:00), interpeak (average hour 10:00-16:00) and PM peak (average hour 16:00-18:00).

2.5 Vehicle Types

2.5.1 The highway traffic models operate using flows in Passenger Car Units (PCUs), with cars and LGVs assumed (by definition) to have a PCU value of 1.0. Goods vehicles have been assumed to have a PCU value of 2.5, predominantly due to their larger size. This has been done in alignment with WebTAG guidelines set out in unit M3.1 D.7.2 All traffic flow calculations have been undertaken separately for these two ‘userclasses’.


7

2.6 Observed Traffic Flows

2.6.1 Data from six Manual Classified Junction Counts (MCJCs) and two Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) have been used to create the base year matrices for the three time periods. The locations are listed in Table 1 and identified in Diagram 2. Two further ATC sites have been analysed in the data collection report but have not been used at this stage as they do not lie on the A3022 corridor, but instead lie on more minor side roads.

# Location Date

1 Kerswell Gardens Roundabout (MCJC) Friday 9 July 2010

2 Scotts Bridge (MCJC) Tuesday 3 July 2012

3 Browns Bridge (MCJC) Friday 9 July 2010

4 Lowes Bridge (MCJC) Friday 9 July 2010

5 Shiphay Lane (MCJC) Thursday 13th October 2011

6 Gallows Gate (MCJC) Monday 30th June 2014

7 Kerswell Gardens (ATC) 2012

8 Scotts Bridge (ATC) 2012

Table 1: Count sites

Diagram 2: Count Data

2.6.2 For the five junctions on the A3022, flows were consolidated to ensure that

the number of vehicles entering and exiting adjacent junctions were equal. The ATC count at site 7 was also used to validate the MCC flows at that location (i.e. flows were set to match ATC flows here). Diagrams illustrating the derived flows for each time period are shown in Figure 2.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2014


8

2.6.3 For the A3022 the consolidated flows were converted into an 11-by-11 Origin/Destination matrix. To do this a system of 11 zones was adopted, where each zone represented an entry and exit point from the network. The location of these zones is shown in Figure 3. Zone 1 has been divided into two, 1A to account for traffic from the north and 1B to account for the traffic from the south.

2.6.4 An initial matrix estimate was made using weightings based on the observed flows entering and exiting the network at each point.Each matrix cell was assessed individually to identify which turning movements were impacted by that cell. For each turning movement, all cells which impacted on that turn were factored to the observed value appropriately.

2.6.5 The factoring was repeated for each counted base flow turn. Any cells on the matrix diagonal were set to 0. An iterative process of matrix adjustments was then applied to ensure that the matrix recreated the consolidated flows given in Figure 2.

2.6.6 The consolidated matrices for Light Vehicles (LV) and Heavy Vehicles (HV) can be found in Appendix 2 with the matrix totals shown below in Table 2 and Table 3.

Time Period Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles

AM 4705 473 IP 5017 401

PM 5236 303

Table 2: Base Matrix Totals for the A3022 (PCUs)

Time Period Light Vehicles Heavy Vehicles

AM 2830 193 IP 2305 179 PM 3104 137

Table 3: Base Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate Roundabout (PCUs)

2.7 Model Software

2.7.1 Two models have been created for the Torquay Gateway as follows:

• A LinSig model to represent conditions on the A3022 between Scotts Bridge and Shiphay Lane. The network structure for the LinSig model is shown in Figure 4.

• An ARCADY model to represent the conditions at Gallows Gate roundabout.

LinSig Model

2.7.2 Saturation flows for turning movements at junctions were coded as follows: 2100 PCU/Hr/lane for straight ahead movements, 1900 PCU/Hr/lane for turns and 1500 PCU/Hr/lane at a give-way junction. The default values were chosen as conservative estimates (slightly higher than might normally be observed) as it was felt that this would lead to an underestimate of economic benefits. Two exceptions were made to the above saturation flows, at the Shiphay Lane junction on the left-turn lane from Shiphay Lane and the


9

northbound ahead lane from Newton Road, where these saturation flows were reduced by approximately 10% to account for the congestion from the lane drop north of the junction.

2.7.3 Signal timings (stages, phases and intergreens) for the junctions at Scotts Bridge, Browns Bridge Road, Lowes Bridge, Woodland Road and Shiphay Lane were obtained from Torbay Council and have been coded into the LinSig model.

ARCADY Model

2.7.4 Appropriate geometric measurements of the current junction layout were taken and entered into the ARCADY model.

2.8 Model Validation

2.8.1 The LinSig model was validated using the delay figures from the journey time information collected in the Data Collection Report (Ref No. B2305034/R/0002).

2.8.2 In order to do this the delay on each link was calculated from journey time data for each time period. It was assumed that drivers had a free flow speed of 30mph on each road, except for Kingskerswell road (link 5_02) where this was reduced to 20mph. The time taken to travel each link at a free flow speed was subtracted from the total journey time given by the database in each time period to derive the delay associated with passing through each signalised junction.

2.8.3 The observed delay calculated from the journey time database has been compared to the delay given from the LinSig model for each link in the AM, interpeak and PM peak periods. This comparison is shown in Table 4 for observed (Obs.) and modelled (Mod.) values where the Link ID refers to Figure 4. It was decided that the model was a good representation if the model delay values were within 20 seconds of the observed delay value, with the values highlight red, below, being an exception to this rule.

Junction Link ID AM IP PM

Obs. Mod. Obs. Mod. Obs. Mod.

Shiphay Lane

1_02 55.1 38.1 34.7 38.3 51.7 42.6

1_03 51.0 31.5 55.7 36.0 57.7 35.5 1_05 21.3 10.7 16.0 11.1 28.8 9.7

1_06 81.8 5.9 33.6 4.4 119.8 4.8

Woodland Road

2_01 9.5 6.4 17.2 4.7 14.2 7.3 2_03 7.0 3.3 9.6 3.9 9.5 7.2

Lowes Bridge

3_01 44.1 34.0 48.0 29.2 52.3 30.5

3_02 50.2 49.2 50.9 54.8 59.6 58.2

3_03 41.8 35.8 33.8 23.5 47.8 26.1

3_04 68.1 55.3 58.4 59.3 82.6 57.2

Browns Bridge Road

4_01 8.3 12.4 11.6 13.2 10.7 14.9 4_02 17.9 22.0 17.6 23.7 18.1 22.1 4_03 18.3 14.7 18.7 15.5 12.8 16.2

Scotts Bridge

5_01 25.7 19.5 26.0 17.3 30.0 14.1

5_02 36.0 40.8 32.9 43.3 61.4 47.7

5_03 28.5 17.3 28.5 16.9 28.5 14.3


10

5_04 23.8 45.6 26.6 45.1 44.8 50.6

Table 4: Base LinSig Model Delay comparison – Delay in seconds

2.8.4 Link 1_06 represents the road entering the Shiphay Lane junction from Old

Woods Hill. In all three time periods the LinSig model gives delay times that are much lower than observed from the collected data. This is because the LinSig model does not represent the interaction between the give way and the stop line to the south. It is clear from the model results that queuing from this stop line is sufficient to cause blocking of the exit from Old Woods Hill. Further adjustment of the saturation flow for this arm was considered to model this effect. However instead it was concluded that, as the scheme would reduce queuing, ignoring this weakness would lead to an underestimate of economic benefits and that it is not a material concern to the overall results of the traffic modelling.

2.8.5 Table 4 shows that the majority of the remaining delay times produced by the LinSig model are similar to those from the journey time database. Therefore, it is considered that the LinSig model is representative of the traffic behaviour on the Gateway.

2.9 ARCADY Model

2.9.1 The delay times from the base year ARCADY model have been compared to the delay times derived from the journey time database to ensure the model is representative of conditions at the Gallows gate roundabout. The comparison is shown in Table 5.

Arm AM IP PM

Obs Mod Obs Mod Obs Mod

A 5.43 4.96 5.39 4.59 12.77 9.5

B 2.88 3.72 1.42 2.47 1.28 2.92 C 10.95 5.96 3.98 4.62 6.31 10.35

Table 5: Base ARCADY Model Delay comparison – Delay in seconds

2.9.2 Table 5 shows that the delays predicted by the ARCADY model are in line

with observed values with no difference greater than five seconds.

2.10 Conclusion

2.10.1 Overall the base year models are considered to be good representations of base year conditions and are therefore suitable to support further work feeding into the Economic Case for the Gateway scheme.


11

3 Forecast Modelling

3.1 Model Years

3.1.1 Two forecast year models have been developed representing the first full year after opening (2017) and the design year (opening year + 15 years = 2032). For convenience these will be referred to as 2017 and 2032 models.

3.2 Network Coding

3.2.1 Do minimum networks have been coded as per the base year network.

3.2.2 Do Something networks have been coded consistently with the Do Minimum networks but include a representation of the Torquay Gateway scheme. This has been done by adding extra lanes in the both the LinSig and ARCADY models to represent the proposed improvements. Saturation flows have been adjusted back to default values at the two specific locations listed in 2.7.2, because there is no longer a lane drop after adding an extra lane as part of the Torquay improvements.

3.3 Growth Scenarios

3.3.1 A ‘core point load’ growth scenario was set up to model what is most likely to happen in 2017 and 2032 in terms of forecast growth. In addition to a core growth scenario, two further scenarios have been produced during the forecasting process. These forecasts cover a ‘high point load’ and a ‘low point load’ growth scenario and give an upper and lower bound of forecast growth across the study area in light of uncertainties relating to development and background growth (all scenarios are constrained to TEMPro growth figures so some elements of growth in the low point load development scenario are larger than in the high point load development scenario, however overall growth is highest in the high point load development scenario).

3.3.2 The A380 South Devon Link Road is currently under construction and due to be completed in late 2015. The South Devon Link Road is located to the north of the study area and is marked in Figure 1. The South Devon Link Road is anticipated to have a large impact on flows through the study area and has been represented in the demand flows

3.3.3 The impacts of four potential development sites have been assessed in this project. The impact of these developments and wider background growth has been considered over a wider area than that covered by the base year model. This recognises that not all traffic generated by the development will impinge on the Gateway. Furthermore the approach recognises that background growth must be calculated to take account of the varying growth entering the Gateway from the north (and brought about by the SDLR) and from the south (both Paignton and Torquay). This is covered in more detail later in this section.

3.4 Application of Traffic Growth

3.4.1 Traffic growth has been applied to the base matrices in the following order;


12

• Application of TEMPro growth to all zones including balancing of row and column totals, zero growth from the North of Kerswell Gardens roundabout (zone 1A) (see section 3.5) *

• Add growth to zone 1A to account for further anticipated growth from the South Devon Link Road in 2032 only (see section 3.6) *

• Include income and fuel adjustment factors (see section 3.7)

• Apply demographic uncertainty factors to low and high growth scenarios (see section 3.8) *

• Add growth from the development sites, where necessary (see section 3.9) *

* denotes interim results provided later in this report

3.4.2 Application of NTM growth factors to heavy vehicles has been dealt with separately to light vehicle growth (see section 3.10).

3.5 Application of TEMPro Growth

3.5.1 The National Trip End Model (NTEM) forecasts and the TEMPro (Trip End Model Presentation Program) v6.2 software are available for transport planning purposes. The forecasts include population, employment, households by car ownership, trip ends and simple traffic growth factors based on data from the National Transport Model (NTM).

3.5.2 TEMPro has been used to calculate growth factors for the model for all light vehicle trips.

3.5.3 Model zones have been allocated to one of three areas as follows and growth calculated for each separately:

• Torquay

• Rest of Devon

• Rest of Torbay

3.5.4 In line with WebTAG unit M4 guidance, use has been made of the

‘alternative planning assumptions’ facility within the TEMPro software. TEMPro housing and job numbers have been reduced by the amounts shown in Table 6. More detail on the derivation of these values is given in section 3.9.

Housing Jobs 2017 2032 2017 2032

Low Point Load 0 155 0 0 Core Point Load 155 155 0 421

High Point Load 155 430 0 3136

Table 6: TEMPro planning assumption reductions

3.5.5 The resulting TEMPro growth factors and matrix row and column targets are

given in Appendix 3. Row and column totals have been balanced to ensure consistency across the matrix. A different methodology for HGVs has been applied and is covered in more detail in section 3.10. Base year matrices


13

were factored iteratively to derive an adjusted matrix which broadly followed base year distributions and matched the calculated row and column totals. Matrix totals are given for the A3022 in Table 11 and similarly in Table 8 for Gallows Gate roundabout.

Peak Low Point Load Core Point Load High Point Load

2012 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032

AM Peak 4705 4912 5221 4905 5192 4905 4982

Interpeak 5017 5283 5868 5272 5831 5272 5587

PM Peak 5236 5471 5844 5463 5812 5463 5586

Table 7: TEMPro Matrix Totals for the A3022 (Light Vehicles)


2014 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 2830 2962 3105 2900 3097 2900 3039

Interpeak 2305 2378 2647 2377 2640 2377 2596

PM Peak 3185 3268 3507 3266 3499 3266 3443

Table 8: TEMPro Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate (Light Vehicles)

3.5.6 The derived growth across the matrices has also been calculated and is

summarised in Table 9 for the Gateway and Table 10 for Gallows Gate roundabout.


2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 4.4% 11.0% 4.2% 10.4% 4.3% 5.9% Interpeak 5.3% 17.0% 5.1% 16.2% 5.1% 11.4% PM Peak 4.5% 11.6% 4.3% 11.0% 4.3% 6.7%

Table 9: TEMPro Growth for A3022 (Light Vehicles)



Table 10: TEMPro Growth for Gallows Gate (Light Vehicles)

3.6 Impact of A380 South Devon Link Road

3.6.1 The A380 South Devon Link Road Forecasting report (Devon County Council / Parsons Brinckerhoff. ref TUE43444A/11/3, Figure 30) suggests that growth to the north of the study area could be significantly above the levels predicted by TEMPro, with over 100% more traffic using the SDLR than the current A380.

3.6.2 The SDLR will take time to have an impact on flows through the Gateway scheme. Given the high levels of growth predicted on the SDLR by 2032, the TEMPro growth for flows to the north has been adjusted in 2032 only. Care was taken to not adjust the flows between the A3022 and the A380 at this


14

stage. Growth has been applied to the Do Minimum and Do Something models as follows:

• 2032 Core Point Load scenario – Apply 50% growth to all trips coming from / going to SDLR zone;

• 2032 High Point Load scenario – Apply 50% growth to all trips coming from / going to SDLR zone;

• 2032 Low Point Load scenario – Apply 25% growth to all trips coming from / going to SDLR zone;

3.6.3 As the levels of growth predicted by the SDLR model for the Gateway were

felt to be sufficiently uncertain that they should not be used directly, conservative uplift factors were chosen, which were higher than TEMPro but significantly lower than the SDLR model.

3.6.4 The resulting growth factors can be found in Appendix 4 (note that a different methodology for HGVs has been applied and is covered in more detail in section 3.10). Matrix totals are given for the A3022 in Table 11 and similarly in Table 12 for Gallows Gate roundabout.


2012 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 4705 4912 5483 4905 5715 4905 5504

Interpeak 5017 5283 6166 5272 6427 5272 6182

PM Peak 5236 5471 6162 5463 6448 5463 6222

Table 11: Matrix Totals for A3022 After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles)


2014 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 2830 2962 3298 2900 3484 2900 3432

Interpeak 2305 2378 2844 2377 3035 2377 2996

PM Peak 3185 3268 3772 3266 4030 3266 3981

Table 12: Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles)


summarised in Table 13 for the Gateway and Table 14 for Gallows Gate roundabout.


2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 4.4% 16.5% 4.3% 21.5% 4.3% 17.0%

Interpeak 5.3% 22.9% 5.1% 28.1% 5.1% 23.2% PM Peak 4.5% 17.7% 4.3% 23.1% 4.3% 18.8%

Table 13: Growth After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles) – A3022 (from 2012)


2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032


15

AM Peak 4.7% 16.5% 2.5% 23.1% 2.5% 21.3% Interpeak 3.2% 23.4% 3.1% 31.7% 3.1% 30.0% PM Peak 2.6% 18.4% 2.5% 26.5% 2.5% 25.0%

Table 14: Growth After SDLR Adjustment (Light Vehicles) – Gallows Gate (from 2014)

3.7 Income and Fuel Adjustment Factors

3.7.1 Income and fuel adjustment factors have been applied in all scenarios to TEMPro growth forecasts, again following guidance set out in WebTAG unit M4 and the values in the TAG databook (May 2014). Adjustments for 2017 and 2032 have been calculated separately (accounting for different base years) and have been applied to light vehicle trips as follows:

2017 2032 A3022 4.6% 14.9% Gallows Gate roundabout 2.2% 12.4%

Table 15: Income and Fuel Adjustment Factors

3.8 National Uncertainty

3.8.1 To account for uncertainty in demographic changes, WebTAG Unit M4 recommends formulating high and low growth scenarios. This recommendation is to apply an adjustment of ±2.5% multiplied by the square root of the number of years forecast into the future to each forecast matrix. For example, for a 2028 forecast (16 years into the future from the base year), an adjustment of ±10% would be applied to the base year matrix for high and low point load growth scenarios respectively. The growth applied in the two forecast years is therefore as shown in Table 16:

Uncertainty Factor 2017 2032

A3022 ±5.6% ±11.2% Gallows Gate roundabout ±4.3% ±10.6%

Table 16: National Uncertainty Factors

3.8.2 The resulting growth factors can be found in Appendix 5 (note that a different

methodology for HGVs has been applied and is covered in more detail in section 3.10). Matrix totals are given for the A3022 in Table 17 and similarly in Table 18 for Gallows Gate roundabout.


2012 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032

AM Peak 4705 4873 5775 5128 6568 5391 6851

Interpeak 5017 5243 6525 5513 7385 5272 7205

PM Peak 5236 5428 6496 5712 7410 5463 7735

Table 17: Matrix Totals for A3022 After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles)


16


2014 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 2830 2906 3406 2965 3915 3123 4172

Interpeak 2305 2331 2951 2430 3410 2559 3624

PM Peak 3185 3203 3900 3339 4528 3517 4830

Table 18: Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles)


summarised in Table 19 for the A3022 and Table 20 for Gallows Gate roundabout.


2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032

AM Peak 3.6% 22.7% 9.0% 39.6% 14.6% 45.6% Interpeak 4.5% 30.1% 9.9% 47.2% 5.1% 43.6% PM Peak 3.7% 24.1% 9.1% 41.5% 4.3% 47.7%

Table 19: Growth After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles) – A3022 (from 2012)



Table 20: Growth After Income, Fuel and National Uncertainty Factors (Light Vehicles) - Gallows Gate (from 2014)

3.9 Point Loaded Development

3.9.1 Developments with potential impact on the Torquay Gateway are shown in Figure 5 with key details about the developments summarised in Table 21.

Dev. No.

Location Housing Employment

Jobs Equivalent

1 Edginswell Future Growth Area

275 18,800m2

(office) 989

2 Edginswell Business Park

- 8,000m2 *

(office) 421

3 Scotts Meadow 155 - -

4 Browns Bridge - 32,800m2

(warehousing) 1726

Table 21: Development Sites (*see 3.9.2)

3.9.2 The values in Table 6 have been taken from information in Figure 5 (provided by Torbay Council) which details the proposed number of dwellings and employment space at new developments. After discussion with Torbay Council, it was decided that Edginswell Future Growth Area would be modelled with half the dwellings and half the employment space stated in Figure 5. This was because the Torquay Gateway and Town Centre Consultation Masterplan showed approximately 550 dwellings and no


17

employment at this location. It was concluded that the full development could not be accommodated in the space available and therefore a mixed development was assumed. The employment space at Edginswell Park in Figure 5 has also been reduced to 8,000m2 as detailed in the Torquay Gateway and Town Centre Consultation Masterplan1.

3.9.3 The number of employment trips has been calculated using a ratio, as provided by Torbay Council from the 2013 Torbay Employment Land Review2, of one job per 19m2 of employment space.

3.9.4 Developments have been included in core, high and low point load growth scenarios, depending on the certainty of them coming forward and their likely timescales for delivery. Table 22 provides details of which developments have been included in each scenario.

Scenario Dev. 1 Dev. 2 Dev. 3 Dev. 4

2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 Low Point Load

- - - - Y Y - -

Core Point Load

- - - Y Y Y - Y

High Point Load

- Y - Y Y Y - Y

Table 22: Developments Included in Forecast Scenarios

3.9.5 Light vehicle trip rates have been taken from similar studies based from trip

rates obtained from TRICS (v6.9.2 and v6.9.11) and are given in Table 23 below. No HGV development trips have been applied.

Dev. Type AM Peak Interpeak PM Peak

Dep. Arr. Dep. Arr. Dep. Arr.

Housing (per dwelling)

0.298 0.096 0.124 0.122 0.131 0.286

Emp. (Office) (per 100m2)

0.406 2.392 0.784 0.770 1.772 0.185

Emp. (Warehousing) (per 100m2)

0.051 0.105 0.091 0.089 0.105 0.067

Table 23: Light Vehicle Trip Rates Used For Point Loaded Developments

3.9.6 Development distributions have been estimated using 2011 census data for

each development in turn. Where trips have been assessed as not impinging on the junctions being modelled, they have been ignored. The distributions used are shown in Table 24 and Table 25 and have been considered separately for the A3022 and Gallows Gate assessments. The same distributions have been used under all three growth scenarios.

1 http://www.torbay.gov.uk/torquay_masterplan_gateway_town_centre.pdf

2 http://www.torbay.gov.uk/employmentlandreview2013.pdf


18

Origin / Destination

Development number

1 (Housing)

1 (Empl.)

2 3 4

From North - - 27% 13.5% 22.7% From Browns Bridge Road

0.4% 3% 3% - -

From Hele Road 0.8|% 2.6% 2.6% - -

From A3022 Newton Road

11% 18.1% 31.8% 12.4% 23.9%

Shiphay Lane - - - - 4.3% Total 11.4% 23.7% 64.4% 25.9% 50.9%

Table 24: Development Distributions on A3022

Origin / Destination

Development number

1 (Housing)

1 (Empl.)

2 3 4

From North 11.1% 22.7% - - - From Shiphay Lane

- - - - -

From the south 5.9% 18% 4.3% 2.4% 2.4%

Total 17.0% 40.7% 4.3% 2.4% 2.4%

Table 25: Development Distributions at Gallows Gate

3.9.7 The totals do not add to 100% as not all the new traffic from the proposed

developments will use the Gateway or Gallows Gate roundabout. Census journey to work data suggests that a large proportion of car trips in the Edginswell area both live and work in the area. This means for development 1 and 4, nearly half of all trips do not impinge on the modelled junctions. Census journey to work data also suggests a large proportion of trips to Torquay; for the developments to the north of the A3022 it was considered that Brown’s Bridge Road offered the best route into Torquay (i.e. not via the A3022) and again a large proportion of traffic was identified as not impinging on the modelled network.

3.9.8 For each development, an appropriate loading point has been chosen and all traffic from the development has been assumed to enter the model at this location.

3.9.9 Forecast matrices have been derived to recreate these flows; matrix totals for development trips have been provided in summary in Table 26 and Table 27 for the A3022 and the Gallows Gate roundabout respectively.

2017 2032

AM IP PM AM IP PM

Core Point Load 17 11 19 171 96 125

Low Point Load 0 0 0 17 11 19

High Point Load 17 11 19 404 244 328

Table 26: Matrix Totals for Development Trips – Torquay Gateway


19

2017 2032

AM IP PM AM IP PM

Core Point Load 1 1 2 11 6 9

Low Point Load 0 0 0 1 1 2

High Point Load 1 1 2 141 80 118

Table 27: Matrix Totals for Development Trips – Gallows Gate Roundabout

3.9.10 Development matrices have been added to the matrices derived in section

3.8 to derive final matrices which are also given in Appendix 6. A summary of the matrix totals are provided in Table 28 and Table 29. The derived growth calculated between base year and the final matrix is given in Table 30 and Table 31.


2012 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032

AM Peak 4705 5341 6300 5612 7237 5875 7845

Interpeak 5017 5640 6966 5919 7907 6200 7916

PM Peak 5236 5728 6840 6029 7854 6321 8423

Table 28: Final Matrix Totals for A3022 (Light Vehicles)


2014 2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032 AM Peak 2830 2906 3407 2967 3926 3125 4313

Interpeak 2305 2331 2952 2431 3416 2560 3705

PM Peak 3185 3203 3902 3340 4536 3519 4947

Table 29: Final Matrix Totals for Gallows Gate (Light Vehicles)


2017 2032 2017 2032 2017 2032

AM Peak 13.5% 33.9% 19.3% 53.8% 24.9% 66.7% Interpeak 12.4% 38.8% 18.0% 57.6% 23.6% 57.8%

PM Peak 9.4% 30.6% 15.1% 50.0% 20.7% 60.9%

Table 30: Final Matrix Predicted Growth (Light Vehicles) – A3022 (from 2012)



Table 31: Final Matrix Predicted Growth (Light Vehicles) – Gallows Gate roundabout (from 2014)

3.9.11 The overall growth across the matrices in 2032 is large in both models,

however this growth is considered realistic due to the effect of the SDLR as well as the addition of trips from the four development sites.


20

3.10 Goods Vehicle Growth

3.10.1 Growth for goods vehicles has been estimated using NTM growth projections for the South West Other Urban roads by interpolating between appropriate years.

3.10.2 HGV growth along the A3022 has been estimated by assuming proportions of 90.7% for OGV1 and 9.3% for OGV2. These proportions are an average of the observed proportions at the manual count sites at Scotts Bridge (2012), Browns Bridge (2010), Lowes Bridge (2010) and Newton Road (2010). For Gallows Gate, using manual traffic count proportions HGV growth was estimated assuming an OGV1 proportion of 81.1% and an OGV2 proportion of 18.9%.

3.10.3 HGV growth has not been adjusted for income and fuel changes, national uncertainty or at the SDLR entry to the model.

3.11 Assignment of Models

3.11.1 Forecast matrices have been assigned to the appropriate forecast networks to yield the forecast models. These have been produced for AM, IP and PM peaks in 2017 and 2032.

3.12 Model Results

3.12.1 The five key junctions along the Gateway have been examined and signal timings optimised for Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC) to reduce unrealistic queuing in each model.

3.12.2 The degrees of saturation (DoS) and delay times from the LinSig models were compared to the base models and were seen as appropriate given the amount of growth added to the model. Details on the degrees of saturation and delay times on each link can be found in Appendix 8. The delay is measured in seconds per vehicle. Arms with a DoS greater than 90% and 100% are coloured orange and yellow respectively.

3.12.3 Details on the queue lengths and delay times from the ARCADY models can be found in Appendix 9.

3.12.4 The results from running the LinSig models showed that there was most congestion in the High scenario, followed by the core point load scenario and then the low scenario, as expected. The PM peak is most congested in the High scenario, whereas in the core point load scenario the interpeak and PM peak are both highly congested and in the Low scenario the interpeak is most congested.

3.12.5 The scheme shows considerable improvements from the south of Shiphay Lane on Newton Road heading northbound due to the additional lanes upstream from the junction. Further minor improvements are observed at Scotts Bridge junction due to the improvements there.

3.12.6 From the ARCADY model it can be seen that most forecast growth introduces significant delays at the Gallows Gate junction. The improvement at the junction significantly reduces these delays on the Marldon Road arm of the junction with all other arms remaining almost unchanged.


21

3.12.7 The high level of delay on the northern arm is brought about by the large conflicting right turn movement from the south into Marldon Road. It is understood from discussion with Torbay Council that this high right turn is caused by rat running traffic heading towards the A3022, which avoids congestion at the Kerswell Gardens roundabout. This congestion is expected to be alleviated by the opening of the SDLR and as a result the right turn is expected to fall in future.

3.12.8 The predicted levels of delay from the north at Gallows Gate is considered unacceptable, but given the uncertainty brought about opening of the SDLR it is not considered appropriate to suggest a solution at this stage. Conditions will however be monitored and a solution proposed should one be required at a later stage. For the purposes of this assessment, given that the delays on the northern arm are identical both with and without the Gateway scheme, these large delays are not considered to be a material concern to the subsequent economic analysis.


22

4 Economic Assessment

4.1 Elements of Economic Assessment

4.1.1 The economic assessment methodology in this study followed the guidelines laid down in the Web Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG).

4.1.2 Transport User Benefit Analysis (TUBA) has been used to:

• Calculate the costs and benefits resulting from time savings and changes in vehicle operating costs (Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE)) between the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios

• Convert scheme costs into the standard economic base year for the assessment

• Calculate Carbon savings

• Calculate Indirect Tax Revenues

4.1.3 A bespoke spreadsheet model approach has been used to quantify accident

savings brought about by the scheme.

4.1.4 The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) has been used to quantify health savings for cyclists encouraged by additional cycling infrastructure.

4.2 TUBA Assessment

4.2.1 TUBA version 1.9.4 has been used to assess Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) impacts and to correctly convert costs to the standard DfT base year (2010). Use of the default economics file has been made during the assessment and therefore the associated assumptions are in line with the latest WebTAG databook (May 2014). A 60 year appraisal period was assumed as recommended by WebTAG unit A1.1.

Annualisation Factors

4.2.2 In order to calculate benefits across the year as fully as possible, annualisation factors have been developed to convert outputs from the three modelled time periods (AM peak, interpeak and PM peak). The TUBA assessments have included the following annualisation factors, based on 253 working days within a year:

• 253 hours of the AM peak hour model (1 per day)

• 1518 hours of the average IP hour (6 per day)

• 506 hours of the PM hour model (2 per day)

4.2.3 Analysis of weekend hours from ATC data has shown that the busiest 102

hours have an average flow equal to the average interpeak period. Therefore outputs from the interpeak model have been used to calculate the benefits at weekends for these 102 hours.


23

Userclasses

4.2.4 Seven user classes have been defined in TUBA to cover the range of modes and trip purposes. The LinSig and ARCADY trip matrices were split by vehicle class using MCC data. The split between LGV commute/other and LGV business/freight has been obtained from the TAG databook. The vehicle splits are summarised in Table 32 below.

TUBA Userclass

Vehicle Class

Journey Purpose Matrix Factor

A3022 Gallows Gate

1

Car

Commute

87.0%* 82.9%* 2 Business

3 Other

4 LGV

Commute / Other 1.2% 1.8%

5 Business / Freight 8.8% 13.0%

6 OGV1 All 2.7% 1.9%

7 OGV2 All 0.3% 0.4%

Table 32: TUBA User classes

* journey purposes derived by TUBA using built-in purpose splits by time period

4.2.5 Time and distance matrices were extracted and converted into hours and kilometres respectively. No factor was applied to the vehicle matrices other than those given in Table 32.

TUBA Warnings

4.2.6 The TUBA model output file was analysed for all warnings found in the model and all were found to arise due to logical results derived from the traffic models.

User Time benefits

4.2.7 The user benefits for the core point load growth scenario were assessed across the year to show where benefits were accrued due to the scheme. Table 33 for the A3022 and Table 34 for Gallows Gate roundabout show the resulting benefits as a proportion of the overall benefits for 2017 and 2032.

Sector 2017 2032 North of Scotts Bridge 15.0% 21.9% Side Roads Scotts Bridge -0.8% 0.4% Browns Bridge Road 8.8% 13.4% Hele Road at Lowes Bridge 6.8% 6.2% Woodland Road 1.2% 1.1% Old Woods Hill at Shiphay Junction 7.1% -4.8%

South of Shiphay Junction 32.0% 42.6%

Shiphay Lane at Shiphay Junction 19.2% 6.7% Hospital Exit at Lowes Bridge 4.1% 3.5% Old Newton Road at Lowes Bridge 4.3% 4.1% Newton Road at Scotts Bridge 2.2% 4.9% Total 100% 100%

Table 33: User Time Benefits for A3022


24

Sector 2017 2032 Marldon Road to North 5.2% 2.9% Marldon Road to South 94.8% 97.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Table 34: User Time Benefits for Gallows Gate roundabout

4.2.8 Table 33 shows that the majority of benefits on the A3022 are for trips

coming to and from the north and south of the model where the highest flows have been recorded. The results also reflect the large amount of benefits experienced by traffic using the Shiphay junction. Fewer benefits are experienced by traffic using the Scotts Bridge junction because the level of capacity improvement is not as great.

4.2.9 At Gallows Gate, Table 34 shows all benefits arising from traffic coming from Marldon Road with the vast majority of benefits experienced by traffic heading to the south.

Core Transport Economic Efficiency Results

4.2.10 A summary of the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) results for the core point load growth scenario is provided for the full scheme in Table 35.

Sector Travel Time

Vehicle Operating

Costs Total

Non Business

Commuting 5,072 212 5,284

Other 10,035 400 10,435

Business 17,772 897 18,669

Total 32,879 1,509 34,388

Table 35: TEE Benefits (£000s) 60 Year Appraisal - Core

4.2.11 The analysis shows that the majority of benefits are attributed to business

users (approximately 50%); this is due to their higher value of time.

4.2.12 Travel time results have further been disaggregated by TUBA by overall time savings. Disaggregated results for the full scheme are provided in Table 36.

Sector Travel Time Saving (Minutes) <-5 -5 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 5 >5 Total

Commuting and Other

0 0 -1,629 14,461 2,274 0 15,107

Business 0 0 -1,557 14,309 5,020 0 17,772 Total 0 0 -3,186 28,770 7,294 0 32,879

Table 36: Disaggregated Travel Time Savings (£000s) - Core

4.2.14 The results show that the majority of benefits arise from modest journey time

savings, with only a small number of savings in the 2 to 5 minute category.

60 Year High Point Load Growth Scenario Appraisal Results

4.2.15 A summary of the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) results is provided for the high point load growth scenario in Table 37.


25

Sector Travel Time

Vehicle Operating

Costs Total

Non Business

Commuting 10,472 507 10,979

Other 16,789 826 17,615

Business 30,782 1,846 32,628

Total 58,043 3,179 61,222

Table 37: TEE Benefits (£000s) 60 Year Appraisal – High



Commuting and Other

0 0 -1,052 19,830 0 8,483 27,261

Business 0 0 -760 16,351 0 15,191 30,782

Total 0 0 -1,812 36,181 0 23,673 58,043

Table 38: Disaggregated Travel Time Savings (£000s) - High

4.2.18 The results show that the majority of benefits arise from modest journey time

savings, however under high point load growth the travel time savings on Marldon Rad rise to just above 5 minutes. These savings greater than 5 minutes are all from Marldon Road in the high 2032 scenario i.e. due to development site 1.

60 Year Low Point Load Growth Scenario Appraisal Results

4.2.19 A summary of the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) results is provided for the low point load growth scenario in Table 39.

Sector Travel Time

Vehicle Operating

Costs Total

Non Business

Commuting 2,541 117 2,658

Other 5,832 280 6,112

Business 9,989 572 10,561

Total 18,362 969 19,331

Table 39: TEE Benefits (£,000s) 60 Year Appraisal – Low



Commuting and Other

0 -1 -663 8,129 908 0 8,373

Business 0 -1 -688 8,538 2,140 0 9,989 Total 0 -2 -1,351 16,667 3,048 0 18,362

Table 40: Disaggregated Travel Time Savings (£,000s) - Low


26

4.2.22 The results show that the majority of benefits arise from modest journey time savings, with a small number of savings in the 2 to 5 minute category.

Cost to Broad Transport Budget

4.2.23 Scheme costs and expenditure profiles have been supplied by Torbay Council. These costs have been manipulated where appropriate before entry into TUBA and are as follows:

• Preparation and Supervision - £300,000: not adjusted

• Works Cost - £2,492,000: not adjusted

• Utilities, Land - £150,000: not adjusted

• Contingency - £883,000: uplifted to 15% + 44% of works costs = £1,558,780

• Total - £3,825,000: uplifted to £4,500,780

4.2.24 Costs have been entered into TUBA in factor prices (i.e. excluding VAT) with

a GDP deflator of 108.16 representing the current year 2014.

4.2.25 The expenditure profile entered into TUBA is given in Table 41.

2016 2017 2018

Construction 31.3% 53.2% 15.5%

Land 75.0% 25.0% 0.0%

Preparation 32.0% 52.9% 15.1%

Supervision 32.0% 52.9% 15.1%

Table 41: Assumed Expenditure Profile

4.2.26 TUBA has converted costs to market prices, deflated to 2010 prices and

discounted to 2010 to derive an overall scheme cost of £3,914,000 (2010 prices, discounted to 2010).

Indirect Tax Revenues

4.2.27 Indirect tax revenues of £465m have been calculated by TUBA due to reduced queuing and more efficient travel by vehicles through the Gateway.

Carbon Saving

4.2.28 A carbon saving of £185m has been calculated due to reduced queuing and more efficient travel through the Gateway.

4.3 Health Benefits

4.3.1 Health benefits have been assessed using The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for a 60 year appraisal of the cycle improvements set out as part of Torquay Gateway scheme. The assumptions that have been made are;

• 10 additional cycle users travelling an average of 5km per day, the distance has been calculated using census statistics


27

• 5 years to build up benefits

• 5 years to achieve full uptake

• The value of a life is £1,632,892 as provided by the TAG databook table A4.1.1

• During the 60 year appraisal period there will be a 3.5% discount for years 1-30 and a 3% discount for years 31-60

4.3.2 Anecdotal evidence suggests that approximately 200 cyclists use the A3022 on a typical day. Furthermore, the proposed cycle scheme will provide a missing link between existing cycle infrastructure, the hospital and schools in the area. It is recognised that steep gradients and relatively indirect route may discourage a large number of additional users; therefore a highly conservative estimate of cycle usage has been made. The route does however open opportunities for further cycle improvements and is a key link for providing a high quality cycle route between Newton Abbot and Torbay.

4.3.3 The total health benefit calculated is £273,804.

4.4 Accident Savings

4.4.1 Data covering a period of five years between 01/01/2009 and 31/07/2014 has been reviewed between Scotts Bridge and Shiphay Lane. Limited evidence of accidents related to queueing on the Torquay Gateway was found. Therefore no vehicular accident savings are assumed to arise from the scheme

4.4.2 In terms of cycling accidents, 6 slight and 2 serious incidents occurred between Scotts Bridge and Shiphay Lane. It is assumed that half of the current number of cyclists will transfer on to the off road cycle route adjacent to the A3022, and therefore it is assumed that half of these accidents will be prevented. The WebTAG databook table A4.1.1 gives the value of preventing a slight accident as £14,145 and the value of preventing a serious accident as £183,491m, and these values were assumed for this appraisal. The appraisal was carried out for a 60 year period and was discounted as outlined in 4.3.1.

4.4.3 The total accident saving from this analysis is £932,754.

4.5 Summary of Results

4.5.1 The present value of benefits (PVB) for each scenario is identified in Table 42. This takes into account economic efficiency, Carbon savings, health benefits, accident savings and indirect tax revenues.


28

Low Core High

Carbon 133 185 448

Health Benefits 274 274 274

Accidents 933 933 933

Economic Efficiency 19,331 34,388 61,222

Indirect Tax Revenues 329 465 1,114

PVB 21,000 36,245 63,991

Table 42: Present Value of Benefits - (£000s)

4.5.2 The present value of cost (PVC) is calculated to be £3,914,000 from the TUBA output in all three scenarios.

4.5.3 Using the ratio of the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) to the Present Value of Costs (PVC) the benefit cost ratio has been calculated for each scenario. The benefit cost ratios output from the TUBA analysis for each scenario are shown in Table 43.

Sector BCR Low 5.365 Core 9.260 High 16.350

Table 43: Benefit Cost Ratios

4.5.4 This suggests the scheme represents excellent value for money with £9.26

returned for every £1.00 of investment in the core scenario.

4.6 Social and Distributional Impacts

4.6.1 Each model zone, 1-14 as identified in Figure 3, was allocated to one of four areas to assess the social and distributional impacts of the economic benefits. The areas were broken down as shown in Table 44.

Area Model Zone

1 – South towards Paignton 14

2 – South Towards Torquay 7

3 – Either side of the A3022 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,13

4 – North towards Newton Abbot and Exeter 1,12

Table 44: Zone allocation for social and distributional impact assessment

4.6.2 The economic benefits were assigned to area;

• 1 by LSOA3 according to Roadside Interview (RSI) data taken at Hellevoetsluis Way from the Torbay Western Corridor project (ref: B2305028/R/0002).

• 2 by LSOA according to RSI data taken at Torquay Road from the Torbay Western Corridor project (ref: B2305028/R/0002).

• 3 according to LSOA.

3 Super Output Areas, regions defined by census 2011


29

• 4 according to a distribution taken from 2011 census to journey to work data.

4.6.3 The two RSI sites were chosen due to their proximity to the Torquay gateway study area.

4.6.4 The economic benefits, divided into the categories private and freight, were assigned by income group to each area, before the results from each area were added together. Income was divided into quintile to determine the income groups with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The proportion of the population in each income group was then compared to the proportions of private and freight economic benefits assigned to each income group.

4.6.5 The results from assessing the social and distributional impacts are shown below in Table 45. 1 tick is scored if the percentage of economic benefit is smaller by more than 5% of the population percentage in that income group, 2 ticks are scored if the difference between the two percentages is less than 5% and 3 ticks are scored if the economic benefit percentage is greater than the population percentage by more than 5%.

Income Group Benefits Private Benefits Freight

1 ��

2 � ��

3 ��

4 � �

5 � �

Table 45: Social and Distributional Impacts

4.6.6 The analysis shows a skewing of benefits towards lower income groups, this is due to the lower salaries of the local population who are likely to use the scheme.


30

5 Conclusion

5.1 Summary

5.1.1 Torquay Gateway has been modelled using LinSig and ARCADY to create base traffic models that have been validated using journey time data.

5.1.2 Forecast models for the years 2017 and 2032 were created for a low, core and high point load growth scenarios to reflect the likelihood of proposed developments going ahead in the area.

5.1.3 The results from the models were used to undertake an economic assessment of the Gateway scheme including a TUBA calculation, health benefits and accident savings.

5.2 Conclusion

5.2.1 The base models are a good representation of travel patterns in respective base years and deemed fit for the purpose of developing forecast models to test design options within the model study area.

5.2.2 The forecast models behave realistically and are considered suitable to take forward to economic assessment.

5.2.3 The economic assessment resulted in a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 9.260 which is considered very high value for money. Even if all the proposed development did not go ahead as expected and the low point load growth scenario is considered, the BCR is 5.365 which is still very high value money for this scheme.


31

6 Glossary

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ATC Automatic Traffic Counter

COBA-LT Cost Benefit Analysis Light Touch

DCC Devon County Council

DfT Department for Transport

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

ITA Independent Technical Advisor

LGV Light Goods Vehicle

LTB Local Transport Body

LTP Local Transport Plan

MCC Manual Classified Count

mEast Modified Early Assessment and Sifting Tool

OAR Options Assessment Report

RSI Roadside Interview

SDLR South Devon Link Road

TEMPro Trip End Model Program

TUBA Transport User Benefit Appraisal

UTC Urban Traffic Control

WebTAG Web Transport Analysis Guidance

LMVR Local Model Validation Report

TEE Transport Economic Efficiency

T&E Traffic and Economics

SATURN Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks

TUBA Transport User Benefit Appraisal


Figure 1: Location of the Scheme Improvements

Figure 2: Junction Turning Movement Diagrams

Figure 3: Zone System

Figure 4: LinSig model by junction

Figure 5: Planned and Existing Developments map

Appendix 1: Detailed Scheme Plans

Appendix 2: Observed Matrices

Appendix 3: Matrix Sector Analysis: TEMPro Growth

Appendix 4: Matrix Sector Analysis: SDLR Growth

Appendix 5: Matrix Sector Analysis: Income and Fuel Adjustment Growth

Appendix 6: Matrix Sector Analysis: Point Loaded Development Growth

Appendix 7: Heavy Vehicle Growth

Appendix 8: LinSig Model Results

Appendix 9: ARCADY Model Results

Documents

Economic Case Supporting Information v2 · stakeholders on how the economic, environmental, social and operational assessments will be undertaken and how they will be supported by