Forecasting Report - Maidstone · Project Name Maidstone VISUM Transport Model Document Title Forecasting Report Doc. Ref.: CO04300370/003 Rev. 01 - 3 - Issued: August 2016 2.1.3

.

Forecasting Report Maidstone VISUM Transport Model CO04300370/003 Revision 01

August 2016

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Maidstone VISUM Transport Model

Project Number: CO04300370

Report Title: Forecasting Report

Report Number: 003

Issue Status/Amendment

Prepared Reviewed Approved

00 (Draft for Comment)

Name: Margaret Nicholls

Name: Steve Whittaker

Name:

Signature: Date: 14/07/16


Signature: Date:

01 (Addition to Appendix F)

Name: Margaret Nicholls

Name: Charlotte Saunders

Name: Steve Whittaker




Name:

Name:

Name:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Name:

Name:

Name:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Signature: Date:

Project Name Maidstone VISUM Transport Model

Document Title Forecasting Report

Doc. Ref.:CO04300370/003 Rev. 01 - i - Issued: August 2016

Contents

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

2 Background ........................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Base Model ....................................................................................................... 2

2.2 2014 Model ....................................................................................................... 3

2.3 2014 Modelling Approach ................................................................................... 3

3 2031 Forecast Model .......................................................................................... 6

3.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Modelling Approach ........................................................................................... 6

3.3 2031 Model Scenarios ........................................................................................ 7

3.4 Forecast Travel Demand .................................................................................. 12

4 Model Output ................................................................................................... 16

4.1 Model Performance .......................................................................................... 16

4.2 Travel Demand ................................................................................................ 17

4.3 Mode Share .................................................................................................... 18

4.4 Park & Ride ..................................................................................................... 19

4.5 Highway Network Performance ......................................................................... 19

4.6 Public Transport .............................................................................................. 23

4.7 Link Flows ....................................................................................................... 24

4.8 Junction Delay................................................................................................. 26

4.9 Trip Distance ................................................................................................... 31

4.10 Journey Times ................................................................................................. 32

4.11 Leeds / Langley Bypass .................................................................................... 36

5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A 2014 Model Output Summary 1

Appendix B Transport Strategy Specification 12

Appendix C TRICS Trip Rates 20

Appendix D Housing and Commercial Development Allocation 22

Appendix E TEMPRO Data 24

Appendix F Model Output 28

Appendix G Level of Service 38

Appendix H Journey Time Profiles 39



Doc. Ref.:CO04300370/003 Rev. 01 - ii - Issued: August 2016



Doc. Ref.: CO04300370/003 Rev. 01 - 1 - Issued: August 2016

1 Introduction

1.1.1 Amey have been commissioned by Kent County Council (KCC) and Maidstone Borough

Council (MBC) to provide transport modelling support to assess the traffic impact of Local

Plan options for the borough of Maidstone.

1.1.2 The commission involves the use of the existing Maidstone VISUM model, which was initially

developed by consultants Jacobs on behalf of KCC and MBC. The model is to be used to

assess the impact of the forecast demand for travel by car, commercial vehicle, bus and rail

with alternative development and transport infrastructure options.

1.1.3 In the first instance forecast models were developed for a 2031 Do Minimum scenario, to

provide a benchmark, and numerous 2031 Do Something scenarios to assist in the Local Plan

decision making process. These 2031 forecast scenarios were developed by MBC/KCC based

upon differing development aspirations and alternative transport strategy approaches to

tackling existing and forecast transport issues. The key inputs and outputs from these initial

forecast scenarios are provided in the associated Amey report ref: CO04300370/002~00

(October 2015).

1.1.4 This report summarises the development of the latest 2031 forecast scenarios, which have

been based upon the objectively assessed need for housing in Maidstone borough. Two

alternative Do Something scenarios are presented representing variations to the proposed

transport strategy for the borough.




2 Background

2.1 Base Model

The current Maidstone 2031 forecast models have been developed to provide a reasonable

and acceptable basis to assess the impact of potential future year development and strategy

scenarios. The forecast models have been based upon an existing base model that was

originally developed in 2007 by consultants Jacobs.

2.1.1 The original Maidstone VISUM model was developed to assist in the development of the

Local Development Framework (LDF) and to assess the transport impacts of future

developments in Maidstone Borough. The model was developed as a multi modal, variable

demand model validated against AM and PM 2007 base year conditions. The base model,

founded on observed data, census data and a range of other sources, was further developed

to produce 2026 forecast year models for a range of different scenarios.

2.1.2 The detailed modelled area encompasses the urban area of Maidstone borough and includes

the M20 corridor to the north of the town. The wider network, modelled in less detail,

extends to include all the major approaches to the town.

Figure 2-1: Detailed Model Area




2.1.3 The junctions between the local road network and the slip road on to and off the M20 are

modelled in detail. The M20 itself is modelled with appropriate capacity and reflects the

carriageway split between junctions 4 and 6. The merging movements at the slip roads

junctions with the main M20 carriageway and the merge and diverge movements between

sections of main carriageway are not modelled in detail.

2.2 2014 Model

2.2.1 Due to the age of the existing base model the first step was to develop a version to

represent a 2014 baseline and to carry out a sense check against available data to establish

whether the model continued to provide a reasonable reflection of the travel pattern in and

through the town.

2.2.2 The 2014 refresh of the base model was developed to include all known information about

development and transport infrastructure changes from 2007 to 2014. A high level sense

check of the model performance was then carried out using available count and journey time

data.

2.3 2014 Modelling Approach

2.3.1 A review of the Maidstone model files that were provided to Amey was carried out to

establish the content of the model and data available. Based on this review a modelling

approach was proposed for the development of forecast models to represent 2031 making

the best use of information available.

2.3.2 Amey have undertaken similar Local Plan testing for other Kent districts using existing

models. Each of the models differs in content and application to some degree, but the

approach taken has been essentially the same.

2.3.3 The model process involves the generation of reference matrices from an existing start point,

which in this case is the 2007 base model. The forecast matrices are developed using

planning data, trip rates derived from TRICS, which were used in previous models; and local

growth factors from TEMPRO. Base matrices are furnessed to forecast trip totals, with

relevant adjustments to account for empty zones or sparse distributions, to produce new

reference matrices.

2.3.4 The new reference matrices are assigned to the network which includes any changes

proposed to the highway or public transport provision. The new assignment allows for skims

to be generated for travel costs which are used for the main incremental mode choice for

car, bus and rail trips.




2.3.5 Park & Ride cars are determined from a sub-mode choice of home based car trips to

estimate the ‘car all the way’ and ‘car with Park & Ride’ element. For the PM peak model,

the AM peak Park & Ride car trips are transposed and adjusted to reflect PM peak

movements.

2.3.6 It should be noted that with this approach the 2014 trip distribution is not based on a

variable demand response but is built upon the base model trip distribution. The AM and PM

models are not linked and there is no time of day choice modelling adjustment.

2014 Travel Demand

2.3.7 The 2014 Maidstone model incorporates identified land use changes between the base year

2007 and 2014. This is based on data provided by MBC for planning approvals, consents and

completions up to 2014. The net development quanta incorporated into the 2014 model is

summarised in Table 2-1 below. The development identified is reasonably well distributed

across the Borough and is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on the pattern of

distribution of the traffic.

Table 2-1: 2014 Development

Development Net increase

Houses 4166 units

Employment 14693 m2

Retail 19693 m2

2.3.8 Trip generation for the new development was based on established TRICS data used in the

previous forecast models. External traffic movements with no trip end in Maidstone (which

includes some of the M20 traffic) were updated to 2014 based on average growth for the

south east established from TEMPRO (TEMPRO 6.2).

2014 Transport Infrastructure

2.3.9 All known changes to transport infrastructure and other modelled elements from 2007 were

included in the 2014 model. The network changes incorporated are comparatively limited in

their impact on traffic movement around the town. The changes made for the 2014 model

include:

New signals at the junction of Cripple Street with A229 Loose Road;

Access to Sittingbourne Road Park & Ride site including traffic signals;

Access to new hospital site adjacent to Newnham Court on Bearsted Road;




Updated bus services; and

2007 Bus fares and car parking charges adjusted to reflect current costs.

2014 Model Output

2.3.10 A review of the 2014 model was carried out as a sense check of the model performance and

not as a full validation exercise. The review is based on the traffic flow and travel time data

that was readily available from a number of sources.

2.3.11 For the journey time output the standard DMRB criteria for the validation of journey times

has been used as an indicator of the network performance. The modelled traffic flows have

been compared with observed data at 58 locations across the town, using the standard

DMRB criteria for link flow assessment. In addition model flows were compared with

observed data at 25 locations on the M20 corridor.

2.3.12 Of the 58 link flows within Maidstone, 78% and 72% of the AM and PM peak modelled flows

respectively met the normal acceptable criteria.

2.3.13 Inbound and outbound journey times on the radial routes met the normal acceptable criteria

in all but 2 cases in the AM peak. All the PM journey times met the criteria. A summary of

the link flow and journey time data and model performance is contained within Appendix A.

2.3.14 The 2014 AM and PM models were considered to provide a reasonable representation of the

current travel conditions within Maidstone at the time of the review.




3 2031 Forecast Model

3.1 Background

3.1.1 The preliminary 2031 forecast models were required in the first instance to reflect alternative

development strategies in terms of the quantum and location of housing allocations and

associated transport strategies. The transport strategies included highway improvements,

public transport improvements, assumptions around parking costs and other elements such

as walking and cycling.

3.1.2 This report summarises the development and output of the latest 2031 forecast model

scenarios, which have been based on the objectively assessed need (OAN) development

allocation and transport strategy variations that emerged from the preliminary model runs.

3.2 Modelling Approach

3.2.1 A review of the Maidstone model files that were provided to Amey was carried out to

establish the content of the model and data available. Based on this review a modelling

approach was proposed for the development of forecast models to represent anticipated

network performance in 2031. This approach has been designed to make the best use of the

models and supporting data available.

3.2.2 The 2031 forecast models incorporate forecast travel demand built on the original base

model distribution and is not based on a variable demand response. The AM and PM peak

models provide for route choice and for mode choice between car, bus and rail. A sub mode

choice and distribution operates for Park & Ride cars. The peak hour models operate

independently and there is no allowance for time of day choice adjustment.

3.2.3 The forecast matrices are developed using planning data, trip rates derived from TRICS,

which were used in previous models; and local growth factors from TEMPRO. Base matrices

are furnessed to forecast trip totals, with relevant adjustments to account for empty zones or

sparse distributions, to produce new reference matrices.




3.2.1 The new demand matrices are assigned to the network which includes any changes

proposed to the highway or public transport provision. The new assignment allows for skims

to be generated for travel costs which are used for the main mode choice for car, bus and

rail trips. The main mode choice provides for the transfer of trips between car, bus and rail

based on the change in travel costs extracted from the 2014 models and 2031 models. The

mode choice process takes into account car availability which is based on local census travel

data.

3.2.2 Park & Ride cars are determined from a sub-mode choice of home based car trips to

estimate the ‘car all the way’ and ‘car with Park & Ride’ element. For the PM peak model,

the AM peak Park & Ride car trips are transposed and adjusted to reflect PM peak

movements. The bus leg of the Park & Ride journey is not included in the general matrices

for travel demand by bus.

3.3 2031 Model Scenarios

3.3.1 The 2031 forecast model scenarios developed represent a Do Minimum and two alternative

Do Something scenarios which are summarised in Table 3-1 below.

Table 3-1 Modelled Scenarios

Ref Model Model Summary

DM 2031 Do Minimum 2031 forecast travel demand (OAN development)

Committed highway improvements only

DS4A 2031 Do Something - Scenario A

2031 forecast travel demand (OAN development)

Proposed transport strategy (including Leeds / Langley Bypass)

DS4B 2031 Do Something - Scenario B

2031 forecast travel demand (OAN development)

Proposed transport strategy (excluding Leeds / Langley Bypass)

3.3.2 The proposed transport strategy for Maidstone, provided by MBC and agreed in principle at

the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board, is summarised in Appendix B. The strategy

includes transport interventions in the form of committed highway improvements, a package

of additional highway changes, public transport improvements and policy changes focussed

on car parking costs and walking and cycling provision. Table 3-2 summarises the transport

interventions included in each model.




Table 3-2 Transport Interventions

Highway Schemes Description

Scenario

2031 DM

2031 DS4A

2031 DS4B

Bridges Gyratory New northbound link to bypass the gyratory

via the river bridges Yes Yes Yes

A20 / Coldharbour Lane

Junction

Junction capacity and signals – no change

to M20 J5 Yes Yes

A249 / Bearsted Rd roundabout

Junction improvements Yes Yes

Bearsted Rd / New Cut

junction Junction improvements Yes Yes

Dual carriageway

between A249 and New Cut junctions

Increased capacity and junction

arrangement Yes Yes

A20 Ashford Road /

Willington Street Junction capacity and signals arrangement Yes Yes

A229 / A274 Wheatsheaf

Junction Close exit to Cranbourne Avenue Yes Yes

A274 / Willington Street Junction

Junction capacity improvements Yes Yes

A274 / Wallis Avenue

Junction Junction capacity improvements Yes Yes

A26 / Fountain Lane

Junction

Changes to accommodate right turn

vehicles within the junction Yes Yes

M20 Junction 7 improvement

Signals on M20 eastbound approach and A249 approaches to the roundabout

Yes Yes

New Cut / A20 left turn

slip

Junction expansion to include left hand turn

slip with give way at A20 (to allow for bus

priority right hand turn lane). NB Bus priority not modelled.

Yes Yes

Hermitage Lane

pedestrian signals

New pedestrian signals near vehicle access

to Barming Station Yes Yes

Leeds / Langley Bypass Route

Alternative new route linking the A274 and

the A20. Single carriageway road passing west of Leeds and east of Langley,

terminating with roundabouts at each end.

Yes

P&R

Sittingbourne Road P&R P&R site removed from the model Yes Yes Yes

PR bus services 15 minute frequency assumed Yes Yes Yes




Highway Schemes Description

Scenario

2031 DM

2031 DS4A

2031 DS4B

Other Measures

Car parking charges 50% increase in parking charges - weighted to impact long stay rather than short stay

parking

Yes Yes

Notcutts shuttle bus New shuttle bus route from Notcutts to the bus station with 20 minute frequency

Yes Yes

Walking / cycling mode

share

Reduction in HBW & HBO vehicle trips of <5km in the urban area of Maidstone, to

reflect the aspired increases in walking and cycling trips

Yes Yes

Bus Services Bus services on main radial routes increased

to provide an average 10 minute frequency. Yes Yes

Bridges Gyratory

3.3.3 The Bridges Gyratory scheme is the key committed highway improvement included in the

2031 Do Minimum (DM) model and both of the 2031 Do Something A (DS4A) and 2031 Do

Something B (DS4B) models. The scheme is designed to provide a new northbound link for

A229 traffic to bypass the gyratory system currently operating across the two river bridges.

Junction Improvements

3.3.4 The 2031 DS4A and DS4B models include junction improvements at A20/Coldharbour Lane,

A249/Bearsted Rd, Bearsted Rd/New Cut, New Cut/A20, A20/Willington St, A229/ A274

Wheatsheaf, A274/Willington St, A274/Wallis Ave, M20 J7 and A26/Fountain Lane. Junction

layout and traffic signal arrangements have been taken from data provided, which originates

from a range of sources including documents supporting various planning applications.

Leeds/Langley Bypass

3.3.5 The 2031 DS4A model includes an indicative Leeds Langley Bypass route between the A20

and A274, passing to the west of Leeds and to the east of Langley. This route is modelled

based on very broad assumptions around road standard, location and alignment. The 2031

DS4B model excludes the Leeds/Langley Bypass route.




Bus Services

3.3.6 For the DS4A and DS4B models the existing bus services were modified to provide the

equivalent of a 10 minute bus frequency on the main radial routes into the town. Additional

buses were added to the services operating along the A229 (S), A229 (N) and A20 (E)

corridors to achieve the target frequency. It should be noted that the addition of bus

services within the model takes no account of the practicality of their provision or capacity

available for additional buses within the town.

3.3.7 For DS4A and DS4B an additional new shuttle bus service is included, operating between the

Notcutts site and the bus station with a 20 minute frequency.

3.3.8 The Park & Ride bus service to the Sittingbourne Road Park & Ride site was recently

withdrawn and is not included in the 2031 DM, 2031 DS4A or 2031 DS4B models.

Car Parking Charges

3.3.9 A 50% increase in car parking charges is proposed for public long stay parking. It should be

noted that the car parks within the town are not modelled specifically. Average car parking

costs representing long stay and short stay parking per zone are used within the model for

the mode choice process. The increase in parking costs applied for long stay parking has

been weighted to reflect the balance of long stay and short stay parking places within zones.

It was agreed that no changes should be made to other travel costs within the model.

Walking and Cycling Mode Share

3.3.10 The proposed transport strategy has the objective of increasing the number of walking and

cycling trips. The aspiration is for an 8.5% increase in the cycling mode share over the 2014

base, representing a 0.5% increase per year to 2031. A similar increase is envisaged for the

walking mode share.

3.3.11 The Maidstone model is essentially a highway model with a mode choice option to estimate

the potential transfer of trips between car, bus or rail. The model does not include walking

and cycling modes of travel. The most appropriate way to reflect the anticipated increase in

walking and cycling in the Maidstone model is to reduce the number of trips assigned within

the model to car travel. This approach requires an interpretation of a ‘% increase in walking

and cycling trips’ into a reasonable adjustment of car trips that are modelled.

3.3.12 Walking and cycling trips, as part of the wider sustainable modes, have been the subject of

various studies into the possibility of reducing the number of car trips. A wide range of

estimates have been produced to describe the potential to change the way in which people




choose to travel under different circumstances.

3.3.13 A study for the Department for Transport (DfT)1 reported estimates for a potential reduction

in car trips from 5% to 21% in the urban peak hour, depending on the transport

interventions employed. A study of the impact of sustainable transport interventions in

Darlington, Peterborough and Worcester reported a decrease in car trips of 9% in response

to a range of measures employed.2

3.3.14 Some care is needed in the interpretation of the outcomes of the different studies as the

estimated reduction in car trips is the outcome of measures related to all sustainable modes

of travel and not directly related to specific changes in walking and cycling provision only.

Guidance in DfT Tag Unit M5.2 suggests establishing a benchmark for car trip reduction

using target values as a starting point.

3.3.15 In the absence of detailed information on the existing levels of walking and cycling in

Maidstone for different purposes, a relatively simplistic approach to this complex issue has

been agreed with MBC/KCC and adopted, based on broad assumptions about the impact of a

sustainable travel strategy. As a proxy for the aspired increase in walking and cycling trips

the 2031 home based car trips have been adjusted down based on achieving 25% of the

target values suggested in DfT Tag Unit M5.2.

3.3.16 An adjustment was applied only to home based work and home based other highway trips

with an origin and destination within the Maidstone urban area zones. In order to reflect

trips that might reasonably be expected to have the option of walking or cycling, the

adjustment was applied only to HBW and HBO trips of 5km or less.

3.3.17 Based on achieving 25% of the sustainable travel strategy target values the net result is a

reduction of 253 vehicle trips of 5km or less in the AM peak and 240 vehicle trips in the PM

peak. This represents approximately 1% of all home based vehicle trips for both peaks.

Park & Ride

3.3.18 The Park & Ride service which previously provided for parking at three locations now serves

two sites at London Road and Willington Street. Parking is provided free of charge and

passengers pay for the bus leg of the journey.

1 Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., & Goodwin, P. 2004. ‘Smarter Choices – Changing the way we travel’.

2 Sloman, L., Cairns, S., Newson, C., Anable, J., Pridmore, A. & Goodwin, P. 2010. ‘The Effects of Smarter Choice Programmes in the Sustainable Travel Towns: Summary Report (Report to the DfT, February 2010)




3.3.19 Within the model the Park & Ride trips are dealt with as a sub mode choice for HBW and

HBO car trips only. The cars that might be expected to switch to Park & Ride are estimated

based on travel time and travel costs by bus and by car. The travel time by bus is affected

by the location of bus stopping points in relation to the final destination and the frequency of

bus service provided. The car travel time is influenced by the location and accessibility of the

Park & Ride sites.

3.3.20 There is an element of geographic restriction incorporated within the model to avoid trips

originating in the town centre driving out to the Park & Ride site and returning to the town

by bus.

3.3.21 The model does not specifically account for the capacity of Park & Ride sites. The Park &

Ride trips are based on the highway assignment and are recorded in the vehicle trips. The

bus leg of the journey is not included in the bus trips. The PM peak Park & Ride car journeys

are assumed to mirror the AM peak trips which are transposed and adjusted to reflect the

PM peak rate of returns.

3.4 Forecast Travel Demand

3.4.1 The forecast year travel demand is built on the estimate of the number of trips to be made

based on changes of land use and demographic variables. For model zones within Maidstone

Borough the forecast travel demand is estimated based on planned, completed and approved

development to 2014 and the proposed Local Plan development to 2031.

3.4.2 The generation of trips by the anticipated development is estimated using agreed trip rates,

which are derived from the TRICS trip rate database (Appendix C). The trip rates are

consistent with those used in the development of the original Maidstone model and

configured to account for trip generation by purpose and time of day.

3.4.3 The proposed location and quantum of forecast development to 2031 for Maidstone Borough

was provided by MBC. The Local Plan housing units and retail and employment land for

development that is included in the model is summarised in Table 3-3 and listed in

Appendix D.

3.4.4 The housing allocations for DM, DS4A and DS4B include completions and permissions to

March 2015 in addition to approved sites, extant permissions, Local Plan allocations sites

expected to come forward; and an allowance for windfall sites to 2031. The allowance made

for ‘windfall’ sites and the shortfall were assumed to occur across the urban area of the town

and were evenly distributed to these zones, but excluding the core town centre zones.




3.4.5 The key locations for employment land are Woodcut Farm at Hollingbourne and the Kent

Medical Campus on Bearsted Road, with smaller allocations distributed around Marden,

Coxheath, Yalding, Headcorn. Retail land allocation is largely within the town centre.

Table 3-3 Forecast Development to 2031

Development Type 2031

DM & DS4 & DS4B

Residential 18,560 units

Employment 200,100 m2

Retail 12,100 m2

3.4.6 The Local Plan development allocations are broadly assumed to account for growth within

the borough to 2031. Background growth to account for changes such as demography and

car ownership etc. has been allowed for, based on adjusted TEMPRO factors, modified to

negate the influence of development. Weightings have been applied to the Tempro factors

used for model zones which fall within more than one TEMPRO zone.

3.4.7 For movements between zones outside Maidstone Borough, forecast travel demand is based

on growth for Kent County; extracted from TEMPRO 6.2. The exception is for model zones

falling all or partly within the TEMPRO zone for Aylesford and East Malling which is adjacent

to and in close proximity to the Maidstone urban area. TEMPRO growth specific to this area

has been used in this case. Extracts from TEMPRO for Kent and Maidstone (by trip purpose,

mode and period) are summarised in Appendix E.

3.4.8 The net outcome of the planned and anticipated development, background growth and

external traffic growth is an 18% - 19% increase in person movements by 2031 for the AM

and PM peaks respectively, prior to adjustment for walk and cycle trips.

Trip Purpose

3.4.9 The travel patterns and growth in trips vary for different trip purposes. Travel demand in the

Maidstone model is split into the following trips purposes:

Home Based Work (HBW);

Home Based Other (HBO);

Non Home Based Work (NHBO); and

Employer’s Business (EB).




Heavy Goods (HGV) and Light Goods Vehicles (LGV) are dealt with separately.

3.4.10 Travel patterns and purposes differ between the AM and PM peak periods, as indicated in

Table 3-4, but the overall composition of the forecast travel demand by trip purpose remains

similar to that for 2014; the largest proportion of trips being HBW trips.

Table 3-4 Composition of Travel Demand

2014 2031

Trip Purpose AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

HBW 51.5% 46.2% 52.3% 46.5%

HBO 27.2% 27.5% 26.5% 28.0%

NHBO 8.9% 11.7% 8.7% 12.3%

EB 12.3% 14.6% 12.5% 13.2%

3.4.11 The growth in travel demand by purpose differs between the AM and PM peaks (Table 3-5),

reflecting the different characteristics of the peak periods. Home based work (HBW) and

employers business (EB) trips increase by around 20% in the AM peak. In the PM peak the

highest growth is for non-home based other (NHBO) trips.

Table 3-5 % Growth in Travel Demand – 2014 to 2031

Trip Purpose AM Peak PM Peak

HBW 20.1% 14.7%

HBO 15.3% 17.5%

NHBO 15.5% 26.7%

EB 19.9% 8.5%

Trip Distribution

3.4.12 A furnessing procedure was used to establish the forecast trip distribution based on the base

matrices and forecast 2031 trip ends. The Maidstone model base matrices are reasonably

well populated and provided a reference distribution. For instances where trips were

allocated to zones with sparse or no existing trip ends, a distribution was established using a

similar adjacent zone.

3.4.13 Table 3-6 provides a broad comparison of the modelled distribution of AM peak home based

work car trips to and from Maidstone with extracted census data. The comparison is based

on approximately comparable census and model sectors.




Table 3-6 Distribution of HBW Car Trips to and from Maidstone

Trip Distribution

to/from Maidstone

2011 Census (HBW cars)

2014

AM peak

(HBW cars)

2031

AM peak

(HBW cars)

From To From To From To

Maidstone 43.4% 42.2% 54.4% 53.8% 55.8% 60.2%

Tonbridge and Malling 15.0% 10.1% 18.4% 11.4% 17.7% 9.9%

Tunbridge Wells 5.5% 3.7% 3.7% 2.3% 3.6% 2.0%

Ashford 3.3% 5.8% 1.7% 3.5% 1.6% 3.1%

Canterbury 1.1% 2.3% 0.6% 2.0% 0.6% 1.8%

Dartford 2.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3%

Dover 0.3% 1.1% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6%

Gravesham 1.3% 1.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8%

Medway 8.9% 14.6% 5.8% 12.1% 5.6% 10.1%

Sevenoaks 2.3% 1.4% 1.5% 0.8% 1.5% 0.6%

Shepway 0.6% 1.7% 0.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.9%

Swale 3.4% 6.6% 2.3% 5.9% 2.2% 5.2%

Thanet 0.2% 0.9% 0.1% 0.9% 0.1% 0.8%

E Sussex 0.6% 1.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4%

external 12.1% 5.8% 9.2% 3.8% 8.9% 3.3%

NB - approximate comparison for illustration using census / model sectors

3.4.14 The distribution of trips in the 2014 model is reasonably similar to the pattern displayed by

the 2011 census data. The 2031 forecast distribution indicates a slightly higher proportion of

trips within Maidstone and slightly lower proportion of trips to/from Tonbridge and Malling

and Medway. However these differences comparatively small.




4 Model Output

4.1 Model Performance

4.1.1 The convergence criteria used to monitor the model performance and the acceptability

thresholds used are shown in Table 4-1. The outcome for each of the models is summarised

in Table 4-2. The three variants of the model in both peaks meet the required criteria.

Table 4-1 Convergence Criteria

Criteria

Acceptability threshold

1 Relative difference between turning flows in previous assignment and current assignment

GEH less than 1 for more than 95% of turns

2 Relative difference between current assignment and smoothed ICA turning volumes

GEH less than 1 for more than 95% of turns

3 Relative gap between ICA wait time and VDF time Less than 0.05 for 90%

of turns

Table 4-2 Model Convergence

AM peak

Target DM DS4A DS4B

Number of iterations Max 50 13 12 12

Criteria 1 95% 98.9% 99.2% 99.0%

Criteria 2 95% 95.1% 96.5% 95.5%

Criteria 3 90% 97.7% 98.3% 98.1%

PM peak

Target DM DS4A DS4B

Number of iterations Max 50 12 11 12

Criteria 1 95% 97.7% 98.5% 98.8%

Criteria 2 95% 95.8% 95.2% 96.0%

Criteria 3 90% 98.0% 98.4% 98.1%




4.2 Travel Demand

4.2.1 Travel demand within the model refers to trips made by car, light goods vehicles (LGV),

heavy goods vehicles (HGV), bus or rail. Walking and cycling modes of travel are not

modelled specifically, however, assumptions about the expected level of walk and cycle trips

have been allowed for in the estimate of trip generation for the Do Something scenarios.

Forecast travel demand is determined by the 2031 development allocation and on

assumptions around factors such as car occupancy and use of sustainable modes of travel.

4.2.2 The 2031 Do Minimum (DM) total travel demand, in person trips, arising from the forecast

development represents an increase between 18-19% over the 2014 base model. The Do

Something scenarios (DS4A & DS4B) include an allowance for a forecast increase in walking

and cycling which accounts for 0.4-0.5% reduction in person trips compared to the DM

scenario.

Table 4-3 Travel Demand – Person Trips

Person Trips 2014 2031 DM 2031

DS4A* 2031

DS4B*

AM Peak 50300 59100 58800 58800

% diff from 2031 DM -0.5% -0.5%

PM Peak 44900 53300 53100 53100

% diff from2031 DM -0.4% -0.4%

* After adjustment for walking and cycling assumptions

4.2.3 Travel demand by vehicle for the DM model increases by 16% and 20% for the AM and PM

peak respectively. The transport interventions and other changes included for the Do

Something models have the effect of reducing the vehicle demand by 5% from the Do

Minimum in both peaks.

Table 4-4 Travel Demand – Vehicle Trips

Vehicle Trips 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A

2031 DS4B

AM Peak 35500 41200 39300 39300

% diff from 2031 DM -5% -5%

PM Peak 32000 38300 36600 36500

% diff from 2031 DM -5% -5%




4.3 Mode Share

4.3.1 A mode choice process has been adopted to determine the proportion of trips made by car,

bus or rail, which can provide an indication of the net impact of changes to public transport,

travel costs and highway infrastructure.

4.3.2 Mode choice is applied to home based trips on the assumption that these trips are most

likely to have the opportunity for modal shift. Trips for employers business and non-home

based purposes are considered to be less likely to change mode.

4.3.3 The choice of mode of travel, by car, rail or bus, is calculated within the model based upon a

logit model and the generalised cost of travel for each mode. Travel costs are derived from

car parking costs, vehicle operating costs, perceived travel time, bus fares and rail fares. The

attraction of bus and rail is also dependant on the origin and destination of trips, the

accessibility of public transport at each end of the journey, service provision and the level of

delay experienced by drivers. The model does not take into account issues around bus or rail

capacity.

4.3.4 For the DM models the parking costs, fares and vehicle operating cost remain unchanged

from those used for the 2014 model. For the DS4A and DS4B models the parking costs are

increased to reflect the transport strategy aspirations, but the other costs remain as for

2014.

4.3.5 The initial forecast travel demand by public transport is established from the base matrices,

development trips and TEMPRO. The mode choice process takes into account local levels of

car availability.

4.3.6 The DM scenario demonstrates minimal change in mode share compared with the 2014

model. The DS4A and DS4B scenarios indicate a reduced car mode share and an increase in

bus mode share; reflecting the increase in town centre parking costs.




Table 4-5 Mode Share

AM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B

Cars (all purposes) 80% 80% 75% 75%

Bus 11% 11% 16% 16%

Rail 9% 9% 9% 9%

PM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B

Cars (all purposes) 84% 85% 81% 81%

Bus 8% 7% 11% 11%

Rail 8% 8% 8% 8%

4.4 Park & Ride

4.4.1 Park & Ride trips account for approximately 0.7% of vehicle trips in the 2014 model, which

included 3 Park & Ride sites operating at that time. The DM scenario includes only two Park

& Ride sites, higher levels of travel demand and consequently an increase in travel time and

cost. The net result is an increase in Park & Ride trips to 1.4% of vehicle movements. The

raised car parking costs in the town for the Do Something scenarios accounts for the

increase in Park & Ride trips to 2.7% of vehicle movements.

Table 4-6 Park & Ride - % of Vehicle Trips

2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B

AM Peak 0.74% 1.37% 2.70% 2.70%

PM Peak 0.76% 1.37% 2.69% 2.70%

4.5 Highway Network Performance

4.5.1 The highway network performance of the forecast models has been assessed using key

indicators as follows:

Total vehicle distance travelled (vehicle kilometres);

Total travel time (vehicle hours);

Average network speed (kph).




4.5.2 The total vehicle kilometres travelled and total vehicle hours recorded on the network, in

relation to the number of trips made, provide an indication of the level of efficiency of the

network. Higher vehicle kilometres indicate that people have to travel further or take longer

routes to reach their destination. Higher vehicle hours indicate that people are taking longer

to travel to their destinations suggesting a more congested network. The average network

speed is based on the total travel time and travel distance metrics. In an ideal situation the

most efficient network would carry a higher total travel demand but accumulate a lower total

vehicle kilometres and vehicle hours.

4.5.3 Network performance has been considered across two sets of data representing:

The full highway network (Figure 4-1);

The highway network modelled in detail within the urban area of Maidstone and also

including the M20, junctions 5 to 8 (Figure 4-2).

Details of highway network performance are included in Appendix F.

Key points:

The 2014 AM peak has a higher level of travel demand than the PM peak at the outset

by around 3400 vehicles per hour. The difference between the AM and PM peak for the

Do Minimum scenario is reduced to 2800.

Across the full network the AM and PM DM scenarios show an increase in total travel

time of around 20% and travel distance of between 9% and 12%, compared to 2014.

Across the urban area, including the M20 between junctions 5 and 8, the impact of

increased demand is more marked in the PM peak. Travel time and distance increase

by up to 39% and 19% respectively in the DM scenario.

The DS4B scenario shows the impact of the transport strategy constraining the

potential growth in travel time and distance indicated by the DM scenario.

The DS4A scenario demonstrates the impact of the Leeds/ Langley bypass, with

reduced travel times and average speeds, but increased travel distance within the

urban area of Maidstone and adjacent M20.




Figure 4-1 Network Performance – Full Network




Figure 4-2 Network Performance – Maidstone Urban Area & M20

4.5.4 The transport strategy included in the Do Something scenarios reduces vehicle travel

demand as a consequence of the assumptions around walking and cycling and car parking

costs. The reduced demand together with the infrastructure changes contribute to the

reduction in travel time and distance across the network.

Key points to note are as follows:

The Transport Strategy reduces vehicle hours compared with the DM scenario by 7-

8%;

The Transport Strategy reduces vehicle kilometres compared with the DM scenario by

3-5%;




The Transport Strategy increases average network speed by 4-5% compared with the

DM scenario;

The addition of the Leeds/Langley Bypass (DS4A) results in a larger reduction in vehicle

hours (1-2%) compared with scenario DS4B;

The addition of the Leeds/Langley Bypass (DS4A) results in a smaller reduction in vkm

(2%) in the AM peak and a small increase in the PM peak (0.5%) compared with

scenario DS4B. This suggests generally longer distances are travelled but more quickly.

4.6 Public Transport

4.6.1 The Public Transport model includes a reasonable representation of current bus stops and

routes; and proposed additional routes for the DS4A and DS4B models. The bus and rail

assignments operate on a timetable basis and make no allowance for bus or train capacity.

Bus timetables have not been adjusted to reflect forecast travel times on the network for the

2031 models. It is assumed that the future management of services would be adjusted over

time to meet to limitations of the network.

4.6.2 The bus and rail assignments are based on the following criteria:

Maximum walk time 25 minutes;

Maximum number of transfers = 5; and

Search time less than 1.5* journey time plus 10 minutes.

4.6.3 Table 4-7 provides a summary of the impact of the transport strategy included in DS4A and

DS4B on bus travel time and travel distance. The key points to note are:

The mean journey time is reduced for the Do Something scenarios as there are more

frequent services available and a new service included, reducing wait and walk time;

The mean journey distance is reduced as the new service(s) provide improved access;

The total journey time increases in the AM peak as a consequence of the net impact of

more people travelling outweighing the benefit gained from reduced individual journey

times; and

Total journey time decreases in the PM peak as a result of the reduced mean journey

time and a smaller increase in people transferring to the bus.




Table 4-7 Summary of Bus Travel Characteristics

AM Peak PM Peak

% diff from DM DS4A DS4B DS4A DS4B

Mean journey time -20.6% -20.6% -21.1% -21.0%

Mean journey distance -7.7% -7.9% -8.6% -8.6%

Total journey time 16.4% 16.3% -22.7% -22.4%

Total journey distance 35.2% 35.1% -10.5% -10.2%

Trips unlinked 49.5% 49.6% -1.1% -0.7%

4.7 Link Flows

4.7.1 Representative link flows on key routes have been selected to provide an indication of the

level of impact on different parts of the network. The locations of the links used are shown in

Figure 4-3 below.

Figure 4-3 Location of Link Flows




4.7.2 The two way flows, summarised in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5, provide an indication of the

potential level of flows that might arise from a Do Minimum situation and the expected

impact of the transport interventions included in the Do Something scenarios.

Figure 4-4 AM Peak – Two Way Flows

Figure 4-5 PM Peak – Two Way Flows

4.7.3 Transport interventions included in the Do Something scenarios to reduce demand for travel

by car are reflected in the general reduction in flows compared with the Do Minimum on a

number of links. However, highway infrastructure changes, around the junction of the A249

with Bearsted Road and with the M20 junction 7, result in increased flows on the A249, New

Cut and Willington Street.

4.7.4 The inclusion of the Leeds Langley Bypass in DS4A has a clear impact on the B2163 Lower

Street and on the Spur Road approach to the M20 at Junction 8; and a smaller impact on the

A229, A274 and A249 routes.




4.8 Junction Delay

In an urban setting the effective junction performance is a major contributor to perceived

delay for drivers. Figure 4-6 provides an indication of the number of junctions experiencing

peak hour delay and the severity of delay for each of the modelled scenarios. The DM scenario

generates significantly more delay than the 2014 base models. For the AM peak Do

Something scenarios the number of nodes with delays between 1 and 2 minutes remains

similar to the Do Minimum. However the Do Something strategy is more effective in reducing

the number of nodes with longer delays and appears more effective in moderating junction

delay in the PM peak than the AM peak.

Figure 4-6 Mean Node Delay

4.8.1 The performance of junctions can be described by the ‘Level of Service’ (LOS) which is

determined for each node based on the mean delay recorded. The criteria used for the LOS

for different junction types is defined in Appendix G. Figure 4-7 to Figure 4-9 provide an

indication of the junction LOS for the 2031 DM, 2031 DS4A and 2031 DS4B AM peaks. The

AM peak only is shown as this represents the period of heaviest demand on the network. It

should be noted that these figures can only provide a broad indication of the network

performance as many of the key junctions are modelled as multiple nodes which may not all

be displayed.




Figure 4-7 Level Of Service – 2031 DM AM Peak

Figure 4-8 Level Of Service – 2031 DS4A AM Peak




Figure 4-9 Level Of Service – 2031 DS4B AM Peak




4.8.2 The LOS plots provide an indication of a location of ‘congestion hotspots’ across the

Maidstone network where key junctions are under pressure. The level of demand and an

indication of delay for selected congested junctions has been summarised in Figure 4-10 and

Figure 4-11.

4.8.3 As many of these key junctions comprise of a combination of multiple modelled nodes, data

has been extracted to reflect the performance of these junctions as a whole. Junction inflow

provides an indication of the volume of traffic demand whilst the sum of the mean delay

provides an indication of the overall performance of the junctions. It is important to note

that the junction delay includes all arms of the junction and not just the main through

routes.

Figure 4-10 AM Peak –Junction Inflow and Sum of Delay




Figure 4-11 PM Peak – Junction Inflow and Sum of Delay

The key points to note from the above figures are as follows:

The A249 junctions, Bridges Gyratory, A229/Springfield and A20/Coldharbour Lane

junctions are anticipated to observe the largest volumes of peak hour traffic;

The nodes with the higher levels of inflow are not necessarily those presenting the

higher level of delay;

The A229/Springfield and A20/ Coldharbour Lane junctions come under the most

pressure in the DM scenario;

The highway improvements around the A249 and Bearsted Road, which are

incorporated in the Do Something scenarios, have an impact on traffic routing. As a

consequence the A249 junctions appear to be under increased pressure.




4.9 Trip Distance

4.9.1 Table 4-8 provides a broad summary of the distance travelled to work for the different model

scenarios in the AM peak, and is also illustrated in Figure 4-12. The largest proportion of

vehicles travelled 20 to 30 km to work in 2014 while for all the forecast models the largest

proportion are anticipated to travel 10 to 20 km to work.

4.9.2 Many of the radial routes in Maidstone converge on the Bridges Gyratory which is currently

recognised a focal point of congestion and delay. The inclusion of the Bridges Gyratory

Scheme in all the forecast models may account for a change in route choice and

consequently travel distance.

4.9.3 The lower proportion of trips of under 5km for the Do Something scenarios, compared with

the Do Minimum, reflects the manual adjustment made to account for the expected increase

in walking and cycling trips.

4.9.4 The inclusion of the Leeds/Langley bypass in DS4A attracts traffic to the new route and also

secondary re-routing across the network in response. The most noticeable effect of this is an

increase in the proportion of HBW trips of 30 to 40km and smaller changes to trips of various

lengths.

Table 4-8 AM Peak – HBW Vehicle Trips (%)

Travel Distance 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B

Less than 2km 8% 8% 6.9% 6.9%

2km to less than 5km 10% 12% 9.0% 9.0%

5km to less than 10km 10% 15% 14.0% 14.1%

10km to less than 20km 15% 25% 25.5% 25.6%

20km to less than 30km 21% 10% 11.3% 11.7%

30km to less than 40km 11% 7% 8.9% 8.0%

40km to less than 60km 12% 10% 10.7% 10.8%

60km and over 13% 13% 13.7% 14.0%




Figure 4-12 AM Peak – HBW Vehicle Trips (%)

4.10 Journey Times

4.10.1 Journey times have been extracted for selected routes to provide some insight into the

impact of different scenarios on specific key corridors within Maidstone. The journey time

routes used are shown in Figure 4-13 below and are listed in Table 4-9.

4.10.2 The routes area all less than 5km and the average modelled speed ranges from 20 to 37 kph

(12 to 23mph) for the 2014 Base models. The DM scenario results in speeds ranging from 16

to 32 kph (10 to 20mph) and the DS4A and DS4B model speeds range from 18 to 35kph (11

to 22mph).

4.10.3 The route corridors are already under pressure in the peak periods, operating at the

maximum capacity of their links and junctions, which is reflected in the current average

speeds of between 12 and 23mph.




Figure 4-13 Journey Time Routes




Table 4-9 Average Speed on Journey Time Routes (kph)

JT Route 2014 DM DS4A DS4B

AM Peak In Out In Out In Out In Out

1 A20 Ashford Road 28 37 25 32 31 33 30 31

2 A274 Sutton Road 23 29 20 24 23 26 21 24

3 A229 Loose Road 20 25 16 19 20 21 18 19

4 B2010 Farleigh Hill 31 24 30 21 30 22 30 21

5 A26 Tonbridge Road 27 29 26 29 26 29 26 29

6 A20 London Rd 23 24 23 21 25 23 25 22

7 A229 Royal Engineers Way

26 33 25 22 31 25 30 23

8 A249 Sittingbourne Rd 26 23 24 21 25 23 24 23

PM Peak In Out In Out In Out In Out

1 A20 Ashford Road 33 35 29 30 30 35 29 35

2 A274 Sutton Road 26 27 22 23 23 25 22 24

3 A229 Loose Road 29 22 20 16 24 18 22 17

4 B2010 Farleigh Hill 32 25 31 16 31 20 31 18

5 A26 Tonbridge Road 27 30 28 29 26 29 26 29

6 A20 London Rd 24 27 26 25 25 26 25 26

7 A229 Royal Engineers Way

32 28 23 18 32 19 31 18

8 A249 Sittingbourne Rd 30 25 28 23 24 25 23 24

4.10.4 The additional demand generated for the forecast scenarios does not necessarily appear as

significant increases in traffic flows or travel times on the main route corridors analysed. The

model, as would the average driver, seeks out alternative routes, which may be longer in

distance, but quicker using more minor roads. The result is a dampening effect on the

representative model results in terms of traffic flows and journey times.

4.10.5 Figure 4-14 and Figure 4-15 show the travel times on the selected routes for the 2031

Forecast models. Journey time profiles for each route for 2014, DM, DS4A and DS4B are

included in Appendix H.




Figure 4-14 AM Peak – Travel Times

Figure 4-15 PM Peak – Travel Times




4.11 Leeds / Langley Bypass

4.11.1 The only difference between the two Do Something models is the inclusion of a Leeds /

Langley bypass route in DS4A. The Leeds / Langley Route modelled links the A20 and A274

corridors, passing to the west of Leeds and to the east of Langley Heath. In the design

process for such a scheme there would be careful consideration around the junction layout,

especially at the interface with the existing road network. In the absence of detailed scheme

information the route is based on very broad assumptions around alignment, junction

arrangements and route standard. Consequently the output from the DS4A model can only

be treated as broadly indicative of the use of the new route and of the potential impact on

the rest of the network.

4.11.2 The DS4A scenario indicates that the new route would carry between 2100 and 2400

vehicles per hour in the AM and PM peak respectively, attracting traffic travelling between

the southeast of the town and the M20 corridor and A249/A229 routes. Figure 4-16 and

Figure 4-17 indicate the routes taken by traffic using the new link.

Figure 4-16 AM Peak




Figure 4-17 PM Peak

4.11.3 Traffic is drawn to the new route from adjacent roads, but also results in a secondary shift in

the traffic patterns across the network as congestion pressures change. Figure 4-18 and

Figure 4-19 provide an indication of the potential net impact of the Leeds / Langley bypass

on the wider highway network.




Figure 4-18 AM Peak – Flow Difference with Leeds / Langley

Figure 4-19 PM Peak – Flow Difference with Leeds / Langley




5 Summary

5.1.1 The baseline level of vehicle demand is higher in the AM peak than the PM peak. Forecast

travel demand is set to increase by 18 – 19% over baseline levels, which equates to an

additional 5700 to 6300 vehicles in 2031 DM scenario. The transport strategy is designed to

manage travel demand with the potential to reduce vehicle demand by approximately 5%.

5.1.2 The main route corridors in/out of Maidstone are already operating under pressure, limited

by the capacity of links and junctions. This is reflected in 2014 baseline average peak hour

speeds of between 20 and 37kph (12 to 23 mph) on key routes.

5.1.3 The additional forecast traffic is not necessarily reflected in a significant increase in flows or

travel times on routes, which are already overloaded as motorists will seek out alternative

longer but quicker routes, often on minor roads. This has a dampening effect on the usual

model output in the form of traffic flows, travel times, speeds etc. on key routes. The overall

impact is reflected in increases in travel distances, and increases in traffic on minor routes.

5.1.4 The Bridges Gyratory at centre of town is at the confluence of most of the radial routes

where the river crossings are a significant pinch point of the network. All the forecast models

(DM and DS) include the Bridges Gyratory Scheme which has a significant impact on route

choice.

5.1.5 The interface of the local road network and the M20 strategic network is important to the

operation of roads through the town. Changes in traffic pressure at any of the motorway

intersections can generate a shift in traffic movements around the northern parts of

Maidstone.

5.1.6 The Do Something models include a significant change to the highway network at the M20

J7 and Bearsted Road junctions and improvements to the junction of the A20 with the link to

the M20 J5 at Coldharbour Lane. These improvements were modelled based on information

regarding junction layout, design and signal operation as available at the time. Consequently

the modelled outcome at these junctions can only be viewed as indicative at this stage.

5.1.7 The M20 J7 improvements combined with the Bearsted Road improvements appear to have

the most significant impact on the highway network, route choice etc. This is reflected in the

volume of traffic moving through the junction, especially in the AM peak.

5.1.8 The PM peak travel demand is lower than in the AM peak at 2014 baseline levels but the

differential decreases in the forecast models. The PM models show a stronger response to

the additional travel demand in the Do Minimum scenario.



Doc. Ref.:CO04300370 /003 Rev. 01 - 1 - Issued: August 2016

Appendix A 2014 Model Output Summary













Summary of model link flows (Maidstone links only)

AM Peak PM Peak

Number of sites 58 58

Total meeting GEH criteria 44 39

Total meeting flow criteria 42 40

Total meeting GEH and/or flow criteria 45 42

% meeting GEH and/or flow criteria 78% 72%

Summary of model link flows (including M20 traffic)

AM Peak PM Peak

Number of sites 83 83

Total meeting GEH criteria 58 57

Total meeting flow criteria 57 56

Total meeting GEH and/or flow criteria 63 61

% meeting GEH and/or flow criteria 76% 73%

Note:

The model flows have been compared with available data from a variety of sources. The data has been recorded for different purposes, at different times of

the year, and in some cases appears to be recorded as pcus and in others as vehicles. The M20 flows are reported separately. Some through movements on

the M20 and slip roads have been manually adjusted to give a reasonable representation of flows on the motorway. These movements have no connection

with the Maidstone area.




AM Peak Journey Time

Route Ref Route Description Direction Journey time in seconds

Difference (%) DMRB Criteria Modelled Observed Difference

A A20 Ashford Road W In 627 658 31 -5% pass

E Out 493 528 35 -7% pass

B A274 Sutton Road NW In 736 720 -16 2% pass

SE Out 600 540 -60 11% pass

C A229 Loose Road N In 557 499 -58 12% pass

S Out 455 435 -20 4% pass

D B2010 Farleigh Hill / Tovil Hill

NE In 166 170 4 -2% pass

SW Out 208 195 -13 7% pass

E A26 Tonbridge Road E In 447 486 39 -8% pass

W Out 387 390 3 -1% pass

F A20 London Road SE In 391 348 -43 12% pass

NW Out 377 324 -53 17% pass

G A229 Royal Engineers Way

S In 318 238** -80 34% fail

N Out 259 209 -50 24% pass

H A249 Sittingbourne Road

SW In 311 335 24 -7% pass

NE Out 351 261* -90 35% fail










PM Peak Journey Time

Route Ref Route Description Direction Journey time in seconds

Difference (%) DMRB Criteria Modelled Observed Difference

A A20 Ashford Road W In 545 630 85 -13% pass

E Out 521 601 80 -13% pass

B A274 Sutton Road NW In 671 650 -21 3% pass

SE Out 639 566 -73 13% pass

C A229 Loose Road N In 387 427 40 -9% pass

S Out 507 447 -60 13% pass

D B2010 Farleigh Hill / Tovil Hill NE In 161 145 -16 11% pass

SW Out 202 184 -18 10% pass

E A26 Tonbridge Road E In 445 424 -21 5% pass

W Out 379 338 -41 12% pass

F A20 London Road SE In 369 311 -58 19% pass

NW Out 333 305 -28 9% pass

G A229 Royal Engineers Way S In 259 236 -23 10% pass

N Out 308 328 20 -6% pass

H A249 Sittingbourne Road SW In 273 265 -8 3% pass

NE Out 331 303* -28 9% pass




Note:

The majority of observed times are from ANPR camera data. Where anomalies were identified alternative data has been used where available.

*A249 Sittingbourne Road - timing outbound is likely to be affected by Enterprise Park signals and revised layout at the Bearsted Road roundabout.

Additional data was collected during July for the PM as a sense check (as used in table above). The outbound model times remain longer than the July

observed times but fall within the normal criteria. No new data is available for AM peak outbound.




**A229 Royal Engineers Way – Anomalies were noted between modelled and ANPR journey times across the town centre. A limited number of travel times

were recorded in July for the radial route only, between the M20 slip roads and Earls Street signals. The PM timings indicated a reasonable match with

modelled data. The model AM timings were around 80 seconds longer than the recorded times in July. It would be reasonable to expect AM peak observed

travel times inbound on this route to be longer in the usual neutral months.




Appendix B Transport Strategy Specification

ITS Ref Transport Intervention

Proposed Description DM Modelling comment DS4A & DS4B Modelling comment

30 Bridges Gyratory New Northbound link to bypass the gyratory via the two

bridges.

New link included and lane allocation and signal

arrangements adjusted. New link included and lane allocation and signal

arrangements adjusted.

1


Junction

M20, Junction 5. This will include providing additional

capacity on the M20 link roads to Coldharbour

Roundabout; Coldharbour Roundabout itself; the 20/20

roundabout and the Hermitage Lane / London Road

junction

Not Modelled Junction capacity, lane allocation and signal

arrangement as per planning application TA.

1 A249 / Bearsted Rd

roundabout

A249 / Bearsted Road Roundabout. This includes capacity

improvements and provision of a pedestrian crossing at

Bearsted Roundabout

Not Modelled Signalised Junction at A249 / Bearsted Road.

1 Bearsted Rd / New Cut

junction

Bearsted Road / New Cut Road Roundabout. This includes

capacity improvements and an enlargement of the

roundabout

Not Modelled Signalised Junction at Bearsted Road / New Cut.

1 Dual carriageway between

A249 and New Cut junctions

Bearsted Road, between Bearsted Roundabout and New

Cut Road Roundabout. This includes the upgrading of the

road to a dual carriageway in both directions

Not Modelled Dual Carriageway between junctions includes

changed link capacity and lane provision.






1 A20 Ashford Road /

Willington Street

A20 Ashford Rd / Willington Street junction. This includes a

widening of the left turning movement from Ashford Road

into Willington Street.

Not Modelled Junction Capacity and signal improvements,

through adjusting the signals. Signal arrangement

from planning application TA.

A229/A274 Wheatsheaf

Junction.

Close exit to Cranbourne Avenue, Adjusting turning

movements and signal adjustment. Not Modelled

Exit from Wheatsheaf junction to Cranbourne

Avenue closed. Signals and lane allocations

adjusted.

1 A274 / Willington Street

Junctions

Willington St / Sutton Rd junction. This includes a widening

of the approaches from Willington St to create an

additional left turning lane into A274 Sutton Road and

provision for entry into a new bus lane.

Not Modelled

Junction capacity improvements through changed

lane provisions and signal adjustment.


Junction.

Junction Capacity improvements, through lane provision

and signal changes. Not Modelled

Lane allocation and signal arrangement adjusted

as per Planning application TA.

1

A26 Fountain Lane Junction

Queens Rd / St Andrews Rd / Tonbridge Rd / Fountain Lane

junctions. This includes an opening up of the eastern end

of St Andrews Road onto the Queens Road / Tonbridge

Road junction. The direction of traffic between each of

these junctions would be made one way in a clockwise

direction.

Not Modelled

Reconfiguration of network around St Andrews

Road not modelled.

Improvements to signal arrangements included in

the model as per planning application TA.

1

M20 Junction 7

improvements

M20, Junction 7 updates. This includes converting the M20

eastbound approach and the two A249 approaches to the

roundabout to traffic signals, whilst leaving the M20

westbound approach as a give way; to prevent traffic

tailing back on to the motorway during peak periods. In

addition, road markings will be rearranged to improve

visibility on the roundabout

Not Modelled Signal arrangement and junction layout from the

planning application for Newnham Court.






1 New Cut / A20 left turn slip

Constructing bus priority measures on New Cut Road.

Not Modelled Junction layout reconfigured to reflect Bus

priority lane. Bus priority not modelled

specifically

1 Hermitage Lane pedestrian

signals

Hermitage Lane in the vicinity of Barming Rail Station. This

would include a new pedestrian crossing near the vehicle

access to the rail station. To accommodate this, there will

be a requirement to reorganise the existing bus stop layout

Not Modelled New pedestrian signals included near to Barming

Station.

1 New link between Gore

Court Rd and Bicknor Wood

Constructing a new access road between Gore Court Road

and Bicknor Wood to provide sufficient access to the new

strategic site north of Bicknor Wood.

Not Modelled Not Modelled

1 Widening of Gore Court

Road Not Modelled Not Modelled

Leeds / Langley Bypass Not Modelled NB: DS4A ONLY

Route west of Leeds and east of Langley

5

PR Fare

Change PR fare structure to pay-to-park rather than pay-to-

ride. £3 per vehicle should be assumed

As with most other P&R schemes, cars should pay to park

and catch the bus for free.

£3 per vehicle should be assumed.

Not Modelled

PR cost (as fare or parking charge) included in PR

mode choice process.

PR cost (previously £2.50) adjusted to £3.00






New PR service from Linton corner

New Park & Ride service from Linton Crossroads to

Maidstone town centre.

Running non-stop along Loose Road (A229) and terminating

at High Street/King Street.

Assume a 15-min frequency from all sites, and capacities of

20% higher than now. Services to run 4 per hour until 9pm

Monday to Friday and 3 per hour all weekend (until 6pm on

Sundays).

Not Modelled Not modelled

17 Existing PR bus services Maintain existing P&R* Sittingbourne Rd P&R site removed Sittingbourne Rd P&R site removed

Improve existing P&R

Increase patronage of existing Park & Ride sites by increasing

capacity, improving the offering, changing fare structure,

running later into the evening, live departure screens at bus

stops.

Assume a 15-min frequency from all sites, and capacities of

20% higher than now. Services to run 4 per hour until 9pm

Monday to Friday and 3 per hour all weekend (until 6pm on

Sundays).

All P&R services are at 15 minute intervals.

P&R site capacity is not reflected in the model.

Peak periods modelled only.

Effectively no change.

All P&R services are at 15 minute intervals.

P&R site capacity is not reflected in the model.

Peak periods modelled only.

Effectively no change.

12 Subsidised shuttle bus between M20 J7 and town centre.

Subsidised shuttle bus between M20 J7 and town centre. Not Modelled

To run every 20 minutes from Notcutts, down

New Cut road, along A20 to the bus station -

where it can turn around and go back down Watt

Tyler way and along the A20 back to Notcutts.






16

Public bus service improvements.

A regular bus service along all of Maidstone’s key radial

roads (7-minute frequencies on main radial routes into the

town centre between 7am and 7pm).

Not Modelled

Bus services on main radial routes into the town

centre increased to 10 minute frequencies.

27 Romney Place bus lane

Bus Only Lane turning left onto Romney Place from Lower

Stone Street. Not Modelled Not modelled

NW Bus Loop. Circular bus route to hospital

Circular Bus route connecting the town centre - Hermitage

Lane - Hospital - Howard Drive - London Road.

From the east of Hermitage Lane site a bus only route will

be built from the site linking onto Howard Drive which will

create the loop route for the buses to use. Frequency:

every 15 minutes. Stopping Pattern: all stops on route and

one on Howards Way.

Not Modelled Not modelled

Bus Only northbound lane on

A274.

Bus Only northbound lane on A274 Sutton Road from

Willington Street to the Wheatsheaf. Not Modelled Not modelled

23 Maintain and promote KCC’s car sharing website

Assume car sharing increases by 5% of overall mode share

into Maidstone town centre by 2031. No change to base car occupancy No change to base car occupancy

7 Increase long stay parking

tariffs on council owned sites

above inflation. 50% increase in real terms above inflation. Not Modelled

Car park cost per zone (representing balance of

long stay and short stay) is included in the mode

choice model.

Parking cost increase weighted to reflect

proportion of long and short stay parking.






8 Increase short stay parking

tariffs on council owned sites

above inflation. 50% increase in real terms above inflation. Not Modelled

Car park cost per zone (representing balance of

long stay and short stay) is included in the mode

choice model.

Parking cost increase weighted to reflect

proportion of long and short stay parking.

Walking Mode Share.

An 8.5% increase of walking mode share over 2014 base year

(0.5% per year). Not Modelled A reduction in HBW and HBO car trips of <5km in

the urban area of Maidstone used as a proxy for

the increase in walking and cycling mode share

that is aspired to.

(6% of HBW & HBO of less than 5km)

Cycle Mode Share (by implementing the cycle strategy).

An 8.5% increase in cycling mode share over 2014 base (0.5%

per year). Not Modelled

* Sittingbourne Road Park & Ride Site discontinued 2015




A 1 Highway Improvements Modelled

Highway Improvement Description Summary of changes made within the

model

References / sources

Bridges Gyratory

New northbound link to

bypass the gyratory via

the two bridges

New links

Junctions amended

Signal adjustment

Maidstone Bridges Gyratory plan 4300066-000-02

Rev0


Junction

Junction Capacity and

signals

Lane provision and capacity

Signals

A20 London Rd / Coldharbour Roundabout plan

20069/S/1

Bearsted Road Roundabouts

A249 / Bearsted Rd

junction

Bearsted Road / New

Cut junction

Dual carriageway

between the junctions

Signalised junctions

Link capacity and lane provision

Newnham 13_1931-

ENVIRONMENTAL_STATEMENT_-

_VOL2_APPENDIX_7.1G_TRANSPORT_ASSESSMEN

T_STRATEGIC_DRAW_RETAIL_TRIP_DISTRIBUTIO

N-1802069

Newnham 13_1931-

ENVIRONMENTAL_STATEMENT_-

_VOL2_APPENDIX_7.1H_TRANSPORT_ASSESSMEN

T_BEARSTED_ROAD_ROUNDABOUT_TRAFFIC_CAP

ACITY_MODEL_OUTPUTS-1802070

Developer plan T0115/H/05

Developer plan T0115/H/04

A20 Ashford Road /

Willington Street Junction

Junction capacity and

signals

Signals adjustment

Developer plan 15136-01




A229 / A274 Wheatsheaf

Junction

Close exit to Cranbourne

Avenue

Closed exit from junction to Cranbourne

Avenue

Adjust turning movements

Signal adjustment

No details available

A274 / Willington Street

Junctions

Junction capacity

improvement

Lane provision

Signal adjustment

Developer plan ITL7088-SK-015


Junction

Junction capacity

improvement

Lane provision

Signal adjustment

Developer plan ITL7088-SK-015

A26 Fountain Lane Junction To accommodate right

turn vehicles within the

junction

Minor change to junction arrangement A26 Tunbridge Rd / Fountain Lane plan 11/0444

Developer plan T0289/12

Hermitage Lane pedestrian

signals

New pedestrian signals

near vehicle access to

Barming Station

Signal arrangement W of Herm 13_1702-TA_App_J-K.pdf-1801012

W of Herm 13_1702-TA_App_L-M.pdf-1801013

Developer plan T0289-08

Leeds Langley Relief Road

(DS4A only)

New route linking the

A274 and the A20

passing west of Leeds

and east of Langley

Heath

Based on annotated plan provided.

New route assumed to be single

carriageway terminating at roundabouts.

Broad assumptions about junction

arrangements.

LL bypass Annotated Plan 21-4-15




Appendix C TRICS Trip Rates

People

Land Use Parameter Code Dep Arr Total Dep Arr Total

Flats Privately Owned Household F1 0.24 0.08 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mixed Private Non private Housing Household M1 0.54 0.15 0.69 0.01 0.00 0.01

Houses Privately Owned Household H1 0.76 0.23 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.01

Houses Rural Service Centres Household H2 0.84 0.23 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

Residential mixed (estimated) Household M2 0.52 0.15 0.67 0.01 0.00 0.01

Out of Centre Convenience 100 sqm GFA A1a 4.55 6.12 9.51 0.03 0.03 0.06

Town Centre Convenience 100 sqm GFA A1b 6.12 4.55 6.92 0.04 0.01 0.05

Aldi 100 sqm GFA A1c 0.09 0.93 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Comparison Shopping * 100 sqm GFA A1d

DIY with Garden Centre 100 sqm GFA A1e 0.45 0.76 1.16 0.11 0.15 0.25

Town Centre Offices 100 sqm GFA B1a+b 0.11 2.10 2.21 0.00 0.00 0.01

Out of Centre B1 (>10000) 100 sqm GFA B1c 0.47 2.48 2.95 0.01 0.02 0.04

Out of Centre B1 (<6000) 100 sqm GFA B1d 0.40 2.54 2.93 0.06 0.08 0.14

B2 Southern Industrial Estates 100 sqm GFA B2 0.38 0.80 1.18 0.06 0.02 0.08

B8 Warehousing 100 sqm GFA B8 0.40 0.85 1.25 0.09 0.09 0.17

Mixed B1c, B2 and B8 100 sqm GFA Bm 0.39 1.16 1.55 0.07 0.05 0.12

Early Years 1 Pupil En 0.03 0.29 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Primary Education 1 Pupil Ep 0.02 0.84 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00

Secondary Education co-located with Sports Centre 1 Pupil Es 0.01 0.76 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dentist 1 Employee De 0.12 1.04 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00

GP 1 Doctor Dg 2.17 6.53 8.70 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vehicles OGVs

Land Use Parameter Dep Arr Total Arr Dep Total

Comparison Shopping (Neighbourhood Centre) 100 sqm GFA A1f 0.26 0.56 0.82 0.01 0.01 0.02

Vehicles

OGVs

AM Peak (0800-0900)




PM Peak (1700-1800)

People OGVs

Land Use Parameter Code Dep Arr Total Arr Dep Total

Flats Privately Owned Household F1 0.10 0.19 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mixed Private Non private Housing Household M1 0.28 0.49 0.77 0.01 0.00 0.01

Houses Privately Owned Household H1 0.38 0.60 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00

Houses Rural Service Centres Household H2 0.30 0.57 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00

Residential mixed (estimated) Household M2

Out of Centre Convenience 100 sqm GFA A1a 8.14 8.02 23.11 0.00 0.00 0.01

Town Centre Convenience 100 sqm GFA A1b 9.12 10.09 28.51 0.02 0.00 0.02

Aldi 100 sqm GFA A1c 4.10 4.06 8.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

Comparison Shopping * 100 sqm GFA A1d

DIY with Garden Centre 100 sqm GFA A1e 1.77 1.30 5.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

Town Centre Offices 100 sqm GFA B1a+b 1.23 0.12 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00

Out of Centre B1 (>10000) 100 sqm GFA B1c 2.45 0.02 2.95 0.01 0.02 0.03

Out of Centre B1 (<6000) 100 sqm GFA B1d 1.68 0.21 1.89 0.03 0.01 0.04

B2 Southern Industrial Estates 100 sqm GFA B2 0.78 0.20 0.98 0.02 0.03 0.05

B8 Warehousing 100 sqm GFA B8 0.69 0.11 0.80 0.01 0.03 0.04

Mixed B1c, B2 and B8 100 sqm GFA Bm 0.93 0.17 1.10 0.02 0.03 0.05

Early Years 1 Pupil En 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00

Primary Education 1 Pupil Ep 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

Secondary Education co-located with Sports Centre 1 Pupil Es 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dentist 1 Employee De 1.65 0.08 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00

GP 1 Doctor Dg 8.89 6.87 15.76 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vehicles Vehicles OGVs

Land Use Parameter Dep Arr Total Arr Dep Total

Comparison Shopping (Neighbourhood Centre) 100 sqm GFA A1f 1.44 1.31 2.75 0.01 0.00 0.01




Appendix D Housing and Commercial Development

Allocation

DM & DS4A & DS4B Development Summary

Source of Supply#

Housing Allocation

(DM & DS4A & DS4B)

completions 2011 to 2015 2341

Extant Planning consents (net) 4172

Local Plan allocations with resolution to grant consent subject to

S106 2076

Local Plan allocations approved for inclusion in the R19 Local Plan 3660

Local Plan allocations subject to R18 consultation 1337

Local Plan Broad Allocations 3500

Windfall allowance 1026

Shortfall 448

TOTAL 18560

#Data supplied by MBC October 2015

Local Plan Employment Sites

(DM & DS4A & D4B) #

Location Use Class m2

Mote Road, Maidstone B1a 8000

South of Claygate, Pattenden Lane, Marden B1/B2/B8 6800

W of Wheelbarrow Industrial Estate, Pattenden Lane, Marden B2/B8 14500

W of Barradale Farm, Maidstone Road, Headcorn B1b & c/B2/B8 5500

Woodcut Farm, Hollingbourne B1a & c/B2/B8 49000





Local Plan Mixed Use Sites

(DM & DS4A & DS4B) #

Location Use Class m2

Newham Court, Bearsted Road, Maidstone A1e 700

Newham Court, Bearsted Road, Maidstone C2 75000

Newham Court, Bearsted Road, Maidstone C2 25000

Maidstone East and Maidstone Sorting Office, Sandling Road A1/A1e 10000

King Street car park and former AMF Bowling site, Maidstone A1 1400

Clockhouse Farm, Heath Road, Coxheath B1 7700

Former Syngenta works, Hampstead Lane, Yalding B1/B2 8600





Appendix E TEMPRO Data

HBO includes: NHBO includes:

HB Shopping NHB Employers Business

HB Personal Business NHB Education

HB Recreational/Social NHB Shopping

HB Visiting Friends or Relatives NHB Personal Business

NHB Recreation/Social

NB: Average of origin and destination growth by purpose and mode.

Maidstone Growth

AMPK Car Car Passenger Bus Passenger Rail Passenger

From - to EB HBW HBO NHBO EB HBW HBO NHBO EB HBW HBO NHBO EB HBW HBO NHBO

2008 - 2014 1.0378 1.0402 1.0986 1.0686 1.0351 1.0330 1.0647 1.0694 1.0269 1.0189 1.0579 1.0652 1.0222 1.0213 1.0932 1.0688

2008 - 2022 1.0724 1.0683 1.2067 1.1252 1.0632 1.0386 1.1453 1.1273 1.0367 1.0070 1.1413 1.1275 1.0387 1.0205 1.2014 1.1336

2008 - 2031 1.0878 1.0788 1.3247 1.1599 1.0762 1.0316 1.2049 1.1605 1.0388 0.9856 1.2482 1.1725 1.0428 1.0009 1.3224 1.1732

2014 - 2022 1.0333 1.0270 1.0978 1.0525 1.0271 1.0053 1.0753 1.0536 1.0095 0.9883 1.0781 1.0576 1.0162 0.9992 1.0977 1.0596

2014 - 2031 1.0481 1.0371 1.2048 1.0847 1.0398 0.9986 1.1311 1.0844 1.0117 0.9674 1.1786 1.0993 1.0202 0.9801 1.2076 1.0961




Maidstone Growth

PMPK Car Car Passenger Bus Passenger Rail Passenger


2008 - 2014 1.0405 1.0402 1.0820 1.0687 1.0389 1.0342 1.0646 1.0697 1.0256 1.0187 1.0582 1.0644 1.0258 1.0213 1.0833 1.0677

2008 - 2022 1.0760 1.0680 1.1669 1.1252 1.0675 1.0452 1.1357 1.1272 1.0285 1.0091 1.1331 1.1234 1.0383 1.0214 1.1772 1.1273

2008 - 2031 1.0939 1.0798 1.2525 1.1599 1.0829 1.0465 1.1874 1.1604 1.0247 0.9935 1.2248 1.1662 1.0396 1.0052 1.2762 1.1628

2014 - 2022 1.0341 1.0266 1.0779 1.0524 1.0275 1.0106 1.0664 1.0533 1.0029 0.9906 1.0700 1.0546 1.0121 1.0000 1.0852 1.0549

2014 - 2031 1.0512 1.0380 1.1567 1.0846 1.0423 1.0119 1.1147 1.0840 0.9992 0.9753 1.1561 1.0942 1.0134 0.9843 1.1755 1.0876

Maidstone Background Growth



2008 - 2014 0.9837 0.9859 1.0372 1.0243 0.9810 0.9793 1.0083 1.0249 0.9724 0.9652 1.0010 1.0209 0.9617 0.9666 1.0346 1.0244

2008 - 2022 0.9752 0.9710 1.0832 1.0597 0.9661 0.9444 1.0379 1.0617 0.9392 0.9138 1.0318 1.0619 0.9217 0.9229 1.0869 1.0677

2008 - 2031 0.9652 0.9560 1.1441 1.1039 0.9529 0.9150 1.0611 1.1044 0.9136 0.8702 1.0941 1.1158 0.8792 0.8769 1.1606 1.1165

2014 - 2022 0.9905 0.9843 1.0431 1.0342 0.9843 0.9639 1.0285 1.0353 0.9656 0.9462 1.0294 1.0393 0.9581 0.9545 1.0486 1.0412

2014 - 2031 0.9795 0.9684 1.1007 1.0771 0.9704 0.9333 1.0506 1.0767 0.9390 0.9007 1.0903 1.0915 0.9137 0.9067 1.1180 1.0883




Maidstone Background Growth



2008 - 2014 0.9865 0.9862 1.0218 1.0244 0.9849 0.9810 1.0090 1.0252 0.9710 0.9652 1.0026 1.0202 0.9667 0.9671 1.0258 1.0234

2008 - 2022 0.9790 0.9714 1.0481 1.0597 0.9707 0.9525 1.0318 1.0616 0.9313 0.9161 1.0290 1.0581 0.9259 0.9250 1.0669 1.0618

2008 - 2031 0.9716 0.9583 1.0831 1.1038 0.9602 0.9326 1.0509 1.1043 0.9005 0.8779 1.0832 1.1098 0.8849 0.8832 1.1241 1.1066

2014 - 2022 0.9918 0.9845 1.0247 1.0341 0.9852 0.9705 1.0218 1.0350 0.9588 0.9487 1.0248 1.0363 0.9576 0.9562 1.0379 1.0366

2014 - 2031 0.9836 0.9706 1.0581 1.0769 0.9741 0.9496 1.0398 1.0763 0.9267 0.9087 1.0776 1.0865 0.9150 0.9127 1.0916 1.0799

Kent Growth



2008 - 2014 1.0491 1.0514 1.1057 1.0706 1.0438 1.0408 1.0691 1.0684 1.0316 1.0242 1.0535 1.0638 1.0330 1.0352 1.0926 1.0697

2008 - 2022 1.0984 1.0934 1.2318 1.1451 1.0838 1.0557 1.1658 1.1446 1.0504 1.0217 1.1439 1.1462 1.0618 1.0556 1.2145 1.1539

2008 - 2031 1.1234 1.1119 1.3639 1.2012 1.1039 1.0526 1.2398 1.2001 1.0559 1.0035 1.2554 1.2151 1.0700 1.0488 1.3484 1.2168

2014 - 2022 1.0469 1.0399 1.1137 1.0693 1.0383 1.0143 1.0903 1.0709 1.0182 0.9974 1.0853 1.0768 1.0279 1.0197 1.1109 1.0780

2014 - 2031 1.0708 1.0576 1.2329 1.1215 1.0576 1.0114 1.1594 1.1227 1.0236 0.9797 1.1908 1.1412 1.0358 1.0131 1.2330 1.1363




Kent Growth



2008 - 2014 1.0516 1.0510 1.0889 1.0709 1.0475 1.0416 1.0677 1.0690 1.0311 1.0237 1.0527 1.0635 1.0372 1.0340 1.0829 1.0695

2008 - 2022 1.1017 1.0922 1.1909 1.1454 1.0879 1.0621 1.1541 1.1453 1.0435 1.0233 1.1358 1.1436 1.0644 1.0536 1.1905 1.1501

2008 - 2031 1.1289 1.1120 1.2900 1.2016 1.1101 1.0684 1.2197 1.2011 1.0433 1.0118 1.2354 1.2108 1.0712 1.0496 1.3034 1.2098

2014 - 2022 1.0475 1.0391 1.0934 1.0694 1.0385 1.0196 1.0808 1.0710 1.0120 0.9996 1.0786 1.0747 1.0262 1.0189 1.0987 1.0747

2014 - 2031 1.0735 1.0580 1.1841 1.1218 1.0597 1.0257 1.1422 1.1231 1.0118 0.9883 1.1729 1.1375 1.0327 1.0150 1.2022 1.1300




Appendix F Model Output

Network Performance – Full Network

AM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B

Total travel time (vhrs) 24848 29744 27726 28194

Total congested travel time (vhrs) 14620 18074 16746 17056

Total Travel Distance (vkm) 868685 971669 941456 942837

Average network speed (kph) 35.0 32.7 34.0 33.4

PM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B





Network Performance – Maidstone Urban Area and M20 J5 to 8

AM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B





PM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B








Network Performance – Maidstone Urban Area

AM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B





PM Peak 2014 2031 DM 2031 DS4A 2031 DS4B





% diff from 2014 DM DS4A DS4B

AM Peak

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Node turn time 39% 51% 24% 36% 26% 38%

link time 17% 23% 10% 11% 12% 13%

Congested Travel Time 24% 36% 15% 21% 17% 23%

Tot Travel Time 20% 30% 12% 17% 13% 19%

Tot travel distance 12% 16% 8% 13% 9% 10%

Ave network speed -7% -11% -3% -3% -4% -8%




% diff from 2014 DM DS4A DS4B

PM Peak

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Node turn time 56% 79% 37% 57% 39% 59%

link time 16% 29% 13% 20% 14% 21%

Congested Travel Time 25% 56% 18% 30% 20% 35%

Tot Travel Time 20% 39% 15% 28% 17% 29%

Tot travel distance 9% 19% 9% 19% 9% 15%

Ave network speed -9% -15% -5% -7% -7% -11%

AM Peak DS4A DS4B

% diff from DM

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Full

Network

Maidstone

urban area

+ M20

Node turn time -10.3% -10.0% -8.9% -8.6%

link time -6.2% -9.9% -4.6% -8.1%

Congested Travel Time -7.3% -11.1% -5.6% -3.2%

Tot Travel Time -6.8% -9.9% -5.2% -8.3%

Tot travel distance -3.1% -2.4% -3.0% -5.1%

Ave network speed 4.6% 8.4% 2.8% 3.5%




Link Flow Data

Site Location

1 A274 (W) Sutton Road

2 A229 (N) Royal Engineers Way

3 A229 Loose Rd

4 A20 London Road

5 Hermitage Lane

6 A26 Tonbridge Rd

7 A229 Linton Rd

8 B2163 Lower St

9 A249 (M20 J7)

10 New Cut Rd

11 Willington St

12 M20 J8 Spur Road




Site Location

13 A20 Ashford Rd

14 A249 Sittingbourne Rd

15 B2163 Heath Road

AM Link Flows

Site Link Dir 2014 2031

DM

2031

DS4A

2031

DS4B

1 A274 (W) EB 400 900 750 800

A274 (W) WB 650 700 700 650

2 A229 (N) SB 2350 2350 2100 2150

A229 (N) NB 1800 1850 1800 1850

3 A229 Loose Rd (N) SB 1150 1550 1550 1650

A229 Loose Rd (N) NB 1450 1800 1450 1550

4 A20 London Road EB 1350 1350 1400 1350

A20 London Road WB 1250 1350 1250 1250

5 Hermitage Lane NB 950 1200 1200 1200

Hermitage Lane SB 800 950 850 850

6 A26 Tonbridge Rd EB 700 750 550 550

A26 Tonbridge Rd WB 650 750 800 800

7 A229 Linton Rd SB 500 800 750 750

A229 Linton Rd NB 400 550 550 550

8 B2163 Lower St Leeds NB 650 600 0 550

B2163 Lower St Leeds SB 500 500 50 550

9 A249 NB 1950 1850 2100 2200

A249 SB 2100 2300 2800 2850

10 New Cut Rd NB 800 950 1050 1100

New Cut Rd SB 950 1000 1250 1300

11 Willington St (N) NB 1000 1200 1100 1100





DM

2031

DS4A

2031

DS4B

Willington St (N) SB 750 1100 1200 1300

12 M20 Spur Road NB 1750 2250 2250 2050

M20 Spur Road SB 1650 2050 2400 2200

13 A20 Ashford Rd EB 850 1100 1350 1350

A20 Ashford Rd WB 1250 1350 1150 1150

14 A249 Sittingbourne Rd NB 950 1100 1000 1000

A249 Sittingbourne Rd SB 600 700 500 550

15 B2163 (W) EB 200 350 350 350

B2163 (W) WB 300 400 400 400

PM Peak


DM

2031

DS4A

2031

DS4B

1 A274 (W) EB 550 750 800 750

A274 (W) WB 400 650 650 600

2 A229 (N) SB 2000 2100 1850 1900

A229 (N) NB 2000 2050 2100 2100

3 A229 Loose Rd (N) SB 1450 1700 1650 1700

A229 Loose Rd (N) NB 1200 1550 1300 1350

4 A20 London Road EB 1050 1000 950 950

A20 London Road WB 1300 1500 1500 1550

5 Hermitage Lane NB 950 1200 1100 1150

Hermitage Lane SB 600 950 900 900

6 A26 Tonbridge Rd EB 600 600 600 600

A26 Tonbridge Rd WB 500 700 600 650

7 A229 Linton Rd SB 400 650 600 600

A229 Linton Rd NB 450 700 600 650





DM

2031

DS4A

2031

DS4B

8 B2163 Lower St Leeds NB 550 600 0 600

B2163 Lower St Leeds SB 550 550 100 500

9 A249 NB 2050 2150 2450 2550

A249 SB 1750 1750 2050 2150

10 New Cut Rd NB 850 850 900 900

New Cut Rd SB 1100 1250 1300 1350

11 Willington St (N) NB 900 1200 1300 1400

Willington St (N) SB 800 900 950 1000

12 M20 Spur Road NB 1550 2200 2350 2150

M20 Spur Road SB 1850 2150 2200 2000

13 A20 Ashford Rd EB 1050 1200 1200 1200

A20 Ashford Rd WB 1000 1250 1350 1350

14 A249 Sittingbourne Rd NB 650 750 800 800

A249 Sittingbourne Rd SB 500 600 500 550

15 B2163 (W) EB 350 350 350 350

B2163 (W) WB 250 400 400 400




Travel Time Routes

Travel Times (seconds)

Ro

ute

AM

Inbound

mil

es

2014

(secs)

2031

DM (secs)

2031 DS4A

(secs)

2031 DS4B

(secs)

1 A20 Ashford Road 3.0 616 708 557 577

2 A274 Sutton Road 3.0 738 871 746 818

3 A229 Loose Road 1.9 558 708 572 638

4 B2010 Farleigh Hill 0.9 166 170 168 168

5 A26 Tonbridge Road 2.0 432 446 436 441

6 A20 London Rd 1.6 393 396 360 366

7 A229 Royal Engineers 1.5 326 338 269 282

8 A249 Sittingbourne Rd 1.4 312 345 325 333




Ro

ute

AM

Outbound

mil

es

2014

(secs)

2031

DM (secs)

2031 DS4A

(secs)

2031 DS4B

(secs)

1 A20 Ashford Road 3.0 472 553 523 571

2 A274 Sutton Road 3.0 602 708 667 713

3 A229 Loose Road 1.9 456 596 545 592

4 B2010 Farleigh Hill 0.9 208 246 225 239

5 A26 Tonbridge Road 2.0 389 402 393 395

6 A20 London Rd 1.6 380 430 394 413



Ro

ute

PM

Inbound

mil

es

2014

(secs)

2031

DM (secs)

2031 DS4A

(secs)

2031 DS4B

(secs)

1 A20 Ashford Road 3.0 532 614 580 602

2 A274 Sutton Road 3.0 672 787 735 773

3 A229 Loose Road 1.9 387 567 476 508

4 B2010 Farleigh Hill 0.9 161 165 162 163

5 A26 Tonbridge Road 2.0 426 409 443 439

6 A20 London Rd 1.6 368 350 357 362



Ro

ute

PM

Outbound

mil

es

2014

(secs)

2031

DM (secs)

2031 DS4A

(secs)

2031 DS4B

(secs)

1 A20 Ashford Road 3.0 496 582 498 496

2 A274 Sutton Road 3.0 641 747 684 718

3 A229 Loose Road 1.9 512 701 611 663




Ro

ute

PM

Outbound

mil

es

2014

(secs)

2031

DM (secs)

2031 DS4A

(secs)

2031 DS4B

(secs)

4 B2010 Farleigh Hill 0.9 204 313 256 285

5 A26 Tonbridge Road 2.0 381 390 392 394

6 A20 London Rd 1.6 334 362 341 347






Appendix G Level of Service

LOS defined as the value which is based on the mean delay of the node

Signals

(HCM)

Signals

(ICU1, ICU2

etc)

2 way stop Roundabout

(Kimber)

Roundabout

(HCM)

Mean delay

per vehicle at

the node

(if v/c >1

then F)

Volume

/saturation

flow rate (used

for ICU1 ,

ICU2 etc)

Mean delay per

vehicle at the

intersection

(v/c >1 then F)

LOS of entire

node based on

volume weighted

mean delay of all

approaches

Volume

weighted mean

delay of

approaches (if

volume >

capacity then F)

A 0 – 10 sec 0.0 – 0.6 0 – 10 sec 0 – 10 sec 0 – 10 sec

B 10 – 20 sec 0.601 – 0.7 10 – 15 sec 10 – 15 sec 10 – 15 sec

C 20 – 35 sec 0.701 – 0.8 15 – 25 sec 15 – 25 sec 15 – 25 sec

D 35 – 55 sec 0.801 – 0,9 25 – 35 sec 25 – 35 sec 25 – 35 sec

E 55 – 80 sec 0.901 – 1.0 35 – 50 sec 35 – 50 sec 35 – 50 sec

F 80+ sec >1.0 50 + sec 50 + sec 50 + sec




Appendix H Journey Time Profiles

2014

Inbound Outbound

1

2

3

4




5

6

7

8




2031 DM

Inbound Outbound

1

2

3

4




5

6

7

8




2031 DS4A

Inbound Outbound

1

2

3

4




5

6

7

8




2031 DS4B

Inbound Outbound

1

2

3

4




5

6

7

8

Documents

Forecasting Report - Maidstone · Project Name Maidstone VISUM Transport Model Document Title Forecasting Report Doc. Ref.: CO04300370/003 Rev. 01 - 3 - Issued: August 2016 2.1.3