Mott MacDonald Report Template - Maidstone

Coxheath, Maidstone

Technical Note: Linton Crossroads Junction Capacity Assessment Results

May 2016

Maidstone Borough Council

344395 ITD TPS 012 A

C:\Users\oll26264\AppData\Roaming\OpenText\OTEdit\pims01-pims\c2080411782\Linton-TN-012-A.docx

May 2016

Coxheath, Maidstone


Coxheath, Maidstone


May 2016


Maidstone House, King Street, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 6JQ

Mott MacDonald, Stoneham Place, Stoneham Lane, Southampton, SO50 9NW, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)23 8062 8800 F +44 (0)23 8064 7251 W www.mottmac.com

344395/ITD/TPS/012/A May 2016 C:\Users\oll26264\AppData\Roaming\OpenText\OTEdit\pims01-pims\c2080411782\Linton-TN-012-A.docx

Coxheath, Maidstone Technical Note: Linton Crossroads Junction Capacity Assessment Results

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A May 2016

R Khakh / P Rapa / D Parkin / A Adepoju

M Olley / A Farrow

M Olley / A Farrow

First Issue

Issue and revision record

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.



Chapter Title Page

1 Introduction 8

1.1 Overview _________________________________________________________________________ 8 1.2 Scope of Works ____________________________________________________________________ 8

2 Revised Traffic Flows 9

2.1 Adjusted TEMPro Growth to 2031 ______________________________________________________ 9 2.2 Revised Future Base 2031 Flows _______________________________________________________ 9 2.3 Revised ‘with development’ Flows _____________________________________________________ 10 2.4 Revised ‘with development -10%’ Flows ________________________________________________ 10

3 Junction Layout Improvements 12

3.1 Site Considerations and Limitations ____________________________________________________ 12 3.2 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002 _________________________ 12 3.3 Kent Design Guide _________________________________________________________________ 12 3.4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) ___________________________________________ 12 3.5 Traffic Signs Manual ________________________________________________________________ 12 3.6 Local Transport Notes ______________________________________________________________ 12 3.7 Drawings ________________________________________________________________________ 12 3.8 Key Considerations, Advantages and Disadvantages ______________________________________ 13 3.8.1 Land Take and Horizontal Alignment ___________________________________________________ 13 3.8.2 Vertical Alignment__________________________________________________________________ 14 3.8.3 Facilities for Non-motorised Users and for Modes of Public Transport __________________________ 15

4 Revised LinSig Modelling 16

4.1 LinSig Results ____________________________________________________________________ 16 4.2 Conclusion _______________________________________________________________________ 17

5 Summary 18

Appendices 19

Appendix A. Improved Junction Layout ___________________________________________________________ 20 A.1 Linton Crossroads, Coxheath – Concept Layout __________________________________________ 20 A.2 Linton Crossroads, Coxheath – Vehicular Swept Path ______________________________________ 20 Appendix B. LinSig Basic Results Summary _______________________________________________________ 23

Contents



8

1.1 Overview

Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) to review the junction

improvement proposal previously carried out for this junction in May 2015, as detailed in the Concept

Design Summary Report (344395HH02-HWY-HDS-0001-A).

The previous scheme aimed at achieving a “within capacity” solution, and covered 3rd party land. It was

based on the junction modelling undertaken by Mott MacDonald. This work is detailed in the Technical

Note (344395-TPN-ITD-001-A) dated June 2015. The work identified existing background junction traffic

flows (2014) and committed development trip generation and distribution which were anticipated to impact

on the capacity and operation of the Linton Crossroads. Mitigation measures were considered, however,

these measures were model specific (applied within the model only), and not based on engineering design

standards. Alternative junction layouts were not considered at the time.

MBC has since advised that a revised solution would have to be developed avoiding any 3rd party land,

aiming at “nil detriment” when comparing ‘2031 base’ with ‘2031 base with development’ scenarios.

1.2 Scope of Works

The following scope of works has been undertaken:

The flows were reviewed and TEMPro was adjusted to avoid any double counting (note, the previous

modelling did not adjust TEMPro);

It is understood that no further development sites need to be taken into consideration. The

development flows have therefore not been adjusted, only the future base flows and “with

development” flows due to TEMPro adjustments. In addition, a development flow scenario was

calculated to reduce the development flows by 10% as considered achievable through Travel Plan

measures;

“Future base”, “with development” and “with development -10%” flows for the junction of A229 Linton

Road / B2163 Heath Road / A229 Linton Hill / B2163 Heath Road were produced;

A junction sketch showing a feasible improvement option avoiding 3rd party land was produced;

LinSig testing of this option was carried out to ascertain whether the sketch solution achieves “nil

detriment”. This has included the creation of a model that reflects the above sketch and test it with the

updated “with development” and “with development - 10%” flows;

The LinSig assessment revealed that “nil detriment” is achievable, a feasibility drawing of the junction

was therefore produced based on the above sketch;

The results were checked and are summarised in this technical note.

1 Introduction



9

2.1 Adjusted TEMPro Growth to 2031

Future growth from 2014-2031 identifies an increase in housing of 340 households, which is a total

increase of 18%. By adding the development traffic of 1,974 units (1,087 units from Coxheath, Boughton

Monchelsea and Marden as per “Coxheath Sites” table and 887 as per “Staplehurst Sites” table received

from MBC), the 340 units included in TEMPro are considered to be double counted. Furthermore, the

future growth from 2014-2031 identifies an increase in employment of 11 jobs. The proposed development

will lead to an increase of 100 jobs, therefore by adding this development traffic the 11 jobs included in

TEMPro are also considered to be double counted.

TEMPro has therefore been adjusted to include no household or employment growth, with only general

background growth remaining. This results in the following growth factors:

Table 2.1: Adjusted TEMPro Growth Rates for Coxheath - 2014-2031

Time Period Factor

AM peak 1.1377

PM peak 1.1420

2.2 Revised Future Base 2031 Flows

Based on the above factors, the 2031 Future Base flows were calculated. They are shown in Figure 2.1

and Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.1: 2031 AM Future Base Flows Figure 2.2: 2031 PM Future Base Flows

2 Revised Traffic Flows



10

2.3 Revised ‘with development’ Flows

The (unchanged) development flows were added to the 2031 Future Base flows as shown in Section 2.2.

The revised 2031 Future Base ‘with development’ flows are shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 below.

Figure 2.3: 2031 AM Future Base ‘with development’

Flows

Figure 2.4: 2031 PM Future Base ‘with development’

Flows

2.4 Revised ‘with development -10%’ Flows

The development flows were then reduced by 10% to reflect any changes in development traffic that are

considered achievable through Travel Plan measures. The revised 2031 Future Base ‘with development -

10%’ flows are shown in Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 below.



11

Figure 2.5: 2031 AM Future Base ‘with development

-10%’ Flows

Figure 2.6: 2031 PM Future Base ‘with development

-10%’ Flows



12

3.1 Site Considerations and Limitations

Where possible, and subject to the proposed modifications in the traffic model, the concept layout retains

the existing features at the junction.

3.2 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002

The road markings that have been designed are intended to comply with TSRGD.

3.3 Kent Design Guide

The guidance contained within Appendix F (Public Transport) of the Kent Design Guide – Making It

Happen (initially published in February 2007), as found on the Kent County Council website, has been

used to inform the design of bus stops. Although specific dimensions relating to the size of the bus stop

cages is not provided in the document, other dimensions that are contained within the guidance have been

used as the basis for determining the size of the cages.

3.4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

Where it has been possible and/or practical to do so, the guidance in DMRB has been followed. In

particular, the following parts of DMRB have been referred to during the concept design:

TD 50/04: The geometric layout of signal-controlled junctions and signalised roundabouts

TD 42/95: Geometric design of major/minor priority junctions

3.5 Traffic Signs Manual

Unless they are to replicate the existing road markings at the junction, the road markings have been

designed in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

3.6 Local Transport Notes

Local Transport Note 2/95 has been used for guidance in the design of pedestrian crossings.

3.7 Drawings

Drawings MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-0001[P2] (which shows a concept design layout for the junction)

and MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-0002[P2] (which shows vehicular swept paths at the junction) are

included in Appendix A.

3 Junction Layout Improvements



13

3.8 Key Considerations, Advantages and Disadvantages

Key design considerations, and their positive and negative implications, are summarised in this section.

3.8.1 Land Take and Horizontal Alignment

The proposed layout maximises the possible increase in junction capacity within the existing highway

boundary without the need to acquire third party land.

3.8.1.1 Lane Widths

The concept layout is based on the range of lane widths recommended in paragraph 2.22 on DMRB

TD50/04 (3m – 3.65m).

3.8.1.2 Taper Lengths

The taper lengths for entry lanes have been based on the guidance provided in paragraphs 2.25 and 2.26

and figures 2/8, 2/9 and 2/10 of DMRB TD 50/04. Some variation to this guidance has been included in the

guidance to accommodate site constraints (e.g. in order to tie in with the existing carriageway).

3.8.1.3 Exit Lanes on the A229

In order to maximise capacity, two full lanes are required on the A229 both north and south of the junction.

In order to keep the proposal within highway boundary, only 27m length of two 3m wide lanes is possible

on the northern exit arm with a 100m taper length as per paragraph 2.31 in DMRB TD 50/04. On the

southern exit arm 55m length of two 3m wide lanes and a 60m taper was achievable due to land

constraints.

3.8.1.4 Entry Lanes of the A229

80m length of 3 lanes of varying widths is achievable on the northern arm and 70m on the southern arm. A

further review of the general arrangement of the northern arm of the junction could potentially increase the

length of the two carriageway exit lanes.

The corner radii on the left hand turn of the southern arm of the junction is not adequate for the articulated

combination vehicle used for vehicle swept path analysis (refer to drawing MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-

0002[P2]). This vehicle would have to swing across other lanes to make the left turn manoeuvre onto

Heath Road. This mirrors the existing situation. The same corner was tested to ensure buses and rigid

vehicles can make the manoeuvre easily without swinging into adjacent lanes.



14

3.8.1.5 Heath Road (B2163)

A right hand turn taper was not possible on the eastern arm of the crossroad as any widening will result in

the encroachment onto third party land. The footway width was increased to 1.8m and identified for

surfacing works as part of the new uncontrolled crossing.

To the west of the junction, the traffic model was based on there being two lanes on the approach to the

junction to maximise capacity on this arm.

3.8.1.6 Vehicular Swept Path Analyses

Traffic flow data, which was used in the traffic model, indicated that large vehicles use the crossroads. This

was affirmed by observations made during the site visit. Drawing MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-0002 [P2]

(in Appendix A) shows the swept paths of the design vehicle (15.5m length articulated vehicle with single

rear axle), as per paragraphs 7.14 – 7.16 of DMRB TD 42/95. This can be accommodated within the

realigned kerb lines. Buses and rigid vehicles were also tested.

3.8.1.7 Corner Radii

In order for the geometry of the redesigned junction to fit, to allow the DMRB design vehicle to successfully

turn at the redesigned junction, and to incorporate the corner radii used in the traffic model, it has been

necessary to introduce compound curves or post-corner tapers as necessary to the corners of the junction,

as per the guidance in paragraph 7.17 of DMRB TD 42/95.

3.8.1.8 Junction Intervisibility

Land currently situated outside the current highway extents would need to be safeguarded in order to

provide junction intervisibility, as per the guidance in paragraphs 2.10 – 2.18 of DMRB TD 50/04. Such

land that would be required only for junction intervisibility (and not for the widened carriageways or

realigned footways) is shown on drawing MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-000[P2] in Appendix A. The

boundary of the junction intervisibility zone, as defined in paragraph 2.10 of DMRB TD 50/04 is also shown

on this drawing.

3.8.2 Vertical Alignment

The road appears to have a crowned cross section. As such, in order to reduce the amount of work

required (in terms of vertical tie in), it was decided to align, as closely as possible given the other

constraints, the centre of the carriageways in the new layout to the centre of the existing carriageways.



15

3.8.3 Facilities for Non-motorised Users and for Modes of Public Transport

3.8.3.1 Pedestrian Crossings

Pedestrian crossings have been provided on three arms of the redesigned junction. The present layout has

a signalised, staggered pedestrian crossing on the northern arm, and dropped kerbs on the eastern arm

although the island on this arm has no dropped kerbs and does not line up with the dropped kerbs on the

footways on the northern and southern side of this arm. In line with existing, a signalised, staggered

pedestrian crossing across the northern arm, Linton Road (A229), has been included in the concept

design. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings on Heath Road (B2163) both east and west of the junction are

also included in the concept design. As with the existing layout, no crossing has been provided across

Linton Hill (A229), the southern arm of the junction.

The crossings have been designed in accordance with the guidance in DMRB TD 50/04, Local Transport

Note 2/95 and Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5.

The uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are set back from the junction, as shown by the grey shaded areas

on drawing MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-0001[P2] which is included in Appendix A. The setback has

been introduced based on road safety considerations and to reduce crossing distances. This, however,

means that the crossings may align less with pedestrian desire lines. As such the use of pedestrian

guardrailing between the junction and the uncontrolled crossing points may have to be considered at the

detailed design stage. The exact layout and type of crossing would also have to be considered further.

As in the existing situation, no crossing has been provided on Linton Hill (A229). Although such a crossing

would be beneficial to reach the southbound bus stop on the A229, both the footways on the southern side

of Heath Road (B2163, eastern arm of the junction) and eastern side of Linton Hill (A229, southern arm of

the junction) are discontinued within close proximity of the junction. The desire lines across the southern

arm of the junction are therefore likely to be limited. The inclusion of a crossing could be considered further

during detailed design, although the availability of highway land may not allow for its inclusion.

3.8.3.2 Bus Stops

Bus laybys, of unusual geometry and a size smaller than recommended in the Kent Design Guide –

Making It Happen, were observed on all four exit arms of the junction. Whilst bus laybys have positive

implications for the flow of other traffic through the junction, they have adverse consequences, such as

potential difficulties for bus drivers re-joining the main carriageway and extra land requirement. It was

therefore deemed preferable to provide bus stop cages on the main carriageway, as shown by the road

markings to TSRGD diagram number 1025.1 on drawing MMD-344395-D-DR-HH02-XX-0001[P2] (in

Appendix A). Whilst the impacts of on carriageway stops on overall junction capacity was not tested, it is

considered that the bus frequencies and the passenger numbers entering / exiting buses at these stops

are not sufficiently high to have a significant impact. It is however recommended that this is further

considered during detailed design.



16

4.1 LinSig Results

The assessment results are presented in Table 4.1 to Table 4.4 below.

Table 4.1: Existing 2014 - Existing Junction Layout

AM PM

Movement DoS (%) Mean Max Queue

(PCU) DoS (%) Mean Max Queue

(PCU)

A229 Linton Road 96.5 27 78.7 9

Heath Road East 93.6 19 95.0 15

A229 Linton Hill 75.1 12 92.6 19

Heath Road West 82.6 15 94.0 20

Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC) ~ over all lanes

-7.2 -5.6

Source: Technical Note 344395-TPN-ITD-001-A dated June 2015, Table 3.4

Table 4.2: Future Base 2031 - Existing Junction Layout

AM PM



(PCU)

A229 Linton Road 132.7 143 99.7 22

Heath Road East 131.1 98 121.3 68

A229 Linton Hill 103.8 26 121.0 96



-47.4 -34.7

Source: Technical Note 344395-TPN-ITD-001-A dated June 2015, Table 3.5

The assessment results in the table above, taken from the June 2015 Technical Note for the existing

junction layout with Existing (2014) flows show that the junction would operate above its desirable capacity

(under 90% saturation) but below theoretical capacity (100% saturation). With Future Base 2031 traffic

(unadjusted TEMPro growth), the junction would exceed theoretical capacity.

The results show that during both the AM and PM peak hours, the junction would experience queuing and

congestion on all arms in the Future Base 2031. During the AM peak hour, A229 Linton Road and Heath

Road East show the highest queuing, with 143 and 98 PCUs respectively. During the PM peak hour, Linton

Hill and Heath Road West show the highest queuing, with 96 and 75 PCUs respectively.

Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 below present the assessment results for the revised junction layout discussed in

Section 3 of this report, tested with Future Base 2031 ‘with development’ traffic.

4 Revised LinSig Modelling



17

Table 4.3: Future Base 2031 ‘with development’ – Improved Junction Layout

AM PM



(PCU)

A229 Linton Road 83.1 12 86.9 9


A229 Linton Hill 69.3 9 86.9 13



8.2 3.5

The assessment results for the junction with improved layout show that for the Future Base 2031 ‘with

development’, the junction would operate within desirable capacity. The results show that during both the

AM and PM peak hours, the junction would experience minimal queuing and congestion on all arms.

Table 4.4: Future Base 2031 ‘with development -10%’ – Improved Junction Layout

AM PM



(PCU)

A229 Linton Road 83.7 13 84.8 9


A229 Linton Hill 68.0 9 85.2 12



7.5 5.6

The assessment results for the junction with improved layout show that for the Future Base 2031 ‘with

development -10%’, the junction would operate within desirable capacity. The results show that during both

the AM and PM peak hours, the junction would experience minimal queuing and congestion on all arms.

The results are very similar to those with full development, with LinSig optimising between arms.

4.2 Conclusion

The modelling carried out shows that the Future Base 2031 ‘with development’ scenario as well as the

Future Base 2031 ‘with development -10%’ scenario operate within desirable capacity of the junction

(under 90% saturation) in both the AM and PM peak. The reduction of development traffic flows by 10%

has a minimal impact on the junction performance. Queuing is reduced with the improved junction layout in

comparison to the Existing 2014 scenario with the existing junction layout that was tested in the previous

report and significantly reduced when compared to Future Base 2031 scenario with existing junction

layout.

The improved layout does not only mitigate the impact from development traffic but also accommodates

future background traffic growth.



18

Mott MacDonald was commissioned by Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) to review the junction

improvement proposal previously carried out for this junction with the aim to find a solution within highway

land that mitigates the impacts of proposed development.

Flows previously used were reconsidered. MBC confirmed that no further development sites would have to

be taken into consideration. TEMPro was used to growth the base flows. In line with other work recently

carried out, growth factors were adjusted taking account of the development considered to avoid double

counting. Two ‘with development’ scenarios were established, one with the full development flows and the

other with development flows reduced by 10%. The flows are presented in Section 2 of this report.

The previous junction design was reviewed and amended to maintain as much capacity as possible of the

previous layout developed but restricting the design to avoid any 3rd party land. The design also maintains

as many of the existing features of the junction, particularly the staggered pedestrian crossing across the

northern arm of the junction. The improved junction design is discussed in Section 3 of this report and a

concept layout is presented in Appendix A.

The concept layout was tested with LinSig and the assessment results are presented in Section 4 of this

report. They demonstrate that this layout not only mitigates the impact from development traffic but also

accommodates future background traffic growth with all arms operating below desirable capacity.

5 Summary



19

Appendices

Appendix A. Improved Junction Layout ____________________________________________________________ 20 Appendix B. LinSig Basic Results Summary ________________________________________________________ 23



20

A.1 Linton Crossroads, Coxheath – Concept Layout

A.2 Linton Crossroads, Coxheath – Vehicular Swept Path

Appendix A. Improved Junction Layout

Cutline A

7

.5

3

0

1

5

3

3

.4

3

.2

5

10

3.0

Cutline A

3

5

5

7

0

8

5

3

8

0

R

2

0

1001

1

0

0

1

1

0

5

5

.1

1038

1004

1004

1038

1

0

3

8

1

0

0

4

1

0

4

0

1

0

3

8

1

0

3

8

1

0

0

4

1

0

0

5

1025.1

1025.1

1

0

2

5

.1

1

0

0

4

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1038

1004

1004

1038

1

0

0

4

1

0

3

8

1

0

0

4

1

0

0

5

1025.1

1025.1

1

0

2

5

.1

1

0

0

4

10

01

1001

1

0

1

4

1

0

1

4

1

0

1

4

3

3

3

.6

3

.

3

3

.

3

2

7

R

1

6

R

3

1

1

.

9

2

1

0

0

R

6

Cutline A

3

7

.5

3

.4

3

.2

5

10

3.0

3

6

Cutline A

3

5

5

7

0

8

5

3

6

0

1

5

R

2

0

1001

1

0

0

1

1

0

5

5

.1

1038

1004

1004

1038

1

0

3

8

1

0

0

4

1

0

3

8

1

0

4

0

1

0

3

8

1

0

0

5

1025.1

1

0

2

5

.1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

1038

1004

1004

1038

1

0

0

4

1

0

3

8

1

0

4

0

1

0

0

5

1025.1

1

0

2

5

.1

10

01

1001

1

0

1

4

1

0

1

4

1

0

1

4

3

3

3

.6

3

.

3

3

.

3

2

7

R

1

6

R

3

1

1

.

9

1

.

8

2

R

6

Key to symbols

App’dCh’k’dDescriptionDrawnDateRev

RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client

Security

C:\Users\ade73987\Desktop\MMD-344395-D-SK-HH02-XX-0001 - P2.dwg

TFW

©


This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

www.mottmac.com

+44 (0)20 8681 5706

+44 (0)20 8774 2000

United Kingdom

Croydon, CR0 2EE

8-10 Sydenham Road

Mott MacDonald House

STDP2

MMD-344395-D-SK-HH02-XX-0001

PRE1:500

A Farrow

M.Olley

A.Farrow

A Farrow

A.Adepoju

A Adepoju

ME15 6JQ

Maidstone, Kent

Maidstone House, King Street


Sheet 1 of 1

Concept Layout

Coxheath

Linton Crossroads

25m 50m0

1:500

1. Do not scale.

2. Layout is indicative only and subject to detailed design.

3. Signs and road markings in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations

& General Directions (TSRGD) 2002.

4. All dimensions in metres unless otherwise stated.

5. Design based on report 347826/TPN/17D/001/A (Revision A)

produced by Mott McDonald in January 2015.

6. Extent of highway ownership based on plan provided by S Clarke

(Maidstone Borough Council) on 25 March 2015.

7. Diag 1025.1 is shown black for presentation purposes only.

8. Extent of junction intervisibility zone based on the guidance in TD 50/04 of

the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

Based upon or reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the

permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown

Copyright reserved. Licence No. LA 076708.

TSRGD 2002 diagram number1001

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

Proposed kerbline

Pedestrian guardrailing

P1 24-04-15 ARC Preliminary Issue

AF SC

Extent of highway ownership

Carriageway widening

New Footway / Footway Improvement works

Junction intervisibility zone boundary ( TD 50/04) in

third party land ownership

P2 05-05-16 AA Design within Highway Boundary AF SC

Junction intervisibility zone boundary ( TD 50/04)

12.25

5.75

Max 90° Horiz

Max 10° Vert

10.5 1.15

3.85

1.25 3.5

Articulated Combination

Overall Length 15.500m

Overall Width 2.550m

Overall Body Height 3.713m

Min Body Ground Clearance 0.436m

Track Width 2.550m

Lock to Lock Time 4.00s

Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 7.500m

10

1.3 6.2

FTA Design Rigid Vehicle (1983)





Track Width 2.500m



12

2.8 6

'Standard' Rigid Bus





Track Width 2.350m


Wall to Wall Turning Radius 10.771m

12.25

5.75

Max 90° Horiz

Max 10° Vert

10.5 1.15

3.85

1.25 3.5

Articulated Combination





Track Width 2.550m



C:\Users\ade73987\Desktop\MMD-344395-D-SK-HH02-XX-0001 - P2.dwg

TFW

©


This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

www.mottmac.com

+44 (0)20 8681 5706

+44 (0)20 8774 2000

United Kingdom

Croydon, CR0 2EE

8-10 Sydenham Road

Mott MacDonald House

STDP2

MMD-344395-D-SK-HH02-XX-0002

PRE1:500

A Farrow

M.Olley

A.Farrow

A Farrow

A.Adepoju

A Adepoju

ME15 6JQ

Maidstone, Kent

Maidstone House, King Street


Sheet 1 of 1

Vehicluar Swept Paths

Coxheath

Linton Crossroads

25m 50m0

1:500

Key to symbols

App’dCh’k’dDescriptionDrawnDateRev

RevStatus

Drawing Number

Scale at A1

Eng check

Approved

Coordination

Dwg check

Drawn

Designed

Title

Notes

Client

Security

1. Do not scale.

2. Layout is indicative only and subject to detailed design.

3. Swept path analysis carried out for 15.5m single rear axled articulated

vehicle, Rigid vehicle and single deck rigid bus.

Based upon or reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the

permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown

Copyright reserved. Licence No. LA 076708.

P1 24-04-15 ARC Preliminary Issue

AF SC

P2 05-05-16 AA Design within Highway Boundary AF SC

TSRGD 2002 diagram number1001

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

Proposed kerbline

Pedestrian guardrailing

Extent of highway ownership

Carriageway widening

New Footway / Footway Improvement works

Junction intervisibility zone boundary ( TD 50/04) in

third party land ownership

Articulated Combination - Left Turns Articulated Combination - Right Turns

Rigid Vehicle - Left Turns Standard Rigid Bus - Left Turns



23

Appendix B. LinSig Basic Results Summary

Basic Results Summary

Basic Results Summary User and Project Details

Project: Maidstone BC Junction Assessments

Title: Linton Crossroads

Location: Maidstone

File name: Linton Crossroads.lsg3x

Author: David Parkin

Company: Mott MacDonald

Address: Stoneham Lane, Southampton SO50 9NW

Notes: Intergreen times amended with assumption the junction will be controlled by MOVA.

Scenario 3: 'Base 2031+all dev AM' (FG3: 'Base 2031+all dev. AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')

Network Layout Diagram


Stage Sequence Diagram

A

B

1 Min: 7

11 23s

C

D

H J

2 Min: 6

11 6s

EF

G

K

3 Min: 4

7 32s


Network Results

Item Lane Description

Lane Type

Full Phase

Arrow Phase

Num Greens

Total Green (s)

Arrow Green (s)

Demand Flow (pcu)

Sat Flow (pcu/Hr)

Capacity (pcu)

Deg Sat (%)

Turners In Gaps (pcu)

Turners When Unopposed (pcu)

Turners In Intergreen (pcu)

Total Delay (pcuHr)

Av. Delay Per PCU (s/pcu)

Mean Max Queue (pcu)

Network: Linton

Crossroads - - - - - - - - - 83.1% 208 0 1 33.9 - -

Linton Cross Roads

- - - - - - - - - 83.1% 208 0 1 33.9 - -

1/1 A229 Linton

Hill Ahead Left U A 1 24 - 304 1824 507 60.0% - - - 3.1 37.0 7.2

1/2+1/3 A229 Linton Hill Ahead

Right U A H 1 24:11 - 501 1915:1730 509+215

69.3 : 68.7%

- - - 5.5 39.2 8.9

2/1+2/2 B2163 Heath Road (W) Left Ahead Right

U+O E 1 37 - 614 1871:1717 649+145 77.4 : 77.4%

111 0 1 5.8 34.0 14.2

3/1 A229 Linton Road Left

Ahead U B 1 23 - 403 1861 496 81.2% - - - 5.5 49.4 11.5

3/2+3/3 A229 Linton Road Ahead

Right U B C 1 23:11 - 621 1935:1777 516+237

82.2 : 83.1%

- - - 8.0 46.4 12.2

4/2+4/1 B2163 Heath Road (E) Right

Left Ahead O+U G 1 36 - 557 1878:1751 477+203

81.9 : 81.9%

97 0 0 6.0 38.9 13.2

C1 PRC for Signalled Lanes (%): 8.2 Total Delay for Signalled Lanes (pcuHr): 33.92 Cycle Time (s): 90 PRC Over All Lanes (%): 8.2 Total Delay Over All Lanes(pcuHr): 33.92

Basic Results Summary Scenario 4: 'Base 2031+all dev PM' (FG4: 'Base 2031+all dev. PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')



A

B

1 Min: 7

11 20s

C

D

H J

2 Min: 6

11 6s

EF

G

K

3 Min: 4

7 35s


Network Results


Lane Type

Full Phase

Arrow Phase

Num Greens

Total Green (s)

Arrow Green (s)

Demand Flow (pcu)

Sat Flow (pcu/Hr)

Capacity (pcu)

Deg Sat (%)




Total Delay (pcuHr)



Network: Linton

Crossroads - - - - - - - - - 86.9% 196 0 3 37.2 - -

Linton Cross Roads

- - - - - - - - - 86.9% 196 0 3 37.2 - -

1/1 A229 Linton



Right U A H 1 21:11 - 587 1915:1730 468+207

86.9 : 86.9%

- - - 8.7 53.3 12.8


U+O E 1 40 - 711 1861:1717 728+122 83.7 : 83.7%

101 0 1 6.9 34.9 17.6


Ahead U B 1 20 - 280 1878 438 63.9% - - - 3.3 42.3 7.2


Right U B C 1 20:11 - 524 1935:1777 452+237

70.4 : 86.9%

- - - 6.5 45.0 8.8


Left Ahead O+U G 1 39 - 513 1881:1751 482+114

86.0 : 86.0%

95 0 2 6.2 43.5 12.3


Basic Results Summary Scenario 5: 'Base 2031+all dev (-10%) AM' (FG5: 'Base 2031+all dev. (-10%) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')



A

B

1 Min: 7

11 23s

C

D

H J

2 Min: 6

11 6s

EF

G

K

3 Min: 4

7 32s


Network Results


Lane Type

Full Phase

Arrow Phase

Num Greens

Total Green (s)

Arrow Green (s)

Demand Flow (pcu)

Sat Flow (pcu/Hr)

Capacity (pcu)

Deg Sat (%)




Total Delay (pcuHr)



Network: Linton

Crossroads - - - - - - - - - 83.7% 207 0 1 32.2 - -

Linton Cross Roads

- - - - - - - - - 83.7% 207 0 1 32.2 - -

1/1 A229 Linton



Right U A H 1 24:11 - 494 1915:1730 509+227

68.0 : 65.1%

- - - 5.3 38.5 8.6


U+O E 1 37 - 607 1872:1717 647+146 76.5 : 76.5%

111 0 1 5.7 33.5 14.0


Ahead U B 1 23 - 377 1856 495 76.2% - - - 4.7 45.2 10.1


Right U B C 1 23:11 - 626 1935:1777 516+237

83.7 : 81.9%

- - - 8.2 46.9 12.5


Left Ahead O+U G 1 36 - 555 1879:1751 502+214

77.4 : 77.4%

96 0 0 5.5 35.4 12.7


Basic Results Summary Scenario 6: 'Base 2031+all dev (-10%) PM' (FG6: 'Base 2031+all dev. (-10%) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')



A

B

1 Min: 7

11 20s

C

D

H J

2 Min: 6

11 6s

EF

G

K

3 Min: 4

7 35s


Network Results


Lane Type

Full Phase

Arrow Phase

Num Greens

Total Green (s)

Arrow Green (s)

Demand Flow (pcu)

Sat Flow (pcu/Hr)

Capacity (pcu)

Deg Sat (%)




Total Delay (pcuHr)



Network: Linton

Crossroads - - - - - - - - - 85.2% 197 0 1 35.0 - -

Linton Cross Roads

- - - - - - - - - 85.2% 197 0 1 35.0 - -

1/1 A229 Linton



Right U A H 1 21:11 - 579 1915:1730 468+211

85.2 : 85.2%

- - - 8.2 51.1 12.2


U+O E 1 40 - 707 1862:1717 727+123 83.2 : 83.2%

101 0 1 6.8 34.4 17.4


Ahead U B 1 20 - 269 1877 438 61.4% - - - 3.1 41.4 6.8


Right U B C 1 20:11 - 512 1935:1777 452+237

68.9 : 84.8%

- - - 6.3 44.1 8.5


Left Ahead O+U G 1 39 - 510 1881:1751 500+117

82.6 : 82.6%

96 0 0 5.6 39.2 11.7


Documents

Mott MacDonald Report Template - Maidstone