POLEGATE Movement & Access Strategy...2015/01/15 · The South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study (SWETS), completed in 2010 to support the emerging Wealden Core Strategy, formed

POLEGATE Movement & Access Strategy

East Sussex County Council

CH2M HILL

15 January 2015

Polegate, Stone Cross & Willingdon

CH2M HILL

Elms House, 43 Brook Green, Hammersmith, London

W6 7EF

tel (0)20 3479 8000 fax (0)20 3479 8001

www.ch2mhill.com

CH2M HILL has prepared this report in accordance with

the instructions of the client, for the client’s sole and specific use.

Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.

© CH2M HILL 2015

POLEGATE Movement & Access Strategy

East Sussex County Council

CH2M HILL

15 January 2015

Document history

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Version Date Description Created by Reviewed & Verified by

01 31/07/2012 First Draft Simon Doyle

02 02/08/2012 Second Draft Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

03 24/08/2012 Final Draft Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

04 29/08/2012 Final Draft2 Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

05 26/10/2012 Final Draft3 Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

Martin Johnson

06 31/01/2013 Final Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

07 29/07/2013 Final Revised Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

08 26/11/2013 Final Revised, with

a number of small

amendments

Simon Doyle Relevant ESCC officials

09 13/01/2015 Expanded version to

include additional

local improvement

schemes

Simon Doyle

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 SWETS 2

1.3 Funding 3

1.4 Phasing & Priorities 3

2 Status Quo 5

2.1 General 5

2.2 Movement & Access Networks 7

2.3 Recent Past & Near Future 10

2.4 Planned Development 10

2.5 Local Improvement Needs 15

3 Strategic Junction Scheme Reviews 17

3.1 A27, A22 & A2270 Signalised Junction 17

3.2 A2270 & High Street Signalised Junction 19

3.3 A22 & A27 Cophall Roundabout 21

3.4 A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout 22

3.5 A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road Roundabout 23

3.6 Lion Hill & Rattle, Hailsham & Dittons Roads Signalised Junction 23

4 Local Improvement Needs 27

4.1 Polegate High Street Public Realm Improvements 27

4.2 Re-Configuration of The Triangle 28

4.3 Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way Traffic Calming 29

4.4 B2147 Dittons Road Cycle Provision 30

4.5 Castle Road Shuttle Working 30

4.6 Pevensey High Street Pedestrian Crossing Facility 31

5 Delivery Strategy 33

Appendices

Appendix A Generic Explanatory Material & Assumptions

A.1 Scheme Identification

A.2 Scheme Development & Assessment

A.3 Scheme Costs

A.4 Scheme Priority & Timing

Appendix B Scheme Figures & Cost Estimates

Appendix C Modelling Work

C.1 General

C.2 Development Assumptions, Trip Rates & Trip End Estimates

C.3 Traffic Growth

C.4 Scenarios Modelled

C.5 Mode Shift

C.6 Junction Modelling Results

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Strategic Junction Review

Wealden District Council LDF development allocations and recent development

approvals in the Polegate and Stone Cross areas are expected to generate significant

amounts of additional traffic over the next ten to fifteen years. In order to mitigate

the transport impact of this development, as well as that associated with consented

and LDF development further afield (i.e. in locations like Hailsham and Hellingly),

improvement schemes for a number of key junctions in the Polegate and Stone Cross

vicinities have been developed over recent years. The specific junctions in view are:

the A27, A22 and A2270 signalised junction;

the A2270 and High Street signalised junction;

the A22 and A27 Cophall Roundabout;

the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout;

the A22 Golden Jubilee Way and Dittons Road Roundabout; and

the Lion Hill junction (where the Lion Hill and Dittons, Hailsham and Rattle

Roads intersect).

This document describes the exercise undertaken to re-visit existing scheme designs

for these six junctions and provide the information necessary for County

Council Infrastructure Planning Officers to make representations on Wealden

District Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan and progress required Trunk Road

Network improvements with the Highways Agency. Other strategic-level schemes

are also raised but are not dealt with at the same level of detail.1

Local Improvement Schemes

A number of local improvement schemes are also identified to complement the

schemes proposed at the six key junctions mentioned above. They vary in scale and

cost, but are all considered relatively important schemes given known issues and

needs in the Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon areas as well as Pevensey in the

east. They are:

the thorough re-casting of Polegate High Street in favour of pedestrians,

cyclists and regular high street uses and activities;

the re-configuration of The Triangle to discourage existing rat-running through

Willingdon on Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way and also create safer

access to the A2270 from Willingdon;

1 e.g. the A2270 Quality Bus Corridor, the A259 Quality Bus Corridor and the

Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service. A separate study has been commissioned to explore

and develop these bus-related proposals.

2

a variety of traffic-calming interventions along Coppice Avenue and

Farmlands Way to further discourage rat-running through Willingdon (in

addition to the re-configuration of The Triangle) and also discourage

speeding;2

provision of off-road cycle facilities on B2247 Dittons Road between

A22 Golden Jubilee Way and the Lion Hill junction (where the Lion Hill and

Dittons, Hailsham and Rattle Roads intersect);

shuttle working traffic signals on B2191 Castle Road immediately adjacent the

bend around Pevensey Castle to both protect the castle walls and also

discourage unnecessary “through traffic” on the B2191 (and hence Pevensey

and Westham); and

a pedestrian refuge on Pevensey High Street.

A number of other schemes were also identified for possible investigation and

possible recommendation but were not progressed.

Hailsham and Hellingly Movement and Access Strategy

The exercise described in this document followed a substantial and comprehensive

movement and access investigation for the Hailsham and Hellingly areas.3 The

findings and recommendations of this earlier study were reviewed to confirm their

continued relevance in light of development plans and highways possibilities in the

Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon areas.

1.2 SWETS

The South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study (SWETS), completed in 2010 to

support the emerging Wealden Core Strategy, formed the immediate basis of both

this exercise and the previous Hailsham and Hellingly Movement and Access

Strategy. It identified a number of infrastructure and operational interventions (at

a strategic level) necessary to mitigate the impact of future development across the

broader South Wealden and Eastbourne areas generally as well as Polegate,

Stone Cross and Willingdon more specifically. The CUBE/SATURN model,

developed as part of the SWETS study and recently updated to reflect more current

traffic demands and conditions in the Hailsham area (2011), was used in assessing the

strategic junction proposals tabled in this document.

2 The extent to which the identified interventions on Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way are

actually taken forward and acted on will depend on (i) the degree to which the re-configuration

of The Triangle actually discourages rat-running and (ii) the remaining need to discourage

speeding of local traffic. 3 Documented in Hailsham and Hellingly Movement and Access Strategy, June 2012.

3

1.3 Funding

In addition to specified highways works4 that must be delivered by developers

themselves, the County Council has secured approximately £800,000 in s106

contributions from developments in the Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon areas

for transport infrastructure improvements or sustainable travel schemes, almost the

whole of which is earmarked for improved bus service provision or traffic calming.

A further £800,000 or so has also been collected by Wealden District Council for

Highways Agency Trunk Road Network improvements.5 Accordingly, and unlike

Hailsham and Hellingly and apart from the £800,000 collected by Wealden

District Council for Trunk Road Network improvements, little money is currently

available for general highway or sustainable travel initiatives, except those being

implemented by developers under s278 agreements (listed in footnote 4) and through

travel plans.

1.4 Phasing & Priorities

Statements are made at various points in this document concerning the delivery

phasing and relative priorities of proposed schemes, all of which consider Polegate,

Stone Cross and Willingdon in isolation from the larger Wealden area. Requirements

in other growth areas – principally, Hailsham and Hellingly – and the balanced

delivery of infrastructure over the whole of Wealden District, dependent on CIL

receipts, may demand some re-prioritisation of funding and phasing of schemes in

Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon themselves. This matter is taken up again in

section 5.1.

4 Including:

a mini-roundabout at the junction of Shepham Lane, Dittons Road and Pevensey Road;

an extension to the 30mph speed limit on Dittons Road;

pedestrian refuges and traffic calming on Dittons Road between Shepham Lane and

the A22;

a combined footway/cycleway on the southern side of Station, Pevensey and

Dittons Roads between High Street and the A22;

re-located, new and improved bus stops on Dittons Road;

an improved entry flare on the eastern approach of the Dittons Road and A22 Golden

Jubilee Way Roundabout;

a footway/cycleway connection between the new development to the northeast of

Shepham Lane and the Cuckoo Trail; and

adequate site accesses to new developments. 5 In accordance with Policy TR3 of the Non-Statutory Local Plan.

4

The Core Strategy seeks to enhance the role of Polegate, Willingdon and Stone Cross

as service centres serving their local communities and the surrounding area by:

working with Polegate Town Council, Willingdon and Jevington Parish Council

and other partners to build on their visions and ensure that they are developed in

conjunction with Wealden District Council’s LDF Site Allocation Development

Plan Documents;

supporting appropriate development within the built-up area contained within the

Polegate, Willingdon and Stone Cross development boundaries;

allocating, subject to transport capacities, a range of deliverable housing sites for

around 1,350 dwellings - with leisure, recreation and community facilities - and

16,890 sq.metres net employment floorspace;

encouraging development which enhances the range and quality of services and

facilities available to the local communities and improving the environment and

shopping choice in Polegate town centre;

supporting public transport connections with neighbouring settlements,

particularly by promoting the Eastbourne-Hailsham Quality Bus Corridor and

a more integrated approach to the provision of rail and bus services;

ensuring the protection of the Pevensey Levels through appropriate mitigation

measures as part of the Habitat Regulations Assessment; and

ensuring appropriate mitigation measures that protect the hydrology of the

Willingdon and Eastbourne Levels.

The risk to the delivery of this strategy is the highways infrastructure required for the

South Wealden area. Accordingly, highways infrastructure delivery will be

monitored and the spatial strategy reviewed if necessary. Taken (with editing) from Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South Downs National Park)

Local Development Framework Core Strategy, August 2011

5

2 Status Quo

2.1 General6

Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon – all which have grown in recent years as

a result of housing development associated with previous Wealden Local Plans - are

located immediately to the north and northwest of Eastbourne and immediately to

the south of a countryside gap separating them from Hailsham. Figure 1 on the

following page shows their locations relative to Eastbourne to the south, Pevensey to

the east, Hailsham to the north and Lewes to the west.

The three areas are fairly well-served by good highways and public transport

connections - the latter with Eastbourne as well as the wider east, west and north.

A neighbourhood centre in Polegate, with a range of local community facilities,

supplies the basic needs of the residents of the three areas. Unfortunately, because of

the limited employment and facilities available locally, all three areas rely heavily on

Eastbourne for employment and shopping requirements. Further, certain key

infrastructure and facilities (including sports and play facilities, an indoor sports hall

and swimming pool) are lacking.

Although the three areas are well-placed to use the facilities at nearby Langney,

helping regeneration in the Langney area and reinforcing economic regeneration

within South Wealden and Eastbourne generally, a need still exists to improve the

employment and housing offer across the three areas if they are to become more

attractive to those considering a move into them to work or live. Further, there is also

a need for family-sized homes to complement the provision of smaller units within

Eastbourne.

In addition to addressing the need for housing in the South Wealden and Eastbourne

areas generally, the provision of more housing and employment in Polegate,

Stone Cross and Willingdon will help the economy of South Wealden and will also

maximise the potential for an enhanced shopping offer within Polegate town centre

itself. Unfortunately, Polegate town centre is negatively affected by frequent level-

crossing barrier closures. Parking around the station is also an issue. Further,

opportunity for town expansion - for retail and employment purposes - is limited, as

is general expansion for increased housing provision. The surrounding landscape,

which forms a backdrop to Polegate, Willingdon and to a lesser extent Stone Cross, is

dominated by the chalk uplands of the South Downs National Park to the southwest

and rural land to the north and west. In fact, panoramic views from the Downs limit

urban expansion opportunities, particularly against the rural backdrop to the north

6 The material in this section was taken from Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South

Downs National Park) Local Development Framework Core Strategy, August 2011.

6

Figure 1: Broader Context of Polegate, Willingdon & Stone Cross

Eastbourne

HeathfieldUckfield

Lewes

Newhaven

Seaford

Bexhill

Hailsham

Hellingly

A27

A259

A259

A27A

22

A271

A267

A26

A271

A259

A259

A26

A275

A269

Pevensey

StoneCross

A27

A22

A2270

Polegate& Willingdon

Eastbourne

HeathfieldUckfield

Lewes

Newhaven

Seaford

Bexhill

Hailsham

Hellingly

A27

A259

A259

A27A

22

A271

A267

A26

A271

A259

A259

A26

A275

A269

Pevensey

StoneCross

A27

A22

A2270

Polegate& Willingdon

7

and west.7 Existing highway corridors also present firm limits to the outward

extension of Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon.8

2.2 Movement & Access Networks

Figures 2a and 2b on the following page show the existing road networks and

modelled 2011 AM and PM weekday peak hour traffic volumes in Polegate,

Stone Cross and Willingdon. Figure 3 on page 8 shows the existing bus network and

average daytime hourly regular bus service volumes.

Figures 2a, 2b and 3 show that Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon are well-located

from the movement and access perspectives. In addition to being located next to

the A22, A27 and A2270, good or reasonable public transport links by rail or bus

provide connections to nearby settlements like Eastbourne and Hailsham as well as

Hastings, London and Brighton – the latter two via Lewes.

Although the A27 Polegate By-Pass (delivered just over 10 years ago) relieved

Polegate’s local road network, the A2270 running into Eastbourne is still very heavily

congested. Further, the junction of the A27, A22 and A2270 remains busy.

Unfortunately, and for physical feasibility and cost reasons, the proposed

“Folkington Link” – a link road connecting Cophall Roundabout to the north of

Polegate directly with the A27 heading towards Lewes, effectively completing the

Polegate By-Pass - is not in any current sub-regional delivery programme.

Development in Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon, and further afield in

Eastbourne, Hailsham and Hellingly, will place increasing demands on the strategic

road network, necessitating highway improvements at the following junctions at the

very least:




7 The 2005 Non-Statutory Wealden Local Plan identified a site to the northwest of Polegate in the

vicinity of Honey Farm for urban expansion. In order to ensure proper integration into the town,

the development proposal was dependent on the provision of the proposed Folkington Link and

other community and connecting infrastructure, none of which has been realised in fact or

committed planning. Further, in the interim the South Downs achieved National Park status.

Accordingly, the site is no longer considered suitable for housing. A development scheme for

the site was submitted and refused in 2011. A subsequent appeal on the part of the developer

failed. 8 Transport and spatial -related constraints aren’t the only things limiting development.

Development in Polegate, Willingdon and Stone Cross is also constrained by the capacity of the

local waste water treatment works and the impact of treated effluent on the Pevensey Levels.

Wealden District Council’s current development proposals reflect this constraint. Additional

development will only be considered if it can be accommodated by the existing works or an

alternative location for the treatment and discharge of waste water is identified.

8

Figure 2a: Existing Highway Network with 2011 Weekday AM Peak Hour Vehicular Volumes

Figure 2b: Existing Highway Network with 2011 Weekday PM Peak Hour Vehicular Volumes

1040

1320

A27

HailshamRoad

1380

1390

1680

1490

190240

1260

1360

670

860

430

320250

550 190

280

240

400

260

470

390630

1240

1160

1510

1010

9701240

920900

460

200

260

290

A22

A27

A22

340360

210320

310

200

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Eastbourne

Road

directional demand (pcus/hr)100

1040

1320

A27

HailshamRoad

1380

1390

1680

1490

190240

1260

1360

670

860

430

320250

550 190

280

240

400

260

470

390630

1240

1160

1510

1010

9701240

920900

460

200

260

290

A22

A27

A22

340360

210320

310

200

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Eastbourne

Road

1040

1320

1040

1320

A27

HailshamRoad

1380

1390

1380

1390

1680

1490

1680

1490

190240190240

1260

1360

1260

1360

670

860

670

860

430

320

430

320250

550

250550 190

280

190

280

240

400

240

400

260

470

260

470

390630390630

1240

1160

1240

1160

1510

1010

1510

1010

9701240

9701240

920900920900

460

20046

020

026

029

0260

290

A22

A27

A22

340360

340360

210320

210320

310

200

310

200

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Eastbourne

Road

directional demand (pcus/hr)100 directional demand (pcus/hr)100

1340

990

A27

HailshamRoad

1450

1360

1370

1810

370170

1430

1160

860

620

440

340330

280 250

130

280

220

430

310

440410

1190

1160

1300

1230

1240990

1220930

220

270

270

360

A22

A27

A22

390320

350230

290

220

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Eastbourne

Road

directional demand (pcus/hr)100

1340

990

A27

HailshamRoad

1450

1360

1370

1810

370170

1430

1160

860

620

440

340330

280 250

130

280

220

430

310

440410

1190

1160

1300

1230

1240990

1220930

220

270

270

360

A22

A27

A22

390320

350230

290

220

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Eastbourne

Road

1340

990

1340

990

A27

HailshamRoad

1450

1360

1450

1360

1370

1810

1370

1810

370170370170

1430

1160

1430

1160

860

620

860

620

440

340

440

340330

280

330280 250

130

250

130

280

220

280

220

430

310

430

310

440410440410

1190

1160

1190

1160

1300

1230

1300

1230

1240990

1240990

12209301220930

220

27022

027

027

036

0270

360

A22

A27

A22

390320

390320

350230

350230

290

220

290

220

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Eastbourne

Road

directional demand (pcus/hr)100 directional demand (pcus/hr)100

9

Figure 3: Average Daytime Hourly Bus Frequencies

A27

HailshamRoad

0.5

0.5

4 4

4.54.5

2

2 2

2 2

2

2

2

33

3

3

3.5

3.5

5.5

5.5

A22

A27A

22

2

2

33

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Berwick& Seaford

Hailsham, Uckfield,

Lewes& Hastings

1

1

6

82

11

0.50.5

33

0.5

0.5

Hailsham& Uckfield

Westham& Pevensey

Langney& EastbourneEastbourne

0.5

0.5

2

2

3

3

3.53.5

3

3

Eastbourne

Road 2

2

regular services

limited servicesonly on certain days of the week and/or certain times

A27

HailshamRoad

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

4 44 4

4.54.54.54.5

2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

33 33

3

3

3

3

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

5.5

5.55.

55.

5

A22

A27A

22

2

2

2

2

33

33

A2270

B2104

DittonsRoad

Hig

hS

tree

t

Wan

nock

Roa

d

Golden Jubilee

Way

A27

DittonsRoad Rattle

Road

LionHill

Shepham

Lane

Berwick& Seaford

Hailsham, Uckfield,

Lewes& Hastings

1

1

1

1

66

82 82

11

11

0.50.5

0.50.5

33

33

0.5

0.50.5

0.5

Hailsham& Uckfield

Westham& Pevensey

Langney& EastbourneEastbourne

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3.53.5

3.53.5

3

3

3

3

Eastbourne

Road 2

2

2

2

regular services


regular services


10




Roads intersect).

Bus service enhancements – particularly, the A2270 Quality Bus Corridor, the A259

Quality Bus Corridor and the Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service - will also be

necessary.

2.3 Recent Past & Near Future

Recently approved planning applications involve s106 and s278 agreements which

have or will shortly deliver a number of significant highway or bus service

improvements for the locality, the most important of which being:

a mini-roundabout at the junction of Shepham Lane, Dittons Road and

Pevensey Road;

an extension to the 30mph speed limit on Dittons Road;

pedestrian refuges and traffic calming on Dittons Road between Shepham Lane

and the A22;

a combined footway/cycleway on the southern side of Station, Pevensey and

Dittons Roads between High Street and the A22;

re-located, new and improved bus stops on Dittons Road;

an improved entry flare on the eastern approach of the Dittons Road and

A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout;

a footway/cycleway connection between the development to the northeast of

Shepham Lane and the Cuckoo Trail;

adequate site accesses to new developments, and

improved bus services.

Figure 4 shows the locations of most of the above.

2.4 Planned Development

Without in any way discounting the value of any of the schemes listed above and the

improvements they bring to the transport network in Polegate, they do not provide

that step-change necessary to handle planned LDF development within the Polegate,

Stone Cross and Willingdon areas and South Wealden generally. Figure 5 shows the

locations and development quanta involved.9

9 The development quanta cited in Figure 5 reflect those assumed in the modelling exercise. There

may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

11

Figure 4: Recently Delivered & Committed Schemes

1

8

6

2

54 3

7

8

8

8

1. Mini-roundabout at junction of Shepham Lane, Dittons Road

& Pevensey Road

2. Extension to 30mph speed limit on Dittons Road

3. Pedestrian refuges & traffic calming on Dittons Road

between Shepham Lane and the A22

4. Combined footway/cycleway on southern side Station,

Pevensey & Dittons Roads between High Street & A22

5. Re-located, new & improved bus stops on Dittons Road

6. Improved entry flare on the eastern approach of Dittons

Road & A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout

7. Footway/cycleway connection between development to

northeast of Shepham Lane & Cuckoo Trail

8. Adequate site accesses to new developments

Legend

1

8

6

2

54 3

7

8

8

8

1

88

66

22

54 3

7

8

8

88


& Pevensey Road












Legend


& Pevensey Road












Legend

12

Figure 5: Modelled Polegate, Stone Cross & Willingdon Development Locations & Quanta

D2

D1

D3

D4

D7

D5

D6

D5

D1. North of Dittons Road – 200 homes

& 11,000m2 office Consented

D2. North of Dittons Road

& East Shepham Lane – 260 homes Consented

D3. South of Lynholm Road - 33 homes Consented

D4. Polegate – 700 homes, 4,300m2 office

& 4,300m2 industrial/warehousing LDF allocation

D5 & D6. Stone Cross – 650 homes LDF allocation

D7. Polegate – 8,300m2 industrial/warehousing LDF allocation

Within South Wealden, but not shown on figure …

Hailsham & Hellingly – 1,183 homes, 4,000m2 office

& new school, library & GP services

(assumed 7,600m2) Consented

Hailsham & Hellingly – 1,380 homes,

6,800m2 retail, 8,650m2 industrial

& new primary school LDF allocation

Berwick Station – 50 homes LDF allocation

Upper Dicker – 10 homes LDF allocation

Herstmonceux – 150 homes LDF allocation

Ninfield – 100 homes LDF allocation

Note: The development quanta cited above are those assumed in the modelling exercise.

There may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

Legend

D2

D1

D3

D4

D7

D5

D6

D5

D2

D1

D3

D4

D7

D5

D6

D5























Legend























Legend

13

Traffic modelling clearly shows that currently expected or planned growth for the

Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon areas will significantly increase traffic

pressures on the local and strategic road networks, particularly:







Roads intersect).

Figure 6 shows the locations of these junctions.

Outline designs for the improvement of all six junctions existed at the time that the

exercise documented in this report commenced.10 Further, Wealden District Council

has collected a substantial amount of money for improvements to the junctions

located on the Highways Agency Trunk Road Network - namely:


the A22 and A27 Cophall Roundabout; and

the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout.

The exercise documented in this report re-visited the existing scheme designs for the

six junctions in the light of updated traffic modelling, confirming or amending them

as necessary and generating cost estimates for budgeting and funding purposes.

Notwithstanding the obvious benefits the proposed junction improvements

potentially offer - particularly in terms of supporting further growth in

South Wealden - it is important to note that a funding gap currently exists and that

the delivery of finally identified schemes will be dependent on development-related

CIL receipts.

10 i.e.:

Cannon’s Possible TR3 Junction Layout for the junction of the A27, A22 and

A2270 (Drawing Number L371-207, 21.05.08);

Cannon’s Possible TR3 Junction Layout for the junction of the A2270 and

High Street (Drawing Number L371-210, 21.05.08);

Cannon’s Possible TR3 Junction Layout (Interim Cophall Signals) for the A22 and A27

Cophall Roundabout (Drawing Number L371-206, 21.05.08);

Cannon’s Possible TR3 Junction Layout for the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way

Roundabout (Drawing Number L371-208, 21.05.08);

Cannon’s Possible TR3 Junction Layout for the A22 Golden Jubilee Way and Dittons Road

Roundabout (Drawing Number L371-209, 21.05.08) and Waterman Boreham’s Suggested

Highway Improvements at Golden Jubilee Way / Dittons Road Roundabout (Drawing

Number 12, 12.07.11); and

Waterman Boreham’s Proposed Junction Arrangement with Part Controlled Pedestrian

Crossing Facilities for the junction of Lion Hill and Rattle, Hailsham and Dittons

Roads (Drawing Number 17; 20.02.12).

14

Figure 6: Junction Locations

15

1. A27, A22 & A2270 signalised junction

2. A2270 & High Street signalised junction

3. A22 & A27 Cophall Roundabout

4. A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout

5. A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road Roundabout

6. Lion Hill junction (where the Lion Hill and Dittons, Hailsham

& Rattle Roads intersect)

Legend

2

3

4

611

55








Legend








Legend

22

33

44

66

15

2.5 Local Improvement Needs

Strategic junction improvements will address planned development. They will not,

however, address a number of more local but significant needs and issues, including:

Polegate High Street, which generally needs attention and, ideally,

re-configuration in favour of pedestrians, cyclists and regular high street uses

and activities;

the south-north rat-run through Willingdon on Coppice Avenue and

Farmlands Way (bypassing congestion on the A2270);

traffic safety and control issues on the A2270 at The Triangle;

the absence of any formal cycle facilities on the B2147 Dittons Road to the east

of the A22 Golden Jubilee Way, particularly but not only up to the Lion Hill

junction;

a west-south rat-run on Adur Drive;

traffic safety and control issues at Pevensy Castle; and

the absence of pedestrian crossing facilities on Pevensey High Street.

Of less significance are:

an improved northwestern ‘gateway’ into Polegate;

possible pedestrian crossing provision on Hailsham Road for bus users;

possible shelters at bus stops; and

improved Community Centre and Library ‘gateway’ from Station Road (the

current route is somewhat anonymous).

Figure 7 shows the locations of all of the above.

16

Figure 7: Local Improvement Needs

6

7

5

4

1

1. Improved northwestern ‘gateway’ into Polegate TRAFFIC CALMING

2. Possible pedestrian crossing provision PEDESTRIANS

3. Possible shelters at bus stops PUBLIC TRANSPORT

4. Improved Community Centre and Library ‘gateway’ WAYFINDING

5. Polegate High Street traffic and public realm scheme ALL MODES

6. Willingdon rat-run TRAFFIC CALMING

7. The Triangle TRAFFIC CONTROL/CALMING

8. Improved cycle provision CYCLISTS

9. Adur Drive rat-run TRAFFIC CALMING

10. Traffic safety and control solution at castle TRAFFIC CALMING/CONTROL

11. Provision pedestrian crossing facilities PEDESTRIANS

Legend

2

3

11

10

8

9

17

3 Strategic Junction Scheme Reviews

The penultimate sub-section of the previous section of the report (section 2.4) listed

six strategic network junctions at which traffic pressures will significantly increase in

future years due to currently planned development and for which outline

improvement designs exist - namely:







Roads intersect).

Figure 6 shows the location of the six junctions, three of which are located on the

Highways Agency’s Trunk Road Network - namely:


the A22 and A27 Cophall Roundabout; and

the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout.

The remainder of this section works sequentially though the six junctions, briefly

describing the exact improvements in view in each case and associated issues and

benefits. For convenience, small tables indicating the basic feasibility, benefits, issues,

estimated cost, ideal timing and pertinent development are inset into the text

addressing each scheme. Table 1 at the end of this section combines all of the

information given in the smaller tables in one location.

3.1 A27, A22 & A2270 Signalised Junction

Figures B1 and B2 in Appendix B provide sketches of two possible improvement

schemes for the junction of the A27, A22 and A2270. The only differences between

them and previous TR3 proposals11 comprise (1) lane widths generally (and their

implications for junction layout), (2) the provision of only one yield-controlled left

turn lane from west to northwest, and (3) in the case of Figure B2, the absence of

pedestrian crossing facilities on the western A27 arm. Approach arrangements are in

all other respects effectively the same. Both schemes assume one rather than two left

turn lanes from west to northwest for safety reasons – articulated vehicles travelling

from west to northwest could easily create an unsafe situation for smaller vehicles

making the same movement, especially with the merge immediately following the

left turn.

11 i.e. Cannon’s Possible TR3 Junction Layout for the junction of the A27, A22 and A2270 (Drawing

Number L371-207, 21.05.08).

18

Traffic modelling shows that the existing junction is already under pressure –

particularly, during the weekday morning peak – and there is limited reserve

capacity to accommodate additional traffic growth.12 Improvements of some type are

essential.

The layouts developed

and tested (see

Figures B1 and B2 in

Appendix B) - both of

which involve

substantial and

relatively costly

re-modelling of the

junction and which,

also, almost represent

the most that can be

done given existing

highways boundaries

and safe design

principles13 – handle

projected 2027

demands; the former

only just. Because the provision of pedestrian crossing facilities on the western arm

significantly affects junction capacity without serving a significant desire line the

layout in Figure B2 is proposed. Further, because the proposed improvements relieve

existing pressures at the junction, are important to strategic traffic movements in the

area generally, as well as into and out of Eastbourne more specifically, and existing

reserve capacities at the junction cannot be expected to last long, they should be

implemented as soon as is practically possible.

Local road arrangements and land uses to the south of the junction necessitate the

retention of the all-movement access to the area immediately south of the western

arm.

12 The existing layout has little more than four to six years reserve capacity assuming linear traffic

growth between 2011 and 2027. 13 A layout with a safe double left turn from west to northwest (as assumed in Cannon’s Possible

TR3 Junction Layout for the junction of the A27, A22 and A2270 - Drawing Number L371-207,

21.05.08) could be generated but (1) will probably not fit within existing highways boundaries,

(2) should assume two northbound lanes up to and over the road-over-rail bridge, and (3) will,

accordingly, cost a lot more than the proposed schemes.

Basic Feasibility Benefits Issues

Yes Significant strategic network benefits

Improved bus movement for services on the A22 and A27

Existing highway boundaries present significant constraints, especially on the western arm

Limited width on road-over-rail bridge to immediate north of junction limits cross section to a maximum of three traffic lanes

Need to retain all-movement access to the area to the south of western arm complicates the layout

Traffic disruption during construction

Estimated Cost

Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected

Developments Timing

£1.39 million excluding commuted sum required by HA

Of benefit to all future development in South Wealden and Eastbourne as well as general strategic-level “through” (i.e. wrt WDC) traffic

As soon as is practically possible within the delivery programme

19

3.2 A2270 & High Street Signalised Junction

Another important improvement scheme comprises the proposed improvement of

the junction of the A2270 and Polegate High Street. The A2270 running through

Polegate and Willingdon is clearly the most important access corridor into

Eastbourne from the northwest from both the general highway traffic and local bus

commuting perspectives. Current capacity-related issues at the junction of the A2270

with Polegate High Street, therefore, not only affect strategic access but also

undermine bus operations and the attractiveness of public transport as a mode for

commuters – particularly work commuters - travelling into and out of Eastbourne

from the west and north. Traffic modelling shows that the existing junction is already

under significant pressure – particularly, during the weekday afternoon peak when

over-capacity conditions easily develop. There is insufficient capacity to

accommodate existing demands, let alone additional traffic growth. Improvements

of some type are essential.

Figures B3 and B4 in

Appendix B provide

sketches of a two-

stage improvement

scheme developed for

the junction of the

A2270 and

High Street. They

differ significantly

from the previous TR3

proposals which

could not handle

projected traffic

demands.14 The most

significant difference

comprises the

provision of yield-

controlled left-turn

slips on either just the

northeast (Stage 1:

Figure B3) or both

minor approaches

(Stage 2: Figure B4).

As suggested by the titles of Figures B3 and B4, a staged approach to the

14 2027 capacity shortfalls associated with the previous TR3 proposals are substantial.



Improved bus movement for services travelling between Polegate and Eastbourne on the A2270 and via Willingdon

Failure to deliver proposed scheme will have significant implications for the Core Strategy’s Mornings Mill site and the Quality Bus Corridor between Polegate and Eastbourne

Existing highway boundaries present significant constraints on at least two of the four arms (northeast and southeast)

Need to retain unsignalised pedestrian crossings over minor approaches (zebra crossings could be provided over the left turn slips)

Utilities generally, but more particularly in the western corner (raised bank) of the junction significantly inflate construction cost estimates

Existing bus stop on the southeastern approach will have to be within the carriageway


Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£710k Of particular benefit to the Mornings Mill site as well as general strategic-level into and out of Eastbourne


20

improvement of the junction is proposed. The High Street left-turn slip is clearly

necessary to the efficient operation of the Quality Bus Corridor. Wannock Road,

however, already accommodates a south-to-north rat-run and easing the access from

it onto the A2270 via the provision of a left-turn slip will encourage continued and

perhaps even increased rat-running. Accordingly, a left-turn slip on the

Wannock Road approach should be introduced only if and when necessary.15 In the

first instance, therefore, the layout shown in Figure B3 should be implemented. More

detailed traffic analysis may even allow – at least temporarily - a Wannock Road

approach without a dedicated left turn slot with a kerb line in the western quadrant

of the junction following the dotted line. Such a kerb line could be associated with

significant implementation cost savings (utilities in the raised bank in the western

corner of the junction contribute significantly to implementation costs).

Modelling shows that the given layouts can only provide sufficient capacity into the

future if all minor approach pedestrian crossings are unsignalised.16 Zebra crossings

could be provided over the left-turn slip facilities. Importantly, the given layouts are

wholly located within highways boundaries17 and the tree in the northern corner of

the junction quadrant is not affected. Further, the proposed yield-controlled left-turn

slip on the northeastern High Street approach will improve southbound bus services

turning left into A2270.

Given the importance of this junction for general highway network

capacities (particularly into and out of Polegate and Eastbourne), local and

inter-urban public transport operations and the Core Strategy’s Mornings Mill site,

the delivery of improvements approximating to or identical to those proposed is

critically important.

15 Monitoring of the junction and broader traffic movements – particularly rat-running on

Wannock Road - once the first left-turn slip is in will indicate whether the second slip is

necessary.

16 The existing pedestrian crossings over the High Street and Wannock Road approaches are

uncontrolled. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings might prove an issue. Controlled crossings,

however, will demand a step-change in junction layout and cost which is likely to be

unaffordable.

17 i.e. no third party land is required.

21

3.3 A22 & A27 Cophall Roundabout

The A22 and A27 Cophall Roundabout comprises another junction for which

improvement schemes were explored. The current junction - which has limited

capacity, largely because of its large size and high circulatory speeds which make

entry difficult - will not

cope with forecast

demands. Further,

inter-urban bus

operations will suffer

increasing delays,

impairing the

attractiveness of bus as

a mode. Accordingly,

junction improvements

are essential to broader

Quality Bus Corridor

initiatives.

Figure B5 in Appendix B

provides a sketch of the

proposed improvement scheme. There is only one difference between it and

previous TR3 proposals – namely, the absence of signalised pedestrian crossings over

the southern (A22) arm.18 The absence of signalised pedestrian crossings over the

southern (A22) arm – more specifically, over the southbound exit – addresses

potential negative public reaction to the implementation of signals at the roundabout.

Although developing demands at the roundabout might allow the phased

implementation of signalisation, all approaches to the roundabout will need to be

signalised if 2027 outturn volumes reflect modelled projections.19

18 Capacity considerations - more particularly, queuing on the pedestrian crossing over the

southbound exit - demand their omission. The relatively recent provision of a pedestrian

crossing over the A22 (just north of the allotments allows their omission. 19 A series of sensitivity tests using the TRANSYT models prepared to test improvement proposals

confirmed this.


Yes Significant strategic capacity-related benefits generally, including improved bus movement


Negative public reaction to the previous implementation of signals at the roundabout (mainly due to pedestrian signals on the southbound exit)

Estimated Cost

Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected Developments Timing

£960k

excluding commuted sum required by HA


As needed; anytime from 2019 assuming a linear take-up of planned development

22

3.4 A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout

Modelling suggests that the current layout of the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way

Roundabout should suffice for at least another eight years (i.e. to 2020) assuming

a linear take-up of planned development. After that point, however, traffic on the

eastern arm will start to

encounter capacity

conditions. Figure B6 in

Appendix B shows the

proposed

improvements.

There is only one

difference between the

scheme shown in

Figure B6 and previous

TR3 proposals – namely,

the extent of the

modifications proposed

for the eastern arm. The

localised widening shown in the previous TR3 proposals is inadequate to cope with

2027 demands – a much more substantial widening stretching 60m to 80m back from

the roundabout is required.

It is worth noting that the modest widening on the western approach assumed in the

previous TR3 proposals is retained as proposed. It has more to do with vehicle

operating behaviour than capacity. A site visit revealed significant “over-run”

activity.


Yes Provides necessary capacity at relatively modest cost


Estimated Cost

Pertinent Consented, Planned or Expected Developments Timing

£78k


Of particular benefit to Polegate and Stone Cross development



23

3.5 A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road Roundabout

Figure B7 in Appendix B shows the improvement proposals for the A22 Golden

Jubilee Way and Dittons Road Roundabout. They comprise a combination of

previous TR3 and recent Planning Application proposals – the latter because the TR3

proposals cannot handle

2027 projected

demands.

Modelling suggests that

the current layout

should suffice for at

least another eight

years (i.e. to 2020)

assuming a linear

take-up of planned

development. After that

point, however, traffic

on the eastern arm will start to encounter over-capacity conditions.

3.6 Lion Hill & Rattle, Hailsham & Dittons Roads Signalised Junction

Planned development off Rattle Road necessitates improvements of some type at the

junction of Lion Hill and Rattle, Hailsham and Dittons Roads. The existing signalised

junction, which gets busy in

the morning and afternoon

peak periods, is inadequate for

projected demands. Further,

pedestrians are not suitably

accommodated. The proposed

improvement of the junction of

South and Ersham Roads in

Hailsham potentially

aggravates matters, if suitable

disincentives aren’t

implemented,20 by making

the B2104 a much more

attractive north-south route for traffic travelling between Hailsham and northeastern

Eastbourne than the A22.

20 e.g. traffic calming and speed reduction measures on the B2104 between Hailsham and

Stone Cross.


Yes Provides necessary capacity at relatively modest cost


Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£104k Of particular benefit to Polegate and Stone Cross development

Of benefit to all future development in South Wealden and Eastbourne



Yes Provides more but not necessary sufficient capacity at relatively modest cost


Cannot quite handle projected demands

B2104 traffic flows

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£70k Of benefit to Stone Cross development


24

The junction improvements shown in Figure B8 in Appendix B are those proposed in

a recent Planning Application.21 They reflect both the minimum that should be done

and, potentially, the maximum that can be considered if existing highway boundaries

are to be respected and the B2104 is not to become over-trafficked. Fortunately,

modelled capacity shortfalls associated with the proposed scheme are within ranges

that may, with creative signalling, assist a strategy (including traffic calming and

speed reduction measures on the B2104 between Hailsham and Stone Cross) that

discourages use of the B2104.22

21 Waterman Boreham’s Proposed Junction Arrangement with Part Controlled Pedestrian Crossing

Facilities (Drawing Number 17; 20.02.12). 22 See relevant sections of the Hailsham & Hellingly Movement & Access Study, June 2012.

25

Table 1: Key Junction Schemes

Scheme Relevant

Text

Relevant Figure

Basic Feasibility Benefits

Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

A27, A22 & A2270 Signalised Junction

3.1 Figure B2 Yes Significant strategic network benefits

Improved bus movement for services on the A22 and A27

Existing highway boundaries present significant constraints, especially on the western arm

Limited width on road-over-rail bridge to immediate north of junction limits cross-section to a maximum of three traffic lanes

Need to retain all-movement access to the area to south of western arm complicates layout





A2270 & High Street Signalised Junction

3.2 Figures B3 and B4


Improved bus movement for services travelling between Polegate and Eastbourne on the A2270 and via Willingdon

Failure to deliver proposed scheme will have significant implications for the Core Strategy’s Mornings Mill site and the Quality Bus Corridor between Polegate and Eastbourne

Existing highway boundaries present significant constraints on at least two of the four arms (northeast and southeast)

Need to retain unsignalised pedestrian crossings over minor approaches (zebra crossings could be provided over the left-turn slips)

Utilities generally, but more particularly in the western corner (raised bank) of the junction significantly inflate construction cost estimates

Existing bus stop on the southeastern approach will have to be within the carriageway


£710k Of particular benefit to the Mornings Mill site as well as general strategic-level into and out of Eastbourne


A22 & A27 Cophall Roundabout

3.3 Figure B5 Yes Significant strategic capacity-related benefits generally, including improved bus movement

Traffic disruption during construction Negative public reaction to the previous

implementation of signals at the roundabout (mainly due to pedestrian signals on the southbound exit)

£960k




A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout

3.4 Figure B6 Yes Provides necessary capacity at relatively modest cost

Traffic disruption during construction £78k excluding commuted sum required by HA

Of particular benefit to Polegate and Stone Cross development

Of benefit to all future development in South Wealden and Eastbourne


26

Table 1: Key Junction Schemes – continued …

Scheme Relevant

Text

Relevant Figure


Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road Roundabout

3.5 Figure B7 Yes Provides necessary capacity at relatively modest cost

Traffic disruption during construction £104k Of particular benefit to Polegate and Stone Cross development

Of benefit to all future development in South Wealden and Eastbourne Eastbourne


Lion Hill & Rattle, Hailsham & Dittons Roads Signalised Junction

3.6 Figure B8 Yes Provides more but not necessary sufficient capacity at relatively modest cost

Traffic disruption during construction Cannot quite handle projected demands B2104 traffic flows

£70k Of benefit to Stone Cross development


27

4 Local Improvement Needs

The final sub-section of section 2 of the report (section 2.5) listed a number of local

but significant needs and issues - namely:

Polegate High Street, which generally needs attention and, ideally,

re-configuration in favour of pedestrians, cyclists and regular high street uses

and activities;

the south-north rat-run through Willingdon on Coppice Avenue and

Farmlands Way (bypassing congestion on the A2270);

traffic safety and control issues on the A2270 at The Triangle;

the absence of any formal cycle facilities on the B2147 Dittons Road to the east

of the A22 Golden Jubilee Way, particularly but not only up to the Lion Hill

junction;

a west-south rat-run on Adur Drive;

traffic safety and control issues at Pevensy Castle; and

the absence of pedestrian crossing facilities on Pevensey High Street.

Of less significance are:

an improved northwestern ‘gateway’ into Polegate;

possible pedestrian crossing provision on Hailsham Road for bus users;

possible shelters at bus stops; and

improved Community Centre and Library ‘gateway’ from Station Road (the

current route is somewhat anonymous).

The following outlines proposals for the first seven needs and issues. Subsequent

planning work may take up the additional four.

4.1 Polegate High Street Public Realm Improvements

Polegate High Street is currently blighted by narrow footways, numerous side streets

to cross, insufficient pedestrian crossing facilities or opportunities, wide vehicular

ways at points,

especially adjacent

the station shopping

area and poor quality

as well as dated

public realm.

Further, High Street

visitors include a lot

of elderly people and

also carers with

people with varying

disabilities.

A distinct need exists

for a re-vamp and,

ideally, re-

configuration in favour of pedestrians, cyclists and regular high street uses and

activities. Figure B9 in Appendix B shows concept-level improvement possibilities.

Although independently described, each improvement element forms a part of

a complete scheme totally re-casting the High Street along its entire length. If the


Yes Enhancing image Attracting business Increasing land/property

values Attracting visitors,

particularly bypass business

Utilities Traffic and business

disruption during construction

Bus operations Railway level crossing Flooding

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

High specification and extensive: £2.5 to £3.75 million

Lower specification and focused on particular areas: £750k to £1 million

All development in Polegate, Willingdon and Stone Cross areas

As possible/practical

28

improvements indicated in Figure B9 were implemented in a piecemeal and ad hoc

fashion, benefits would be both limited and potentially ineffective. A continuous

scheme with subtle shifts in highway cross-sections on the approach to local activity

‘nodes’ will be much better and, overall, much more effective. Unfortunately,

a coherent and high quality end-to-end (i.e. Albert Place to St John’s Road) full public

realm and possibly ‘shared space’ scheme (at least at points) could cost a significant

amount of money – anything between £2.5 and £3.75 million. Lower specification

materials, focused on particular areas, could need a budget between £750,000 and

£1 million.

In developing a final scheme, planners and designers will have to clearly identify

existing and future possible pedestrian desire lines as well as historic collision

records. Existing flooding issues will also have to be considered. Although a full

public realm or shared space scheme will naturally provide for cyclists better, cycle

safety will also have to be explicitly considered and designed for.

A significant feature of the proposals shown for the High Street to the south of the

level crossing is the closure of the southern approach of St John’s Road onto the High

Street. The existing triangle at St John’s Road is not only small but looks unused,

probably because it is a bit of an ‘island’. Connecting it directly to the church to the

south (i) takes out a road crossing and (ii) makes more of the asset and the seating

and tree on it. The High Street dominates life on the street over extended lengths, the

peninsularisation of the island recaptures something for public realm.

4.2 Re-Configuration of The Triangle

The most obvious way to discourage existing rat-running through Willingdon on

Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way is to re-configure The Triangle. Such re-

configuration should also

address existing safety issues

where The Triangle intersects

with the A2270.


shows concept-level

improvement possibilities,

featuring the total closure of

the southern junction of

The Triangle and the provision

of an all movements signalised

junction to the north. The

existing car dealer will

continue to enjoy access

directly off the A2270.

One of the advantages of the

setting is that the new all movements signalised junction to the north can be largely

constructed without disrupting movements out of Willingdon to the north (away

from Eastbourne) or south (to Eastbourne).

The ‘string’ of traffic calming interventions on Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way

to the north of “The Triangle” addressed in section 4.3 below were identified to


Yes Improved safety Reduced rat-running

through Willingdon Reduced severance

and improved street environment at The Triangle

Less direct access into Willingdon from the south (potential concern for bus services)

Loss of existing park area

Additional delay on A2270 due to new signalised T-junction

Traffic and business disruption during construction

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£200k All development in Polegate and Willingdon areas

As soon as possible/practical

29

complement the proposals for The Triangle. Together, they will create a more

visibly-calmed route, discouraging the south-north rat-run through Willingdon and

also local speeding (there is not necessarily a speed problem). It is debateable

whether they will be sufficient to completely discourage the rat-running. Indeed,

they may only prove an irritant to local residents. The best solution by far to existing

rat-running lies in an effective solution at “The Triangle”. One there, however, may

still need a little bit of help further north.

4.3 Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way Traffic Calming

As stated above, the most obvious way to discourage existing rat-running through

Willingdon on Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way is to re-configure

The Triangle (see section 4.2).

Should the re-configuration of

The Triangle be impossible,

steps will have to be taken to

discourage ‘through traffic’

from using Coppice Avenue

and Farmlands Way.


shows concept-level traffic

calming possibilities for the

entire length of the two roads.

Together, they will create

a more visibly-calmed route,

discouraging the south-north rat-run through Willingdon and also local

speeding (there is not necessarily a speed problem). It is debateable whether they

will be sufficient to completely discourage the rat-running. Indeed, they may only

prove an irritant to local residents.

Practically speaking, the re-configuration of The Triangle might not be sufficient in

and of itself to discourage rat-running. In this instance, some or all of the identified

traffic calming interventions can be used to complement the proposals for

The Triangle. The extent to which the identified interventions on Coppice Avenue

and Farmlands Way are actually taken forward and acted on will depend on (i) the

degree to the re configuration of The Triangle actually discourages rat-running and

(ii) the remaining need to discourage speeding of local traffic.


Yes Improved safety Reduced rat-running Reduced speeding Reduced community

severance Increased cycling and

walking along the affected lengths of road

Local resident frustration

Bus service journey times

Traffic and business disruption during construction

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£220k All development in Willingdon area

After re-configuration of The Triangle

30

4.4 B2147 Dittons Road Cycle Provision

There are no formal cycle facilities on the B2147 Dittons Road to the east of the

A22 Golden Jubilee Way,

particularly but not only up to

the Lion Hill junction.


shows concept-level off-road

cycle path proposals on the

B2247 Dittons Road between

the A22 Golden Jubilee Way

and Lion Hill junction (where

the Lion Hill and Dittons,

Hailsham and Rattle Roads

intersect).

As indicated in the table, there

are locations where the 3m

minimum width is not

possible.

4.5 Castle Road Shuttle Working

B2191 Castle Road is relatively narrow and also close up against the outer Pevensey

Castle (Roman) walls as it curves around them. Large heavy vehicles struggle to

negotiate the bend against

oncoming traffic. Indeed,

there is evidence that large

heavy vehicles are clipping the

castle walls. There is not much

scope, if any, for widening.

Shuttle working appears to be

the only option available.

Given limited sight distances,

shuttle working will have to be

signalised rather than pure

sight basis (mirror-based

control was investigated but

available sight distances

preclude it).

Figure B13 in Appendix B shows a concept-level signalised shuttle working on B2191

Castle Road immediately adjacent the bend around the castle walls. Such a scheme

will not only protect the castle walls but also discourage unnecessary “through

traffic”on the B2191.


Yes Improved cyclist safety Increased cycle use

Traffic disruption during construction (generally minor)

Incorporating existing street furniture (light columns, signage pots etc.)

Close proximity to residential frontages at points

Pinch-points where 3m advised minimum width is not possible

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£420k All development in Stone Cross area



Yes Protection of castle walls

Improved safety Potentially reduced

‘through’ traffic


New delay to vehicles (positive in so far as it discourages through traffic)

Westbound queues blocking back past Castle entry and into Pevensey High Street

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£50k Nothing in particular; existing issue


31

4.6 Pevensey High Street Pedestrian Crossing Facility


shows a concept-level

pedestrian refuge proposal for

Pevensey High Street. Several

locations were investigated

between the castle

parking/entry and

Wallsend Road to the east.

The location shown is considered the best.


Yes Reduce severance Improve safety


Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

£20k Nothing in particular; existing issue


32

Table 2: Local Improvement Needs [COMPLETE ONCE SECTION 4 TEXT FINALISED]

Scheme Relevant

Text

Relevant Figure


Known Issues

Estimated Cost


Developments Timing

Polegate High Street Public Realm Improvements

4.1 Figure B9

Re-Configuration of The Triangle

4.2 Figure B10

Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way Traffic Calming

4.3 Figure B11

B2147 Dittons Road Cycle Provision

4.4 Figure B12

Castle Road Shuttle Working

4.5 Figure B13

Pevensey High Street Pedestrian Crossing Facility

4.6 Figure B14

33

5 Delivery Strategy

The importance and timing of the junction improvements addressed in the previous

section of the report vary. Table 3 at the back of this section of the document times

the junction improvements according to the “short”, “medium” and “long” terms.

For consistency with the previous Hailsham and Hellingly work, the priority status of

each of the junction improvements is also indicated and inter-dependencies are

supplied where relevant. As shown in the table all of the junction improvements

dealt with in this document are categorised as “essential”. The schemes presented in

Table 3 could, if all delivered, represent a total spend of an estimated £2.6 to

£2.7 million over the fifteen years between 2012/13 and 2027 excluding the commuted

sums required by HA for three of the schemes. It is possible that the total spend will

increase to anything between £5.0 and £5.2 million when the commuted sums

required by HA for three of the schemes are included23.

The delivery phasing and relative priorities of proposed schemes suggested in

Table 3 are ideal, considering the Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon areas in

isolation from the larger Wealden area and assuming adequate funding for

everything that needs to be done in Wealden as a whole. In reality there is a funding

gap. Requirements in other growth areas – principally, Hailsham and Hellingly –

and the balanced delivery of infrastructure over Wealden District as a whole,

dependent on CIL receipts, may therefore demand some re-prioritisation of funding

and phasing of schemes within Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon themselves.

Strategy Objective and Residual Issues

It needs to be noted that the proposed junction improvements do not offer to address

all future movement and access needs within Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon.

Nor do they promise to sustain the status quo in terms of traffic operating conditions

in the same areas. Improvements at all six junctions, however, must be delivered if

future planned development is to occur without unacceptable movement and access

conditions developing and planned bus service enhancements being undermined or

threatened by existing strategic bottlenecks. Specific planning applications, as they

come forward, will identify further improvements. Further, the ongoing planning

and design of schemes like the proposed Hailsham-Eastbourne Express Bus Service

will also identify further improvement requirements.

It is worthwhile noting that at least one residual issues remains: Existing

improvement proposals for the junction of Lion Hill and Rattle, Hailsham and

Dittons Road, while physically feasible, cannot offer the capacity necessary to cope

with predicted demands. Capacity shortfalls, however, are within ranges that may,

with creative signalling, assist a strategy (including traffic calming and speed

23 Which for the purposes of this particular estimate are assumed to be equal to the initial scheme

estimates.

34

reduction measures on the B2104 between Hailsham and Stone Cross)24 that

discourages use of the B2104.

24 See relevant sections of the Hailsham & Hellingly Movement & Access Study, June 2012.

35

Table 3: Delivery Strategy

No. Scheme Related Developments &

Funding Sources Sh

ort

Te

rm -

ne

xt

5 y

ears

Me

diu

m T

erm

– 5

-10 y

ears

Lo

ng

Te

rm –

10 y

ears

plu

s

Priority Dependencies, Triggers & Timing Estimated Cost Comment

1 A27, A22 & A2270 Signalised Junction Existing and future HA SRN monies, future CIL monies and LDF-related funding

Essential As soon as is practically possible within the delivery programme


See Figure B2 in Appendix B

2 A2270 & High Street Signalised Junction Existing and future s106 monies, future CIL monies and LDF-related funding

Essential As soon as is practically possible within the delivery programme

£710k See Figures B3 and B4 in Appendix B Note: A phased approach to the implementation of the two yield-controlled left-turn slips shown in Figure B4 is proposed, starting with the High Street left-turn slip only as indicated in Figure B3. More detailed traffic analysis may even allow a kerb line in the western quadrant of the junction following the dotted line in Figure B3.

3 A22 & A27 Cophall Roundabout Existing and future HA SRN monies, future CIL monies and LDF-related funding

Essential As needed; anytime from 2019 assuming a linear take-up of planned development

£960k excluding commuted sum required by HA


4 A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout Existing and future HA SRN monies, future CIL monies and LDF-related funding


£78k excluding commuted sum required by HA


5 A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road Roundabout Future s106 and CIL monies, LDF-related funding and s278 commitments


£104k See Figure B7 in Appendix B

6 Lion Hill & Rattle, Hailsham & Dittons Roads Signalised Junction Future s106 and CIL monies, LDF-related funding and s278 commitments


£70k See Figure B8 in Appendix B

7 Polegate High Street Public Realm Improvements See Figure B9 in Appendix B

8 Re-Configuration of The Triangle See Figure B10 in Appendix B

9 Coppice Avenue and Farmlands Way Traffic Calming See Figure B11 in Appendix B

10 B2147 Dittons Road Cycle Provision See Figure B12 in Appendix B

11 Castle Road Shuttle Working See Figure B13 in Appendix B

12 Pevensey High Street Pedestrian Crossing Facility See Figure B14 in Appendix B

Appendices

Appendix A Generic Explanatory Material & Assumptions

A.1 Scheme Identification

The need for improvements at all six of the junctions explored in this exercise was

previously identified during SWETS-related modelling work, earlier Planning

Application –related work or Planning Application –related work immediately

preceding this exercise. The primary sources of improvement proposals, or the issues

associated with them, were:

East Sussex County Council;

Highways Agency;

CH2M HILL, mainly through site visits; and

a number of key documents and drawings supplied to CH2M HILL at or soon

after the commencement of the project, or already in CH2M HILL’s possession

due to the previous Hailsham and Hellingly work, featuring but not limited to:

- Polegate/Willingdon/StoneCross Area Plan, April 2012;

- possible TR325 junction layouts for five of the six junctions26;

- developer-supplied junction improvement drawings for two of the six

junctions27;

- Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon s106 and s278 highways works

information;

- 2008-2010 A27 ES collision cluster information;

- South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study, November 2010;

- Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South Downs National Park)

Local Development Framework Core Strategy, August 2011;

- Wealden District Council Local Development Framework, Annual

Monitoring Report 2009/10; and

- Wealden District Local Development Framework, Background Paper 11:

Infrastructure Delivery Plan, August 2011.

25 i.e. Policy TR3 of the Non Statutory Local Plan. 26 i.e.




the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout; and

the A22 Golden Jubilee Way and Dittons Road Roundabout.

27 i.e.


the Lion Hill junction (where the Lion Hill and Dittons, Hailsham and Rattle Roads

intersect).

A.2 Scheme Development & Assessment

Scheme development and assessment, which was never more than feasibility-level in

nature, was progressed to the stage necessary to establish:

deliverability;

financial viability; and

effectiveness at mitigating the traffic impact of consented development and

future allocations.

Generally speaking, proposed schemes were addressed to the level necessary to gain

a sufficiently clear understanding of their relative merits or otherwise while

respecting the available budget and timeline. The scheme development and

assessment process was iterative in nature and involved a relatively close working

relationship between CH2M HILL, the County Council and Highways Agency.

Although safety audit was not formally required, safety considerations were amongst

the issues taken into account in scheme development and feasibility assessment.

Input materials used by the planners and designers in testing and developing

schemes included:

existing designs or materials provided by ESCC;

standard OS mapping and backgrounds;

internet-based materials (e.g. Google Streetview); and

information obtained from site visits and surveys (e.g. photos and

measurements).

All six schemes required traffic modelling. This was undertaken using a version of

the SWETS (South Wealden and Eastbourne Transport Study) model accepted by

Highways Agency for this purpose (more up-to-date origin-destination data will be

necessary when schemes are progressed further) and local ARCADY, LINSIG and

TRANSYT modelling. A fuller description of the modelling exercise can be found in

Appendix C.

A.3 Scheme Costs

The scheme costs presented in the main part of the document are feasibility or outline

in nature and were prepared using a variety of cost sources. Primary sources

included:

SPON’s Civil Engineering and Highway Works Price Book, 2011;

typical term maintenance contract prices; and

known planning, design and implementation costs.

Informed and benchmarked professional judgment was essential in numerous

instances, especially given the nature and context of certain schemes. For all except

the simplest and most predictable schemes, uncertainty was captured through the use

of a standard 44% optimism bias.

A.4 Scheme Priority & Timing

Certain schemes are given very specific delivery timings or priorities. These were

determined using:

current network operating conditions and constraints;

model results, including simple interpolation between different model tests;

and

professional judgement.

Given that the modelling that was undertaken assuming only one forecast

horizon (2027), the extent to which model results could inform timing decisions was

limited.

Appendix B Scheme Figures & Cost Estimates

The following pages supply sketches and cost estimates for the junction improvement

schemes.

Appendix C Modelling Work

C.1 General

All six junction improvement schemes considered in the Polegate, Stone Cross and

Willingdon Strategic Junction Review required traffic modelling. This was

undertaken, at the strategic level, using the SWETS (South Wealden and Eastbourne

Transport Study) TRIPS/SATURN model, which was initially developed for the

SWETS study, but more recently updated to reflect more current (2011) highway

traffic demands and conditions in the Hailsham and Polegate areas. Local ARCADY,

LINSIG and TRANSYT modelling was also undertaken for all six junctions. In all

instances, local modelling used demands reflecting strategic model -adjusted

observed flows.28

Apart from a few amendments, the SWETS model was used as received from its

original developers and users - Transport Planning International Ltd (TPi). The 2027

forecast year was retained along with the 2027 Reference Case matrices that came

with the model (prepared by TPi using TEMPRO 6.2). Amendments effected to the

model by CH2M HILL included:

developing a more integrated CUBE-based operating platform (still retaining

TRIPS within a CUBE environment), allowing multiple scenarios to be easily

set up and the AM and PM peak models to be run simultaneously;

correction of inconsistent forecast mode choice pivoting set-ups;

a few network coding amendments;

GAP factor amendments at a number of junctions to reflect either more realistic

values or “unlock” network access point bottlenecks;

model changes necessary to undertake the specific tests associated with the

project:

- modifications of the connectors for zones 602 and 5108 so that traffic

generated by the Hailsham development areas either side of the A22 in the

vicinity of Hempstead Lane were more distinctly loaded to the network;

- modification to the connectors for zone 874 so that traffic generated by the

development areas within is more realistic;

- removal of the traffic penalties on link 926-9261 to allow traffic to freely

exit and enter Hailsham’s Welbury Farm development;

- coding up of all committed network improvements and services;

28 i.e. SATURN model flows were not used “as is” or alone, but rather in combination with

observed flows. More specifically, local model demands comprised observed flows adjusted for

modelled changes.

- coding up of all of the schemes tested – highway and public transport - as

part of the project; and

- preparation of new consented and planned development forecast matrices

reflecting consented development within Hailsham, Hellingly and

Polegate and LDF allocations within South Wealden and Eastbourne.

C.2 Development Assumptions, Trip Rates & Trip End Estimates

Tables C1 to C3 show the development assumptions, trip rate assumptions and trip

end estimates used to generate new forecast year matrices reflecting consented

development within Hailsham, Hellingly and Polegate and LDF allocations within

South Wealden and Eastbourne. Figure 5 in the main part of the document shows the

locations of development in the Polegate, Stone Cross and Willingdon areas.

The development quanta cited in Table C1 and shown in Figure 5 in the main part of

the document reflect those assumed in the modelling exercise. There may be

differences between them and official LDF figures.

The trip rates shown in Table C2 were, for the most part, taken directly from

Tables 2.5 to 2.8 of TPi's SWETS Stage 3 Technical Note addressing “LDF Spatial

Options Testing”. The original TPi Note did not supply specific rates for all uses in

all areas. In such cases, suitable rates were inferred from available rates.

Table C1: 2027 Consented & Planned Development Quanta (see Figure 5 in the main part of the document for the locations of the development) Note: The development quanta cited below reflect those assumed in the modelling exercise. There may be differences between them and official LDF figures.

Site No. Name SATURN Zone(s)

Resid

entia

l (d

welli

ng

unit)

Reta

il (s

qm

)

Reta

il P

ark

(sqm

)

Off

ice (

sqm

)

Genera

l In

dustr

ial &

Ware

housin

g (

sqm

)

School (s

qm

)

Lib

rary

(sqm

)

GP

Serv

ices (

sqm

)

Polegate & Stone Cross D1 Land North of Dittons Road Towards A22 Golden Jubilee Way 874 200 11,000

Polegate & Stone Cross D2 Land East of Shepham Lane and North of Dittons Road 874 260

Polegate & Stone Cross D3 Land South of Lynholm Road 879 33

Polegate & Stone Cross D4 Wealden LDF: Polegate 9004 700 4,300 4,300

Polegate & Stone Cross D5 & D6 Wealden LDF: Stone Cross Residential 9006 650

Polegate & Stone Cross D7 Wealden LDF: Polegate Industrial & Warehousing 9005 8,300

Elsewhere Hellingly Hospital 5103 400

in South Wealden Battle Road (Amberstone) 9002 or 9007 128

Welbury Farm & Woodholm Farm 602 460

Sheppey Walk 602 25

Woodside Farm 602 75

Battle Road (rear of Council Offices & Leisure Centre) 9008 170 4,000 4,560 1,140 1,900

Wealden LDF: Hailsham North 9001 700 300 8,650 4,560

Wealden LDF: Hailsham East 9008 680

Wealden LDF: Hailsham Town Centre 9003 6,500

Wealden LDF: Berwick Station 5111 50

Wealden LDF: Upper Dicker 5109 10

Wealden LDF: Herstmonceux 5104 150

Wealden LDF: Ninfield 5136 100

Eastbourne Town Centre 5003, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5009, 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013, 5022 & 5023 1,242 1,500 1,500

Town Centre - Retail Expansion 5012 49,485

Upperton 5020, 5021 & 5034 406

Seaside 5008, 5024, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5028, 5029, 5045 & 5047 482

Old Town 5019 & 5038 99

Ocklynge & Rodmill 5036, 5037, 5042 & 5054 260

Roselands & Bridgemere 5030, 5031, 5043, 5044 & 5046 125

Hampden Park 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 5053, 5055, 5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5077 & 5093 84

Hampden Park - Brampton Road Industrial Park 5053 2,500

Langney 5065, 5067, 5068, 5069, 5070, 5071 & 5091 241

Langney - Shopping Centre Extension 5071 6,984

Shinewater & North Langney 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075 & 5076 91

Summerdown & Saffrons 5014, 5015, 5016 & 5017 44

Meads 5001, 5002 & 5004 387

Ratton & Willingdon Village 888 & 5056 12

St Anthony’s & Langney Point 5048, 5049, 5050, 5092 & 5098 22

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5051 23,000

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5095 & 5100 5,100

Sovereign Harbour 5066 150

Sovereign Harbour - Retail Park & Mixed Development 5097 2,500 30,000

Table C2: AM & PM Peak Hour Trip Rate Assumptions Note: The trip rates shown in the table were, for the most part, taken directly from Tables 2.5 to 2.8 of TPi's SWETS Stage 3 Technical Note addressing “LDF Spatial Options Testing”. The original TPi Note did not supply specific rates for all uses in all areas. In such cases, suitable

rates were inferred from available rates. Although the PM peak hour residential trip rates for Herstmonceux, Berwick, Ninfield, Magham Down and Upper Dicker are low, model interrogation shows they do not affect the robustness of model results generally or, more particularly, the

operation of and case for proposed highway improvements.

Area Land Use Unit

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons)

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons)

Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In

Herstmonceux, Berwick, Ninfield, Magham Down & Upper Dicker Residential Dwelling Unit 0.357 0.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Hailsham Residential Dwelling Unit 0.419 0.157 0.003 0.003 0.043 0.005 0.242 0.396 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.022

Polegate, Stone Cross & Willingdon Residential Dwelling Unit 0.323 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.137 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.056

Eastbourne Residential Dwelling Unit 0.323 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.000 0.137 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.056

Hailsham GP Surgery 100sqm 1.363 3.247 0.018 0.018 0.090 0.161 2.601 1.740 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.036

Industrial Unit 100sqm 0.084 0.510 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.338 0.031 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000

Library 100sqm 0.492 1.803 0.164 0.164 0.000 0.164 2.459 1.475 0.000 0.000 0.328 0.000

Office 100sqm 0.186 1.227 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.364 1.016 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.268 0.004

School 100sqm 1.688 2.313 0.015 0.013 0.024 1.971 0.372 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000

Warehouse 100sqm 0.022 0.047 0.013 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.034 0.017 0.016 0.001 0.000

Industrial & Warehousing 100sqm 0.053 0.279 0.011 0.013 0.000 0.001 0.203 0.033 0.009 0.008 0.002 0.000

Retail 100sqm 1.123 1.654 0.041 0.034 0.095 0.123 2.375 2.089 0.020 0.034 0.082 0.102

Polegate, Stone Cross & Willingdon Office 100sqm 0.186 1.227 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.364 1.016 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.268 0.004

Warehouse Commercial 100sqm 0.022 0.047 0.013 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.034 0.017 0.016 0.001 0.000



Eastbourne Office 100sqm 0.182 1.428 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.463 1.207 0.174 0.000 0.000 0.428 0.005


Warehouse Commercial 100sqm 0.037 0.177 0.027 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.097 0.049 0.049 0.000 0.000


Retail 100sqm 1.123 1.654 0.041 0.034 0.095 0.123 2.375 2.089 0.020 0.034 0.082 0.102

Retail Park 100sqm 0.050 0.336 0.000 0.017 0.000 0.017 1.394 1.243 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.084

Table C3: Consented & Planned Development Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Trip End Estimates (see Figure 5 in the main part of the document for the locations of the development)

Site No. Name SATURN Zone(s)

Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons)

Cars/LGVs

(vehicles)

HGVs

(vehicles)

PT

(persons)

Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out In

Polegate & Stone Cross D1 Land North of Dittons Road Towards A22 Golden Jubilee Way 874 85 165 0 0 20 40 139 79 0 0 36 12

Polegate & Stone Cross D2 Land East of Shepham Lane and North of Dittons Road 874 84 39 0 0 24 0 36 86 0 0 8 15

Polegate & Stone Cross D3 Land South of Lynholm Road 879 11 5 0 0 3 0 5 11 0 0 1 2

Polegate & Stone Cross D4 Wealden LDF: Polegate 9004 238 180 1 1 65 16 158 238 1 0 34 40

Polegate & Stone Cross D5 & D6 Wealden LDF: Stone Cross Residential 9006 210 97 0 0 60 0 89 214 0 0 20 36

Polegate & Stone Cross D7 Wealden LDF: Polegate Industrial & Warehousing 9005 7 44 2 2 0 0 36 4 1 1 1 0

Elsewhere Hellingly Hospital 5103 168 63 1 1 17 2 97 158 1 1 4 9

in South Wealden Battle Road (Amberstone) 9002 or 9007 54 20 0 0 6 1 31 51 0 0 1 3

Welbury Farm & Woodholm Farm 602 193 72 1 1 20 2 111 182 1 1 4 10

Sheppey Walk 602 10 4 0 0 1 0 6 10 0 0 0 1

Woodside Farm 602 31 12 0 0 3 0 18 30 0 0 1 2

Battle Road (rear of Council Offices & Leisure Centre) 9008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Hailsham North 9001 378 244 4 4 31 94 211 294 2 2 8 16

Wealden LDF: Hailsham East 9008 472 370 6 5 40 114 341 399 2 2 24 20

Wealden LDF: Hailsham Town Centre 9003 73 108 3 2 6 8 154 136 1 2 5 7

Wealden LDF: Berwick Station 5111 18 21 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Upper Dicker 5109 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Herstmonceux 5104 54 64 0 0 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 0

Wealden LDF: Ninfield 5136 36 43 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 0

Eastbourne Town Centre 5003, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5009, 5010, 5011, 5012, 5013, 5022 & 5023 405 212 0 1 116 7 193 412 0 0 45 70

Town Centre - Retail Expansion 5012 556 818 20 17 47 61 1,175 1,034 10 17 41 50

Upperton 5020, 5021 & 5034 131 60 0 0 38 0 56 134 0 0 13 23

Seaside 5008, 5024, 5025, 5026, 5027, 5028, 5029, 5045 & 5047 156 72 0 0 45 0 66 159 0 0 15 27

Old Town 5019 & 5038 32 15 0 0 9 0 14 33 0 0 3 6

Ocklynge & Rodmill 5036, 5037, 5042 & 5054 84 39 0 0 24 0 36 86 0 0 8 15

Roselands & Bridgemere 5030, 5031, 5043, 5044 & 5046 40 19 0 0 12 0 17 41 0 0 4 7

Hampden Park 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 5053, 5055, 5060, 5061, 5062, 5063, 5064, 5077 & 5093

27 13 0 0 8 0 12 28 0 0 3 5

Hampden Park - Brampton Road Industrial Park 5053 2 9 1 1 0 0 7 2 1 1 0 0

Langney 5065, 5067, 5068, 5069, 5070, 5071 & 5091 78 36 0 0 22 0 33 79 0 0 7 13

Langney - Shopping Centre Extension 5071 78 116 3 2 7 9 166 146 1 2 6 7

Shinewater & North Langney 5072, 5073, 5074, 5075 & 5076 29 14 0 0 8 0 12 30 0 0 3 5

Summerdown & Saffrons 5014, 5015, 5016 & 5017 14 7 0 0 4 0 6 14 0 0 1 2

Meads 5001, 5002 & 5004 125 58 0 0 36 0 53 127 0 0 12 22

Ratton & Willingdon Village 888 & 5056 4 2 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 0 1

St Anthony’s & Langney Point 5048, 5049, 5050, 5092 & 5098 7 3 0 0 2 0 3 7 0 0 1 1

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5051 16 82 6 9 0 1 66 18 7 6 1 0

St Anthony’s & Langney Point - Industrial Estate 5095 & 5100 4 18 1 2 0 0 15 4 1 1 0 0

Sovereign Harbour 5066 48 22 0 0 14 0 21 49 0 0 5 8

Sovereign Harbour - Retail Park & Mixed Development 5097 23 115 7 12 0 1 121 54 9 8 2 2

Totals 3,984 3,283 56 62 690 356 3,515 4,375 38 46 315 435

C.3 Traffic Growth

The highway traffic growth implicit to the TEMPRO 6.2 -based 2027 Reference Case

and 2027 Consented and Planned Development matrices over the 2011 Base Year is

shown in Table C4 for the entire SWETS model as well as the Polegate and

Stone Cross areas alone. Polegate and Stone Cross clearly face substantial levels of

traffic growth in the next 15 years.

C.4 Scenarios Modelled

A variety of different tests were undertaken in the Hailsham and Hellingly study, of

which only three were re-tested for the Polegate and Stone Cross study. Table C5

provides information concerning tests that were prepared, run and used.

Importantly, because Consented and Planned Development was tested as a single

package, and model zoning is a little too grainy to read too much into the specific

impacts of individual development sites, certain results may raise questions of

detail (e.g. site access provision) that are not immediately answerable by existing

model runs or further runs with the model as it is currently configured.

C.5 Mode Shift

Full mode split modelling was undertaken for all of the forecast tests shown in

Table C5. Table C6 shows the magnitudes of the public transport shifts for

a sub-section of the tests shown in Table C5. Importantly, they are either very close

to or effectively the same to those previously obtained during the earlier Hailsham

and Hellingly modelling exercise.

Table C4: 2011 Base Year, 2027 Reference Case & 2027 Consented & Planned Development Weekday AM & PM Peak Hour Trip End Totals Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Entire SWETS Model Polegate & Stone Cross Alone Entire SWETS Model Polegate & Stone Cross Alone

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

over

2011

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

over

2011

Proportion Total

Trip

Ends

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

Over

2011

No.

Trip

Ends

Growth

Over

2011

Growth Per

Annum

Over

2011

Proportion

Total

Trip

Ends

Highway (vehicles)

2011 Base Year 49,887 2,683 5.4% 51,176 2,687 5.3%

2027 Reference Case 57,270 14.8% 0.9% 3,127 16.6% 1.0% 5.5% 58,953 15.2% 0.9% 3,173 18.1% 1.0% 5.4%

2027 Consented & Planned Development 67,626 35.6% 1.9% 4,475 66.8% 3.2% 6.6% 69,917 36.6% 2.0% 4,470 66.3% 3.2% 6.4%

Public Transport (persons)

2011 Base Year 5,147 172 3.4% 4,909 130 2.6%

2027 Reference Case 5,230 1.6% 0.1% 179 3.8% 0.2% 3.4% 4,986 1.6% 0.1% 137 5.4% 0.3% 2.7%

2027 Consented & Planned Development 6,712 30.4% 1.7% 431 149.7% 5.9% 6.4% 5,955 21.3% 1.2% 356 174.0% 6.5% 6.0%

Table C5: Final Scenarios Modelled

Transport Supply & Demand Cases Do-N

oth

ing

Te

st

1

Te

st

3b

Te

st

10

Supply

Reference Case Network

Modified connectors for zones 602 & 5108

Committed network improvements

Penalties removed from link 926-9261

GAP factor amendments at a number of junctions

A few network coding changes

Hailsham & Hellingly Core Network Improvements

Reference Case Network + Hellingly Hospital Development Bus Service

Reference Case Network + A22 / Hempstead Lane RA

Reference Case Network + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA

Reference Case Network + South / Ersham Roads & Diplocks Way combined RA + signals at South & Western Roads

Core Network Improvements + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions

Demand 2011 Base Year

2027 Consented & Planned Development (updated relative to Hailsham & Hellingly study)

Table C6: 2027 Mode Shifts (Persons) in Favour of Public Transport for the Initial Reference Case Network & Subsequent Do-Something Network Tests Note: All changes are relative to the initial mode use estimate used at the start of (rather than generated by) the Reference Case network tests. In practice, the do-something network tests pivot off the

Reference Case network tests and therefore start with the Reference Case network tests post-mode splits.

Transport Supply Cases Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour

Supply

Reference Case Network +272 +7.9% +552 +17.9%

Reference Case Network + Hailsham & Hellingly Core Network Improvements (see Table C5 for further details) +143 +4.1% +536 +17.2%

Core Network Improvements + broader SWETS highways & public transport interventions +441 +12.5% +764 +27.1%

C.6 Junction Modelling Results

Tables C7 to C15 and C18 to C23 provide a range of SATURN, LINSIG, TRANSYT

and ARCADY summary results generated by the strategic and local modelling

exercises. The exact software used at each point is indicated.

Tables C16 and C17 summarise the traffic flows generated by the strategic model or

derived for local modelling purposes using the strategic model and observed flows.

The following briefly records the most obvious and pertinent conclusions that can be

drawn from the highway modelling results:

Forecast year model results bear out the point already made concerning traffic

growth – namely, that consented and planned development results in

substantial increases in traffic at all of the junctions considered relative to

existing levels. As expected, traffic delays and queues increase substantially

too. Indeed, in all instances traffic delays and queues increase unacceptably

without improvements of some type.

Improvement proposals vary in the extent to which they successfully address

existing and future network issues and/or provide additional future reserve

capacity. In this respect, the junction improvements proposed for the

following junctions more than address network issues:

- the A22 and A27 Cophall Roundabout (Figure B5 in Appendix B)

- the A27 and A22 Golden Jubilee Way Roundabout (Figure B6 in

Appendix B)

- the A22 Golden Jubilee Way and Dittons Road Roundabout (Figure B7 in

Appendix B)

This does not mean, however, that anything less will cope with 2027 forecast

flows. The improvements proposed at all three junctions reflect the minimum

necessary.29

In the case of the following junctions, the improvement proposals either just or

don’t quite supply enough capacity:

- the A27, A22 and A2270 signalised junction (Figures B1 and B2 in

Appendix B)

- the A2270 and Polegate High Street signalised junction (Figure B4 in

Appendix B)

- the Lion Hill junction, where the Lion Hill and Dittons, Hailsham and

Rattle Roads intersect (Figure B8 in Appendix B)

29 A series of tests were undertaken for the A22 and A27 Cophall Roundabout to confirm whether

current improvement proposals are wholly necessary (i.e. whether every arm requires signalling

and whether the widening proposed for the southeastern section of the circle is necessary).

These tests clearly showed that if 2027 outturn volumes reflect modelled projections, all of the

approaches to the roundabout will need to be signalised. The widening in the southeastern

section is also necessary. It is possible, however, that developing demands might allow a phased

implementation of signalisation.

In the case of the last-mentioned, currently proposed improvements30 reflect

both the minimum that should be done and, potentially, the maximum that can

be considered if existing highway boundaries are to be respected and the B2104

is not to become over-trafficked. Fortunately, modelled capacity shortfalls

associated with the proposed scheme are within ranges that may, with creative

signalling,31 assist a strategy (including traffic calming and speed reduction

measures on the B2104 between Hailsham and Stone Cross) that discourages

use of the B2104.32

30 Waterman Boreham’s Proposed Junction Arrangement with Part Controlled Pedestrian Crossing

Facilities (Drawing Number 17; 20.02.12). 31 i.e. (1) the simultaneous staging of east and west approaches followed by a dedicated west

approach stage to accommodate a protected right turn for the heavy west to south right turn,

and (2) an internal stop line at the pedestrian crossing over the western arm exit. 32 See relevant sections of the Hailsham & Hellingly Movement & Access Study, June 2012.

Table C7: AM & PM Peak Hour Movements with Saturations Greater than 95%

2011 B

ase

2027 P

roposed D

evelo

pm

ent

Dem

and +

Te

st

1 N

etw

ork

2027 P

roposed D

evelo

pm

ent

Dem

and +

Te

st

3b N

etw

ork

2027 P

roposed D

evelo

pm

ent

Dem

and +

Te

st

10 N

etw

ork

2011 B

ase

2027 P

roposed D

evelo

pm

ent

Dem

and +

Te

st

1 N

etw

ork

2027 P

roposed D

evelo

pm

ent

Dem

and +

Te

st

3b N

etw

ork

2027 P

roposed D

evelo

pm

ent

Dem

and +

Te

st

10 N

etw

ork

A22 & A27 Cophall RA North Left in

Straight in (left)

Straight in (straight)

Internal left

Internal right

East Left in

Internal

Southeast Left in

Internal

South Internal out

Left in

Internal

West Left

Internal left

Internal right

A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way RA East Left

Straight

South Left

Right

West Straight

Right

A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road RA East Left

Straight

Right

South Left

Straight

Right

West Left

Straight

Right

North Left

Straight

Right

Dittons Road, Hailsham Road, Rattle Road & Lion Hill East Left

Straight

Right

South Left

Straight

Right

West Left

Straight

Right

North Left

Straight

Right

Hailsham Road, Station Road & High Street East Left

Straight

South Left

Right

West Straight

Right

A27, A22 & A2270 Southeast Left

Straight

West Left

Right

Northwest Straight

Right

A2270 & High Street Northeast Left

Straight

Right

Southeast Left

Straight

Right

Southwest Left

Straight

Right

Northwest Left

Straight

Right

Weekday PM Peak

Hour

Junction Approach Turn

Weekday AM Peak

Hour

Table C8: 2011 Base Weekday AM Peak Hour SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

A22 & A27 Cophall RA North Left in 612 1,929 0.32 4.4 0 0 7 617 1,929 0.32

Straight in (left) 9 743 0.01 7.0 0 0 6 9 743 0.01

Straight in (straight) 870 1,249 0.70 9.3 1 1 877 877 1,249 0.70

Internal left 637 3,950 0.16 0.5 0 0 0 639 3,950 0.16

Internal right 130 1,950 0.07 0.40 1.0 5.0 0 0 0 130 1,950 0.07 0.41

East Left in 1,363 2,148 0.63 5.7 1 1 728 1,376 2,148 0.64

Internal 1,000 5,850 0.17 0.44 0.4 3.4 0 0 0 1,007 5,850 0.17 0.44

Southeast Left in 237 600 0.39 11.4 1 1 245 237 600 0.40

Internal 2,171 5,850 0.37 0.37 0.5 1.6 0 0 0 2,189 5,850 0.37 0.38

South Internal out 1,387 1,950 0.71 3.2 0 0 0 1,398 1,950 0.72

Left in 1,377 2,100 0.66 15.8 14 5 990 1,379 2,100 0.66

Internal 1,020 1,250 0.82 0.72 32.6 15.7 15 7 940 1,028 1,250 0.82 0.72

West Left in 127 250 0.51 26.2 1 1 187 127 250 0.51

Internal left 76 1,950 0.04 0.3 0 0 0 77 1,950 0.04

Internal right 2,321 5,850 0.40 0.39 0.49 0.3 1.6 6.5 24.1 0 0 0 2,331 5,850 0.40 0.39 0.50

A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way RA East Left 394 1,081 0.36 8.8 0 0 101 394 1,081 0.36

Straight 469 1,156 0.41 0.39 13.3 11.2 0 0 121 470 1,156 0.41 0.39

South Left 894 1,574 0.57 8.2 0 0 121 907 1,574 0.58

Right 264 943 0.28 0.50 17.2 10.2 0 0 36 267 943 0.28 0.51

West Straight 408 1,113 0.37 7.9 0 0 30 410 1,113 0.37

Right 850 1,556 0.55 0.49 0.47 12.4 10.9 10.7 9.8 0 0 63 855 1,556 0.55 0.49 0.47

A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road RA East Left 197 562 0.35 12.5 0 0 133 198 562 0.35

Straight 139 504 0.28 17.0 0 0 94 139 504 0.28

Right 216 581 0.37 0.34 21.5 17.2 0 0 145 216 581 0.37 0.34

South Left 123 868 0.14 8.3 0 0 22 126 868 0.14

Straight 850 1,595 0.53 12.8 0 0 149 866 1,595 0.54

Right 38 783 0.05 0.47 17.3 12.4 0 0 7 39 783 0.05 0.48

West Left 92 794 0.12 9.7 0 0 44 92 794 0.12

Straight 108 810 0.13 14.2 0 0 51 108 810 0.13

Right 235 937 0.25 0.19 18.7 15.7 0 0 112 235 937 0.25 0.19

North Left 101 644 0.16 8.5 0 0 16 101 644 0.16

Straight 1,082 1,625 0.67 13.0 0 0 175 1,087 1,625 0.67

Right 61 605 0.10 0.60 0.46 17.5 12.8 13.8 12.5 0 0 10 62 605 0.10 0.60 0.46

Dittons Road, Hailsham Road, Rattle Road & Lion Hill East Left 51 71 0.71 110.9 2 1 50 51 71 0.71

Straight 169 192 0.88 111.0 5 3 166 169 192 0.88

Right 60 82 0.74 0.82 110.9 111.0 2 1 59 60 82 0.74 0.82

South Left 173 195 0.89 47.7 4 2 165 174 195 0.89

Straight 345 390 0.89 47.7 8 4 330 348 390 0.89

Right 72 385 0.19 0.80 37.8 46.5 2 1 53 73 385 0.19 0.81

West Left 63 119 0.53 80.8 2 1 61 64 119 0.54

Straight 86 149 0.58 80.8 3 1 82 86 149 0.58

Right 87 145 0.60 0.57 80.8 80.8 3 1 83 87 145 0.60 0.58

North Left 29 145 0.20 62.4 1 0 27 29 145 0.20

Straight 176 307 0.57 62.4 5 2 164 177 307 0.58

Right 55 176 0.31 0.48 0.70 62.4 62.4 68.6 26.1 2 1 50 55 176 0.31 0.48 0.71

Hailsham Road, Station Road & High Street East Left 267 911 0.29 5.9 0 0 13 268 911 0.29

Straight 97 741 0.13 0.25 8.6 6.7 0 0 5 98 741 0.13 0.25

South Left 74 733 0.10 6.0 0 0 4 74 733 0.10

Right 270 928 0.29 0.25 8.6 8.1 0 0 15 270 928 0.29 0.25

West Straight 65 809 0.08 6.4 0 0 10 66 809 0.08

Right 87 831 0.11 0.09 0.22 9.1 7.9 7.4 1.8 0 0 14 88 831 0.11 0.10 0.22

A27, A22 & A2270 Southeast Left 542 976 0.55 8.1 1 1 349 543 976 0.56

Straight 702 1,207 0.58 0.57 34.1 22.8 14 6 587 704 1,207 0.58 0.57

West Left 676 1,022 0.66 8.9 1 1 450 676 1,022 0.66

Right 367 391 0.94 0.76 100.1 41.0 10 5 364 367 391 0.94 0.76

Northwest Straight 607 2,786 0.22 4.0 4 1 159 612 2,786 0.22

Right 780 802 0.97 0.64 0.65 75.2 44.0 36.0 36.7 14 7 766 787 802 0.98 0.65 0.65

A2270 & High Street Northeast Left 86 252 0.34 41.4 2 1 69 86 252 0.34

Straight 100 291 0.34 41.4 3 1 80 100 291 0.34

Right 103 179 0.57 0.42 55.4 46.4 3 1 101 103 179 0.58 0.43

Southeast Left 2 139 0.01 40.9 0 0 1 2 139 0.01

Straight 830 974 0.85 40.9 15 7 728 833 974 0.85

Right 69 206 0.34 0.81 69.5 43.1 2 1 66 70 206 0.34 0.81

Southwest Left 311 386 0.81 49.0 8 4 295 311 386 0.81

Straight 145 222 0.65 49.0 4 2 137 145 222 0.65

Right 3 353 0.01 0.75 39.1 49.0 0 0 2 3 353 0.01 0.75

Northwest Left 42 137 0.30 46.8 1 0 38 42 137 0.31

Straight 832 932 0.89 46.8 15 7 759 836 932 0.90

Right 100 206 0.49 0.83 0.76 74.2 49.6 46.9 34.2 3 2 97 101 206 0.49 0.83 0.77

145.0 145.0 171 81 11,808

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

No. Movements With V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 2 6 1 between 0.75 & 0.85 2 6 1

between 0.85 & 0.95 6 0 0 between 0.85 & 0.95 6 0 0

between 0.95 & 1.00 1 0 0 between 0.95 & 1.00 1 0 0

greater than 1.00 0 0 0 greater than 1.00 0 0 0

9 6 1 9 6 1

Actual v/c Demand v/c

Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C9: 2011 Base Weekday PM Peak Hour SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)


Straight in (left) 10 1,012 0.01 5.7 0 0 5 10 1,012 0.01

Straight in (straight) 1,005 1,824 0.55 5.9 1 1 632 1,030 1,824 0.56

Internal left 620 3,950 0.16 0.5 0 0 0 623 3,950 0.16

Internal right 116 1,950 0.06 0.39 1.0 3.9 0 0 0 117 1,950 0.06 0.40

East Left in 1,160 1,978 0.59 5.7 1 1 676 1,162 1,978 0.59

Internal 1,121 5,850 0.19 0.39 0.4 3.1 0 0 0 1,147 5,850 0.20 0.39


Internal 1,914 5,850 0.33 0.32 0.5 1.1 0 0 0 1,938 5,850 0.33 0.32


Left in 1,452 2,100 0.69 16.5 15 6 1,076 1,453 2,100 0.69

Internal 724 1,250 0.58 0.67 26.0 13.3 11 5 606 732 1,250 0.59 0.67

West Left in 56 337 0.17 14.3 0 0 53 56 337 0.17

Internal left 124 1,950 0.06 0.3 0 0 0 124 1,950 0.06

Internal right 2,053 5,850 0.35 0.33 0.45 0.3 0.7 5.3 18.8 0 0 0 2,061 5,850 0.35 0.33 0.45


Straight 379 1,244 0.30 0.27 13.1 11.4 0 0 108 379 1,244 0.30 0.27

South Left 781 1,514 0.52 8.0 0 0 85 783 1,514 0.52

Right 379 1,113 0.34 0.46 17.0 11.0 0 0 41 380 1,113 0.34 0.46

West Straight 477 944 0.50 8.3 0 0 52 485 944 0.51

Right 949 1,416 0.67 0.61 0.49 12.8 11.3 11.2 10.0 0 0 104 964 1,416 0.68 0.62 0.50


Straight 110 845 0.13 14.5 0 0 59 111 845 0.13

Right 80 816 0.10 0.11 19.0 14.4 0 0 43 81 816 0.10 0.11

South Left 183 871 0.21 8.0 0 0 18 184 871 0.21

Straight 978 1,665 0.59 12.5 0 0 96 981 1,665 0.59

Right 66 754 0.09 0.50 17.0 12.1 0 0 7 67 754 0.09 0.51

West Left 101 785 0.13 9.8 0 0 49 102 785 0.13

Straight 125 809 0.15 14.3 0 0 61 125 809 0.15

Right 210 894 0.24 0.19 18.8 15.5 0 0 102 210 894 0.24 0.19

North Left 141 719 0.20 8.5 0 0 24 143 719 0.20

Straight 1,007 1,584 0.64 13.0 0 0 171 1,020 1,584 0.64

Right 44 622 0.07 0.56 0.45 17.5 12.6 12.9 11.3 0 0 7 44 622 0.07 0.57 0.45


Straight 77 251 0.31 59.9 2 1 70 77 251 0.31

Right 26 188 0.14 0.24 59.8 59.8 1 0 23 26 188 0.14 0.24

South Left 80 240 0.33 46.2 2 1 70 80 240 0.33

Straight 223 420 0.53 46.2 6 3 196 224 420 0.53

Right 41 411 0.10 0.43 40.7 45.5 1 0 31 41 411 0.10 0.44

West Left 58 79 0.73 109.7 2 1 57 58 79 0.73

Straight 130 155 0.84 109.7 4 2 128 131 155 0.85

Right 87 110 0.79 0.80 109.7 109.7 3 1 86 88 110 0.80 0.81

North Left 83 119 0.70 85.9 2 1 81 86 119 0.72

Straight 283 323 0.87 85.9 8 4 276 292 323 0.90

Right 63 101 0.63 0.80 0.63 85.9 85.9 76.7 25.2 2 1 62 65 101 0.65 0.83 0.65


Straight 33 684 0.05 0.28 8.8 6.4 0 0 3 33 684 0.05 0.28

South Left 68 765 0.09 5.8 0 0 1 68 765 0.09

Right 275 973 0.28 0.24 8.4 7.9 0 0 5 276 973 0.28 0.25

West Straight 115 744 0.15 6.6 0 0 18 116 744 0.16

Right 149 778 0.19 0.18 0.24 9.2 8.1 7.4 1.9 0 0 24 151 778 0.19 0.18 0.24

A27, A22 & A2270 Southeast Left 384 1,184 0.32 5.9 0 0 162 385 1,184 0.33

Straight 601 1,255 0.48 0.42 32.6 22.2 13 5 478 602 1,255 0.48 0.42

West Left 851 1,130 0.75 9.4 1 1 612 851 1,130 0.75

Right 486 746 0.65 0.72 48.3 23.5 12 6 447 486 746 0.65 0.72


Right 601 641 0.94 0.58 0.59 72.6 36.5 27.9 28.5 12 6 585 608 641 0.95 0.59 0.59


Straight 92 143 0.64 49.1 2 1 83 93 143 0.65

Right 67 269 0.25 0.57 50.4 49.3 2 1 59 68 269 0.25 0.57

Southeast Left 3 218 0.02 32.6 0 0 3 3 218 0.02

Straight 826 1,051 0.79 32.6 14 6 669 828 1,051 0.79

Right 103 206 0.50 0.75 74.7 37.2 3 2 100 103 206 0.50 0.75

Southwest Left 92 291 0.32 47.2 2 1 79 92 291 0.32

Straight 121 339 0.36 47.2 3 1 104 121 339 0.36

Right 2 239 0.01 0.34 42.9 47.1 0 0 1 2 239 0.01 0.34

Northwest Left 44 43 1.01 112.6 1 1 53 44 43 1.02

Straight 1,024 1,010 1.01 112.6 17 16 1,231 1,032 1,010 1.02

Right 173 206 0.84 0.99 0.80 107.3 111.8 73.2 56.0 6 3 173 174 206 0.84 1.00 0.81

151.6 151.6 163 82 10,828

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 5 3 1 between 0.75 & 0.85 5 3 1

between 0.85 & 0.95 2 0 0 between 0.85 & 0.95 2 0 0

between 0.95 & 1.00 0 1 0 between 0.95 & 1.00 0 1 0


9 4 1 9 4 1


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C10: 2027 Weekday AM Peak Hour Test 1 SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)


Straight in (left) 9 1,039 0.01 5.6 0 0 4 9 1,039 0.01

Straight in (straight) 1,051 1,013 1.04 110.6 11 30 11,687 1,086 1,013 1.07

Internal left 428 3,950 0.11 0.5 0 0 0 463 3,950 0.12

Internal right 461 1,950 0.24 0.58 1.2 43.4 0 0 0 499 1,950 0.26 0.59

East Left in 1,616 1,537 1.05 124.5 12 52 22,416 1,752 1,537 1.14

Internal 1,474 5,850 0.25 0.67 0.4 65.3 0 0 0 1,585 5,850 0.27 0.73


Internal 2,484 5,850 0.42 0.47 0.5 4.4 0 0 0 2,753 5,850 0.47 0.51


Left in 1,692 1,900 0.89 27.0 19 9 1,536 1,774 1,900 0.93

Internal 1,319 1,450 0.91 0.86 36.6 22.1 18 9 1,254 1,449 1,450 1.00 0.93

West Left in 156 116 1.34 749.5 4 24 1,157 156 116 1.34

Internal left 83 166 0.50 0.6 0 0 0 89 166 0.54

Internal right 2,928 5,850 0.50 0.54 0.65 0.6 37.5 33.8 153.9 0 0 0 3,135 5,850 0.54 0.57 0.69

A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way RA East Left 704 984 0.72 9.9 0 0 164 717 984 0.73

Straight 638 918 0.70 0.71 14.4 12.0 0 0 149 650 918 0.71 0.72

South Left 978 1,382 0.71 9.0 0 0 189 1,103 1,382 0.80

Right 350 754 0.46 0.64 18.0 11.4 0 0 68 395 754 0.52 0.73

West Straight 542 1,176 0.46 8.0 0 0 54 569 1,176 0.48

Right 735 1,369 0.54 0.50 0.62 12.5 10.6 11.4 12.5 0 0 73 771 1,369 0.56 0.53 0.66

A22 Golden Jubilee Way & Dittons Road RA East Left 230 202 1.14 312.5 4 18 1,000 233 202 1.15

Straight 165 145 1.14 317.0 3 13 719 168 145 1.15

Right 153 135 1.14 1.14 321.5 316.4 3 12 666 155 135 1.15 1.15

South Left 353 693 0.51 8.9 0 0 54 401 693 0.58

Straight 1,069 1,410 0.76 13.4 0 0 165 1,214 1,410 0.86

Right 45 386 0.12 0.68 17.9 12.5 0 0 7 51 386 0.13 0.77

West Left 123 149 0.83 30.0 1 1 318 128 149 0.86

Straight 256 281 0.91 34.5 2 2 659 266 281 0.94

Right 615 640 0.96 0.93 39.0 36.8 4 4 1,583 638 640 1.00 0.97

North Left 4 4 1.08 183.2 0 0 14 5 4 1.12

Straight 1,352 1,247 1.08 187.7 10 63 4,248 1,397 1,247 1.12

Right 84 77 1.08 1.08 0.92 192.2 187.9 112.1 138.6 1 4 263 86 77 1.12 1.12 0.97


Straight 200 212 0.94 129.1 6 3 198 202 212 0.95

Right 33 45 0.75 0.90 129.0 129.1 1 1 33 34 45 0.76 0.91

South Left 140 150 0.93 55.3 4 2 137 146 150 0.97

Straight 287 309 0.93 55.3 8 4 281 301 309 0.97

Right 85 298 0.29 0.82 47.1 53.9 2 1 69 89 298 0.30 0.86

West Left 75 81 0.93 134.9 2 1 75 78 81 0.96

Straight 102 109 0.94 134.9 3 1 102 106 109 0.97

Right 157 164 0.96 0.95 134.9 134.9 5 2 156 163 164 1.00 0.98

North Left 55 72 0.77 104.5 1 1 54 57 72 0.79

Straight 333 351 0.95 104.5 9 5 329 343 351 0.98

Right 67 84 0.79 0.90 0.89 104.5 104.5 99.1 43.8 2 1 66 69 84 0.82 0.93 0.92


Straight 178 594 0.30 0.43 8.9 7.0 0 0 11 187 594 0.31 0.45

South Left 95 530 0.18 6.5 0 0 10 98 530 0.19

Right 424 858 0.49 0.44 9.1 8.7 0 0 43 435 858 0.51 0.45

West Straight 426 686 0.62 8.8 0 0 117 467 686 0.68

Right 112 372 0.30 0.55 0.47 11.5 9.4 8.3 3.8 0 0 31 123 372 0.33 0.61 0.50


Straight 838 888 0.94 0.84 68.8 43.4 19 9 824 911 888 1.03 0.91

West Left 854 886 0.96 31.6 5 5 3,408 864 886 0.97

Right 474 497 0.95 0.96 95.5 54.4 12 6 470 479 497 0.96 0.97


Right 833 911 0.91 0.62 0.80 47.1 28.2 41.5 49.8 13 6 775 915 911 1.00 0.68 0.85


Straight 119 136 0.87 78.1 3 1 113 125 136 0.92

Right 128 130 0.99 0.91 88.7 81.3 3 2 128 134 130 1.04 0.95

Southeast Left 0 0 0.00 198.8 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

Straight 1,069 1,008 1.06 198.8 18 40 1,783 1,120 1,008 1.11

Right 151 161 0.94 1.05 159.5 193.9 5 3 151 158 161 0.98 1.10

Southwest Left 357 349 1.02 155.6 9 8 461 359 349 1.03

Straight 205 200 1.02 155.6 5 5 264 206 200 1.03

Right 103 101 1.02 1.02 161.3 156.5 3 3 134 104 101 1.03 1.03

Northwest Left 46 46 1.01 107.8 1 1 53 49 46 1.07

Straight 969 959 1.01 107.8 17 13 1,111 1,030 959 1.07

Right 136 161 0.84 0.99 1.01 122.0 109.5 144.9 139.2 5 2 136 145 161 0.90 1.05 1.05

541.6 541.6 269 375 61,745

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 8 2 1 between 0.75 & 0.85 5 1 1

between 0.85 & 0.95 14 6 2 between 0.85 & 0.95 10 5 1

between 0.95 & 1.00 5 2 0 between 0.95 & 1.00 12 4 1


42 14 4 45 15 4


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C11: 2027 Weekday PM Peak Hour Test 1 SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

A22 & A27 Cophall RA North Left in 1,016 1,950 0.52 4.9 0 0 0 1,129 1,950 0.58

Straight in (left) 8 895 0.01 6.1 0 0 4 9 895 0.01


Internal left 725 3,950 0.18 0.6 0 0 0 812 3,950 0.21

Internal right 177 1,950 0.09 0.54 1.0 6.0 0 0 0 198 1,950 0.10 0.60

East Left in 1,380 1,574 0.88 12.0 3 3 2,256 1,523 1,574 0.97

Internal 1,443 5,850 0.25 0.55 0.4 6.1 0 0 0 1,605 5,850 0.27 0.61


Internal 2,240 5,850 0.38 0.40 0.5 2.0 0 0 0 2,482 5,850 0.42 0.44


Left in 1,723 2,150 0.80 18.7 17 7 1,393 1,960 2,150 0.91

Internal 948 1,200 0.79 0.80 32.2 16.6 14 7 868 1,043 1,200 0.87 0.89

West Left in 72 192 0.38 28.5 0 0 94 72 192 0.38

Internal left 129 1,950 0.07 0.4 0 0 0 145 1,950 0.07

Internal right 2,542 5,850 0.43 0.42 0.57 0.4 1.1 7.4 31.9 0 0 0 2,858 5,850 0.49 0.47 0.63


Straight 426 969 0.44 0.42 14.3 12.2 0 0 166 432 969 0.45 0.42

South Left 954 1,421 0.67 8.4 0 0 118 1,091 1,421 0.77

Right 444 910 0.49 0.61 17.4 11.2 0 0 55 508 910 0.56 0.70

West Straight 547 651 0.84 10.7 0 0 76 610 651 0.94

Right 1,202 1,307 0.92 0.89 0.70 15.2 13.8 12.6 13.7 1 1 167 1,340 1,307 1.03 1.00 0.78


Straight 121 414 0.29 19.8 0 0 106 124 414 0.30

Right 92 385 0.24 0.27 24.3 19.5 0 0 80 94 385 0.24 0.28

South Left 341 635 0.54 8.7 0 0 39 398 635 0.63

Straight 1,177 1,470 0.80 13.2 0 0 136 1,372 1,470 0.93

Right 72 365 0.20 0.72 17.7 12.5 0 0 8 84 365 0.23 0.84

West Left 129 342 0.38 15.1 0 0 99 133 342 0.39

Straight 190 402 0.47 19.6 0 0 146 196 402 0.49

Right 415 627 0.66 0.56 24.1 21.3 1 1 318 428 627 0.68 0.58

North Left 196 193 1.01 52.5 1 2 436 214 193 1.11

Straight 1,300 1,282 1.01 57.0 7 16 2,895 1,420 1,282 1.11

Right 58 57 1.01 1.01 0.77 61.5 56.6 30.9 36.1 0 1 129 63 57 1.11 1.11 0.85


Straight 68 85 0.80 139.4 2 1 67 70 85 0.82

Right 21 37 0.57 0.73 139.3 139.4 1 0 21 22 37 0.58 0.75

South Left 81 101 0.80 52.6 2 1 78 87 101 0.87

Straight 326 376 0.87 52.6 9 4 315 352 376 0.94

Right 46 334 0.14 0.78 44.1 51.7 1 0 36 49 334 0.15 0.84

West Left 69 89 0.78 105.2 2 1 68 75 89 0.84

Straight 190 212 0.89 105.2 5 3 187 205 212 0.96

Right 114 134 0.84 0.86 105.2 105.2 3 2 111 122 134 0.91 0.92

North Left 77 121 0.63 75.7 2 1 73 78 121 0.65

Straight 389 439 0.89 75.7 10 5 377 397 439 0.91

Right 76 122 0.62 0.81 0.81 75.7 75.7 81.1 33.6 2 1 73 77 122 0.63 0.83 0.85


Straight 122 504 0.24 0.44 9.8 7.8 0 0 21 128 504 0.25 0.46

South Left 77 597 0.13 6.1 0 0 5 82 597 0.14

Right 391 911 0.43 0.38 8.8 8.4 0 0 27 420 911 0.46 0.41

West Straight 179 528 0.34 7.9 0 0 43 196 528 0.37

Right 292 640 0.46 0.41 0.41 10.6 9.5 8.6 3.4 0 0 71 319 640 0.50 0.45 0.44


Straight 705 882 0.80 0.64 50.5 34.4 17 8 665 783 882 0.89 0.71

West Left 1,063 1,018 1.04 115.6 9 31 14,756 1,177 1,018 1.16

Right 508 427 1.19 1.09 468.6 229.7 8 45 972 509 427 1.19 1.17

Northwest Straight 894 945 0.95 49.0 11 5 829 995 945 1.05

Right 665 641 1.04 0.98 0.93 176.8 103.5 132.2 155.6 13 19 1,025 739 641 1.15 1.10 1.02


Straight 157 147 1.06 242.0 4 7 271 167 147 1.13

Right 19 18 1.06 1.06 250.3 242.3 0 1 33 20 18 1.13 1.13

Southeast Left 3 67 0.05 51.3 0 0 3 4 67 0.06

Straight 985 1,051 0.94 51.3 17 8 921 1,100 1,051 1.05

Right 135 176 0.77 0.91 101.3 57.3 4 2 135 151 176 0.86 1.02

Southwest Left 104 168 0.62 48.8 3 1 93 110 168 0.65

Straight 203 327 0.62 48.8 5 2 181 214 327 0.65

Right 10 112 0.09 0.60 43.9 48.7 0 0 8 11 112 0.10 0.63

Northwest Left 0 0 1.04 153.2 0 0 0 0 0 1.24

Straight 1,094 1,054 1.04 153.2 18 29 1,605 1,308 1,054 1.24

Right 164 176 0.93 1.02 0.95 149.5 152.7 124.4 112.1 5 3 164 196 176 1.11 1.22 1.09

386.4 386.4 219 242 35,904

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 12 3 2 between 0.75 & 0.85 3 3 1

between 0.85 & 0.95 8 3 1 between 0.85 & 0.95 12 2 2

between 0.95 & 1.00 0 1 1 between 0.95 & 1.00 2 1 0


31 11 4 32 12 5


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C12: 2027 Weekday AM Peak Hour Test 3b SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)


Straight in (left) 9 724 0.01 7.1 0 0 6 9 724 0.01

Straight in (straight) 1,021 987 1.03 105.0 11 28 10,784 1,030 987 1.04

Internal left 652 3,950 0.17 0.6 0 0 0 685 3,950 0.17

Internal right 266 1,950 0.14 0.57 1.1 39.2 0 0 0 279 1,950 0.14 0.57

East Left in 1,673 1,805 0.93 13.4 4 4 3,694 1,792 1,805 0.99

Internal 1,253 5,850 0.21 0.62 0.4 7.8 0 0 0 1,309 5,850 0.22 0.67


Internal 2,492 5,850 0.43 0.47 0.5 4.0 0 0 0 2,641 5,850 0.45 0.49


Left in 1,665 1,900 0.88 25.8 19 9 1,493 1,728 1,900 0.91

Internal 1,238 1,450 0.85 0.85 31.3 19.9 17 8 1,141 1,306 1,450 0.90 0.89

West Left in 157 135 1.16 409.8 4 15 1,544 157 135 1.16

Internal left 85 177 0.48 0.6 0 0 0 89 177 0.50

Internal right 2,817 5,850 0.48 0.52 0.63 0.6 21.5 18.7 83.8 0 0 0 2,945 5,850 0.50 0.54 0.66


Straight 725 883 0.82 0.80 17.3 15.4 1 1 282 733 883 0.83 0.81

South Left 948 1,352 0.70 9.2 0 0 211 1,059 1,352 0.78

Right 324 728 0.44 0.64 18.2 11.5 0 0 72 362 728 0.50 0.71

West Straight 548 902 0.61 8.4 0 0 51 562 902 0.62

Right 1,025 1,379 0.74 0.70 0.71 12.9 11.3 12.6 14.5 0 0 95 1,052 1,379 0.76 0.71 0.74


Straight 186 179 1.04 135.1 3 6 762 189 179 1.05

Right 109 105 1.04 1.04 139.6 134.1 2 4 448 111 105 1.05 1.05

South Left 241 727 0.33 8.5 0 0 35 274 727 0.38

Straight 1,030 1,516 0.68 13.0 0 0 150 1,171 1,516 0.77

Right 63 548 0.11 0.59 17.5 12.4 0 0 9 71 548 0.13 0.67

West Left 137 390 0.35 13.4 0 0 88 139 390 0.36

Straight 194 447 0.43 17.9 0 0 124 197 447 0.44

Right 478 731 0.65 0.55 22.4 19.8 1 1 306 486 731 0.67 0.56

North Left 59 55 1.07 146.6 0 2 154 60 55 1.09

Straight 1,459 1,369 1.07 151.1 10 55 3,826 1,489 1,369 1.09

Right 63 59 1.07 1.07 0.81 155.6 151.1 80.5 95.0 0 2 166 64 59 1.09 1.09 0.85


Straight 143 141 1.01 174.6 4 3 161 144 141 1.02

Right 108 107 1.01 1.01 174.6 174.5 3 2 122 109 107 1.02 1.02

South Left 136 135 1.01 132.7 3 2 155 142 135 1.06

Straight 463 459 1.01 132.7 11 8 527 485 459 1.06

Right 70 69 1.01 1.01 133.1 132.7 2 1 80 73 69 1.06 1.06

West Left 83 82 1.01 178.6 2 2 95 86 82 1.05

Straight 79 78 1.01 178.6 2 2 91 83 78 1.05

Right 134 132 1.01 1.01 178.6 178.6 4 3 154 139 132 1.05 1.05

North Left 41 40 1.01 162.7 1 1 47 41 40 1.02

Straight 290 287 1.01 162.7 8 6 334 293 287 1.02

Right 62 62 1.01 1.01 1.01 162.7 162.7 155.6 71.8 2 1 72 63 62 1.02 1.02 1.04


Straight 159 611 0.26 0.39 9.0 7.1 0 0 13 164 611 0.27 0.40

South Left 85 530 0.16 6.4 0 0 8 87 530 0.16

Right 435 880 0.49 0.44 9.0 8.6 0 0 39 445 880 0.51 0.45

West Straight 256 647 0.40 7.9 0 0 69 270 647 0.42

Right 144 535 0.27 0.35 0.40 10.6 8.9 8.1 3.3 0 0 39 152 535 0.28 0.37 0.41


Straight 791 852 0.93 0.85 65.7 41.3 18 9 775 838 852 0.98 0.90

West Left 873 931 0.94 21.9 4 4 2,781 890 931 0.96

Right 454 497 0.91 0.93 80.5 42.0 12 6 448 463 497 0.93 0.95


Right 871 929 0.94 0.63 0.80 52.0 30.8 37.7 45.7 13 6 824 919 929 0.99 0.67 0.83


Straight 115 137 0.84 73.2 3 1 108 119 137 0.87

Right 127 129 0.98 0.89 84.3 76.6 3 2 127 131 129 1.01 0.91

Southeast Left 0 0 0.00 149.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

Straight 1,008 976 1.03 149.1 18 25 1,429 1,049 976 1.07

Right 169 191 0.88 1.01 123.8 145.4 6 3 169 175 191 0.92 1.05

Southwest Left 357 350 1.02 153.1 9 8 455 359 350 1.03

Straight 203 199 1.02 153.1 5 5 259 204 199 1.03

Right 97 96 1.02 1.02 158.8 154.0 2 2 124 98 96 1.03 1.03

Northwest Left 33 32 1.02 125.4 1 1 41 34 32 1.06

Straight 960 942 1.02 125.4 17 18 1,211 1,000 942 1.06

Right 175 191 0.91 1.00 1.00 136.7 127.1 132.6 125.5 6 3 175 182 191 0.95 1.04 1.03

439.5 439.5 253 275 39,521

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 7 2 2 between 0.75 & 0.85 7 1 2

between 0.85 & 0.95 9 3 0 between 0.85 & 0.95 7 4 0

between 0.95 & 1.00 1 0 1 between 0.95 & 1.00 5 0 0


43 14 4 46 14 4


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C13: 2027 Weekday PM Peak Hour Test 3b SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

A22 & A27 Cophall RA North Left in 940 1,950 0.48 4.8 0 0 0 1,016 1,950 0.52

Straight in (left) 8 879 0.01 6.2 0 0 5 9 879 0.01


Internal left 741 3,950 0.19 0.6 0 0 0 839 3,950 0.21

Internal right 174 1,950 0.09 0.54 1.0 6.3 0 0 0 197 1,950 0.10 0.58

East Left in 1,403 1,574 0.89 12.7 4 4 2,606 1,555 1,574 0.99

Internal 1,442 5,850 0.25 0.56 0.4 6.5 0 0 0 1,568 5,850 0.27 0.63


Internal 2,275 5,850 0.39 0.41 0.5 2.2 0 0 0 2,497 5,850 0.43 0.44


Left in 1,723 2,100 0.82 20.1 18 7 1,431 2,004 2,100 0.95

Internal 988 1,250 0.79 0.81 31.4 17.1 14 7 901 1,077 1,250 0.86 0.91

West Left in 72 183 0.40 30.4 1 1 97 72 183 0.40

Internal left 128 1,950 0.07 0.4 0 0 0 145 1,950 0.07

Internal right 2,583 5,850 0.44 0.42 0.58 0.4 1.1 7.7 33.4 0 0 0 2,936 5,850 0.50 0.48 0.64


Straight 428 963 0.44 0.43 14.2 12.0 0 0 158 434 963 0.45 0.44

South Left 975 1,427 0.68 8.4 0 0 121 1,120 1,427 0.79

Right 437 888 0.49 0.62 17.4 11.2 0 0 54 502 888 0.56 0.72

West Straight 541 710 0.76 9.7 0 0 71 597 710 0.84

Right 1,148 1,317 0.87 0.84 0.68 14.2 12.7 12.0 13.1 1 1 152 1,267 1,317 0.96 0.92 0.75


Straight 118 401 0.29 20.2 0 0 105 121 401 0.30

Right 88 372 0.24 0.28 24.7 19.8 0 0 78 90 372 0.24 0.28

South Left 344 628 0.55 8.8 0 0 39 403 628 0.64

Straight 1,194 1,478 0.81 13.3 0 0 136 1,399 1,478 0.95

Right 65 349 0.19 0.73 17.8 12.5 0 0 7 76 349 0.22 0.85

West Left 130 373 0.35 14.4 0 0 96 132 373 0.35

Straight 201 445 0.45 18.9 0 0 149 205 445 0.46

Right 367 610 0.60 0.51 23.4 20.4 1 1 271 375 610 0.61 0.52

North Left 130 157 0.83 19.8 0 0 219 141 157 0.90

Straight 1,352 1,378 0.98 24.3 5 5 2,274 1,461 1,378 1.06

Right 60 87 0.69 0.96 0.74 28.8 24.0 18.7 21.6 0 0 102 65 87 0.75 1.03 0.83


Straight 68 76 0.89 174.2 2 1 67 69 76 0.91

Right 15 23 0.66 0.84 174.2 174.2 0 0 15 15 23 0.67 0.86

South Left 81 90 0.90 54.5 2 1 79 88 90 0.97

Straight 310 344 0.90 54.5 9 4 302 335 344 0.97

Right 44 310 0.14 0.82 46.1 53.6 1 1 36 48 310 0.15 0.89

West Left 70 94 0.75 103.8 2 1 68 74 94 0.79

Straight 128 155 0.83 103.8 4 2 126 136 155 0.88

Right 120 145 0.83 0.81 103.8 103.8 3 2 117 127 145 0.88 0.86

North Left 143 166 0.87 86.7 3 2 141 148 166 0.90

Straight 447 472 0.95 86.7 11 5 439 463 472 0.98

Right 71 95 0.75 0.91 0.86 86.7 86.7 87.6 37.3 2 1 70 74 95 0.78 0.94 0.90


Straight 133 520 0.26 0.43 9.8 7.8 0 0 22 140 520 0.27 0.45

South Left 79 614 0.13 6.2 0 0 6 82 614 0.13

Right 367 902 0.41 0.36 8.8 8.4 0 0 28 384 902 0.43 0.37

West Straight 177 558 0.32 7.6 0 0 40 192 558 0.34

Right 277 658 0.42 0.38 0.39 10.3 9.2 8.4 3.3 0 0 62 300 658 0.46 0.41 0.41


Straight 718 882 0.81 0.65 51.4 35.6 17 8 680 803 882 0.91 0.73

West Left 1,050 1,005 1.04 117.1 9 31 14,737 1,202 1,005 1.20

Right 485 411 1.18 1.09 456.3 224.3 9 42 941 503 411 1.22 1.20


Right 673 659 1.02 0.98 0.93 147.3 92.8 125.6 147.4 14 14 899 734 659 1.11 1.07 1.03


Straight 158 150 1.05 226.5 4 6 261 167 150 1.12

Right 9 8 1.05 1.05 234.2 226.6 0 0 14 9 8 1.12 1.12

Southeast Left 2 60 0.04 53.0 0 0 2 3 60 0.04

Straight 992 1,052 0.94 53.0 17 8 933 1,116 1,052 1.06

Right 131 176 0.75 0.92 98.2 58.3 4 2 131 148 176 0.84 1.03

Southwest Left 105 186 0.56 47.5 3 1 91 110 186 0.59

Straight 174 308 0.56 47.5 5 2 152 182 308 0.59

Right 11 113 0.10 0.55 43.4 47.4 0 0 8 11 113 0.10 0.57

Northwest Left 0 0 1.05 153.1 0 0 0 0 0 1.25

Straight 1,094 1,055 1.04 153.1 18 28 1,605 1,300 1,055 1.23

Right 165 176 0.94 1.02 0.95 153.4 153.1 122.4 108.8 5 3 165 196 176 1.11 1.22 1.08

364.9 364.9 216 218 35,447

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 11 5 0 between 0.75 & 0.85 6 0 2

between 0.85 & 0.95 10 2 3 between 0.85 & 0.95 10 7 1

between 0.95 & 1.00 2 2 0 between 0.95 & 1.00 6 0 0


31 12 3 34 13 5


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C14: 2027 Weekday AM Peak Hour Test 10 SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

A22 & A27 Cophall RA North Left in 913 1,314 0.70 11.6 5 2 1,174 921 1,314 0.70

Straight in (left) 0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00


Internal left 638 947 0.67 34.9 12 5 613 659 947 0.70

Internal right 133 288 0.46 0.63 34.9 20.2 2 1 128 138 288 0.48 0.64

East Left in 1,374 1,840 0.75 23.8 19 8 1,178 1,453 1,840 0.79

Internal 1,205 1,680 0.72 0.73 22.1 23.0 12 6 618 1,218 1,680 0.73 0.76


Internal 2,280 3,600 0.63 0.62 10.0 13.7 19 6 1,316 2,362 3,600 0.66 0.64


Left in 1,697 2,000 0.85 22.7 18 8 1,427 1,754 2,000 0.88

Internal 1,061 1,440 0.74 0.68 34.8 17.8 19 9 968 1,098 1,440 0.76 0.70

West Left in 143 217 0.66 62.1 3 2 137 143 217 0.66

Internal left 74 435 0.17 8.7 0 0 45 77 435 0.18

Internal right 2,684 3,766 0.71 0.70 0.67 8.8 11.5 17.2 72.0 17 5 1,689 2,776 3,766 0.74 0.72 0.69

A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Way RA East Left 765 1,379 0.55 13.9 7 2 1,411 771 1,379 0.56

Straight 572 1,080 0.53 0.54 29.8 20.7 10 4 476 576 1,080 0.53 0.55

South Left 802 1,625 0.49 8.5 3 1 763 877 1,625 0.54

Right 545 1,360 0.40 0.46 22.7 14.3 8 3 400 596 1,360 0.44 0.50

West Straight 390 1,000 0.39 14.5 5 1 239 397 1,000 0.40

Right 1,161 2,000 0.58 0.53 0.51 15.8 15.5 16.7 19.7 13 4 830 1,183 2,000 0.59 0.54 0.53


Straight & Right 393 480 0.82 57.7 8 4 383 400 480 0.83

Right 0 0 0.00 0.67 0.0 44.9 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.68

South Left 300 1,867 0.16 5.0 1 0 65 337 1,867 0.18

Straight 1,025 2,120 0.48 12.3 10 3 589 1,150 2,120 0.54

Right 0 0 0.00 0.41 0.0 10.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.46

West Left 285 1,266 0.23 8.6 1 0 201 294 1,266 0.23

Straight 510 1,080 0.47 28.8 9 4 416 526 1,080 0.49

Right 0 0 0.00 0.38 0.0 21.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.40

North Left 249 1,730 0.14 5.5 1 0 70 252 1,730 0.15

Straight 1,678 1,829 0.92 29.2 18 8 1,545 1,701 1,829 0.93

Right 0 0 0.00 0.82 0.61 0.0 26.2 23.8 31.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.83 0.63


Straight 178 235 0.75 64.3 5 3 171 178 235 0.76

Right 172 261 0.66 0.71 63.5 63.9 5 2 163 173 261 0.66 0.71

South Left 188 186 1.01 138.1 4 3 222 196 186 1.06

Straight 423 418 1.01 138.1 10 8 500 442 418 1.06

Right 60 60 1.01 1.01 137.6 138.0 1 1 72 63 60 1.06 1.06

West Left 121 123 0.98 127.6 4 2 121 125 123 1.01

Straight 118 120 0.98 127.6 4 2 118 121 120 1.01

Right 261 261 1.00 0.99 127.7 127.6 8 4 261 267 261 1.02 1.02

North Left 41 54 0.77 113.4 1 1 40 42 54 0.78

Straight 282 296 0.95 113.5 8 4 279 285 296 0.96

Right 100 113 0.89 0.92 0.93 113.5 113.5 115.9 63.6 3 1 98 101 113 0.89 0.93 0.95


Straight 175 492 0.36 0.52 9.5 7.6 0 0 20 180 492 0.36 0.54

South Left 91 422 0.22 6.7 0 0 9 97 422 0.23

Right 533 864 0.62 0.56 9.4 9.0 0 0 54 566 864 0.66 0.59

West Straight 138 533 0.26 8.4 0 0 47 142 533 0.27

Right 193 587 0.33 0.30 0.49 11.1 10.0 8.6 3.8 0 0 66 198 587 0.34 0.31 0.51


Straight 879 994 0.88 0.65 52.6 37.4 19 9 844 915 994 0.92 0.68

West Left 819 1,979 0.41 10.6 9 2 380 839 1,979 0.42

Right 499 710 0.70 0.52 49.1 25.2 12 6 467 511 710 0.72 0.54


Right 908 1,188 0.76 0.55 0.58 34.1 23.2 28.8 35.0 16 7 781 940 1,188 0.79 0.57 0.60


Straight 170 197 0.86 63.3 4 2 161 175 197 0.89

Right 135 137 0.99 0.89 74.1 65.6 3 2 135 139 137 1.01 0.91

Southeast Left 2 304 0.01 29.2 0 0 1 2 304 0.01

Straight 1,181 1,780 0.66 29.2 22 9 911 1,240 1,780 0.70

Right 139 191 0.73 0.67 92.3 35.9 5 2 139 146 191 0.76 0.70

Southwest Left 232 231 1.00 116.9 6 3 241 233 231 1.01

Straight 357 356 1.00 116.9 9 5 371 359 356 1.01

Right 138 138 1.00 1.00 127.1 118.9 3 2 144 139 138 1.01 1.01

Northwest Left 65 65 1.01 107.5 1 1 73 67 65 1.04

Straight 884 876 1.01 107.5 16 12 985 911 876 1.04

Right 157 191 0.82 0.98 0.86 107.5 107.5 77.7 81.4 5 3 157 162 191 0.85 1.01 0.89

307.0 307.0 456 200 27,515

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 7 1 0 between 0.75 & 0.85 9 2 0

between 0.85 & 0.95 5 2 2 between 0.85 & 0.95 6 2 1

between 0.95 & 1.00 5 2 0 between 0.95 & 1.00 1 0 1


25 7 2 28 8 2


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C15: 2027 Weekday PM Peak Hour Test 10 SATURN Results


Actual Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Maximum

Transient

Queue (pcus)

Average

Queue

(pcus) No. Stops

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr)

A22 & A27 Cophall RA North Left in 1,096 1,206 0.91 18.1 8 4 2,445 1,207 1,206 1.00

Straight in (left) 0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00


Internal left 752 1,053 0.71 30.5 12 5 714 795 1,053 0.76

Internal right 187 338 0.55 0.76 30.5 22.9 3 1 177 198 338 0.59 0.82

East Left in 1,254 1,720 0.73 25.5 17 7 1,077 1,379 1,720 0.80

Internal 1,339 1,860 0.72 0.72 18.7 22.0 12 6 608 1,467 1,860 0.79 0.80


Internal 2,162 3,780 0.57 0.57 7.9 12.1 16 4 1,082 2,373 3,780 0.63 0.63


Left in 1,978 2,280 0.87 19.3 18 7 1,610 2,068 2,280 0.91

Internal 847 1,020 0.83 0.71 45.2 17.5 17 8 815 925 1,020 0.91 0.76

West Left in 60 130 0.46 65.9 1 1 58 60 130 0.46

Internal left 126 544 0.23 5.4 1 0 54 133 544 0.24

Internal right 2,699 3,954 0.68 0.66 0.69 5.4 6.7 16.5 70.9 13 3 1,236 2,861 3,954 0.72 0.70 0.75


Straight 442 760 0.58 0.48 37.6 26.3 9 4 397 450 760 0.59 0.49

South Left 812 1,761 0.46 6.9 3 1 505 929 1,761 0.53

Right 540 1,560 0.35 0.42 18.8 11.6 7 3 360 618 1,560 0.40 0.48

West Straight 448 1,060 0.42 13.6 5 1 258 486 1,060 0.46

Right 1,399 2,120 0.66 0.60 0.51 15.7 15.2 16.5 18.8 15 5 992 1,516 2,120 0.72 0.65 0.56


Straight & Right 140 240 0.58 58.5 3 2 136 143 240 0.59

Right 0 0 0.00 0.39 0.0 37.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.40

South Left 461 2,035 0.23 4.4 1 0 46 539 2,035 0.26

Straight 1,197 2,520 0.48 7.4 9 2 538 1,400 2,520 0.56

Right 0 0 0.00 0.41 0.0 6.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.47

West Left 216 1,179 0.18 9.6 1 0 158 222 1,179 0.19

Straight 566 1,000 0.57 32.0 10 4 486 582 1,000 0.58

Right 0 0 0.00 0.46 0.0 25.8 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.47

North Left 386 1,747 0.22 6.1 2 0 144 412 1,747 0.24

Straight 1,485 2,080 0.71 16.7 16 6 1,067 1,585 2,080 0.76

Right 0 0 0.00 0.61 0.50 0.0 14.5 15.1 19.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.65 0.54


Straight 49 56 0.86 76.2 2 1 48 50 56 0.89

Right 39 92 0.42 0.59 74.9 75.4 1 1 38 40 92 0.43 0.61

South Left 53 124 0.43 48.3 1 1 49 58 124 0.47

Straight 329 442 0.74 48.3 9 4 305 359 442 0.81

Right 47 476 0.10 0.63 40.9 47.5 1 0 36 51 476 0.11 0.69

West Left 115 144 0.79 59.8 3 2 109 121 144 0.83

Straight 225 283 0.79 59.8 6 3 213 236 283 0.83

Right 362 415 0.87 0.84 60.8 60.3 10 5 350 380 415 0.92 0.88

North Left 79 90 0.87 104.2 2 1 77 80 90 0.88

Straight 354 367 0.96 104.2 9 5 350 360 367 0.98

Right 124 136 0.91 0.94 0.80 104.2 104.2 71.8 36.0 3 2 122 126 136 0.92 0.95 0.84


Straight 182 523 0.35 0.48 9.7 7.9 0 0 26 194 523 0.37 0.51

South Left 96 552 0.17 6.5 0 0 10 101 552 0.18

Right 398 855 0.47 0.41 9.1 8.6 0 0 42 423 855 0.49 0.43

West Straight 199 574 0.35 7.8 0 0 49 215 574 0.37

Right 241 615 0.39 0.37 0.42 10.5 9.2 8.5 3.6 0 0 59 259 615 0.42 0.40 0.45


Straight 730 807 0.90 0.66 62.2 45.6 17 8 712 820 807 1.02 0.74

West Left 1,248 2,120 0.59 10.0 11 3 589 1,248 2,120 0.59

Right 482 465 1.04 0.71 185.3 58.8 9 13 745 482 465 1.04 0.71


Right 704 973 0.72 0.83 0.74 38.5 40.2 48.8 59.5 14 6 619 769 973 0.79 0.91 0.79


Straight 185 175 1.06 232.0 5 7 309 197 175 1.13

Right 2 2 1.06 1.06 240.3 232.0 0 0 4 3 2 1.12 1.13

Southeast Left 4 482 0.01 21.9 0 0 2 4 482 0.01

Straight 1,039 1,986 0.52 21.9 18 6 682 1,170 1,986 0.59

Right 136 191 0.71 0.54 90.6 29.8 4 2 136 153 191 0.80 0.61

Southwest Left 45 81 0.55 48.2 1 1 39 46 81 0.57

Straight 223 403 0.55 48.2 6 3 195 232 403 0.57

Right 25 119 0.21 0.52 46.5 48.1 1 0 21 26 119 0.22 0.54

Northwest Left 0 0 1.00 152.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.15

Straight 1,094 1,055 1.04 152.5 18 28 1,600 1,231 1,055 1.17

Right 178 191 0.93 1.02 0.81 143.8 151.2 110.6 99.8 6 3 178 200 191 1.05 1.15 0.90

308.0 308.0 408 209 26,429

Total Delay (hrs)

V/C … Mo

vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns


vem

ents

Appro

aches

Junctio

ns

between 0.75 & 0.85 3 3 2 between 0.75 & 0.85 9 3 2

between 0.85 & 0.95 9 1 0 between 0.85 & 0.95 6 2 1

between 0.95 & 1.00 2 0 0 between 0.95 & 1.00 1 1 0


19 6 2 26 8 3


Average Delay

(sec/pcu)

Table C16: Weekday AM Peak Hour SATURN & Count-Derived Demands

Note: The latter were generated for local modelling purposes.

2011 b

ase a

m

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

10

2011 b

ase a

m

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

10

2011 b

ase a

m

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

10

2011 b

ase a

m

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

10

North Left in 612 840 912 913 612 840 912 913

Straight in (left) 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 0

Straight in (straight) 870 1,051 1,021 1,071 883 1,064 1,034 1,084

Internal left 637 428 652 638 363 154 378 364

Internal right 130 461 266 133 362 694 498 366

East Left in 1,363 1,616 1,673 1,374 1,453 1,705 1,763 1,463

Internal 1,000 1,474 1,253 1,205 1,245 1,719 1,498 1,450

Southeast Left in 237 346 331 295 267 377 362 326

Internal 2,171 2,484 2,492 2,280 2,356 2,669 2,677 2,465

South Internal out 1,387 1,511 1,585 1,515 1,369 1,493 1,567 1,497

Left in 1,377 1,692 1,665 1,697 1,181 1,496 1,469 1,501

Internal 1,020 1,319 1,238 1,061 1,254 1,553 1,471 1,294

West Left 127 156 157 143 279 308 308 294

Internal left 76 83 85 74 250 257 259 248

Internal right 2,321 2,928 2,817 2,684 2,185 2,792 2,681 2,547

East Left 394 704 555 765 465 776 626 837 450 751 606 810 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%

Straight 469 638 725 572 471 640 727 574 449 610 692 546 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%

South Left 894 978 948 802 907 990 961 815 835 911 884 750 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8%

Right 264 350 324 545 278 364 338 560 259 340 315 522 5.6% 5.6% 5.6% 5.6%

West Straight 408 542 548 390 396 531 536 379 372 499 504 356 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9%

Right 850 735 1,025 1,161 916 801 1,091 1,227 857 750 1,021 1,148 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4%

East Left 197 230 231 309 247 280 281 359 245 278 279 356 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

Straight 139 165 186 253 158 184 205 272 152 177 197 264 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8%

Right 216 153 109 140 237 175 131 140 224 165 123 132 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7%

South Left 123 353 241 300 114 344 232 291 110 332 224 281 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9%

Straight 850 1,069 1,030 922 899 1,118 1,079 971 844 1,049 945 912 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2%

Right 38 45 63 103 48 55 73 103 45 51 68 96 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1%

West Left 92 123 137 285 92 123 137 285 78 104 116 241 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0%

Straight 108 256 194 216 136 284 222 244 134 280 218 243 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

Right 235 615 478 294 187 567 430 294 182 554 420 287 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

North Left 101 4 59 249 116 19 74 264 103 17 65 233 10.3% 10.3% 10.3% 10.3%

Straight 1,082 1,352 1,459 1,572 1,243 1,513 1,620 1,733 1,173 1,427 1,528 1,649 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%

Right 61 84 63 106 52 74 54 106 42 60 43 85 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0%

East Left 51 58 51 30 73 81 74 53 73 81 76 53

Straight 169 200 143 178 199 230 173 208 199 230 201 274

Right 60 33 108 172 65 38 113 177 65 38 66 95

South Left 173 140 136 188 118 85 81 133 118 85 95 267

Straight 345 287 463 423 345 286 463 423 345 286 412 274

Right 72 85 70 60 77 90 75 65 77 90 88 85

West Left 63 75 83 121 127 138 146 185 127 138 139 148

Straight 86 102 79 118 116 132 109 148 116 132 132 134

Right 87 157 134 261 130 200 177 304 130 200 190 306

North Left 29 55 41 41 42 68 54 54 42 68 51 40

Straight 176 333 290 282 167 323 281 273 167 323 273 243

Right 55 67 62 100 87 99 94 132 87 99 91 125

East Left 267 399 363 452 272 404 368 458

Straight 97 178 159 175 97 177 159 174

South Left 74 95 85 91 66 87 77 83

Right 270 424 435 533 256 410 421 520

West Straight 65 426 256 138 66 427 257 139

Right 87 112 144 193 105 130 162 210

Southeast Left 542 647 662 669 520 625 641 647

Straight 702 838 791 879 668 804 758 845

West Left 676 854 873 819 703 881 901 846

Right 367 474 454 499 309 416 396 441

Northwest Straight 607 678 714 607 557 628 664 557

Right 780 833 871 908 798 851 889 925

Northeast Left 86 176 162 313 96 186 172 322

Straight 100 119 115 170 116 135 131 186

Right 103 128 127 135 95 120 120 127

Southeast Left 2 0 0 2 34 32 32 34

Straight 830 1,069 1,008 1,181 789 1,029 967 1,141

Right 69 151 169 139 56 138 155 125

Southwest Left 311 357 357 232 313 359 359 234

Straight 145 205 203 357 118 178 176 330

Right 3 103 97 138 43 144 138 179

Northwest Left 42 46 33 65 38 43 29 62

Straight 832 969 960 884 659 796 787 710

Right 100 136 175 157 142 178 217 199

Count & Model-Derived

Flows (pcus/hr) for LINSIG

& TRANSYT Analysis

Assum

ing e

ffective s

trate

gy f

or

B2104

2011 b

ase a

m

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev a

m t

est

10



& TRANSYT Analysis


Flows (vehs/hr) for

ARCADY Analysis

Count-Derived Heavy

Proportions (%) for

ARCADY Analysis


SATURN Actual Flows

(pcus/hr)

Hailsham

Road, Station

Road & High

Street

A27, A22 &

A2270

A2270 & High

Street

A22 & A27

Cophall RA

A27 & Golden

Jubilee Way

Golden Jubilee

Way & Dittons

Road

Dittons Road,

Hailsham

Road, Rattle

Road & Lion

Hill

Table C17: Weekday PM Peak Hour SATURN & Count-Derived Demands

Note: The latter were generated for local modelling purposes.

2011 b

ase p

m

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

10

2011 b

ase p

m

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

10

2011 b

ase p

m

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

10

2011 b

ase p

m

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

10

North Left in 796 1,016 940 1,096 796 1,016 940 1,096

Straight in (left) 10 8 8 0 10 9 9 0

Straight in (straight) 1,005 1,266 1,268 1,152 1,009 1,270 1,273 1,156

Internal left 620 725 741 752 610 715 730 741

Internal right 116 177 174 187 150 210 207 221

East Left in 1,160 1,380 1,403 1,254 1,133 1,353 1,376 1,228

Internal 1,121 1,443 1,442 1,339 1,159 1,480 1,480 1,377

Southeast Left in 166 284 297 258 45 162 176 137

Internal 1,914 2,240 2,275 2,162 1,963 2,289 2,324 2,210

South Internal out 1,357 1,576 1,584 1,573 1,301 1,521 1,529 1,518

Left in 1,452 1,723 1,723 1,978 1,548 1,819 1,818 2,074

Internal 724 948 988 847 706 930 970 829

West Left 56 72 72 60 244 260 260 248

Internal left 124 129 128 126 234 239 238 236

Internal right 2,053 2,542 2,583 2,699 2,020 2,510 2,551 2,667

East Left 243 352 395 472 272 381 424 501 269 376 419 495 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Straight 379 426 428 442 376 423 425 439 365 410 412 426 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3%

South Left 781 954 975 812 776 950 970 807 762 933 953 793 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

Right 379 444 437 540 395 460 453 556 391 456 448 550 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

West Straight 477 547 541 448 465 535 529 437 458 526 521 430 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3%

Right 949 1,202 1,148 1,399 973 1,226 1,172 1,423 950 1,198 1,144 1,390 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9%

East Left 84 117 114 169 109 141 138 194 109 141 138 194 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Straight 110 121 118 113 102 113 110 104 101 112 109 103 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Right 80 92 88 27 89 101 97 27 89 101 97 27 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

South Left 183 341 344 461 188 346 348 466 188 346 348 466 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Straight 978 1,177 1,194 1,109 1,032 1,231 1,248 1,163 1,004 1,198 1,088 1,130 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4%

Right 66 72 65 88 129 135 128 88 128 133 127 87 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

West Left 101 129 130 216 66 93 94 180 62 88 89 170 5.1% 5.1% 5.1% 5.1%

Straight 125 190 201 290 173 238 249 338 171 235 246 333 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Right 210 415 367 276 153 358 310 276 152 355 307 274 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

North Left 141 196 130 386 219 274 208 464 216 270 205 457 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Straight 1,007 1,300 1,352 1,419 1,006 1,299 1,351 1,418 976 1,261 1,311 1,382 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5%

Right 44 58 60 66 37 51 54 66 33 45 47 58 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1%

East Left 31 36 35 33 70 75 75 72 70 75 73 69

Straight 77 68 68 49 125 116 116 97 125 116 123 119

Right 26 21 15 39 37 32 26 50 37 32 24 43

South Left 80 81 81 53 76 77 78 50 76 77 89 51

Straight 223 326 310 329 202 305 288 308 202 305 249 210

Right 41 46 44 47 51 56 55 57 51 56 56 48

West Left 58 69 70 115 83 95 96 140 83 95 95 139

Straight 130 190 128 225 190 250 188 284 190 250 257 310

Right 87 114 120 362 221 247 253 495 221 247 264 523

North Left 83 77 143 79 58 51 118 53 58 51 39 32

Straight 283 389 447 354 304 410 468 375 304 410 345 300

Right 63 76 71 124 89 101 97 149 89 101 106 159

East Left 286 379 372 392 274 367 360 379

Straight 33 122 133 182 33 122 133 182

South Left 68 77 79 96 63 72 74 91

Right 275 391 367 398 314 429 406 437

West Straight 115 179 177 199 117 182 179 202

Right 149 292 277 241 133 276 261 225

Southeast Left 384 402 387 355 374 392 376 345

Straight 601 705 718 730 562 666 679 691

West Left 851 1,063 1,050 1,248 832 1,044 1,031 1,229

Right 486 508 485 482 487 509 487 483

Northwest Straight 755 894 911 869 718 856 874 832

Right 601 665 673 704 597 660 669 700

Northeast Left 205 367 361 320 110 272 266 225

Straight 92 157 158 185 90 155 156 183

Right 67 19 9 2 58 10 0 0

Southeast Left 3 3 2 4 13 13 12 13

Straight 826 985 992 1,039 779 938 945 991

Right 103 135 131 136 92 124 121 125

Southwest Left 92 104 105 45 106 118 119 58

Straight 121 203 174 223 113 195 166 215

Right 2 10 11 25 38 46 47 61

Northwest Left 44 0 0 0 64 21 21 20

Straight 1,024 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,011 1,080 1,080 1,080

Right 173 164 165 178 127 118 119 132

Assum

ing e

ffective s

trate

gy f

or

B2104



& TRANSYT Analysis

2011 b

ase p

m

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est1

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

3b

2027 p

ropdev p

m t

est

10



& TRANSYT Analysis


Flows (vehs/hr) for

ARCADY Analysis

Count-Derived Heavy

Proportions (%) for

ARCADY Analysis


SATURN Actual Flows

(pcus/hr)

Hailsham

Road, Station

Road & High

Street

A27, A22 &

A2270

A2270 & High

Street

A22 & A27

Cophall RA

A27 & Golden

Jubilee Way

Golden Jubilee

Way & Dittons

Road

Dittons Road,

Hailsham

Road, Rattle

Road & Lion

Hill

Table C18: A27, A22 & A2270 Signalised Junction LINSIG Results – Reduced “Cannon” Layout with Pedestrian Crossings on Western A27 Arm

Notes: 1. See Figure B1 in Appendix B for layout.

2. Demands comprise observed flows adjusted for strategic model demand changes (see Tables C16 & C17).

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity

(pcus/hr) Actual v/c

Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Weekday AM Peak Hour

Southeast Left 520 2,074 1,115 0.47 2.4 16.9 9.2 647 2,074 1,120 0.58 3.4 19.2 12.5

Straight 668 1,965:1,965 753 0.89 9.4 50.9 15.9 845 1,965:1,965 792 1.07 43.1 183.8 53.9

West Left 703 1,980 1,449 0.49 1.5 7.9 8.5 846 1,980 1,366 0.62 2.8 11.8 13.5

Right 309 1,884:1,884 377 0.82 5.9 69.1 6.4 441 1,884:1,884 414 1.06 25.3 206.3 25.4

Northwest Straight 557 1,985:1,985 1,801 0.31 0.6 3.8 2.0 557 1,985:1,985 1,781 0.31 0.6 4.0 2.1

Right 798 1,850 907 0.88 8.5 28.5 38.5 23.2 925 1,850 851 1.09 52.2 127.4 203.0 70.2

Weekday PM Peak Hour

Southeast Left 374 2,074 1,306 0.29 0.9 8.7 4.9 345 2,074 1,236 0.28 1.1 11.4 4.8

Straight 562 1,965:1,965 733 0.77 6.4 40.9 10.2 691 1,965:1,965 772 0.90 9.8 51.1 16.8

West Left 832 1,980 1,525 0.55 1.6 6.7 9.6 1,229 1,980 1,427 0.86 6.5 19.0 27.9

Right 487 1,884:1,884 641 0.76 6.9 51.1 8.0 483 1,884:1,884 565 0.86 8.3 62.0 9.3


Right 597 1,850 795 0.75 5.5 22.5 32.9 15.4 700 1,850 795 0.88 8.5 35.6 43.7 21.1

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


Southeast Left 520 1,878:1,915 856 0.61 4.9 33.7 6.7 647 1,878:1,915 875 0.74 6.6 36.5 8.9

Straight 668 2,005:2,005 857 0.78 7.5 40.5 9.9 845 2,005:2,005 876 0.97 16.3 69.6 23.5

Exit lane 1 433 1,995 1,656 0.26 0.3 2.3 0.9 499 1,995 1,656 0.30 0.3 2.2 1.0

Exit lane 2 433 1,995 1,656 0.26 0.3 2.3 0.9 499 1,995 1,656 0.30 0.3 2.3 1.0

West Left ped signal 703 2,044 1,676 0.42 0.8 4.3 5.6 846 2,044 1,676 0.51 1.2 4.9 7.6

Left yield 703 2,115 1,615 0.44 0.7 3.4 5.5 846 2,115 1,513 0.56 1.6 6.7 11.7

Right 309 1,991:1,988 398 0.78 5.4 63.4 5.9 441 1,991:1,988 477 0.92 10.1 82.6 10.8

Exit lane 1 664 2,015 1,652 0.40 0.3 1.8 0.4 792 2,015 1,652 0.48 0.5 2.1 0.5

Exit lane 2 654 2,015 1,652 0.40 0.3 1.8 0.3 780 2,015 1,652 0.47 0.4 2.1 0.5


Right 798 1,787:1,751 1,025 0.78 6.6 27.9 29.6 11.5 925 1,787:1,751 972 0.95 14.2 52.4 55.4 24.3


Southeast Left 374 1,878:1,915 838 0.45 3.3 31.8 4.5 345 1,878:1,915 874 0.40 2.8 29.6 4.0

Straight 562 2,005:2,005 837 0.67 5.9 37.5 7.6 691 2,005:2,005 876 0.79 7.7 40.0 10.4

Exit lane 1 603 1,995 1,656 0.36 0.5 2.8 2.3 658 1,995 1,656 0.40 0.5 2.6 3.7

Exit lane 2 602 1,995 1,656 0.36 0.5 2.8 2.3 657 1,995 1,656 0.40 0.5 2.6 3.1

West Left ped signal 832 2,044 1,676 0.50 1.1 4.9 7.4 1,229 2,044 1,676 0.73 2.8 8.1 16.7

Left yield 832 2,115 1,668 0.50 0.7 3.2 6.9 1,229 2,115 1,598 0.77 2.6 7.5 21.5

Right 487 1,991:1,988 738 0.66 6.0 44.5 7.2 483 1,991:1,988 637 0.76 6.9 51.6 7.9

Exit lane 1 489 2,015 1,652 0.30 0.2 1.5 0.2 527 2,015 1,652 0.32 0.2 1.6 0.2

Exit lane 2 482 2,015 1,652 0.29 0.2 1.5 0.2 518 2,015 1,652 0.31 0.2 1.6 0.2


Right 597 1,787:1,751 883 0.68 5.4 25.7 32.5 7.6 700 1,787:1,751 901 0.78 6.8 33.0 35.2 10.4

2011 2027

2011 2027

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)Approach

Base Layout

Proposed Layout

Turn

Approach TurnTotal Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Table C19: A27, A22 & A2270 Signalised Junction LINSIG Results – Reduced “Cannon” Layout with no Pedestrian Crossings on

Western A27 Arm



Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


Southeast Left 520 2,074 1,115 0.47 2.4 16.9 9.2 647 2,074 1,120 0.58 3.4 19.2 12.5

Straight 668 1,965:1,965 753 0.89 9.4 50.9 15.9 845 1,965:1,965 792 1.07 43.1 183.8 53.9

West Left 703 1,980 1,449 0.49 1.5 7.9 8.5 846 1,980 1,366 0.62 2.8 11.8 13.5

Right 309 1,884:1,884 377 0.82 5.9 69.1 6.4 441 1,884:1,884 414 1.06 25.3 206.3 25.4


Right 798 1,850 907 0.88 8.5 28.5 38.5 23.2 925 1,850 851 1.09 52.2 127.4 203.0 70.2


Southeast Left 374 2,074 1,306 0.29 0.9 8.7 4.9 345 2,074 1,236 0.28 1.1 11.4 4.8

Straight 562 1,965:1,965 733 0.77 6.4 40.9 10.2 691 1,965:1,965 772 0.90 9.8 51.1 16.8

West Left 832 1,980 1,525 0.55 1.6 6.7 9.6 1,229 1,980 1,427 0.86 6.5 19.0 27.9

Right 487 1,884:1,884 641 0.76 6.9 51.1 8.0 483 1,884:1,884 565 0.86 8.3 62.0 9.3


Right 597 1,850 795 0.75 5.5 22.5 32.9 15.4 700 1,850 795 0.88 8.5 35.6 43.7 21.1

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


Southeast Left 520 1,878:1,915 875 0.59 4.7 32.6 6.5 647 1,878:1,915 913 0.71 6.1 33.8 8.4

Straight 668 2,005:2,005 877 0.76 7.2 38.7 9.5 845 2,005:2,005 916 0.92 12.4 52.7 19.0

Exit lane 1 433 1,995 1,656 0.26 0.3 2.5 1.9 499 1,995 1,656 0.30 0.3 2.4 2.0

Exit lane 2 433 1,995 1,656 0.26 0.3 2.5 1.9 499 1,995 1,656 0.30 0.3 2.4 2.0

West Left 703 2,044 1,551 0.45 1.2 5.9 7.4 846 2,044 1,441 0.59 2.4 10.3 12.5

Right 309 1,991:1,988 438 0.71 4.9 56.7 5.3 441 1,991:1,988 477 0.92 10.1 82.6 10.8


Right 798 1,787:1,751 1,059 0.75 6.0 25.3 27.1 10.6 925 1,787:1,751 1,007 0.92 11.3 43.6 43.9 20.8


Southeast Left 374 1,878:1,915 854 0.44 3.2 30.9 4.4 345 1,878:1,915 874 0.40 2.8 29.6 4.0

Straight 562 2,005:2,005 857 0.66 5.7 36.2 7.4 691 2,005:2,005 876 0.79 7.7 40.0 10.4

Exit lane 1 603 1,995 1,656 0.36 0.5 2.8 2.3 658 1,995 1,656 0.40 0.5 3.0 2.8

Exit lane 2 602 1,995 1,656 0.36 0.5 2.8 2.3 657 1,995 1,656 0.40 0.5 3.0 2.8

West Left 832 2,044 1,604 0.52 1.3 5.5 8.9 1,229 2,044 1,547 0.79 4.3 12.6 22.4

Right 487 1,991:1,988 758 0.64 5.8 43.1 7.1 483 1,991:1,988 676 0.71 6.5 48.4 7.6


Right 597 1,787:1,751 918 0.65 5.0 23.6 30.2 7.3 700 1,787:1,751 954 0.73 6.0 30.0 31.0 9.1

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)Approach

Base Layout

Proposed Layout

Turn


(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

2011 2027

2011 2027

Table C20: A2270 & High Street Signalised Junction LINSIG Results


2. Demands comprise observed flows adjusted for strategic model demand changes (see Tables C16 & C17)

3. 2027 demands include corrections for north-south rat-running through Polegate (75pcus and 115pcus in the AM and PM peak hours respectively)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


Southeast Left, Straight & Right 879 1,904:1,751 920 0.96 15.4 63.0 35.2 1,300 1,907:1,751 1,120 1.16 113.0 312.9 145.1

Southwest Left, Straight & Right 474 1,879:1,832 556 0.85 8.0 60.7 17.1 743 1,935:1,832 413 1.80 198.7 962.6 207.4

Northwest Left & Straight 697 1,944 923 0.76 6.5 33.6 20.5 772 1,938 1,114 0.69 5.0 23.2 19.1

Right 142 1,753 161 0.88 5.0 127.4 7.6 199 1,753 117 1.70 50.0 905.3 52.9

Northeast Left, Straight & Right 307 1,801:1,733 348 0.88 6.8 41.7 79.6 8.9 635 1,766:1,733 413 1.54 135.7 502.4 769.1 143.7


Southeast Left, Straight & Right 884 1,911:1,751 1,234 0.72 5.7 23.2 19.2 1,129 1,912:1,751 1,094 1.03 38.3 122.0 67.9

Southwest Left, Straight & Right 257 1,922:1,832 303 0.85 6.2 86.2 9.9 334 1,973:1,832 449 0.74 5.7 61.4 10.4

Northwest Left & Straight 1,075 1,943 1,231 0.87 8.7 29.2 32.6 1,100 1,951 1,089 1.01 28.1 92.1 56.5

Right 127 1,753 146 0.87 4.5 128.4 6.8 132 1,753 131 1.01 7.9 216.4 10.3

Northeast Left, Straight & Right 258 1,782:1,733 304 0.85 6.2 31.3 87.0 9.0 408 1,782:1,895 401 1.02 17.5 97.6 154.8 25.6

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


Southeast Left & Straight 651 1,872 905 0.72 5.7 31.6 18.4

Straight & Right 649 1,885:1,751 956 0.68 6.1 33.6 15.8

Southwest Left 234 1,942 810 0.29 1.0 15.8 4.3

Straight & Right 509 1,915:1,741 617 0.82 8.0 56.4 15.1

Northwest Left & Straight 847 1,882 910 0.93 12.6 53.4 32.1

Right 199 1,717 215 0.93 7.0 127.2 10.7

Northeast Left 247 1,942 708 0.35 1.3 19.0 4.6

Straight & Right 313 1,915:1,751 355 0.88 6.9 48.6 79.4 8.1


Southeast Left & Straight 1,004 1,882 1,270 0.79 5.6 20.3 25.0

Straight & Right 125 1,885:1,751 146 0.86 4.3 124.2 6.5

Southwest Left 58 1,942 672 0.09 0.2 13.0 0.9

Straight & Right 276 1,915:1,741 302 0.91 8.1 105.4 11.7

Northwest Left & Straight 1,215 1,892 1,277 0.95 13.8 40.9 44.3

Right 132 1,717 143 0.92 5.6 153.0 8.0

Northeast Left 110 1,942 555 0.20 0.9 31.0 2.7

Straight & Right 183 1,915:1,915 255 0.72 3.8 42.3 73.9 7.0

2011 2027

2011 2027

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)Approach

Base Layout

Proposed Layout

Turn


(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

Table C21: A22 & A27 Cophall Roundabout TRANSYT Results



Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Demand

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


North Left 612 915 1,909 1,906 0.48 0.5 2.0 0.0

Straight in 879 1,082 3,979 1,866 0.58 5.0 16.6 17.0

Internal left 637 365 4,076 1,738 0.21 1.4 13.8 4.0

Internal right 130 368 1,966 836 0.44 1.8 17.6 5.0

East Left in 1,363 1,463 3,979 2,184 0.67 5.8 14.3 22.0

Internal 1,000 1,450 6,042 1,986 0.73 6.7 16.6 18.0

Southeast Left in 1 10 1,787 500 0.02 0.1 36.0 0.0

Left in 2 237 326 1,818 423 0.77 4.0 44.2 8.0

Internal left 1,499 3,984 2,584 0.58 2.4 5.8 15.0

Internal right 2,171 967 2,057 1,325 0.73 2.7 10.1 12.0

South Left in 1,377 1,501 3,919 1,876 0.80 8.7 20.9 27.0

Internal 1,020 1,293 5,890 2,192 0.59 7.1 19.8 24.0

West Left in 127 294 1,873 387 0.76 3.8 46.5 7.0

Internal 2,321 2,359 6,042 4,067 0.58 3.1 53.1 4.7 24.0


North Left 796 1,094 1,909 1,919 0.57 0.7 2.3 1.0

Straight in 1,014 1,158 3,979 1,755 0.66 6.2 19.3 19.0

Internal left 620 740 4,076 1,850 0.40 2.9 14.1 11.0

Internal right 116 221 1,966 884 0.25 0.9 14.7 3.0

East Left in 1,160 1,228 3,979 2,117 0.58 4.6 13.5 17.0

Internal 1,121 1,379 6,042 2,058 0.67 4.8 12.5 13.0

Southeast Left in 1 10 1,787 250 0.04 0.1 36.0 0.0

Left in 2 166 137 1,818 274 0.50 1.6 42.0 3.0

Internal left 1,518 3,984 2,919 0.52 1.4 3.3 5.0

Internal right 1,914 695 2,192 1,580 0.44 0.7 3.6 2.0

South Left in 1,452 2,074 3,919 2,593 0.80 7.2 12.5 33.0

Internal 724 832 5,890 1,124 0.74 7.3 31.6 16.0

West Left in 56 248 1,873 359 0.69 3.0 43.5 6.0

Internal 2,053 2,667 6,042 4,167 0.64 3.8 45.2 5.1 20.0

Proposed Layout


(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

2011 2027

Table C22: A27 & A22 Golden Jubilee Roundabout ARCADY Results



Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity

(vehs/hr) Actual v/c

Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)

Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)


East All 899 1,319 0.68 8.3 8.5 2.1 1,356 1,154 1.18 423.9 336.8 131.5

South All 1,094 2,533 0.43 3.0 2.5 0.8 1,272 2,527 0.50 4.0 2.9 1.0

West All 1,230 2,289 0.54 4.6 15.9 3.4 1.2 1,504 2,107 0.71 9.7 437.6 5.9 2.5


East All 634 1,304 0.49 3.7 5.4 0.9 922 1,058 0.87 23.2 24.5 6.2

South All 1,153 2,737 0.42 2.9 2.3 0.7 1,343 2,691 0.50 3.9 2.7 1.0

West All 1,408 2,287 0.62 6.3 12.9 4.1 1.6 1,820 2,178 0.84 19.0 46.1 9.8 4.9

Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)

Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)


East All 899 1,356 1,732 0.78 13.7 9.4 3.5

South All 1,094 1,272 2,463 0.52 4.2 3.0 1.1

West All 1,230 1,504 2,338 0.64 7.1 25.0 4.3 1.8


East All 634 922 1,206 0.76 12.2 12.5 3.2

South All 1,153 1,343 2,690 0.50 3.9 2.7 1.0

West All 1,408 1,820 2,417 0.75 11.8 28.0 6.0 3.0

Approach Turn

Proposed Layout

2011 2027

Total Delay

(veh-hrs)

Total Delay

(veh-hrs)

2011 2027

Base Layout


(veh-hrs)

Total Delay

(veh-hrs)

Table C23: A22 Golden Jubilee & Dittons Road Roundabout ARCADY Results



Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)

Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)


East All 621 990 0.63 6.5 9.7 1.7 752 627 1.20 262.4 388.3 81.4

South All 999 2,589 0.39 2.5 2.3 0.6 1,288 2,594 0.50 3.9 2.8 1.0

West All 394 1,103 0.36 2.2 5.1 0.6 771 1,085 0.71 9.4 11.3 2.4

North All 1,318 2,508 0.53 4.4 15.6 3.0 1.1 1,968 2,303 0.85 21.8 297.4 10.4 5.7


East All 299 1,172 0.25 1.4 4.1 0.3 324 849 0.38 2.4 6.9 0.6

South All 1,320 2,833 0.47 3.5 2.4 0.9 1,683 2,865 0.59 5.6 3.0 1.4

West All 385 1,089 0.35 2.2 5.1 0.5 777 1,073 0.72 10.0 12.0 2.6

North All 1,225 2,521 0.49 3.7 10.7 2.8 0.9 1,897 2,340 0.81 16.3 34.3 8.0 4.2

Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)

Demand

Flow

(vehs/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/veh)

Mean Max

Queue

(vehs)


East All 621 752 1,000 0.75 11.3 14.2 2.9

South All 999 1,288 2,542 0.51 4.1 2.9 1.0

West All 394 771 1,073 0.72 9.7 11.7 2.5

North All 1,318 1,968 2,553 0.77 13.0 38.1 6.1 3.3


East All 299 324 1,268 0.26 1.4 3.8 0.3

South All 1,320 1,683 2,865 0.59 5.6 3.0 1.4

West All 385 777 1,073 0.72 10.0 12.0 2.6

North All 1,225 1,898 2,595 0.73 10.6 27.5 5.1 2.7

Approach Turn

Proposed Layout

2011 2027

Total Delay

(veh-hrs)

Total Delay

(veh-hrs)

2011 2027

Base Layout


(veh-hrs)

Total Delay

(veh-hrs)

Table C24: Lion Hill & Rattle, Hailsham & Dittons Roads Junction LINSIG Results



Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)

Actual

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Saturation

Flow

(pcus/hr)

Capacity


Average

Delay

(sec/pcu)

Mean Max

Queue

(pcus)


East Left 73 53

Straight 199 274

Right 65 95 1,781:2,024 416 1.01 17.7 150.9 26.3

South Left 118 267

Straight 345 274

Right 77 85 1,859:1,717 613 1.02 24.3 139.7 37.9

West Left 127 148

Straight 116 134 1,820 616 0.46 3.0 38.3 8.2

Right 130 306 1,702 299 1.02 15.5 182.7 19.7

Exit lane 666 2,015 1,761 0.38 0.3 1.7 0.6

North Left 42 40

Straight 167 243

Right 87 125 1,838 391 1.04 21.8 82.6 192.7 30.3


East Left 70 69

Straight 125 119

Right 37 43 1,781:2,023 258 0.90 6.0 94.1 9.1

South Left 76 51

Straight 202 210

Right 51 48 1,827:1,717 353 0.88 7.4 85.9 12.7

West Left 83 139

Straight 190 310 1,857 731 0.61 4.6 37.1 13.4

Right 221 523 1,702 579 0.90 10.4 71.3 21.5

Exit lane 329 2,015 1,761 0.19 0.1 1.3 0.1

North Left 58 32

Straight 304 300

Right 89 159 1,841 551 0.89 9.5 38.0 69.3 20.2

Proposed Layout


(pcu-hrs)

Total Delay

(pcu-hrs)

2011 2027

For details of your nearest CH2M HILL office, visit our website ch2mhill.com