Transport Background Paper Technical Update

South Worcestershire Development Plan –

Transport Background Paper

Technical Update

Worcestershire County Council

November 2014

CH2M HILL

Burderop Park

Swindon

Wiltshire

SN4 0QD

tel 01793 812479 fax 01793 812089

ch2m.com

CH2M HILL has prepared this report in accordance with

the instructions of client Worcestershire County Council for the client’s sole and specific

use.

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

South Worcestershire Development Plan

Transport Background Paper Technical Update

3

Contents

1 Executive Summary 5

2 Introduction 12 2.1 Background 12

2.2 Purpose of this report 13

2.3 Structure of this report 14

3 Methodology 15 3.1 Introduction 15

3.2 Need for assessment 15

3.3 Development of assessment tool 16

3.4 Overview of assessment results 17

3.5 Overview: existing highway Issues 17

3.6 Overview of passenger transport (rail) issues 19

3.7 Overview: existing local passenger transport (bus) issues 21

3.8 Overview of existing pedestrian network 22

3.9 Overview of existing cycle network 23

4 Review of previous SWDP work 24 4.1 Introduction 24

4.2 Worcester Transport Strategy 24

4.3 Worcester Transport Model and Worcester Transport Model

Assessment of South Worcestershire Development Plan (2011) 28

4.4 Worcester Transport Model – South Worcestershire Development

Plan 2 (June 2014) 28

4.5 Accessibility assessment of South Worcestershire Development

Plan (2011) 29

4.6 Spreadsheet model assessment of South Worcestershire

Development Plan (2011) 29

5 Baseline and Do-Minimum Network Problems/Issues 31

5.1 Introduction 31

5.2 Worcester – analysis of the 2008 Base SATURN Model 31

5.3 Worcester – analysis of the 2026 forecast SATURN Model 32

5.4 Worcester Transport Model – South Worcestershire Development

Plan 2 (June 2014) 34

5.5 Droitwich, Great Malvern, Pershore, Evesham 35

5.6 Passenger transport and sustainable modes of transport 39

4

6 Scheme Identification 42

6.1 Introduction 42

6.2 Scheme identification methodology 42

6.3 Overview of schemes 45

6.4 Scheme tables 45

7 Conclusions and Next Steps 47 7.1 Conclusions 47

7.2 Potential future activities 47

Appendices

Appendix 1: SWDP2: (2014) Transport Schemes Summary Tables

Appendix 2: Worcester Transport Model Technical Note SWDP

2

Appendix 3: Transport Schemes Summary Table

5

1 Executive Summary

Introduction

Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon Councils are collaborating to prepare a

joint Development Plan with the aim of ensuring that future development within

South Worcestershire is well planned and managed effectively, whilst having a

positive impact on the economy and the environment.

The joint Development Plan is called the South Worcestershire Development Plan

(SWDP). It considers the long term vision and objectives for South Worcestershire up

to the year 2031 and includes the policies for delivering these objectives in a planned

and cohesive manner.

In October 2013 the proposed Draft SWDP housing and employment allocations were

considered at an Examination in Public (EiP). The Inspector’s consideration of the

contributions made resulting in the three Districts being required to identify

additional allocations for residential development above that included in the Draft

SWDP. In response to the EiP Inspector’s report, revised SWDP housing allocation

figures were released in May 2014. For the purposes of this document the

development allocations released in May 2014 are termed SWDP2. It should be noted

that the proposed employment land allocations remain unchanged from the earlier

proposed Draft SWDP employment allocations.

CH2M HILL has been commissioned to support Worcestershire County Council

(WCC) with identifying the necessary transport related infrastructure and public

transport services to mitigate the impact of the proposed allocations, and giving

advice on and preparing the transport evidence to fulfil the requirements of the

Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The transport infrastructure (highway, public

transport, cycle and pedestrian) and public transport services identified are based on

the housing and development assumptions set out in the SWDP2.

The IDP will give details of the infrastructure that is required to support the growth

set out in SWDP2. It is envisaged that the information set out in the IDP will be used

to develop a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), and to inform and support

negotiations with developers about site specific s106 (and other relevant) agreements

to contribute towards their impact on the local and strategic transport network.

The IDP will also inform the further development of the LTP3 and associated

transport packages (infrastructure and service schemes), including the inter‐urban

links between the key urban areas, the Worcester Transport Strategy, the packages for

Droitwich, Evesham, Malvern, Pershore and the wider rural hinterland. This will

help to ensure that the transport improvements are integrated with and take full

account of cumulative impact on the transport network of the planned land use

changes contained within SWDP2. This package approach will help to avoid a

piecemeal and potentially poorly targeted approach to investment in transport which

will do little to support economic growth or encourage sustainable development.

Approach

A key premise of this project is to recognise that the quantum of development

proposed in South Worcestershire will not only have a local transport impact

6

immediately adjacent to the site but also on the local and strategic transport network

further afield (including the Highways Agency and Network Rail managed

networks).

The local impacts of any development can be directly identified, assessed and local

access and other minor mitigation measures implemented, however, for the strategic

transport network and locations further away from the proposed development sites,

whilst the transport problems which arise as a result of cumulative growth in travel

demand are all too readily obvious, the cause may not be clear to all. The cumulative

impact is a key issue for Worcestershire County Council (and its key stakeholders) as

it has to manage the network such that it supports the key policy aim of supporting

economic growth. This aim would be undermined in the event of increased costs

being imposed on businesses, other network users and transport operators arising

from traffic congestion, inadequate levels of service on and performance of the rail

and bus networks, and increased and variable journey times and costs. It is critical,

therefore, that the cumulative effects of increased travel demand are properly

understood and mitigating measures identified.

The identification of the source of issues away from the immediate environs of

development sites can demonstrate that a relatively small development site (or the

summation of a number of small development sites) can cause a significant issue on

the transport network as a result of both local and long distance trips. In identifying

the cumulative effects of growth it is possible to both develop adequate (network

wide) mitigation and to provide the evidence which underpins the requirement that

the identified sources of additional traffic (vehicular and all person trips) should

contribute appropriately toward the costs of delivering the necessary improvements

to the wider transport infrastructure.

In order to undertake a network wide assessment of the transport network in South

Worcestershire and specifically to assess the cumulative transport impact on

transport networks resulting from development sites proposed through the SWDP2, a

Vehicle/Trip Generation modelling tool has been developed. The modelling tool

enables:

The calculation of the numbers of trips that each proposed development site will

generate;

An assessment of the way in which those trips will route on the network; and

The summation of trips to establish an overall (cumulative) impact.

The modelling tool, in the form of a strategic gravity model, draws upon existing

evidence and previous related SWDP studies, namely:

Worcester Multi‐Modal Transport Model;

Evesham, Pershore, Malvern and Droitwich Town Development Models;

Accessibility Assessments; and

WCC Officer Workshops.

Where appropriate the Vehicle/Trip Generation Model was validated for consistency

against the previous studies and the Worcester Multi‐Modal Model.

7

Development Assumptions

The revised land use assumptions underpinning this work have been provided by the

SWDP Planning Authorities in response the EiP Inspectors Report.

For clarity, the transport infrastructure (highway, passenger transport, cycle and

pedestrian) and passenger transport services identified are based on the SWDP2 land

use assumptions provided to CH2M HILL by Worcestershire County Council in May

2014. These land use assumptions supersede those set out in the Draft SWDP

Significant Changes (provided to CH2M HILL in September 2012) and the Draft

SWDP Preferred Options (provided to Halcrow in November 2011).

Table 1 shows the overall quantum of residential and employment development

figures modelled for the SWDP2 and the resulting forecast number of 24 hour

development trip demand for Vehicles, Pedestrians, Cyclists and Bus.

Table 1: SWDP2 Development Site – Development Assumptions and Total Trip

Generation (24 hour period – Vehicles, Pedestrians, Cyclists, Bus)


2019 Forecast Model 2031 Forecast Model

Residential (Dwellings) 9151 19434

Employment (Hectares) 118 170

Commitments

(Residential Dwellings)

Commitments

(Employment Hectares)

Windfalls


414 1406

38 101

797 2013

Completions 6989 6989

Demolition / Non Delivery of Commitments

Total Trips

Total 24 hrs Development Trips

(Vehicles, Walk, Cycle, Bus)

‐110 ‐110

341775 587561

8

Evidence

In proposing future year transport infrastructure and service schemes, the work has,

where appropriate and the evidence demonstrates a need, drawn on existing LTP3

Transport Packages. For example, scheme proposals identified through the Worcester

Transport Strategy have been taken as the core schemes for Worcester and locations

and/or schemes identified through the ‘Development Traffic Impact Assessment’ work

have been used as a basis for the towns (Droitwich, Evesham, Malvern and

Pershore). This previous work provides a reasonable starting point as it included, as

input, previous SWDP (and in some cases SWJCS) land use assumptions.

Where additional issues have been identified in both Worcester and the four main

towns, and for areas not previously covered, this project has identified further locations

where mitigation is required to overcome or reduce the impact of proposed

development. That is, there are locations outside Worcester that do not currently have the

benefit of an existing package of measures identified through the LTP3 strategy.

Furthermore, there are some development sites that were not considered at the time the

LTP3 strategy was developed. For these sites, an additional task has been undertaken to

identify schemes and other mitigation measures. These proposed schemes have been

identified with the assistance of the Vehicle/Trip Generation Model.

Schemes

The transport schemes proposed have been identified to mitigate the transport

impact and hence support the growth proposed for South Worcestershire. The

proposed highway infrastructure schemes aim to improve capacity at key junctions

which are anticipated to incur additional delays in future years as a result of the

housing and employment growth proposed for the SWDP area.

The proposed sustainable transport infrastructure schemes aim to connect the

SWDP2 development sites to the existing transport network and where appropriate

improve the existing transport network to encourage greater use of more sustainable

transport modes and maximise the performance of the transport network to meet

economic and environmental policy aims.

In developing the IDP transport scheme proposals, relevant policy/strategy,

feasibility/deliverability and the appropriate design standards and guidelines have

been considered to ensure that schemes are appropriate and practicable (subject to

funding). A fundamental requirement of the infrastructure delivery plan is that the

schemes can be implemented to the same programme as the proposed development.

Hence, possible solutions which would have potentially longer planning and/or land

ownership issues have not been included in the infrastructure list.

It should be noted, however, that in view of the early stage of development of a

number of the transport schemes, there may well remain planning and/or land

acquisition issues that will need to be overcome and more detailed designs are

prepared. This has, necessarily led to a cautious approach has been taken in the costing

of schemes.

9

Scheme Costs

Each of the proposed transport schemes is accompanied with a cost for

implementation. Costs include construction costs, relevant percentage uplifts to

account for scheme preparation and development costs over and above the basic

construction and materials and ʺoptimism biasʺ (reflective of the stage of

development of scheme designs). An estimate is also made of the maintenance costs

of the schemes over a 30 year period.

A breakdown of the costs for the proposed transport schemes on a mode‐by‐mode

and town‐by‐town basis is provided below. Where schemes fall outside the towns the

cumulative costs are shown in the interurban/rural table.

Please note that these costs exclude those associated with the Highways Agency

Trunk Road network. Whilst Worcestershire County Council and the Highways

Agency have been working closely together on transport issues and have shared data

where appropriate, the Highways Agency will be reporting separately on the

measures needed to mitigate adverse impacts on the performance of their network

and the associated costs.

Table 2: Worcester Schemes – Highway and Walk, Cycle and Passenger Transport

Worcester Costs (£/millions)

Worcester Transport

Strategy &

Total (Incl. Constru ction, Contingency,

Risk and Optimism Bias) (1) (2) (3) Ongoing Maintenance and/or

Operating Costs (4)

Additional IDP

Highway Measures

(5) (6)

Additional

Worcester IDP

Sustainable

Measures

£163,490,000 £40,870,000

£21,710,000 £5,427,500

Table 3: Highway Schemes

Droitwich Spa

Costs (£/millions)

Total (Incl. Construction, Contingency,

Risk and Optimism Bias) (1) (2) (3

£3,620,000

Ongoing Maintenance and/or

Operating Costs (4)

£905,000

Evesham (8) £1,200,000 £300,000

Malvern £5,640,000 £1,410,000

Pershore £1,050,000 £262,500

Inter‐Urban (7) £4,070,000 £1,017,500

10

Table 4: Walk, Cycle & Passenger Transport Infrastructure

Costs (£/millions)

Total (Incl. Construction,

Contingency, Risk and Optimism Bias)

Ongoing Maintenance and/or

Operating Costs (4)

(1) (2) (3) Droitwich Spa £8,748,000 £2,187,000

Evesham £7,600,000 £1,900,000

Malvern £710,000 £177,500

Pershore £3,360,000 £840,000

Rural Malvern Hills £220,000 £55,000

Rural Wychavon £2,290,000 £572,500

Notes:

(1) This accounts for Supervision, Evaluation, Drainage, Preliminary Design, Site Supervision,

Design Services and Utilities, Landscape, Traffic Management TM, Groundworks/Earthworks,

Maintenance, Consultation, Ecology

(2) Optimism Bias represents a contingency allowance reflecting the early stage in the development

of schemes. It is a standard approach developed by the DfT to avoid over‐optimistic estimates of

transport infrastructure costs

(3) Costs EXCLUDE any land acquisition and CPO costs in the event that these are required

(4) Maintenance costs are for 30 years from completion of works and are the expressed as % of total

construction costs at this stage in scheme development

(5) EXCLUDES allowance for: M5 Junctions 6 and 7 works (BUT these to be assessed by HA).

INCLUDES allowance for: A4440/SLR capacity enhancements, Key corridors enhancements,

traffic signal enhancements (SCOOT/MOVA etc.), amended TRO’s, improvements to Worcester

Foregate Street & Shrub Hill rail stations a new Worcestershire Parkway, improved bus stop

infrastructure, Real Time Information Systems, new/improved walk and cycle routes and

additional bridge

(6) Excludes City and Town Centre Public Realm Improvements

(7) Includes improvements to A44, A38 and A449

(8) Excludes allowances for works to A46 junctions (BUT these to be assessed by HA).

The total costs across South Worcestershire for infrastructure and maintenance

(not including the exclusions below) are as follows:

Infrastructure: £223.708 million

30 year Maintenance: £55.924 million

Additional costs not included on summary tables (tables 2‐4)

Please note that the above tables and costs exclude some elements of transport

infrastructure and passenger transport service improvements. Specifically they do

not include:

Passenger Transport Operation Enhancements: 2019 Annual Cost;

£37.21 million; 2031 Annual Cost; £57.55 million. The transport evidence

presented shows that enhancements to local and regional passenger transport

11

services will be required to address accessibility issues, reduce traffic

generation, manage traffic congestion and support the delivery of sustainable

development. Potential enhancements have been identified along with an

estimate of operating costs (before revenue), however, further work will be

required to identify the net increase in operating costs after allowance

has been made of development generated demand and revenues. The

figures associated with these cost estimates are contained in Appendix 3.

Inter‐Urban Walk and Cycle Infrastructure: £18.95 million. Schemes have been

developed which provide improved walk and cycle links between the main

urban areas in South Worcestershire (e.g. Malvern – Worcester). These links

would also serve a number of the proposed developments within the Draft

SWDP and would serve a dual function of providing increased choice of

transport modes for journeys generated by the new development and also

support increased leisure use which will benefit both existing and new

developments and the tourist/leisure industry. Further work is underway to

identify the capital and ongoing maintenance costs of such measures and the

extent to which the Draft SWDP is dependent upon their delivery. The figures

associated with these cost estimates are contained in Appendix 3

PT Corridor Improvement Schemes: £172.17 million. Cost estimates for South

Worcestershire Bus Priority Route Corridors. The figures associated with these

cost estimates are contained in Appendix 3.

12

2 Introduction

2.1 Background

Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon Councils are collaborating to prepare a

joint Development Plan with the aim of ensuring that future development within

South Worcestershire is well planned and managed effectively, whilst having a

positive impact on the environment.

The joint Development Plan is called the South Worcestershire Development Plan

(SWDP). It considers the long term vision and objectives for South Worcestershire up

to the year 2031, and includes the policies for delivering these objectives in a planned

and cohesive manner, through:

providing policies to ensure that all development is sustainable;

allocating larger ‘strategic’ sites across South Worcestershire;

identifying infrastructure requirements to support the delivery of the

development plan, including transport, education, health, water and energy.

This will be the Infrastructure Delivery Plan; and

assessing all other potential development sites whether it is for housing,

employment, retail, education, health, community use or indeed an open space

use.

The SWDP will replace the existing Local Plans of the three councils when it is

adopted. It will also supersede elements of Worcestershire County Council’s County

Structure Plan.

The extents of the three districts comprising South Worcestershire; Worcester,

Malvern Hills and Wychavon are shown in Figure 2.1

13

Figure 2.1 – Location Plan

Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. Crown

Copyright Licence No. LA09073L Worcestershire County Council.

2.2 Purpose of this report

CH2M HILL has been commissioned to support Worcestershire County Council

(WCC) with identifying the necessary transport related infrastructure and public

transport services, and giving advice on and preparing the transport evidence to fulfil

the requirements of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). The transport

infrastructure (highway, public transport, cycle and pedestrian) and public transport

services identified will be based on the assumptions set out in the Draft SWDP.

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) will give details of the infrastructure that is

required to support the growth set out in the SWDP. It is envisaged that the

information set out in the IDP will be used to develop a Community Infrastructure

Levy (CIL), and to inform and support negotiations with developers about site

specific s106 and s278 (and other relevant) agreements to contribute towards their

impact on the local and strategic transport network. The IDP will also inform the

further development of the LTP3 and associated transport packages (infrastructure

and service schemes), including the inter‐urban links between the key urban areas,

the Worcester Transport Strategy, the packages for Droitwich, Evesham, Malvern,

14

Pershore and the wider rural hinterland. This will help to ensure that the

transport improvements are integrated with and take full account of cumulative

impact on the transport network of, the planned land use changes contained

within the Draft SWDP. This package approach will help to avoid a piecemeal

and potentially poorly targeted approach to investment in transport which will

do little to support economic growth or encourage sustainable development.

The methodology adopted through this study has been agreed between CH2M

HILL and WCC through the Scoping Note and Officer Meetings and

Workshops. The methodology has created a means of providing an evidence

base to justify the provision of transport infrastructure (highway, public

transport, cycle and pedestrian) and public transport services. These are

necessary to mitigate the transport impacts (vehicle access and movements,

multi‐modal trip generation) of the potential development sites identified in the

draft SWDP.

This report identifies the transport schemes required to mitigate the transport

impact and hence support the growth proposed for South Worcestershire

contained in the SWDP and provides supporting evidence to demonstrate the

way in which the transport schemes contribute towards the wider aims of the

SWDP. The report contains a description of the adopted methodology used to

derive the list of proposed transport schemes and sets the work in the context of

other transport evidence work recently undertaken in the South Worcestershire

area.

For clarity, the transport infrastructure (highway, passenger transport, cycle and

pedestrian) and passenger transport services identified are based on the SWDP2

land use assumptions provided to CH2M HILL by Worcestershire County

Council in May 2014. These land use assumptions supersede those set out in the

Draft SWDP Significant Changes (provided to CH2M HILL in September 2012)

and the Draft SWDP Preferred Options (provided to Halcrow in November

2011).

2.3 Structure of this report

Following this introductory chapter:

Chapter 3 sets out the methodology followed to identify schemes. This

includes an introduction to the spreadsheet based transport model used to

assess future trip generation by all modes of transport

Chapter 4 considers previous transport evidence work undertaken in the

South Worcestershire area and how this comprehensive review has drawn

upon and complemented the previous work undertaken.

Chapter 5 describes the baseline performance of the transport network

Chapter 6 introduces and contains the scheme tables

The report contains four appendices:

Appendix 1: Phase 1 Impacts on Network Performance (2014)

Appendix 2 SWDP2: South Worcestershire Development Plan – Planning

Data;

Appendix3 SWDP2: Transport Schemes Summary

15

3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The methodology used to complete this project was agreed jointly between CH2M

HILL and Worcestershire County Council. The technical scope of work was set out in

a Scoping Note dated 16th December 2011. Through discussions at various meetings

and workshops attended by CH2M HILL and Worcestershire County Council, some

minor amendments to that original scope have been agreed in order to focus the

project on the requirements of the SWDP South Worcestershire Planning Authorities.

The methodology adopted has:

Understood, from previous work, relevant policy guidance, development

quantum’s, types and locations and agreed parameters for the project;

Established the transport network and infrastructure baseline conditions for

South Worcestershire thereby understanding the general network performance

for all modes of transport and identifying potential future issues relating to

transport infrastructure and service provision across South Worcestershire;

Developed a Vehicle/Trip Generation model to act as an assessment tool to

assist with the identification of schemes to support proposed development

contained in the draft SWDP; and

Identified infrastructure schemes and services to mitigate against the impacts

of proposed development.

The methodology adopted has ensured that the best use was made of existing data

and tools available. It has set a clear foundation for the identification of schemes and

has provided a means by which complex cumulative ‘knock on’ effects can be

identified and assessed.

The process by which infrastructure schemes have been identified has recognised

both environmental and deliverability factors as well as requirements to address

network capacity issues and create opportunities for more sustainable travel choices.

The overall approach has been based on delivering achievable interventions across

the network and thus does not rely on an approach focussing on a single or limited

number of schemes that could not be implemented in the required timescale.

3.2 Need for assessment

A key premise of this project is to recognise that the quantum of development

proposed in South Worcestershire will not only have a local transport impact

immediately adjacent to individual sites but also a wider network impact across the

SWDP area. That is, whilst the local impacts of any one development can be directly

identified, assessed and mitigation measures implemented, for the wider transport

network. Whilst the wider transport network issues to address are all too readily

obvious, without a means of undertaking a wider network assessment the cause and

identification of which site(s) should be attributed may not be.

16

Hence, as the methodology considers the wider network, the identification of the

source of issues away from the immediate environs of development sites can show

that a relatively small development site (or the summation of a number of small

development sites) can cause a significant issue on the wider transport network as a

result of long distances trips. By identifying the cumulative effects of growth it is

possible to develop adequate mitigation to address wider network issues. In doing so,

the methodology provides the evidence that justifies the assessment that has

identified generators of additional traffic (vehicular and all person trips). Hence, the

process identifies which sites should contribute appropriately toward the costs of

delivering the necessary improvements to the wider transport infrastructure.

Thus a tool that allows the:

calculation of the numbers of trips that each proposed development site will

generate;

the assessment of the way in which those trips will route on the network; and

has the ability to sum the trips to establish an overall impact assessment

….will enable a network wide assessment to be conducted. Such an assessment tool

has been prepared for South Worcestershire. Whilst the tool is necessarily strategic in

nature, it does include all the key routes and, most importantly, key junctions.

Without such a tool it is difficult to assess the combined impact of development sites

over a large area.

Existing data, and recently undertaken transport network assessments in South

Worcestershire also provide the means to identify the need for transport

infrastructure and services resulting from the proposals in the Draft SWDP, the

source of this data includes the Worcester Multi‐Modal Transport Model, accessibility

assessments, South Worcestershire Town development models (Malvern, Pershore,

Evesham and Droitwich). A review of previous studies informing the IDP and the

associated transport scheme proposals is provided in Section 3 of this report.

3.3 Development of assessment tool

The assessment tool is a spreadsheet model that combines a number of functions:

Multi‐modal trip generation model;

Trip routeing model;

Gravity model; and

Presentation and analysis of results.

In summary, the model provides a means of assessing the cumulative assessment of

the impact of the SWDP development on the highway network across South

Worcestershire for the AM and PM peak periods. The development allocations

assumed, provided by the SWDP planners,. The model covers the AM and PM peak

periods and provides trip generation data for walk, cycle, passenger transport (bus)

and highway for both the AM and PM peak periods and a full 24 hour period.

The model concentrates on the SWDP area, but recognises key destinations for travel

beyond south Worcestershire. The assignment of highway trips is based on the

17

strategic road network serving the south Worcestershire area. That is, the main ʹA‐

roads’ and key ‘B’ class roads in the area and the Highways Agency managed

Motorway and Trunk Road network.

In terms of non car trips (sustainable modes), the model contains a ‘multi‐modal trip

generation’ calculation. The model indicates the likely number of trips by walk, cycle,

and passenger transport (bus and rail) modes from each of the planned

developments. The model takes account of relevant local mode share data and

applies appropriate trip rates to indicate the number of additional trips on the

transport network resulting from the proposed SWDP development sites. dix A.

3.4 Overview of assessment results

The Vehicle/Trip Generation Model has been used to assist the identification of the

schemes to be included within the SWLP IDP. Appendices E and F of the SWDP2:

Impacts on Transport Network Performance Technical Note (Appendix 1) contains a

listing of trip generations from each planned development cluster/site. The results

have been used to identify the locations where schemes should be considered to

overcome the pressure points in the network shown to be an issue in the forecast year

scenario. It is noted that the model has not been the sole source of scheme

identification, other sources of evidence include:

Worcester Multi‐Modal Transport Model;

Evesham, Pershore, Malvern and Droitwich Town Development Models;

Accessibility Analysis of Walk, Cycle and Passenger Transport (bus and rail); and

WCC Officer Workshops.

These sources have all combined to provide a comprehensive assessment of network

requirements to accommodate forecast development proposals. The inputs from this

assessment are set out in Section 3 of this report.

3.5 Overview: existing highway Issues

A review of the existing highway network across the South Worcestershire area

shows the strategic A‐road network to form a ‘spoke’ like effect spreading from

Worcester (as the main residential and employment centre in the area) to the

surrounding towns and rural areas. A‐roads provide links to Worcester from the

following towns, Stourport/Kidderminster (A449 north), Droitwich (A38), Pershore

and Evesham (A44), Great Malvern (A449 south and A4103) and the A38 south to

Upton and Tewkesbury/Gloucester.

In addition to this network of main roads, the M5 Motorway travelling north to

south, lies immediately east of Worcester, providing a high quality link to the West

Midlands conurbation, the South West and via the M50 South Wales. Worcester is

linked to the M5 via Junction 6 (Worcester North) and Junction 7 (Worcester South).

The main east to west route through the area is the A44, linking to Oxford and the

Cotswolds to the east and to Leominster and Mid‐Wales to the west.

Worcester has a network of by‐passes (A4440 in south and east Worcester and A449

in north Worcester) which is formed by sections of single and dual carriageways. The

southern bypass (A4440) provides one of two road links over the River Severn

18

through Worcester, the other being in the City Centre (A44). All of the major A‐Road

routes to Worcester from the surrounding towns join with junctions on the partial

ring road around Worcester (A449 and A4440).

Due to the strategic pattern of the A‐Road highway network in South Worcestershire

and its links to the M5, trips routeing between the main population and employment

centres in the area generally route via Worcester, using sections of the A449 and

A4440 around Worcester and key junctions on these links. These traffic volumes

mean that the A449 northern bypass and the A4440 southern and eastern bypass are

key corridors for through trips as well as distributing local trips to Worcester.

It is noted that the cumulative impact of SWDP proposals is greatest at these

locations.

This pressure on the highway network in and around Worcester is shown by

evidence from the Worcester Transport Model and the associated Road Side

Interview data collected as part of the model development. This data shows that there

are a large proportion of ‘through trips’ routeing through the Worcester area.

Although a high percentage of these trips travel through the area to access the M5, a

significant proportion are trips which, at some point, pass through junctions located

along the Worcester Bypass (A4440 and A449). As a result there is a conflict between

key junctions that allow trips into Worcester City Centre and through trips routeing

around Worcester on the A449 and the A4440.

The major development sites, proposed through the SWDP, will contribute to

additional local and longer distance traffic routeing through these key corridors due

to their proposed locations, the layout of the existing strategic road network and

likely trip origin and destination patterns. This has an impact on the location and

scale of transport schemes resulting from this SWDP IDP assessment and other

transport network performance reviews associated with the development of the

Worcester Transport Strategy and the Worcestershire LTP3. In particular there is a

need to address capacity constraints to the south of the city and to ensure that the

planned major urban extensions are designed from the outset to maximise use of

walk, cycle and passenger transport modes, particularly for journeys to/from/within

Worcester City.

For the other towns, the assessment has found that there are issues to address as a

direct result of development proposals, with some identified cumulative impacts on

the wider transport network. That is, issues are predominantly associated with

individual sites or clusters of development local to the town. Hence the mitigation

schemes identified tend not to be of such a significant nature, but there are a number

of locations that will need mitigation as a result of development.

The South Worcestershire Strategic Road Network is shown on Figure 3.1

19

Figure 3.1 – South Worcestershire Strategic Road Network



3.6 Overview of passenger transport (rail) issues

The local rail network provides a valuable contribution towards local and longer

distance travel. Indeed, the main towns in the area all have the benefit of being

connected to Worcester and regional/national destinations by the rail network.

However, as noted in WCC’s contribution to the Greater Western rail franchise

process, there are limited services to/from some key locations during peak times and

evening and weekend services are poor in terms of timetabling and frequencies.

Specifically, to improve service provision, WCC is seeking:

Worcester – London journey times to be 2 hours or less, fully utilising the

recent investment in Cotswold Line infrastructure and planned investment in

infrastructure between Oxford and London or by raising line speeds between

Evesham and Moreton‐in‐Marsh.

To have, by the end of the franchise period, two trains per hour between Great

Malvern, Worcester and London Paddington, with one train per hour running

fast or semi – fast between Worcester and Oxford.

20

Further Cotswold Line redoubling to improve reliability and journey times

including new signalling and track layout in Worcester city centre.

An improved rail service between Worcester, Cheltenham and Gloucester that

is fit for purpose and meets the demand for travel between Worcestershire and

Gloucestershire. This will involve a regular service throughout the day,

reduced journey times and improved quality rolling stock in use.

There is, therefore, an opportunity to improve the provision of rail services on the

existing network that could result in a mode shift to rail for local and longer distance

journeys, and consequently help meet LTP3 objectives to provide greater accessibility,

reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment. Access to railway stations by

all modes is also key to meeting economic and environmental objectives.

In addition to improvements to the existing rail service pattern, WCC is actively

promoting the introduction of a new ʺWorcestershire Parkwayʺ station at the

intersection between the Cotswold Line and Bristol – Birmingham line at Norton, east

of Worcester, to be served by all Worcester – London services (and a proportion of

Bristol/Cardiff – Birmingham services).

The Worcestershire Parkway business case was updated during 2012 (in line with

Department for Transport appraisal guidelines). The findings of that work is that

operationally both Worcester – Oxford/London and Cross‐Country services could be

accommodated at a new station and that the proposed station has a strong economic

case with a benefit: cost ratio of 3:1, and approximately 0.3 million passengers per

annum forecast to use the station. The financial case for the scheme is also strong with

a net operating surplus for train operating companies of approximately

£0.75m/annum (excluding car parking revenues).

The Railway Lines on which passenger services operate are shown on Figure 3.2

21

Figure 3.2 – South Worcestershire Rail Network



3.7 Overview: existing local passenger transport (bus) issues

In terms of passenger numbers, the local bus network is the most important

passenger transport mode in South Worcestershire, recognising that rail is the

dominant mode for regional and inter‐city journeys. For many of the planned new

developments, the local bus network will provide the only passenger transport choice

for journeys to/from/within urban areas. It is critical, therefore that new

developments are planned from the outset to accommodate and support efficient and

ideally commercial (i.e. not reliant on public subsidy) local passenger transport

services. Failure to do so will make it difficult for commercial operators to deliver the

services needed to manage travel demand and support sustainable development.

The existing bus network operating in South Worcestershire, in terms of its proximity

to proposed SWDP development sites is described below.

The bus network in operation across South Worcestershire is concentrated on and

within Worcester. Service patterns connect the outlying residential and employment

22

districts on the edge of the city with the city centre. The main 4 towns surrounding

Worcester, namely; Droitwich, Great Malvern, Pershore and Evesham are served by

inter‐urban routes connecting to Worcester and other towns surrounding the study

area. The network is key to providing access to employment, training and social

opportunities whilst providing benefits to maximising the performance of the

transport network and meeting economic and environmental objectives.

In order to accommodate the growth contained within the Draft SWDP a set of bus

operation standards have been developed by WCC, consistent with the policies set

out in the Worcestershire LTP3. An assessment of total cost to provide services to

these standards to each SWDP2 development cluster has been calculated. It is

recognised that these services may be already provided on a commercial or

subsidised basis, either wholly or in part. Hence the role of the IDP is to ensure that

this level of service is maintained in order to retain the attractiveness of services as an

alternative to the car and to provide the necessary capacity to accommodate the

forecast bus passenger demand. If this level of service is not met, whilst some

individuals may have the ability to transfer mode to use a car (resulting in increased

pressure on the highway network), for others potential travel opportunities by bus to

access employment, education and health opportunities will be lost.

These local bus service operations requirements would need to be accompanied by

infrastructure to deliver a reliable and attractive local passenger transport network.

These include stop and station infrastructure and access arrangements to these from

the development sites, as well as measures to protect service reliability and journey

times at the most congested locations. Stop and station provision is proposed to fit

with WCC’s ‘Gold’, ‘Silver’ and ‘Bronze’ standards for passenger transport service

corridors, these are based upon the service frequency. For those corridors in

Worcester the WTS has already undertaken detailed study work and established a

cost to provide the necessary infrastructure to address reliability issues.

For those locations beyond Worcester, where a detailed review and consultation with

stakeholders along the routes would be required, a means of assessing the funding

requirement to create a reliable passenger transport service corridor has been

developed. From the Worcester Transport Strategy schemes it is possible to develop a

‘cost rate’ for ‘corridor infrastructure measures’. From the three WTS corridors that

have been costed in detail a cost rate of £170,000 per 100m for ‘general measure to

improve service reliability and quality’ has been calculated.

Applying the WTS derived cost to other urban/inter‐urban corridors has provided a

methodology to estimate a cost to implement the suite of measures needed to deliver

the desired bus service and infrastructure standards.

3.8 Overview of existing pedestrian network

Maximising pedestrian movements at key trip attractors and generators, including

railway stations, is key to improving the efficiency of the transport network

(particularly in congested urban areas) and meeting national and local economic and

environmental objectives. It is important, therefore that planned new developments

take full account of policies and best practice design standards that relate to

maximising walk accessibility within developments and also linking to destinations

that are within a reasonable walk distance.

23

To identify pedestrian infrastructure requirements to support the development

assumptions put forward through the SWDP, each development site has been

considered in turn. The number of anticipated pedestrians travelling to and from

each site over a 24 hour period has informed the process.

The analysis focussed on identifying links from the proposed development sites to

the existing pedestrian network in terms of footways and pedestrian crossing

facilities where required. The infrastructure requirements include linkages from the

proposed development sites to existing links surrounding the sites, but not

pedestrian infrastructure within the development sites.

3.9 Overview of existing cycle network

Encouraging cycling as a mode of transport has benefits in terms of improving the

efficiency of the transport network (in particular in urban areas) as well as bringing

health benefits. It is important, therefore, that planned new developments take full

account of policies and best practice design standards that relate to maximising cycle

accessibility within developments and also linking to destinations that are within a

reasonable walk distance.

The cycle network in South Worcestershire comprises of a combination of

recommended on‐road routes (that have been assessed for suitability) and a series of

dedicated off road routes, some of which form part of the National Cycle Network.

The cycle route maps for South Worcestershire (taken from the WCC website) have

been used to assess linkages from proposed development sites to existing cycle

infrastructure.

In order to identify cycle infrastructure requirements to support the development

assumptions put forward through the SWDP, each development site has been

considered in turn. The number of anticipated cyclists travelling to and from each site

over a 24 hour period has informed the process. Analysis has focussed on identifying

links from the proposed development sites to existing cycle infrastructure, it has been

assumed cycle infrastructure within the development sites will be considered by

developers and will meet relevant LTP3 and other policy & design standards, this

includes all cycle paths and the appropriate amount of cycle storage facilities. The

cycle infrastructure included on the proposed list of schemes includes all aspects of

cycle infrastructure including signage, on‐road cycle marking and where appropriate

dedicated off road cycle links.

24

4 Review of previous SWDP work

4.1 Introduction

In order to ensure alignment between all transport studies highlighting requirements

for future year transport infrastructure within South Worcestershire, the following

information and studies have informed this project;

Worcester Transport Strategy;

Worcester Transport Strategy – Phase 1 – Major Scheme Bid and BAFFB (2009‐

2011);

Worcester Transport Model and Worcester Transport Model Assessment of

South Worcestershire Development Plan (2011);

Worcester Transport Model – South Worcestershire Development Plan 2 (June

2014);

Accessibility Assessment of South Worcestershire Development Plan (2011);

and

Spreadsheet Model Assessment of South Worcestershire Development Plan

(2011).

A brief discussion of how each of the studies was used follows.

4.2 Worcester Transport Strategy

The Worcester Transport Strategy (WTS) has been developed to identify a

programme of investment in transport infrastructure, to deal with existing and future

year transport challenges for the City of Worcester and across South Worcestershire.

The complete programme of investment would cost an estimated £200 million. The

proposed improvements to the existing network will include the following measures

and are shown on Figure 4.1:

Strategic Highway Improvements including the dualling of the Southern Link

Road;

Key corridor improvements to enhance the main routes into and out of the city

for all users, improving traffic flow and reducing congestion this includes all

main radial routes and the orbital route linking the Southern Link Road/M5

Junction 7 with the employment, health, education and leisure facilities located

to the east/north east/north of Worcester ;

Local Highway Improvements including junction, signals and pavement

enhancements;

Rail station enhancements;

The construction of a new Railway Station (Worcestershire Parkway);

Improvements to infrastructure and services for walking and cycling;

25

Implementation of Intelligent Transport Systems to improve efficiency and

choice;

Enhancement of the City Centreʹs public realm, transport infrastructure and

services and;

Smarter Choices measures ‐ incentivise greater use and improvement to the

perception of sustainable modes (walking, cycling, passenger transport). .

In developing the list of schemes for the South Worcestershire Infrastructure Delivery

Plan, CH2M HILL has been mindful of the considerable work undertaken to develop

the Worcester Transport Strategy and associated Major Scheme Bid (see below) and

has thus not sought to duplicate this work. In developing the Worcester Transport

Strategy the planned development/land use assumptions were consistent with the

emerging SWDP. Similarly, the Major Scheme Business case submitted to the

Department for Transport used the latest land use assumptions available at the time

of submission.

Not unsurprisingly the pressure points on the network identified through the WTS

process have been found to be consistent with those identified through this project.

Hence, the list of highway, passenger transport, cycle and walk schemes included in

the Worcester Transport Strategy has all been included in the Infrastructure Delivery

Plan.

With specific regard to the highway impact assessment work completed to inform the

IDP, the highway junctions proposed to be upgraded through the SWDP work are

consistent with the issues identified through the modelling work completed to inform

the WTS. That is, the junctions identified as requiring investment through the WTS

are all shown to require upgrading as result of the additional pressure on the

highway network associated with the additional housing and employment

development proposed through the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

26

Figure 4.1 – Worcester Transport Strategy

Worcester

(BAFFB)

Transport Strategy Phase 1 – Major Scheme Bid September 2012

In December 2011 Worcestershire County Council was successful in securing £14.2

million from the Department for Transportʹs Major Scheme Fund, the total cost of

Phase 1 being £19.6 million. The proposals contained within the funding bid include:

Strategic Highways Improvements: Enhancements to the key junctions on the

Worcester Southern Link Road, to improve traffic flow, particularly at peak

times and reduce transport costs to businesses and road users;

Rail Station Enhancements: This will involve investment and improvement in

passenger and interchange facilities at Worcester Foregate Street and Malvern

Link stations, helping to improve the quality of rail travel and encourage

increased use of these under‐utilised transport assets. The improvements to

passenger facilities to Worcesterʹs Foregate Street will include upgrading of

signage, the ground level waiting area, information and ticketing facilities,

lighting, security and improved sheltered walk links to Foregate Street and its

taxi ranks and bus stops.

Key Corridor Improvements: This will involve investment in key corridors to

improve the quality of transport infrastructure and public realm along these

routes. This will help to smooth traffic flows and improve conditions for all

road users;

27

Transport Information Systems: Measures to provide users with better, more

accurate information on the transport network, with the aim of increasing

network efficiency. For example, variable message signs will direct car drivers

to city centre car parks which have available capacity, while public transport

users will be provided with real time information on services via mobile

phones and at stop/station signs.

Improved infrastructure for walking and cycling: This would involve

enhancements designed to encourage more local trips on foot and by bike. The

improvements to passenger facilities to Worcesterʹs Foregate Street will be on

the ground level and include upgrading of the waiting area, signage,

information, shelters, lighting and security.

Figure 4.2 illustrates the location of the Phase 1 schemes.

Subject to Full Approval by the Department for Transport, these improvements will

be delivered over the period 2012/13 – April 2015.

28

Figure 4.2 – Worcester Transport Strategy Phase 1

4.3 Worcester Transport Model and Worcester Transport Model Assessment

of South Worcestershire Development Plan (2011)

In order to satisfy DfT requirements to assess scheme for DfT funding, a detailed

multi‐modal variable demand model was required to inform the scheme assessment

process. This model is known as the Worcester Transport Model (WTM). Where

possible the same assumptions used through the development of the WTM have been

used to develop the spreadsheet gravity model for the IDP project. For example,

vehicle trip rates for development sites in Worcester are consistent between the

Worcester Transport Model and the gravity model built for the purposes of the

Infrastructure Development Plan.

As noted under the WTS commentary above, the work undertaken for SWDP and the

work undertaken for WTS is revealing the same patterns of movement and hence the

same issues to be mitigated against.

4.4 Worcester Transport Model – South Worcestershire Development Plan 2

(June 2014)

The results of transport modelling work undertaken using the Worcester Transport

Model to assess the proposed SWDP2 development assumptions as provided in May

2014 have been considered.

29

4.5 Accessibility assessment of South Worcestershire Development Plan

(2011)

A meeting was held with WCC officers’ to gain an understanding of local issues and

to draft a list of possible infrastructure requirements. This resulted in a list of

sustainable transport schemes to support the SWDP development proposals. The

draft list of schemes was considered against the findings of the Accessibility

Assessment of South Worcestershire Development Plan completed in 2011 in order to

finalise the list of sustainable infrastructure proposed through the Infrastructure

Development Plan.

The assessment analysed accessibility by walk, cycle and passenger transport to key

employment, health, education, retail and leisure destinations. The assessment

concluded that accessibility by walk, cycle and passenger transport is poor for a

number of sites, with accessibility in more rural areas in general being poorer.

It concluded that investment in transport infrastructure and services across all modes

of transport, and broadband networks, will be required if network performance is not

to deteriorate and lead to a decline in economic and environmental performance. This

investment is likely to be significant in some cases.

The sites in rural areas are likely to require a combination of investment in broadband

networks, passenger transport services (including in some cases Community

Transport) and strengthening of local service provision (i.e. within walk & cycle

distance) if residents are not to be dependent upon the car to access key services and

facilities.

The ongoing financial costs of sustaining accessibility in rural areas will be an

important consideration as the ability of the County Council to increase its

maintenance and subsidy budgets is constrained. The role of the private sector in

contributing toward both the costs of both infrastructure provision and associated

increased and ongoing maintenance/subsidy is critical in this respect.

4.6 Spreadsheet model assessment of South Worcestershire Development

Plan (2011)

During 2011 WCC commissioned CH2M HILL to produce a series of spreadsheet

gravity models to assess the highway impact of potential new development strategies

for the following towns within South Worcestershire;

Droitwich;

Great Malvern;

Pershore; and

Evesham

The purpose of these models was to establish the potential cumulative impact of

locating new development within and around the towns. They also helped inform

discussion on the potential for mitigation measures.

It should be noted that these spreadsheet gravity models were built for different

purposes to the model developed for the purposes of the SWDP IDP (SWDP

Vehicle/Trip Generation Model) and hence there is some difference in the

30

methodology and input data used. However, a sense check between the models has

been undertaken to ensure consistency between the proposed recommendations. The

results indicate that no matter what methodology is chosen, a similar set of

conclusions drawn to which highway junctions require investment in order to

support the development proposed through the South Worcestershire Development

Plan.

31

5 Baseline and Do-Minimum Network Problems/Issues

5.1 Introduction

This section of the report provides an overview of the current situation as found in

South Worcestershire in transport terms. The previous research undertaken into the

identification of current and forecasting of future transport network performance has

provided a comprehensive database of problems and issues. This section of the report

draws on that work.

5.2 Worcester – analysis of the 2008 Base SATURN Model

Analysis of the performance of the highway network across Worcester, using the 2008

base year Worcester Transport Model, indicates a number of key radial and orbital

corridors which are performing at levels approaching, at or over capacity. These

corridors include the following and are shown on Figure 5.1;

A4440 Southern Bypass;

A449 Northern Bypass;

A449 Bromwich Road;

A44 London Road;

A443 Henwick Road;

A38 Barbourne Road;

B4205 Tolladine Road and

Inner section of Newtown Road (including Lowesmoor/Pheasant Street/St

Martins Gate).

In addition to these key links and junctions on the core city centre network is also

performing at levels approaching, at or over capacity. These include:

Foregate Street/The Tything/Castle Street

St Nicholas Street

The Butts/Shaw Street

Sidebury/College Street/City Walls Road

North Quay/Dolday/Deansway

32

Figure 5.1 – 2008 Worcester Route Corridors operating at a level at, approaching or

over capacity – as indicated by Worcester Transport Model



5.3 Worcester – analysis of the 2026 forecast SATURN Model

The Worcester Transport Model 2026 forecast year do‐minimum scenario indicates

the highway corridors in Worcester that are shown to be performing, at or over

capacity in the 2008 base year, perform worse in terms of volume over capacity ratios

the future year compared to the base year. This can be attributed to growth in

demand for travel in and around Worcester as a result of both housing and

employment growth. The additional traffic on the highway network is a result of both

local developments in Worcester and growth in travel demand from origins further a

field. The future year growth included in the 2026 SATURN Modelling work is not

site specific to the sites proposed through this stage of the SWDP work.

It should be noted that the future year development assumptions included in the 2026

SATURN Models (carried out by Halcrow in July 2011) are not exactly the same as

those modelled through the SWDP Vehicle/Trip Generation Model as provided to

Halcrow by WCC in January 2012. The work does however remain relevant and a

comparison of the model outputs indicates a similar trend in the results, that being,

the same key highway corridors are shown to be operating at capacity in each of the

models.

33

The 2026 do‐minimum SATURN Model indicates the following additional corridors

to the 2008 SATURN Model will perform at levels approaching, at or over capacity in

the 2026 future year do minimum scenario (as shown on Figure 5.2):

A4440 Eastern Bypass; and

A38 Bath Road.

A4440 Southern Bypass;

A449 Northern Bypass;

A449 Bromwich Road;

A44 London Road;

A443 Henwick Road;

A38 Barbourne Road; and

B4205 Tolladine Road.

34

Figure 5.2 – 2026 Worcester Route Corridors operating at a level at, approaching or

over capacity – as indicated by Worcester Transport Model



Unsurprisingly, conditions on the city centre network are forecast to deteriorate

further as a result of increased traffic. This will lead to additional delays, transport

related costs and deteriorating environmental conditions (there are already

designated Air Quality Management Areas in the city and additional ʺborderlineʺ

areas). This is of particular concern given the importance of the city centre to the local

and South Worcestershire economy.

5.4 Worcester Transport Model – South Worcestershire Development Plan 2

(June 2014)

The analysis of the transport modelling work undertaken using the Worcester

Transport Model to assess the SWDP2 development assumptions demonstrates

similar trends to those shown under the 2026 modelled scenario.

The assessment of predicted volume compared to junction capacity results extracted

from the SWDP2 Worcester Transport Model scenarios show the corridors forecast to

perform with a high volume over capacity ratio are consistent with those shown

under the 2026 model scenario. These route corridors include the following:

A443 (Hallow Road);

35

A449 (Barbourne Road);

A449 (Northern Bypass);

A4440 (Eastern Bypass);

A44 (London Road);

A4440 (Southern Bypass);

A38 (Bath Road); and

A449 (Bromwich Road).

5.5 Droitwich, Great Malvern, Pershore, Evesham

The analysis undertaken using the spreadsheet models for Droitwich, Great Malvern,

Pershore and Evesham indicates a number of key junctions within these towns that

are performing at levels approaching, at or over capacity in the base year (2011) and

the future year (2030) scenarios. These junctions occur at key intersections on the

main routes through and around the towns. These junctions and routes were

considered in the development of the highway network used through the

development of the Vehicle/Trip Generation Model used for the purposes of

identifying mitigation schemes for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

The Great Malvern assessment has identified key route corridors and junctions as

requiring further consideration as a result of forecast future year traffic growth.

Figure 5.3 shows the locations identified.

36

Figure 5.3 – Great Malvern Route Corridors and Junctions requiring further

assessment as a result of forecast year traffic growth – as indicated by Great Malvern

Spreadsheet Model



37

The Pershore assessment has identified key route corridors and junctions as requiring

further consideration as a result of future year traffic predictions. Figure 5.4 shows

the locations identified.

Figure 5.4 – Pershore Route Corridors and Junctions requiring further assessment as a

result of forecast year traffic growth – as indicated by Pershore Spreadsheet Model



38

The Evesham assessment has identified key route corridors and junctions as

requiring further consideration as a result of future year traffic predictions. Figure 5.5

shows the locations identified.

Figure 5.5 – Evesham Route Corridors and Junctions requiring further assessment as

a result of forecast year traffic growth – as indicated by Evesham Spreadsheet Model



39

The Droitwich assessment has identified key route corridors and junctions as

requiring further consideration as a result of future year traffic predictions. Figure 5.6

shows the locations identified.

Figure 5.6 – Droitwich Route Corridors and Junctions requiring further assessment as

a result of forecast year traffic growth – as indicated by Droitwich Spreadsheet Model



5.6 Passenger transport and sustainable modes of transport

The Accessibility Assessment of South Worcestershire Development Plan (2011) work

completed by Halcrow and Worcestershire County Council considered a number of

the proposed SWDP development sites. It identified where there are gaps in the

existing network of public transport and sustainable transport provision to access

proposed residential and employment sites.

Pedestrian infrastructure

The report identified where proposed sites for new residential development had poor

provision of pedestrian facilities and the links to key services. The sites identified

were:

Droitwich (particularly Copcut Lane);

Evesham (all sites and in particular, for access to employment and health);

40

Malvern (in particular access to to/from Newlands);

Pershore (in particular access to health);

Malvern Hills Rural (all sites); and

Wychavon Rural (all sites).

Cycle infrastructure

The report also identified where proposed sites for new residential development had

poor provision of cycle facilities and the links to key services. The sites identified

were:

Droitwich Spa (in particular access to employment and health);

Evesham (in particular access to education and employment);

Pershore (in particular access to education, employment and health);

Malvern (in particular access to employment);

Malvern Hills Rural (in particular access to all destinations from proposed sites

to the south of Worcester); and

Wychavon Rural (in particular Worcester Road, Hartlebury.)

Passenger transport infrastructure and services

The report also identified where proposed sites for new residential development had

poor provision of public transport facilities and the links to key services. The sites

identified were:

Droitwich Spa sites in terms of access to health;

Evesham sites in terms of access to education and health, with the Pershore

Road, Hampton site performing particularly poorly in terms of access to

education, health and retail;

Pershore sites in terms of access to education;

Malvern, in particular the Newlands site;

Malvern Hills Rural (all sites in terms of access to education and health); and

Wychavon Rural, in particular the Worcester Road, Hartlebury site.

Access to proposed employment sites

The report undertook a separate analysis of the SWDP proposed employment sites.

The following conclusions were noted:

The employment sites located within, or in proximity of, major settlements can

be accessed by a greater number of people by walk, cycle and passenger

transport.

The employment site with the highest catchment area population for those

accessing by walk, cycle and passenger transport is Droitwich, Copcut Lane,

although measures to improve access will be required to maximise use of these

41

modes and mitigate adverse impact on the performance of the strategic (A38)

and local highway network.

The Malvern Hills Newlands and QinetiQ employment sites are both

reasonably accessible, although investment will be required across all modes to

mitigate adverse impacts on the strategic (A449 & A4440) and local highway

network.

The Wychavon Evesham Vale Park and Pershore Station Road/Wyre Road are

less accessible and are likely to require more significant investment in walk,

cycle and passenger transport sustainable modes infrastructure and services to

mitigate the adverse impacts on the strategic (A46 and A44) and local highway

network.

The Malvern Hills Blackmore Park employment site will also require more

significant investment in walk, cycle and passenger transport infrastructure

and services.

Overall conclusion

In conclusion, the Accessibility Assessment of South Worcestershire Development

Plan (2011) work concluded that there are accessibility issues to address at all the

proposed SWDP development sites.

42

6 Scheme Identification

6.1 Introduction

This section of the Technical Note sets out the mitigation measures identified. They

have been presented in tabular form, with a description of location, issue, the

mitigation proposed and cost.

The following sections set out the assumptions that have formed the basis of the

scheme assessment and costs.

6.2 Scheme identification methodology

Where appropriate identification of mitigation measures has drawn on existing

Transport Packages. For example, scheme proposals identified through the WTS have

been taken as the core schemes for Worcester and schemes identified through the

‘Development Traffic Impact Assessment’ work has been used as a basis for the

towns.

Where additional issues have been identified in both Worcester and the four main

towns, and for other areas not previously covered, the assessment undertaken for this

project, through the application of the Vehicle/Trip Generation Model, has identified

further locations where mitigation is required to overcome or reduce the impact of

proposed development. That is, there are locations outside Worcester that do not

currently have the benefit of an existing package of measures identified through the

LTP3 strategy. Furthermore, there are some development sites that were not

considered at the time the LTP3 strategy was developed. For these sites, an additional

task has been undertaken to identify schemes and other mitigation measures. These

proposed schemes have been identified through the use of the Vehicle/Trips

Generation Model.

Proposed transport schemes have been identified to mitigate against predicted future

year transport issues. That being, the proposed highway infrastructure schemes aim

to improve capacity at key junctions which are anticipated in incur additional delays

in future years as a result of the housing and employment growth proposed for the

SWDP area. These junctions have been identified through the use of the Vehicle/Trip

Generation Model.

The proposed sustainable transport infrastructure schemes aim to connect the

proposed SWDP development sites to the existing transport network and where

appropriate improve the existing transport network to encourage greater use of more

sustainable transport modes. These schemes have been identified through

consideration of the results of the Vehicle/Trip Generation Model to determine where

additional infrastructure is required to complete the sustainable transport network to

support trips by sustainable modes to and from these development sites.

The proposed transport schemes are shown on Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2. These plans

show the locations of the schemes identified as a result of the Vehicle/Trip Generation

Model (outside Worcester) and the WTM within Worcester. Outside Worcester in all

locations where a problem has been identified in the Vehicle/Trips Generation Model

a scheme has been proposed. Within Worcester, with greater ability to encourage

43

mode change and greater use of sustainable modes, a more network wide approach

has been adopted. This has resulted in not all junctions being the subject of individual

schemes, but the overall approach of encouraging more sustainable travel is forecast

to result in mode change which, in turn, has reduced the use of private transport

(particularly for local journeys to/from/within Worcester) thus relieving congestion

on the highway network. These plans can also be related to the plans shown in

Chapter 4 where the main issues were identified (individual junctions and corridors).

Figure 6.1. – Draft SWDP IDP proposals – excluding Worcester

44

Figure 6.2. – Draft SWDP IDP proposals – Worcester Transport Strategy

Each of the proposed transport infrastructure schemes have also been considered

against the following design considerations;

Policy/Strategy – proposals have recognised the policies and strategies put

forward through WCC’s Local Transport Plan and to be consistent with the

general approach to transport schemes in the area;

Feasibility/Deliverability – consideration has been given to the deliverability of

the proposed transport schemes. That is, the proposed schemes have

considered potential land constraints, proximity to existing obstructions (e.g.

Railway Lines), topography and overground services and utilities; and

Design Standards and Guidelines – good practice design guidelines have been

considered against all of the proposed transport schemes. Only schemes that

could meet appropriate design guidelines have been proposed, subject to

detailed design.

All of the proposed transport schemes have been priced using Worcestershire County

Council rates.

45

6.3 Overview of schemes

The different characteristics of locations within the SWDP area have been taken into

consideration when identifying schemes. That is, though there is always an emphasis

on the provision of sustainable alternatives, there is also an acknowledgement that

the measure identified need to be appropriate for the journey being made and

location of the start point.

Thus, in Worcester there has been an emphasis on dealing with the capacity problems

on the A4440 Southern and Eastern Bypasses, improving conditions along the key

radial corridors and in the city centre supported by the provision of sustainable

transport alternatives. In combination the assessment indicates that these measures

will make a significant contribution towards addressing the forecast increases in

traffic and congestion as a result of increased demand for travel.

In the South Worcestershire towns a similarly balanced approach has been adopted,

identifying both highway and more sustainable measures. In the rural areas, whilst

the use of sustainable modes is to be encouraged, it is acknowledged that highway

capacity issues must be addressed to enable both car and local passenger transport

trips to use the network efficiently.

6.4 Scheme tables

The Summary scheme tables is presented in Appendix 3

Cost estimates for each scheme were prepared primarily using construction rates

used through the costing of schemes associated with the WTS. It should be noted that

where some items fell outside the scope of the WTS, assumptions were made using

costs incurred from other similar schemes carried out for other local authorities. Costs

can vary considerably from site to site and supplier to supplier. More detailed cost

estimates will be determined when the precise details of each scheme are known

during further design stages. These uplifts are summarised in Table 6.1 (Highways)

and Table 6.2 (Sustainable Modes)

Table 6.1: Uplifts to Highway Scheme base construction costs

Highway

Preparation 12%

Supervision 5%

Evaluation 0%

Drainage 10%

Preliminary 5%

Site Supervision 5%

Design 10%

Services and Utiities 30%

Landscape 10%

Normal Road TM 10%

Strategic Road TM 20%

Groundworks/Earthworks 2%

Maintenance 25%

Consultation 10%

Ecology 10%

46

The uplifts included in Table 6.1 are based upon values used for Worcester Transport

Strategy and associated Major Scheme Bid costing purposes and previous work for

other local authorities.

These uplifts are calculated based on the construction cost and prior to the optimism

bias being added. The uplifts cover the additional costs associated with scheme

delivery above and beyond the actual cost of construction. That is, items including

site preparation, site supervision and evaluation. A generic drainage cost is included

along with design, landscaping and ecology. Different uplifts are applied for traffic

management dependent on the local road network, i.e. a greater allowance is

provided for on the strategic highway network.

Table 6.2: Uplifts to Sustainable Mode base construction costs

Sustainable

Preparation 0%

Supervision 2%

Evaluation 0%

Drainage 3%

Preliminary 5%

Site Supervision 3%

Design 10%

Services and Utiities 3%

Landscape 3%

Normal Road TM 2%

Groundworks/Earthworks 2%

Maintenance 5%

Consultation 5%

Ecology 2%

The uplifts for sustainable mode schemes are generally less than those applied for the

highway schemes. This is because the proposed schemes are generally smaller

schemes which are less intrusive and have fewer associated risks. Allowances for

Ecology and Drainage are often less as the proposed schemes pose less risk to local

environments and SUDs and surface drainage can often be applied. The design uplift

costs remain the same for both the highway and sustainable schemes.

The Optimism Bias is calculated by referring to ‘The British Department for Transport

Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Transport Planning Guidance

Document – June 2004’. It is noted that all the uplift items have been added to the cost

of construction prior to the 44% Optimism Bias Uplift. The Optimism Bias uplift is

based upon the maximum applied rate for standard civil engineering works at this

preliminary stage. This percentage, when applied, suggests an 80% probability of

staying within the budget.

The cost estimates do not include Land Costs or Part 1 claims (if required).

47

7 Conclusions and Next Steps

7.1 Conclusions

The report has set out the context, methodology and tabulated results of a strategic

assessment of the impact of development proposals in the SWDP. The mitigation

schemes identified have been chosen based on the degree to which additional

demand to travel impacts on the surrounding road network and the policy and

design requirements of central and local government.

The list is comprehensive, but contains no very major proposals to accommodate the

increase in demand because of the criteria set to ensure deliverability. Hence, there is

an expectation that some change in mode share will occur as a result of increased

attractiveness of more sustainable modes, as well as increased congestion on the

highway network. Accommodating the forecast increases in traffic and congestion as

a result of increased demand for travel would only be achieved as a result of a

combination of the consideration of larger new highway schemes and sustainable

modes measures.

It is noted that the scale of infrastructure proposed is significantly less than that

which has been introduced to the network in the past 20/30 years. With the exception

of the significant improvements to the capacity of the A4440 Southern Link Road,

improvements to the highway network are targeted at dealing with specific pinch

points (usually junctions) on the urban and in particular inter‐urban, networks. There

are no new major river crossings.

The schedule of schemes presented, and the associated costs, have taken into account

the additional costs associated with scheme design and an allowance made for

scheme maintenance over a 30 year period. These added allowances mean that if the

scheme costs are simply compared to construction costs they appear high, but the

additional costs have been derived through experience and represent the total cost to

deliver the individual schemes.

Overall, the inputs provide a comprehensive schedule of infrastructure interventions

to mitigate the transport impacts of the proposed SWDP development.

7.2 Potential future activities

This report has set out a comprehensive listing of infrastructure and public transport

service requirements in order to mitigate against the impact of the new development

proposals contained in the SWDP. These requirements have been identified through

reference to policy statements and work to assess the impact of additional journeys

on the highway network.

The work undertaken to date is based on proposed SWDP developments as identified

in the SWDP2 in 2014. It is recognised that this document will be submitted to the

SWDP EIP to be accepted and as a result of this, and the potential for further changes

to the proposed development assumptions, there is the possibility of further changes

going forward.

48

How will we deal with changes to development assumptions?

Under guidance from Planning Officers at Worcester, Malvern Hills and Wychavon

District Councils, changes to the development assumptions for the SWDP area may

be necessary. Assuming any changes to these assumptions fit the ‘development

clusters’, as used in the Vehicle Trip Generation Model, any changes to these

assumptions can be relatively easily incorporated into the model and the associated

impact on the transport network assessed. CH2M HILL proposes no action to update

the model is undertaken until guidance is received from all of the three district

councils.

49

Appendix 1: SWDP2: (2014) Transport Scheme Summary Table

50

51

TABLE 1: DRAFT TRANSPORT SCHEMES & INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS (for inclusion in SWIDP APPENDIX Y)

Category Project SWDP Policy Delivery Partners Estimated Construction

Cost (£millions) Potential Sources of Funding Estimated Timescale

Costs/Funding/Delivery

Notes Further Details

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

A. Movement (costs exclude any land acquisition and CPO costs (in the event that these are required), passenger transport operating costs and local s278 highways works)

Worcester (Worcester Transport Strategy)

HIGHWAY SCHEMES

A4440/Southern Link Road capacity enhancements (phases 3 & 4, Whittington - Ketch - Powick), Key Corridors Infrastructure

and operational enhancements, traffic signals enhancements (SCOOT/MOVA etc.), VMS signing. NOTES: EXCLUDES costs for

M5 junctions 5, 6 and 7 which are within the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency. EXCLUDES costs for highway schemes

needed to mitigate proposed new development in and around Worcester Shrub Hill/Sherriff Gate area

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

Worcestershire CC (ITBlock),

Development Industry, WLEP/SEP,

WLTB, New Homes Bonus, Central

Govt

£121.21

Worcs CC (IT Block), Local Transport Board

(Devolved Major Scheme Funding),

Developers (s106 & s278), New Homes

Bonus, +other funding sources as available

2012-2020:

(1) Dualling A4440 (Whittington-Ketch)

(2) Key Corridors linking urban extensions with City Centre (3)

Shrub Hill Opportunity Zone transport infrastructure works

2020-2030:

(1) Further Enhancements to A4440 and remaining key corridors

RAIL SCHEMES

Worecstershire Parkway & Shrub Hill Station improvements (limited to improved access arrangements for users, EXCLUDES

development-specific infrastructure improvments associated with major new developments such as Sherriff Gate

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

Rail Industry (NR/TOC's/DfT),




Govt

£18.97



Developers (s106 & s278), Network Rail,

Train operating Companies, DfT +other

funding sources as available

2012-2020:

(1) Worcestershire Parkway

(2) Shrub Hill Station (if Opportunity Zone development proposals advanced for delivery in this period)

2020 - 2030:

(1) Shrub Hill (if delivery of Opportunity Zone development delayed)

LOCAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT

SCHEMES

Including:

Upgraded bus stop infrastructure, extension of Real Time Information systems (incl. SVD & links to signals operations) to

corridors linking SWDP2 developments with Worcester City Centre and key trip attractors such as Shires Business Park and

which were not covered by Phase 1 of the WTS.

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

Bus Industry, Worcestershire CC

(ITBlock), Development Industry,

WLEP/SEP, WLTB, New Homes

Bonus, LSTF, Central Govt

£19.57





Across both phases (2012 - 2020 and 2020 - 2030) aligned with key Corridor improvments and delivery of

SWDP planned growth (in particular the urban extensions of SWUE, WoWUE, Gwillims Farm, Kilbury

Drive and Swinesherd Way)

WALK & CYCLE SCHEMES

New and improved walk and cycle routes, additional walk and cycle bridge to north of city (and associated access links) and

walk & cycle elements of key Corridor schemes

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

Sustrans, Worcestershire CC (IT

Block), Development Industry,



£11.04





Across both phases (2012 - 2020 and 2020 - 2030) aligned with key Corridor improvments and delivery of

SWDP planned growth (in particular the urban extensions)

TOTAL £170.8

Droitwich

HIGHWAY SCHEMES

Local highway network improvements and elements of A38 highway enhancements in vicinity of Droitwich, including: A38

Roman Way / B4065 Bromsgrove Road, A38 Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road, A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road

and Hanbury Street / Queen Street / Saltway / Bromsgrove Road

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7




Govt

£3.62





Across both phases (2012-2020 & 2020 – 2030)

RAIL, LOCAL PASSENGER

TRANSPORT AND WALK & CYCLE

LINK SCHEMES

Including:

(1) Improvements to Droitwich rail station and associated interchange facilities (including parking, information, access

routes etc.).

(2) Provision of Infrastructure to enable local PT services to access & serve SWDP development sites (particularly Copcut &

Yew Tree Village).

(3) Provision of walk & cycle footbridge over A38 linking proposed development sites to town centre & railway station.

(4) Improvements to walk & cycle routes, crossing facilities, signage and other associated facilities

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

Sustrans, Bus Industry, Rail Industry

(NR/TOC's/DfT), Worcestershire CC




£5.32






TOTAL £8.9

Evesham

HIGHWAY SCHEMES

Including town centre junction enhancements, including: (A4184 / B4624) Greenhill / High Street / Worcester Road, Vine

Street / High Street / Bridge Street, Bridge Street / Port Street / Waterside and A4184 (Cheltenham Road) / Davies Road.

NOTE: EXCLUDES A46 schemes which are within the jurisdiction of the Highway Agency.

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7




Govt

£1.20








LINK SCHEMES

Including:

(1) Provision of walk & cycle footbridges over A46 and River Avon linking proposed development sites to town centre, railway

station, retail parks and employment centres. (2)

Improvements to Evesham rail station and associated interchange facilities (including cycle parking, information, access routes

etc.). (3)

Provision of Infrastructure to enable local PT services to access & serve SWDP development sites.

(4) Improvements to walking and cycling connectivity

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7






£7.600






TOTAL £8.8

Malvern

HIGHWAY SCHEMES

Local highway network improvments, including: A4103 / B4503 Leigh Sinton Road, A449 Worcester Road / Richmond Road /

Pickersleigh Avenue, A449 Worcester Road / Howsell Road / Pickersleigh Road, A449 Worcester Road / B4505 (Newtown Road)

/ Hornyold Road, B4208 Pickersleigh Road / North End Lane / Hayslan Road, B4208 Pickersleigh Road / North End Lane

/ Hayslan Road, B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208 Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase Rd / Court Rd / Avenue Rd, A449 Belle Vue

Terrace / Wells Road / B4211 Church Street, B4208 Barnards Green Rd / B4211/ Poolbrook Road and B4208 Blackmore Park

Rd / B4209 Hanley Rd. NOTE: EXCLUDES improvements to Townsend Way/A449 Junction associated with proposed Newlands

development.

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7




Govt

£5.6








LINK SCHEMES

Including:

(1) Provision of Infrastructure to enable local PT services to access & serve SWDP development sites.

(2) Improvements to walking and cycling connectivity, including to/from proposed development sites

(3) Improvements to town centre walking and cycling facilities

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7






£0.7






TOTAL £6.4

Pershore

HIGHWAY SCHEMES

Local highway network improvements, including:(A4104 / B4084) Worcester Road / Three Springs Road, (A4104 / B4084)

Station Road / Worcester Road / High Street and A4104 Station Road / B4083 Wyre Road NOTE: See

Inter-Urban Highway section (below) for A44 highway enhancements.

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

£1.050








LINK SCHEMES

Including:

(1) Improvements to Pershore rail station and associated interchange facilities (including parking, information, access routes

etc.). (2)

Provision of Infrastructure to enable local PT services to access & serve SWDP development sites.

(3) Improvements to walking and cycling connectivity

(4) Improvements to town centre walking and cycling facilities

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

£3.360






TOTAL £4.4

Rural Malvern Hills

LOCAL PASSENGER TRANSPORT

AND WALK & CYCLE LINK SCHEMES

Including:


(2) Improvements to walking and cycling connectivity to the existing network (3)

Improvements to walking and cycling facilities and infrastructure

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

£0.2






TOTAL £0.2

Rural Wychavon



LINK SCHEMES

Including:


(2) Improvements to rail stations (Hartlebury) and associated interchange facilities (including parking, information, access

routes etc.).

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

£2.3


(Devolved Major scheme Funding),




TOTAL £2.3

Inter-Urban Highways

HIGHWAY SCHEMES

Including improvements to the A44 mainline (Evesham-Worcester - Bromyard) at Pinvin Crossroads, Crown East, A38 Fernhill

Heath (Hurst Lane) & Martin Hussingtree, A449 roundabout at Claines NOTE:

EXCLUDES A449/Townsend Way Junction, subject to s278 discussions with the developer of Newlands site

SWDP 4 & SWDP 7

£4.1






TOTAL £4.1

App Y TOTAL

£205.9

52

53

Wo rces te r T ranspo r t Mode l

South Worcestershire Development Plan 2

Prepared for

Worcestershire County Council

2014

Red Hill House

227 London Road

Worcester, WR5 2JG

+44 (0) 1905 361 361

+44 (0) 1905 361 362

54

55

Contents

Section Page

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 56

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 56

Assessment Methodology ........................................................................................................... 57

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 57

2.2 Model Specification ................................................................................................................ 57

2.3 Model Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 57

2.4 Model Information ................................................................................................................. 58

SWDP2 Assumptions................................................................................................................... 59

3.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 59

3.2 Model Assessment ................................................................................................................. 59

SWDP2 Network Impacts ............................................................................................................ 60

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 60

4.2 Forecast Demand ................................................................................................................... 60

4.3 Mode Split .............................................................................................................................. 60

4.4 Passenger Transport ............................................................................................................... 60

4.5 Highway Statistics................................................................................................................... 62

4.6 Link flow and travel time changes .......................................................................................... 63

4.7 Link Volume‐Capacity Ratios .................................................................................................. 65

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 67

5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 67

5.2 Next steps ............................................................................................................................... 67

Appendices

i SWDP 2021‐2031 Core Development Assumptions

ii Nunnery Way Site Layout Plan iii Junction Turning Movements

Tables

4.1 Matrix Totals

4.2 Mode Split

4.3 SWDP1 PT network Statistics

4.4 PT network statistics ‐ SWDP2 and change against SWDP1

4.5 SWDP1 highway network statistics

4.6 SWDP2 Highway network model statistics and % change

Figures

4.1 SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Link Flow difference 2031 AM

4.2 SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Link Flow difference 2031 PM

4.3 SWDP2 vs SWDP1 – Travel time difference 2031 AM

4.4 SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Travel time difference 2031 PM

4.5 SWDP2 – Link VCR 2031 AM

4.6 SWDP2 – Link VCR 2031 PM

SWDP2- TRANSPORT MODELLING REPORT_FINAL/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]

56

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon councils have joined together and prepared a development

plan for South Worcestershire. This plan is called the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP1) that

considers the long term vision and objectives for South Worcestershire up to 2030. Following the Stage 1

examination of the plan by the Inspector, the councils have undertaken further work related to the increased

objective assessment of housing need recommended by the inspector. The increased housing allocation to

the SWDP is referred to as SWDP2 in this document.

This report sets out the Phase 1 transport modelling undertaken to appraise the proposed SWDP2. The

results of this Phase 1 modelling will help inform the various measures required to mitigate transport impact

that will subsequently be assessed under Phase 2. It has been produced by CH2M Hill following a request

from Worcestershire County Council (WCC).

This report is structured as follows:

chapter 2 details the assessment methodology;

chapter 3 details the SWDP2 assumptions assessed;

chapter 4 details the SWDP2 impacts; and

chapter 5 details conclusions and next steps.


57

SECTION 2

Assessment Methodology

2.1 Introduction

The assessment of SWDP2 described in this report has been undertaken using the Worcester Multi‐Modal

Transport Model (WTM). This is a 4‐stage WebTAG‐compliant variable demand model. This includes use of

the EMME software platform for demand model calculations and passenger transport (PT) assignment and

the SATURN software platform for highway assignment.

The assessment methodology is as specified in the Model Use Protocol document and is summarised here to

confirm the approach taken for this particular assessment. However, the model has now been updated to

account for the latest WebTAG (May 2014) value changes factored and applied to 2008 base year values,

NTEM v6.2 and WTS Phase 1 network assumptions.

2.2 Model Specification

The WTM encompasses a highway and public transport model validated to a 2008 base year and covers the

AM peak (0800 – 0900), an average inter peak (1000 – 1500) and a PM peak (1700‐1800). It incorporates

census, employment and planning data and by using local household trip rates develops the quantum of

trips generated by each zone in the model. These trips are then distributed across available modes and

subsequently distributed to destination zones. Whilst assessment previously were undertaken for 2021 and

2031, for SWDP2, the forecast year requested are 2019 and 2031. Therefore the forecast matrices are

available for 2019 and 2031 with inclusions of planning data for population and employment growth being

constrained to NTEM (v6.2) growth at County level.

The trip rates used in the WTM are 24hr ‘all mode’ production‐attraction (PA) person trip rates split by

journey purpose and by car availability based on local household survey data. Trip rates for employment and

other non‐residential developments are not directly input into the demand model. Rather, they are partially

generated as a consequence of residential population trips distributed, for example, to employment zones,

weighted by the number of jobs in any given zone.

The main mode choice is calculated using a logit choice model to split the input trip generations into the

three main modes of travel: car, PT and active (cycling and walking). The generalised cost of travel for each

of these modes is required as an input to the mode choice model. For each zone, the generalised costs of

travel will be the composite (log sum) of the costs of travel to each potential destination. A logit choice

model is also used to allocate the modal trip generations to alternative attraction zones.

Following mode choice and trip distribution to generate 24hr PA matrices by mode, origin‐destination (OD)

matrices are estimated by time period using factors derived from survey data. The model applies an absolute‐

incremental formulation to produce future year trip matrices for assignment.

The demand model is run iteratively using WebTAG convergence criteria.

2.3 Model Scenarios

Models were developed for 2019 and 2031 to determine the level of trips with SWDP2 developments and

infrastructure schemes as per WTS Phase 1 strategy. The infrastructure assumptions include the MSBC FA

(Full Approval) north and north‐east transport corridors and junction improvements at the Ketch

roundabout. The improvements at the Whittington roundabout are also included.


58

SECTION 2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The model outputs were compared with SWDP1 results to assess the implications of the increased housing

allocations on the transport infrastructure.

2.4 Model Information

A wide range of network and operational information is available from the model. To inform the assessment

of the plan, the information provided is limited to the most relevant items being highway network summary

statistics, public transport statistics and flow differences along key links and corridors.


59

SECTION 3

SWDP2 Assumptions

3.1 Assumptions

The development plan assumptions were provided by WCC and included in the model. They are summarised

as follows:

2019 and 2031 forecast years assessed;

AM and PM peaks were assessed for highway and public transport impacts;

WTS Phase 1 strategy schemes

The housing allocations provided were for the period between 2006 and 2030. However as the base model

was developed for 2008 conditions, the allocations (completions) were factored down on a pro‐rata basis.

No changes are envisaged in the employment allocations between SWDP 1 and SWDP 2. The SWDP2 core

development assumptions are given in Appendix i.

Table 3‐1 SWDP 2 Residential Allocations modelled

SWDP 2 Allocations Units

Developments Allocations 2014 ‐ 2019 9,146

Completions 2008‐2014 5,158

Commitments ‐1st April 2014 1,406

Windfall 2014 ‐ 2019 917

Total Development 2008 ‐ 2019 16,626

Developments Allocations 2019 ‐ 2031 10,268

Windfall 2019 ‐ 2031 1,560

Total Development 2008 ‐ 2031 28,454

3.2 Model Assessment

A full demand model run has been undertaken for the increased allocations under SWDP2 for each forecast

year. The increased allocations were distributed to the various model zones, with zone connectors

permitting access to the wider network.

Since the base year model has been calibrated to 2008 household travel survey data, which was undertaken

following the implementation of the Sustainable Travel Towns project, the model base year mode shares

reflect the implementation of successful sustainable travel initiatives within Worcester. Use of the model for

the SWDP2 allocations therefore assumes sustainable initiatives (such as Choose How You Move (CHYM)

quality Travel Plans) are in place, without any specific further model adjustments. This is equivalent to

assuming an 8 to 10% decrease in car travel due to travel plan measures. It is implicit within this assumption

that any travel plans of CHYM quality adopted would be actively implemented on an ongoing basis.


60

SECTION 4

SWDP2 Network Impacts

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report outlines the highway network performance and discusses the highway impacts of

the increased allocations under SWDP2 and compares them with impacts of SWDP1 allocations.

4.2 Forecast Demand

Table 4.1 shows the all mode (car, bus, rail and HGV) matrix totals for the 2008 base year and the forecast

year, together with the percentage growth from 2008.

TABLE 4.1

Matrix Totals

Year

Total Trips % Growth

AM PM AM PM

2008 Base 44376 42711

2021 SWDP1 48870 47218 10.1% 10.6%

2031 SWDP1 51767 49861 16.7% 16.7%

2019 SWDP2 49341 47626 11.2% 11.5%

2031 SWDP2 52759 50862 18.9% 19.1%

4.3 Mode Split

The model indicates percentage mode split as shown in Table 4.5. It shows that the mode split remains very

much the same with the increased allocation under SWDP2.

TABLE 4.2

Mode Split

Mode

SWDP1_2021 SWDP2_2019 SWDP1_2031 SWDP2_2031

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

PT 6.4% 5.9% 6.4% 5.9% 6.8% 5.9% 6.9% 6.0%

Car 56.6% 58.1% 56.6% 58.1% 57.2% 59.2% 57.4% 59.3%

HGV 3.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.9% 3.2% 2.1% 3.2% 2.1%

Active 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 34.0% 32.8% 32.8% 32.5% 32.5%

4.4 Passenger Transport

Table 4.3 shows the PT network results for the SWDP1 scenario, compared to the 2008 base.


61

SECTION 4 SWDP2 NETWORK IMPACTS

TABLE 4.3

SWDP 1 PT network statistics

Metric

Base 2008 SWDP1 2021 SWDP1 2031

AM PM AM PM AM PM

Across Network ‐ Total Number of Buses 107 108 127 123 131 127

Across Network ‐ Total Number of Passengers 2057 1731 2713 2061 3540 2383

Across Network ‐ Average Journey Time per

Passenger (hours)

0.26

0.31

0.24

0.32

0.27

0.41

Across Network ‐ Total Passenger kilometres 10264 9112 12931 9836 18382 11568

Across Network ‐ Total Bus Revenue (£) £ 3,188 £ 1,627 £ 3,655 £ 2,535 £ 5,487 £ 2,240

Across Network ‐ Annualised Bus Revneue (£) £ 6,486,253 £ 8,537,975 £ 10,316,957

Total Peak Vehicle Requirement 94 90 118 114 128 117

The model results indicate that the 2021 and 2031 networks under SWDP1 allocation will experience

relatively stable average journey times in the AM peak compared to the 2008 base year, although there will

be increased congestion, some improvements can be expected through the WTS MSBC FA package

measures. The PM peak is forecast to experience increased average journey times, especially in 2031.

There is a significant increase in the peak vehicle requirement between 2008 and the future years in both

the AM and PM peaks due to congestion on the network and bus network changes incorporated into the

models. The service changes have been provided by WCC, which reflect changes to existing services since

2008 and future services proposed to cater for new developments.

Table 4.6 provides Passenger Transport results from the WTM for SWDP2 and compares it to the SWDP 1

results. The SWDP2 2019 results have been compared against the SWDP1 2021 results. The comparison for

2031 between SWDP2 and SWDP1 are also included.

TABLE 4.4

PT network statistics ‐ SWDP2 and change against SWDP1

Metric

SWDP2 2019

SWDP2 2019 vs

SWDP1 2021

SWDP2 2031

SWDP2 2031 vs

SWDP1 2031


Across Network ‐ Total Number of Buses 127 123 0 0 131 127 0 0

Across Network ‐ Total Number of Bus Passengers 2805 2111 +92 +50 3671 2492 +131 +110

Across Network ‐ Average Journey Time per

Passenger (hours)

0.25

0.33

0

+0.01

0.28

0.41

+0.01

0

Across Network ‐ Total Passenger kilometres 13282 10125 +351 +290 18918 12055 +537 +487

Across Network ‐ Total Bus Revenue (£) £3,782 £2,597 +£127 +£62 £5,690 £2,343 +£203 +£103

Across Network ‐ Annualised Bus Revenue (£) £8,537,975 +£252540 £10,725,950 +£408992

Total Peak Vehicle Requirement 118 116 0 +2 129 118 +1 +1

Notes: 1. WCC supplied vehicle operating cost of £110k per annum 2. Results provided are based on the modelled assumptions as documented and actual outturn passenger levels cannot be guaranteed

The PT results indicate that:

Bus passenger numbers increase under SWDP2 in both forecast years;

The average journey time per passenger is similar to SWDP1;

The revenue generated increases marginally; and

The peak vehicle requirement also increases slightly due to increase in passengers and potentially

worsening network congestion.


62

4.5 Highway Statistics


Table 4.5 provides highway network model statistics for the SWDP1 scenario compared to the 2008 base

year. The model results indicate that the 2021 and 2031 network under SWDP1 allocations will experience

lower speeds than the 2008 base year and therefore increased journey times, with reductions of around 9‐

16%, as a result of the growth in the total number of trips of 10‐17% in the AM and PM Peak periods. The

associated increases in total travel time and distance are 20‐36% and 9‐15% respectively.

These results show that over time the level of congestion increases in the AM and PM peak periods. The

transient and over capacity queues increase significantly in the forecast years compared to the 2008 base

year model, where over capacity queues increase by 300% in the AM 2031 and 520% in the PM 2031.

TABLE 4.5

SWDP1 highway network statistics Description

Units

Base 2008

SWDP1 2021

SWDP1 2021 vs

Base 2008 %

SWDP1 2031

SWDP1 2031 vs

Base 2008 %

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

Transient Queues pcu. hrs./hr. 908 729 1124 944 24% 29% 1266 1045 39% 43%

Over‐capacity Queues pcu. hrs./hr. 379 187 963 765 154% 309% 1537 1161 305% 520%

Total Travel Time pcu. hrs./hr. 7472 6966 8950 8377 20% 20% 10183 9356 36% 34%

Travel Distance pcu. kms./hr. 380608 371716 415034 405421 9% 9% 437292 426083 15% 15%

Overall Average Speed kph 51 53 46 48 ‐9% ‐9% 43 46 ‐16% ‐15%

Total Trips Loaded pcu/hr 42276 40137 46119 44133 9% 10% 48693 46780 15% 17%

Average Travel Time pcu/mins 10.6 10.4 11.6 11.4 10% 9% 12.5 12.0 18% 15%

Table 4.7 provides forecast year highway network model results under SWDP2 and provides percentage

changes against SWDP1 results.

TABLE 4.6

SWDP2 Highway network model statistics and % change

Description

Units

SWDP2 2019 SWDP2 2019 vs

SWDP1 2021 %

SWDP2 2031 SWDP2 2031 vs

SWDP1 2021 %


Transient Queues pcu. hrs./hr. 1152 968 2.5% 2.6% 1310 1089 3.5% 4.2%

Over‐capacity Queues pcu. hrs./hr. 989 872 2.7% 13.9% 1789 1428 16.4% 23.0%

Total Travel Time pcu. hrs./hr. 9003 8479 0.6% 1.2% 10596 9765 4.1% 4.4%

Travel Distance pcu. kms./hr. 414981 404136 0.0% ‐0.3% 442116 430264 1.1% 1.0%

Overall Average Speed kph 46.1 47.7 ‐0.6% ‐1.4% 41.7 44.1 ‐2.8% ‐3.1%

Total Trips Loaded pcu/hr 46477 44471 0.8% 0.8% 49778 47979 2.2% 2.6%

Average Travel Time pcu/mins 11.62 11.44 ‐0.2% 0.4% 12.77 12.21 1.8% 1.8%

Under SWDP2, vehicle trips on the highway network slightly decrease in 2019 AM compared to SWDP1 2021

AM, whereas in the PM, it slightly increases. In 2031 however, the vehicle trips under SWDP2 increase by

2.2‐2.6% as compared to SWDP1 as a result of the increased allocations. Changes in highway network

performance indicators due to the increased allocations under SWDP2 show the following:

An increase in travel time of between 0.6‐4.4% and increase in over capacity queuing of between 2.7‐

23.0%;

An increase in transient queuing of between 2.5‐4.2%; and

A reduction in overall speed of between 0.6‐3.1% within the Worcester network.


63

4.6

Link

flow and travel time

changes


Model parameters such as flow and travel time were compared between SWDP2 and SWDP1 for the two

forecast horizons to understand links and corridors that are impacted by the increased allocations. Link flow

difference plots for 2031 AM and PM are illustrated in Figures 4‐1 and 4‐2 below.

Figure 4‐1: SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Link Flow difference 2031 AM

The figures show that traffic flows increase is generally spread wide across the model network in both AM

and PM peak hours. The A4440 is expected to experience more demand on it especially along the eastern

and western sections. The A38, north of A449 is forecast to experience a reduction in flow in both AM and

PM peak hours. The radials routes from/to the city centre are forecast to experience increasing demand.

Link travel time difference plots for 2031 AM and PM are illustrated in Figures 4‐3 and 4‐4 below. The plots

show that travel time on various links increase due to the increased demand under SWDP2 compared to

SWDP1, with most links around the city centre experiencing an increase. There are few links however that

would experience a decrease in travel time presumably due to effects of re‐routeing. The SLR and arms

leading to M5 j6 are expected to experience further congestion. The model also shows one particular zone in

Redhill where the DEFRA offices are situated to experience significant increase in congestion (over 900s) in

2031 PM to gain access to the road network (on the link from the zone connector).


64


Figure 4‐2: SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Link Flow difference 2031 PM

Figure 4‐3: SWDP2 vs SWDP1 – Travel time difference 2031 AM


65


Figure 4‐4: SWDP2 vs SWDP1 – Travel time difference 2031 PM

4.7 Link Volume-Capacity Ratios

Link Volume–Capacity Ratios (VCR) for 2031 AM and PM under SWDP2 are illustrated in Figure 4‐5 and 4‐6.

The figures highlight those links where the VCR is expected to be 85% or above. They show that in the AM

peak hour many links on the radials leading to the city centre are expected to be heavily congested. The VCR

on links along the SLR and motorway junctions are also forecast to be high with most exceeding the link

capacity.

In the PM peak hour, there are fewer links with high VCRs compared to the AM. The most prominent links

are the M5 motorway between J7 and J6, the SLR between Ketch and Powick, Whittington roundabout and

the links approaching M5 J6. The links in the city centre too are expected to experience significant

congestion.

Plots showing the equivalent link parameters as above for 2019 under SWDP2 and their comparisons with

SWDP1 for 2021 are given in Appendix ii


66


Figure 4‐5: SWDP2 – Link VCR 2031 AM

Figure 4‐6: SWDP2 – Link VCR 2031 PM


67

SCETION 5

Conclusion

5.1 Conclusion

The increased residential allocations under SWDP2, have been modelled using the WTM as part of Phase 1

assessments. The networks considered for the modelling process are the WTS Phase1 improvements.

Assessments were undertaken for the 2019 and 2031, AM and PM peaks and compared with results under

SWDP1.

The results presented indicate:

Additional highway trips will be generated that will impact on the Worcester network;

The model indicates peak mode shares, in 2031, to remain similar to those predicted under SWDP1;

Public transport passenger numbers are forecast to increase under SWDP2 by over 110 trips in 2031;

The highway network will experience more congestion with travel times increasing by over 4% and

network speeds dropping by 3% in 2031; and

The routes leading to the city centre, A4440 and motorway junctions are expected to experience

worsening congestion.

5.2 Next steps

It is anticipated that results from this report will help WCC and other local authorities develop potential

mitigation strategies and measures to address the increased network congestion to be experienced under

SWDP2.


68

69

Appendix i SWDP2 2019-2031 Core Development

Assumptions

70

Appendix ii 2019 Link Plots – Flow, Travel time and VCR

71

SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Link Flow difference 2019‐2021 AM

SWDP2 vs SWDP1 – Travel time difference 2019‐2021 AM

72

SWDP2 – VCR 2019 AM

SWDP2 vs SWDP1 ‐ Link Flow difference 2019‐2021 PM

73

SWDP2 vs SWDP1 – Travel time difference 2019‐2021 PM

SWDP2 – VCR 2019 PM

74

75

T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M

SWDP2 - Phase 1 - Impacts on Network Performance

PREPARED FOR:

COPY TO:

Worcestershire County

Council

PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL

DATE: 30 June 2014

PROJECT NUMBER: 473946.MA.01.30

Background

CH2M Hill has supported Worcestershire County Council (WCC) with identifying the necessary transport

related infrastructure (highway, cycle and walk) and bus services required to mitigate against the

additional residential and employment development arising from the proposed allocations identified in

the Draft South Worcestershire District Plan (SWDP).

In October 2013 the proposed Draft SWDP housing and employment allocations were assessed at an

Examination in Public (EiP). The findings of the EiP required the three Districts comprising South

Worcestershire, namely Worcester City, Malvern Hills and Wychavon, to identify additional allocations

for residential development above the quantity included in the Draft SWDP. In response to the EiP

Inspector’s report, revised SWDP residential allocation figures were released in May 2014. It should be

noted that the proposed employment land allocations remain unchanged.

CH2M Hill has been commissioned by WCC to undertake a review of the impact on the transport

network arising from the revised SWDP allocations to ensure the previously identified transport

infrastructure and services included in the South Worcestershire Infrastructure Delivery Plan remain

appropriate to the level of growth proposed.

This Technical Note, forming Phase 1 of a 2 phase process, provides an initial commentary of the change

in impact on the Transport Network resulting from the proposed additional SWDP housing allocations

compared to the allocations assessed in the initial round of SWDP transport modelling. The findings of

this Technical Note will inform the Phase 2 work to review and identify the appropriate transport

infrastructure schemes and services required to support the revised SWDP allocations. Workshops to

discuss proposed transport schemes with WCC Officers from the Highway Network and Sustainable

Travel teams are scheduled for 4th July 2014. The information set out in this Technical Note will form a

key part of those discussions.

Process / Methodology

The impact of the revised residential allocations on the transport network has been assessed using the

South Worcestershire Vehicle / Trip Generation Model. The updated residential allocations have been

supplied to CH2M Hill by Worcester City, Malvern Hills and Wychavon District Councils to undertake

forecast year scenarios using the Vehicle / Trip Generation Model for 2019 and 2031. The 2019 and 2031

forecast year scenarios are in line with those assessed through the previous SWDP transport network

review and scheme identification.

Once the assessment of the revised SWDP residential allocations is complete, the South Worcestershire

Transport Infrastructure Delivery Plan document will be updated to include additional / revised schemes.

As part of the update to this document, Appendix A (Gravity Modelling Technical Note) will be updated to set out any changes required to allow Vehicle / Trip Generation model to most accurately take

account of the changes to the development assumptions. The amendment to Vehicle / Trip Generation

DRAFT - SWDP 2 - PHASE 1 - TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPACT TN - AB/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]

76

model involves the addition of Development Clusters to enable the most accurate reflection of the

updated residential allocations.

For the purposes of this Technical Note the results of the initial residential and employment allocation

scenarios for 2019 and 2030 are referred to as SWDP 1. The revised residential and employment

allocation scenarios for 2019 and 2031 are referred to as SWDP 2.


Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the overall quantum of residential and employment development figures

modelled for SWDP 1 and SWDP 2 and the resulting forecast number of 24 hour development trip

demand for Vehicles, Pedestrians, Cyclists and Bus.

Table 2.1 – SWDP 1 - 2019 and 2030 Development Assumptions and 24 hour Total Trips





Commitments


2262 2900

Commitments


38 101

Windfalls


710 2859

Empty Homes

(C3 Residential Dwellings)

190 551

Total Trips



280453 491659

Table 2.2 – SWDP 2 - 2019 and 2030 Development Assumptions and 24 hour Total Trips





Commitments


414 1406

Commitments


38 101

Windfalls


797 2013

Completions 6989 6989


77

SWDP2 - PHASE 1 - IMPACTS ON NETWORK PERFORMANCE

Demolition / Non Delivery of

Commitments

-110 -110

Total Trips



341775 587561

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the increase in the allocation of dwellings between SWDP 1 and SWDP 2. The

increase in the number of dwellings results in an increase in the total number of forecast 24 hour

development trips (vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and bus) from the proposed development sites across

South Worcestershire.

Highway Network Impacts

Data has been extracted from the Vehicle / Trip Generation model to provide an initial commentary of

the change in development traffic flows on the South Worcestershire highway network resulting from

the revised residential growth data.

Appendices A-D set out the development traffic flows on selected links in and around Worcester, Great

Malvern, Evesham, Pershore and Droitwich Spa. Where base year traffic flow data is available a

comparison in terms of forecast year traffic flows against the highway network capacity in that location

is provided. Also included as part of the analysis is a comparison of the forecast year traffic flow against

the highway capacity provided through the SWDP 1 proposed scheme.

In the following analysis, the assessment of highway capacity has been taken from SATURN based

link/junction capacity calculations based on road and junction type, and the measure used to assess the

performance of the link/junction is ‘volume over capacity’ which effectively considered whether the

road has sufficient space (capacity) to allow the amount for traffic (volume) to pass through. Where the

amount of traffic is greater than the space available, the result of the calculation is more than 100%,

indicating that the link/junction is ‘over capacity’. This indication is a good measure of the potential for

congestion.

A brief commentary summarising the data contained in Appendices A-D is provided below for Worcester,

Great Malvern, Evesham, Pershore and Droitwich Spa for 2019 and 2031 (AM and PM peak periods).

Reference is made to where the results indicate that congestion is likely, where the proposed scheme has

a beneficial impact and where, despite assuming a mitigation scheme, the link/junction is still shown to

have congestion. It is noted that the mitigation schemes proposed were identified within a set of criteria

which limited their size.

2019 – AM Peak - Highway Network Impacts

Worcester

The 2019 AM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows an increase in the number of trips compared

to the 2019 AM SWDP 1 scenario on most of the selected routes in and around Worcester.

Notable percentage increases in development vehicle trips are shown on the:

• Eastbound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road / Swinesherd Way) Roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A38 / A4536 (Droitwich Road / Hurst Lane) priority junction; and

• North east bound approach to the A38 / A453 (Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane) signalised

junction.

The highway junction improvement schemes identified through SWDP 1 show an improvement in terms

of volume over capacity compared to the existing situation on all of the selected links. Despite the

inclusion of the proposed SWDP 1 schemes, some junction approaches with a volume over capacity

result of over 100% remain, notably: DRAFT - SWDP 2 - PHASE 1 - TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPACT TN - AB /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]

COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

78

• Northwest bound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road / Swinesherd Way)

roundabout junction;

• Southbound approach to the A38 / A4538 (Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane) signalised junction;

and

• A44 / A422 / Pershore Lane roundabout junction.

The Vehicle / Trip Generation model shows all the junction approaches with the proposed SWDP 1

scheme in place with a volume over capacity ratio of under 100% in the 2019 AM peak under the SWDP 1 scenario, continue to operate with a volume over capacity ratio under 100% in the SWDP 2 scenario.

Great Malvern

The 2019 AM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows a variation in development traffic flows to

those shown under the SWDP 1 scenario.


• Northbound and southbound approaches to the A4103 / B4503 Leigh Sinton Road Priority

Junction;

• North east bound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Howsell Road / Pickersleigh Road Junction;

• Eastbound approach to the B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208 Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase Rd

/ Court Rd / Avenue Rd Gyratory; and

• Westbound and Southbound approaches to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211

Church Street Priority Junction. Percentage

decreases in trips are shown on the:

• Northbound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way Roundabout;

• Northbound and westbound approach to the B4208 Pickersleigh Road / North End Lane /

Hayslan Road signalised junction;

• Southbound approach to the B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208 Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase

Rd / Court Rd / Avenue Rd Gyratory;

• Northbound approach to the B4208 Barnards Green Rd / Guarlford Road / Poolbrook Road

priority junction; and

• Southbound approach to the B4208 Blackmore Park Rd / B4209 Hanley Rd signal junction.


of volume over capacity compared to the existing situation at all of the selected junctions. Despite the

inclusion of the proposed SWDP 1 schemes, some junction approaches with volume over capacity result

of over 100% remain, notably the southbound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way

roundabout and the northbound approach to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211 Church

Street priority junction.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the volume over capacity result on the links identified above is

further exacerbated. Additionally, the following links also operate with a volume over capacity of above

100%:

• North East bound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way Roundabout;

• Westbound approach to the B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208 Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase Rd


• Westbound and southbound approaches to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211

Church Street priority junction.


79


Evesham


to the 2019 AM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Evesham.

Notable percentage increases are shown on the:

• Northbound approach to the A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road Roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A44 / A46 Roundabout; and

• Southbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout.




of over 100% remain, notably:

• Westbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout;

• Westbound approach to the A46 / The Link / Millennium Way roundabout; and

• Southbound approach to the A46 / B4035 Badsey Road roundabout.

The Vehicle / Trip Generation model shows the volume over capacity ratio on these junction approaches

to be further exacerbated under the SWDP 2 scenario.

Pershore


to the 2019 AM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Pershore.

Notable percentage increases are shown on the northbound and eastbound approaches to the A4104 /

B4084 (Worcester Road / Three Springs Road) priority junction.


of volume over capacity compared to the existing situation on all of the selected links.

At most of the junctions the volume over capacity ratio is at approximately 100% or below with the

SWDP 1 proposed schemes in place under the SWDP 1 development scenario.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the eastbound approach to the A44 / A4104 / B4082 (Allens

Hill / Terrace Road / Main Street) signalised junctions and northbound approach to the A4104 / B4084

(Worcester Road / Three Springs Road) are operating at a volume over capacity ratio of over 100%.

Droitwich Spa


to the 2019 AM SWDP 1 scenario on most of the selected routes in and around Droitwich Spa. A slight

reduction in the number of development related trips is shown on the westbound approach to the A38

Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road Roundabout.


• Northbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road Roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 roundabout; and

• Northbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road roundabout.


of volume over capacity compared to the existing situation on all of the selected links. The inclusion of

the proposed schemes at the A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road and M5 Junction 5 does not

improve the volume over capacity result on the junctions to below 100% under the SWDP 1 scenario. The Vehicle / Trip Generation model shows the volume over capacity ratio on these junction approaches

to be further exacerbated under the SWDP 2 scenario.

DRAFT - SWDP 2 - PHASE 1 - TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPACT TN - AB /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]


80


scheme in place with a volume over capacity ratio of under 100% in the 2019 AM peak under the SWDP

1 scenario, continue to operate with a volume over capacity ratio under 100% in the SWDP 2 scenario. 2031 – AM Peak - Highway Network Impacts Worcester


to the 2031 AM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Worcester.


• Eastbound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road / Swinesherd Way) Roundabout;

• Eastbound approach to the London Road / Whittington Road / Spetchley Road Gyratory;

• Westbound approach to the A44 / A4440 / A4103 Bromyard Road Roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A38 / A4536 (Droitwich Road / Hurst Lane) priority junction; and

• North east bound approach to the A38 / A453 (Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane) signalised

junction.



inclusion of the proposed SWDP 1 schemes, some junction approaches with a volume over capacity ratio


• Northwest bound and southbound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road /

Swinesherd Way) roundabout junction;

• Westbound approach to the A4536 Blackpole Road / Cotswold Way signalised junction;

• Northwest bound and Southbound approach to the A38 / A4538 (Droitwich Road / Pershore

Lane) signalised junction;

• Northbound approach to the M5 Junction 7 Roundabout; and

• A44 / A422 / Pershore Lane roundabout junction.

Additional junction approaches operate with a volume over capacity ratio greater than 100% under the

SWDP 2 development scenario. These include the following:

• Eastbound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road / Swinesherd Way) roundabout;

• Eastbound approach to the London Road / Whittington Road / Spetchley Road Gyratory;

• Westbound approach to the A44 / A4440 / A4103 Bromyard Road roundabout;

• Northeast bound approach to the (A38 / A4538) Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane signal junction;

and

• Eastbound approach to M5 Junction 7. Great Malvern

The 2031 AM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows a variation in development traffic flows to




Junction; DRAFT - SWDP 2 - PHASE 1 - TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPACT TN - AB/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]

81


• North east bound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Howsell Road / Pickersleigh Road

Junction;

• Westbound, Southbound and Northbound approaches to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211 Church Street Priority Junction.

Percentage decreases in trips are shown on the:


• Northbound and westbound approaches to the B4208 Pickersleigh Road / North End Lane /


• Southbound approach to the B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208 Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase Rd / Court Rd / Avenue Rd Gyratory;








• Southbound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way roundabout;

• North east bound and southbound approaches to the A449 Worcester Road / Howsell Road /

Pickersleigh Road priority junction;

• Westbound approach to the B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208 Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase Rd


• Northbound, southbound and westbound approaches to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells

Road / B4211 Church Street priority junction.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the volume over capacity results on the links identified above

is further exacerbated and the following links also operate with a volume over capacity of above 100%:

• Southbound approach to A4103 / B4503 Leigh Sinton Road priority junction; and

• North east bound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way roundabout.

Evesham


to the 2031 AM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Evesham.


• Northbound approach to the A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road Roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A44 / A46 Roundabout;

• Westbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout; and

• Westbound approach to the A46 / The Link / Millennium Way roundabout.





• Northbound approach to the A44 / A46 roundabout;

DRAFT - SWDP 2 - PHASE 1 - TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPACT TN - AB /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT 2014 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

82

• Southbound approach to the (A4184 / B4624) Greenhill / High Street / Worcester Road signal

junction;

• Southbound approach to the Abbey Road / Pershore Road / Waterside / Cheltenham Road signal

junction;

• Southbound approach to the Vine Street / High Street / Bridge Street priority junction;

• Westbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout;

• Eastbound and westbound approaches to the A46 / The Link / Millennium Way roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A46 / Broadway Road roundabout; and


The volume over capacity calculation on the links identified above is further exacerbated under the

SWDP 2 growth scenario.

Additional links performing with a volume over capacity result above 100% under the SWDP 2 scenario

include the following:

• Northbound and eastbound approaches to the A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road roundabout;

and

• Southbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout.

Pershore

The 2031 AM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows an increase in the number of trips compared to the 2031 AM SWDP 1 scenario on all selected routes in and around Pershore.


• Northbound and eastbound approaches to the A4104 / B4084 (Worcester Road / Three Springs

Road) priority junction;

• Northbound approach to the A44 / A4104 / B4082 (Allens Hill / Terrace Road / Main Street)

signal junction; and

• Westbound approach to the A44 Evesham Road roundabout.

Despite the highway junction improvement schemes identified through SWDP 1 a number of the

selected links show a volume over capacity ratio greater than 100% under SWDP 1 development

scenario, notably:

• Eastbound approach to the A44 / A4104 / B4082 (Allens Hill / Terrace Road / Main Street) signal

junction;

• Northbound approach to the (A4104 / B4084) Worcester Road / Three Springs Road; and

• Southbound approach to the (A4104 / B4084) Station Road / Worcester Road / High Street signal

junction.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the volume over capacity ratio increases on the links identified

above. The westbound approach to the A44 Evesham Road roundabout also operates with a volume

over capacity ratio greater than 100%. Droitwich Spa


to the 2031 AM SWDP 1 scenario on most of the selected routes in and around Droitwich Spa. A slight

reduction in the number of development related trips is shown on the westbound approach to the A38


83


Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road Roundabout and the eastbound approach to the A38 Roman

Way / A4133 roundabout.


• Northbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road Roundabout;

• Northbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 roundabout; and

• Northbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road roundabout.



the proposed schemes at the A38 Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road, A38 Roman Way / B4090

Worcester Road and M5 Junction 5 does not improve the volume over capacity result of the junctions to

below 100% under the SWDP 1 scenario. Under the SWDP 2 scenario the volume over capacity result of

these junction approaches is further exacerbated.

2019 – PM Peak - Highway Network Impacts

Worcester

The 2019 PM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows an increase in the number of trips compared

to the 2019 PM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Worcester.


• North west bound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road / Swinesherd Way)

Roundabout;

• Westbound approach to the London Road / Whittington Road / Spetchley Road Gyratory;

• Southbound approach to the A38 / A4536 (Droitwich Road / Hurst Lane) priority junction; and

• Eastbound approach to the A38 / A453 (Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane) signalised junction.





• Northwest bound and southbound approaches to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road /


• North west bound and southbound approaches to the A38 / A4538 (Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane) signalised junction; and

• Northbound approach to the M5 junction 7.



1 scenario, continue to operate with a volume over capacity ratio under 100% in the SWDP 2 scenario.

The junction volume over capacity increases to above 100% on the westbound approach to the A44 /

A4440 / A4103 Bromyard Road roundabout and westbound approach to the A4536 Blackpole Road /

Cotswold Way under the SWDP 2019 PM scenario.

Great Malvern

The 2019 PM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows a variation in development traffic flows to




Junction;


84


Junction;


/ Court Rd / Avenue Rd Gyratory;

• Westbound, Northbound and Southbound approaches to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells

Road / B4211 Church Street Priority Junction; and

• Eastbound approach to theB4208 Blackmore Park Rd / B4209 Hanley Rd signal junction.












inclusion of the proposed SWDP 1 schemes, some junction approaches with volume over capacity ratio


• North east bound and southbound approaches to A449 Worcester Road / Howsell Road /

Pickersleigh Road priority junction; and

• Southbound approach to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211 Church Street priority

junction.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the volume over capacity result on the links identified above is

further exacerbated and the following links also operate with a volume over capacity of above 100%:

• Southbound approach to the A4103 / B4503 Leigh Sinton Road priority junction; and

• Southbound approach to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way roundabout.

Evesham


to the 2019 PM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Evesham.


• Northbound and eastbound approaches to the A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road Roundabout;

• Southbound approach to the A44 / A46 Roundabout;

• Southbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout;

• Eastbound approach to the A46 / The Link / Millennium Way roundabout;


• Southbound approach to the A46 / B4035 Badsey Road Roundabout.




85


inclusion of the proposed SWDP 1 schemes, some junction approaches with a volume over capacity

result of over 100% remain, notably:




The volume over capacity ratio result is further exacerbated under the SWDP 2 growth scenario with a

number of junction approaches showing volume over capacity ratios close to 100%.

Pershore


to the 2019 PM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Pershore.





At most of the junctions the volume over capacity ratio is at approximately 100% or below with the

SWDP 1 proposed schemes in place under the SWDP 1 development scenario.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the eastbound approach to the A44 / A4104 / B4082 (Allens

Hill / Terrace Road / Main Street) signalised junctions and southbound approach to the A4104 / B4084

(Worcester Road / Three Springs Road) are operating at a volume over capacity ratio of over 100%.

Droitwich Spa


to the 2019 PM SWDP 1 scenario on most of the selected routes in and around Droitwich Spa. A slight

reduction in the number of development related trips is shown on the eastbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 Roundabout.


• Southbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road Roundabout; and

• Southbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 roundabout.



the proposed schemes at the A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road, A38 Roman Way / B4090

Worcester Road and M5 Junction 5 does not improve the volume over capacity result of the junctions to

below 100% under the SWDP 1 scenario. Under the SWDP 2 scenario the volume over capacity result of

these junction approaches is further exacerbated.




2031 – PM Peak - Highway Network Impacts

Worcester


to the 2031 PM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Worcester.



86

• North west bound approach to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road / Swinesherd Way)

Roundabout;

• Westbound approach to the London Road / Whittington Road / Spetchley Road Gyratory;

• Westbound approach to the (A44 / A4440 / A4103 ) Bromyard Road roundabout;

• Southbound and north west bound approaches to the A38 / A4536 (Droitwich Road / Hurst

Lane) priority junction;

• Southbound approach to the (A38 / A4538) Droitwich Road / Pershore Lane signal junction; and

• Southbound approach to the M5 Junction 7.



inclusion of the proposed SWDP 1 schemes, some junction approaches with volume over capacity

performance of over 100% remain, notably:

• Northwest bound and southbound approaches to the A44 / A4440 (Whittington Road /


• Westbound approach to the (A44 / A4440 / A4103) Bromyard Road roundabout;

• Westbound approach to the A4536 Blackpole Road / Cotswold Way signal junction;

• North west bound and southbound approaches to the A38 / A4538 (Droitwich Road / Pershore

Lane) signalised junction;

• Northbound approach to the M5 junction 7; and

• Northbound and southbound approaches to the A44 / A422 / Pershore Lane roundabout.

The Vehicle / Trip Generation model shows all the junction approaches with the proposed SWDP 1 scheme in place with a volume over capacity ratio of under 100% in the 2019 AM peak under the SWDP


Great Malvern

The 2031 PM SWDP 2 development trip traffic data shows a variation in development traffic flows to




Junction;


Junction;


/ Court Rd / Avenue Rd Gyratory;

• Westbound and Northbound approaches to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211

Church Street Priority Junction; and

• Eastbound approach to the B4208 Blackmore Park Rd / B4209 Hanley Rd signal junction.






87




• Northbound approach to the B4208 Barnards Green Rd / Guarlford Road / Poolbrook Road priority junction; and






• Southbound and northeast bound approaches to the A449 Worcester Road / Townsend Way;

• North east bound and southbound approaches to A449 Worcester Road / Howsell Road /

Pickersleigh Road priority junction; and

• Southbound approach to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211 Church Street priority

junction.

Under the SWDP 2 development scenario the volume over capacity performance on the links identified

above is further exacerbated and the following links also operate with a volume over capacity of above

100%:

• Southbound approach to the A4103 / B4503 Leigh Sinton Road priority junction; and

• Westbound approach to the A449 Belle Vue Terrace / Wells Road / B4211 Church Street.

Evesham


to the 2031 PM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Evesham.


• Northbound and eastbound approaches to the A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road Roundabout;

• Southbound approach to the A44 / A46 Roundabout;


junction;


junction;


• Southbound approach to the A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road roundabout;

• Eastbound approach to the A46 / The Link / Millennium Way roundabout;


• Southbound approach to theA46 / B4035 Badsey Road Roundabout.









88

The volume over capacity ratio results are further exacerbated under the SWDP 2 growth scenario. The

following additional junctions are forecast to operate at a volume over capacity ratio in excess of 100%

under the SWDP 2 growth scenario with the SWDP 1 schemes in place:

• Eastbound approach to the A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road roundabout;

• Southbound approach to the A44 / A46 roundabout;


junction;


junction;




Pershore


to the 2031 PM SWDP 1 scenario on all of the selected routes in and around Pershore.





At most of the junctions the volume over capacity ratio is at approximately 100% or below with the SWDP

1 proposed schemes in place under the SWDP 1 development scenario. The eastbound approach to the

A44 / A4104 / B4082 (Allens Hill / Terrace Road / Main Street) signal junction and the southbound

approach to the (A4104 / B4084) Station Road / Worcester Road / High Street signal junction are

operating at a volume over capacity ratio in excess of 100%. The volume over capacity ratio on these links

is further exacerbated which the addition of the SWDP 2 growth. Droitwich Spa


to the 2031 PM SWDP 1 scenario on most of the selected routes in and around Droitwich Spa. A slight

reduction in the number of development related trips is shown on the eastbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 Roundabout.


• Southbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A442 Kidderminster Road Roundabout; and

• Southbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 roundabout.



the proposed schemes at the A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road, A38 Roman Way / A442

Kidderminster Road, A38 Roman Way / B4090 Worcester Road and M5 Junction 5 does not improve the

volume over capacity ratio of the junctions to below 100% under the SWDP 1 scenario. Under the SWDP

2 scenario the volume over capacity ratio of these junction approaches is further exacerbated. Under the

SWDP 2 scenario the southbound approach to the A38 Roman Way / A4133 roundabout is also shows a

volume over capacity ratio greater than 100%.


89

Sustainable Transport SWDP2 - PHASE 1 - IMPACTS ON NETWORK PERFORMANCE

Data has been extracted from the Vehicle / Trip Generation Model to provide an initial commentary of

the sustainable travel trips (pedestrians, cyclists, bus) from the SWDP 2 development sites compared to

the SWDP 1 development sites.

Appendices E and F set out the forecast 24 hour sustainable travel trips from the Development Clusters

in the Vehicle / Trip Generation Model. The forecast number of sustainable travel trips from each

Development Cluster over a 24 hour period will be used as an indicator to the requirement for a

sustainable travel infrastructure scheme or service to link proposed development sites to the existing

sustainable travel network. The information set out in Appendices E and F will be used to inform

discussions at the Sustainable Travel Workshop to be held with WCC Officers on 4th July 2014.

The locations of the Development Clusters as modelled using the Vehicle / Trip Generation Model are

shown in Appendix G.

In order to most accurately model the SWDP 2 development assumptions there was a requirement to

add an additional four Development Clusters to the Vehicle / Trip Generation Model. The additional

Development Clusters are as follows:

• Worcester – Cluster 13 – Sites located along the A449 Corridor (Bromwich Road) south of

Worcester Town Centre;

• Worcester – Cluster 14 – Sites located along the A38 Corridor (Bath Road) south of Worcester

Town Centre;

• Wychavon – Cluster 23 – Yew Tree Development Site located off Pulley Lane, Droitwich Spa; and

• Wychavon – Cluster 24 – Harvington.

All of the above development sites show the requirement for sustainable travel infrastructure in the

2019 and 2031 with the SWDP 2 development proposals.

A brief commentary summarising the data contained in Appendices E and F is provided below to set out

the change in sustainable travel demand between SWDP 1 and SWDP 2 for 2019 and 2031.

2019

Appendix E shows the 2019 forecast demand for sustainable travel trips (pedestrian, cyclist, bus) from

the proposed development sites over a 24 hour period for SWDP 1 and SWDP 2.

The data extracted from the Vehicle / Trip Generation model shows additional demand under the SWDP

2 scenario for sustainable travel (Pedestrian, Cyclist and Bus) compared to the SWDP 1 scenario from the

following Worcester Development Clusters:

• Worcester – Cluster 1;




• Worcester – Cluster 10; and

• Worcester – Cluster 12.

Demand for sustainable travel shows notable reductions at Worcester Cluster 4 and Worcester Cluster

11.



following Malvern Hills Development Clusters:

• Malvern – Cluster 1; DRAFT - SWDP 2 - PHASE 1 - TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPACT TN - AB /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]


90

• Malvern – Cluster 4;









• Malvern – Cluster 14; and

• Malvern – Cluster 17.

Demand for sustainable travel shows notable reductions at Malvern Clusters 2, 3, 13 and 15.



following Wychavon Development Clusters:

• Wychavon – Cluster 2;












• Wychavon – Cluster 16; and

• Wychavon – Cluster 22.

Demand for sustainable travel shows notable reductions at Wychavon Clusters 17 and 19.

2031

Appendix F shows the 2031 forecast demand for sustainable travel trips (pedestrian, cyclist, bus) from

the proposed development sites over a 24 hour period for SWDP 1 and SWDP 2.



following Worcester Development Clusters:



91






• Worcester – Cluster 10; and

• Worcester – Cluster 12.

Demand for sustainable travel shows notable reductions at Worcester Clusters 4, 6 and 11.



following Malvern Hills Development Clusters:











• Malvern – Cluster 16; and

• Malvern – Cluster 17.

Demand for sustainable travel shows notable reductions at Malvern Clusters 2, 4, 11, 13 and 15.



following Wychavon Development Clusters:










• Wychavon – Cluster 14; and

• Wychavon – Cluster 22. Demand for sustainable travel shows notable reductions at Wychavon Clusters 3, 17, 18, 19 and 20.


92

Concluding Remarks

The initial review of the data extracted from the Vehicle / Trip Generation Model shows additional trips

on the South Worcestershire transport network resulting from the additional residential allocations

proposed over the forecast period up to 2031.

In summary, the additional development trips on the highway network, under the SWDP 2 scenario,

leads to a general worsening of the highway network performance in terms of volume over capacity. The

impact of this change is particularly pronounced in the immediate vicinity of the development sites,

dependant location and scale of proposed development. That is, the Vehicle / Trip Generation model

forecasts some junctions to show worsening volume over capacity ratio performance due to an increase

in development quantum or a change in development location. Conversely, where a proposed

development site is removed or scaled down in terms of overall number of proposed dwellings, the

volume over capacity result at some junctions is improved. The impact of these changes and the

requirement for amended highway improvement schemes to support the increase in residential

development is to be discussed at a Highway Workshop with WCC Officers on Friday 4th July.

The increase in residential development shows a general increase in the demand for sustainable travel

across South Worcestershire. As shown with the highway network analysis, the impact is localised

dependant on the location and scale of proposed development. That is, some Development Clusters

show an overall increase in the demand for sustainable trips and others show a reduced demand.

However, it should be noted that all of the Development Clusters show a demand for sustainable travel,

albeit either increased or decreased. The scale of the demand for sustainable travel and the

infrastructure required to link each of the Development Clusters to the existing sustainable transport

network will be discussed at a Sustainable Travel Workshop with WCC Officers on Friday 4th July.


93

Appendix A – 2019 AM SWDP 1 / SWDP 2 Highway Network

Performance

94

95

2019 - Worcester - Selected Route Analysis - Comparison of SWDP 1 and SWDP 2

Junction

Existing Junction Type

Optimum Scheme Proposed Through SWDP Stage 1

Junction Approach

SWDP 1 2019 AM Development

Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow

Change in Development

Forecast Flow (+/-)

SWDP 1 2019 AM V/C Ratio


A4440/B4636

Roundabout

Northbound left slip, widening to eastbound entry of 40m,

southbound entry and exit widening as required to achieve

additional capacity

Northbound

838

1001

19%

-

-

(A44 / A4440) Nunnery W ay / Swinesherd

W ay / W ildwood Drive Roundabout

W estbound arm - W iden on entry for a distance of 100

metres. Land constraints will require CPO

W estbound

312

420

35%

71%

80%

(A44 / A4440) W hittington Road /

Swinesherd W ay

3 arm Roundabout

Convert to a 3 arm signal junction with 2 right turn and 2

ahead lanes from the motorway

North W est bound 811 970 20% 188% 201%

Southbound 806 928 15% 171% 181%

Eastbound 253 445 76% 114% 130%

London Road / W hittington Road /

Spetchley Road

Gyratory

East west movement predominant. Convert to 3 arm signals to

favour east west movement. Civils works extensive.

Eastbound

253

445

76%

114%

130%

W estbound 287 273 -5% 133% 131%

(A44 / A4440 / A4103)Bromyard Road Roundabout W iden west bound lane to 2 lanes for a distance of 100 metres W estbound

641

883

38%

78%

94%

(A38 / A4536) Droitwich Road / Hurst Lane

Priority Junction

Create a 3 arm signal junction on MOVA ; Constrained by road

space on southbound approach and northbound (railway bridge)

cannot gain extra lanes.

Southbound

149

156

5%

91%

91%

Northbound 130 206 58% - -

North westbound 85 85 0% 61% 61%

A4536 Blackpole Road / Cotswold W ay 3 arm Traffic Signal junction Refurbishment of junction and add MOVA. Extend existing 2

lane westbound approach

W estbound

359

409

14%

140%

146%

(A38 / A4538) Droitwich Road / Pershore

Lane

3 arm Traffic Signal junction

Put junction on to MOVA; Extra 50m lane to be added on

Pershore Lane and 100m on South bound and northbound

A38 on entrance and 100m from exit from junction.

North W est Bound

379

457

21%

226%

245%

Southbound 692 703 2% 223% 224%

North East Bound 204 290 42% 151% 165%

M5 Junction 7

Roundabout

Signalise North, South and Eastbound node (Any works would

come under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency)

Southbound

358

375

5%

80%

82%

Eastbound 639 785 23% 109% 119%

Northbound 570 707 24% 123% 135%

A44 / A422 / Pershore Lane

Roundabout

W idening to north, south and west entry and exit of 80m in

each case

Eastbound 341 426 25% 83% 90%

Southbound 736 793 8% 149% 154%

Northbound 613 834 36% 106% 124%

2019 - Droitwich Spa - Selected Route Analysis - Comparison of SWDP 1 and SWDP 2

Junction



Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow

% Change in Development

Forecast Flow



A38 Roman W ay / B4090 Bromsgrove

Road

Traffic Signals

To increase capacity and through put add additional left turn

lane by widening for 80m – 2 straight ahead and one left turn Southbound

284

283

0%

129%

129%

A38 Roman W ay / A442 Kidderminster

Road

4 arm Roundabout

Partially signalise A38 slips and A442 Kidderminster road, all

other arms to remain give way - 3 nodes

Southbound 181 184 2% 34% 34%

Northbound 460 564 23% 101% 109%

W estbound 237 233 -2% 43% 43%

A38 Roman W ay / A4133

4 arm Roundabout

Signalise A38 approaches and Ombersley W ay approach – 3

nodes

Eastbound 195 202 4% 79% 79%

Southbound 303 311 3% 62% 63%

Northbound 389 484 24% 76% 84%

A38 Roman W ay / B4090 W orcester Road

5 arm Roundabout

Create a bypass lane of 250m continuing the A38 to a give

way on north bound away from roundabout arm. Land

ownership issues and tree clearance necessary

Northbound

752

886

18%

164%

175%

M5 Junction 5 Roundabout Signalise the southern roundabout using a 2 node approach. Northbound

247

254

3%

133%

134%

2019 - Pershore - Selected Route Analysis - Comparison of SWDP 1 and SWDP 2

Junction



Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow



(A44 / A4104 / B4082) Allens Hill / Terrace

Road / Main Street

4 arm staggered Traffic Signal junction

Realign B4082 to create inline crossroads and widen Terrace

road to create to two lane approach allowing signal to run in

fewer stages. Stage two would involve widening on East bound

and W est bound approaches and exits to create to a additional

ahead lane

Northbound

199

285

43%

67%

81%

Eastbound 652 789 21% 142% 155%

(A4104 / B4084) W orcester Road / Three

Springs Road

Priority Junction

Convert existing priority junction to a 3 arm signalised junction Eastbound 24 37 54% 16% 16%

Northbound 123 221 80% 146% 166%

(A4104 / B4084) Station Road / W orcester

Road / High Street


Minor re-modelling of junction due to land constraints Southbound 177 217 23% 113% 119%

W estbound 149 172 15% 103% 107%

96

A4104 Station Road / B4083 W yre Road

Priority Junction

Convert existing priority junction to signalised 3 arm junction

Northbound 259 356 37% 31% 35%

W estbound 296 299 1% 111% 112%

Southbound 178 241 35% 53% 58%

A44 Evesham Road Roundabout Creat a bypass lane, shift roundabout north, hamburger

roundabout and signalise

W estbound

432

592

37%

132%

152%

2019 - Evesham - Selected Route Analysis - Comparison of SWDP 1 and SWDP 2

Junction



Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow



(A44 / A4184 / B4088 Evesham Road) 4 arm Roundabout Proposing left turn slips off north bound over a distance of

60m and widen east bound over 70m Northbound 483 696 44% 95% 112%

Eastbound 395 497 26% 99% 107%

(A44 / A46)

Roundabout

Hamburger from north west bound to north bound or slip road

between northwest and west bound. Signals on 3 arms. Dual

between Junction 60 and 61 – distance of 150m; two lane

existing (Any works would come under the jurisdiction of the

Highways Agency)

Northbound

251

409

63%

128%

141%

Southbound 285 338 19% 89% 93%

(A4184 / B4624) Greenhill / High Street /

W orcester Road 3 arm Traffic Signals Limited junction works due to site constraints

Southbound

314

399

27%

96%

105%

Abbey Road / Pershore Road / W aterside /

Cheltenham Road Traffic Signals

Scheme for this junction included in Secured Major Scheme

Bid

Southbound

314

399

27%

96%

105%

Vine Street / High Street / Bridge Street Priority Junction Limited junction works due to site constraints Southbound 314 399 27% 96% 105%

A46 / A4184 Cheltenham Road

3 arm Roundabout

Extend two lane approaches southbound by 100m and

westbound by 100m. (Any works would come under the

jurisdiction of the Highways Agency)

Southbound

447

594

33%

97%

109%

W estbound 493 629 28% 127% 138%

A46 / The Link / Millennium W ay

4 arm Roundabout

Convert to 4 arm signal junction dual on approach; widen east

approach to two lanes additional 40m required. W iden on exit

of north and south bound by 50m to create merge on exit. (Any

works would come under the jurisdiction of the Highways

Agency)

Eastbound

454

558

23%

123%

132%

W estbound 493 629 28% 127% 138%

A46 / Broadway Road

4 arm Roundabout

Extend 2 lane entry north & south by 100m. W idening on exit

of 50m. (Any works would come under the jurisdiction of the

Highways Agency)

Northbound

454

558

23%

123%

132%

A46 / B4035 Badsey road

4 arm Roundabout

Extend 2 lane entry N & S by 100m and widen on exit of 100m.

(Any works would come under the jurisdiction of the Highways

Agency)

Southbound

395

454

15%

129%

134%

2019 - Great Malvern - Selected Route Analysis - Comparison of SWDP 1 and SWDP 2

Junction



Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow



A4103 / B4503 Leigh Sinton Road

Priority Junction

Convert existing priority junction to signalised junction

North East bound 84 98 17% 49% 51%

Northbound 78 334 328% 105% 190%

Southbound 147 295 101% 66% 78%

A449 W orcester Road / Townsend W ay

4 arm Roundabout

W idening on exit from the south east, north west and north

bound arms

Southbound 645 738 14% 152% 159%

North East bound 494 554 12% 125% 130%

Northbound 126 106 -16% 39% 37%

A449 W orcester Road / Howsell Road /

Pickersleigh Road

Priority Junction (staggered)

Realign junction to create 4 arm signal crossroads using land

to the south - This land is park land. Existing road would

become access road to houses but no access to W orcester

Road

Northbound

110

106

-4%

104%

103%

North East bound 446 655 47% 98% 119%

Southbound 571 662 16% 152% 161%

B4208 Pickersleigh Road / North End Lane

/ Hayslan Road

Traffic Signals

Extend two lanes west bound back a further 60m to give more

efficient use of green time. Provide right turn facility for

southbound approaching vehicles

Northbound

194

179

-8%

70%

69%

W estbound 163 150 -8% 95% 93%

B4211 Barnards Green Rd / B4208

Pickersleigh Rd / Upper Chase Rd / Court

Rd / Avenue Rd

Gyratory

Covert existing gyratory junction to signalised junction

Eastbound

122

174

43%

240%

257%

Southbound 179 166 -7% 248% 243%

W estbound 314 318 1% 42% 42%

A449 Belle Vue Terrace / W ells Road /

B4211 Church Street

Priority Junction

Change in junction priority and signalised A449

W estbound 103 196 90% 205% 236%

Southbound 252 388 54% 42% 53%

Northbound 149 198 33% 69% 73%

B4208 Barnards Green Rd / Guarlford Road

/ Poolbrook Road

Priority Junction

Convert existing priority junction to signalised junction with

revised northbound approach

Northbound 261 243 -7% 213% 207%

W estbound 75 91 21% 26% 28%

Eastbound 383 412 8% 62% 64%

B4208 Blackmore Park Rd / B4209 Hanley

Rd

Traffic Signals

Additional lanes approaching junction

Eastbound

18

21

17%

37%

38%

Southbound 254 240 -6% 113% 111%

W estbound 86 102 19% 88% 90%

Northbound 10 13 30% 32% 33%

97

Appendix B – 2031 AM SWDP 1 / SWDP 2 Highway Network

Performance

98

99


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow (+/-)

SWDP 1 2031 AM V/C Ratio -

Existing Junction Set-up

SWDP 2 2031 AM V/C Ratio -

Existing Junction Set-up

A4440/B4636

Roundabout



additional capacity

Northbound

1738

2082

20%

-

-





W estbound

594

718

21%

95%

105%


Swinesherd W ay

3 arm Roundabout



North W est bound 1791 2127 19% 269% 297%

Southbound 1469 1682 14% 226% 244%

Eastbound 517 687 33% 136% 150%


Spetchley Road

Gyratory



Eastbound

517

687

33%

136%

150%

W estbound 582 585 1% 162% 163%


1132

1767

56%

111%

153%


Priority Junction




Southbound

253

316

25%

99%

105%

Northbound 225 323 44% - -




W estbound

660

748

13%

177%

188%


Lane





North W est Bound

646

827

28%

293%

338%

Southbound 1171 1400 20% 271% 294%

North East Bound 343 457 33% 174% 193%

M5 Junction 7

Roundabout



Southbound

649

747

15%

105%

113%

Eastbound 1255 1451 16% 151% 164%

Northbound 1110 1276 15% 168% 182%


Roundabout


each case

Eastbound 751 872 16% 117% 127%

Southbound 1654 1723 4% 226% 231%

Northbound 1146 1466 28% 150% 177%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Road

Traffic Signals



495

508

3%

150%

151%


Road

4 arm Roundabout



Southbound 331 348 5% 46% 48%

Northbound 807 1065 32% 130% 151%

W estbound 442 438 -1% 60% 60%


4 arm Roundabout


nodes

Eastbound 340 303 -11% 91% 88%

Southbound 590 632 7% 86% 89%

Northbound 676 992 47% 100% 126%


5 arm Roundabout




Northbound

1220

1678

38%

203%

241%


413

449

9%

147%

150%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Road / Main Street






ahead lane

Northbound

452

551

22%

109%

126%

Eastbound 1502 1719 14% 227% 248%


Springs Road

Priority Junction


Northbound 351 455 30% 192% 213%


Road / High Street



W estbound 292 316 8% 127% 131%

100


Priority Junction


Northbound 540 654 21% 42% 47%

W estbound 561 564 1% 164% 165%

Southbound 441 533 21% 75% 83%

A44 Evesham Road Roundabout Creat a bypass lane, shift roundabout north, hamburger


W estbound

815

1057

30%

180%

210%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow





Eastbound 733 889 21% 127% 140%

(A44 / A46)

Roundabout





Highways Agency)

Northbound

517

754

46%

150%

170%

Southbound 547 642 17% 111% 119%



Southbound

525

655

25%

118%

131%




Bid

Southbound

525

655

25%

118%

131%



3 arm Roundabout




Southbound

788

948

20%

125%

139%

W estbound 687 882 28% 143% 159%


4 arm Roundabout





Agency)

Eastbound

772

904

17%

149%

160%

W estbound 687 882 28% 143% 159%

A46 / Broadway Road

4 arm Roundabout



Highways Agency)

Northbound

772

904

17%

149%

160%


4 arm Roundabout



Agency)

Southbound

751

848

13%

159%

167%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Priority Junction


North East bound 166 186 12% 56% 58%

Northbound 129 427 231% 122% 221%

Southbound 287 547 91% 77% 99%


4 arm Roundabout


bound arms

Southbound 988 1143 16% 180% 193%

North East bound 788 926 18% 150% 161%

Northbound 203 153 -25% 45% 41%


Pickersleigh Road





Road

Northbound

148

136

-8%

117%

113%

North East bound 696 953 37% 123% 148%

Southbound 860 1042 21% 181% 199%


/ Hayslan Road

Traffic Signals




Northbound

281

253

-10%

79%

76%

W estbound 268 227 -15% 108% 103%



Rd / Avenue Rd

Gyratory


Eastbound

226

274

21%

274%

290%

Southbound 291 272 -7% 285% 279%

W estbound 483 474 -2% 49% 48%


B4211 Church Street

Priority Junction


W estbound 174 259 49% 229% 257%

Southbound 447 673 51% 58% 77%

Northbound 203 283 39% 73% 80%


/ Poolbrook Road

Priority Junction



Northbound 408 371 -9% 262% 250%

W estbound 101 123 22% 28% 30%

Eastbound 616 631 2% 81% 83%


Rd

Traffic Signals


Eastbound

42

44

5%

41%

41%

Southbound 408 383 -6% 139% 135%

W estbound 162 161 -1% 100% 100%

Northbound 19 20 5% 34% 34%

101

Appendix C – 2019 PM SWDP 1 / SWDP 2 Highway Network

Performance

102

103


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach

SWDP 1 2019 PM Development

Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow (+/-)

SWDP 1 2019 PM V/C Ratio


A4440/B4636

Roundabout



additional capacity

Northbound

934

1078

15%

-

-





W estbound

377

471

25%

79%

87%


Swinesherd W ay

3 arm Roundabout



North W est bound 968 1241 28% 166% 188%

Southbound 905 1070 18% 172% 186%

Eastbound 279 292 5% 103% 105%


Spetchley Road

Gyratory



Eastbound

279

292

5%

103%

105%

W estbound 260 418 61% 122% 138%


1003

1212

21%

124%

138%


Priority Junction




Southbound

202

275

36%

71%

77%

Northbound 111 138 24% - -




W estbound

504

619

23%

155%

169%


Lane





North W est Bound

409

438

7%

251%

258%

Southbound 766 879 15% 174% 185%

North East Bound 164 180 10% 133% 136%

M5 Junction 7

Roundabout



Southbound

409

477

17%

62%

68%

Eastbound 513 616 20% 118% 125%

Northbound 716 800 12% 137% 144%


Roundabout


each case

Eastbound 332 439 32% 73% 82%

Southbound 525 650 24% 115% 125%

Northbound 668 833 25% 114% 128%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Road

Traffic Signals



227

233

3%

165%

165%


Road

4 arm Roundabout



Southbound 330 412 25% 118% 125%

Northbound 338 355 5% 63% 64%

W estbound 222 224 1% 45% 45%


4 arm Roundabout


nodes

Eastbound 148 147 -1% 47% 47%

Southbound 448 539 20% 88% 96%

Northbound 285 298 5% 80% 81%


5 arm Roundabout




Northbound

761

791

4%

165%

167%


279

278

0%

124%

124%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Road / Main Street






ahead lane

Northbound

191

263

38%

87%

99%

Eastbound 623 833 34% 122% 143%


Springs Road

Priority Junction


Northbound 114 203 78% 111% 129%


Road / High Street



W estbound 165 198 20% 111% 116%

104


Priority Junction


Northbound 176 232 32% 24% 26%

W estbound 217 228 5% 79% 81%

Southbound 211 296 40% 40% 47%

A44 EveshPM Road Roundabout Creat a bypass lane, shift roundabout north, hPMburger


W estbound

410

531

30%

129%

145%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow





Eastbound 436 589 35% 84% 97%

(A44 / A46)

Roundabout





Highways Agency)

Northbound

366

447

22%

130%

137%

Southbound 289 464 61% 108% 123%



Southbound

440

631

43%

92%

111%




Bid

Southbound

440

631

43%

92%

111%



3 arm Roundabout




Southbound

234

409

75%

91%

105%

W estbound 403 521 29% 129% 139%


4 arm Roundabout





Agency)

Eastbound

423

557

32%

119%

130%

W estbound 403 521 29% 129% 139%

A46 / Broadway Road

4 arm Roundabout



Highways Agency)

Northbound

423

557

32%

119%

130%


4 arm Roundabout



Agency)

Southbound

246

391

59%

146%

158%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Priority Junction


North East bound 105 163 55% 35% 40%

Northbound 102 364 257% 111% 198%

Southbound 208 406 95% 70% 86%


4 arm Roundabout


bound arms

Southbound 481 533 11% 123% 127%

North East bound 547 637 16% 105% 113%

Northbound 153 138 -10% 106% 104%


Pickersleigh Road





Road

Northbound

49

43

-12%

64%

62%

North East bound 385 505 31% 111% 123%

Southbound 509 572 12% 118% 124%


/ Hayslan Road

Traffic Signals




Northbound

167

153

-8%

77%

76%

W estbound 122 103 -16% 116% 114%



Rd / Avenue Rd

Gyratory


Eastbound

95

184

94%

173%

202%

Southbound 181 166 -8% 261% 256%

W estbound 360 386 7% 35% 36%


B4211 Church Street

Priority Junction


W estbound 120 188 57% 161% 184%

Southbound 467 637 36% 54% 68%

Northbound 93 137 47% 48% 51%


/ Poolbrook Road

Priority Junction



Northbound 237 221 -7% 187% 182%

W estbound 50 67 34% 29% 30%

Eastbound 311 320 3% 47% 48%


Rd

Traffic Signals


Eastbound

11

17

55%

26%

27%

Southbound 241 222 -8% 98% 95%

W estbound 112 125 12% 71% 73%

Northbound 9 12 33% 23% 24%

105

Appendix D – 2031 PM SWDP 1 / SWDP 2 Highway Network

Performance

106

107


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow (+/-)



A4440/B4636

Roundabout



additional capacity

Northbound

1612

1859

15%

-

-





W estbound

748

874

17%

110%

120%


Swinesherd W ay

3 arm Roundabout



North W est bound 1534 1891 23% 213% 242%

Southbound 1717 2050 19% 240% 267%

Eastbound 560 580 4% 127% 129%


Spetchley Road

Gyratory



Eastbound

560

580

4%

127%

129%

W estbound 524 664 27% 149% 163%


1520

2032

34%

159%

193%


Priority Junction




Southbound

332

443

33%

82%

91%

Northbound 210 245 17% - -




W estbound

896

1080

21%

204%

227%


Lane





North W est Bound

691

808

17%

321%

351%

Southbound 1186 1620 37% 216% 259%

North East Bound 281 349 24% 153% 164%

M5 Junction 7

Roundabout



Southbound

639

812

27%

82%

96%

Eastbound 907 1038 14% 144% 153%

Northbound 1569 1669 6% 208% 217%


Roundabout


each case

Eastbound 606 730 20% 95% 106%

Southbound 1048 1197 14% 158% 171%

Northbound 1413 1666 18% 176% 197%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Road

Traffic Signals



384

418

9%

181%

184%


Road

4 arm Roundabout



Southbound 557 714 28% 137% 150%

Northbound 622 689 11% 87% 92%

W estbound 377 418 11% 58% 62%


4 arm Roundabout


nodes

Eastbound 316 305 -3% 61% 60%

Southbound 760 989 30% 114% 133%

Northbound 470 570 21% 95% 104%


5 arm Roundabout




Northbound

1242

1523

23%

205%

228%


482

499

4%

141%

142%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Road / Main Street






ahead lane

Northbound

419

519

24%

125%

142%

Eastbound 1162 1468 26% 175% 206%


Springs Road

Priority Junction


Northbound 280 376 34% 144% 164%


Road / High Street



W estbound 305 342 12% 134% 140%

108


Priority Junction


Northbound 446 514 15% 35% 37%

W estbound 455 471 4% 127% 130%

Southbound 440 540 23% 59% 68%

A44 EveshPM Road Roundabout Creat a bypass lane, shift roundabout north, hPMburger


W estbound

734

918

25%

170%

193%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow





Eastbound 816 1046 28% 116% 135%

(A44 / A46)

Roundabout





Highways Agency)

Northbound

725

853

18%

160%

171%

Southbound 518 789 52% 127% 150%



Southbound

660

940

42%

114%

142%




Bid

Southbound

660

940

42%

114%

142%



3 arm Roundabout




Southbound

535

679

27%

116%

128%

W estbound 724 878 21% 156% 168%


4 arm Roundabout





Agency)

Eastbound

638

827

30%

136%

152%

W estbound 724 878 21% 156% 168%

A46 / Broadway Road

4 arm Roundabout



Highways Agency)

Northbound

638

827

30%

136%

152%


4 arm Roundabout



Agency)

Southbound

553

772

40%

172%

190%


Location

Existing Situation


Junction Approach


Trip Forecast Flow


Trip Forecast Flow


Forecast Flow




Priority Junction


North East bound 166 263 58% 40% 48%

Northbound 175 521 198% 135% 251%

Southbound 331 576 74% 80% 100%


4 arm Roundabout


bound arms

Southbound 805 904 12% 150% 158%

North East bound 807 990 23% 127% 142%

Northbound 253 206 -19% 114% 110%


Pickersleigh Road





Road

Northbound

81

82

1%

75%

75%

North East bound 634 817 29% 136% 154%

Southbound 810 953 18% 148% 163%


/ Hayslan Road

Traffic Signals




Northbound

270

250

-7%

87%

85%

W estbound 194 143 -26% 125% 119%



Rd / Avenue Rd

Gyratory


Eastbound

162

243

50%

195%

222%

Southbound 264 235 -11% 288% 279%

W estbound 574 584 2% 44% 44%


B4211 Church Street

Priority Junction


W estbound 219 280 28% 194% 214%

Southbound 712 934 31% 74% 93%

Northbound 134 201 50% 51% 57%


/ Poolbrook Road

Priority Junction



Northbound 376 347 -8% 234% 224%

W estbound 90 115 28% 32% 34%

Eastbound 473 466 -1% 61% 60%


Rd

Traffic Signals


Eastbound

22

25

14%

28%

28%

Southbound 373 335 -10% 120% 114%

W estbound 204 187 -8% 86% 83%

Northbound 18 19 6% 25% 25%

109

Appendix E – 2019 Sustainable Travel Demand

110

111

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

24 Hr 24 Hr 24 Hour

Worcester - Cluster 1 564 627 1190












Malvern - Cluster 1 29 29 59


















Wychavon - Cluster 1 56 54 110






















Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

24 Hr 24 Hr 24 Hour





















































SWDP 1 - 2019

Pedestrian Trips Cycle Trips Bus Trips

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

24 Hr 24 Hr 24 Hour





















































112

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

Percentage

Change to

SWDP 1

24 Hour 24 Hour 24 Hour (+/-)

Worcester - Cluster 1 652 718 1370 15%



Worcester - Cluster 4 98 108 206 -21%









Malvern - Cluster 1 63 63 126 114%

Malvern - Cluster 2 26 25 52 -20%












Malvern - Cluster 14 127 126 253 248%


Malvern - Cluster 16 307 287 594 -9%

Malvern - Cluster 17 221 220 441 669%

Malvern - Cluster 18 179 170 350 -2%

Wychavon - Cluster 1 54 52 106 -4%

Wychavon - Cluster 2 182 177 358 91%





















Worcester - Cluster 13 44 46 90 N/A


Wychavon - Cluster 23 59 60 119 N/A


Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

Percentage

Change to

SWDP 1



























Malvern - Cluster 14 169 168 337 248%


Malvern - Cluster 16 409 383 791 -9%

Malvern - Cluster 17 294 294 588 669%

Malvern - Cluster 18 239 227 466 -2%



























SWDP 2 - 2019


Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

Percentage

Change to

SWDP 1














Malvern - Cluster 1 291 290 581 114%

Malvern - Cluster 2 122 117 239 -20%




Malvern - Cluster 6 204 204 408 351%

Malvern - Cluster 7 107 106 213 355%



Malvern - Cluster 10 149 149 298 1492%

Malvern - Cluster 11 117 115 233 47%

Malvern - Cluster 12 454 450 905 71%

Malvern - Cluster 13 121 115 236 -52%

Malvern - Cluster 14 1099 1094 2193 248%

Malvern - Cluster 15 293 288 581 -21%

Malvern - Cluster 16 2658 2487 5145 -9%

Malvern - Cluster 17 1913 1909 3822 669%

Malvern - Cluster 18 1555 1475 3029 -2%



























113

Appendix F – 2031 Sustainable Travel Demand

114

115

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

24hr 24hr 24 Hour





















































Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

24hr 24hr 24 Hour





















































SWDP 1 - 2031


Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

24hr 24hr 24 Hour





















































116

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

Percentage

Change to

SWDP 1

















Malvern - Cluster 4 114 110 224 -11%









Malvern - Cluster 13 100 96 196 -14%

Malvern - Cluster 14 162 161 323 126%



Malvern - Cluster 17 277 275 552 390%

Malvern - Cluster 18 203 193 396 -8%



























Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

Percentage

Change to

SWDP 1


























Malvern - Cluster 13 134 128 262 -14%

Malvern - Cluster 14 217 214 431 126%


Malvern - Cluster 16 631 604 1235 8%

Malvern - Cluster 17 369 367 735 390%

Malvern - Cluster 18 271 257 528 -8%



























SWDP 2 - 2031


Arrivals

Departures

Total

Two-Way

Percentage

Change to

SWDP 1














Malvern - Cluster 1 349 348 696 134%

Malvern - Cluster 2 220 208 427 -39%


Malvern - Cluster 4 527 508 1035 -11%


Malvern - Cluster 6 286 286 572 532%

Malvern - Cluster 7 116 115 231 103%



Malvern - Cluster 10 243 242 485 623%

Malvern - Cluster 11 161 155 316 -17%

Malvern - Cluster 12 502 503 1005 404%

Malvern - Cluster 13 869 833 1703 -14%

Malvern - Cluster 14 1407 1394 2801 126%

Malvern - Cluster 15 387 372 760 -40%

Malvern - Cluster 16 4104 3926 8030 8%

Malvern - Cluster 17 2396 2384 4781 390%

Malvern - Cluster 18 1759 1670 3429 -8%



























117

Appendix G – Vehicle / Trip Generation Development Site

Clusters

118

119

Malvern Hills North

Development Sites

by Cluster

Malvern Hills South

Development Sites

by Cluster

120

Worcester Development

Sites by Cluster

121

Documents

Transport Background Paper Technical Update