Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Transport Main Proof of Evidence Paul Parkhouse
CEN/P6.1/TRA
Page 1 of 12
Reference Document: CEN/P6.1/TRA The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension Land Acquisition and Variation) Order Paul Parkhouse MEng MIHT, Mott MacDonald Ltd Transport Assessment Process Main Proof of Evidence on behalf of the Applicants October 2014
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 2 of 12
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Outline of Evidence 4
Defining the Transport Assessment Scope 4
Predicted Impacts 5
Response to Objections 6
Overall Conclusions 11
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 3 of 12
Introduction
Qualifications and Experience
1. I am Paul Parkhouse, a Master of Civil Engineering from Nottingham University and a
Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation. I am a Principal Transport
Planner employed by Mott MacDonald Ltd in their Birmingham office.
2. I have 18 years of Transport and Development Planning experience, working for both
private and public sector clients on a variety of projects, covering a wide range of
transport planning areas, including Light Rail Transit schemes.
3. I completed the Transport Impact Assessment for the Midland Metro Centenary
Square Extension (CSQ) Variation (2013). I was also responsible for preparing the
Transport chapter of the 2013 ES and the Transport Assessment which forms part of
the Order 2013 (hereafter the ‘Order’).
Scope of Evidence
4. My evidence covers the Transport Impact Assessment aspects of the Order, as
documented by the Transport Assessment and Transport chapter of the 2013 ES. It
does not cover the Transport Option Assessment aspects which were undertaken to
support the Transport and Works Act Order Business Case. This work is covered in
the evidence produced by Peter Adams of Centro and by Neil Chadwick of Steer
Davies Gleave.
5. My Proof also refers to information from the proof of evidence provided by Gavin Last
of Mott MacDonald.
Declaration of truth
6. I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in this Proof of Evidence are within my own
knowledge, I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true. In my
professional opinion, I believe that this Proof of Evidence represents an unbiased and
true assessment of the Transport Planning and assessment implications of the
scheme.
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 4 of 12
Outline of Evidence
Overview
7. My evidence concerns the Transport Impact Assessment aspects of the Order and will
address the following:
a. How the scope for the Transport chapter (2013 Environmental Statement) and the
Transport Assessment for the Order was defined and agreed.
b. A summary of the predicted transport impacts of the Order during construction and
operation and the mitigation measures proposed.
c. Response to objections with regards to transport impacts to the Order.
d. Overall conclusions.
8. In my evidence I will refer to:
• The Midland Metro Paradise Circus Variation Transport Assessment (CD14 [MMD/4.5D])
and Environmental Statement (CD13 [MMD/4.5C]);
• Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’, 2007;
• Department for Transport WebTAG guidance;
• Department for Transport ‘Inclusive Mobility’, 2005; and
• Transport for London ‘Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London’, 2010
Defining the Transport Assessment Scope
9. Mott MacDonald is responsible for the preparation of the following documents which
support the Order:
• The Transport chapter within the 2013 Environmental Statement (CD13
[MMD/4.5C]); and
• The Transport Assessment (CD14 [MMD/4.5D])
10. The most recent guidance available for Transport Assessments is the 2007
Department for Transport’s ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’. This guidance
applies primarily to land use development schemes, but the principles are nonetheless
applicable for assessing the transport impacts of Light Rail Transit schemes similar to
the Order.
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 5 of 12
11. The Guidance is based on the DfT’s ‘New Approach to Appraisal’ (NATA) principles.
In paragraph 4.30, the Guidance states that this approach ‘will ensure that a proposed
development’s impacts are considered in the context of two alternative scenarios –
‘with development’ and ‘without development’ – and will enable a comparative analysis
of the transport effects of allowing the development to take place.’ The Guidance also
states that future year assessment scenarios should include the effects of committed
developments and transport schemes. This is therefore the approach adopted in the
Transport Assessment for the Order.
12. In the case of the Order, the ‘without development' scenario (referred to as the ‘do
minimum’ scenario in the Transport Assessment and ES) includes all relevant
committed land use developments and committed transport schemes, including the
2005 Order. The ‘with development’ scenario (referred to as the ‘do something’
scenario in the Transport Assessment and ES) is concerned with the same committed
land use developments and transport schemes, but with a short section of variation to
the 2005 Order alignment at the Paradise Circus Redevelopment.
13. The Transport Assessment is therefore concerned with the assessment of the net
impact of the Order only, over and above those envisaged in the 2005 Order.
14. In line with the 2005 Order Transport Assessment and the principles of current DfT
Transport Assessment guidance, the TA considered impacts on a wide range of
transport-related receptors, including: pedestrians and cyclists; buses and hackney
cabs; access and servicing; changes in traffic patterns and flow; and road safety
15. This approach was agreed in principle with the DfT Orders Unit in May 2013 through
the EIA scoping process and with the Highway Authority (Birmingham City Council) in
July 2013 through the Transport Assessment scoping process.
16. The outputs of the Order Transport Assessment formed the basis and supporting
information for the Transport chapter of the 2013 ES.
Predicted Impacts
17. I will now provide a brief summary of the findings from the Transport Assessment and
Transport chapter of the 2013 ES, which support the Order.
18. Overall, the Order and the 2005 Order were found to be very similar in terms of their
construction-phase and operational-phase transport impacts on sensitive receptors.
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 6 of 12
19. During construction, both the Order and the 2005 Order are expected to have a
potentially ‘low adverse’ impact on pedestrians and cyclists during construction stage.
However, given the high sensitivity rating of these receptors, the construction impact is
considered to be ‘significant’. With the provision of alternative pedestrian/cycle routes
(during scheme construction) that are safe and well marked, any residual impacts on
pedestrians and cyclists will be temporary and are considered not significant.
20. During the construction of the Order, there will be reduced impact on traffic compared
to the 2005 Order, as the construction period is shorter and fewer construction vehicle
trips are generated.
21. Both the Order and the 2005 Order are expected to result in a ‘significant’ impact on
bus routes during construction. It is expected that any residual impacts will be reduced
to not significant’ if appropriate mitigation measures (including temporary re-routing of
buses and revised bus timetabling) are delivered.
22. There will also be an improvement in the performance of the Paradise Circus
Queensway West / Broad Street junction with the Order compared against that of the
2005 Order. This is because the junction design presented in the Order offers more
highway lane capacity than is proposed in the equivalent design for the 2005 Order
layout.
23. The conclusion of the Transport Assessment is that the net transport-related impacts
of the Order relative to those of the 2005 Order are either neutral or beneficial.
Mitigation works proposed as part of the 2005 Order are also considered appropriate
to facilitate the Order. Additional mitigation works recommended to support the Order
concern road safety at the Paradise Circus junction, as follows:
a. Signage on westbound traffic approach to Paradise Street, visible change in road
surface treatment and number plate recognition cameras to deter general traffic from
following tram into Paradise Street; and
b. Traffic signal control and staging to allow trams to pass through Paradise Circus
junction in one movement, to minimise tram/traffic interactions and to prevent tram
from blocking traffic movements in junction.
Response to Objections
24. I will now respond directly to matters raised by objectors which relate to the Transport
Assessment process.
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 7 of 12
OBJ/08: Arena Central
25. I have read the Statement of Case of Arena Central (OBJ/08). It is my understanding
that this objection relates to matters concerning the justification and impact of the
acquisition of certain land parcels to facilitate implementation of the Order. This
objection is not covered by the scope of the Transport Assessment process.
Responses to this objection are dealt with in the proof of Gavin Last of Mott
MacDonald.
OBJ/09: HRB Hotel Company Ltd
26. I have read the Statement of Case of HRB Hotel Company Ltd (OBJ/09). It is my
understanding that this objection relates to matters concerning the justification and
impact of the acquisition of certain land parcels to facilitate implementation of the
Order. This objection is not covered by the scope of the Transport Assessment
process. Responses to this objection are dealt with in the proof of Gavin Last of Mott
MacDonald.
OBJ/11: Victoria Square House
27. I have read the Statement of Case of Victoria Square House (OBJ/11). It is my
understanding that the objections relevant to and/or making reference to the Transport
Assessment process are:
a. That the Transport Assessment has not been prepared in accordance with the DfT’s
2007 Guidance on Transport Assessment or WebTAG Transport Analysis Guidance;
b. That the Transport Assessment has not included a reconsideration of potential
scheme routing options from New Street Station to Five Ways; and
c. That the Transport Assessment has not considered the impacts of the Order on
pedestrian amenity in Pinfold Street.
28. I will respond to each point in turn.
Accordance with Guidance
29. We disagree with the statement that the Transport Assessment has not been prepared
in accordance with the DfT’s 2007 Guidance on Transport Assessment and 2013
WebTAG guidance.
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 8 of 12
30. WebTAG is based on the DfT’s NATA principles. The 2007 Guidance on Transport
Assessment was also developed based on these principles in order to be consistent
with the WebTAG process.
31. I have already described how our Transport Assessment approach was consistent with
the recommended guidance that the transport impacts of the Order be identified
through comparison of a ‘with development’ scenario with the equivalent ‘without
development’ scenario. This approach led to the Transport Assessment being
focussed on the net transport impacts of the Order only, over and above those
envisaged in the 2005 Order.
32. Paragraph 4.31 of the Guidance also states that ‘A TA should adopt the principles of
NATA by assessing the potential impacts of a development proposal within the
framework of the five NATA objectives.’ The five NATA objectives are: Environment,
Safety, Economy, Accessibility and Integration. The Transport Assessment and
associated EIA process considered these objectives as follows:
a. Regarding environmental impacts, a full EIA was undertaken to support the Order.
This considered the noise and air quality impacts related to any changes in traffic
flow.
b. Regarding safety, the Transport Assessment assessed the impact of the Order on
road safety.
c. Regarding economy, the Transport Assessment assessed the impact of the Order on
general traffic flows and journey times in the weekday peak hours.
d. Regarding accessibility, the Transport Assessment assessed the impact of the Order
on pedestrian and cycle routes, public transport operations and on local access and
servicing.
e. Regarding integration, the Transport Assessment identified no negative impacts of
the Order, but the Scheme itself will be beneficial for promoting better integration
between modes and key land uses within the city centre.
33. In addition, it is reiterated that this approach was agreed in principle with the DfT
Orders Unit in May 2013 through the EIA scoping process and with the Highway
Authority (Birmingham City Council) in July 2013 through the Transport Assessment
scoping process.
34. I therefore conclude that the Order Transport Assessment was prepared in accordance
with the principles of relevant guidance. Though the 2005 Order Transport
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 9 of 12
Assessment was prepared before the DfT’s guidance was issued, it is noted that this
was also based on NATA principles. There is therefore a consistency of approach
between the two Transport Assessments.
Reconsideration of Alternative Routes
35. The Transport Assessment does not include a reassessment of the 2005 Order route
as the preferred route. The primary reason for this is that the Transport Assessment
was specifically an assessment of the transport impacts of the Order alone, with a view
to identifying the need for any associated mitigation measures over and above that
already committed for the 2005 Order. This approach is again in accordance with the
DfT’s Guidance on Transport Assessment, which does not require the assessment of
alternatives.
36. A WebTAG appraisal was undertaken separately to support the Order Business Case
by Steer Davies Gleave (SDG). This assessed alternative route options through
Paradise Circus in order to justify the preferred Order alignment and a summary of this
process is presented in Section 3.2 of the Environmental Statement and is covered in
the proofs of Neil Chadwick of SDG and Peter Adams, the Applicant.
37. The approach taken to the more substantial alternatives to the 2005 Order route, such
as those suggested by this objector, is covered in the proofs of Neil Chadwick of SDG,
Peter Adams, the Applicant, and Gavin Last of Mott MacDonald.
38. It is equally my professional opinion that the Order route still represents the preferred
route option between Stephenson Street and Centenary Square. Neither the
circumstances on the ground nor the principles of Transport Appraisal have changed
sufficiently since the making of the 2005 Order to suggest that the Order route is not
still the preferred option. The alternatives put forward by the applicant also still involve
the same significant engineering and cost issues which caused them to be discounted
in the original appraisal. I am therefore satisfied that the Order route remains the
preferred option.
Pedestrian Impact on Pinfold Street
39. The impact of the 2005 Order on pedestrian amenity in Pinfold Street was considered
by the 2005 Order Transport Assessment. These impacts were not reassessed as
part of the Order Transport Assessment as the Order would not result in any net
change in impacts on Pinfold Street compared to the scheme that would be
implemented under the 2005 Order.
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 10 of 12
40. With respect to whether the pedestrian impacts of the Order on Pinfold Street will be
acceptable, this will be ensured by the Highway Authority through the Order design
approvals process. However, I have considered the design proposals which received
detailed planning consent in May of this year and am also satisfied that the Order can
be delivered on Pinfold Street without resulting in unacceptable impacts for
pedestrians.
41. Once the Order is implemented, Pinfold Street will be restricted to tram and pedestrian
movements only. The scheme design for Pinfold Street which recently gained detailed
planning consent includes a demarcated footway along the north eastern side of the
street which will provide a continuous width from kerbline to building line of at least
1.8m and more commonly 2m, except for a single pinch-point at the southern end of
Pinfold Street where the width will be 1.74m. On the occasions that an eastbound
tram passes within Pinfold Street, pedestrian movements will be accommodated within
this footway section. When a westbound tram passes, pedestrians will be able to use
the footway section and the adjacent eastbound tram alignment. In between tram
passes, pedestrians can use the full width of street.
42. Trams will be scheduled to pass in each direction once every six minutes and will
therefore be present in the street once every three minutes on average. The section of
Pinfold Street in question is about 80 metres long which, at a standard design walking
speed of 1.4 m/s, takes about a minute to traverse. On average, therefore, a
pedestrian might only encounter a tram within this section in about one in every three
trips, and an eastbound tram that causes them to use the footway in one in every six
trips. Pinfold Street will therefore operate acceptably as a shared space between
trams and pedestrians.
43. From the point of view of accessibility standards, recent Transport for London
guidance from 2010, ‘Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London’, advises that the clear
width of a footway bounded by a wall should be taken as being 0.2m less than the
physical width. This results in a minimum continuous clear width of 1.6m for the
proposed footway on Pinfold Street, and 1.54m at the pinch point.
44. This clear width provision is acceptable according to DfT ‘Inclusive Mobility’ guidance
from 2005. Though this recommends a desirable minimum width of 2m to allow two
wheelchairs to pass, where physical constraints exist it permits a lower minimum of
1.5m to allow a wheelchair and walker to pass each other and an absolute minimum of
1m where there are obstacles. In reality, given the 9% gradient of the street, it will be
a rare occurrence that two wheelchair users need to pass each other at the same time
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 11 of 12
that an eastbound tram is passing along this street, in which case the proposed
minimum continuous clear width of 1.6m is considered acceptable from an accessibility
perspective.
45. From a capacity point of view, I am also satisfied that the proposed footway provision
is acceptable. The TfL guidance recommends for office and retail areas a minimum
‘comfortable’ Pedestrian Comfort Level of 12 to 14 pedestrians per metre per minute
during peak times. The upper value of this range would permit a footway with a clear
width of 1.6m to comfortably accommodate a flow of 1,344 pedestrians per hour. The
pedestrian count cited by the objector of 5,600 pedestrians per day would therefore be
easily accommodated by the proposed provision. It is also noted again that
pedestrians will only be limited to using this footway once every six minutes on
average when an eastbound tram passes. A greater width will therefore be available
the rest of the time.
46. I therefore conclude that the proposed footway provision on Pinfold Street is adequate
to accommodate the need of both pedestrians and tram operations.
OBJ/13: One Birmingham Dandara
47. I have read the Statement of Case of One Birmingham Dandara (OBJ/13). It is my
understanding that this objection relates to matters concerning the justification and
impact of the acquisition of certain land parcels to facilitate implementation of the
Order. This objection is not covered by the scope of the Transport Assessment
process. Responses to this objection are dealt with by the proof of Gavin Last.
Overall Conclusions
48. In conclusion, I am satisfied that:
• the transport impacts of the Order have been fully and robustly considered in
accordance with appropriate guidance and in agreement with DfT and the Highway
Authority, as reported in the 2013 ES and accompanying Transport Assessment;
• the Order would result in no material worsening, and indeed some improvement, of
transport impacts in comparison with the 2005 Order;
• the measures proposed to mitigate the transport impacts of the Order are appropriate
and deliverable;
• the Order route is still the preferred route between Stephenson Street and Centenary
Square; and
Transport
Ref: CEN/P6.1/TRA
14 October 2014 Page 12 of 12
• the proposed pedestrian footway provision on Pinfold Street is adequate to
accommodate the need of both pedestrians and tram operations.